Download PDF | Gergely Csiky - Avar-Age Polearms and Edged Weapons_ Classification, Typology, Chronology and Technology-Brill Academic Publishers.
529 Pages
Introduction
The Carpathian Basin, being the westernmost fringe of the vast Eurasian steppe zone, at the crossroads of the Balkans, Central and Eastern Europe, has been exposed to various cultural influences throughout its history. The region witnessed many population movements, migration of nomadic and seminomadic peoples from the steppes, beginning with the Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, and ending with Avars, Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans, and Alans.
One of the most consequential migrations was that of the Avars, which resulted in significant political transformations, as their polity lasted for more than 200 years, from the late 6th century to the early 9th century. The establishment of the Avar qaganate brought stability to the region, and the Avar culture left recognizable and indelible traces in the physical and cultural landscape of the Carpathian Basin. Ever since the 19th century, archaeologists have revealed thousands of cemeteries with tens of thousands of burials, and several hundred settlements dated to the age of the Avars.
The archaeology of the Avars in Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Serbia and Slovakia has by now clarified a broad range of issues regarding the arrival and gradual settlement of the steppe nomads, the chronology of the Avar Age, ethnic questions such as the involvement of the Slavs, the hierarchical structure of Avar society, as well as the development of craft traditions. Every one of these issues is closely involved in the study of Avar-age arms and armour.
The Avar Age was one of the most important periods in the early medieval history of the Carpathian Basin. More than 60,000 richly furnished burials are known from this period spanning from 568 AD to the first half of the gth century.! The burial customs of the period allow us to reconstruct the material culture of the Avars, among other things their arms and armour.
The study of the Avar armament dates back to the beginnings of early medieval archaeology in the Carpathian Basin,” as scholars have long noted the fact that the Avars were described primarily as warriors in Byzantine and Carolingian sources.’ As a result, the deposition of weapons in ‘Avar’ burials was regarded as the archaeological fossil of these Avar warriors, while the weapons themselves served for reconstruction of the original fighting equipment of the deceased individuals.*
The deposition of weapons in burials deserves attention for several reasons. First, as part of the funeral it can offer crucial data for the analysis of the burial rite itself. Second, the types, quality and quantity of the buried weapons, albeit with some limits,° can refer to the fighting equipment, social, financial or legal status of the buried person.
The weapons are basically functional artefacts, since their original aim was to injure or destroy an enemy during battle or to provide protection against similar equipment used by an opposing foe, and therefore the shape and physical attributes of these weapons would have been crucial for the warrior’s survival. Although these weapons continued to follow contemporary fashions and trends, they also drew upon greatest functional efficacy provided by the highest level of manufacturing technology of the period. In regard to this, it is also possible to draw conclusions from the shape, physical attributes and manufacturing techniques of the weapons in respect of their utility. The use of these weapons has primarily been examined by experimental archaeologists, though in the Carpathian Basin this field has focused mainly on archery and very little study done on the efficacy of polearms and edged weapons.”
The study of polearms and edged weapons is facilitated by the frequency of these weapons as grave goods in Avar-age burials from the entire area of the Avar qaganate. The subject of the present work is the classification, chronology, distribution and social interpretation of two characteristic Avar-age close combat weapon types: the polearms and edged weapons. The great number and the formal diversity of these artefacts allow us to address a series of questions relating to the problems discussed above concerning their interpretation, and to determine the cultural relations of these artefacts and other aspects of Avar-age material culture, ranging from the Merovingian west to the vast steppe lands of Eurasia.
Objectives
The original objective of the doctoral research, upon which the present book is based, was to create a complete database of the polearms (pointed weapons with a long wooden shaft)® and edged weapons (weapons with a long iron blade used both for cutting and thrusting)® from the settlement area of the Avars (ie. the Avar Qaganate) for the whole duration of the Avar Age (from 568 AD to the first half of the gth century). This database served as the basis for classifying these artefacts, examining their typological development and offering a chronology by the study of accompanying grave goods" or from the stratigraphy of the cemeteries in which they occur." The chronology of these weapons is also compared with the chronological schemes of neighbouring areas beyond the Carpathian Basin. The distribution of polearms and edged weapons by types and variants have been mapped in order to reveal regional groups or—in some cases—even workshop traditions.!2
A primary aim of this study is to outline the cultural contacts of the various weapon types outside the Carpathian Basin and to provide their wider context between the Mediterranean,’ the Merovingian area!+ and the Eurasian Steppes.!5 One of the most important problems to address is the formation and evolution of sabres and the analysis of their early forms.!& As well as typology, the study of associated assemblages and their context play a significant role in the study of these weapons.!” Although several writ-ers emphasize that the combination of weapons deposited in burials does not reflect directly original armament, some weapon types can allow us to infer fighting methods indirectly.!® Such investigations are also closely linked to a social analysis of burials with weapons,!® which leads to the study of other grave goods (like elements of costume, multi-part belt sets, jewellery, insignia)?° and elements of burial rite (like horse sacrifice).
As well as other scientific methods, the application of anthropological results is increasingly important in archaeological research. The study of correspondence between deposition of artefacts and age groups of the deceased can provide significant new results for our understanding of burial rites and social status.?! Besides the age groups, height, physique and traumatic injuries of the deceased”? can be related to the deposition of weapons.”
The intention of this study is therefore to consider these two weapon types from a number of different perspectives, as a significant contribution to more complex interpretations of Avar-age society.
2 History of Research
Research on Avar-age weaponry has a considerable history, since already the first burials identified as Avar contained elements of armament. The history of research of these weapons has largely addressed their classification and typology, as well as ethnic identification and social interpretation. Here we will review general problems pertaining to the broader history of research of Avar arms and armour, whilst studies of detailed classification and typology will be discussed in the following chapter.
2.1 Antiquarian Perspective and Cataloguing Artefacts
The antiquarian approach was a characteristic feature of archaeological research in the Carpathian Basin (then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) until the 1870s, followed by more positivist surveys which optimistically focused on addressing a wider set of questions based on a greater abundance of quantative data. This chapter deals not only with these 19th century surveys of artefacts but also with similar later studies, which also addressed aspects such as typology and society, as well as the history of technology.
The beginning of the systematic study of Avar-age weaponry is marked by the birth of Hungarian archaeology and its museum system:?* the burial of Kunagota found in 1857 contained a close combat weapon, with gold sheet decorating the sword, although its full identification and reconstruction did not occur until almost 100 years later.25 The first spearhead from a burial identified as ‘Avar’ was found between the 14th and 17th of August 1871 in Szentendre near the brick factory of Nagykiirti.26 Both of these burials played a significant role in the archaeological identification of the Avars by Ferenc Pulszky who dated them on the basis of Byzantine coins found in the graves.?’
The following decades witnessed an abundance of activity by archaeological societies and the foundation of museums in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which by the 1890s resulted in the discovery of a large number of Avar-age cemeteries containing several weapons.”® A first synthesis of such ‘Nomadic’ (Avar and early Hungarian) weapons was made by Géza Nagy who summarised current understanding of Avar and early Hungarian weapons”? as a reaction to the manual of weapons and their history by Wendelin Boeheim.®° A significant monograph of three volumes on the archaeological heritage of the ‘Migration period’*! in the Carpathian Basin was written by Jozsef Hampel, which followed on from Géza Nagy in many respects, but in his classification and systematisation he was ahead of his time. Hampel’s terminology still influences research on early medieval archaeology: he was the first who used the term ‘reed-shaped’ (‘schilfblattférmige’) for Avar-age spearheads, as well as noting the importance of measuring the curvature of the blade on the sabres. The number of finds increased significantly after the great synthesis by Hampel in 1905, resulting in an important survey of Avar-age weapons by Dezsé Csallany, who was the first to discuss Early Avar period swords®? and reed-shaped spearheads.** Dezs6 Csallany also undertook a general survey of Avar-age sites in the Carpathian Basin creating the first version of ‘ADAM’.35 After World War 11, the work by Ilona Kovrig was pre-eminent and resulted in the formation of a tripartite chronology for the Avar Age.°® Kovrig also amended Csallany’s list of Early Avar spearheads and offered a very different interpretation of their origin and deposition.3”
Following studies of different weapon types, Avar-age weaponry was studied by Attila Kiss in 1962 when he completed a list of all of the known Avar-age weapons, and classified them according to known typologies. He also offered an historical interpretation of the Avar-age burials with weapons as part of his unpublished research.3®
More recently, a list of Avar-age burials with weapons was compiled by Jozsef Szentpéteri in his Candidate thesis on the social interpretation of Avarage burials in 1990, in which he quantitatively studied weapons together with burials containing horses and multi-part belt sets.39 His research resulted in the continuation of the work initiated by Dezsé Csallany on the database of the Avar-age sites (ADAM).7° On the basis of this significant research Szentpéteri wrote a series of topographical and cartographical articles.
As a result of its geographical situation in the Carpathian Basin, Hungary played a leading role in the study of Avar archaeology, but important research was also conducted in neighbouring countries such as Slovakia,#? Austria?? and the former Yugoslavia.** A particularly significant survey of the northern periphery of the Avar Qaganate was undertaken by Jozef Zabojnik, who like Jozsef Szentpéteri, had made a general survey of all burials with horses, weapons and ornamented belts from Avar-age cemeteries situated in Slovakia and Austria.*5
Besides these general summaries, important studies have also been made of particular artefact types: ring-pommel swords** and Early Avar swords*’ by Laszlé Simon, double-edged swords of the Merovingian type (spathae), socketed arrowheads and shield bosses (umbones) by Attila Kiss.4® Although the number of weapons found in burials has increased significantly, these surveys remain useful aids for anyone studying this period in the Carpathian Basin.
2.2 Classification and Typology
Significant developments have been made in the study of classification and typology of Avar-age weaponry. However, these results mostly refer to weapons from a single site and as a consequence of their different methods used are difficult to compare. The early medieval archaeology of the Carpathian Basin is characterised by terminological confusion with respect to the distinction between classification and typology: the term typology was used as a substitute for classification.49 A characteristic feature of earlier studies was that weapons were primarily classified by their secondary attributes (suspension loops, crossguards and decorations), while their primary (functional) attribute (the blade) was of secondary importance.5°
This approach is clearly evident in the study of Early Avar period (c. 568650) edged weapons which early research tended to distinguish types based on their suspension loops. Two types were distinguished: 1. swords with P-shaped suspension loops and 2. ring-pommel swords with triple-arched loops. This system remained unchallenged until the research work by Laszl6 Simon, only the terminology changed: Nandor Fettich called the swords with P-shaped suspension loops the ‘Kul-Oba — Taman’ type’ and ring-pommel swords the ‘Kunagota — Tiszatijfalu type’>! while Dezs6 Csallany, influenced by the new finds near the city of Szeged, called the same types the ‘Kiszombor — Deszk’ and the ‘Csengele type’ after the sites of these artefacts. According to Csallany, these types have chronological significance, with the ‘Kiszombor — Deszk type’ being earlier,5* whereas they were interpreted as differences of ethnic origin by Istvan Bona.*? The Eurasian distribution of both suspension loop types was examined by Csanad Balint, whose study revealed that this form of suspension was not only known from the steppes but they were also used in several early medieval settled civilisations.5+
The crossguards played a similar role in research on sabres, evident in the second half of the Avar Age. This tradition followed the early classification of Nandor Fettich,5> and was elaborated on by Eva Garam in her study of sabres from the site at ‘Tiszakécske—Obég’. Her main distinguishing criteria for the classification of crossguards was their form and manufacture, distinguishing ‘Byzantine;,°® ‘star-shaped’ and ‘late Saltovo types’. The blades and suspension loops of the sabres and single-edged swords were of secondary importance.”
This situation changed with the work by Laszlé Simon on the Early Avar edged weapons submitted in 1986,°° in which he applied a totally new approach to classification of blade and crossguard—and their combination—which formed primary attributes for distinguishing five types.5° Simon observed certain long-term trends in typological development: the increasing significance of single-edged swords, the decrease of blade width, and the evolution of sabres from single-edged swords.©°
Simon’s classification involves some methodological problems since it does not adhere to a system of hierarchical attributes which would imply that the blade and the crossguard cannot be examined on the same level. Moreover, Simon’s system did not distinguish the ring-pommel swords, either doubleor single-edged, which by their manufacture, decoration and distribution comprise a closed group. Laszlé Simon distinguished those edged weapons with the attributes of sabres as group ‘v’; however, the curvature of the blade and the false edge are two distinct formal attributes which cannot be used together.
Simon’s observations on the appearance of sabre attributes during the Early Avar period led to significant changes in research on the origin of sabres.® Formerly these artefacts were regarded as a result of a new wave of migration by the Onogur-Bulgars around 670 AD from Eastern Europe,® whereas Simon’s studies revealed that all attributes of the sabre were already known in the Carpathian Basin in the first half of the 7th century. However, his identification of the false edge on Early Avar blades was not an entirely new discovery, since it was already evident with the publication of the sword of Tarnaméra in 1965,°% but Laszlé Simon was the first to put such data into an historical scheme for these weapons,** while Csanad Balint examined the problem in a wider, Eurasian context.®
During the first half of the 1990s a new approach emerged as part of the study of early medieval archaeology in Hungary due to the research of Csanad Balint. These new results were partly based on Balint’s study of the burial of Uch Tepe from Azerbaijan and its Sassanian and Byzantine contacts. A singleedged sword with false edge was found in this grave, which was interpreted by Balint as a ‘protosabre’ since he regarded the false edge, rather than the curvature of the blade, as the main attribute of sabres. The appearance of a ‘protosabre’ in this burial was of great chronological significance since Balint dated it back to the 6th century by use of coins of Justinian origin found in the burial,®° although this dating is not widely accepted.®’ Following this early chronology, this edged weapon would be the first one equipped with such a false edge in the world. In a search for analogies Balint observed similar false edges on several Early Avar blades,®* noting that this important attribute was used long before the assumed date for the first appearance of the sabres (670), and its distribution was not limited to the Steppes but is also well known from 7th century Byzantium, Iran and China.®9
A similar approach was used in the case of polearms where the major concern of classification was the ‘quality’? and decoration” of the artefacts, while the distinction of major blade types, like reed-shaped and broad lenticular blades’? was considered sufficient distinction. The first systematic classification of spearheads was completed in the monograph of the Pékaszepetk cemetery in which they classified these artefacts into four groups based on the shape of the blade, then within these groups they distinguished subgroups by using the proportion of the blade and the socket. This classification was a huge step towards combination types based on parallel examination of several attributes.” As for the Late Avar period (8th-g9th centuries), spearheads were Classified into six types based on the form of blade in the publication of Tiszafiired cemetery by Eva Garam.”4
Significant new results in the research of Avar-age polearms were achieved by a young Slovakian scholar, Martin Husar, whose unpublished Master's thesis studied such artefacts from Slovakia: besides a formal classification of depositional rules, the material of shafts and contemporary representations of the polearms were also considered.”
2.3 Ethnic Interpretations and Questions of Origin
The study of early medieval archaeology in Central and Eastern Europe is fundamentally oriented towards ethnic questions, largely as a result of a nationalist-romantic historical approach rooted in 1gth century European thought.”6 The claim for identification of various ethnic groups by means of archaeological practice was already a significant part of the beginnings of ‘Avar archaeology’ as defined by Ferenc Pulszky.’” Subsequently this approach focussed not on the identification of ‘Avars’ themselves but on minor ethnic groups of various origin living in the ‘Avar Qaganate’ according to written sources such as Gepids, Kutrigurs, Onogurs and Slavs. This approach used burial customs, multi-part belt sets and armament as distinguishing attributes. In what follows, only the ethnic theories related to weaponry and burials with weapons will be discussed.
The identification of the Kutrigurs, regarded as the Eastern European component of the Avars, was attempted by using a particular burial or sacrifice custom in which a special spearhead type played a significant role. The socalled ‘pyre theory’ was constructed by Dezsé Csallany using the complex of Bacsujfalu as evidence. Supposed funeral pyres served for the identification of Kutrigurs among the Early Avar population: according to this theory the Kutrigurs burnt the horse, harness and weapons of the deceased and deposited the remains in a separate pit near the burial. Csallany linked reed-shaped spearheads decorated with grid-patterned rings to this ethnic group and listed them in his study of the Kutrigurs.’®
While Csallany identified ‘funeral pyres’ with the Eastern European component (Kutrigurs) of the Avars, Ilona Kovrig provided a fundamentally different interpretation of the same phenomenon, arguing that iron artefacts found in these complexes were of good ‘quality’ because they were manufactured in Inner Asia.’° Following Kovrig’s arguments Istvan Bona interpreted these complexes as ‘sacrifices’ known from Inner Asian Turkic sites as ‘maiinHur’ (cache), while he explained the good preservation of stirrups and lances as a product of secondary burning.®° These ‘funeral sacrifices’ were later studied together 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.*!
The cremation rite of the Bacstijfalu 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 professional archaeologists. As a consequence, we refer to this complex as a ‘sacrifice’, 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
Istvan Bona 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).
Bona’s ethnic theory on the origin of the Avars was influenced by the historical theory of Karoly Czeglédy based on the ‘pseudo-Avar story’ of Theophylact Simmocatta, according to whom ‘var’ is only a pseudonym, and the original name of the Avars is Uar’ and ‘Khunni’.*4 In spite of the controversial nature of this narrative source Karoly Czeglédy used it as a key source for Avar ethnogenesis assuming that the Avars were composed of two ethnic groups: the ‘Uars’ (or ‘Vars’ identified with the Ruanruans of the Chinese sources) of Inner Asian® origin and the ‘Khunni’ (Hephtalites) of Central Asian’® descent.®? This historical theory hada significant impact on Avar archaeology: Istvan Bona tried to identify these two ethnic components of the Avars using archaeological methods, including a consideration of the history of weapons. Bona regarded ‘sacrificial finds’ containing reed-shaped spearheads*® and ring-pommel swords®9 as attributes of the Inner Asian group, while swords with P-shaped suspension loops and sword hilts decorated with ring-pendants as attributes of the Central Asian (Hephtalite) group.%° The popularity of Bona’s theory is marked by the fact that its specific elements are still used as arguments in Avar archaeology.
Such immigration theories were always popular in Hungarian research on early medieval history and archaeology as an explanation for cultural and technological change. The beginning of the Middle Avar period marked considerable transformation in material culture, interpreted as a consequence of the migration of the ‘Onogur Bulgars’. This theory was already used in 19th century Hungarian scholarship, but Istvan Bona constructed a coherent system based onarchaeological, numismatic and historical9? arguments regarding the ‘immigration in the Middle Avar period’. According to his view, during the last third of the 7th century (around 670 based on numismatic and historical sources) a new ethnic group (Onogur Bulgars) settled in the Carpathian Basin causing significant changes in the material culture of the Avar Qaganate, a basic element of which was the sudden appearance of the sabre.% The idea of Onogur migration fundamentally affected research on the Avar Age for decades due to the professional authority and educational activities of Istvan Bona.
The idea of Onogur migration was eventually severely criticised by Csanad Balint, drawing attention to contradictions in the theory.9+ The critique generated considerable scholarly debate,°° and even leading to an international conference on several aspects of the so-called ‘Middle Avar Period’.°6
Significant advances have been made in research on the Germanic population of the Early Avar period. Merovingian elements in Early Avar material culture, including weaponry, were first observed in the cemetery of Kérnye which was originally dated to the first half of the 6th century (before the arrival of the Avars at 567/568), interpreted as the burial ground of a military garrison of mixed ethnicity (Germanic and Kutrigur) related to the nearby Late Roman fort.9” Both this ethnic interpretation®® and the dating of the site9° became the subject of an international debate.
The Avar-age continuity of the Gepids is mentioned in written sources,!0° and is also visible archaeologically in several ‘Gepid’ cemeteries which were continuously used in Transylvania well after 567-568, when the Carpathian Basin became part of the Avar Qaganate.!”! The studies of Attila Kiss, however, transformed this idea of Gepid continuity, since he localised it in a new area: Transdanubia. He began with studying the archaeological heritage of various Germanic ethnic groups (Goths, Lombards, Scirii) of Eastern Transdanubia (former Roman province of Pannonia), and later excavated a remarkable Early Avar site which contained significant Merovingian elements (two cemeteries and a settlement) at Kélked—Feketekapu.!
Based on his broad knowledge of Merovingian archaeology, Kiss constructed a theory concerning the mass continuity of the Gepids, whereby they were deported from the Great Hungarian Plain to the western shore of the Danube during the second half of the 6th century. He used the spatial distribution of particular artefacts (double-edged swords of Merovingian origin (spathae), shield bosses, socketed arrowheads, wheel-turned stamped pottery, bone combs, crescent-shaped hair-rings) known from both the ‘Gepid Period’ (455-567) of the Great Hungarian Plain and the Early Avar period (568-650) of Eastern Pannonia to make direct ethnic identifications.!°3 However, Kiss also examined artefact types of western Merovingian origin, with some types dating only to the second half of the 6th century, weakening his arguments on continuity.
Despite this direct ethnic identification being severely criticised,!°+ Kiss’ research on artefacts of Merovingian origin in the Early Avar period has inspired further research on this topic.!°> The study of western contacts of the Early Avar period has become more sophisticated in its methods: with the study of particular artefacts of western origin being complemented by an analysis of burial rites and reconstructions of costume;!°° the study by Tivadar Vida of the spatha belts and spatha suspension is a good example of this new approach.!07 Research on Merovingian elements in Avar archaeological heritage is still a popular topic, and while the continuity of the Transdanubian population still awaits verification, the Gepid continuity in the Eastern part of the Carpathian Basin along the Tisza river in shown by more evidence: in one ‘Gepid male’ burial from Tiszaroff (near Szolnok) a gold solidus of emperor Maurice came to light!°* suggesting that the chronology of several burials formerly dated to the first half of the 6th century should be reconsidered.
Research on Byzantine influences on the Avar archaeological culture is not of ethnic character; however, its study is crucial for the understanding of the foreign relations of the Avars, and has attracted particular attention from the beginning, although it became the focus of international archaeology only more recently. During the first half of the 1990s a considerable change occured as a consequence of the approach of Csanad Balint and Falko Daim, who both emphasised the Byzantine roots of several phenomena in Avar material culture. The attention of Csanad Balint turned to this Byzantine element during the analysis of the burial from Uch Tepe (Azerbaijan) which shed new light on several elements of the Early Avar material culture including the origin of the ornamented belt!°9 and sabre.
Similarly, Falko Daim also turned his attention towards the Byzantine roots of the Avar culture," as a consequnce of his three-column model (1. shape, decoration, motives, style, 2. manufacturing techniques, 3. material). In his study he focused on the Byzantine influence on the multi-part belt sets of Late Avar period (8th—gth centuries),!? later he put the Avar material culture into a broader European context." Following him, Jozef Zabojnik studied Late Avar belt sets of Byzantine origin from Slovakia."!+
Eva Garam begun studying artefacts of Byzantine origin from Avar burials during the 1980s," and she summarised these studies in a monograph which is the first comprehensive synthesis of Byzantine influences on Avar material culture." The aforementioned studies inspired further research on Mediterranean contacts of the early medieval Carpathian Basin.
The research on Byzantine influences on Avar weaponry, however, started well before the aforementioned new approach. Attila Kiss—also known for his research on Gepid continuity—distinguished a group of Avar swords of Byzantine origin from this period.”” His starting point was a double-edged sword with crossguard cast of copper alloy from an Early Byzantine burial at Corinth."8 He used this object as parallel for similar double-edged swords with copper alloy crossguards from the 7th-10th century Carpathian Basin.!!9
Following the identification of these Byzantine swords, attempts were made to also identify spearheads of Byzantine origin in Avar weaponry. Reed-shaped spearheads with connecting chap of good preservation, which were usually regarded as a result of Avar influences, were also found in south Germany and Italy.2° Uta von Freeden criticised this interpretation: according to her opinion the Avars were not technically proficient to produce weapons of such good quality, and as a consequence these artefacts would be of Byzantine origin.12! This theory was later reexamined by Mechtild Schulze-Dérlamm together with early Merovingian stirrups. She emphasised the role of Italy in the transmission of stirrups between Byzantium and the Merovingian Europe, while from the combination of stirrups and lances she also drew conclusions about important tactical changes occuring during that time.12?
Important methodological studies have been written relating to the ethnic interpretation of early medieval archaeology, one of the best examples of which is the monograph of Sebastian Brather who is fundamentally sceptical about of the identification of ethnic groups based on archaeological studies. Although his book became controversial both in Germany and Hungary,!?3 it inspired new approaches in the field of Avar archaeology.!*4
The research on the origin of particular artefact types also includes some methodological problems discussed by Csanad Balint, who drew attention to a special feature known as ‘Orient-preference’ which prevails in both Hungarian and Bulgarian archaeology, overemphasizing Eastern analogies and regarding them as the earliest and original. This simplistic method led to the misinterpretation of distribution maps as evidence for migrations, leading many to disregard other possibilities (gift, trade, exchange or loot).!25
Whilst such ethnic interpretations of various archaeological phenomena have been a characteristic feature of Avar archaeology since its beginnings, my intention is to avoid direct ethnic questions, most of which cannot be answered by archaeological methods. In what follows, the term ‘Avar’ will be used as the name of an archaeological culture and not in an ethnic sense.
2.4 Social Reconstruction
Interest in social reconstructions grew after World War 11, influenced by the Marxist historical-philosophical school prevalent in the socialist countries behind the Iron Curtain. However, social questions in Hungarian archaeology were not only studied by Marxist authors since the ethnographically oriented school of Gyula Laszlé also played a significant role in early medieval studies.
The approach of Gyula Laszlé inspired by ethnography and sociography is rooted in the traditions of the 1930s in attempting to reconstruct ancient society in all its complexity by using archaeological data.!2° Due to his artistic talent and education Laszlé drew several reconstructions of ancient artefacts and costumes, among them the ring-pommel sword of Kunagota with its gold fittings!?’” and the ornamented double belt from Bocsa,!?8 both of which became very popular as a result of the exhibitions of the Hungarian National Museum. The ideas and theories of Laszlé deeply influenced Hungarian society through his popular books.
The views of Gyula Laszlé on Avar society were published in 1955 in French and as a result received little attention in Hungarian research, although the manuscript and Hungarian translation are widely cited.!2° The starting point of Laszlé’s study was the analysis of the cemeteries of Kiskérés—Vagéhid and Kisk6rés—Varosalatt, however, he mainly focused on the ‘princely burial’ of Boécsa. The reconstruction of the double belt of this burial was not only of aesthetic significance, but became an important source for social theories: according to his view the individual in the Bocsa burial originally wore a belt decorated with silver discs of lower quality, until the time of his appointment as a ‘prince’ by the Qagan when he would have acquired a new belt decorated with pseudo-buckles together with a suspended quiver, arhyton and a goblet.!8° The supposed function of the sword with golden fittings was described in the case of the Kecel burial: ‘Le <<sabre dor>> [sic] symbolise un régime puissant organisé d’en haut par la violence’ According to the description, the prince did not wear the sword covered with gold sheets as a result of his descent from a clan or tribe, but he gained it from the Qagan in the form of an investiture gift as an insignia (symbol of power).!*! The ‘golden sword’ became the symbol of the violence and power and the centralizing attempts of the Qagan’s authority.
The double belt which comprised the basis of Gyula Laszlé’s theory was recently re-assessed by Béla Miklés Széke who reconstructed the disc-shaped mounts of the belt decorated with pseudo-buckles,!°? although these have not been generally accepted.1°? It is important to note that the archaeological context of the Bécsa find is unknown, and the lack of documentation means that there is a lack of information on the belt set, and as a consequence all attempts at reconstruction are hypothetical and speculative.!*4 In the social theories of Gyula Laszl6 the substitution of fantasy for argument was compensated by his personality, his fascination with style, and a considerable talent for synthesis based on artistic intuition.!> As a result his work is still indispensable for social studies of Avars, although most of his social reconstructions are no longer accepted.
What remains the richest burial of the Avar Age was excavated in Babonypuszta near the village Kunszentmiklds in 1971, and immediately interpreted as a princely or Qagan’s burial. The author of the publication, Elvira H.
Tdth, was deeply influenced by Laszlé’s work, and therefore tried to reconstruct the biography of the deceased based on the artefacts found in the burial. She assumed the ‘prince’ or ‘Qagan’ of Kunbabony originally wore the belt ornamented with silver mounts, the sword and the rhyton, and he only later received the belt decorated by pseudo-buckles with garnet inlays as a sign of his rank of Qagan. According to Elvira H. Téth, the burial should be regarded a Qagan’s grave, as no richer Avar-age grave is known.!°6 This reconstructed biography paraphrased the idea of Gyula Laszl6 on the Bocsa burial. The interpretation of the Kunbabony burial played a decisive role in the identification of the Malaja Pereshchepina find with the burial of Kuvrat, ruler of Great Bulgaria by Joachim Werner.'®” Ironically, this argument was then used at the time of its final publication to establish that the Kunbabony burial was also a qagan’s grave by comparison with the Pereshchepina find!!8° Even those opposed to the identification of the Kunbabony burial as a Qagan’s grave compared its ‘richness’ with Malaja Pereshchepina as an argument against its rank,!99 representing one of the best examples of a vicious circle.
A modern approach is represented by the work by Jozsef Csalog who introduced the term ‘ostentatious weapon’ for some Early Avar swords decorated with silver fittings. Some of these swords are equipped with a ring-pendant on their hilt, which according to Csalog would hinder its use as weapon.™° He did not write explicitly about the social function of these swords (as status symbol, prestige goods or sign of power) but he nonetheless drew tentative conclusions from its decoration and function.
Laszlo’s social interest was inherited by his former students such as Jozsef Szentpéteri, who studied various aspects of Avar social history. The methods of Gyula Laszl6 were applied in his study of the cemetery of Zelovce (Slovakia), in which Szentpéteri distinguished three zones and interpreted them as centre, right and left wing, using military terminology.'4? Three ‘social’ groups were identified from the cemetery based on artefact combinations: the ornamented belt and weapons were regarded as signs of free men (based on this assumption, the proportion of free men and their dependants had a ratio of 1:2). He identified the richest burial of the central group with the burial of a kinship leader, and those of the wing leaders heading extended families.4? He followed Gyula Laszlé’s preconceptions rigidly without querying their theoretical basis. However, this study had some forward-looking features: it was the first to use age groups of the deceased and the results of anthropological investigations for social analysis.!44 This study applied the social model created by Gyula Laszlo in the 1940s without changes, rendering it anachronistic at the time of its publication.
Following this first attempt Jozsef Szentpéteri wrote his Candidate thesis on the social interpretation of Avar-age weapon burials using similar methods for the whole Carpathian Basin. He compiled a huge database of burials with weapons, ornamented belts and horses which were used to analyse combinations using quantitative statistical methods. On the basis of his detailed charts he tried to model a social pyramid using the hypothetical gold — silver — copper alloy order and combinations of weapons, belts and horses.!45
Slovakian scholarship was at the forefront of research on Late Avar burials with weapons. Jozef Zabojnik studied those weapons of western origin from Avar-age burials.!4° Later he analysed the social structure of the Northern periphery of the Avar Qaganate with analyses of horizontal stratigraphy of cemeteries, and applying his chronology based on the seriation of Late Avar belt sets.!4” Zabojnik mainly used quantitative statistical methods for analysing burials with weapons, ornamented belts and horses, studying their distribution and chronology.'48
The concept of ‘ostentatious graves’ in Avar archaeology was elaborated on by Csanad Balint who drew attention to the spontaneity of nomadic societies and the significance of the exceptions in his social analysis.!49
Much international (mainly Merovingian) research also studied the social relations of weaponry, but it had little or no impact on Avar archaeology. In what follows, my intention is to present some of the main approaches which can be applied to the Avar archaeological heritage.
The first summary on the Merovingian weapon burial rite was written by Joachim Werner, who had already made some social-historical assumptions based on weapon combinations found in burials.'5° Parallel to Werner, a significant development occured in the methodology of social studies in archaeology, such as that of Heiko Steuer who questioned the validity of using legal categories for weapon burials containing various weapon combinations and emphasised that the analysis of archaeological sources should not be influenced by written sources much later than the studied cemeteries. The relation between armament and society or armament and fighting methods was the major topic of this research. He drew attention to the fact that the deposition of weapons in burials is not a result of the legal but rather the social status of the deceased.'*! During his research on the relationship of armament and warfare he made the observation that the strategies of fighting in groups or duels alternated in the history of early medieval wars.'5?
The studies of Wolfgang Hiibener drew attention to the analysis of individual weapon types and their functions showing that similar weapons can be used in very different ways (such as the hitting and throwing function of axes).!53
A special distortion factor in the study of weapon combinations is demonstrated by wooden weapons, as studied by Torsten Capelle, showing the importance of taphonomical loss.!5+ However, this is not the sole cause of the absence of weapons made from organic materials in depositions,> as some inorganic elements of armament can be absent either as a result of burial rite, grave robbery or the social status of the deceased.
The study of Anglo-Saxon weapon burials by Heinrich Harke reformed the Continental approach combining English and American anthropological methods with his Continental (German) archaeological education that traditionally focussed on typochronology and cemetery analyses. He compared weapon combinations found in burials with physical anthropological features (like age, physique, disease and injuries) of the deceased in order to reveal the real nature of weapon deposition in graves.'°® In conclusion, Harke also emphasised the symbolic nature and ideological power of weapon depositions in burials.!5”
A different approach examined the social aspects of the location of burials: great cemetery, church [Kirchengrab]| or separate small cemetery [Separatfriedhof | for distinguishing elite burials, showing a process of the formation of nobility (noblemen) in medieval Germany.!58 The relationship of the weapons and belt-costume including its social role was also studied by Hubert Fehr.59
The above-mentioned works all serve as a methodological basis for research on the social aspects of weapon depositions in burials. It is important to emphasise that our knowledge of Avar social structure is very limited as a consequence of the scarcity of written sources, and therefore all such examinations can only provide new information on the funerals of elite individuals and not on their role in life as it must have been within society.
3 Methods Applied in this Study
3.1 Terminology and the Methods of Classification
A standardised terminology and method is crucial for further examination of Avar-age close-combat weapons. My intention is therefore to suggest a solution to the chaotic phrasing and misphrasing of weapons and their parts in Avar archaeology and to present the specific methods and attributes of my classification as they have been applied.
Weapons can be classified as offensive and defensive by their function, and close and distant-combat weapons by the reach of their use. Both of the examined weapon types in the present work are offensive close-combat weapons.!©° Polearms or pole weapons are close-combat weapons composed of a long wooden shaft and a sharp metal head attached to it, while edged weapons, known also as cutting or blade weapons, consist of a long metal (mainly steel) blade suitable for both cutting and thrusting. Battle axes are not examined as part of the present study since their short cutting edge is supplemented by a hitting surface, resulting in a functional difference, and as a consequence of which these artefacts are termed ‘hitting weapons’.
3.11 Terminology of Polearms
Several different terms are used for describing polearms in English, such as ‘spear’, ‘lance’, ‘pike’, ‘javelin’, ‘jereed’ and ‘halberd’. Only single pointed polearms are known from Avar-age burials of the Carpathian Basin, and are generally refered to as spears in Avar archaeology but ‘pike’ is also a frequently used term.!6! However, the latter is not a general term, such as to describe Avar-age polearms used by mounted warriors, since pikes were originally used only by infantrymen, while polearms of cavalry are generally refered to as ‘lance’!6?
Avar polearms are mainly found in burial contexts (with the exception of some sacrifices) and therefore very little is known about their original function. However, most of the terms for describing them are related to the weapon’s function. As a result several terms (like pike and lance) will be omitted, and only the term ‘spear’ will be used for polearms in a very general sense without regard of their use by mounted warriors or infantrymen, with only throwing weapons being distinguished as ‘javelins’.
These polearms are composed of two parts: a wooden shaft and a spearhead made of steel, which is divided into blade!®? and socket.!6+ The main function of the blade is to injure the foe, while the socket fixes the spearhead to the shaft, therefore the blade should be suitable for frontal attacks which determines its basic shape. Between the blade and the socket there is a narrow section of the spearhead of circular, oval or polygonal cross section called the neck which in some cases is decorated by ribs, grid-patterned rings or a nodus. Some blade types are angular near the neck, this part being the shoulder, while in some other cases a connecting chap with hexagonal or octagonal cross section is formed on the lower part of the blade.!®
The spearhead was fixed to the wooden shaft by a socket which was manufactured from a trapezoid steel sheet termed the socket-wing, which was bent to conical shape and its edges bent next to or on top of each other. The socket can be opened or closed, the socket-wings bounded by a clasp, bent next to each other, bent or hammered on to each other. The socket of a spearhead can be decorated by facetting or a grid-patterned ring. Metric data of spears are composed of its length, blade length, blade width, blade thickness, neck diameter, the socket length, the largest outer and inner diameters and the socket depth (fig. 1).
3.1.2 The Terminology of Edged Weapons Several terms are used for edged weapons in English, like ‘sword, ‘sabre’, ‘scimitar’, ‘dagger’, ‘seax’ and ‘falchion’ The straight blade of the sword is either single or double-edged, and therefore every edged weapon with a straight blade is described as a ‘sword’. In the Eastern European archaeological literature (mainly in Slavonic languages: Russian and Slovakian) the term ‘palash’ is used for single-edged swords, a term which is omitted in the present study.!66
One of the most important questions of the Avar edged weapons’ terminology is the distinction between single-edged swords and sabres. There is no unambiguous definition of the sabre: various attributes are regarded as criteria like the curved blade, the false edge or the curved hilt. Most researchers term all those edged weapons with a curved blade as a sabre,!®” while some others even use this term for swords with straight single-edged blade and false edge.!®* In what follows, the term ‘sabre’ will only be applied to curved bladed edged weapons,!69 while straight bladed examples with false edge are simply called single-edged swords. The term ‘proto-sabre’ is not used in the present study, since it does not refer to formal attributes but only suggests a transitional stage in the evolution of sabres.!”°
The term ‘seax’ is rather archaic in English, used only in the literature on the armaments of the Anglo-Saxons, and mainly used in the German archaeology of the Merovingian and Early Carolingian period as ‘Sax’!”! the original meaning of which is a short single-edged sword. From early medieval written sources it is mainly known as ‘scramasax’ which is not common in the archaeological literature, where metrical terms are used for distinguishing short, narrow, broad and long seaxes (‘Kurzsax’, ‘Schmalsax’, ‘Breitsax’ and ‘Langsax’ in German literature). Terms borrowed from Merovingian archaeology will be used in the text for further distinctions.
Edged weapons are composed of two main parts: the blade and the hilt. The hilt is usually formed of a hilt-thorn (of quadrangular cross section) or a hilttongue (of flat, rectangular cross section) made of iron or steel, and its wooden covering of oval cross section generally riveted to the hilt-tongue.!”? In some cases its end was covered with a hilt cap in the form of a tube made of gold, silver or copper alloy sheets.
Edged weapons can be equipped with a crossguard cast of copper alloy or hammered out of steel placed between the hilt and the blade. The length of the crossguard does not usually exceed the blade width, therefore it could play little role in fencing.
The most important functional part of a sword is the blade, which can be straight, curved, single- or double-edged or in some cases equipped with false edge. The main parts of the blade are the blade stem, the back, the edge and the point. The blade stem is located near the hilt and was often covered by an iron sheet as a spacer for fixing the crossguard (fig. 2).
A groove or fuller running down the face of the blade was often used to lighten and provide greater solidity to the double-edged sword, the crosssection of which is normally lenticular, but in the case of blades with fuller its cross section is concave, while the cross section of single-edged blades is usually triangular or pentagonal. The false edge is a second edge on a single-edged sword toward the point and the lower third of the blade. Double-edged blades are usually symmetrical, while single-edged ones are asymmetrical.
The blade of the sword was protected by a scabbard usually made of wood covered with leather which was occasionally decorated with gold or silver sheets on three parts of it: the locket (below the crossguard), the chape (at the end of the scabbard) and at the suspension loops.
The scabbard was fixed to the belt by suspension loops connected to suspension straps, which is usually fixed by small buckles to the belt. The loops themselves are usually made of wood, but their surface and rim was often decorated with metal sheets.
3.1.3 Classification
Following the system of Manfred K.H. Eggert, any classification or typology must be clearly described and delineated: first is the process of classifying the artefacts by using certain attributes for creating types, while the second will demonstrate the direction of changes and the development between distinct types.!”3 This definition of classification and typology also represents the order of their discussion, since first various groups, types, sub-types and variants must be distinguished, and their relations discussed only afterwards.
The classification of artefacts is necessarily a subjective process: it is performed by following specific rules, but it is based on attributes chosen by the researcher. The classification is a hierarchical structure examining several formal attributes that have been ranked as features from general to specific,!”4 as a result of which combination types!”> can be distinguished which are based on joint examination of several attributes. Transitional types and exceptions were tried to be incorporated in the closest group according to their characteristic attributes.
The blade, due to its functionality, is regarded as the main attribute both of polearms and edged weapons. These two weapon types are, however, fundamentally different from each other in their structure and therefore have been classified separately. The secondary attribute for polearms is the ratio between the blade and socket length followed by consideration of how the socket was manufactured. The edged weapons were classified differently: the secondary attribute is the existence of crossguard, while the decoration of scabbard or hilt is the attribute for distinguishing variants. The specific details of edged weapons (crossguard, scabbard, suspension loops) are classified separately.
The typological method is based on types created by a classification concerned with their development, and therefore is a useful device for establishing a relative chronology.
3.1.4 Classification of Polearms Polearms (P) are classified into four form-groups according to the shape of the blade: reed-shaped (P.1), conical (P.11), lenticular (P.111) and triangular (P.1v)
In the case of the conical spearheads (p.11) the blade and the socket are not separate, the blade’s cross section being circular or square-shaped. Two types are identifed: conical (P.11.4) and narrow, needle-shaped (p.11.B) blades (fig. 5).
The blade of the lenticular!”” spearheads (p.111) does not have a shoulder, these pieces are oval in shape, their greatest width is normally toward the middle or in the lower third of the blade, the cross section of which is flat lenticular or rhombic. Several types can be distinguished based on the ratio of blade length and width or on the form of the cross section:
The edges of the triangular spearheads (P.Iv) are straight, and the cross section is rhombic. Two types can be distinguished: P.1v.a: narrow and P.Iv.B: broad triangular blade (fig. 7).
Sub-types were distinguished by the proportion of the blade and socket length: 1) with the blade being longer than the socket, 2) where the blade is shorter than the socket, and 3) where the blade and socket length are equal.
Finally, based on the manufacture of the socket six variants were identified: a) cleft socket, b) socket wings bounded by a clasp, c) socket wings abutting, d) socket wings bent on each other, e) closed socket, and f) a ring pulled over the socket (fig. 8).
These attributes are combined in alphanumerical codes composing types. The first letter of the code shows the category of the weapon (P for polearm), the second Latin number being the form of the blade, the following capital letter shows the type of the blade, then an Arabic letter presents the proportion of the blade and socket length, and finally a small letter symbolizes the manufacture of the socket.
3.15 Classification of Edged Weapons
An edged weapon can be regarded as a unit composed of a blade, hilt, crossguard, scabbard and suspension loops. The various aspects of these edged weapons are classified separately and afterwards are combined into a single scheme. The main attribute is the blade, as a consequence of it being its main functional characteristic as a weapon, thus the edged weapons (E) are grouped into four form-groups based on the cross section and form of the blade: double-edged swords (£.1), single-edged swords (£.1I), sabres (E.IIT) and seaxes (E.IV) (fig. 9).
In these form-groups types can be distinguished by the characteristics of the blade and the hilt (capital letters), the sub-types formed by using the presence or absence of the crossguard (1 or 2), and finally variants were distinguished based on the decoration of the scabbard (a or b).
Double-edged swords can be divided into three types: wide double-edged blades with fuller (spatha blades) (£.1.4), narrow double-edged blades with lenticular cross section (E.1.B) and double-edged swords with ring-pommel (E.1.C) (fig. 10). The single-edged swords (E.11) can be divided into simple singleedged blades (£.11.A), single-edged blades with ring-pommel (£.11.B) and single-edged blades with false edge (formerly known as protosabres) (E.11.C) (fig. 11).1”8 The sabre blades are classified based on their curvature, ranging from slightly curved (£.111.A), curved (£.1II.B) to strongly curved (E.1II.C) blade (fig. 12).!”9 The German metrical system was used for the classification of the seaxes (short seax = Kurzsax: E.IV.A, narrow seax = Schmalsax: E.IV.B, broad seax = Breitsax: E.IV.C, long seax = Langsax: E.Iv.D) (fig. 13).
Sub-types were created by the presence (1) or absence (2) of the crossguard. Some edged weapons of the Early Avar period can be divided on the basis of the metal sheets decorating the scabbard into ornamented (a) or nonornamented (b) examples.
The various aspects of the edged weapons (decoration of the hilt, crossguard, suspension loop and decoration of scabbard) are classified separately. As a result of the classification, alphanumerical codes identify the type of the weapon composed of a first capital letter which denotes the category of weapon (‘E’ for edged weapon), followed by a second Latin number for the blade type, after that a capital letter for the sub-type of the blade, then an Arabic letter showing the existence of the crossguard, and finally a small letter present if the sword was ornamented or not.
In all classification of iron artefacts several exceptions and transitional types tend to occur, all of which were attempted to incorporate the above described system, as a result reed-shaped broad shouldered (P.1.D) polearms, javelins (p.v), single-edged swords with false edge (E.11.c) can be regarded as transitional types of small number of specimens, while a variant of broad seaxes (‘Breitsax’) only distributed around Komarno is a transition towards long seaxes.
3.2 Technology
All of the examined weapons were made of iron or steel, therefore the physical attributes of the iron and the process of manufacture are of crucial importance for the present work. Several methods are available for examining the physical features and manufacturing techniques of weapons, and their overview can make a significant contribution in evaluating early medieval weapons.
The iron (ferrum, Fe) is a metal of silvery colour, its atomic number is 29, it is placed in the 8th group of the Periodic table, its atomic weigth is 55.85, its hardness is 3.5—4.3 by the Mohs-scale,!*! its melting point being 1529°C and it has magnetic characteristics.!8? The metal ores of the iron are mostly oxydes, such as magnetite, hematite (red iron ore), limonite (brown iron ore) or the carbonate based siderite.
Iron is melted from iron ore in a bloom in the form of pig-iron (or iron sponge), the physical features of which are not appropriate for making tools or weapons.!83 The pig-iron contains various forms of iron microstructure like ferrite,!8* pearlite!®> and cementite.!8°
The steel attains its final characteristic by a combination of additives and forging. The steel is an alloy of iron including various elements but mostly carbon of at least 4 per cent. According to other definitions the steel is an ironbased alloy which can be processed by forging (hammering). The majority of steel from archaeological contexts also contains some phosphore (P) and arsenic (As), both of which made the steel harder but more brittle, and it reduced its carbon-absorbing capacity. The higher carbon content of the steel results in a hard and brittle material, however, its hardness could also be affected by several other factors.!87
The steel is heated to between 700-900°C during the forging!*® resulting in a shapeable state called the austenite phase. The ancient blacksmiths would have recognised the appropriate temperature from the sound, the sparks and the colour of red-hot steel.!8° This hot and forged steel should be cooled by dry ash. Various shaping processes were used during the forging which can be divided into two groups: free hand!" and die forging. During free hand forging the artefact is shaped on an anvil, while during die forging the heated iron is sunk into the die or mould of an anvil producing almost identical forms,!9! being the first step toward mass production.!9%?
In what follows, the steps in the manufacture of an ideal sword and a spear will be presented by an imagined blacksmith of the Avar Age.
During the manufacture of a sword the blacksmith first separated a piece of iron of between 1-2 kg in weight from the original pig-iron by cutting!%? using a chisel. The first step in the manufacture of a sword is the forming of the hiltstem (or hilt-tongue) of the sword, creating an iron stick of quadrangular or rectangular cross section by hammering. This procedure is called upsetting.1%* The blacksmith held this stem with tongs while shaping the blade of sword. During the forming of the blade the cross section of the iron stick was narrowed and its length increased significantly by a process known as drawing down, made on an anvil.!9%
In most cases the sword blade was not made of a single piece of iron, since the high carbon content would have made it hard and brittle, while a blade with low carbon content would have been too soft, and therefore steels of various carbon content had to be combined for ensuring the hardness and flexibility needed for a weapon. The steel pieces of various carbon content were fixed together by forge welding.!°° In some cases the edges of the swords were made of hard steel with a high carbon content, while the fuller or the rest of the blade was made of soft iron of low carbon content. However, by using such simple processes there was a danger of injury of the blade by the welts, thus the edges could fall off.
Some more difficult processes were also used for making the blade flexible, like pattern welding where several small steel sticks of various carbon content were welt together, and in most of the cases it was fixed to the fuller of the blade. The edges were usually made of a hard steel of high carbon content. The pattern welding would result in a pattern on the blade which became visible as a result of natural chemical reactions resulting in various colours: the steel becomes darker, the iron light grey, while the phosphorus remains bright. The patterns visible on the blade also marked its quality.!9”
Three main types of pattern welding can be distinguished: 1. full damast (‘Volldamast’): the central part of the blade was forged from a pattern welded stick (in most of the cases fishbone pattern) and the edges were welded to this central part. 2. layer damast (‘Schichtendamast’): the core of the blade is composed of flat steel covered by two pattern welded layers on each side, while the edges were made of high-carbon steel welded on the sides. 3. covering damast is in fact a special kind of layer damast: the blade was made of a homogenous steel covered by pattern welded layers.!9* During the Early Middle Ages the most common pattern created by pattern welding was a fishbone-pattern. The bending of pattern welded layers is a more difficult process, formed by multiplying layers and increasing quality.
The properties of the blade could be modified by various surface treatments. The surface of the forged product is usually uneven, therefore it was whetted or planished by hammering. Unfortunately in most of cases the original surface of artefacts from archaeological contexts is not observable.
The hardness and elasticity of the blade could be controlled by various heat treatments: in the case of a too hard and brittle blade it could be softened by re-heating and slow air cooling called annealing.!°? If the goal was the hardening of the blade carburisation or cementation was applied: during this process the steel was forged over charcoal, due to this procedure the iron in the state of yellow heat absorbs carbon monoxide (CO) creating a layer of cementite or iron-carbide (Fe,C) on its surface. The catalyzer was usually a material containing nitrite (like charred leather or horn). The carburisation was used only on some parts of the blade (primarily on the edges), while other parts were covered with clay for preventing the infiltration of carbon, hence these parts could stay soft and elastic.2°°
A different and more drastic method for hardening the blade was water cooling known also as quench hardening. This process was mainly used for high carbon steel, the hardness of which could be doubled or tripled by the quick water cooling, resulting in a modified crystal structure to the iron composed of long, lenticular crystals known as martensite providing extreme hardness and brittleness. Quench hardening in salty or soapy water could temper this effect?! as a result of which the more stable and less brittle bainite could be formed.?°
The martensite crystal structure is extremely hard and brittle, therefore such structure is not suitable for sword blades. If it occurs during the process of forging it can be corrected by tempering resulting in a finer pearlitic crystal structure. This process could be accomplished in lower (300°C) or higher (5-600°C) temperatures resulting in softer and less brittle steel.2°
A modern way of surface hardening is enrichment in nitrogene: nitridation, although according to our present knowledge this procedure was not used in early medieval times, the only known iron artefacts with nitrite coming from cremation burials and the structure a consequence of secondary burning.?0+ Finally, the forged sword was planished by hammering, while the plain blade was whetted, chiseled and its tip was shaped.2
The manufacture of a sword did not end at this point, since some edged weapons were fitted with a crossguard which could be formed using two various processes: either bent from an iron rod or a flat oval crossguard was forged and pierced by a drill.2°6 In most cases the crossguard was not placed directly on the stem of the blade, but an iron spacer was used as a base. The crossguard was decorated with various methods: gold or silver wire inlay in iron?° or it was covered with gold or silver sheets.
The hilt of the sword was made from hard wood (mainly beech) of oval cross section which was usually fixed by rivets to the flat iron hilt-tongue. The iron or copper alloy fixing rivets could be decorated with rosettes or rhombs. The end of the hilt was covered with an oval cap made of iron, copper alloy or silver sheet.
The blade was protected by a wooden (usually soft wood like lime) scabbard covered with leather, the cross section of which was usually similar to that of the blade. It was reinforced by metal bands decorated with stamped gold, silver or copper alloy sheets, with the tip of the scabbard covered with a cylindrical or conical chape.
Similar procedures were used to form a spearhead, but the main difference between their manufacture was in the sequence of these processes: first the blade was forged and only then the socket. The blade was formed by upsetting and drawing down an iron rod, and in the case of winged spearheads the blade could even be pattern welded. One type of Early Avar spearhead is characterised by a connecting chap of hexagonal cross section on the lower part of the blade which was formed by shouldering during which steps were formed by using a scooper.298
The blade and socket of the spearhead could be formed from either a single iron rod or could be made separately. In the first case, the blacksmith, holding the blade with pliers, flattened the rest by hammering it into socket-wings, then bent it by a special method called rolling up, creating the cylindrical or conical socket.2°9 The way of shaping the socket is usually perceptible to the naked eye: sometimes it rested open or it could be clasped together, it could be closed by a ring pulled over the socket or the socket-wings could be bent or hammered onto each other. In come cases this hammering could remove all manufacturing traces. When the socket was fully formed it could be welded to the blade: consequently, the blade could break off from the socket, so the neck of the spearhead would sometimes be reinforced by a pierced (but not bent) ring.
The neck of a javelin could also be twisted,#!° a similar process also being used in the manufacture of socketed arrowheads.
The surface and heat treatments used in the manufacture of spearheads is also similar to that of swords. Metallographic examinations revealed traces of cementation, quench hardening and tempering on Avar-age polearms. The surplus was removed by splitting from the blade by a chisel,”"! then it was flattened and sharpened.
The spearheads were decorated by various methods: the socket was inlaid with gold or silver wires in some cases, and in one case a spearhead’s socket was sweated by copper.?!?
The finished spearhead was fixed to a wooden shaft of circular cross section with pointed end made of hard, but elastic wood (like beech or oak), in some cases it was even riveted to the shaft.
Every manufacturing process will inevitably leave traces on the iron artefacts and some of these are perceptible even on artefacts from archaeological contexts, although the majority of such traces are only accessible through archaeo-metallographic examination. There are several different methods for such analyses which can be usefully divided into two major groups: destructive and non-destructive methods.
Both the composition and structure of these materials can be analysed non-destructively,”1 however, such methods (X-ray emission, spectroscopy, electron microscope) usually examine only one point of the surface and as a result of which provide only very limited information on the metal structure of the artefact. The examination of chemical composition can be gravimetric, using weighing, or polarometric, using spectroscopy. Both methods can be used for iron artefacts: the phosphore (P) and mangane (Mn) content could be detected gravimetrically, while its nickel (Ni) and copper (Cu) content by polarometric methods.?!#
Analyses based on radiation could offer relevant information on the material structure of the artefacts, like cT or X-ray.”!5 Pattern welding,”!® inner fractures and welding traces can be detected by X-ray.
The destructive methods can provide greater information on the material structure of the artefacts: the forging and the quality of iron. These examinations include sampling and microscopic analysis (magnification of 6—-10x) of the polished sample. This phase can reveal non-metallic particles, while the metallic structure of the sample is examined, after etching the surface with acid,?!” by a metal microscope (magnification of 50-500x).7!8 The composition, bending and surface treatment of an iron artefact can be identified using these methods.
Some destructive analyses of pattern welding do not include sampling: former sword blades were etched by acid, destroying the high-carbon steel parts of the blade.” A German archaeologist, Stefan Mader presented a traditional method of Japanese sword polishers: he polished the whole surface of sword blade making its original pattern visible. Unfortunately the width and quality of intact iron core of ancient weapons cannot be estimated by the naked eye, and it cannot be used on fully corroded iron artefacts, a particular disadvantage of the method for achaeologists.?7°
3.3 Chronology and Distribution
The two main coordinates for archaeology are chronology and geographical location of artefacts: using these factors every artefact or context can be located on a coordinate system making them suitable for answering further questions. In what follows, the various chronological methods used in Avar archaeology will be presented.
One of the basic relative chronological methods is typochronology: the premise of this method is of a linear development between types leading from simple to more complex forms in an evolutionary sense. Typology, mainly its initial phase, and predicated on Darwinist principles, is the archaeological application of this evolutionism.” This method was used for establishing chronologies based along evolutionary lines, although much data contradicts a unilinear development, and as a result of which typochronology is best used only in combination with other independent methods: the study of archaeological context, combination statistics or stratigraphy.
The examination of artefact combinations like seriation is a higher level of relative chronology although its wider use came as a result of the application of computers in archaeology. The method is based on a forced sequencing of artefact combinations (such as burial assemblages). However, the start and end point of the examination, together with the input data, is always determined by the researcher, a subjective factor in this method. It is important to note that the result of seriation is only as trustworthy as the input data: the primary processing of artefacts (classification) is therefore of great importance.
Seriation is mainly useful for processing large numbers of assemblages (mainly burials) furnished with several artefacts, thereby reducing the statistical margin of error. One excellent example for the application of this method is the monograph on the Pleidelsheim cemetery in which Ursula Koch seriated a large number of Merovingian burials creating a chronological scheme for south Germany in the Merovingian period.
The chronological limits of the present study are framed by the migration and settling of the Avars in the Carpathian Basin (567—568)??3 and their disappearence from written sources during the first half of gth century.2?+ The weapons of the Carolingian culture in the western periphery of the area are not studied, since they mainly belong to the second half of the 9th century and as the heritage of Frankish colonisation they cannot be considered as a continuation of the Avar tradition.?25
The chronology of the Avar Age is basically historical,2?® as a number of chronological markers can be related to historical events, some of which (like the arrival of the Avars in the Carpathian Basin) cannot be overlooked although the intention is to use periods and phases based strictly on archaeological sources.
The Avar Age can be periodised relatively easily due to the great number of richly furnished burial assemblages. The ‘Avar’ archaeological culture of the 7th—8th century Carpathian Basin was closely connected to neighbouring cultures (western: Merovingian and early Carolingian; eastern: Eastern European steppes; southern, Mediterranean: Byzantium and Italy). In what follows, the Avar chronology will also be examined in its external connections, by relating the internal chronology of the ‘Avar’ culture to neighbouring chronological systems.
The chronological framework of the Avar Age is its tripartite subdivision into Early, Middle and Late phases known also as the Early, Middle and Late Avar period. This periodisation is based on the typochronological examination of certain artefacts types (mainly ornamented belt sets and jewellery), their context and combination (seriation), and by horizontal stratigraphical analyses of cemeteries with several burials.
The periodisation of the Avar Age was one of the major tasks of Hungarian archaeology from its positivist, historicizing beginnings: these early studies dividing it into two phases, however, the right sequence of belt sets with stamped and casted belt mounts, upon which these phases were based, only became evident during the 1930s.2?” The chronological group with belt mounts stamped of metal sheets was first subdivided by Gyula Laszld,?8 followed by Dezsé Csallany who created the basis for a separate ‘Middle Avar phase’ dated between 680 and 720 and linked to Onogur Bulgar immigration.279
This tripartite periodisation became a coherent system with the analysis of the great Avar cemetery near Alattyan by Ilona Kovrig who divided these phases based on the typology of various artefacts and elements of burial rite.2°° She used coin-dated burials and analogies from neighbouring regions (like Merovingian chronology)?*! in creating the absolute chronology of the Avar Age.?32 She emphasised the continuity between the Early and Middle phases, and dated the beginning of the Late phase to the 680s.
Besides chronological and interpretative problems of the Middle Avar phase, the reason for change at the beginning of the Late Avar phase was also a matter of some debate: with two possible reasons for the spread of bronze casting, being of either Byzantine?** origin or as a consequence of the migration of an eastern steppe nomadic group,?*° while the later research also supposed a fashion change within the continuous population.?%°
Istvan Bona played an important role in the research of Avar archaeology, wherein he reconsidered the chronological questions of the ‘Middle Avar period’ in an article on the burial from Ivancsa, and dated its beginning to the 670s based on the so-called coin imitations and the lack of Byzantine coins.29”
Eva Garam offered new arguments concerning the detailed chronology of the Avar Age, in particular the study of various aspects of the chronology of the ‘Middle phase’,?38 and later by the analysis of the horizontal stratigraphy of the large cemetery at Tiszafitred—Majoros, which contained 1282 burials, creating a robust basis for the subdivision of the Late phase.?9 An important step in creating the absolute chronology of the Avar Age was the examination of coin-dated burials.?4°
The chronological contributions of Falko Daim are important from a methodological point of view, since he combined the methods of horizontal stratigraphy and combination statistics in the publication of the Sommerein cemetery, and distinguished four steps for establishing a chronology:1. creating types (classification), 2. seriation, 3. mapping, 4. distinguishing phases of the cemetery with special attention to its demographic features.?4! Daim dated the beginning of the Middle Avar phase to the middle of the 7th century.?*4 This chronological model was finally elaborated on in the publication of the cemetery from Leobersdorf.243 According to his view the great number of Middle phase burials suggests a timespan of about 60 years.24
Among statistical methods, seriation was used for subdividing these three phases by the analysis of belt sets. An example of such studies is that of Peter Stadler who divided the Avar Age into 30 year periods.2*° The method was also used by Jozef Zabojnik for analysing belt sets from Avar-age cemeteries of Slovakia and as a result of which he distinguished four sub-phases of the Late phase,246 which could be paralleled by the phases of Falko Daim and Eva Garam. Later on Zabojnik used the results of this seriation for horizontal stratigraphical analyses of Avar cemeteries from the northern periphery of the Avar Qaganate.”47
Besides the abovementioned chronological summaries, examination of several artefact types is of considerable benefit to chronology, like those of Eva Garam,*8 Gabor Kiss?#9 and Béla Miklés Sz6ke.
The chronology of the Avar Age became an international reference point for early medieval studies in drawing comparisons with Merovingian archaeology, such as those by Frauke Stein and Max Martin. Stein aimed to identify the archaeological heritage of 8th century ‘nobility’ in Germany,*! and therefore she mainly focused on chronological links between the Late Avar and late Merovingian—early Carolingian periods.*5? Max Martin made some notes on Avar chronology in relation to the Kérnye cemetery”? and on inlayed iron belt-sets of the Kélked A cemetery.75+ Martin's chronology was based on the belt-sets from male burials, which, according to this view, are chronologically parallel in the Merovingian area and Avar Qaganate, and therefore dated the beginning of Middle phase to 630s. He associated the burials of the Bécsa horizon with its first sub-phase.”55
Avar chronology also attracted the attention of Soviet archaeologists. Anatolij Konstantinovich Ambroz tried to create a uniform chronological system for early medieval Eastern Europe by synchronizing various local chronological schemes using the Crimea and Carpathian Basin as starting points.?56 Although his system is much debated,?%” it was the first chronological overview of Eastern Europe on a wider scale. He was followed in this approach by his student Igor Gavritukhin: he first surveyed the Eastern European chronology in his study on the Gaponovo hoard, which comprised a part of the Martynovka horizon,?°® and later paralleled the Middle phase of the Avar Age with early Khazar archaeology.”59 Similarly to Max Martin he considered that the Bocsa — Pereshchepina horizon belonged to the Middle phase, beginning in 620—30s, while the chronological horizon known as ‘Igar — Ozora — Dunapentele’, traditionally accepted as ‘Middle Avar’, represented only the second half of his Middle Avar period.
All of the aforementioned opinions amply demonstrate the unresolved nature of a number of problems concerning the chronology of the Avar Age.
In what follows, the chronological position of certain weapons will be determined by their burial context (other grave goods) and their horizontal stratigraphic position in the cemetery. Unfortunately, in many cases there is insufficient archaeological data available, since a number of artefacts are not useful for dating, and where in the case of a number of sites horizontal stratigraphic examination or cemetery plans are not available, as well as some cemeteries being unsuitable due to their being incompletely researched or having a low number of graves. The tripartite division of the Avar Age will be applied with chronological boundaries established around 650 (Early—Middle transition) and 700/710 (Middle—Late transition). In some cases even stages (subphases) were distinguished, such as in the case of Early and Middle phases, where two stages have been identified, while in the Late Avar period three stages have been used in accordance with Eva Garam?6! and Falko Daim.262 Finer chronological distinctions were not utilised, following the methodological warnings of Heiko Steuer concerning those established on the basis of the timespan between the date of manufacture, use and deposition.2®
Chorology examines the spatial, geographical distribution of artefacts. Distribution maps showing various artefact types became popular in archaeological research for identifying archaeological cultures with ethnic groups, though it has long been evident that mapping of single finds or their combinations is insufficient for such purposes. Distribution maps are thus mainly used for examining the origin and workshops of particular artefacts or for detecting regional phenomena (like burial rites, etc.).
The interpretation of these distribution maps has a number of difficulties: spatial distribution of artefact types depends on depositional rules, whereby their different nature can distort results. The various approaches taken in research or presentation of different regions can result in significant differences, even in regions using the same burial rite.
The names of various regions of the Carpathian Basin are frequently used in the present study, and therefore their presentation is important so that the reader has a clear idea of what is meant by each of them (map 1). The Carpathian or Pannonian Basin is a region enclosed by the Carpathians around the middle reaches of the Danube river. Its hydrographics is dominated by two rivers, the Danube and its tributary the Tisza, while their tributaries play a considerable role in dividing up regions in the area.
The central part of the Carpathian Basin can be divided into two parts: Transdanubia and the Great Hungarian Plain. Transdanubia, the former Roman province of Pannonia, lies west of the Danube (being today the western half of Hungary), and is characterised by a hilly landscape with the main lake in this region, the Balaton, dividing this area into northern and southern parts. The Great Hungarian Plain is the lowland area in the eastern part of Hungary, along with Vojvodina and Banat in Serbia, the western edge of Romania, Eastern Slovakia and Southwestern Ukraine, which incorporates the Danube-Tisza interfluve with its sand dunes, including Backa (Bacska) and the Transtisia region east of the Tisza river, including Banat. The lowlands north of the Danube were settled only during the Middle and Late Avar phase and are the northern continuation of the Little Hungarian Plain (Kisalf6ld), today known as Southwestern Slovakia. The Transylvanian Plateau is a special part of the Carpathian Basin enclosed by mountains (Carpathians and Apuseni Mountains). The settlements of the Avar population in the area probably occured only during the 7th century, while formerly it was populated by the Gepids. Most of the known sites of the region were found in the valley of the Mures (Maros) river.
3.4 Armament and Society
Elements of early medieval armament are mainly known from burial assemblages, therefore their examination is inseparable from the analyses of cemeteries. Two main approaches are known in the social interpretation of weapons: the Anglo-American and German (Continental) schools. In spite of similarities, these schools developed parallel to one another without communication between them.?®+ Hungarian and East-Central European archaeology in general was mainly influenced by the Continental (German) school for political and linguistic reasons, while Anglo-American archaeological theories have had almost no impact on Hungarian early medieval archaeology.
Three main approaches exist for the social analysis of cemeteries and the examination of weapon combinations: 1. qualitative, 2. quantitative and 3. multi-dimensional.?® All three aproaches are used in Avar archaeology parallel to various international trends as mainly influenced by developments in German archaeology.
The premise of the qualitative approach is that the grave goods reflect the legal and social status of the deceased, with the weapons buried in the grave reflecting their original armament. This approach was applied by Heiko Steuer in German archaeological research on weapon combinations, which were regarded as a direct reflection of personal armament.2®° A more developed form of the qualitative approach was taken by Rainer Christlein who classified burials into three quality groups (A—C) based on the grave goods, and drew direct correlations with the wealth of the deceased which according to his view was equal to their legal status (free, half-free, slave).2®’ A similar position is also found within British research: Chadwick Hawkes linked some weapon types with social stratification,?6° while Leslie Alcock created a system of quality levels and, similar to Christlein’s view, identified it with specific social strata.269
The premise of the quantitative school was that a quantative analysis of burial rites would directly reflect the organisation of the complex societies upon which they are based. This approach has two levels, whereby such an analysis can be applied on a local level, such as to a cemetery, or on a regional (even interregional) level. Quantitative analyses in British research were made by Chris J. Arnold who studied weapon combinations and weapon numbers?”° and John F. Shephard who analysed Anglo-Saxon burial mounds.?” In Avar archaeology quantitative methods were applied by Jozsef Szentpéteri and Jozef Zabojnik who both used weapon numbers and statistics for examining social stratification.?”
Multi-dimensional analysis is a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, examining the role of a burial assemblage in the context of an ancient society at a communal or regional level,?” an example of which is the monograph by Heinrich Harke on Anglo-Saxon weapon burials.?
A significant question is whether or not such weapon combinations found in burial assemblages reflect the armament, social or legal status of the deceased. Some researchers remain optimistic in believing that the combina-tion of weapons are representative of the armament and even social position of the person buried.?” Others even suggest that these weapon combinations represent a fighting method and can be interpreted functionally.?”° Besides the armament, social hierarchy and fighting methods, several other factors could influence the deposition of weapons in burials, like burial rite, the age of the deceased, their role in the community and the ideology of the society.?”” The most important factor in the examination of Avar-age weapons is that the vast majority are found in burials,?”8 which represents intentional deposition, reflecting either the intentions of the buried person or rather the community organizing the funeral.?’9
The quality, combination and quantity of the weapons deposited in a grave are the results of a burial rite. Weapons could be treated variously, they could be deposited intact or injured, deformed, fragmented or re-heated. Deposition of a whole armament is impossible for various reasons like size,28° value?*! or inheritance of the fighting equipment. Weapons were mainly deposited as symbols in graves, as represented by the armour lamellae deposited as amulets in some female burials.28* Weapons could symbolise power, wealth and protection, their great value could show the richness of their owner and indirectly their social position.?®? As later medieval examples show, weapons could be used during coronation or investiture, like Saint Stephan’s sword in Prague,?°* the ‘sabre of Vienna’®> and ‘Holy Lance’ for German-Roman emperor,?°® or Saint Steven's spear (LANCEA REGIS).?8” The use of spears as royal symbols is well known from the early medieval Lombards, and according to the description of Paulus Diaconus it was used as an investiture symbol during the coronation of kings.288
The social interpretation of weapons is particularly problematic and only the exact context of the buried weapon can reveal its original meaning in ancient society.
3.5 Methods of Data Collection
The present volume is based on the edged weapons and polearms studied from several museums in the Carpathian Basin, which were partly published in various monographs and journals, but which largely remained unpublished.89 Unfortunately not all weapons studied in this volume could be examined personally, partly because of their destruction during World War 11, when the collections of several museums were lost or destroyed,?°° and also because of limited time and travel opportunities.
Some previously published studies and overviews on Avar weaponry were of great help in establishing a data collection of edged weapons and polearms. The first such overview of Avar polearms was made by Ilona Kovrig in 1955,29! a general summary of Avar weapons was made in the Mastey’s thesis of Attila Kiss from 1962,29? and Laszlé Simon surveyed early Avar swords.293 During this work, archival sources were of considerable use, the notes of Janos Kalmar (manuscript) were particularly invaluable because it preserved data from swords already lost or destroyed during World War 11,2%4 and the notes and drawings of Laszlé Kovacs were especially valuable for the study of sabres.29° I am much indebted to Jozsef Szentpéteri, whose gathering of information on Avar weapon burials for his Candidate thesis?9° and his cadastre of sites (ADAM) represents an especially important source of data. During my work all previously mentioned data was checked and completed if possible.
Altogether 1,189 burials with edged weapons and/or polearms were known from the Avar-age Carpathian Basin by 2009. The number of close-combat weapons almost doubled in the last few decades due to intensive excavation and publication activity.29” Jozsef Szentpéteri in 1993 listed only 131 edged weapons from the Early phase and 182 from the second half of the Avar Age (Middle and Late phase), while he listed 103 polearms from the Early and 97 from the Middle and Late phase.?9* Upon completion of my doctoral thesis in 2009, the total number of edged weapons was found to be: Early phase: 273, Middle phase: 128 and Late phase: 188 examples. During the last few years this number has increased further, and now altogether 704 edged weapons are known from the Avar Age, 315 of which are dated to the Early phase, 162 to the Middle phase and 188 to the Late phase. The number of polearms known was: Early phase 308, Middle 39 and Late phase 176 examples.?°° Several new polearms have been found and published after finishing the thesis, therefore this work is based on 658 polearms, the chronological division of which is the following: 407 examples are dated to the Early phase (map 2), 39 to the Middle phase (map 3) and 200 to the Late phase (map 4). The increasing number of known weapons inevitably improves the representativity of the conclusions drawn from their analysis.
The collection of weapons presented is still not complete as a consequence of limited access to the artefacts themselves, in some cases the finds not having been inventoried or restored, while some artefacts known from literature are lost from museum collections. It is important to note that the number of excavated, restored and published pieces is constantly rising, and it is impossible to get information on all examples, despite attempts to do so.
The examination of early medieval weapons is problematic for various reasons: iron corrosion causes damage to the artefacts, although their state depends on the actual soil, humidity, methods of conservation and circumstances of deposition.2°° Unfortunately several already restored iron artefacts are re-corroded, in several cases due to the scale-shaped or lamellar corrosion destroying their original surface, therefore available archival photographs and drawings for these artefacts were used because of their changing condition.
The conservation and inventory methods are usually not standardised across East-Central Europe, causing distortions: most of the wooden scabbards were restored on the blades hiding the blade itself and providing information only regarding the former. These were not commonly examined botanically and therefore it is very important to distinguish blades with or without wooden scabbards showing their state of visibility.
Scientific examination is increasingly important for archaeological research, therefore available results from metallographic,3°! botanical (wood of the hilt, scabbard or shaft), zoological (in the case of horse burials) and anthropological (age, sex and health condition of the deceased) examinations were used for exploiting ‘hidden’ information.
The catalogue of artefacts upon which this volume is based was originally made as a Microsoft Access database containing the description, size, type of weapon, rite of the burial, other grave goods helping the dating, anthropological data of the deceased, and results of scientific examinations, which was then converted into a Microsoft Word document which made up one volume of the original doctoral thesis. As a consequence of its large extents, only parts of it are cited in the present study, such as the site, grave number, type, dating and literature for the cited artefacts, while more voluminous descriptions are omitted. Distribution maps for most of the types were created by open-source online programs like ‘GPSvisualizer’ and ‘ESRI ArcGis Explorer’.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق