Edged Weapons 153
weapon mentioned in the literature has been listed in the catalogue, although
some remain unpublished or are known only from short excavation reports.
Some weapons cannot be found even in the museums where they were known
to be stored, while others appear to not to have been inventoried in their
respective collections.2 A number of insecure finds have also been included in
the catalogue.3 Ultimately, only 582 edged weapons (82.67%) were suitable for
classification based on the morphology of the blade.
The classification of these blades is often hindered by the remains of the
wooden scabbard having been restored on the blade. Fortunately, the width
and cross section of the wooden scabbard can help to determine whether the
blade was single- or double-edged. However, exact metrical data and the cross
section of the blade itself cannot be determined in such cases.
1 Classification of Edged Weapons
The doctoral thesis of László Simon4 was of great help during the writing of
this chapter, though his classification and original find numbering has not
been followed. Most significant is Simon’s suggestion that there is a general
tendency in the Early Avar period for development from double-edged to
single-edged blades, and therefore the study of these weapons should logically
begin with the chronologically earlier double-edged blades. However, whilst
Simon’s main typological attribute was the combination of blade and cross-
guard, in this study the main attribute is just the blade, the crossguard being
used only for further subdivision. Although the hilt is not part of the blade,
the double- and single-edged blades were also sub-divided into ring-pommel
1378–1379) depicted in Fettich (1943, Pl. 401–478) are probably the swords from grave No. 484
and 494 (Börzsönyi 1905, 20–22; Fettich 1943, 31).
2 98 (13.88%) edged weapons are only partly published or unpublished. In some cases I used
only weapon lists from unpublished cemeteries withouth further classification: Győr–
Ménfőcsanak, Szekszárd–Tószegi-dűlő, Táp–Borbapuszta, in some cases only the inventory
lists could be used: Hortobágy–Árkus.
3 A part of these was found in old excavations (like the early excavations of Ágost Sőtér from
Edelstal (Nemesvölgy) grave No. 78, 207, 209, 210, 215 and 234 (Sőtér 1886, 329; Sőtér 1898b,
218–220) and Csúny grave No. 4 and 6 (Sőtér 1895, 88–89; Sőtér 1898a, 124–125; Hampel 1905,
II. 141–142, III. Taf. 116. 118), where the author identified small iron pieces as swords, while five
edged weapons were only mentioned by József Szentpéteri (1993), and no other traces could
be found.
4 Simon 1991.