Avar-Age Polearms and Edged Weapons. Classification, Typology, Chronology and Technology

(Nandana) #1

Edged Weapons 225


phase by their belt-sets,208 the chronology of these finds and their geographi-


cal position emphasising the continuity between the Early and Middle phases.


The heavy variant is a characteristic weapon of the Middle phase,209 and


remained in use until the beginning of the Late phase. A good example of these


heavy broad seaxes was found in grave No. 20 at Solymár (fig. 83/4), equipped


a with crossguard of pentagonal cross section, cast of copper alloy, and with a


narrow groove on its blade,210 the a short hilt.211 A direct analogy of this cross-


guard was found in grave No. 221 at Záhorská Bystrica212 and Zagreb–Kruge.213


The seax of Solymár is dated to the second half of the Middle phase by the


belt-set and horse harness in the burial.214


208 The seax from Kölked is dated by a three-part belt-set made of iron with inlaid decoration
to the first third of the 7th century (Kiss 1996, 91. 205. 211), and is therefore contemporary
with Merovingian weapons of similar type (Christlein 1966; Ament 1976, 335; Martin 1989,
65–70; Martin 1996, 346–350). The seax from Szekszárd is dated by its U-shaped broad
strap-end made of silver foil to the border of Early and Middle phase (middle of the 7th
century. (Rosner 1999, 49. for the chronology of these strap-ends: (Rácz 1999, 365). The
weapon of grave No. 7 from Csolnok is dated to the Early phase, too (Erdélyi 1988, 193).
209 Bratislava–Devinska Nová Ves–A–Tehel’ňa grave No. 124 (Eisner 1952, 41–42, Obr. 19/5);
Bratislava–Devinska Nová Ves–A–Tehel’ňa grave No. 124 (Eisner 1952, 41–42, Obr. 19/5);
Kehidakustyán–Kehida, Központi Tsz-major grave No. 10 (Szőke 2002, 77, 9/d); Solymár–
Dinnye-hegy grave No. 20 (Török 1994, 10. 31. Taf. IX/1); Sommerein am Leithagebirge grave
No. 74/A (Daim – Lippert 1984, 47, 231, Taf. 50/10); Želovce grave No. 311 (Čilinská 1973, 91,
Taf. LII/23); Zillingtal grave No. D-451 (Daim 1998, 102, 108. Taf. 14/1).
210 Török 1994, 10. 31. Taf. IX/1.
211 Gyula Török (1994, 31. 62. jegyzet) explained the shortness of the hilt in terms of its func-
tion as a prestige object, since he supposed that it could not be used as weapon. This
interpretation is uncertain because of the weapons fragmentary state. However, the hilt
of this weapon was surely shorter than the usual broad seaxes of the Merovingian west
(Wernard 1998, 778).
212 L’udmila Kraskovská (1972, 42. 78. Obr. 44) supposed that the hilt of the weapon ended
in a knob, although the iron rod with the spherical knob is probably a part of a double-
hammer (the so-called’fokos’ in Hungarian).
213 Vinski 1960, 52.
214 The burial is dated by a strap-end stamped of silver foil with rhombic glass inlay, phalerae
stamped of gold foil, and stirrup with straight sole (Török 1994, 31).

Free download pdf