Edged Weapons 287
were decorated with various methods: glass inlay (fig. 97/4–6),534 the Animal
Style II (fig. 97/4),535 granulation536 (fig. 97/2–3) and pearl-frame (fig. 97/1–2,
5–6).537 This type of suspension loop was only used on ring-pommel swords
(E.I.C/2.b, E.II.B/2.a–b). The main distribution area was the Danube-Tisza
interfluve and to a lesser extent in the Transtisia region. The type is unknown
from Transdanubia.
These suspension loops are dated to the Early phase. Two coin-dated
burial assemblages are known: the Kunágota burial was dated by a solidus of
Justinian,538 while the hoard of Malaja Pereshchepina is dated by a chain made
of Byzantine solidi, comprised of solidi of Constans II (641–668) which were
minted between 641 and 647.539 This find can be dated to the middle of the 7th
century. The find of Bócsa and its horizon with pseudo-buckles is dated to the
second third of the 7th century, but most researchers regard it as a part of the
Early phase.540
534 Suspension loops of this type were decorated with garnet – (Bócsa: Heinrich-Tamáska
2006a, 94), or greenish blue glass inlay (Kunbábony and Nagykőrös: Heinrich-Tamáska
2006a, 144, 152) in a rhombic shape. Glass inlay decoration can also be observed on the
suspension loop of the sword from Malaja Pereshchepina (Werner 1984a, 26).
535 Bócsa (Fettich 1937, 123, taf. CXIX. 1; Fettich 1951, 71, Taf. LI; László 1955, 228–230, XLIII.
T. 1, 11–12, XLIV–XLV. T. 1–6; Simon 1991, 287, 15. kép 4; Garam 1993, 53–57, Taf. 4–21). For
suspension loops decorated in Animal Style II, see: (Heinrich-Tamáska 2006b, 578).
536 The loop of Kunbábony (H. Tóth – Horváth 1992, 32–34, Taf. V–VIII) was granulated
between the glass inlays, while in the case of Kecel (László 1955, 232–233, fig. 64, LI–LII.
t. LIII. t. 25) and Tiszaalpár (Fettich 1926a, 8. fig. 21; Simon 1991, 307, 15. kép 7) granula-
tion of rhombic shape was observed, a close analogy for which was found in the hoard
at Voznesenka which is dated to the second half of the 7th century (Komar 2006, 96, 131,
Gavritukhin 2005, 406–411; Gavritukhin 2008, 82–85).
537 Kunágota (Garam 1992, 137–138, Taf. 4–5); Kunbábony (H. Tóth – Horváth 1992, 32–34, Taf.
V–VIII); Kecel (László 1955, 232–233, fig. 64, LI–LII. t. LIII. t. 25); Nagykőrös (Simon 1983,
9–43, 6–20, kép, II–VII. t), Malaja Pereshchepina (Werner 1984a, Taf. 29/6; Komar 2006, 22,
Ris. 3/11).
538 The Kunágota burial was dated by a light solidus minted between 545 and 565, this coin
being taken at face value (Bóna 1982–83, 88–89; Garam 1992, 137–138), whilst others have
rejected the chronological value of the Justinian coin and date it to the second half of the
7th century by way of its archaeological context instead (Kiss 1991, 67–84), resulting in
much debate in Avar archaeology (Garam 2001, 123).
539 The Pereshchepina find cointained two coins of Maurice, one of Phocas, six of Heraclius
and Hercalius Constantine (613–631), 41 of Heraclius and Heraclonas (632–641) and 18
Constans II (641–668) (Werner 1984a, 17).
540 Garam 1993a, 25. Some archaeologists already regarded it the beginning of the Middle
phase, though it is merely a terminological issue, since the absolute chronology of the