2 CHAPTER 1
Carolingian sources.3 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 equip-
ment of the deceased individuals.4
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,5 can refer to the fighting equipment, social, financial or legal
status of the buried person.6
3 For sources on the Avars, see: Szádeczky-Kardoss 1992, while the most detailed discussion is
in Pohl 2002, 4–10. Modern historians often reproduce biases inherent in such sources, see
Sinor 1981, 133–134. Theodore Synkellos, who witnessed the Avar siege of Constantinople in
626, described the Avars as people ‘whose life is war’ (Makk 1975, 16, 78).
4 Researchers disagree about the utility of weapons and weapon combinations found in graves
for the reconstruction of original armament. According to a view the weapons buried in
graves can be used directly for the reconstruction of such armament: Steuer 1968, 18–87;
Steuer 1970, 352–353. reconstructed the history of early medieval armament using primarily
archaeological finds. Frank Siegmund (2000, 177–194) separated functional groups based on
combinations of weapons using statistical methods, while Robert Reiß (2007) examined the
relationship of close and distant combat based on these weapon combinations. It is already
evident that the weapon burial rite was influenced by several factors besides armament
and fighting methods. Heinrich Härke (1992; Härke 1997, 119–127) combined the interpre-
tive methods of the Continental (German) and Anglo-Saxon schools and proposed a novel
approach to Anglo-Saxon burials with weapons. His student, Howard Williams (2005, 264–
265) similarly emphasised the commemorative function of these weapons using the same set
of data.
5 Burial contexts would have depended on the intentions of at least three decision makers: the
will of the deceased, the will of the family, and the customs of the community. For the defini-
tion of ‘intentional data’, see Härke 1993, 141–46. A cautionary tale for illustrating why such
weapon combinations should not be used for the reconstruction of the original armament
is a burial from Szentes–Derekegyháza, in which a shield boss (umbo) was deposited in a
partial horse burial together with archery equipment (Csallány 1939, 116–119), a combination
of weapons that is unlikely to have been functional.
6 An optimistic approach to the reconstruction of armament is that of Heiko Steuer (1968,
18–87; Steuer 1970, 348–383), while Heinrich Härke (1992) and Anne Nørgård Jørgensen (1997,
149–163; Jørgensen 1999, 15–18) are more sceptical. The social implications of this armament
are discussed in Heiko Steuer 1982 and Steuer 1987, 189–236. Sebastian Brather (2004b, 1–58)
studied the relationship between the age of the deceased and the grave goods. The relation
between the legal status and these weapon burials is a well studied field in German archae-
ology. Heiko Steuer (1968, 28–39) studied the armament in relation to law (‘Volksrecht’).
Similarly Dagmar Hüpper-Dröge (1981, 106–127) studied the weapons and defensive armour