Introduction 3
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 physi-
cal attributes of these weapons would have been crucial for the warrior’s sur-
vival. Although these weapons continued to follow contemporary fashions and
trends, they also drew upon greatest functional efficacy provided by the high-
est level of manufacturing technology of the period. In regard to this, it is also
possible to draw conclusions from the shape, physical attributes and manufac-
turing 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.7
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, chronol-
ogy, 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 ques-
tions relating to the problems discussed above concerning their interpretation,
and to determine the cultural relations of these artefacts and other aspects
based on Frankish legal sources. Ethnic questions related to armament were examined by
Frank Siegmund (2000, 177–194), according to whom it is possible to distinguish between
Franks and Alamans on the basis of statistical analysis of these weapon combinations
and the proportions and quantities of some weapon types. The idea has been rejected by
Sebastian Brather (2000, Brather 2004a) according to whom it is impossible to identify
the ethnic identity of the deceased on the basis of grave goods alone. Robert Reiß (2007)
attempted to reconstruct the original armament using burial data in order to distinguish
functional combinations for close and distant combat, respectively.
7 For the definitions of experimental archaeology see: Coles 1979; Ascher 1961; Fansa 1996,
Fansa 2002. A good example for the contributions made in this field is the study of Holger
Riesch on the archery of the Merovingians which reconstructed bows and examined their
efficacy (2002). Riesch also used metallographic analysis to reconstruct a Merovingian lamel-
lar armour (which is very similar to those in use by Avars) in order to test its defense capabili-
ties against different types of arrowheads (Becker – Riesch 2002, 597–606). The major activity
of experimental archaeology in Hungary was the reconstruction of ‘Avar’ and ‘Magyar’ com-
posite bows (Fábián 1980–81; Szőllőssy 1992, 349–374; Szőllőssy 2001, 275–293; Szőllőssy 2004,
53–61). Much less attention was drawn to close combat weapons, a remarkable exception
being Marcus Junkelmann’s work (1990–92) on Roman cavalry equipment. The most recent
results of Hungarian experimental archaeology are presented by Levente Igaz (2007, 161–169).