4 CHAPTER 1
of Avar-age material culture, ranging from the Merovingian west to the vast
steppe lands of Eurasia.
1 Objectives
The original objective of the doctoral research, upon which the present book
is based, was to create a complete database of the polearms (pointed weap-
ons with a long wooden shaft)8 and edged weapons (weapons with a long iron
blade used both for cutting and thrusting)9 from the settlement area of the
Avars (i.e. the Avar Qaganate) for the whole duration of the Avar Age (from
568 AD to the first half of the 9th century). This database served as the basis
for classifying these artefacts, examining their typological development and
offering a chronology by the study of accompanying grave goods10 or from the
stratigraphy of the cemeteries in which they occur.11 The chronology of these
weapons is also compared with the chronological schemes of neighbouring
areas beyond the Carpathian Basin. The distribution of polearms and edged
weapons by types and variants have been mapped in order to reveal regional
groups or—in some cases—even workshop traditions.12
A primary aim of this study is to outline the cultural contacts of the
various weapon types outside the Carpathian Basin and to provide their
8 ‘Stichwaffen’ or ‘Stangenwaffen’ in German and ‘древковое оружие’ in Russian.
9 ‘Hiebwaffen’, ‘Blankwaffen’ or ‘Klingenwaffen’ in German, ‘cutting-weapons’, ‘edged weapons’
or ‘blade weapons’ in English and ‘клинковое оружие’ in Russian.
10 The chronology of the Avar age and its weapons is based on coin-dated burial assem-
blages (Garam 1992, 135–250; for the method known as coin-mirror (‘Münzspiegel’) see:
Martin 2008, 162–163) and the typochronology and seriation of multi-part belt sets (for
seriation: Stadler 1993, 445–457; Stadler 1985; Zábojník 1991, 219–321; for typochronology:
Garam 1999/2000, 379–391; Garam 2001, 114–157).
11 Several Avar cemeteries were examined by horizontal stratigraphical methods: Alattyán-
Tulát (Böhme 1965), Devínska Nová Ves (Keller – Bierbrauer 1965, 377–397), Žitavska
Tôň (Zábojník 1985, 329–345), Štúrovo (Wiedermann 1985, 347–378), Sommerein am
Leithagebirge (Daim – Lippert 1984), Leobersdorf (Daim 1987), Tiszafüred (Garam 1995),
Kölked–Feketekapu B (Kiss 2001).
12 The spatial distribution and mapping of artefacts are crucial in spite of their distorting
factors. Several examples attest that the areas with the highest number of artefacts are not
necessarily the production zones: most of the 11th century sword blades with ‘VLFBERTH’
inscriptions are found in Scandinavia, while these artefacts were manufactured in work-
shops along the Rhine (Eggert 2005, 270–271).