6 CHAPTER 1
is the formation and evolution of sabres and the analysis of their early
forms.16
As well as typology, the study of associated assemblages and their context
play a significant role in the study of these weapons.17 Although several writ-
ers emphasize that the combination of weapons deposited in burials does not
reflect directly original armament, some weapon types can allow us to infer
fighting methods indirectly.18 Such investigations are also closely linked to a
social analysis of burials with weapons,19 which leads to the study of other
early medieval Carpathian Basin, which already started in the late 19th and early 20th
century with the activity of Béla Pósta (1905), and was continued by Gyula László (1955)
and Nándor Fettich (1926a, 1–14; Fettich 1937; Fettich 1951) between the two World Wars.
Due to the political changes after World War II Hungary became part of the Eastern bloc,
which partly facilitated institutional cooperation between the socialist countries and
the Soviet Union, but which led to an overemphasis on the study of Slavic archaeology.
Eastern influences on Avar archaeological heritage were addressed in two monographs in
very different ways: István Erdélyi, as a pupil of M.I. Artamonov, a leading Soviet scholar
of early medieval archaeology, was a representative of the ‘traditionalist school’ arguing
that almost every element of ‘Avar’ material culture originated in the East (Inner Asia
or Eastern Europe) (Erdélyi 1982), while Csanád Bálint, with his French education and
wide-ranging interest from the Sassanians to Byzantium, drew attention to the local
and Byzantine elements of Avar culture (Bálint 1989). Interpretations of Avar archaeol-
ogy often cite Eastern analogies (mainly without context) for single artefacts, like reed-
shaped spearheads (Kovrig 1955a, Kovrig 1955b), sabres (Garam 1979, Garam 1991a),
lamellar armour (Bóna 1980, 31–95), ring-pommel swords (Mesterházy 1987, 219–245) and
Early Avar swords in general (Simon 1991).
16 Three main approaches exist in the research of sabres: the Russian school focused on the
form of the blade, mainly in its curvature (Merpert 1955; Pletneva 1973; Kyzlasov 2008,
75; Kochkarov 2008), the second emphasizing the false edge as the sabre’s main attribute
(Bálint 1992, 338–341; Bálint 1995a, 65–67), while the third mainly focussed upon its cross-
guard (Garam 1991a, 157–160).
17 The study of weapon combinations was largely characteristic of German research, which
tended to draw conclusions concerning social, legal status and armament based on sta-
tistical analyses (Werner 1968, 95–108; Steuer 1968, 18–87; Steuer 1970, 348–383; Hübener
1977, 510–527; Härke 1992; Siegmund 2000; Reiß 2007, 211–244). This quantitative method
was used even in the early medieval archaeology of the Carpathian Basin by József
Szentpéteri (1993, 165–246; Szentpéteri 1994, 231–306) and Jozef Zábojník (1995, 205–336).
18 For these methodological debates see the footnote No. 5.
19 Three main approaches exist for the social interpretation of burial assemblages: quanti-
tative, qualitative and mulitlinear methods (Härke 1989; Härke 1992, 23). The quantita-
tive approach seeks to conclude social differences from measurable aspects of artefacts,
while the qualitative considers the social or behavioural aspects related to artefacts (see
the ‘quality groups’ of Christlein 1973, 147–180). The multilinear approach emphasizes the