10 CHAPTER 1
Dezső Csallány, who was the first to discuss Early Avar period swords33 and
reed-shaped spearheads.34 Dezső Csallány also undertook a general survey of
Avar-age sites in the Carpathian Basin creating the first version of ‘ADAM’.35
After World War II, the work by Ilona Kovrig was pre-eminent and resulted
in the formation of a tripartite chronology for the Avar Age.36 Kovrig also
amended Csallány’s list of Early Avar spearheads and offered a very different
interpretation of their origin and deposition.37
Following studies of different weapon types, Avar-age weaponry was stud-
ied by Attila Kiss in 1962 when he completed a list of all of the known Avar-age
weapons, and classified them according to known typologies. He also offered
an historical interpretation of the Avar-age burials with weapons as part of his
unpublished research.38
More recently, a list of Avar-age burials with weapons was compiled by
József Szentpéteri in his Candidate thesis on the social interpretation of Avar-
age burials in 1990, in which he quantitatively studied weapons together with
burials containing horses and multi-part belt sets.39 His research resulted in
the continuation of the work initiated by Dezső Csallány on the database of the
Avar-age sites (ADAM).40 On the basis of this significant research Szentpéteri
wrote a series of topographical and cartographical articles.41
33 Dezső Csallány (1939, 121–180) mentioned 32 swords from the Museum of Szeged in his
paper, with its classification of Early Avar period swords remaining relevant for some
time.
34 Csallány related his survey to an ethnic theory on Kutrigurs of Eastern European origin:
he interpreted spearheads found together with stirrups as sacrificial ‘pyres’ (Csallány 1953,
133–137).
35 Csallány 1956.
36 Kovrig 1963.
37 Ilona Kovrig (1955a, Kovrig 1955b) interpreted these finds as artefacts of Inner Asian ori-
gin and regarded them as the evidence of the first generation of Avars settling in the
Carpathian Basin.
38 Unfortunately the thesis of Attila Kiss (1962) remained unpublished. However, it had a
considerable influence on Hungarian research. Access to this manuscript was gained
thanks to the help of László Kovács, to whom I am deeply indebted.
39 Szentpéteri’s thesis was written in 1990 but was not published until 1993–94, in two parts
(Szentpéteri 1993, 186–189; Szentpéteri 1994, 231–306).
40 The cadaster of Avar sites or ‘ADAM’ has the same title as Csallány’s work (Csallány 1956).
Unfortunately this monumental work recorded Avar age sites only until the end of 1993.
It is hoped that a renewed digital version will eventually become available.
41 Szentpéteri 1995, 239–254; Szentpéteri 1996, 151–165; Szentpéteri 2007, 457–497;
Szentpéteri 2008, 325–346.