Armament and Cavalry Warfare in the Avar-Age Carpathian Basin 397
The significance (role) of the heavy cavalry continuously decreased during
the Avar Age, reflected in the change from lamellar armour to chainmail.50 The
narrow conical spearheads also probably became more widespread as a reac-
tion to this change in defensive armoury.
The use of the great lenticular spearheads presupposed a completely dif-
ferent fighting method, since their long and thin blade could not withstand a
heavy frontal attack, as a result of which the blade could break or be deformed.
Some traces suggest such damage to flat lenticular spearheads with curved
blades, like in the case of the spearheads from grave No. 778 at Budakalász–
Dunapart, 67 of Gyód51 and from grave No. 443 at Kölked–Feketekapu B.52
The socket of this spear type is always closed, offering stability against lat-
eral forces. The roughly 20 cm long edges of the blade were suitable for using
it for cutting.53 The socket of these lenticular spearheads is much narrower
than that of the reed-shaped examples, meaning that the diameter of their
shaft was smaller and therefore more fragile. All these indications suggest its
use in infantry combat. The shaft length of the Byzantine infantry spears was
around 2–3 m according to Byzantine written sources.54 This type is mainly
known from the Merovingian cemeteries of Transdanubia and it was often
combined with an umbo, and therefore it can rightly be described as polearm
of the Germanic troops fighting in the Avar army.55
The smaller version of these lenticular spearheads (P.III/1.b) had an
extremely narrow socket, also suggesting a narrow and fragile shaft. This
weapon type was usually deposited in pairs, their weight being much lower
than other spearheads, and therefore this type can be identified as a throwing
weapon or javelin.56 This suggestion is supported by the Strategy of Maurice
who described Slavic warriors with two or three javelins.57 This weapon type
is only known from Early phase Transdanubia, though it is also known from a
Gepidic cemetery of the second half of the 6th century near the Tisza river.58
The ethnic interpretation of this type cannot be readily proven.
50 Csallány 1972. For the chainmail of the Late phase see Garam (1995, 354).
51 Kiss 1977, Pl. IX. 5.
52 Kiss 2001, II. 96, Taf. 82/ 4.
53 Similar traces were observed on the spearheads of Nydam by Andreas Gundelwein (1994,
328, 333).
54 Kolias 1988, 186–187, 192–193.
55 Kiss 1992; Kiss 1999/2000.
56 Sós – Salamon 1995, 72.
57 For the accounts of Maurice and John of Ephesus see Zásterová (1971, 78).
58 Grave No. 43 at Kisköre–Papp tanya (Bóna – Nagy 2002, 194; Taf. 29/6–7).