Introduction 11
As a result of its geographical situation in the Carpathian Basin, Hungary
played a leading role in the study of Avar archaeology, but important research
was also conducted in neighbouring countries such as Slovakia,42 Austria43
and the former Yugoslavia.44 A particularly significant survey of the northern
periphery of the Avar Qaganate was undertaken by Jozef Zábojník, who like
József Szentpéteri, had made a general survey of all burials with horses, weap-
ons and ornamented belts from Avar-age cemeteries situated in Slovakia and
Austria.45
Besides these general summaries, important studies have also been made
of particular artefact types: ring-pommel swords46 and Early Avar swords47 by
László Simon, double-edged swords of the Merovingian type (spathae), sock-
eted arrowheads and shield bosses (umbones) by Attila Kiss.48 Although the
number of weapons found in burials has increased significantly, these surveys
remain useful aids for anyone studying this period in the Carpathian Basin.
2.2 Classification and Typology
Significant developments have been made in the study of classification and
typology of Avar-age weaponry. However, these results mostly refer to weap-
ons from a single site and as a consequence of their different methods used
are difficult to compare. The early medieval archaeology of the Carpathian
Basin is characterised by terminological confusion with respect to the distinc-
tion between classification and typology: the term typology was used as a sub-
stitute for classification.49 A characteristic feature of earlier studies was that
weapons were primarily classified by their secondary attributes (suspension
42 Zábojník 2004a.
43 Heinz Winter (1997) compiled the cadaster of Avar age sites in Upper-Austria
(Oberösterreich).
44 Two similar works has been written in the former Yugoslavia: Dmitrijević – Kovačević –
Vinski 1962; Mrkobrad 1980.
45 Zábojník 1995, 205–336.
46 László Simon (1983) tried to find analogies for the sword of Nagykőrös found in 1981 in his
monograph.
47 The work by László Simon (1991) based on his candidate’s thesis defended in 1986 on the
Early Avar swords mentioned 192 edged weapons, which was a complete survey of this
artefact type.
48 Attila Kiss (1992, 35–134) used this survey for the ethnic identification of the Gepidic pop-
ulation resettled by the Avars from the Great Hungarian Plain to Eastern Transdanubia.
49 The classification arranges the artefacts based on their formal attributes (‘Merkmal’ in
German, ‘признак’ in Russian), while the typology examines the links between the types
and intends to show trends in their development.