Introduction 15
used long before the assumed date for the first appearance of the sabres (670),
and its distribution was not limited to the Steppes but is also well known from
7th century Byzantium, Iran and China.69
A similar approach was used in the case of polearms where the major
concern of classification was the ‘quality’70 and decoration71 of the artefacts,
while the distinction of major blade types, like reed-shaped and broad len-
ticular blades72 was considered sufficient distinction. The first systematic clas-
sification of spearheads was completed in the monograph of the Pókaszepetk
cemetery in which they classified these artefacts into four groups based on
the shape of the blade, then within these groups they distinguished subgroups
by using the proportion of the blade and the socket. This classification was a
huge step towards combination types based on parallel examination of several
attributes.73 As for the Late Avar period (8th–9th centuries), spearheads
were classified into six types based on the form of blade in the publication of
Tiszafüred cemetery by Éva Garam.74
Significant new results in the research of Avar-age polearms were achieved
by a young Slovakian scholar, Martin Husár, whose unpublished Master’s thesis
studied such artefacts from Slovakia: besides a formal classification of deposi-
tional rules, the material of shafts and contemporary representations of the
polearms were also considered.75
Martynovka hoard (only the silver coverings and suspension loops were deposited in the
hoard), and the sword blade from Corinth was unambiguously double-edged according
to its publication (Davidson – Weinberg 1974, 516).
69 Bálint 1995a, 67.
70 Some scholars used the term ‘good quality’ incorrectly for good preservation without hav-
ing any metallographical analysis.
71 In the case of spearheads the decoration is composed of grid-patterned rings and con-
necting chap. This approach is used by Ilona Kovrig (1955a; Kovrig 1955b) in her studies
on the Avar conquest of the Carpathian basin, where she used the ‘good quality’ of the
spearheads as attribute, but it was still used by Uta von Freeden (1991).
72 Hampel 1897; Hampel 1905.
73 Sós – Salamon 1995, 69–73. This system is not entirely coherent since the type ‘IV’ does
not fit to either criteria.
74 The author distinguished four types: 1. narrow blades with rhomboid cross section, 2.
feather-shaped, 3. reed-shaped, 4. ‘composed of a narrowing socket’, 5. short feather-
shaped and 6. small ‘reed-shaped’ spearheads (Garam 1995, 349–350).
75 The scheme of Martin Husár is particularly complex, and in some cases its complicated
codes are difficult to understand (Husár 2005). In his articles the author studied winged
spears of the Carpathian Basin (Husár 2006, 47–78) and the representations of Avar-age
polearms (Husár 2007, 29–41). His monograph on polearms in early medieval Carpathian
Basin was published recently in Slovakian (Husár 2014).