22 CHAPTER 1
The research on Byzantine influences on Avar weaponry, however, started
well before the aforementioned new approach. Attila Kiss—also known for
his research on Gepid continuity—distinguished a group of Avar swords of
Byzantine origin from this period.117 His starting point was a double-edged
sword with crossguard cast of copper alloy from an Early Byzantine burial at
Corinth.118 He used this object as parallel for similar double-edged swords with
copper alloy crossguards from the 7th-10th century Carpathian Basin.119
Following the identification of these Byzantine swords, attempts were made
to also identify spearheads of Byzantine origin in Avar weaponry. Reed-shaped
spearheads with connecting chap of good preservation, which were usually
regarded as a result of Avar influences, were also found in south Germany and
Italy.120 Uta von Freeden criticised this interpretation: according to her opin-
ion the Avars were not technically proficient to produce weapons of such good
quality, and as a consequence these artefacts would be of Byzantine origin.121
This theory was later reexamined by Mechtild Schulze-Dörlamm together
with early Merovingian stirrups. She emphasised the role of Italy in the trans-
mission of stirrups between Byzantium and the Merovingian Europe, while
from the combination of stirrups and lances she also drew conclusions about
important tactical changes occuring during that time.122
Important methodological studies have been written relating to the eth-
nic interpretation of early medieval archaeology, one of the best examples of
which is the monograph of Sebastian Brather who is fundamentally sceptical
about of the identification of ethnic groups based on archaeological studies.
Although his book became controversial both in Germany and Hungary,123 it
inspired new approaches in the field of Avar archaeology.124
The research on the origin of particular artefact types also includes some
methodological problems discussed by Csanád Bálint, who drew attention to a
special feature known as ‘Orient-preference’ which prevails in both Hungarian
117 Kiss 1987a, 193–210.
118 Davidson – Weinberg 1974, 516.
119 Kiss 1987a, 193–210. Although according to Éva Garam the double-edged blade is not an
attribute of Byzantine origin (Garam 2001, 158).
120 Koch 1968, 89–91.
121 von Freeden 1991, 621–623. The main problem of this theory is that grid-patterned rings
(characteristic of the Carpathian Basin) do not appear on reed-shaped spearheads from
south Germany and Italy as listed by Uta von Freeden, while the grooves on the blade,
which are mainly known from Italy, are not characteristic of Avar age spearheads, sug-
gesting that these artefacts cannot be linked to a common workshop.
122 Schulze – Dörlamm 2006, 485–507.
123 Bierbrauer 2004, 45–84; Vida 2006.
124 Bálint 2005, 37–56; Bálint 2006b, 277–347.