Introduction 23
and Bulgarian archaeology, overemphasizing Eastern analogies and regarding
them as the earliest and original. This simplistic method led to the misinter-
pretation of distribution maps as evidence for migrations, leading many to dis-
regard other possibilities (gift, trade, exchange or loot).125
Whilst such ethnic interpretations of various archaeological phenomena
have been a characteristic feature of Avar archaeology since its beginnings,
my intention is to avoid direct ethnic questions, most of which cannot be
answered by archaeological methods. In what follows, the term ‘Avar’ will
be used as the name of an archaeological culture and not in an ethnic sense.
2.4 Social Reconstruction
Interest in social reconstructions grew after World War II, influenced by the
Marxist historical-philosophical school prevalent in the socialist countries
behind the Iron Curtain. However, social questions in Hungarian archaeology
were not only studied by Marxist authors since the ethnographically oriented
school of Gyula László also played a significant role in early medieval studies.
The approach of Gyula László inspired by ethnography and sociography
is rooted in the traditions of the 1930s in attempting to reconstruct ancient
society in all its complexity by using archaeological data.126 Due to his artistic
talent and education László drew several reconstructions of ancient artefacts
and costumes, among them the ring-pommel sword of Kunágota with its
gold fittings127 and the ornamented double belt from Bócsa,128 both of which
became very popular as a result of the exhibitions of the Hungarian National
Museum. The ideas and theories of László deeply influenced Hungarian soci-
ety through his popular books.
The views of Gyula László on Avar society were published in 1955 in French
and as a result received little attention in Hungarian research, although the
manuscript and Hungarian translation are widely cited.129 The starting point
of László’s study was the analysis of the cemeteries of Kiskőrös–Vágóhíd and
125 Bálint 2004a, 246–252; Bálint 2007, 545–562.
126 This approach is already evident in the volume ‘A honfolgaló magyar nép élete’ (‘The Life
of Conquering Hungarian Folk’) (László 1944).
127 The reconstruction of the Kunágota sword was possible only after 1935 (the finding of the
swords of Kecel and Bócsa). Apart from the reconstruction, Gyula László studied the gold
fittings of the Kunágota sword too, which were originally decorations from a Byzantine
box (László 1938, 55–86). The reconstruction of the Kunágota sword was only published
after World War II (László 1950, 31–33).
128 László 1955, 225, fig. 61.
129 Most Hungarian archaeologists only cited the book’s Hungarian manuscript (a chapter of
it was even published in Hungarian in 1977 (László 1976). The monograph was begun in
the 1940s and completed by 1951 but only published in 1955 (László 1955).