24 CHAPTER 1
Kiskőrös–Városalatt, however, he mainly focused on the ‘princely burial’ of
Bócsa. The reconstruction of the double belt of this burial was not only
of aesthetic significance, but became an important source for social theories:
according to his view the individual in the Bócsa burial originally wore a belt
decorated with silver discs of lower quality, until the time of his appointment
as a ‘prince’ by the Qagan when he would have acquired a new belt decorated
with pseudo-buckles together with a suspended quiver, a rhyton and a goblet.130
The supposed function of the sword with golden fittings was described in the
case of the Kecel burial: ‘Le <<sabre d’or>> [sic] symbolise un régime puissant
organisé d’en haut par la violence.’ According to the description, the prince did
not wear the sword covered with gold sheets as a result of his descent from a
clan or tribe, but he gained it from the Qagan in the form of an investiture gift
as an insignia (symbol of power).131 The ‘golden sword’ became the symbol of
the violence and power and the centralizing attempts of the Qagan’s authority.
The double belt which comprised the basis of Gyula László’s theory was
recently re-assessed by Béla Miklós Szőke who reconstructed the disc-shaped
mounts of the belt decorated with pseudo-buckles,132 although these have not
been generally accepted.133 It is important to note that the archaeological con-
text of the Bócsa find is unknown, and the lack of documentation means that
there is a lack of information on the belt set, and as a consequence all attempts
at reconstruction are hypothetical and speculative.134 In the social theories of
Gyula László the substitution of fantasy for argument was compensated by
his personality, his fascination with style, and a considerable talent for syn-
thesis based on artistic intuition.135 As a result his work is still indispensable
for social studies of Avars, although most of his social reconstructions are no
longer accepted.
What remains the richest burial of the Avar Age was excavated in
Bábonypuszta near the village Kunszentmiklós in 1971, and immediately inter-
preted as a princely or Qagan’s burial. The author of the publication, Elvira H.
130 The author regarded the number of arrowheads (25 pieces) as a sign of the deceased’s
princely rank (László 1955, 231–232; in Hungarian: László 1976, 104–106).
131 László 1955, 235.
132 Szőke 2008a, 178–182.
133 Gergely Szenthe disputed the reconstruction of Szőke on the basis of various Iranian and
Central Asian representations (Szenthe 2009, 385–390).
134 After recovery of these artefacts a small excavation was undertaken by Nándor Fettich in
1935, but his excavation diary (the only available documentation) was lost during World
War II, thus László’s only source was oral informations by the excavator (László 1955, 219).
135 Early reviews: Fettich 1947, 285–287; Banner 1957, 487–488.