Introduction 25
Tóth, was deeply influenced by László’s work, and therefore tried to recon-
struct the biography of the deceased based on the artefacts found in the burial.
She assumed the ‘prince’ or ‘Qagan’ of Kunbábony originally wore the belt
ornamented with silver mounts, the sword and the rhyton, and he only later
received the belt decorated by pseudo-buckles with garnet inlays as a sign of
his rank of Qagan. According to Elvira H. Tóth, the burial should be regarded a
Qagan’s grave, as no richer Avar-age grave is known.136 This reconstructed biog-
raphy paraphrased the idea of Gyula László on the Bócsa burial. The interpre-
tation of the Kunbábony burial played a decisive role in the identification of
the Malaja Pereshchepina find with the burial of Kuvrat, ruler of Great Bulgaria
by Joachim Werner.137 Ironically, this argument was then used at the time of
its final publication to establish that the Kunbábony burial was also a qagan’s
grave by comparison with the Pereshchepina find!138 Even those opposed to
the identification of the Kunbábony burial as a Qagan’s grave compared its
‘richness’ with Malaja Pereshchepina as an argument against its rank,139 repre-
senting one of the best examples of a vicious circle.
A modern approach is represented by the work by József Csalog who intro-
duced the term ‘ostentatious weapon’ for some Early Avar swords decorated
with silver fittings. Some of these swords are equipped with a ring-pendant on
their hilt, which according to Csalog would hinder its use as weapon.140 He did
not write explicitly about the social function of these swords (as status symbol,
prestige goods or sign of power) but he nonetheless drew tentative conclusions
from its decoration and function.141
136 H. Tóth 1972a, 167.
137 Joachim Werner got acquainted with the Kunbábony burial from its preliminary reports
and he cited it often during the identification of the Pereshchepina find with the burial
of Kuvrat (Werner 1984a). According to new Ukrainian research the assemblage is not a
burial but a memorial complex of a Khazar aristocrat (Komar 2006, 243–244).
138 H. Tóth – Horváth 1992, 217–219.
139 Bálint 1995b, 77; Kiss 1995, 131–149.
140 Csalog 1959, 105–108. The ring pendant does not hinder the usage of the sword, since it
can fasten the wrist strap as István Bóna (1980, 48–51) supposed. In certain cases the small
rings on the sword could have symbolic meaning, like in the case of ‘ring-swords’ where
the rings placed on the pommels of spathae could be status symbols or signs of affiliation
to a particular war band (Evison 1976, 303–315; Steuer 1987, 206–215).
141 The term ‘ostentatious weapon’ (‘Prunkwaffe’ in German) is widespread in German
archaeological literature where even the most richly furnished burials are called ‘ostenta-
tious graves’ avoiding a social interpretation. See Kossack 1974, 3–33.