56 CHAPTER 1
Avar period. This periodisation is based on the typochronological examination
of certain artefacts types (mainly ornamented belt sets and jewellery), their
context and combination (seriation), and by horizontal stratigraphical analy-
ses of cemeteries with several burials.
The periodisation of the Avar Age was one of the major tasks of Hungarian
archaeology from its positivist, historicizing beginnings: these early stud-
ies dividing it into two phases, however, the right sequence of belt sets with
stamped and casted belt mounts, upon which these phases were based, only
became evident during the 1930s.227 The chronological group with belt mounts
stamped of metal sheets was first subdivided by Gyula László,228 followed by
Dezső Csallány who created the basis for a separate ‘Middle Avar phase’ dated
between 680 and 720 and linked to Onogur Bulgar immigration.229
This tripartite periodisation became a coherent system with the analysis
of the great Avar cemetery near Alattyán by Ilona Kovrig who divided these
phases based on the typology of various artefacts and elements of burial rite.230
She used coin-dated burials and analogies from neighbouring regions (like
Merovingian chronology)231 in creating the absolute chronology of the Avar
Age.232 She emphasised the continuity between the Early and Middle phases,
and dated the beginning of the Late phase to the 680s.233
227 These Avar-age artefacts were divided by Joseph Hampel into two groups: stamped and
cast. Hampel dated the cast group via Roman coins found in these burials to the 4th
century following Vilmos Lipp (Hampel 1905, I. 17–22). András Alföldi was the first who
proved that these coins were much earlier (4th century) than the burials themselves (8th
century) (Alföldi 1934, 287–307). The studies of Nándor Fettich verified this interpreta-
tion, Fettich dating the technological change for casting to the last quarter of the 7th
century (Marosi – Fettich 1936, 81. 97–98; Fettich 1943, 53–56). This sequence was also
verified by the stratigraphical observations of Dezső Csallány (1939, 133–134).
228 László 1940, 145–158; László 1941.
229 Csallány 1946–48, 356–357; Csallány 1952, 245–252.
230 Kovrig 1963, 226–227.
231 Mitscha-Märheim 1949, 125–131.
232 Ilona Kovrig dated the circular stirrups with rectangular loops and reed-shaped spear-
heads to the beginning of the Early phase (second half of the 6th century) using Inner
Asian analogies (Kovrig 1963, 230–231). The 1st group of Alattyán is identical with the Early
phase containing the Kunszentmárton burial and its analogy from Akalan (Bulgaria), the
end of the period being dated by the coins of Heraclius to the middle of the 7th century
(Kovrig 1963, 228). The 2nd group is dated between cca. 650 and 680 and not by the migra-
tion theory of the Onogur-Bulgars in 670s (Nagy 1895; Csallány 1946–48, 356–357; László
1955, 289–290), since Kovrig drew attention to the fact that similar artefacts do not occur
in Bulgaria where in case of Bulgarian movement they would have been expected.
233 She dated the beginning of the 3rd group earlier than Dezső Csallány (1952, 245–250) and
Herbert Mitscha-Märheim (1957a, 134) who both dated it to the 720s. The main argument