Introduction 57
Besides chronological and interpretative problems of the Middle Avar
phase, the reason for change at the beginning of the Late Avar phase was also a
matter of some debate: with two possible reasons for the spread of bronze cast-
ing, being of either Byzantine234 origin or as a consequence of the migration of
an eastern steppe nomadic group,235 while the later research also supposed a
fashion change within the continuous population.236
István Bóna played an important role in the research of Avar archaeology,
wherein he reconsidered the chronological questions of the ‘Middle Avar
period’ in an article on the burial from Iváncsa, and dated its beginning to the
670s based on the so-called coin imitations and the lack of Byzantine coins.237
Éva Garam offered new arguments concerning the detailed chronology of
the Avar Age, in particular the study of various aspects of the chronology
of the ‘Middle phase’,238 and later by the analysis of the horizontal stratigraphy
of the large cemetery at Tiszafüred–Majoros, which contained 1282 burials,
creating a robust basis for the subdivision of the Late phase.239 An important
step in creating the absolute chronology of the Avar Age was the examination
of coin-dated burials.240
for the early dating was the discontinuity between the Middle and Late phase, the begin-
nings of which were linked to a migration.
234 Jan Eisner proved the right sequence of Hampel 3 and 2 groups respectively (Eisner 1947,
45–54), and regarded the cast metalwork of Byzantine origin (Eisner 1952, 404–405).
Several art-historical studies were written under his influence emphasizing the late
antique origin of the cast motifs (Dekan 1972, 317–452; Szőke 1974, 60–141).
235 Gyula László linked the widespread appearance of cast bronze artefacts to a migration
from the region of the Kama river (Eastern Europe) which according to his theory was
composed of two distinct groups: the first used mainly the griffon motif coming from
Inner Asia, while the other using vegatal ornaments from the Ural Mountains region
(László 1955, 179, 284).
236 The continuity between the Middle and Late phase was emphasised by Péter Tomka
(1975; Tomka 1989) on the basis of burial rites. Horizontal stratigraphy of large cemeteries
like Leobersdorf and Tiszafüred show similar continuities (Daim 1987; Garam 1995).
237 István Bóna (1970, 243–263) drew attention to a number of phenomena connected to
migration: changes in settlement area, orientation of graves, rite of burials with horses,
new cemeteries and centres, hoards, new kinds of belt-sets, and new weapon types
(sabre). He dated these changes to the time of Constantine IV (668–685) (Bóna 1971a, 245
[29]–247 [31]).
238 Garam 1976, 129–147; Garam 1978, 206–216; Garam 1979, 85–86.
239 Garam 1995, 390–423. Éva Garam divided the cemetery into five chronological phases.
240 The study of Éva Garam (1992, 135–250) on the coin-dated Avar-age burials is of great
significance, although as Max Martin (2008, 163) noted, the method of coin-mirror
(Münzspiegel) based on chronological horizons was not used.