62 CHAPTER 1
The premise of the qualitative approach is that the grave goods reflect the
legal and social status of the deceased, with the weapons buried in the grave
reflecting their original armament. This approach was applied by Heiko Steuer
in German archaeological research on weapon combinations, which were
regarded as a direct reflection of personal armament.266 A more developed
form of the qualitative approach was taken by Rainer Christlein who classified
burials into three quality groups (A–C) based on the grave goods, and drew
direct correlations with the wealth of the deceased which according to his
view was equal to their legal status (free, half-free, slave).267 A similar position
is also found within British research: Chadwick Hawkes linked some weapon
types with social stratification,268 while Leslie Alcock created a system of
quality levels and, similar to Christlein’s view, identified it with specific social
strata.269
The premise of the quantitative school was that a quantative analysis of
burial rites would directly reflect the organisation of the complex societies
upon which they are based. This approach has two levels, whereby such an
analysis can be applied on a local level, such as to a cemetery, or on a regional
(even interregional) level. Quantitative analyses in British research were made
by Chris J. Arnold who studied weapon combinations and weapon numbers270
and John F. Shephard who analysed Anglo-Saxon burial mounds.271 In Avar
archaeology quantitative methods were applied by József Szentpéteri and
Jozef Zábojník who both used weapon numbers and statistics for examining
social stratification.272
Multi-dimensional analysis is a combination of qualitative and quantita-
tive methods, examining the role of a burial assemblage in the context of an
ancient society at a communal or regional level,273 an example of which is the
monograph by Heinrich Härke on Anglo-Saxon weapon burials.274
A significant question is whether or not such weapon combinations found
in burial assemblages reflect the armament, social or legal status of the
deceased. Some researchers remain optimistic in believing that the combina-
266 Steuer 1968; Steuer 1970.
267 Christlein 1973, 147–180.
268 Hawkes 1973, 186–201.
269 Alcock 1981, 168–183.
270 Arnold 1980, 81–142; Arnold 1988.
271 Shephard 1979, 47–79.
272 Szentpéteri 1985; Szentpéteri 1993; Szentpéteri 1994.
273 Steuer 1982.
274 Härke 1992.