170 CHAPTER 3
significant differences: the crossguard of Hunnic swords is long and straight,
while the crossguard of these Avar swords is shorter and oval in shape.
The sword from grave No. I from Keszthely–Fenékpuszta was found dur-
ing the excavations by Vilmos Lipp during the 1890s, associated with a cast
belt-set of masque type. The sword was studied by István Bóna, who com-
pared it to swords of the Hun period.58 A similar edged weapon was found
in Tolnanémedi–Szentpéteri szőlőhegy together with a Martynovka type
belt-set.59
These artefacts have been discussed by Péter Somogyi in his study on
Masque type belt-sets.60 László Simon dated these swords to the end of the 6th
and first third of the 7th century,61 while Csilla Balogh suggested a date in the
6th century for these finds.62 This variant can be one of the earliest amongst
those of the Early phase.
Double-edged swords of lenticular cross section with crossguard have a dis-
tinct variant which is characterised by its crossguard being cast of copper alloy,
which is extremely rare during the Avar Age, with only three such examples
being known, two of which are dated to the Early phase and one to the Late
phase.
These swords were identified as Byzantine by Attila Kiss63 based on simi-
larities to the sword found at Corinth in the ‘wandering soldier’s grave’.64 Both
of the early examples from the Carpathian Basin were found in its southern
region65 and dated to the first third of the 7th century (fig. 62/1–2).66
58 Bóna 1982–83, 119.
59 Nagy 1901, 314–318; Somogyi 1987, 121.
60 Somogyi 1987, 121–122.
61 Simon 1991, 294–295. 307.
62 Balogh 2004, 264.
63 Attila Kiss (1987a, 194) defined Byzantine swords by using two attributes: double-edged
blade and crossguard (and pommel) cast of copper alloy. The author latterly identified
every edged-weapon as Byzantine that had a crossguard cast of copper alloy, whether
single- or double-edged (Kiss 1996, 230); This view was also followed by Éva Garam
(Garam 1991a, 142–145; Garam 2001, 158–159).
64 Davidson-Weinberg 1974, fig. 4.
65 Aradac–Mečka grave No. 85 (Nađ 1959, 62, Tab. XXVII/1; Dimitrijević – Kovačević – Vinski
1962, 11; Kiss 1987, 196. Abb. 2, 203–204) and Kölked–Feketekapu A grave No. 259 (Kiss 1996,
75–76, Taf. 57).
66 Their chronology is based on the Fönlak type belt-set of grave No. 85 from Aradac–Mečka
(Garam 2001, 119), and the purse-buckle of type Salona-Histria from the Kölked A burial,
both dated to the first third of the 7th century (Garam 2001, 109).