Edged Weapons 173
The sword covered by gold-foil from Kunszentmiklós–Bábony is of the fin-
est quality regarding jewellery techniques, using granulation, filigree and glass
inlay.73 The swords from Csengele–Jójárt,74 Szegvár-Oromdűlő grave No. 903
(fig. 63/2) and Visegrád (fig. 63/1)75 were covered with silver foil. The deco-
ration is mainly composed of plain silver-foil and silver bands of ribbed or
pearl-ornament.
These swords can be regarded as prestige objects, as suggested by other
accompanying grave goods, like the belt-set stamped of gold foil from the
Csengele burial,76 the belt-set with garnet-inlaid pseudo-buckles, gold rhyton,
goblet, pitcher, rod terminal and glove covering at Kunbábony.77 These finds
also help to date these swords to the second half of the Early phase, in the sec-
ond third of the 7th century.78
1.2 Single-edged Swords (E.II)
Single-edged swords are narrower, lighter, and made of less iron, and there-
fore were also probably cheaper. Their adventages are obvious. However, two
disadvantages can be discerned within this form-group: only one cutting edge
is available, and the triangular or pentagonal cross section is less suitable for
thrusting, this latter problem being solved by the false edge, which was already
a feature of the sabres. Three types can be identified based on the cross section
of the blade and the shape of the hilt: single-edged swords (E.II.A), single-
edged swords with ring-pommel (E.II.B), and single-edged swords with false
edge (E.II.C) (fig. 11). Sub-types are distinguished based on the crossguard, the
place of the tip, respectively hilt and scabbard decoration.
73 H. Tóth – Horváth 1992, 32–34, Taf. V–VIII.
74 Csallány 1939, 9–11, I. tábla 3–3a, II. tábla.
75 Tavas 1978, 175–200.
76 Stamped belt-mounts with lion representations, but the crescent-shaped mounts suggest
a dating to the second half of the Early phase (Csallány 1939, 9–11).
77 Elvira H. Tóth considered these artefacts to be insignia of the qagan’s power (H. Tóth –
Horváth 1992, 97–209).
78 The chronology is subject to some debate: Dezső Csallány (1939, 10) originally dated
the burial to the second third of the 7th century, while László Simon (1991, 290) dated it
back to the last third of the 6th century. Csanád Bálint (1993, 239; Bálint 1995a, 301) and
Éva Garam (2001, 138) dated the burial to the first third of the 7th century. However, it is
important to note that the structure of the belt-set (crescent-shaped mount suggesting
a complex back-mount) suggests a later date. Elvira H. Tóth even suggested a dating to
the Middle phase for the Kunbábony burial (H. Tóth – Horváth 1992, 218), with which we
disagree.