Origins And Cultural Contacts 327
can be assumed for reed-shaped spearheads with connecting chap and grid-
patterned rings, since similar finds are also known from Italy.153 Unfortunately
most of our knowledge of Byzantine weapons remains based on examination
of written sources and pictorial representations rather than on archaeological
finds which makes comparative analysis extremely difficult.154
Mediterranean contacts as represented by some artefact types, which could
be acquired by the Avars by way of the Byzantine Empire or Italy, will be
described, like reed-shaped spearheads with connecting chap (P.I.A),155 open-
work spearheads (P.III.E), double-edged swords with crossguard cast of cop-
per alloy (E.I.B/2.b), some individual crossguard types (CG.4.a, CG.4.b, CG.7),
and P-shaped suspension loops (S.4).
It is important to note that Avar—Byzantine relations were not one way but
that Avar weaponry and fighting methods also deeply influenced the Byzantine
army. These influences mainly affected the cavalry but they could be observed
in several other fields of the military. The main source of these interactions is
the ‘Strategy’ of Maurice which describes the state of Byzantine army at the
end of the 6th century.156 Most likely is was not only the Avar cavalry that influ-
enced those of the Byzantines but there was also a similar converse process
as work, since some accounts comment on Byzantine weapon trade towards
the Avars.157
Archaeological traces of Byzantine arms and armour are known from sev-
eral Late Antique forts of the Balkans built during the Constantinian period
(4th century) and renovated by the Emperor Anastasius and/or Justinian.
These forts were destroyed and abandoned by the end of the 6th or begin-
ning of the 7th century, making the interpretation and dating of these stray
finds particularly difficult.158 Most of the spearheads found in Byzantine forts
of the Balkans are lenticular, their blade being longer than the closed socket,
and therefore are very similar to Merovingian weapons. Their interpretation
is rendered more difficult by the existence of merceneries of Germanic origin
serving in the Byzantine army who probably used their former equipment.159
153 See von Freeden 1991, 616–619; Schulze-Dörlamm 2006, 488. 494–497.
154 Byzantine weapons were described in the study of written sources by Kolias (1988, 30–35).
155 More detailed description on the chapter on Merovingian contacts.
156 Darkó 1937, 119–147; Szádeczky-Kardoss 1983, 317–326; Szádeczky-Kardoss 1986, 203–214.
157 Pohl 2002, 195. Kiss 1987a, 193–210.
158 Byzantine weapon finds are known from Caričin Grad (Kondić – Popović 1977, Tabl. XVII:
96; Bavant et al. 1990, 230, fig. 165, Pl. XL/246); Sadovec: Uenze 1992, I. 445. II. Taf. 42/1–4.
159 For Barbarian units fighting in the Byzantine army: Rance 2004, 290.