Introduction 5
wider context between the Mediterranean,13 the Merovingian area14 and
the Eurasian Steppes.15 One of the most important problems to address
13 Detecting Mediterranean, mostly Byzantine, contacts of the Avar-age weaponry is highly
problematic because of the Christian burial rite in the whole region—especially in the
Eastern Mediterranean—which did not commonly incorporate weapons into burials
(Kolias 1988, 30–35). Some burials with weapons are, however, known: four from Corinth
(Davidson – Weinberg 1974; Ivison 1996, 117–119; Vida – Völling 2000, 32–34), and one from
Pergamon (excavated in the summer of 2007 by Felix Pirson). The interpretation of these
burials is continuously changing, but are mostly identified with the burial of Barbarian
mercenaries (Ivison 1996, 117–119; Vida – Völling 2000, 32–34). As a result of these burial
customs most of the weapons from the Byzantine Empire are known from settlement
contexts (Gaitzsch 2005, 130–159). Unlike Anatolia and the Middle East, several buri-
als with weapons are known from Italy, where the burial rite was partly similar to the
‘Barbarian territories’ due to the settlement of the Lombards in this area during the sec-
ond half of the 6th century. Italy presents a different kind of problem: the distinction of
the Germanic (Merovingian) and Byzantine weapons. In Hungary the study of weapons
of Mediterranean origin was started by Attila Kiss (1987a, 193–210) with the identifica-
tion as Byzantine of swords with crossguards cast of copper alloy, which is continued by
Éva Garam (2001, 158–163) with the examination of artefacts of Byzantine origin from the
Early and Middle Avar Period.
14 Comparative studies between Merovingian and Avar armament are far easier as a result
of the huge quantity of weapon burials known from Central Europe. The research of the
Merovingian swords (spathae) (Menghin 1983), axes (Hübener 1980), some spear types
(Hübener 1972) and seaxes (Hübener 1988; Wernard 1998) is well developed. Comparative
studies between Central Europe and the Carpathian Basin were quite evident for the
earlier periods (5–6th centuries), when Transdanubia (the former Pannonia province)
and the Great Hungarian Plain was populated by various Germanic tribes (Goths, Gepids,
Lombards etc), but the Avar Age was not examined in this respect. The publication of the
Környe cemetery first drew attention to significant Merovingian elements on an ‘Avar’ site
(Salamon – Erdélyi 1971). The study of Merovingian contacts of Early Avar material culture
was continued by Attila Kiss, based upon an ethnic interpretation of these remains, with
the archaeological heritage of the Avar-age Germanic population identified as Gepids by
mapping shield bosses (umbo), double-edged swords of Merovingian type (spathae) and
socketed leaf-shaped (lenticular) arrowheads (Kiss 1979b, 185–191; Kiss 1987b, 203–278;
Kiss 1992, 35–134; Kiss 1996; Kiss 2001; Kiss 1999/2000, 359–365). This Germanic influence
has been addressed from a different perspective by Tivadar Vida, who studied costumes
and deposition rules instead of single artefacts (Vida 2000, 161–175).
15 Archaeological traditions and burial customs provide favorable circumstances in the
Eastern European steppes for the preservation of weapons. However, such a large area,
local chronologies and poor accessibility to archaeological publications present par-
ticular problems in this field. Hungarian archaeology had deeply rooted traditions in
the research of the Eastern influences from the Steppes on the material culture of the