394 CHAPTER 8
The distinction between heavy and light cavalry is not unambiguous, since
it is based on their function (defensive or offensive) and not on the weight
of the armour.24 However, no such definition can be used in archaeology,
and therefore the heavy cavalry will be distinguished by its heavy armour
(mainly the armour of the horse) from the light cavalry. According to the
known data the heavy cavalry played an important role in the Avar army,25
judging by the large number of lamellar armour finds from burials of the Early
phase.26 Unfortunately their interpretation is problematic, as most of them
are not represented by the complete body armour but rather just a small frag-
ment (a few lamellae or a row), placed in the burial as an amulet,27 but these
artefacts at least attest to their existence and use. No archaeological traces of
horse armoury are known, however, the Strategy of Maurice suggested that
the Byzantine cavalry use an Avar type horse armour covering only the head
and breast of the horse and not the Sassanian type armour which covered the
whole body of the horse.28
The concept of an Early Avar heavy cavalry is based on the studies of Dezső
Csallány, using the remains of Avar armour,29 and the first military historical
theory was developed by Joachim Werner30 and István Bóna.31 Joachim Werner
cited the representation of a Byzantine mounted warrior on the silver plate
from the Isola Rizza hoard near Verona, and emphasised the contacts between
24 For the distinction of light and heavy cavalry: Négyesi 2000, 375–378.
25 For Avar-age heavy cavalry: Nagy 2005, 135–148.
26 For Avar-age lamellar armour: Csallány 1972, 7–44; Bóna 1980, 42–46. For its Eurasian
parallels: Thordeman 1933, 117–150; Thordeman 1934, 294–296; Thordeman 1939. Lamellar
armour in its European context: Kory 2004, 375–403. Lamellar armour from Late Antique
forts: Bugarski 2005.
27 Very little complete body-armour is known from the Avar Age: one of the most impor-
tant is from Kunszentmárton (Csallány 1982, 3–35), Tiszavasvári–Koldusdomb (Csallány
1960a, 51–84), Hajdúdorog (Csallány 1960b, 17–23), Budakalász (Pásztor 1995, 58–78) and
Kölked–Feketekapu B grave No. 80 (Kiss 2001, 25–26, Taf. 24–27). These graves belong to
high-status individuals judging by the other grave goods. Most of the lamellar armour
fragments can be interpreted as amulettes (Kory 2004, 394).
28 Maurice I.2. in: Dennis – Gammilscheg 1981, 78–83. The only representation of the Avar
type horse-armour is known from the Sassanian rock-relief of Taq-i Bostan (Thordemann
1934, 294–296).
29 For Avar-age lamellar armour and its reconstruction: Csallány 1960a, 51–84; Csallány
1960b, 17–23; Csallány 1972, 7–44; Csallány 1982, 3–35.
30 Werner 1974, 110–111.
31 Bóna 1980, 47–48; Bóna 1984a, 321.