Warriors, Weapons, and Harness from the 5th-10th Centuries in the Carpathian Basin 6065435511, 9786065435513

Citation preview

Warriors, weapons, and harness from the 5th–10th centuries in the Carpathian Basin Editor Călin Cosma

Academia Română Institutul de Arheologie și Istoria Artei din Cluj-Napoca

Seria / Series / Reihe INTERFERENŢE ETNICE ŞI CULTURALE ÎN MILENIILE I A. CHR. – I P. CHR.

ETHNIC AND CULTURAL INTERFERENCES IN THE 1ST MILLENNIUM B.C. TO THE 1ST MILLENNIUM A.D.

ETHNISCHE UND KULTURELLE INTERFERENZEN IM 1. JAHRTAUSEND V. CHR. – 1. JAHRTAUSEND N. CHR.

Editori / Editors / Herausgeber der Reihe Nicolae Gudea, Călin Cosma, Aurel Rustoiu

VOL. XXII / BAND 22

Warriors, weapons, and harness from the 5th–10th centuries in the Carpathian Basin Editor Călin Cosma

Mega Publishing House Cluj‑Napoca 2015

The volume was financed by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0278

DTP and cover: Francisc Baja

© Călin Cosma, 2015 Cover image I: Reconstruction proposal of the Avar military chieftain from the cemetery at Teiuș (drawing Narcisa Șugar, Institute of Archaeology and History of Art, Cluj-Napoca).

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României Warriors, weapons, and harness from the 5th–10th centuries in the Carpathian Basin / ed.: Călin Cosma. - Cluj-Napoca : Mega, 2014 Bibliogr. ISBN 978-606-543-551-3 I. Cosma, Călin (ed.) 623.44(498)"06/10"

Editura Mega | www.edituramega.ro e‑mail: [email protected]

C

ontents

Nicolae Gudea

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau (4. Jahrhundert-Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts) Eine archäologische Behandlung im Licht der Waffen 

Michel Kazanski

Les influences steppiques dans l’équipement militaire et équestre des Slaves (Ve–VIIe siècles)

Alpár Dobos

Weapons and weapon depositions in the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania

Aurel Rustoiu

Shooting the evil. “Scythian” arrowheads in Avar age graves from the Carpathian Basin

Gabriel T. Rustoiu, Marius Ciută

An avar warrior’s grave recently discovered at Unirea-Vereşmort (Alba county)

Ivan Bugarski

Axe, Battle Axes and Battle Knives from Avar-Time Graves in Vojvodina

7 45 57 89 107 129

Jozef Zábojník

Saxe und andere Waffen westlichen Ursprungs auf dem Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats in ValalikyVšechsvätých

Csiky Gergely

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms 

147 177

Szenthe Gergely

Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur. Awarische Männerrepräsentation und mediterraner Einfluss in Randgebieten des Karpatenbeckens (erste Hälfte 8. J.h. N. Chr.)

215

Călin Cosma

Avar warriors in Transylvania, Sătmar and Maramureș, Crișana and Banat. Archaeological landmarks on the political status of western Romania in the Avar Khaganate 251

Naďa Profantová

The horse harness, spurs and stirrups in Bohemia in 8th and 9th century

Michal Holeščák

Early medieval arrowheads from the area of todays Slovakia

Dan Băcueţ-Crişan

Early mediaeval arrows discovered in Sylvanian Basin (Romania)

Valeri Yotov

The find of Sfântu Gheorghe, Covasna County (1943): questions, which might be raised

281 299 307 323

Aurel Dragotă

Battle-axes in the cemeteries from Banat, Crișana and Transylvania (10th century)

331

Florin Mărginean

An insight on social status around the year 1000 AD, reflected by the funeral inventory of some graves found on the Lower Mureș Valley*

343

Erwin Gáll

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat with an outlook to the Carpathian Basin

355

Ü

ber die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau (4. Jahrhundert-Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts) Eine archäologische Behandlung im Licht der Waffen Nicolae Gudea

Universitatea Babeș-Bolyai Cluj-Napoca

I. Einführung I.1. Zweck der Arbeit Der Zweck dieser Arbeit ist, aufgrund von gesammelten archäologischen Grundlagen und vor allem aufgrund der Kampfwaffen und der Militärausrüstungsgegenstände die Anwesenheit der gotischen Foederaten im Römerheer an den Nordgrenzen der Provinzen Moesia I, Dacia Ripensis, Moesia II und Scythia Minor in der Zeitspanne zwischen 378/382 und der Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. zu identifizieren. Taf. 1

I.2. Quellen Die geschriebenen literarischen oder epigraphischen Quellen bieten über dieses Thema sehr wenige und allgemeine Daten. Procopius1 gibt sogar eine „Definition“ für den Begriff „Foederat“: „dieser ist der Name, den die Römer den Goten geben haben, um zu zeigen, daß sie nicht infolge einer Niederlage, sondern aufgrund eines Abkommens ihre Verbündeten geworden sind“. Eine spätere Quelle2 stellt die Germanen als „blonde Völkerschaften“ dar und beschreibt einige militärische Merkmale: Kampfweise, Bewaffnung, Taktik, Angriff- und Verteidigungsstil usw. Er schreibt über die Waffen: „sie bewaffnen sich mit Schildern, Speeren und kurzen Säbeln, die auf den Schultern getragen wurden.“ Deshalb sind die Quellen, auf denen die vorliegende Arbeit beruht, in erster Linie die archäologischen. Sie befinden sich in verschiedenen Abhandlungen, archäologischen Grabungsberichten, Siedlungs- oder Gräberfeldermonographien oder sind Einzelfunde, die in der archäologischen Literatur aus Serbien/Jugoslawien, Bulgarien und Rumänien vermerkt wurden. Ich muß schon von Anfang an hervorheben, daß vom Standpunkt des Themas der vorliegenden Arbeit auch die archäologischen Quellen verhältnismäßig spärlich und arm sind. Die Daten über die Bewaffnung und Ausrüstung der Goten auf römischem Gebiet sind viel weniger als jene über gewisse Artefakten der Goten, die aber einen „zivilen“ Charakter haben: Keramik (Alltagsgefäße), Fibeln, Kämme aus Knochen, Schmuckgegenstände (Ohrringe, Armreifen) usw.

I.3. Stand der Kenntnisse Der Stand der Kenntnisse über die Militärartefakten aus der untersuchten Zeit ist im Verhältnis zu den Kenntnissen über die Artefakte aus der Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur (vor 378 datiert) ziemlich beschränkt3. Über einge an der danubischen Grenze gelegenen Orte, wo systematische  BG XII, 5, 13.  Mauricius XI, 3, 1–17. 3  vgl. Magomedov 2001. 1 2

8

Nicolae Gudea

archäologische Untersuchungen durchgeführt wurden (Belgrad, Kostolac, Gornea – Moesia I; Drobeta, Hinova, Kula – Dacia Ripensis; oder Iatrus – Moesia II), haben wir genauere, aber wenige Informationen. An anderen Orten sind sie sowohl wenig als auch unsicher, weil sie sich auf Artefakte „zivilen“ Charakters beschränken. Im allgemeinen wird angenommen, daß bis 378 die danubische Grenze von großen Angriffen geschohnt wurde4 sowie daß das dortige Heer im Prinzip aus den Reihen der Provinzbewohner rekrutiert wurde. Es fehlt an einem Gesamtwerk über die Zeitspanne, das Gebiet, das Thema sowie über die spätrömischen Waffen, die in dieser Arbeit behandelt werden. Ich werde für das erste Mal versuchen, für jeden dieser Aspekte Angaben zu sammeln, aber ich bin bewußt, daß der Versuch – vor allem wegen des Mangels an Veröffentlichungen – nicht zu gutem Ende geführt werden kann. Die Daten bezüglich des Begriffs „Foederaten“ sind ziemlich konfus. Im allgemeinen nahmen und nehmen die Autoren an, die sich auf die Beziehungen zwischen dem Reich und den Goten bezogen haben, daß alle unterzeichneten Abkommen einen foedus-Charakter hatten; d. h. daß die Barbaren zu Foederaten wurden5. In jüngerer Zeit stellte R. Scharf6 eine neue Deutung der Lage und eine neue Definition des Begriffes foederat und foedus dar. Er ist der Meinung, daß der Status der Goten, die bis zum Ende des 4. Jahrhunderts Abkommen mit dem Reich unterzeichnet haben, eine deditio oder mehrere deditiones und kein foedus war(en). Seiner Meinung nach befindet sich der erste Bezug auf die Foederaten in einem Gesetz, das der Kaiser Honorius 406 erlassen hat7; dieser foedus regelte die Anwesenheit der fremden Truppen im Weströmischen Reich und hob seinen vorübergehenden Charakter hervor. Im Oströmischen Reich ist die erste sichere Bestätigung erst aus dem Jahre 4438. Erst in der ersten Hälfte des 6. Jahrhunderts bildeten die gotischen Foederaten regelmäßige Truppen, ähnlich wie die comitatenses. Die meisten waren Goten. Diese waren in Truppeneinheiten von 400 Soldaten organisierte Kavallerietruppen. Sie wurden nicht als selbständige Einheiten eingesetzt.

I.4. Arbeitsmethode Die von mir angewandte Arbeitsmethode war verhältnismäßig einfach. 1. Ich habe die Untersuchung der spätrömischen Bewaffnung aus den Wehranlagen an der Grenze von Dacia Ripensis (275–380) als eine Fallstudie begonnen; die erforschten Waffen stammen aus etlichen Siedlungen, vor allem aus jenen, die Ende des 4. Jahrhunderts zerstört wurden. Taf. 2. Diese sind relativ genau datierbar und so konnte ich – trotz ihrer geringer Anzahl – ihre Typologie aufstellen Taf. 3–4. 2. Ich habe die Daten bezüglich der Waffen und Ausrüstung der Goten aus dem Gebiet der Sântana de Mureş-ČernjachovKultur aus der Zeitspanne vor 378 vermerkt und versucht, auch in diesem Fall eine Typologie zu erarbeiten. Taf.. 20–219. 3. Im Vergleich zu den auf diese Weise erhaltenen Daten, habe ich versucht, in den Arbeiten, zu denen ich Zugang hatte, gotische Bewaffnungs- und Ausrüstungsgegenstände aus der Zeit nach 378 zu identifizieren.

II. Eine Geschichte der Ereignisse bezüglich der gotischen Foederaten II.1. Die erste Rekrutierungsetappe der Foederaten (332–376) – 323 besiegte der Kaiser Constantinus den gotischen König Rausimodus, nachdem dieser Moesia II und Scythia Minor geplündert hatte; die Goten wurden in Städten angesiedelt10; in Nicopolis ad Istrum und Montana wurden zwei Inschriften entdedckt, deren Text lateinische und gotische Wörter enthalten11; – 331, 332 drangen die Goten und Taifalen in die Provinzen Moesia II und Scythia Minor ein; es wird angenommen, daß ein foedus unterzeichnet wurde; die Goten wurden als Foederaten eingegliedert  Gomolka-Fuchs 1990, 355–356.  z. B. Graf 1998. 6  Scharf 2001. 7  CTh VII. 13, 16. 8  Novella Th 24.23. 9  vgl. Magomedov 2001, abb. 9–10; Kokowski 1990, abb. 14–15; Magomedov-Levada 1996. 10  AnVales I, V, 21; Zosimos Hist II, 21–35; Iordanes, Getica, 267. 11  vgl. V. Velkov, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Alten Welt. Hrsg. E. Ch. Welskopf (Berlin 1965), 268. 4 5

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau

9

und dazu verpflichtet, die danubische Grenze in Moesia II zu überwachen; sie lieferten Truppen für das Feldheer; die Sarmaten wurden in Scythia Minor angesiedelt12; es wird vermutet, daß die gotische Keramik, die Fibeln mit umgeschlagenem Fuß um diese Zeit in den Siedlungen erschienen sind13; – 348–349 überschritten die Goten die Donau. Der Kaiser Constantius II schlug sie zurück und nahm Geisel mit; – 360 eine große Gruppe von christlichen Goten wurden unter der Führung ihres Bischofs Ulfilas im Reich aufgenommen und neben Nicopolis ad Histrum angesiedelt14; – 363 griffen die Goten die Provinzen Moesia II und Scythia Minor und sogar Dacia Ripensis an und drangen tief in das Gebiet ein; – 366 griffen die Goten die Provinzen an der Unteren Donau an; sie wurden besiegt und als Foederaten an der Grenze angesiedelt15; – 367 besiegte der Kasier Valens die Goten im Barbaricum; – 369 unterzeichnete der Kaiser Valens ein Friedensabkommen mit den Goten; Foederaten; der Ausdruck von Socrates blieb klassisch16: Valens „hoffte, daß die Barbaren ungestümere (Grenz) Wächter als die Römer sein werden und bemühte sich deshalb nicht mehr, die Anzahl der römischen Soldaten zu erhöhen“; – 376 wurden die vom König Fritigern geführten Westgoten im Reich aufgenommen und als Foederaten angesiedelt17; – 378 drangen die von Alatheus und Saprax geführten Ostgoten in das Reich ein und nahmen an der Schlacht von Hadrianopolis teil (die von den aufständischen Westgoten begonnen wurde)18; – 378–380 die Zerstörung der Wehranlagen an der danubischen Grenze19. Taf. 2. – 379–380 ließ der Kaiser die Ostgoten in den Provinzen Valeria und Pannonia I als Foederaten ansiedeln20; es wird angenommen, daß ein foedus unterzeichnet wurde21; – 381 wurden die von Athanarichs geführten Westgoten im Reich aufgenommen.

II.2. Die zweite Rekrutierungsetappe; das Abkommen von 382 382 hat der Kaiser Theodosius I mit den Goten ein Friedensabkommen und ein foedus unterzeichnet22; durch foedus wurden die Goten als Foederaten verpflichtet23; die Hauptpflicht war die Verteidigung der Grenze an der Donau.

II.3. Die Folgen der Anwesenheit der Foederaten für den Zustand der Grenzen Die Anwesenheit der gotischen Foederaten nach dem foedus von 382 hat die Überschreitung der Donau seitens anderer Barbarengruppen nicht verhindern können. – 383 überschritt eine Ostgotengruppe die Donau und griff Halmyris (Scythia Minor) an; – 386 drang eine andere Gruppe von Ostgoten geleitet vom König Odatheus durch die Donau ein; sie wurden besiegt und neben Tomis (Scythia Minor) angesiedelt; – 391 eine Gruppe von Westgoten überschritt die Donau und gelangte bis Macedonia; – 394 weitausgreifender gotischer Einfall über die Provinzen Dacia Ripensis, Moesia II und Scythia Minor; – 397 wurde ein foedus mit dem König Alaric unterzeichnet; die Westgoten wurde(n) in Macedonia angesiedelt und König Alaric zum magister militum ernannt; – 400 – hunnischer Angriff von Uldis geleitet; der Kaiser Arcadius hat mit ihm ein Friedensabkommen unterzeichnet; die Hunnen wurden in Pannonia angesiedelt; die Bedingung war, daß sie Thracia nicht  Iordanes Getica 112.  Gomolka-Fuchs 1990, 356; Ivanišević 1999, 9914  Zeiller 1924, passim, vgl. Philostorgius HE II, 5; Theodoret HE IV, 32; AmmMarc XXXI, 3. 15  AmmMarc XXIV, 5–10. 16  IstBis IV.34.4 vgl. FHDR II, S. 221. 17  AmmMarc XXXI, 8–9. 18  AmmMarc XXXI, 17. 19  Ivanišević 1999, S. 95–96; Gudea 2009, 85–103. 20  Zosimos HistNova IV.34; Soproni 1985. 21  Popović 1987, S. 107; Ivanišević 1999, 97. 22  foederati, 293–294. 23  AmmMarc XXXI, 4, 1; Zosimos IV.20, 5–9; Iordanes Getica, 131–133. 12 13

10

Nicolae Gudea

angreifen; Uldis besiegte nachher eine Gruppe von Westgoten, die unter der Führung von Gainas die Donau überschritten haben24; – unter Theodisius II. wurde die Grenze wiederhergerichtet; sechs Jahre lang befestigte der praefectus praetorii Anthemius Städte und reparierte Grenzkastelle25 – 405 wurden die von Alatheus geführten Ostgoten in Pannonia angesiedelt; – 408 griffen die Hunnen Dacia Ripensis an; Uldis belagerte Castra Martis durch Verrat; er wurde besiegt26; die Westgoten aus Dacia Ripensis und Moesia II wurden nach Italien versetzt; – 422 griffen die von Rua geführten Hunnen die Provinzen Moesia I, Dacia Ripensis und Moesia II an; – 425 – Abkommen mit den Hunnen; – 433 griffen die vom König Rua geführten Hunnen das Reich an; – 434 wurde Attila zum magister militum ernannt; – 441 – Abkommen mit Attila; die danubische Grenze gibt es nicht mehr27 – 447 – Abkommen mit den Hunnen; trotzdem wird die Grenze an der Donau zwischen Singidinum (Moesia I) und Nove (Moesia II) festgelegt28: – 454 verwüsten unter Marcianus (450–457) die Hunnen aus Pannonia die Provinzen aus der Diözese Thracia (Moesia I, Moesia II, Thracia, Scythia Minor); – 454 wurden nach der Schlacht von Nedao die von Candax geführten Hunnen, Scyren, Sadagaren und Alanen in Scythia Minor und Moesia II als Foederaten angesiedelt29: – 454 wurde nach der Schlacht von Nedao Harnac, einer der Söhne von Attila, zusammen mit einer Gruppe von Hunnen im nördlichen Teil von Scythia Minor angesiedelt; – 455 unterzeichnete der Kaiser Marcianus ein neues foedus mit den Ostgoten, die er in Pannonia, Thracia und Illyricum angesiedelt hat30: – 455 unterzeichnete der Kaiser Marcianus ein Abkommen /foedus mit den Gepiden, denen er erlaubt hat, sich im ehemaligen Dacia niederzulassen (!); – 460 haben unter Leo (457–474) eine Gruppe von Bigilis geführten Goten Scythia Minor angegriffen; – 469 griff eine Gruppen von Hunnen, geleitet von Dengizic, einem Sohn Attilas, Moesia II und Scythis Minor an; – 473 haben sich die von Theodoric Strabo geführten Ostgoten in den Balkanen (?) niedergelassen; der König wurde zum magister militum praesentalis ernannt; – 482 wurden die von Theodoric Amal geführten Ostgoten in Dacia Ripensis und Moesia II angesiedelt; – 483 wurden Ostgoten, die sich nach 455 aus der Gruppe von Pannonia losgelöst haben, in Dacia Ripensis und in Moesia II als Foederaten erwähnt31; – 488 wurden die Ostgoten des Theodorik Amals vom Kaiser Zeno nach Norditalien gegen Odoaker, den König der Herulier, entsandt; – 493 griffen die Kutriguren Scythia Minor und Thracia an; – 498 wurden die Provinzbewohner aus den balkanischen Provinzen (?) von den Steuern befreit – weil es keine Landwirte mehr gab32; – 504 erweiterte der Ostgotische Staat mit der Hauptstadt in Ravenna seine Ostgrenze bis zur Donau; das Gebiet Sirmium wurde besetzt; – 510 – Abkommen zwischen dem Reich und den Ostgoten; das Reich bewahrt die östliche Ecke von Pannonia II33;  Zosimos V.21, 9–22.  CTh XI, 17, 4: 410–412. 26  Sozomenos IstBis, IX, 5, 2 vgl. FBDR II, 229. 27  Popović 1987, 123– 28  Popović 1987, 123. 29  Bjelajac-Invanišević 1993, 124. 30  Iordanes Getica, 265–267. 31  Marcellinus Comes A. D. 483. 32  CJ X.27.2. 10. 33  Bjelajac-Ivanišević 1993, 124. 24 25

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau

11

– 512 siedelte der Kaiser Justinus die Herulen in das Gebiet Singidunum, zwischen dem Reich und den Ostgoten an34. Etliche Schlußfolgerungen – die oben dargestellte Lage erzielt die chronologische Anwesenheit der Germanen zu identifizieren und die Zeiten und die Art und Weise der Kontakte mit dem Reich genauer zu bestimmen; – die Ansiedlung der Barbaren im Reich und die Rekrutierung der Foederaten hat schon während der Zeit der Tetrachie begonnen35; – die Handlungen der Goten an der danubischen Grenze fanden vor allem in der Zeitspanne zwischen 360–400 statt; nach 400 waren hauptsächlich die Hunnen jene, die die Hauptrolle spielten; – nach 378 wurden die Grenzwehranlagen an der Donau in den Provinzen Moesia I, Dacia Ripensis und Moesia II größtenteils zerstört; überall, wo archäologische Untersuchungen durchgeführt wurden, wurde diese Tatsache festgestellt; – der Großteil dieser Festungen wurden im Rahmen der Rekonstruktionsprogramme nicht mehr neu verwendet; – obwohl die Hauptpflicht der gotischen Foederaten die Verteidigung der Grenze war, waren sie dieser Aufgabe nicht gewachsen; die Grenze konnte auch nach 378 durchbrochen werden, kleinere oder größere Gruppen von Barbaren sind in das Reich eingedrungen. Also erfüllten die Foederaten ihre Rolle nicht; – die Hunnen haben beginnend mit 410 jede Funktionierungsform der Grenze zerstört; nach 441 gab es die danubische Grenze nicht mehr; erst 447 wurde sie durch ein Abkommen als Abmarkungsgrenze festgelegt.

III. Der Römische Waffenbestand aus den Grenzwehranlagen (4. Jahrhundert) III.1. Allgemeine Angaben über die spätrömischen Waffen Es gibt noch kein allgemeines Werk, das die römischen Waffen aus dem 4. Jahrhundert darstellt und analysiert. M. Feugère36 widmete ein Kapitel seines Buches der Bewaffnung aus der spätrömischen Zeit. Unter den Waffen für den Fernkampf erwähnt er die Pfeilspitzen mit Tülle und Flügel (à barbelure) und mit Befestigungsdorn (à douille). Die einzigen spätrömischen Wehranlagen an der danubischen Grenze, aus denen mehrere Waffen veröffentlicht wurden, sind Gornea /Moesia I37, Hinova /Dacia Ripensis38 und Kula /Dacia Ripensis39. Eine Gesamtstudie über die spätrömischen Waffen aus den Wehranlagen von Dacia Ripensis hat N. Gudea veröffentlicht40. Taf. 3–4. Ursprünglich habe ich eine Typologie für die Waffen für den Fernkampf aus den Wehranlagen des 2.–3. Jahrhunderts aus Dacia Porolissensis aufgestellt41. Durch Vergleich mit den Waffen aus demselben Zeitraum aus anderen Provinzen habe ich festgestellt, daß es im Falle der Lanzen- und Speerspitzen eine gewisse Einheitlichkeit und bei den Pfeilspitzen der Form nach eine größere Velfalt gibt. Ein Blatt aus der Notitia Dignitatum, das die insignia viri illustris magister officiorum darstellt, weist darauf hin, daß die Lanze mit blattförmiger Spitze und trapezförmiger Klinge die Hauptwaffe geblieben war. Taf. 5. Ein Dypthichon aus Elfenbein stellt den Kaiser Theodosius II. dar, bewaffnet mit einer Lanze desselben Typus, mit einem kurzen Degen und einem Schild. Taf. 6. Über die spätrömischen Waffen für den Fernkampf kann behauptet werden: a. es wurden die Haupttypen der Waffen aus dem 2.–3. Jahrhundert beibehalten – Lanzenspitzen mit blattförmigen Spitzen, mit Tülle oder mit Dorn; – Wurfspeerspitzen mit pyramidalen Klinge, mit Tülle oder mit Dorn; – Wurfspeer- /Pfeilspitzen mit Flügeln verschiedener Länge und mit Tülle;  Bjelejac-Ivanišević 1993, 124.  Burns 1981, 392. 36  Feugére 1993, 235–254. 37  Gudea 1976. 38  Davidescu 1980. 39  Atanasova 2002. 40  Gudea 2011. 41  Gudea 1994. 34 35

12

Nicolae Gudea

– Wurfspeer- /Pfeilspitzen mit doppeltem pyramidalen Körper und mit Befestigungsdorn – die sogenannten Bolzen; – Ballistateile; – es wurden Waffen weder für den Nahkampf (Säbel, Degen, Dolche) noch für die Verteidigung (Schilder, Panzerhemdteile) entdeckt; – es wurden nur sehr wenige Ausrüstungsgegenstände entdeckt. Außer den Waffen für den Fernkampf aus der Gruppe 3 (Wurfspeer- /Pfeilspitzen mit Flügeln und mit Tülle, plumbatae, die nur in der späten Zeit auftauchen und vermutlich mit den ballista geschleudert wurden) werden auch im 2.–3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. wiedergefunden.

IV. Die gotische militärische Tradition. Waffentypen aus dem Gebiet der Sântana-Černjachov-Kultur (vor 378 datierbare) Procopius42 ist die Quelle, die uns ein Bild über die Waffen der Goten bietet: „sie sind für solche Kämpfe (reitende Bogenschützen) nicht vorbereitet, ihre Ritter handhaben vor allem Lanzen und Schwerte und ihre Bogenschützen bilden das Fußvolk.“ Es gibt drei wichtigere Arbeiten, die gotische Waffen und Ausrüstungsgegenstände aus dem Zeitraum bis 378 sowie ihren Fundort darstellen43. Taf. 7–8; 13. Alle drei Arbeiten führen fast dieselben Waffen in unterschiedlichen Untersuchungsphasen der Sântana-Černjachov-Phase vor. Taf. 7. Gemäß der Typologie, die ich für die römischen Waffen aus dem 2.–3. beziehungsweise für das 4. Jahrhundert für Dacia Ripensis aufgestellt habe, sind die folgenden Waffentypen:

IV.1. Einzelwaffen für den Nahkampf (Schwerte, Degen) und Kampfbeile. Auf diese Waffen beharre ich aber nicht. Taf. 9. IV.2. Waffen für den Fernkampf. Taf. 10; 16–17, 18 a. weidenblattförmige Lanzenspitzen mit Tülle Varianten : lange Klinge + lange Tülle lange Klinge + kurze Tülle kurze Klinge + lange Tülle mittelgroße Klinge + mittelgroße Tülle b. trapezförmige Lanzenspitzen mit Tülle Varianten: mittelgroße Klinge + mittelgroße Tülle kurze Klinge + lange Tülle c. birnblattförmige Lanzenspitze mit Tülle Varianten: lange Klinge + lange Tülle mittelgroße Klinge + mittelgroße Tülle kurze Klinge + lange Tülle d. Wurfspeerspitzen mit pyramidaler Klinge, mit vier- oder dreieckigem Profil und Tülle Varianten: lange Klinge + lange Tülle mittelgroße Klinge + mittelgroße Tülle kurze Klinge + kurze Tülle kurze Klinge + lange Tülle e. Wurfspeerspitzen mit doppelter pyramidaler Klinge und Tülle Varianten: kurze Klinge + lange Tülle Mittelgroße Klinge + lange Tülle f. Wurfspeer- /Pfeilspitzen mit dreieckiger Klinge mit Flügeln Varianten: kurze Klinge + lange Tülle kurze Klinge + gewundene Tülle + Blei lange Klinge + kurze Tülle kurze Klinge + mittelgroße Tülle  BG V, 27.  Kokowski 1990; Magomedov-Levada 1996; Magomedov 2001.

42 43

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau

13

g. Kampfbeile. Taf. 11

IV.3. Waffen für die Verteidigung. Taf. 12; 19 Ich beschäftige mich jetzt mit diesen Waffen nicht, aber erwähnte die Anwesenheit von Schildumbos44.

IV.4. Ausrüstungsgegenstände Zu den Ausrüstungsgegenständen gehören die einfachen Gürtelschnallen und die Gürtelschnallen mit Adlerkopf: Covin, Boljetin, Ravna (Moesia I)45 und Celei (Dacia Ripensis)46.

IV.5. Pferdegeschirrteile Zu diesen zählen wir – die Sporen aus Eisen oder sogar aus Silber. Ihre Typologie wurde nicht vollständig aufgestellt47. Taf. 12; – die Kandaren aus Eisen48. Etliche Schlußfolgerungen: 1. die Aufteilungen habe ich vor allem aufgrund der Arbeiten von B. Magomedov und V. Levada49 und die Trennung der Waffentypen für den Fernkampf nach ihren Tafeln50 gemacht, in denen diese Waffen „haufenweise“ und ohne Maßstab dargestellt wurden; 2. aus diesen habe ich die Hauptformen /-typen herausgewählt. Die Typologie verfolgte dieselben Prinzipien: die Form und Länge der Klinge, die Länge der Tülle oder des Befestingungsdornes. Es ist eine vorläufige Typologie und es sollte auch das Kriterium der Ausmaße – dann, wenn dies möglich sein wird – gesucht und angewandt werden; 3. es kann behauptet werden, daß die von der Kavellerie benutzten gotischen Waffen (die großen Lanzen, die Wurfspeere) – wie auch die Pferdegeschirrteile – zahlreicher sind. Höchstwahrscheinlich gab es auch reitende Bogenschützen, auf die die leichten Wurfspeerspitzen und die Pfeilspitzen hinweisen; 4. die Waffentypen für den Fernkampf aus der Welt der Goten sind dieselben wie die römischen Waffentypen. Diese bestätigen teilweise die Hypothese von H. Wolfram, gemäß der das römische Heer für das gotische Heer als Muster diente51 sowie jene von G. Gomolka-Fuchs, der der Meinung war, daß die Goten von den Römern bewaffnet wurden52. In einem ausführlichen Beitrag macht K. Godlowski53 einen Überblick des römischen Handels in Germania Libera und hebt hervor, daß neben den Schmuckgegenständen auch die Ausrüstungsgegenstände, das Pferdegeschirr und die Degen römischer Herkunft sind. Meine Typologie der Waffen für den Fernkampf deuten auf dieselbe Tatsache hin.

V. Archäologische Angaben über die gotischen Foederaten aus der danubischen Grenzzone V.1. Züge der Sachkultur der Goten nach 378 in den Wehranlagen an der Grenze Die gotischen Foederaten, die in Moesia I, Dacia Ripensis und Moesia II (und sogar auch in Scythia Minor) angesiedelt wurden, können nicht aufgrund der Waffen für den Fernkampf identifiziert werden, und zwar aus dem einfachen Grunde, daß sie nicht veröffentlicht oder weil keine gefunden wurden.  Magomedov-Levada 1996, 561, abb. 4; Kokowski 1990, S. 348, abb. 4; 349, abb. 5/b.  Rusu 1959, 523, Abb. 12. 46  Popović 1987, 133. 47  Magomedov-Levada 1996, 310; 565, abb. 8. 48  Magomedov-Levada 1996, 566, abb. 9. 49  Magomedov-Levada 1996. 50  S. 563–564, abb. 6–7. 51  Wolfram 1990, 15. 52  Gomolka-Fuchs 1990, 358. 53  Godlowski 1985, 337–366. 44 45

14

Nicolae Gudea

Wenn aber in Betracht gezogen wird, daß in bestimmten geschriebenen Texten auftaucht, daß sich ihre Taktik vor allem auf die Kavallerie und auf die militärische Tradition aus dem Gebiet der Sântana-Černjachov-Kultur beruhte, kann angenommen werden, daß sie weiterhin Lanzen und Wurfspeere benutzt haben und sogar Infanteriebogenschützen waren. Die Foederaten können aber aufgrund anderer Aspekte der Sachkultur, entweder durch kennzeichnende Keramikgefäße oder Schmuckgegenstände (Ohrringe mit polyedrischem Knopf, Armreifen, Fibeln verschiedener Typen), spezifischen Ausrüstungsgegenständen (einfache Gürtelschnallen, Schnallen mit Adlerkopf ), Kämme aus Knochen identifiziert werden54. Die Tatsache, daß in einigen Grenzwehranlagen (Viminacium /Kostolac, Pontes /Kladova, Aquae /Prahovo usw), die die Hunnen (spätestens 441) zerstört haben, kleinere Lager von Solidi entdeckt wurden, deuten darauf hin, daß die Foederaten in Gold bezahlt wurden und solche Münzen benutzten. Keramikgefäße gotischer Machart wurden in Moesia I: Belgrad, Vijnica, Sapaja55, Kostolac56; Kula, Kladovo, Hinova Oescus, in Dacia Ripensis; in Moesia II Belene, Svistov, Novo Selo, Novo Cerna, Iatrus, Silistra, Transmarisca57 veröffentlicht. Kämme aus Knochen, die für die gotische Kultur kennzeichnend sind, wurden in etlichen Siedlungen (Krivina /Iatrus) entdeckt58. Schmuck aus Silber: Ohrringe mit polyedrischem Knopf59. Ausrüstungsgegenstände: fingerförmige/gezackte Fibeln: Iatrus /Krivina60, Fibeln mit Halbschildplatte: Krivina /Iatrus61, Fibeln mit umgeschlagenem Fuß: Iatrus /Krivina62. Einfache Schnallen aus Silber: Iatrus /Krivina63, Schnallen mit Adlerkopf: Iatrus /Krivina64, Kovin65. Bügelfibel: Ratiaria /Arčar66. Gürtelschloß: Krivina /Iatrus67. Kloisonierte goldene Gürtelschnalle: Sapaja68.

V.2. Gotische Waffen in den Wehranlagen und Siedlungen an der danubischen Grenze Die Informationen über die Bewaffnung im allgemeinen und vor allem über die Waffen für den Fernkampf sind besonders spärlich, so daß das Thema beim gegenwärtigen Stand der Forschungen nicht gelöst werden kann. Das beste Beispiel ist zur Zeit die Wehranlage von Iatrus /Krivina69: – Waffen für den Nahkampf: Degenstützer, Spitze einer Schwertscheide, Schwert70 Abb. 14–45; 18; – Waffen für den Fernkampf: Teil eines Bogens – Endbefestiger, Pfeilspitzen aus Eisen mit Flügeln71, Transdierna /Tekija72. Taf. 16–17; 24. – Waffen für die Vesteigung. Taf. 19.  Popović 1987, 124–125.  Popović 1987, 126–128. 56  Ivanišević-Kazanski 2002, 101–157. 57  Vagalinski o. J., 250. 58  Gomolka 1990, 362. Abb. 2/8. 59  Gomolka 1990, 362. 60  Gomolka 1990, abb. 4/4. 61  Gomolka 1990, abb. 2/1. 62  Gomolka 1990, abb. 2/3–4. 63  Gomolka 1990, abb. 2/b. 64  Gomolka 1990, abb. 4/1. 65  Rusu 1959, 523, abb. 12. 66  Gomolka 1990, 358. 67  Gomolka 1990, 358. 68  Vinski, S. 36, taf. XVIII. 69  Gomolka 1990, 317; Bullow 2004, 75. 70  Gomolka 1990, 355. 71  Bullow 2004, 75. 72  Ivanišević 1999, 102, ist der Meinung, daß die Bogenbefestiger aus Knochen von Tekija gotische seien. 54 55

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau

15

In einem Grab von Hrtkovci (an der Grenze von Pannonia II, in der Nähe von Moesia I) wurden zahlreiche Befestiger aus Knochen für den Bogen gefunden73. Ich bin der Meinung, daß die Goten die Tradition der Waffen bewahrt haben, die in der SântanaČernjachov-Kultur vor 378 bekannt waren. Unter diesen Waffen, wie dies aus den oben dargestellten Angaben ersichtlich wird, herrschen die Lanzen und der Wurfspeer, die für die Kavallerie überwiegend sind, vor. Übrigens behauptet auch der spätrömische Schriftsteller Flavius Vegetius74, daß in dem römischen Heer die Bewaffnung und Ausrüstung der Kavallerie unter dem Einfluß der Goten beibehalten wurde. Es wird angenommen, daß der Sieg in der Schlacht von Hadrianopolis (378) der gotischen Kavallerie zu verdanken sei, die von Alatheus und Saprax geführt wurde. Für das Fehlen der Waffen für den Fernkampf und sogar für den Nahkampf deutete G. GomolkaFuchs an75, daß die Goten wahrscheinlich mit römischen Waffen gekämpft haben.

VI. Schlußfolgerungen VI.1 . Verbreitungsgebiet der spätgotischen Kultur (nach 378) Die Karte mit den Funden gotischer Sachkultur in den spätrömischen Provinzen Moesia I, Dacia Ripensis, Moesia II, Scythia Minor (Taf. 22–23) weist auf eine bemerkenswerte Lage hin (sie ist aber zu sehr von dem gegenwärtigen Stand der Forschungen bedingt). a. die gotischen Funde befinden sich in Siedlungen, Wehranlagen und Friedhöfen oder Einzelgräbern vor allem entlang des Flusses, uzw. südlich von ihm. Es gibt sehr wenige Entdeckungen in Siedlungen und Städten aus dem Innland76; b. in gewissen kleinen Festungen, die nach 378–395 völlig zerstört wurden, wie zum Beispiel Gornea (Moesia I), Orşova (Dacia Ripensis), Hinova (Dacia Ripensis), die sich am Nordufer des Flusses befanden, wurden keine gotischen Spuren entdeckt; c. in den an dem Südufer angelegten Wehranlagen, seien es jene, die nach 378 völlig zerstört wurden (z. B. Castra Martis /Kula) oder die, die teilweise zerstört und nachher rekonstruiert wurden z. B. Pontes /Kladovo, Tekija /Transdierna, Novae /Svistov, Iatrus /Krivina), sind die gotischen Spuren vor allem in der Form der Artefakten aus Keramik, Knochen usw. offensichtlich (Taf. 20–21).

VI.2. Ende der gotischen Kultur an der Unteren Donau Es wird behauptet, daß das Ende der Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur in den Gebieten nördlich der Donau für den Beginn der Hunneneinfälle datierbar sei, als die Goten die Donau überschritten und in das Reich eingedrungen waren77. Das Ende der gotischen Kultur im Grenzgebiet südlich der Donau, genauer in den Provinzen Dacia Ripensis, Moesia II – und möglicherweise auch in Scythia Minor – könnte theoretisch für die Zeit datiert werden, als die Ostgoten nach Pannonia übersiedelt wurden und die Westgoten sich nach Westen bewegt haben. Praktisch gibt es zwischen dem Ende der gotischen Kultur und den Hunneneinfällen südlich der Donau, die die danubische Grenze aufgelöst haben, einen engen Zusammenhang. V. Ivanišević78 ist der Meinung, daß im Gebiet des Eisernen Tores der Donau das Ende der gotischen Kultur für 441 datierbar sei, uzw. als die Hunnen nochmals alle römischen Wehranlagen zerstört haben.

 Ruševljan 1998, 97–101.  vgl. Coulston 1990, 149. 75  Gomolka-Fuchs 1990, 357. 76  vgl. Gomolka 1990, 363, abb. 3. 77  Gomolka 1990, 375. 78  Ivanišević 1999, 106. 73 74

16

Nicolae Gudea

Abkürzungen und Literatur Literarische Quellen AmMarc Ammianus Marcellinus Rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt. Rec. C. U. Clark, L. Traubert, G. Haereo. Berlin 1963. Eutropius Eutropii Breviarum ab Urbe condita. Rec. H. Droysen. Berlin 1879. Iordanes Iordanis Romana et Getica. Rec. Th. Mommsen. Berlin 1882 (1961). Mauricius Mauricius Strategicon / Arta militară. Hrsg. H. Mihăiescu. Bucureşti 1970. NotDign Notitia Dignitatum accedunt notitia urbis constantinopolitanae et laterculi provinciarum. Hrsg. O. Seck. Berlin 1876. Procopius Procopii Caesariensis Opera omnia. Rec. J. Haury. Adenda et corrigenda G. Wirth. Leipzig 1962–1964. Socrates Socratis scolastici Ecclesiastica Historia. Hrsg. R. Hussey, W. Wright. I–III. Oxford 1893. Vegetius Vegetius, Epitoma rei militaris. Hrsg. C. Lang. Leipzig 1885. Zosimus Zosimi comitis et advocati fisci, Historia Nova, Hrsg. L. Mendelsohn. Leipzig 1887. Theoretische Werke über die Federati Burns 1981 Th. J. Burns, The German and the Roman frontier policy (ca. A. D. 350–370), ArheološkiVestnik (Ljubliana) XXXII, 1981, 390–404. Cesa 1990 Maria Cesa, Römisches Heer und barbarische Foederaten: Bemerkungen zur Weströmische Politik un den Jahren 402–412, Valet-Kazanski 1990, 187–194. Graf 1998 D. F. Graf, Foederati at the northern and eastern frontier: a comparative analysis, in The Roman frontier at Lower Danube. 4th–6th centuries (Bucureşti 1998), 17–32. federati H. Steuer, federati, RGA IX, 1995, S. 290–301. Scharf 2001 R. Scharf, Von den rechtlichen Kategorie zur byzantinischen Truppengattung (Wien 2001). Waas 1971 M. Waas, Germanen im römischen Dienst (im 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr.) (Bonn 1971). Wheeler 1998 E. L. Wheeler, Constantin’s gothic treaty of 332 – a reconsideration of Eusebius VC 4.5.6. M. Zahariade (Hrsg.) The Roman frontier at Lower Danube. 4th–6th centuries. (Bucureşti 1998), 81–94. Allgemeine Werke über die spätrömische Geschichte Cizek 2002 Eug. Cizek, Istoria Romei [Die Geschichte Roms] (Bucureşti 2002). Gibbon 1976 Ed. Gibbon, Istoria declinului şi prăbuşirii Imperiului Roman. 1–3. Antologie, traducere şi prefaţă de D. Hurmuzescu [Die Geschichte des Untergangs und des Zusammenfalls des Römischen Reiches. 1–3. Antologie, Übersetzung und Vorwort von. D. Hurmuzescu] (Bucureşti 1976). Jones 1964 A. H. M. Jones, The later Roman Empire (284–602). A social, economic and administrative survey. I–III (Oxford 1964). Sonderwerke über die spätrömische Zeit an der Unteren Donau Bondoc 2009 D. Bondoc, The Roman rule to the north of the Lower Danube during the Late Roman and Early Byzantine period (Cluj-Napoca 2009).

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau

17

Tejral 1988 J. Tejral, Zur Chronologie der frühen Völkerwanderungszeit im mittleren Donauraum. Archaeologia Austriaca 72, 1988. Zahariade 1988 M. Zahariade, Moesia Secunda, Scythia Minor ans Notitia Dignitatum (Bucureşti 1988) Zahariade 2006 M. Zahariade, Scythia Minor. A history of a later Roman province (284–681) (Amsterdam 2006). Allgemeine Werke über spätrömische Waffen Coulston 1990 J. C. N. Coulston, Later Roman armour. 3rd–6th centuries AD. JRMES I, 1990, 139–160. Feugère 1993 M. Feugère, Les armes romains de la Republique à l’antiquité tardive (Paris). Atanasova et alii 2005 Ioradanka Atanasova, K. Dimitrov, Gergana Kabakcieva, Ana Iotzova, G. Kuzmanov, K. Dimitrov, Castra Martis. Quadriburgium i Kastell (Sofia 2005). Gudea 2010 N. Gudea, Beiträge zur Kenntnis des spätrömischen Heeres (4. Jahrhundert). Waffen für den Fernkampf aus den Wehranlagen an der Nordgrenze von Dacia Ripensis. Revista Bistriţei XXIV, 20120, 267–284. Werke über die Bewaffnung der Goten vor und nach 378 Kaczanowski-Zaborovski 1988 P. Kaczanowski, J. Zaborovski, Bemerkungen über die Bewaffnung der Wielbark-Kultur, in Kultura Wielbarska v mlodaszym okrusje rzymskim (Lublin 1988), 221–239. Kazanski 1991 M. Kazanski, A propos des armes et des elements de harnaschament orientaux en Occident à l’époque des Grandes Migrations (IV–V s), JRA 4, 1991, 123–139. Kazanski-Legoux 1988 M. Kazanski, R. Legoux, Contributions à l’étude des temoignages archéologiques des Gots en Europe Orientale à l’époque des Grandes Migrations: la chronologie de la culture Tschernjyachow recente. Archeologie Medievale 18, 1988, 7–53 Kokowski 1994 A. Kokowski, L’art militaire des Gots à l’époque romaine tardive (d’aprés les données archéologiques). ValetKazanski 1990, 335–354. Magomedov-Levada 1996 B. Magomedov, M. E. Levada, Oružie thscernjahovskoi kulturi. In Materiali po arheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii V, Simferopol 1996, 304–323, 558–566. Raddatz 1985 K. Raddath, Die Bewaffnung der Germanen von letzten Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis zur Völkerwanderungszeit. ANRW II. 12.3, 1985, 282. Rusu 1959 M. Rusu, Gürtelschnallen mit Adlerkopf (VI.–VII. Jahrhundert u. Z.), Dacia III, 1959, 485–523. Allgemeine Werke über die Goten Bierbrauer 1994 V. Bierbrauer, Arhäologie und Geschichte der Goten vom 1.–7. Jahrhundert, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 28, 1994, S. 163–168 Gomolka 1999 Gudrun Gomolka-Fuchs, Die Sântana de Mureş-Kultur-Tschernjakov. Bonn 1999. Akten des Internationale Kolloquiums in Caputh vom 20. bis 24. Oktober 1995 (Bonn 1999). Kazanski 1991 M. Kazanski, Les Goths (1er–7eme sciècles aprés J. C.) (Paris 1991). Magomedov 2001 B. Magomedov, Černjachovska kultura. Problema etnosi (Lublin 2001) Wolfram 1990 H. Wolfram, Die Goten. Von den Anfängen bis zur Mitte des sechsten Jahrhunderts (München 1990)

18

Nicolae Gudea

Allgemeine Werke über das spätrömische Heer Le Bohec X. Le Bohec, L’armée romaine sous le Bas Empire (Paris 2006). Hoffmann 1969 B. Hoffmann, Das spätrömische Bewegungsheer und die Notitia Dignitatum. I–II (Düdsseldorf 1969). Künzl 2008 E. Künzl, Unter den golden Adler. Der Waffen-schmuck der rőmischen Imperiums (Mainz 2008). Šciukin 1990 M. Šciukin, A propos des contacts militaires entre les Sarmates et les Germains à l’époque romaine (d’aprés armement et specialment les umbos de bouclier et les lances). Valet-Kazanski 1990, 323–333. Southern-Dixon 1996 Pat Southern, Karen R. Dixon, The later roman army (London 1996). Wolfram 1990 H. Wolfram, L’armée romaine comme modèle pour l’exercitus barbarorum. Valet-Kazanski 1990, 13–15. Werke über gotischen Anwesenheiten in den Provinzen an der Unteren Donau Bierbrauer 1980 V. Bierbrauer, Zur chronologischen, soziollogischen und regionalen Gliederung des ostgermanischen Fundstoffes des 5. Jahrhunderts in Südosteuropa. Symposion Zwettel (Wien 1990), 131. Birtašević 1964 M. Birtašević, Singidunum za vreme seoba naroda, Beograd 1964. Bjelajac-Ivanišević 1991 Ljiljiana Bjelajac, V. Ivanišević; Les témoignages archéologiques des Grandes Invasions à Singidunum. Starinar XLII, 1991 (1993), 123–139. Bullow 1998 Gerda von Bullow, Federaten in spätantiken Limeskastell Iatrus, (Moesia II). In Peter U (Hrg.), Stephanis Numismatikos. Edith Schönert-Geiss zum 65. Geburtstag (Berlin 1998), 145–157. Bullow 2004 Gerda von Bullow, Römer und Barbaren in Moesia Secunda, Ephemeris Dacoromana XII, 2004, 71–79. Gomolka 1969 Gudrun Gomolka-Fuchs, Zur Siedlungsgeschichte am spätrömischen Limes in Moesia Inferior. Limes 9 Cardiff 1969, 213–220. Gomolka 1999 Gudrun Gomolka-Fuchs, Ein völerwanderungszeitliche Nephritschnalle aus dem spätrömischen Limeskastell Iatrus in Nordbulgarien. In G. von Bullow, Al. Milčeva (Hrgs.), Der Limes an der Unteren Donau von Diokletian bis Heraklios (Sofia 1999), 189–194. Gudea 1990 N. Gudea, Prăbuşirea apărării romane de frontieră la Dunărea de Mijloc şi de Jos după 378 cu privire specială la Dacia Ripensis / Der Zusammenfall des spätrömischen Grenze an der Mittleren und Unteren Donau nach 378. Mit einem besonderen Blick auf die Provinzen Moesia Prima und Dacia Ripensis. Revista Bistriţei XXIII, 2009, 85–103. Ivanišević 1999 V. Ivanišević, Le début de l’époque des Grandes Migrations dans l’Illyricum de nord. J. Tejral, Chr. Valet, M. Kazanski, L’occident romain et l’Europe Centrale au début des Grand Migrations (Brno 1999), 95–107. Ivanišević / Kazanski 2002 V. Ivanišević, M. Kazanski, Le necropole des Grandes Migrations à Viminacium. Singidunum 3, 2002, 101–157. Kazanski 1997 M. Kazanski, La Gaule et le Danube à l’époque des Grandes Migrations, in Neue Beiträge zur Erforschung der Spätantike im mittleren Donauraum (Brno 1997), 286Mitrea 1972 B. Mitrea, Die Goten an der Unteren Donau im 3.–4. Jahrhundert. in Studia Gothica, 1972, 88Mrkobrad 1980 D. Mrkobrad, Arheološki nalazi seoba naroda u Jugoslavije (Beograd 1980). Popović 1987 Vl. Popović, Die süddanubischen Provinzen in der Spätantike vom Ende des 4. Jahrhunderts bis zur Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts, in B. Hänsel (Hrsg.), Die Völker Südosteuropas im 6. Jahrhundert bis dem 8. Jahrhundert (Berlin 1987), 124-

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau

19

Selier 1990 Cl. Selier, Les Germains dans l’armée romaine tardive en Gaule Septentrionale. Le temoignage archéologique. Valet-Kazanski 1990, 187–194. Spesar 1999 Perica Spesar, Danubian limes between Lederata and Aquae during the migration period. J. Tejral, V. Ivanišević, M. Kazanski, The north danubian territoria during the Great Migration period (5th–6th centuries). Todorović 1957 J. Todorović, Ranoslavenske peči kod Višnice, Starinar VII–VIII, 1956–1957, 329–334, Abb. 1–5. Wachtel 1977 K. Wachtel, Kastell Iatrus und die spätantiken Limesbauten an der Unteren Donau. Limes Xanten 1974 (1977), 405–409. Wolfram-Daim 1980 H. Wolfram, F. Daim (Hrsgs.), Die Völker an der mittleren und unteren Donau im fünften und sechsten Jahrhundert (Wien 1980). Zeiller 1924 J. Zeiller, Le premier établissement des Gots chrétiens dans l’Empire d’Orient, in Mélanges offerts à M. Gustave Schlumberger (Paris 1924), 3–11. Zotović 1980 Ljubica Zotović, Nekropole iz viemena seobe naroda sa uže gradske teritorije Viminaciuma, Starinar XXXI, 1980, 95– Werke über die gotische Sachkultur nach 378 südlich der Donau Dimitriević et alii 1962 Danica Dimitriević, J. Kovačević, Z. Vinski, Seoba narodov. Arheološki nalazi jugoslavenskoj Podunavlja (Zemun 1962). Vagalinski 1999 L. F. Vagalinski, Spätrömische und völkerwanderungszeitliche Drehscheibenkeramik mit eingeglätter Verzierung südlich der Unteren Donau (Bulgarien) (Gomolka 1999), 156–175. Vagalinski o.J. L. F. Vagalinski, Late antique burnished pottery and barbarian presence south the Lower Danube (Bulgaria) (Sofia 2002), 250–253. Vagalinski / Atanasov / Dimitrov 2000 L. F. Vagalinski, G. Atanasov, G. Dimitrov, Eagle-Head buckles from Bulgaria (6th–7th centuries AD), Arhaeologia Bulgarica 4, Nr. 3, 2000, 78–91. Vinski 1978 Z. Vinski, Archäologische Spuren ostgotischer Anwesenheit im heutigen Bereich Jugoslawiens. Problemí seobe narodna u karpatskai Kotlini (Novi Sad 1978), 35–47, taf. VIII.

Taf. 1. Karte des danubischen Gebietes des spätrömischen Reiches um das Jahr 400.

20 Nicolae Gudea

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau

Taf. 2. Karte der Nordgrenze der spätrömischen Provinz Dacia Ripensis (nach N. Gudea).

21

22

Nicolae Gudea

L3

L2

L1

L4

L5

l5

l1

l3

l6

l4

Taf. 3. Spätrömische Waffentypen aus den Wehranlagen von Dacia Ripensis. Lanzenspitzen mit Tülle (die Gruppen I–II) und mit Befestigungsdorn (nach N. Gudea).

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau

23

Sg2 Sg1

Su1

Sg3

Su2

Su3

Su4

Su5

Sv

Taf.  4. Spätrömische Waffentypen aus den Wehranlagen von Dacia Ripensis (die Gruppen II von leichten und schweren Pfeilspitzen) (nach N. Gudea).

24

Nicolae Gudea

Taf. 5. Notitia Dignitatum: insignia viri illustris magistri officiorum: Lanzen und Kampfbeile.

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau

25

Taf. 6. Diptychon aus Elfenbein: Darstellung des Kaisers Theodosius I., stehend, mit Lanze, Schwert und Schild (nach E. Künzl, Unter der goldenen Adler. Der Waffenschmuck der römischer Imperium. Mainz, 2008, p. 134, fig. 181).

Taf. 7. Karte mit der Verbreitung der Funde der Sântana de Mureş-Cereneahov-Kutur (nach Magomedov 1996, S. 558, Abb. 1).

26 Nicolae Gudea

Taf. 8. Karte mit Ortschaften aus dem Gebiet der Sântana de Mureş-Kultur, in denen Waffen entdeckt wurden (nach Magomedov 2001, S. 90, Abb. 90).

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau

27

3

6

0 10 cm

5

8 9

7a

5

1

6

7

3–10

0 10 cm

2

8

3

10

9

4

Taf. 9. Waffen für den Nahkampf aus dem Gebiet der Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur (nach Magomedov-Levada 1996, S. 599, Abb. 2; S. 560, Abb. 3): Degen und Schwerte.

1

2

4

7

28 Nicolae Gudea

27

28

29

19

12

31

30

20

3

32

14

22

35

33

7

0 5 cm

21

13

5 6

23 34

15

8

36

24

18

16 17

9

25

10

16

17

18

3

2

29

19

4

30

31

20

5

32

33

22

34

24

23

7

8

0 5 cm

21

6

12

37

35

36

25

26

11

9

38

27

39

28

40

15

13 14

10

Taf. 10. Waffen für den Fernkampf aus dem Gebiet der Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur: blattförmige Lanzenspitzen mit Tülle oder mit Stiel sowie Pfeilspitzen (nach Magomedov-Levada 1996, S. 563, Abb. 6; 564, Abb. 7) .

26

11

1

2

4

1

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau

29

30

Nicolae Gudea

1

2

3

6 4

7 5

10 8

11

9

12 14

13

15

16

17

19 18

20 21

23

22

Taf. 11. Waffen für den Fernkampf aus dem Gebiet der Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur: Kampfbeile (nach Magomedov-Levada 1996, S. 562, Abb. 5).

5

10

8

7

13

4

3

14

15

17

11 12

21

13

7 8

14

19

1–6; 9–23

23

22

18

9

2

3

15

10

20

16

6

5

4

Taf. 12. Waffen für die Verteidigung aus dem Gebiet der Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur: Schieldumbos und Pferdegeschirrteile: Sporen (nach Magomedov-Levada 1996, S. 561, Abb. 4; S. 565, Abb. 8).

12

11

9

6

2

1

1

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau

31

Taf. 13. Karte mit Ortschaften aus dem Gebiet der Sântana de Mureş-Kultur, in denen Waffen aus der spätrömischen Zeit entdeckt wurden! (nach Kokowski 1990, S. 345, Abb. 1).

32 Nicolae Gudea

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau

33

e

d

f

0 10 cm

a

c

b

Taf. 14. Waffen für den Nahkampf aus dem Gebiet der Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur: Degen (nach Kokowski 1990, S. 347, Abb. 3).

34

Nicolae Gudea

0 5 cm

Taf. 15. Waffen für den Nahkampf aus dem Gebiet der Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur: Degen und Schwerte (nach Kokowski 1990, S. 346, 348, Abb. 2, 4; Abb. 8/f, m, j).

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau

b2

f5

a6

a5

n

e2

35

a2

a1

g

h

i

k f

0 3 cm

c d

e

Taf.  16. Waffen für den Fernkampf aus dem Gebiet der Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur: blattförmige Lanzenspitzen mit Tülle (nach Kokowski 1990, S. 346, Abb. 2 c-h, r; S. 348, Abb. 4 b2, 12, 15; S. 349, Abb. 5/a1-a7, 5c; S. 352, Abb. 8/k).

36

Nicolae Gudea

j

q

k

m

x

w

l

t

s

y

c

j

f2

k

w

q

m

x

s

l

t

y

Taf.  17. Waffen für den Fernkampf aus dem Gebiet der Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur: Pfeilspitzen mit Befestigungsdorn und Tülle (nach Kokowski 1990, S. 346, Abb. 2/j, k, l, m, q, w, x, s, t).

p

a4

a7

a3

Abb. 18. Kampfbeile aus Eisen aus dem Gebiet der Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur (nach Kokowski 1990, S. 348, Abb. 4/f, l; S. 346, Abb. 2/n, o, p, u, z; S. 349, Abb. 5/ a3, a4, a7).

o

f1

z

u

n

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau

37

38

Nicolae Gudea

d

f4

0 10 cm

a1

a2

l

c1

c2

0 10 cm

v a

b

Taf. 19. Waffen für den Nahkampf aus dem Gebiet der Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur: Schildumbos (nach Kokowski 1990, S. 346, Abb. 2/a, m, p; S. 348, Abb. 4/a1, a2, c1, d, e, l; S. 349, Abb. 5b).

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau

39

Taf.  20. Waffentypen aus dem Gebiet der Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur (nach N. Gudea) vor 378: Lanzenspitzen mit Tülle, schwere Pfeilspitzentypen mit Tülle .

40

Nicolae Gudea

Taf. 21. Waffentypen aus dem Gebiet der Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur (nach N. Gudea) vor 378: leichte Pfeilspitzentypen mit Stiel.

Taf. 22. Karte der römischen Grenze an der Unteren Donau mit gotischen Funden (nach Magomedov-Levada 1996, S. 158, Abb. 1).

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau

41

42

Nicolae Gudea

Moesia I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

BELGRAD/SINGIDUNUM VIŠN1CA/OCTAVVM SEONA DUBROVICA/MARGUM KOSTOLAC/VIMINACIUM INS. SAPAJA ČESAVA/NOVAE BOLJETIN/SMORNA CAMPSA SALDlJM/GRATIANE DONJI MILANOVAC/TALIATA DIANA KOVIN/CONSTANTIA

1

2

3

4

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

5

6

7

8

9

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

X

X X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

Dacia Ripensis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1

ORȘOVA/DIERNA TEKIJA/TRANSDIERNA KLADOVO/PONTES KORBOVO AQUAE BORDELJ VIDROVAC VALJUGA RADUJEVAC CASTRA MARTIS ARČAR LOM/ALMUS HĂRLEC GIGEN/OESCUS CELEI/SUCIDAVA DROBETA

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

Moesia II 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

BELENE/DIMUM SVIŠTOV/NOVAE KRIVINA/IATRUS DUROSTORUM NOVA CERNA MALAK PRESLAVEC/ NIGRINIANIS TRANSMARISCA/RUSE

1

2

3

4

X

X

X

X

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Taf. 23. Tabelle mit den Ortschaften an dem danubischen Limes, in denen gotische Artefakte entdeckt wurden. Legende: 1. reparierte Wehranlagen; 2. gotische Siedlungen und Friedhöfe; 3. gotische Keramik; 4. Kamm aus Knochen; 5. Ohrringe mit polyedrischem Knopf; 6. Armreifen; 7. Fibeln mit Halbscheiben; 8. Fibeln mit dreieckigem Kopf; 9. Fibeln mit umgeschlagenem Fuß; 10. Schnalle mit Adlerkopf; 11. einfache Schnallen; 12. Degenstützer; 13.....; 14: Degen; 15. Bogenbefestiger; 16. Knopf der Dolchscheide; 17. Pfeilspitzen; 18. Kampfbeile.

Über die gotischen Foederaten an den Grenzen der römischen Provinzen an der Unteren Donau

43

Taf. 24. Iatrus /Krivina (Moesia II). Platte aus Knochen für den Befestiger am Bogen; Ende einer Dolchscheide (nach Gomolka 1994, S. 361, Abb. 1/4, 6).

L

es influences steppiques dans l’équipement militaire et équestre des Slaves (Ve–VII e siècles) Michel Kazanski

Centre d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance Collège de France 52, rue du cardinal Lemoine, 75005-Paris [email protected]

Résumé: Cet article est consacré aux témoignages archéologiques des contacts militaires entre les Slaves et les peuples steppiques aux Ve–VIIe s. L’influence steppique dans l’équipement militaire et équestre slaves (armes à lame, arcs renforcés, flèches à trois ailettes, crochets de carquois, piques, boucles de harnachement en os, etc.) se manifeste aussi bien à l’époque hunnique et post-hunnique, que plus tard, à l’époque du premier Khaganat avar. Mots-clés: Slaves, nomades, armes, harnachement, influence.

I

l convient de souligner l’importance particulière des peuples nomades des steppes dans l’histoire militaire du Haut Moyen-Âge en Europe orientale et centrale. En effet, dès le début de l’Âge du Fer, l’histoire de cette partie de l’Europe est marquée par les ravages des hordes nomades qui passaient par le long couloir de la grande steppe eurasienne. Les performances des cavaliers des steppes, leur mobilité et leur supériorité numérique dans les batailles décisives expliquent leurs succès militaires. La force des cavaliers a permis aux peuples des steppes de jouer un rôle de chef de file dans les confédérations guerrières. D’après les témoignages des sources écrites, on connaît bien les contacts militaires entre les Slaves et les peuples de la steppe au Ve–VIIe s. Parmi les épisodes les plus marquants de ces contacts, on peut citer la guerre entre les Huns et les Ostrogoths, à cause de l’attaque de ces derniers contre les Antes1, à la fin du IVe-début du Ve s., la présence conjointe des Huns, des Sclavènes et des Antes dans les troupes de Bélisaire en 536–546, l’invasion des Koutrigours et des Sclavènes dans les Balkans en 559, les guerres entre les Avars et les Antes dans les années 550–600 et surtout les relations avaro-slaves en 578–626, quand les Sclavènes du Bassin des Carpates et dans une moindre mesure ceux du Bas-Danube et des Balkans sont les alliés du premier Kaganat avar et, dans certains cas, en font partie2. Notre propos consiste à examiner les témoignages archéologiques de ces contacts militaires, témoignages attestés par les armes et les pièces de harnachement d’origine steppique, découvertes dans le contexte slave du Ve–VIIe s. Examinons à présent ces pièces d’équipement militaire et équestre par catégories, indépendamment de leur chronologie. Il s’agit d’objets provenant des sites de trois civilisations du Ve–VIIe s., dont l’attribution slave est acceptée par tous les archéologues qui travaillent sur ce matériel: Prague (correspond grosso modo aux Sclavènes des sources écrites), Penkovka (de toute évidence les Antes) et Koločin (actuellement sans identification précise) (fig. 1).  Ces derniers étaient très probablement des alliés subordonnés aux Huns (Kazanski 2009). Dans les langues altaïques, dont celle des Huns faisait sans doute partie, «Antes» signifie «alliés», «amis», «gens qui ont prêté un serment d’amitié et de fidélité» (Filin 1962, 58,59; Popov 1973, 34–37). 2  A propos des contacts entre les peuples steppiques et les Barbares sédentaires de la fin d’Antiquité et du début du Moyen-Âge voir: Kazanski 2013. 1

46

Michel Kazanski

Fig. 1. Découvertes d’équipement militaire et equestre sur les sites slaves du Ve–VIIe s. Civilisation de Prague et sites slaves du Bas-Danube – 1: Chivan Nicolae; 2: Grodék–25; 3: Hotomel; 4: Klementoviči; 5: Bernaševka; 6: Pişcolt; 7: Raškov–3; 8: Dresden-Stetzsch; 9: Zimno; 10: Davideni-Neamţ; 11: Izvoare-Bahia; 12: Sarata-Monteoru; 13: Haćki. Civilisation de Penkovka – 14: Staryj Orhej; 15: Selişte; 16: Novye Bratušany; 17: Miklaševskj; 18: Kizlevyj; 19: Hitcy; 20: Černečina; 21: Tarantcevo-Zanki; 22: VološskoeSurskaja Zabora; 23: Trebuženi; Civilisation de Koločin – 24: Demjanka; 25: Hohlov Vir; 26: Artujškovo; 27: Bolvanovo; 28: Kolodeznyj Bugor; 29: Bliznaki; 30: Demidovka; 31: Nikodimovo; 32: Rassuha–2; 33: Pesčanoe; 34: Krivec–4; 35: Tajmanova; 36: Kamenevo–2; 37: Veliki Budki; 38: Vladimirskoe.

Armes à lame. Une garde en fer massif (fig. 3.1) a été découverte sur l’habitat de la civilisation de Koločin à Velyki Budki, sur la Sula supérieure, en Ukraine (fig. 1.37)3. Cette garde appartient à une arme à lame, épée ou poignard, de type « asiatique », selon la terminologie de W. Menghin4. En Europe orientale, en Asie centrale et en Transcaucasie, ces armes sont déjà connues à l’époque romaine5. Piques (fig. 2). Ce sont des lances d’une longueur de 18 à 25 cm, à douille à flamme élancée triangulaire, élargie vers la base, de section losangique ou en lentille. Dans la zone slave (fig. 1.9,29,31), ces piques sont attestées à Zimno, en Volhynie, un habitat fortifié de la civilisation de Prague, ayant des traces nettes de destruction militaire6, ainsi que dans des habitats fortifiés de la civilisation de Koločin, Nikodimovo et Bliznaki7. Les chercheurs attribuent à cette arme une origine steppique, peutêtre avare8. Les prototypes de ces lances sont présents dans le contexte steppique déjà à l’époque hunnique9, mais ces armes sont nombreuses surtout pour l’époque plus tardive, dans les sites avars10 et bien attestées dans des tombes steppiques de la région pontique11. Ces piques avaient  Il’inskaja 1968, fig. 2.12; Kazanski 1999, 204, fig. 3.1.  Menghin1995, 165–175. 5  Voir en dernier lieu: Ivanišević / Kazanski 2009, 121,122; Tejral 2011, 282–285. 6  Aulih 1972, 49, tabl. IX:4. 7  Sedin 2011, fig. 2.3; 3.1; 5.3; Šmidt 2003, tabl. 2.3. 8  Von Freeden 1991, 610–623; Eger / Biermann 2009, 145,146. 9  Alföldi 1932, Taf. II.2. 10  Von Freeden 1991, 610–614. 11  Par ex. Rašev 2000, табл. 55.13; Kazanski 2012, fig. 9.16. 3 4

Les influences steppiques dans l’équipement militaire et équestre des Slaves

47

cependant une diffusion plus large, car on les connaît dans le contexte byzantin12 et chez les Lombards d’Italie13.

1

2

3

4

5

Fig. 2. Lances -piques provenant des sites slaves du Ve–VIIe s. 1: Zimno; 2: Bliznaki; 3–5: Nikodimovo. 1: d’après Aulih 1972, 49, tabl. IX; 2: Šmidt 2003, tabl. 2.3; 3–5: d’après Sedin 2011, fig. 2.3; 3.1; 5.3.

Haches de combat (fig. 3.2,3). Deux haches miniatures, de 9,5 et de 8 cm, ont été mises au jour dans des habitats fortifiés de la civilisation de Prague (fig. 1.9,13), à Zimno, et à Haćki, en Pologne14. Ils ont un corps étroit, légèrement courbé et un tranchant asymétrique peu développé. La hache de Haćki possède un talon. Des haches de combat de forme similaire sont attestées chez les Avars15. Appliques d’arcs en os renforcés (fig. 3.4). Une telle applique a été mise au jour dans le bâtiment VI de l’habitat de Hitcy (fig. 1.19), bâtiment appartenant à la phase initiale de la civilisation de Penkovka, du Ve-première moitié du VIe s.16 On sait que les cavaliers de la steppe, aussi bien que ceux des peuples européens, n’avaient pas d’étriers avant la fin du VIe s., ce qui rendait le combat rapproché assez difficile. Ainsi, un arc renforcé de plaques en os est une arme de prédilection hunnique. Il permet d’envoyer des flèches lourdes, à trois ailettes, qui causent aux adversaires et à leurs chevaux des blessures très graves17. Les mêmes arcs ont été adoptés par l’armée byzantine. Procope souligne que les arcs romains sont très forts18. Les Romains tirent la corde d’arc jusqu’à l’oreille et ni les boucliers ni les armures ne protègent l’adversaire d’un tel tir19. Cet arc renforcé et les flèches à trois ailettes sont bien présents dans le mobilier archéologique de la steppe à partir de l’époque hunnique et durant tout le Haut Moyen-Âge, notamment dans le contexte avar et chez les nomades de la steppe pontique20. D’autre part, quelques plaques d’os provenant d’arcs ont été découvertes dans des forteresses byzantines du VIe s., sur le Danube et dans la péninsule de Taman. Sous l’influence steppique, les arcs renforcés se diffusent chez les peuples sédentaires. Citons par exemple la sépulture d’un chef militaire germanique de l’époque d’Attila à Singidunum, en Illyricum, la tombe « princière » germanique de l’époque post-hunnique à Blučina en Moravie du Sud ou encore la tombe privilégiée alémanique à Esslingen-Rüdern, en Allemagne du Sud, où on a mis au jour des arcs renforcés21. Crochets de carquois (fig.  3.5,6). Deux crochets de carquois ont été mis au jour dans un contexte funéraire slave (fig.  1.6,12). Un crochet provient de la nécropole slave du VIe–VIIe s. de  Par ex. Uenze 1992, Taf. 42.1,3.  Von Freeden 1991, Abb. 3, 4. 14  Aulih 1972, tabl. VIII.35; Kobyliński / Szymański 2005. ryc. III–21, fot. III–13. 15  Par ex. Garam 1995, 349, Abb. 208.3/110, 4/525, 209; Bárdos / Garam 2009, Taf. 70.535.13, 89: 701.19, 129:1135.21. 16  Gorjunov 1981, fig. 21.9. 17  Voir par ex. Nikonorov / Hudjakov 2004, 193–203. 18  Procope, BP I.18.34. 19  Procope, BP I.18.34. 20  Kazanski 2012, 193,196. 21  Ivanišević / Kazanski 2009, 122–124. 12 13

48

Michel Kazanski

Sarata-Monteoru, sur le Bas-Danube22. Un deuxième crochet a été découvert dans une incinération dans la nécropole de Pişcolt, dans les Carpates23. De tels crochets sont attestés chez les nomades de la steppe de l’époque hunnique et post-hunnique24 et chez les Avars25, mais également dans des antiquités germaniques d’Europe centrale et occidentale du Ve–VIe s.26

2 1

3 4

5

6 Fig. 3. Armes d’origine steppique provenaént des sites slaves. 1: Veliki Budki; 2: Haćki; 3: Zimno; 4: Hitcy; 5: Sarata-Monteoru; 6: Pişcolt. 1: d’après Il’inskaja 1968, fig. 2.12; 2: d’après Kobyliński, Szymański 2005: fot. III–13; 2,3; 3: d’après Aulioh 1972: 43, tabl. VIII.35; 4: d’après Gorjunov 1981, fig. 21.9; 5: d’après Fiedler 1992, Abb. 12.15; 6: d’après Stanciu 2013, fig. 6.

Flèches à trois ailettes (fig. 4, 5.2–8, 10–38). De nombreuses découvertes sur les sites du Ve– VIIe s. appartiennent aux civilisations de Prague, Penkovka et Koločin (fig. 1.1, 3, 7–12, 14, 16–18, 20, 21, 23–36, 38) et montrent que les Slaves utilisaient, eux aussi, les flèches à trois ailettes typiques des peuples steppiques27. Certaines de ces flèches ont pu bien entendu appartenir aux ennemis des Slaves, attaquant leurs habitats28. Cependant, sur les sites slaves, d’où proviennent ces découvertes, à peu d’exceptions près (par ex. Zimno, Nikodimovo, Demidovka, la couche d’incendie de Hotomel), des traces de combats ou de destructions ne sont pas attestées. En revanche, certaines découvertes de flèches, notamment à Raškov et à Hotomel’ (niveau inférieur du site), au fond de silos, dans le remblai, témoignent de leur appartenance au contexte purement slave. La longueur de ces pointes de flèches varie de 4,5 à 13  cm. Leur but était de causer à l’adversaire et à ses chevaux de grandes blessures qui provoquaient une perte rapide de sang.. Parmi les formes présentes, celles élargies dans la partie médiane sont typiques de l’époque hunnique (par ex. fig. 4.1,2, 5.34,35), d’autres, élargies vers la base, sont caractéristiques de l’époque post-hunnique et avare (par ex. fig. 4.8,15,22–24, 5.2,3,8,10,11,17). Ce dernier type apparaît, à en juger par les découvertes à Blučina29, durant la phase D3 de la chronologie de Barbaricum (450–480/490). D’autre part,  Une découverte hors contexte: Fiedler 1992, fig. 12.15.  Stanciu 2011, pl. 117.5. 24  Epoque hunnique: Zaseckaja 1994, pl. 37.21, 46.19; époque post-hunnique: Komar / Kubyšev / Orlov 2006, fig. 39.10. 25  Kiss 2001, Taf. 90. 10. 26  Blučina, Nocera Umbra, Duraton: voir Ivanišević / Kazanski / Mastykova 2006, 41. 27  Kazanski 1999, 202; Kazanski 2013, 516, fig. 12.1–14,16–20. 28  Šuvalov 2004. 29  Tihelka 1963, fig. 10.9,10. 22 23

Les influences steppiques dans l’équipement militaire et équestre des Slaves

49

ces flèches sont attestées dans le tombeau 152.1904 de la nécropole de Kertch30, accompagnées d’une plaque-boucle gépide de la première moitié-milieu du VIe s.31 Ces flèches, originaires d’Asie centrale32, sont typiques avant tout des peuples steppiques à partir de l’époque hunnique33. D’autre part, elles sont très répandues chez les peuples sédentaires pratiquement partout en Europe barbare continentale, ainsi qu’à Byzance34.

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

7

9 14 10

16

17

11

12

15

13

22

18

19

20

21

29

23

24

25

26

27

28

Fig. 4. Flèches à trois ailettes provenant des sites slaves du Ve–VIIe s. 1: Pesčanoe; 2: Tajmanova; 3: Kolodeznyj Bugor; 4: Miklaševskij; 5,6: Izvoare-Bahia; 7: Bolvanovo; 8: Hohlov Vir; 9: Demjanka; 10: SarataMonteoru; 11: Kizlevyj; 12: Novye Brătušany; 13: Trebuženi; 14: Staryj Orhej; 15: Černečina; 16: Tarancevo -Zanki; 17: Chivan Nicolae; 18: Raškov–3; 19: Dresden-Stetzsch; 20–22: Davideni-Neamţ; 23–25: Hotomel; 26: Rassuha; 27: Krivec – 4; 28: Artjuškovo; 29: Kamenevo–2. 1–4,8,9,11: d’après Kazanski 1999, fig. 2.1–5,24,32; 5,6: d’après Mitrea 1978, fig. 9.1,2; 7: d’après Radjuš 2008, fig. 5.10; 10: d’après Nestor 1957, pl. 1.6; 12,13: d’après Rafalovič 1972, fig. 5.2,3; 14 15: d’après Prihodnjuk 1998, fig. 61.4,5; 16: d’après Berestnev, Ljubičev 1991, fig. 1.4; 17: d’après Teodorescu 1972, fig. 5.1; 18: d’après Baran 1988, fig. 11.16; 19: d’après Schmidt 1961, Abb. 44.b; 20–22: d’après Mitrea 1981, fig. 15.5,7, 16.1; 23–25: d’après Kuharenko 1961, tabl. 8.1,2,13; 26: d’après Gur’janov 2006, fig. 1.20; 27: d’après Oblomskij 2012, fig. 15.4; 28: d’après le dessin de A. Oblomskij; 29: d’après Terpilovskij 2005, fig. 6.1.

 Zaseckaja 1998, tabl. 17.10,14,15.  Zaseckaja 1998, tabl. 17.17. 32  Hudjakov 1986, 38,39. 33  Von Freeden 1991, 599–601; Stadler 1993, fig. 9; Eger / Biermann 2009, 142–145; Kazanski 2012, 193, 194. 34  Kazanski 1991, 135,136; Kazanski 1999, 202. 30 31

50

Michel Kazanski

Flèches à douille et à pointe pentagonale effilée (fig. 5.1). Une flèche de ce type, d’une longueur de 12,2 cm, à été découverte sur l’habitat slave de Gródek -2535, dans le bassin du Boug occidental (fig. 1.2). La pointe de section losangique est élargie vers l’extrémité. Selon les chercheurs polonais, cette pointe de flèche possède des parallèles avares de la deuxième moitié du VIe-début du VIIe s.36 Flèches en os (fig. 5.9). Une pointe de flèche en os, d’une longueur de 4 cm, provient de Selişte (fig.  1.15), un habitat de la civilisation de Penkovka, en Moldavie37. On sait, d’après la description d’Ammien Marcellin, que les Huns utilisaient des flèches en os38. Leur existence est confirmée par des découvertes dans des niveaux de destruction de certaines villes du Bosphore Cimmérien ainsi que dans un habitat de la culture de Černjahov à Kapulovka39.

2

5

4

3

6

7

8

1

9

10

12

11

21 17

27

18

28

29

22

20

19

30

31

23

32 33

15

14

13

34

24

35 36

25

16

26

37 38

Fig. 5. Flèches d’orgine steppique provenant des sites slaves du Ve–VIIe s. 1: Gródek–25; 2–8: Zimno; 9: Selişte; 10–26: Nikodimovo; 27–30, 32–38: Demidovka; 31: Bliznaki. 1: d’après Zoll-Adamikova 1992, Abb. 3.a; 2–8: d’après Aulih 1972, tabl. X.1–7; 9: d’après Rafalovič 1973, fig. 3.3; 10–26: d’après Sedin 2011, fig. 3.8–12, 4.3,4,6–10, 5.4,6,7,9–11; 27–38: d’après Šmidt 2003, tabl. 1.1–11,17.

Boucles de harnachement en os (fig. 6.2,3,5). Le mobilier archéologique montre que l’influence steppique sur les Slaves a eu lieu également dans le domaine de l’équipement équestre. Ainsi, on a mis au jour des boucles de harnachement en os sur des sites des civilisations de Penkovka en Moldavie,  Kokowscy 1990.  Kokowscy 1990, 51; Zoll-Adamikova 1992, 300, Abb. 3.a. 37  Rafalovič 1973, fig. 3.3. 38  Ammien Marcellin, XXXI.3.9. 39  Kazanski 2009b, 102. 35 36

Les influences steppiques dans l’équipement militaire et équestre des Slaves

51

dans l’habitat de Selişte40 et dans la région des rapides du Dniepr, dans l’habitat de Vološskoe-Surskaja Zabora41 et de Prague, en Volhynie, dans un tumulus à Klementoviči42 (fig.  1.4,15,22). Ces boucles sont typiques des nomades de la steppe pour l’époque hunnique et post-hunnique43. Boucles de harnachement métalliques à deux parties. Citons enfin la découverte d’un moule pour la fabrication d’objets en bronze (fig. 6.4), provenant d’un atelier du VIe s. tardif, découvert dans un habitat slave de la civilisation de Prague à Bernaševka, sur le Dniestr (fig.  1.5). Ce moule était notamment destiné à faire des petites boucles à deux parties, une trapézoïdale, l’autre ovale44. Des boucles de harnachement, comparables mais pas tout à fait identiques, ont été mises au jour dans un contexte hunnique (fig. 6.6,7) à Kurnaevka et Zdviženskoe45.

1

2

3

4

6 5

7

Fig. 6. Boucles de harnachement, prjvenant des sites slaves du Ve–VIIe s. (1–5) et leurs parallèles (6,7). 1: Zimno; 3: Vološskoe-Surskaja Zabora; 3: Selişte; 4: Bernaševka; 5: Klementoviči; 6: Zdviženskoe; 7: Kurnaevka. 1: d’après Aulih 1972, fig. 7.2; 2: d’après Berezovec 1963, fig. 24.3; 3: d’après Rafalovič, Lapušnjan 1974, fig. 10.5; 4: d’après Vinokur 1997, fig. 16; 5: d’après Musianowicz 1975, ryc. 5; 6,7: d’après Zaseckaja 1994, tabl. 11.8, 30.3.

Tous ces objets témoignent de l’influence directe des peuples steppiques sur l’art de la guerre et sur les technologies militaires des Slaves au Ve–VIIe s. Cela concerne en premier lieu la cavalerie slave. Son existence est bien attestée par les sources écrites, même si l’infanterie légère était dominante chez les Slaves. Cette infanterie pratiquait essentiellement la guérilla sur un terrain boisé au relief peu accessible46. D’après l’examen des textes de Procope de Césarée concernant les troupes hunniques, sclavènes et antes dans l’armée de Bélisaire, on peut conclure qu’il s’agit d’archers montés47. Il  Rafalovič, Lapušnjan 1974, fig. 10.5.  Berezovec 1963, fig. 24.3. 42  Musianowicz 1975, ryc. 5. 43  Kazanski 1999, 204; Kazanski 2013, 516. 44  Vinokur 1997, fig. 16. 45  Zaseckaja 1994, tabl. 11.8, 30.3. 46  Kazanski 1999. 47  Voir en détails Kazanski 2009a. D’après les données archéologiques et les sources écrites, la cavalerie steppique à l’époque hunnique et post-hunnique préférait un combat rapide, avec un contact proche, nécessaire pour le tir précis. D’après les témoignages des auteurs anciens, les Huns préféraient attaquer les premiers sur un champ de bataille. Ils entraient au combat 40 41

52

Michel Kazanski

faut noter que les Slaves utilisaient au Ve–VIIe s. les mêmes types de mors et de boucles de harnachement et tout comme les cavaliers steppiques, utilisaient peu les éperons48. Cette influence steppique se manifeste aussi bien à l’époque hunnique et post-hunnique, que plus tard, à l’époque du premier Khaganat avar. Ainsi, la diffusion des piques et des flèches du type avar (voir supra) dans le contexte slave, ainsi que l’adoption au cours du VIIe s. par les Slaves de l’armement défensif – cottes de maille et armures formées des plaques rectangulaires – est le résultat de l’influence militaire des Avars49.

Bibliographie Alföldi 1932 A. Alföldi, Funde aus der Hunnenzeit und ihre ethnische Sonderung (Budapest 1932). Ammien Marcellin Ammianus Marcellinus Rerum gestarum libri XXXI. ed. W. Seyfarth (Leipzig 1978). Aulih 1972 В.В. Aулiх, Зимнiвcьке гоpодище (Киiв 1972). Baran 1988 В.Д. Баpан, Пpажская культуpа Поднестpовья (по матеpиалам поселений у с. Рашков). Киев 1988). Bárdos / Garam 2009 E. Bárdos, E. Garam, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld in Zamárdi-Rétiföldek (Budapest 2009). Berestnev, Ljubičev 1991 С.И. Беpестнев, М.В. Любичев, Новые данные о памятниках пеньковской культуpы в бассейне Севеpского Донца. Apхеология славянского Юго-Востока (Воpонеж 1991), 33–36. Berezovec 1963 Д.Т. Беpезовец, Поселения уличей на p. Тясмине. In: Б.A. Рыбаков (отв.pед.), Славяне накануне обpазования Киевской Руси. Матеpиалы и Исследования по Apхеологии СССP 108. (Москва 1963) 145–208 Eger / Biermann 2009 C. Eger, F. Biermann, Awarische Funde in Mittel- und Ostdeutschland. Acta Archaeologica Carpatica 44, 2009, 137–170. Fiedler 1992 U. Fiedler, Studien zu Gräberfeldern des 6. bis 9. Jahrhunderts an der unteren Donau (Bonn 1992). Filin 1962 Ф.П. Филин, Обpазование языка восточных славян (Москва-Ленингpад 1962). Garam 1995 E. Garam, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Tiszafüred (Budapest 1995). Gorjunov 1981 Е.A. Гоpюнов, Ранние этапы истоpии славян Днепpовского Левобеpежья (Ленингpад 1981). Gur’janov 2006 В.Н. Гуpьянов, Об одной гpуппе дpевностей с гоpодища Рассуха–2. In: A.Н. Бессуднов (отв. pед.), Apхеологическое изучение Центpальной России (Липецк 2006), 246–249. Hudjakov 1986 Ю.С. Худяков Вооpужение сpедневековых кочевников Южной Сибиpи и Центpальной Aзии (Новосибиpск 1986). Il’inskaja 1968 В.A. Ильинская, Новые данные о памятниках сеpедины I тыс. н.э. в Днепpовской Левобеpежной Лесостепи. Е.И. Кpупнов (отв. pед.), Славяне и Русь (Москва 1968), 55–61.

cuneatim, ce qui, selon V. Nikonorov, correspond à un détachement en ordre dispersé, avec les « meilleurs » guerriers, les plus nobles, les plus courageux et les mieux armés, en tête. Le combat avait deux phases: – Une attaque en ordre dispersé avec un tir intensif à l’arc; – Un combat rapproché, au corps à corps, avec l’utilisation d’épées et de lassos, mentionnés par Ammien Marcellin (XXXI.2.8– 9). Cependant, le plus souvent, les Huns, comme d’ailleurs tous les nomades de la steppe de l’époque médiévale (Nikanorov 2002, p. 26), évitaient d’entrer dans un combat au corps à corps et préféraient les attaques rapides et répétées, avec un tir à l’arc (voir en détails: Nikonorov 2002). 48  Kazanski 1999, 202–205. 49  A ce propos voir Kazanski 1999, 204 et surtout Kazanski 2011.

Les influences steppiques dans l’équipement militaire et équestre des Slaves

53

Ivanišević / Kazanski 2009 V. Ivanišević, M. Kazanski, Nouvelle nécropole es Grandes Migrations de Singidunum. Starinar 57, 2009, 113–135. Ivanišević / Kazanski / Mastykova 2006 V. Ivanišević, M. Kazanski, A. Mastykova, Les nécropoles de Viminacium à l’époque des Grandes migrations (Paris 2006). Kazanski 1991: M. Kazanski, À propos des armes et des éléments de harnachement «orientaux» en Occident à l’époque des Grandes Migrations (IVe–Ve s.). Journal of Roman Archaeology 4, 1991, 123–139. Kazanski 1999: M. Kazanski, L’armement slave du haut Moyen-Age (Ve–VIIe siècles). A propos des chefs militaires et des guerriers professionnels chez les anciens Slaves. Prehled výzkumů 39, 1999, 197–236. Kazanski M. 2009: M. Kazanski, Les Huns et les Slaves. D. Aparaschivei (ed.), Studia antiqua et Medievalia. Miscellanea in honorem annos LXXV peragentis Professoris Dan Gh. Teodor oblata (Bucarest 2009) 237–256. Kazanski 2009a M. Kazanski, La cavalerie slave à l’époque de Justinien. Archaeologia Baltica 11, 2009, 229–239 Kazanski 2009b M. Kazanski, Archéologie des peuples barbares. Florilegium magistrorum historiae archaeologiaeque Antiquitatis et Medii Aevi V (Bucarest-Brăila 2009). Kazanski 2011 М.М. Казанский, О славянском панцыpном войске (VI–VII вв.). Stratum Plus 5, 2011, 43–50. Kazanski 2012 M. Kazanski, Les armes et les techniques de combat des guerriers steppiques du début du Moyen-âge. Des Huns aux Avars. S. Lazaris (dir.), Le cheval dans les sociétés antiques et médiévales (Turnhaut 2012), 193– 199, 287–296. Kazanski 2013 M. Kazanski, Barbarian Military Equipment and its Evolution in the Late Roman and Great Migration Periods (3rd–5th C. A.D.). In: A. Sarantis, N. Christie (eds.), War and Warfare in Late Antiquity. Late Antique Archaeology 8 (Leiden – Boston 2013) 493–521. Kazanski 2013 M. Kazanski, Les Huns et les Barbares sédentaires: les différentes formes des contacts. Banatica 23, 2013, 91–109. Kiss 2001 A. Kiss, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld fon Kölked-Feketekapu B (Budapest 2001). Kobyliński / Szymański 2005 Z. Kobyliński, W. Szymański, Pradziejowe i wczesnośredniowieczne osadnictwo w zespole kemów w Haćkach. Faliński J.B. et alii (red.). Haćki. Zespól przyrodniczo-archeologiczny na Równinie Bielskiej (Bialowieźa-Warszawa 2005) 43–74. Kokowscy 1990 E. i A. Kokowscy, Wczesnośredniowieczny grot z Gródka na Bugiem w woj. Zamojskim. Lubelskie Materialy Archeologiczne 3, 1990, 49–54. Komar / Kubyšev / Orlov 2006 A.В. Комаp, A.И. Кубышев, Р.С. Оpлов 2005. Погpебения кочевников VI–VII вв. из СевеpоЗападного Пpиазовья. Степи Евpопы в эпоху сpедневековья 5, 2006, 245–374. Kuharenko 1961 Ю.В. Кухаpенко, Сpедневековые памятники Полесья. Свод Apхеологических Источников Е1–57 (Москва 1961). Menghin 1995 W. Menghin, Schwerter des Goldgriffspathenhorizonts im Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Berlin. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 26–27, 1995, 140–191. Mitrea 1978 I. Mitrea, Asezarea prefeudala de la Izvoare-Bahia. Contribuţii la arheologia epocii de formare a poporului român. Carpica 10, 1978, 205–252. Mitrea 1981 I. Mitrea, Principalele ale čerčetarilor arheologice din asezarea de la Davideni (sex. V–VII e.n.). Memoria Antiquitatis 6–8, 1981, 65–92. Musianowicz 1975 K. Musianowicz, Cmetntarzysko kurhanove VI–VII w. w Klimentowichach kolo Szepetowki (USRR). Wiadomosci Archeologiczne 39/3, 1975, 325–338. Nestor 1957 I. Nestor, La nécropole slave d’époque ancienne de Sârata Monteoru. Dacia 1, 1957, 189–225.

54

Michel Kazanski

Nikonorov 2002 В.П. Никоноpов, Военное дело евpопейских гуннов в свете гpеко-латинской письменной тpадиции. Записки Восточного Отделения Российского Apхеологического Общества I (XXVI), 223–323 Nikonorov / Hudjakov 2004 В.П. Никоноpов, Ю.С. Худяков, “Свистящие стpелы” Маодуня и “Маpсов меч” Aттилы. Военное дело азиатскх хунну и евpопейских гуннов (Санкт-Петеpбуpг 2004). Oblomskij 2012 A.М. Обломский, Раннесpедневековые памятники Веpхнего Подонья. Пpедваpительные итоги исследования. Тамбовские дpевности. Apхеология Окско-Донской pавнины 3, 2012, 172–229. Popov 1973 A.И. Попов, Названия наpодов СССР (Ленингpад 1973). Prihodnjuk 1998 О.М. Пpиходнюк, Пеньковская культуpа. Культуpно-хpонологический аспект исследования (Воpонеж 1998). Procope BG Procopii Caesarensis De Bello Gothico (De Bellis libri V–VIII), ed. J. Haury. (Leipzig 1905). Radjuš 2008 О.A. Радюш, Новые памятники III–V вв. в Куpском Посеймье.In: A.Н. Наумов (отв.pед.), Лесная и лесостепная зоны Восточной Евpопы в эпохи pимских влияний и Великого пеpеселения наpодов (Тула 2008), 181–208. Rafalovič 1972 И.A. Рафалович, Славяне VI–IX веков в Молдавии (Кишенев 1972). Rafalovič 1973 И.A. Рафалович, Исследования pаннеславянских поселений в Молдавии. In: В.И. Чеботаpенко (pед.), Apхеологические исследования в Молдавии в 1970–1971 гг. (Кишенев 1973) 122–143. Rafalovič, Lapušnjan 1974 И.A. Рафалович, В.Л. Лапушнян, Работы Реутской аpхеологической экспедиции. In: В.Л. Лапушнян (pед.), Apхеологические исследования в Молдавии в 1972 г. (Кишенев 1974), 127–143. Rašev 2000 Р. Рашев 2000, Пpабългаpите пpез V–VII век (В. Тъpново 2000). Schmidt 1961 B. Schmidt, Die späte Völkerwanderungsszeit in Mitteldeutshcland (Halle 1961). Sedin 2011 A.A. Седин, Пpедметы вооpужения из гоpодища Никодимово. Acta Archaeologica Albaruthenica 7, 2011, 69–82. Šmidt 2003 Е.A. Шмидт, Веpхнее Поднепpовье и Подвинье в III–VII вв.н.э. Тушемлинская культуpа (Смоленск 2003). Stanciu 2011 I. Stanciu, Locuirea territoriului nord-vestic al României între antichitatea târzie şi perioada de îceput a epocii medievale timpurii (mijlocul sec. V – sec. VII timpurui) (Cluj-Napoca 2011). Šuvalov 2004 П.В. Шувалов, Оpужие pанних славян. In: Гоpюнова В.М., Щеглова О.A. (отв. pед.), Культуpные тpансфоpмации и взаимовлияния в Днепpовском pегионе на исходе pимского вpемени и в pаннем сpедневековье (Санкт-Петеpбуpг 2004), 254–264. Tejral 2011 J. Tejral, Einhemische und Fremde. Das norddanubische Gebiet zur Zeit der Völkerwanderungs (Brno 2011). Teodorescu 1972 V. Teodorescu, Centre meşteşugăreşti din sec. VI–VII e.n. în Bucureşti. Bucureşti IX, 1972, 73–99. Terpilovskij 2005 Р.В. Теpпиловский, Наследие киевской культуpы в V–VI вв. P. Kaczanowski, M. Parczewski (red.), Archeologia o początkach Słowian (Kraków: 2005), 297–402. Tihelka 1963

Les influences steppiques dans l’équipement militaire et équestre des Slaves



55

K. Tihelka, Knížecí hrob z obdobi stéhvání národu u Blučiny okr. no-Venkov. Památky Archeologické 54, 1963, 467–498. Uenze 1992 S. Uenze, Die spätantiken Befestigungen von Sadovec (Bulgarien) (München 1992). Vinokur 1997 I. С. Винокуp, Слов‘янскi ювелipи Поднiстpов‘я: За матеpiалами дослiджень Беpнашiвського комплексу сеpедини I тис. н. е. (Кам‘янець-Подiльський 1997). von Freeden 1991 U. von Freeden Awarische Funde in Süddeutschland? Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germnaischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 38, 1991, 593–627. Zaseckaja 1994 И.П. Засецкая, Культуpа кочевников южноpусских степей в гуннскую эпоху (конец V–V вв.) (Санкт-Петеpбуpг 1994). Zaseckaja 1998 И.П. Засецкая. Датиpовка и пpоисхождение пальчатых фибул боспоpского некpополя pаннесpедневекового пеpиода. Матеpиалы по Apхеологии, Истоpии и Этногpафии Тавpии 6, 1998, 394–478. Zoll-Adamikova 1992 H. Zoll-Adamikova, Zur Chronologie der Awarenzeitlichen Funde aus Polen. In: Godłowski K., MadydaLegutko R. (Hrsg.), Probleme der relativen und aboluten Chronologie ab Latènezeit bis zum Frühmittelalter (Kraków 1992), 297–315.

W

eapons and weapon depositions in the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania Alpár Dobos

Institute of Archaeology and Art History, Cluj-Napoca [email protected]

Abstract. The late row-grave cemeteries from Transylvania, also known in the archaeological literature as Band-Vereșmort group, form a particular group within the archaeological material of the Early Avar Period. Generally, they were connected to the late Gepidic communities living under Avar rule. The present paper is an attempt to analyse the weapon burials discovered in the cemeteries in discussion. The basis of this examination is represented by a typological survey intended to outline the main chronological and functional characteristics of the different weapon categories. On the grounds of the weapon combinations correlated with the associated grave-goods regional differences are also detected. Keywords: Transylvania, Early Avar Period, weapons, row-grave cemeteries, cultural traditions

Introduction

O

ne of the central topics of the research dealing with the archaeology of the Avar Period is the identification of the different ethnic communities which lived inside the Avar Khaganate and are mentioned in the literary sources. Among these a significant role is played by the Gepids which during the second half of the 5th century and the first and second third of the 6th century lived in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin. After the Avar conquest in 568, part of the Gepids continued to live inside the Avar Khaganate. They are mentioned several times by the Byzantine and western sources1; however, a closer localization based on these narratives is not possible. Therefore, in order to isolate the Avar Age Gepidic communities, the scholars combined the historical sources with the archaeological ones2. In the debate related to the aforementioned problem, Transylvania played an important role due to the fact that it was an organic part of the Gepidic Kingdom and, at the same time, several finds belonging to the Early Avar Period can be connected to the material culture ascribed to Germanic communities. In this context the so-called row-grave cemeteries received a special attention. The row-grave cemeteries, characterized by the alignment of the graves in more or less regular rows, inhumation rite, approximately west–east orientation of the graves and deposition of grave-goods, appeared in Transylvania around the end of the 5th century. During the time of existence of this type of necropolises, the Transylvanian Basin represented the eastern periphery of the Merovingian cultural milieu. Regarding the Transylvanian row-grave cemeteries two main theories can be distinguished in the archaeological literature3. The first one is strongly connected to Kurt Horedt who elaborated the first chronological system of the cemeteries in question. According to him the cemeteries belonging  For the written sources about the late Gepids see Kiss 1992, 37–38; recently with a more critical attitude Kiss 2011a, 16–19. 2  E.g. Kiss 1992; Kiss 1996; Stadler 2008; Stadler 2010. 3  For a more detailed picture of the archaeological situation regarding the 6th–7th centuries in Transylvania see Harhoiu 1999–2001; Harhoiu 2001. For a detailed history of research regarding the row-grave cemeteries from Transylvania see Dobos 2011. 1

58

Alpár Dobos

to the first and second thirds of the 6th century, i.e. to the Gepidic Period (group III or group Morești) can be assigned to the Gepidic communities, while the latest group (group IV or group Band-Vereșmort) can be dated exclusively in the 7th century and has no relation with the former one. In his view the Band-Vereșmort group can be interpreted as ‘late Germanic’, but not Gepidic4. Later, Horedt’s results were doubted by István Bóna, who pointed out that the earliest phase of the late group of the Transylvanian row-grave cemeteries can be traced back in the last third of the 6th century, if not earlier. Bóna insisted on the similarities between Horedt’s groups III and IV and stressed on the idea of a Gepidic continuity. In the same time, he ascribed the horse burials situated on the edges of the cemetery from Band to the Avars5. The idea of the Gepidic continuity was developed further by Attila Kiss who, based on both cemeteries from Kölked-Feketekapu, presumed that the necropolises with Germanic characteristics from the eastern part of Transdanubia, which represent the closest analogies for the Transylvanian late row-grave cemeteries, can be connected to Gepidic communities colonized in the region by the Avars6. The results of Bóna and Kiss were overtaken by Radu Harhoiu who admitted that the early phase of the Band-Vereșmort group can be placed as early as the 6th century7 and argued for an exclusively Gepidic interpretation. In his view not only the burials with Germanic characteristics can be assigned to the Gepids, but also the horse burials interpreted earlier as Avar or nomadic elements. Harhoiu believed that these represent the sign of an acculturation process, in the course of which the Gepids overtook the Avar burial customs8. In the present paper the weapon burials discovered in the Band-Vereșmort group will be analyzed mainly based on the published material. In the research the following find-spots were included (Fig. 1): 1. Band (H: Mezőbánd, G: Bandorf, Mureș County) The cemetery was researched during two campaigns in 1906–1907. The excavations were coordinated by István Kovács who unearthed 186 archaeological features. Out of these, 176 belonged to the row-grave cemetery; all of them were disturbed. The results were published exhaustively in 19139. 2. Bistrița (H: Beszterce, G: Bistritz, Bistrița-Năsăud County) The cemetery was partially researched during a rescue excavation led by Corneliu Gaiu and M. George Marinescu in 1979. Altogether 60 graves were discovered, the majority of them were disturbed. The necropolis was published in 199210. 3. Bratei – cemetery 3 (H: Baráthely, G: Pretai, Sibiu County) Bratei is one of the most complex archaeological sites in Transylvania during the Migration Period and the Early Middle Ages. In the area of the village an isolated grave, several small grave-groups, three cemeteries, and three settlements belonging to different chronological intervals of the Migration and the Early Medieval Period were identified11. The excavations in the cemetery no. 3 were carried out between 1964 and 1969 by Ion Nestor with the assistance of Ligia Bârzu and Eugenia Zaharia. The necropolis was partially damaged by the extraction works in the sand pit situated in the area, destroying approx. 100 burials12. Other graves were disturbed by the construction of the railway and the road during the 19th century13. The field research identified 294 graves which, with two exceptions, belonged to a row-grave cemetery. The majority of the burials were disturbed soon after the burial took place.  Horedt 1958, 100–103; Horedt 1977, 261–263; Horedt 1986, 29–36. His results were partially overtaken by Bakó 1960; Bakó 1962. 5  Bóna 1979, 40–46. The late Gepidic interpretation was not a new idea; in fact, the same ethnic explanation was already given at the beginning of the 20th century by I. Kovács for the cemeteries from Band and Târgu Mureș: Kovács 1913, 387–388; Kovács 1915, 295–296, respectively by M. Roska for the necropolis from Unirea-Vereșmort: Roska 1934, 130, note 3. 6  Kiss 1992, 63; Kiss 1996, 305; Kiss 1999/2000. 7  Harhoiu 1999–2001, 127–130; Harhoiu 2001, 144–145. 8  Harhoiu 1999–2001, 145; Harhoiu 2004–2005, 292; Harhoiu 2010a, 156–157; Harhoiu 2010b, 236. For a critique with a more complex and nuanced theoretical model see Gáll 2014. 9  Kovács 1913. 10  Gaiu 1992. 11  For the general situation see Bârzu/Harhoiu 2008, 513, Abb. 2; Zaharia 2010, 7–11, Abb. 1. 12  Bârzu/Harhoiu 2008, 513; Zaharia 2010, 7. 13  Nestor/Zaharia 1973, 198. 4

Weapons and weapon depositions in the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania

59

The excavation has not been made public for a long period of time14, more precisely until 2010 when the monograph of the cemetery signed by Ligia Bârzu in collaboration with Radu Harhoiu was published15. 4. Fântânele (H: Szászújős, G: Neuösch, Bistrița-Năsăud County) – Dâmbul Popii The cemetery from Fântânele was researched between 1975 and 1976 by the research team led by Ion Horațiu Crișan assisted by Tudor Soroceanu and Florin Medeleț. A cemetery belonging to the Late Iron Age and graves dated in the Early Iron Age, respectively in the Migration Period (5th century) were discovered in the same place. The row-grave cemetery was partially excavated (57 graves). The graves were disturbed without exception. The results were published only a few decades later16.

Fig. 1. Geographical distribution of the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania: 1. Archiud, 2. Band, 3. Bistrița, 4. Bratei, 5. Fântânele, 6. Galații Bistriței, 7. Luna, 8. Noșlac, 9. Târgu Mureș, 10. Unirea-Vereșmort, 11. Valea Largă.

5. Galații Bistriței (H: Galac, G: Heresdorf, Bistrița-Năsăud County) – La Hrube The archaeological site from Galații Bistriței was excavated between 1973 and 1979 under the supervision of Vlad Zirra and Radu Harhoiu. Beside several Bronze Age and Late Iron Age burials, 38 graves belonging to a row-grave cemetery were unearthed. The first results appeared in the form of a preliminary report17, later the necropolis was exhaustively published18. 6. Noșlac (H: Marosnagylak, G: Grosshaus, Alba County) The systematic excavations at Noșlac began in 1960 and were coordinated by Mircea Rusu. Until 1962 a total number of 124 graves were identified; out of these 114 can be included in the early  It was known only from a very short preliminary archaeological report: Nestor/Zaharia 1973, 198–199. In 2008 a more comprehensive study including the general characteristics of the cemetery was published: Bârzu/Harhoiu 2008. 15  Bârzu 2010. 16  Dobos/Opreanu 2012. 17  Harhoiu 1979. 18  Harhoiu 2008. 14

60

Alpár Dobos

medieval cemetery (the others are prehistoric burials). Most of the burials are disturbed. The cemetery has never been published exhaustively, it is known only from two more detailed archaeological reports19. The analysis presented below is based on the original documentation (written and drawn record) of the excavation, as well as on the artefacts which could be identified in the deposit of one of the institutions which stored material from Noșlac in their collections. The excavations took place in two different areas of the cemetery: in north-west and in south-east. It seems that the north-western part represents one of the edges of the necropolis. Between the two mentioned areas only two control trenches were excavated in which further graves were discovered. According to the leader of the excavations, around 1000 graves could have remained unidentified20. It has to be mentioned that the cemetery is partially situated under the actual village which indicates that a considerable quantity of graves could have been destroyed by the construction works. 7. Târgu Mureș (H: Marosvásárhely, G: Neumarkt, Mureș County) The cemetery at Târgu Mureș was identified during the construction works on the former Mikszáth Kálmán Street. The field research was carried out in 1909–1910 by István Kovács resulting in the excavation of 14 graves. Out of these, six can be dated in the Early Avar Age, the others belong to the Early Migration Period. The results were published in 191521. 8. Unirea-Vereșmort (H: Marosveresmart, G: Rothberg, Alba County) The cemetery was accidentally identified in 1914. In the same year archaeological excavations were carried out under the supervision of Márton Roska who unearthed 17 graves. The partially excavated cemetery was published two decades later22. Recently, in the vicinity of the graves researched by Roska, a richly furnished grave with horse bones dated in the Early Avar Period was discovered. The exact relation between the two find-spots is not clear, but it seems possible that they were part of the same cemetery23. The analysis does not include the partially excavated graveyard from Valea Largă24, because it did not contain any weapons, respectively the cemeteries from Archiud-Hânsuri25 and Luna26 which are not published yet.

Theoretical and methodological aspects The most important moments of the theoretical debate related to the social significance and the possibilities of interpretation of the early medieval weapon burials have already been underlined by the author of the present paper on the occasion of the analysis of the weapon burials discovered in the cemetery 3 at Bratei27. Taking into consideration that the conceptions in question offer a theoretical and methodological frame for the analysis of the weapon burials of the late row-grave cemeteries from Transylvania, a concise reiteration of the main ideas is necessary. The analysis of the weapon burials has been one of the central topics of debate related to the early medieval funerary archaeology28. Basically, the scholars have focused on one main question: what kind of social status can be assigned to those members of the community who were buried with weapons? Decisive in this respect is whether one accepts that the weapon combinations discovered in the graves reflect the real armament and, consequently, the original social status of the buried persons, or not. According to several scholars who admitted that the weapons and weapon combinations identified in the graves reflect the original equipment of the deceased, the data obtained from the weapon burials in correlation with the written sources can indicate directly the social and legal status29. Heiko  Rusu 1962; Rusu 1964.  Rusu 1962, 288; Rusu 1964, 40. 21  Kovács 1915. 22  Roska 1934. 23  Rustoiu/Ciută 2008. 24  Hica 1974. 25  Gaiu 1999, 80–81. 26  Roman et alii 2014. 27  Dobos 2015 (in press). 28  For a general history of research see e.g. Härke 1992, 21–42; Csiky 2011, 11–14. 29  In this context, the sword (frequently combined with seax) was generally considered a sign of the free warriors, the spear and the bow the equipment of the half-free, while the graves without weapons were interpreted as burials of the unfree or 19 20

Weapons and weapon depositions in the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania

61

Steuer was the first who doubted this view and stated that grave-goods represent mainly the financial power of the deceased, but the social status is reflected only in some cases and indirectly, while the legal status cannot be deduced at all30. In the same time he drew attention to the importance of the regional differences among the Merovingian Age weapon burials31. The idea that grave-goods reflect, first of all, economical power and not necessarily the social or legal status was emphasized by Rainer Christlein who established three quality groups for the Merovingian Age graves from Westand South-Germany32. In the case of the cemetery from Marktoberdorf, the lack of lavish grave-goods included in category C was explained by Christlein with the poor economical power of the people who used the necropolis33. Still, none of the abovementioned theories questioned the basic idea that the weapons discovered in the grave represent the original armament of the deceased. A further step in this respect was taken by Frank Siegmund who admitted that the weapons deposited in the grave were not necessarily used by the deceased during his lifetime and, therefore, these are not relevant if one wants to reconstruct the armament of that individual. On the other hand, he argued that the weapon combinations established on the basis of the burials are representative for the community in general34 and, consequently, different fighting methods can be reconstructed. Based on the geographical distribution of the different weapon types, as well as on the way these were combined within the graves, Siegmund identified several regional models which in his opinion bear also an ethnic significance35. Similarly, Robert Reiß distinguished two main models of weapon combinations which, in his opinion, represent different fighting techniques (close-combat and distant-combat)36. New results were achieved through the analysis of the Anglo-Saxon weapon burials carried out by Heinrich Härke who noticed that several undisturbed graves contain only one weapon (in many cases a shield) and the deposited weapon types do not form a functional assemblage which could have been used by a warrior during his lifetime37. An important step taken by Härke was the correlation of the archaeological results with the anthropological data. On these grounds he managed to point out that several individuals buried with weapons were unable to participate in a real fight in their lifetime due to their physical condition (sickness, too young age etc.). Therefore, he assigned a symbolic value for the weapons which in his view had an ethnic and mythical meaning representing, as a potential symbol of power and violence, a kind of propaganda for the legitimacy of the existing social system38. It was already noticed for a long time that certain categories of weapons (mainly arrows and spears) occur in the burials of younger persons, while others (first of all the spathae) can be found only in the adult burials39. This general observation was confirmed by several studies involving both archaeological and anthropological analysis which pointed out that the representation of gender and age had a significant role in the early medieval burial rite40. Another central issue of the scientific debate is related to the possibilities of the ethnic interpretation. In the case of the early medieval cemeteries, the dress and the weaponry had a significant role from this point of view. Regarding the Carpathian Basin during the Early Avar Age, the most well-known attempt in this regard is the theory of Attila Kiss. He analyzed several artefact categories which were already in use during the Gepidic Period in the Tisza-region and Transylvania, respectively which cluster mainly in Transdanubia and Transylvania during the Early Avar Age, and presumed that the cemeteries furnished with such items can be connected to the Gepids living under Avar rule41. Among the weapons, he used in his argumentation the spathae, the shield-bosses and servants, see e.g. Veeck 1926, 158–159; Alcock 1981, 176. 30  Steuer 1968, 30. 31  Steuer 1970, 353; Steuer 1982, 314. 32  Christlein 1973 (1975). 33  Christlein 1973 (1975), 147. 34  Siegmund 2000, 296–300. 35  Siegmund 2000, 174–213. 36  Reiß 2007, 223–230. 37  Härke 1992, 113–121; Härke 1997, 119–120. 38  Härke 1997, 120–124. 39  See e.g. Veeck 1926, 158; Steuer 1982, 313–314. 40  See e.g Härke 1992, 182–190; Stoodley 1999; Barbiera 2005; Brather 2005, 162–167. 41  Kiss 1992.

62

Alpár Dobos

the barded arrowheads42. Of course, the theory was severely criticized, mainly because of the applied ‘artefact types = ethnic groups’ methodological concept43. However, even if simplified, Kiss managed to point out the existence of a series of artefacts which can be considered ‘foreign’ or different in comparison with the rest of the Early Avar Age archaeological material from the Carpathian Basin. On the other hand, taking into consideration the numerous contemporary analogies from Westernand Central-Europe, it has to be mentioned that not all the artefact categories listed by Kiss have exclusively Gepidic Age roots, but they can rather be integrated in a larger cultural milieu, that of the ‘Merovingian’ material culture. A further step in the investigation of the problem was taken with the analysis of the different grave-good associations, both in the female and male graves, in correlation with the burial customs. Concerning the men, emphasis was mainly placed on the weapon combinations44, the items of the personal ornament, and the harness. This approach led to the isolation of the assemblages with ‘Merovingian’ or ‘Germanic’ traditions45. Typical weapons of the male assemblages are the spatha (often with pyramidal strap retainers or other mounts of western origin on the spatha-belt), the seax, different types of spears (mainly with leaf-shaped blade), and the shields with iron boss. These weapons are, generally, combined with Merovingian type belt-sets (mainly the so-called three-part belt-sets) or buckles (with shield tongue). The main distribution area of such assemblages can be placed in the eastern part of Transdanubia, in Transylvania, and, in significantly less extent, in the Tisza-region46. The identification of the archaeological material belonging to the first two generations of the Avar conquerors has been the subject of a long debate in the archaeological literature47. The most characteristic weapons of the early Avars are considered the composite bow with big three-edged arrowheads, the spears with reed-leaf-shaped blade, and the long single-edged swords with straight blade, frequently provided with P-shaped suspension loops. Connected to the warrior graves, the apple-shaped stirrups with rectangular loop, the pressed belt-sets and harness mounts, as well as the horse burials can also be mentioned48. Without assigning a clear ethnical meaning to them, it can be sustained that the two mentioned male assemblage types identified in the Early Avar Age have different roots and, therefore, represent separate cultural traditions. The former is strongly connected to the contemporary Merovingian row-grave cemeteries (of course with several particular elements), while the latter appeared in the Carpathian Basin after the Avar conquest. In what follows it will be examined to what extent the two models presented above, namely the weapon graves of ‘Merovingian tradition’ and the ones of ‘Avar tradition’49 can be identified in the late row-grave cemeteries from Transylvania, respectively what kind of relation can be detected between them.

Typology In order to carry out an analysis of the weapon burials, a typological review of the different weapon categories is necessary. The typology presented below is not a thorough examination, but rather outlines the main characteristics which are relevant from a chronological and functional point of view.  Kiss 1992, 51–52; Kiss 1996, 228–232, 235–236, 238–239.  See e.g. Bálint 1993, 243; Bálint 1995, 310–311; Kiss 2011a. 44  The analysis of the weapon combinations was also used by Frank Siegmund in order to define his regional models which in his view have ethnic relevance: Siegmund 2000, 174–213. For a critique of his results see e.g. Brather 2000, 168–170; Brather 2002, 152–153. 45  For a synthesis-like presentation of the problem and the characteristics of the male and female assemblages see Vida 2008, 18–29 (with further bibliography). 46  Vida 2008, 19–24. 47  See e.g. Kovrig 1955a; Kovrig 1955b; Garam 1990; Bálint 1993; Bálint 2010. 48  See e.g. Bálint 1989, 152–156; Garam 1990; Daim 2003, 465–468. 49  The terms ‘Merovingian’ and ‘Avar’ refer to theoretical models and, therefore, do not denote necessarily an ethnic interpretation, but are rather conventional terms in order to determine the cultural traditions of the two groups. 42 43

Weapons and weapon depositions in the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania

63

Swords Altogether 15 swords were discovered coming from three different cemeteries (seven from Noșlac50, five from Bratei – cemetery 3 (Fig. 2/1–6)51, and three from Unirea-Vereșmort52). Except the one from Noșlac, grave 11, all of them are double-edged swords with straight blade, i.e. spathae. They represent the main sword type of the Merovingian cemeteries in Western and Central Europe53, including the pre-Avar Age Carpathian Basin. Spathae are relatively frequent in the Avar Period as well; however, their chronological and geographical distribution is disproportioned: the type is known exclusively from the Early Avar Period, preponderantly from its first part, later being replaced by the category of the one-edged swords54. It clusters mainly on the territory of Eastern Transdanubia and Transylvania, respectively – in a much less extent – in the Tisza-region55. The relatively high number of the double-edged swords at the beginning of the Avar Period was explained by László Simon as an

7 0

1

5

3

2

0 10 cm

3 cm

6 0 3 cm

4

Fig. 2. Bratei – cemetery 3: 1–5. Double-edged swords: 1. grave 58; 2. grave 77; 3. grave 214; 4. grave 218; 5. grave 185; 6. Scabbard chape from grave 185; 7. Short seax from grave 218. After Bârzu 2010.  Graves 6, 11, 17, 21, 43, 49, 89.  Graves 58, 77, 185, 214, 218. 52  Graves 5, 13, 16. 53  For a general overview see Menghin 1983. 54  Csiky 2011–2012 (2013), 81–82. 55  Kiss 1992, 62, Liste 1, Karte 1; Csiky 2009, 109–111. 50 51

64

Alpár Dobos

adaptation of the Avar fighting techniques to the weapon types used by their enemies, in this case by the Germanic people and the Byzantines56. Another interpretation was given by Attila Kiss: on the grounds of the numerous spathae known from the Gepidic Age and the distribution pattern of the ones dated in the Early Avar Period he considered them an ethnic marker of the late Gepids living on the territory of the Avar Khaganate57. With few exceptions, the spathae discovered in the late row-grave cemeteries from Transylvania represent simple variants without any decoration or accessory which could indicate a closer dating. In grave 185 from the cemetery 3 at Bratei a fragmentary scabbard mouth and a scabbard chape (Fig. 2/5–6) similar to the ones of Bülach-Valsgärde type were preserved, which indicates a dating to the end of the 6th – first half of the 7th century58. Two spathae are provided with a pommel. The one from Bratei – cemetery 3, grave 58 with a small oval pommel (Fig. 2/1) can be dated, based on analogies, to the last third of the 6th – beginning of the 7th century59. The spatha from Unirea-Vereșmort, grave 5 has a wide, flat pommel. The graves 15 and 44 containing similar pieces from Pleidelsheim were included in the 5th phase of the chronology established for Southern Germany (SD-Phase 5: approx. 530–550)60. On the blade of the spathae from grave 13 from Unirea-Vereșmort and from graves 6 and 89 from Noșlac bronze pyramidal mounts were discovered61. These belonged to the sword belt and are dated in the late phase of group D and in group E according to Wilfried Menghin’s chronology (end of the 6th – first half of the 7th century)62. It is worth mentioning that four other disturbed graves contained such mounts63, but without a sword. In these cases it can be presumed that the spathae were taken out in the moment when the graves were reopened. For the sword from Noșlac, grave 89 a closer dating is offered, beside the already mentioned pyramidal mount, by the two pyramid-shaped strap crossings belonging to the harness which are dated in the period between the last third of the 6th century and beginning of the next one64. The sword discovered in grave 17 from Noșlac was associated with a three-part belt-set (Fig. 10) which can be dated in the late 6th – early 7th century65. A similar chronological framing can be accepted for the spatha discovered in grave 13 at Unirea-Vereșmort, dated by two iron mounts decorated with silver wire inlay66. Out of the five spathae from Bratei, the associated grave-goods allow a closer dating only for grave 218 which contained a fragmentary Byzantine buckle of Pápa or Salona-Histria type (Fig. 11/7) belonging to the end of the 6th – beginning of the 7th century67. In grave 11 from Noșlac a fragmentary single-edged sword with straight blade was discovered. This sword type was in use with varied intensity throughout the whole Avar Period68. The associated grave-goods and the horse burial (grave 12) identified next to it (Fig. 7) suggest a dating of grave 11 rather in the Middle or Late Avar Period (see below).

Seaxes The exact number of the seaxes cannot be established with certainty due to missing data and the fragmentary state of preservation of the material. Another problem is represented by the fact that it is difficult to distinguish clearly the category of the seaxes from that of the knives. In this respect the  Simon 1991, 282.  Kiss 1992, 51; Kiss 1996, 230. The spathae discovered in the cemetery from Tiszafüred were connected with Germanic/ Gepidic swords, too: Garam 1995, 345. 58  Bârzu 2010, 122; Dobos 2015 (in press); for the type see Menghin 1983, 350, Karte 17. 59  Dobos 2015 (in press). 60  Koch 2001, 274–276, 282. A spatha with similar pommel is known from grave 84 of the Langobard Age cemetery from Szentendre-Pannoniatelep: Bóna/Horváth 2009, Taf. 56/84.2, Taf. 158/5. 61  In grave 13 from Unirea-Vereșmort and grave 89 from Noșlac one piece each, in grave 6 from Noșlac two pieces. 62  Menghin 1983, 150–151; for a similar dating for the pyramidal mounts discovered in the Carpathian Basin see Vida 2000, 169–170. 63  Band, grave 36; Târgu Mureș, grave 1; Galații Bistriței, grave 39; Fântânele, grave 19. 64  Corsten 1995, 75–76; Nawroth 2001, 88; for the strap crossings from Noșlac see Dobos 2015, 113. 65  For the dating of the three-part belt-sets in the Merovingian cemeteries see Martin 1990, 66, Abb.  5; Martin 2008, 155–157, 161; for the three part belt-set from the Early Avar Age Carpathian Basin see Gavrituchin 2008, 65; Hajnal 2012, 610–613; for a discussion of the belt-set from Noșlac, grave 17 see Dobos 2015, 110–111. 66  Martin 1996, 65–69. 67  Garam 2001, 109, 111. 68  Csiky 2011–2012 (2013), 81–82. 56 57

Weapons and weapon depositions in the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania

65

length of the blade is particularly relevant; however, there is no consensus in the archaeological literature regarding the limit between the two artefact groups. Generally, a length around 20 cm is accepted as the lower limit for the blade of the shortest seaxes69. A total number of nine seaxes could be identified with certainty in the analyzed material; out of these eight were discovered at Noșlac70 and one at Bratei – cemetery 3 (Fig. 2/7)71. All of them belong to the category of the short seaxes (Kurzsax)72. Such weapons are known in high number from the Merovingian Age cemeteries dated to the 6th century73. In the Avar Period they are quite rare and are characteristic mainly for the cemeteries with Germanic characteristics from the eastern part of Transdanubia and Transylvania. From a chronological point of view their period of usage is relatively short, namely the first part of the Early Avar Age74. On the excavation plan of grave 68 from Noșlac an approx. 50 cm long iron object was registered which could represent a long seax (Langsax)75. Unfortunately, the object could not be identified in the collection of any of the institutions which store the archaeological material from the cemetery; moreover, regarding grave 68, no other documentation exists. Therefore, the identification of the object in question as a seax is uncertain.

Spearheads (Fig. 3) 29 spearheads were identified in the analyzed material: ten at Bratei – cemetery 376, eight at Band77, three at Noșlac78 and Bistrița79, two at Târgu Mureș80 and Fântânele81, respectively one at Unirea-Vereșmort82. Among the weapons, the spearheads show the greatest variety and, for this reason, their typological classification is rather problematic. In what follows the main groups of spearheads will be presented without entering in details, and will be corroborated with other, already existent typologies. The most numerous (Fig. 4) and, in the same time, the most varied category is represented by the spearheads with leaf-shaped blade and closed socket (type I) (Fig. 3/1–13). The type can be divided in more variants. Variant IA (Fig. 3/1–3) is characterized by a longish shape and a wider, symmetric blade, where the maximal width is situated in the middle third. Generally the blade is somewhat longer than the socket. The spearheads included in variant IB (Fig.  3/4–6) are in strong relation with the ones belonging to variant IA; the only difference is that the blade is slightly longer and narrower. The roots of the two mentioned variants can be traced back to the period prior to the Avar conquest, being one of the popular shapes both on the territory of the Langobard83 and the Gepidic Kingdom84. Similar spearheads can also be found in the Merovingian cemeteries: in the frame of the  For example 18 cm were appointed by Wolfgang Hübener (Hübener 1989a, 76) and Jo Wernard (Wernard 1998, 774) and 20 cm by Gergely Csiky (Csiky 2012, 377). 70  Graves 10, 21, 25, 33 (double burial), 46, 63, 101 (double burial: two pieces). 71  Grave 218. 72  Due to the fragmentary state of preservation both seaxes from Noșlac, grave 101 were included in this category based on the length from the plan of the grave. 73  In Southern Germany they were placed by Jo Wernard in phases 1 (approx. first quarter of the 6th century – 570/580) and 2a (approx. 570/580–600/610): Wernard 1998, 774–776. 74  Csiky 2012, 377. 75  Long seaxes represent the latest variant which appeared at the end of the 7th century in the Merovingian cemeteries; in the Carpathian Basin it belongs to the Late Avar Period: Csiky 2012, 382–384. 76  Graves 21 (two pieces), 22 (two pieces), 175, 192, 201, 218, 278, 283. 77  Graves 10, 49, 52, 66, 115, 142, 159, 179. 78  Graves 6, 11, and 16. 79  Graves 34, 40, and 46. 80  Graves 9 and 14. 81  Graves 14 and 24. 82  Grave 5. 83  Spearheads with leaf-shaped blade can be found in almost each Pannonian necropolis dated in the Langobard Period, see e.g. the cemeteries from Vörs: Sági 1964, Taf. XXII/1; Nikitsch: Beninger/Mitscha-Märheim 1970, Taf. 8/1, Taf. 12/5; Hegykő-Mező utca: Bóna/Horváth 2009, Taf. 127/1, Taf. 128/2–3, Taf. 131/4–5; Szentendre-Pannoniatelep: Bóna/Horváth 2009, Taf. 160/1–6, 9; Tamási-Csikólegelő: Bóna/Horváth 2009, Taf. 178/1, 3–4. 84  E.g. Kiszombor, graves 29, 63, 300, 337: Csallány 1961, Taf. CLV/3–6; Hódmezővásárhely-Kishomok, grave 96: Bóna/ Nagy 2002, Taf. 26/96.1, Taf. 78/1; Magyarcsanád-Bökény, grave 8: Nagy 2005a, Taf. 21/8.3; Szőreg-Téglagyár, grave 73: Nagy 2005b, Taf. 60/73.11; Cristuru Secuiesc, grave 1: Körösfői/Székely 2007, 3. tábla/2. 69

4

1

6

3

ID

11

IE

7

12

II

8

14

9

15

10

16

IF

13

17

III

21

18

19

22

23

Fig. 3. Typological classification of the spearheads discovered in the late row-grave cemeteries from Transylvania:

5

2

IC

20

IV

24

26

25

Type IA: 1. Unirea-Vereșmort, grave 5; 2. Band, grave 79; 3. Band, grave 52; Type IB: 4. Noșlac, grave 16; 5. Band, grave 159; 6. Bratei – cemetery 3, grave 192; Type IC: 7–8. Bratei – cemetery 3, grave 21; 9–10. Bratei – cemetery 3, grave 22; Type ID: 11. Bistrița, grave 46; Type IE: 12. Band, grave 115; Type IF: 13. Fântânele, grave 14; Type II: 14. Bratei – cemetery 3, grave 175; 15. Bratei – cemetery 3, grave 201; 16. Bratei – cemetery 3, grave 283; 17. Bratei – cemetery 3, grave 218; 18. Bratei – cemetery 3, grave 278; 19. Band, grave 49; 20. Bistrița, grave 34; Type III: 21. Noșlac, grave 6; 22. Târgu Mureș, grave 9; 23. Târgu Mureș, grave 14; 24. Band, grave 142; 25. Bistrița, grave 40; Type IV: 26. Noșlac, grave 11. 1. after Roska 1934; 2–3, 5, 12, 19, 24. after Kovács 1913; 4. after Rusu 1962; 6–10, 14–18. after Bârzu 2010; 11, 20, 25. after Gaiu 1992; 13. after Dobos/Opreanu 2012; 22–23. after Kovács 1915.

IB

IA

66 Alpár Dobos

Weapons and weapon depositions in the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania

67

chronological system elaborated for Southern Germany they were included mainly in phase 5 (approx. 530–555). Sporadically, they appear in later contexts, too (phases 6 and 7, i.e. the second half of the 6th century)85. In the Carpathian Basin during the Early Avar Period the distribution pattern of these spearheads (Csiky type III/1) shows a concentration in Transdanubia and is dated mainly in the early phase, but it seems that the latest examples were still in use in the first half of the 7th century86. Variant IC (Fig. 3/7–10) corresponds to type Csiky III/2 and is characterized by a total length of approx. 30 cm, a long and relatively narrow blade without having a tapered point, and a short, closed and narrow socket (the ratio between the blade and the socket is around 2:1)87. It was observed on several occasions that such spearheads were frequently deposited in the grave in pairs or even in groups of three. The most plausible explanation of this phenomenon is related to the functionality of the spears in question, namely that they were probably used rather as throwing weapons ( javelins)88. This practice was also noticed in the case of the spearheads discovered in graves 21 and 22 at Bratei89. This variant is known almost exclusively from Transdanubia90. Variant ID and IE display more unusual shapes, each of them being represented by one fragmentary piece. The former one (Fig. 3/11) is characterized by a relatively short socket and a leaf-shaped blade with the maximal width on the lower part. Spearheads with similar form are known from the Gepidic Period, e.g. from Szőreg-Téglagyár, graves 68 and 12891. The spearhead from Band, grave 115 included in variant IE (Fig. 3/12) has a long socket and a short, leaf-shaped blade. According to Gergely Csiky this kind of spearheads were utilized as throwing weapons. From a chronological viewpoint they cover the entire Avar Period and were distributed on the whole territory of the Carpathian Basin92. The spearhead from Fântânele, grave 14 was included in variant IF (Fig.  3/13), which can be considered an import piece. It corresponds to the spearheads of Hellmitzheim type characterized by a closed socket, a leaf-shaped blade with a median rib and in many cases by a stamped decoration. The main distribution area of the type can be localized in the southern part of Germany where it was dated in the third quarter of the 6th century93. Type II (Fig.  3/14–20) contains spearheads with reed-leaf-shaped blade and closed socket94, which can be considered one of the most common categories during the Early Avar Period. The pieces coming from the late row-grave cemeteries from Transylvania belong to a simple, undecorated variant characterized by the approximately same length of the blade and socket. The latter is closed and in some cases is provided with a loop95. The decorated version of the reed-leaf-shaped spearheads made of high quality raw material was connected with the first two generations of the Avar conquerors and, consequently, an eastern origin was suggested96. Later this hypothesis was questioned by several scholars who rather admitted a Byzantine origin97. The simple variant of inferior quality represents one of the most widespread spear types during the Early Avar Period. From a functional point of view it was argued, on morphological grounds, that the reed-leaf-shaped spears were functioning as pikes. Moreover, due to the fact that they were quite frequently deposited in horse or horseman graves, they were connected to the heavy cavalry of the early Avar army98.  Koch 2001, 62 (MCode 58), Abb. 22/M58.  Csiky 2007, 313–314, 5. kép. 87  Csiky 2007, 313, 4. kép/III.2. 88  Sós/Salamon 1995, 72; Csiky 2007, 33; Csiky 2011–2012 (2013), 80. 89  For a more detailed analysis see Dobos 2015 (in press). 90  Csiky 2007, 313, 319, 7. kép; see also Csiky 2011–2012 (2013), 80–81. Exceptions are represented by the two mentioned pairs of spearheads from Bratei – cemtery 3, graves 21 and 22 in Transylvania, respectively a pair of spearheads from Kisköre-Pap tanya, grave 43 (Bóna 2002a, Taf. 29/43.6–7, Taf. 86/4) in the Tisza-region. 91  Nagy 2005b, Taf. 59/68.14, Taf. 64/128.9. 92  Csiky 2009, 85–86. 93  Koch 1977, I, 110–111; Koch 2001, 323, Abb. 126, 584–585, Liste 42. For a more detailed discussion related to the spearhead from Fântânele see Dobos/Opreanu 2012, 43–44; Husár 2014, 65. 94  Csiky type I: Csiky 2007, 307–313; Husár type AA, variant AAa: Husár 2014, 16–22. 95  They correspond to variant I/3d according to G. Csiky’s typology: Csiky 2007, 311, 2. kép/I/3.d. 96  Kovrig 1955a; Kovrig 1955b; Garam 1990. 97  Freeden 1991 (1995), 619–623; see also Schulze-Dörlamm 2006, 488. 98  Freeden 1991 (1995), 610; Csiky 2011–2012 (2013), 78–79. 85 86

68

Alpár Dobos

The framing of the spearhead discovered in grave 34 from Bistrița (Fig.  3/20) in this type is questionable. The shape of the blade and the ratio between the socket and blade correspond to the parameters established for the type, but it seems too massive in comparison with the other specimens of the group. Type III (Fig. 3/21–25) comprises spearheads with long reed-leaf-shaped blade, slightly rhomboidal in section. The blade is longer than the socket; the total length exceeds 30 cm. For a long time these were considered eastern, ‘nomadic’ types and were connected to the aforementioned spearheads with reed-leaf-shaped blade99. Later, the differences between the two forms were pointed out by István Bóna who argued in the favour of a Germanic origin100. Indeed, even if in a reduced number, similar spearheads already occurred before the Avar conquest in the Carpathian Basin101. The spearhead from Noșlac, grave 6 (Fig. 3/21) represents a variant with somewhat wider and flatter blade. The spearheads with similar dimensions and shape were dated in the 5th phase (approx. 530–555) of the chronology established for the Merovingian cemeteries from Southern Germany102. Another particular piece, included, based on the dimensions, in type III, comes from Bistrița, grave 40 (Fig. 3/25). It has a very short and opened socket and a narrow and long blade. Both the form and the dimensions of the spearhead are atypical for the Early Avar Age103. The only convincing analogy was discovered in grave 29 from the still unpublished cemetery from Archiud-Hânsuri, framed in the same chronological interval104. Spearheads with similar shape and length with opened socket are known from several Early Merovingian cemeteries105. These were included in the Dünzling type and dated in the 4th and 5th phases (approx. 510–555) of the chronological system established for Southern Germany106. It is worth mentioning that both specimens discovered in the Carpathian Basin come from the northern part of Transylvania.

Fig. 4. Distribution of the spearhead types in the late row-grave cemeteries from Transylvania.

The spearhead displaying a narrow blade with rhombic section from Noșlac, grave 11 was included in type IV (Fig. 3/26). Unfortunately, it is in a poor and fragmentary state of preservation (a significant part of the socket is missing) and, therefore, its typological classification is uncertain. Based on  Horedt 1958, 101; Bakó 1960, 25.  The main difference is represented by the length of the spearheads: while the pieces included in type II hardly exceed 25 cm, the ones belonging to type III vary between 30 and 40 cm: Bóna 1979, 40–41; see also Csiky 2007, 311–312. 101  E.g. in Transdanubia: Hegykő-Mező utca, grave 1, Szentendre-Pannoniatelep, grave 49: Bóna/Horváth 2009, Taf. 4/1.2, Taf. 48/49.18, Taf. 131/1 Taf. 159/5. In the Tisza-region it is known from Hódmezővásárhely-Kishomok, grave 7: Bóna/ Nagy 2002, Taf. 9/7.24; however, this grave was considered one of the latest burials of the cemetery and was dated in the last third of the 6th century (i.e. already in the Early Avar Period): Bóna/Nagy 2002, 149. 102  Koch 2001, 62 (Code Y10), Abb. 22/Y10. 103  The length (approx. 40 cm), the shape of the blade, the opened socket, and the ratio between the blade and socket (around 2:1) represent characteristics which are unusual for the Early Avar Period (personal communication from Gergely Csiky for which the author is thankful). 104  Gepizii 2011, 163, no. 217. 105  For their geographical distribution see Koch 2001, 573, Liste 30. 106  Koch 2001, 61 (MCode 24), 278, Abb. 21/M24. 99

100

Weapons and weapon depositions in the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania

69

the narrow blade with almost quadratic section it might belong to Csiky type II which appeared at the end of the Early Avar Period, but its use was generalized during the Middle Avar Period107.

Arrowheads The most numerous category of weapons by far is represented by the arrowheads. Because of the fragmentary state of preservation the exact number of the arrowheads cannot be established, but it exceeds 160 pieces. The number of the deposited arrows in one grave varies between one and eight. Most of the arrowheads come from Bratei – cemetery 3108, being followed by Noșlac109, Band110, Unirea-Vereșmort111, Bistrița112, Fântânele113, and Târgu Mureș114. From a typological point of view three main categories can be distinguished (Fig. 5): arrowheads with rhombic/leaf-shaped blade and socket (type A), three-edged arrowheads (type B), and barbed arrowheads with socket (type C). Based on those cases when the type could be identified, it seems that the arrowheads with rhombic/leaf-shaped blade were the most popular (totally 73 pieces) followed by the barbed (33) and the three-edged (26) ones (Fig. 6). Of course, the proportion of the different types varies from cemetery to cemetery115. All three categories were already in use in the Carpathian Basin before the Avar conquest116. In the Early Avar Period no chronological difference can be detected between the mentioned types, in many cases they are combined one with the other within the same grave. A1

A2

B

C

0 3 cm

Fig. 5. Typological classification of the arrowheads discovered in the late row-grave cemeteries from Transylvania.

There were several attempts to identify, among the three-edged arrowheads, those variants which appeared after the Avar conquest. Generally the dimensions and the shape of the arrowheads were  Csiky 2007, 313, 4. kép/II.  Graves 4, 6, 31, 33, 40, 49, 53, 65, 68, 90, 98, 110, 116 (double burial), 121, 129, 138, 143, 146, 147, 153, 155, 160, 170, 171, 176, 182, 192, 195 (double burial), 202, 203 (double burial), 214, 218, 227, 241, 254, 261, 279, 280, 281,284, 286, 293. 109  Graves 16, 17, 28, 30, 33 (double burial), 87, 88, 89, 93, 101 (double burial), 102, 117, 122. 110  Graves 10, 20, 33, 52, 65, 102, 142, 144. 111  Graves 5 and 13. 112  Grave 34. 113  Graves 8 and 44. 114  Grave 11. 115  Band: type A: 5, type B: 5, type C: 8; Bistrița: type A: 6, type B: 0, type C: 0; Bratei – cemetery 3: type A: 34, type B: 15, type C: 12; Fântânele: type A: 2, type B: 3, type C: 0; Noșlac: type A: 18, type B: 3, type C: 10; Târgu Mureș: type A: 1, type B: 0, type C: 2; Unirea-Vereșmort: type A: 7, type B: 0, type C: 1. 116  It has to be mentioned that the barbed arrowheads with socket are quite rare on the territory of the Gepidic Kingdom, only six examples being attested until now: Szolnok-Szanda, grave 191 (Bóna 2002b, Taf. 52/191.1, Taf. 107); Szőreg-Téglagyár, grave 73 (the piece in question is fragmentary and is rusted together with other two fragmentary arrowheads, probably with three edges: Nagy 2005b, 132, Taf. 60/73.10.); Florești-Polus Center, grave CX 28B – two pieces (Ferencz/Nagy/Lăzărescu 2009, Pl. XI/3–4); Vlaha-Pad, grave CX 1090 – two pieces (Gepizii 2011, 136, no. 117–118). 107 108

70

Alpár Dobos

taken into account. On these grounds the three-edged arrowheads of bigger dimensions and weight, those with truncated edges, and the ones with holes on the wings were isolated as typical forms for the Avar Period117. Perhaps the arrowheads from Bratei – cemetery 3, grave 68 and Band, grave 52 can be included in this category.

arrowheads with rhombic/leaf-shaped blade and socket (type A)

25%

55% 20%

three-edged arrowheads (type B) barbed arrowheads with socket (type C)

Fig. 6. Distribution of the arrowhead types in the late row-grave cemeteries from Transylvania.

Like the spathae, the barbed and the rhombic/leaf-shaped arrowheads, spread mainly in the eastern part of Transdanubia and in Transylvania, were considered by Attila Kiss signs of the Gepidic presence on these territories118. It has to be mentioned that both types are common elements of the contemporary cemeteries belonging to the Merovingian cultural milieu.

Axes All three axes coming from the Transylvanian row-grave cemeteries were discovered at Noșlac119. The pieces from graves 87 and 101 belong to the category of axes with L-shaped blade. The type (group III according to Wolfgang Hübener’s typology) was widely distributed in the Merovingian cemeteries being in use during the whole 6th century120. In the Carpathian Basin such axes are almost unknown in the Langobard/Gepidic Age; to my knowledge the only example comes from the cemetery at Florești-Polus Center121. In the Avar Period the earliest axes with L-shaped blade were dated in the first third of the 7th century122. All the axes with L-shaped blade dated in the Early Avar Period – except the ones from Noșlac – were discovered in Transdanubia, mainly in those cemeteries which show Germanic characteristics123. Taking into consideration this geographical distribution, as well as the fact that the type was quite popular in the contemporary cemeteries in Italy124, a Germanic/ Langobard influence was suggested in the case of the pieces from the Carpathian Basin dated in the Early Avar Age125. For both axes with L-shaped blade from Noșlac, the associated grave-goods (elements of a threepart (?) belt-set in grave 87, two short seaxes in the double burial 101) suggest a dating to the end of the 6th – beginning of the 7th century. This observation indicates that the pieces in discussion belonged to the earliest examples of the axes with L-shaped blade from the Carpathian Basin. The axe discovered in grave 12 from Noșlac (Fig. 7/1) belongs to the simplest and most common variant which was in use during the whole Avar Period126. It was found in a horse burial which contained, beside the axe, a bit, a pair of stirrups, and two buckles (Fig. 7). Both the bit with cheekpieces  For the most detailed analyses see Freeden 1991 (1995), 599–601; see also Bóna 1979, 39–40; Bóna 1988, 445.  Kiss 1992, 52, Liste 5–6, Karte 5–6; Kiss 1996, 236, Liste 34. 119  Graves 12, 87, 101 (double burial). 120  Hübener 1980, 84. 121  Polus 2008, 46, no. 189. Since the cemetery from Florești-Polus Center is still unpublished and the axe in discussion was included only in an exhibition catalogue, the archaeological context and the associated grave-goods are unknown and, therefore, a closer dating is not possible yet. 122  Szücsi 2013–2014, 130. 123  Szücsi 2013–2014, 130, 134–135. 124  Kiss 1996, 238, 318, Liste 35. 125  Szücsi 2013–2014, 130. 126  Szücsi 2013–2014, 128. 117 118

Weapons and weapon depositions in the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania

71

and the stirrups with straight footplate can be dated during a longer period of time, namely in the Middle and Late Avar Period127.

Shield-bosses Altogether three shield-bosses are known from the analyzed material: two from Unirea-Vereșmort128 and one from Fântânele129. Shields provided with iron shield-bosses are one of the main elements of the 2 Merovingian Age weaponry. In the 1 Carpathian Basin they are known both from the Langobard Age cemeteries from Transdanubia130 and the Gepidic Age graveyards from the Tisza-region and Transylvania; however, on the latter territory their number is relatively low131. In the Early Avar Period such finds are characteristic mainly for Transdanubia and, in less extent, for Transylvania and the Tisza4 region132. Based on the above-mentioned, the shield-bosses belonging to the Early Avar Age were con3 sidered by Attila Kiss indicators of the Gepidic continuity in the Fig. 7. Grave-goods discovered in grave 12 at Noșlac. Carpathian Basin133. No comprehensive typology has been so far elaborated for the shield-bosses discovered in the Carpathian Basin. Both pieces from Unirea-Vereșmort and the fragmentary one from Fântânele can be connected to type IV established by Wolfgang Hübener for the Merovingian Age shield-bosses from South- and Central-Germany, and the Rhine area. The type was dated in the period comprising the second and last third of the 6th century and the first third of the 7th century134. A closer dating of the three shield-bosses is given by the associated grave-goods, which indicate the interval between the end of the 6th century and the beginning/ first half of the 7th century135.

Helmet The iron helmet discovered in grave 10 from Band belongs to the simple variant of the so-called Spangenhelme. From the point of view of the structure it stays in close relation with the helmets of  For the bits with cheekpieces see Kiss 1996, 240–242; for the stirrups with straight foot-plate (Čilinská type IV) see Čilinská 1966, 190–192; Kiss 1996, 243. 128  Graves 12 and 13. 129  Grave 19. 130  Bóna/Horváth 2009, Taf. 127/3, Taf. 128/8, Taf. 129/1–3, Taf. 137/4, Taf. 157/1–5, Taf. 176/4–5. 131  Cseh 1990, 46–47, 9. lista, IX. térkép; Kiss 1992, 66–67, Liste 4. A recent find comes from Vlaha-Pad, grave Cx 0015: Gepizii 2011, 139, no. 127. 132  Kiss 1992, 66, Liste 3. 133  Kiss 1992, 51–52; Kiss 1996, 238–239. 134  Hübener 1989b, 92. 135  Iron mounts with silver wire inlay in both graves from Unirea-Vereșmort and a pyramidal bronze mount belonging to the spatha-belt at Fântânele. 127

72

Alpár Dobos

Byzantine origin belonging to the Baldenheim type136. These were in use for a long period of time, lasting from the last third of the 5th century until the late 6th century137.

Discussion A thorough analysis of the weapon burials belonging to the Band-Vereșmort group is seriously hindered by several factors. As it was already mentioned, the majority of the graves were disturbed soon after the burial took place; however, the grave reopening was practiced to a different degree and intensity. This observation recommends caution when analyzing the proportion of the weapon burials within the individual cemeteries, the reconstruction of the weapon combinations, the associated grave-goods, and the original place of the artefacts inside the grave. Another impediment is represented by the lack of any anthropological analysis of the osteological material (except Fântânele) which makes any attempt to reconstruct the social structures of the communities which used the analyzed cemeteries extremely difficult. Moreover, in the case of old excavations essential information, regarding the technical data of the graves, is sometimes missing. Despite all the problems presented above, a few cautious observations can be made which should be considered rather working hypothesis than final conclusions. The late row-grave cemeteries from Transylvania form a particular group within the archaeological material of the Carpathian Basin in the Early Avar Period and, therefore, in the archaeological literature emphasis was generally laid on the similarities between them. Yet, after a closer look, it is conspicuous that several differences can be detected as well. This is also the case with the weapon burials; thus, it is worth starting with the analysis of the individual cemeteries before drawing general conclusions concerning the whole group. Only 13 graves contained weapons at Band which represent 0.73% of the 176 burials belonging to the cemetery. To these one can add grave 36 with a bronze pyramidal mount belonging to the spatha belt which indicates the original existence of a double-edged sword. Except this indirect trace, no swords were discovered in the cemetery. The situation is the same in the case of the seaxes, too. Altogether, eight individuals were buried with spear which means 61.53% of the weapon graves. The spearheads coming from Band show a wide range of typological variety: the majority belong to different variants of spearheads with leaf-shaped blade (type I), while types II and III are represented each by one piece. Similarly, arrows were deposited in eight burials (61.53%). The number of the arrowheads identified within one grave varies between one and five (grave 52)138. Only the helmet from grave 10 can be included in the category of the defensive armours. Because of the extremely high intensity of the grave reopening activities and the lack of swords and seaxes, the only detectable weapon combination at Band is the spearhead – arrowhead(s) association which occurs three times139. In the case of grave 10 they are combined with an iron helmet. This latter grave deserves attention because of the associated finds: near the right leg of the corpse a blacksmith’s toolkit was deposited. Unfortunately the upper part of the grave was totally disturbed140. Even so, the tools, the helmet and the other weapons, the elements belonging to a belt, as well as the large dimensions of the burial pit suggest that it could be one of the richest burials of the cemetery, possibly furnished with further weapons which were taken out when the grave was reopened. Out of the 13 weapon burials at least seven contained iron buckles, mounts, or strap-ends belonging to Merovingian type belt-sets141. In the case of graves 102 and 142 the existence of such belt-set can be presumed as well; however, the objects are very fragmentary. Even if the exact composition cannot be reconstructed due to the fragmentary state of preservation of the finds, the association of the belt-sets with the leaf-shaped spearheads and the different kind of arrowheads points toward a quite strong ‘Merovingian tradition’.  For a comprehensive study of the Baldenheim type see Vogt 2006 (with further bibliography).  Vogt 2006, 46–63. 138  It has to be mentioned that in grave 10 several small iron fragments were discovered which could be part of arrowheads with spike. In this case the original number of the arrowheads deposited in grave 10 could have exceeded five. 139  Graves 10, 52, and 142. 140  Kovács 1913, 284–296; 12–18. kép. 141  Graves 10, 33, 52, 65, 144, 159, 179. 136 137

Weapons and weapon depositions in the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania

73

István Kovács has already noticed that the graves containing horse bones, generally associated with a nomadic presence or influence, are situated on the western and eastern peripheries of the cemetery (Fig.  9). On these grounds they were interpreted as belonging to the latest phase of the necropolis142. Indeed, the cluster of these burials support this hypothesis, but it has to be mentioned that in several graves only horse teeth were discovered and in most of the cases the type of horse burial (entire or partial) cannot be established with certainty143. On the other hand, if one compares the distribution of the graves containing horse bones with that of the above mentioned weapon burials with ‘Merovingian tradition’ it can be observed that, even if they do not overlap each other, they are situated in the same areas of the cemetery, namely on the eastern and western wings (Fig. 9). This observation suggests that, despite the fact that none of the graves with horse bones were furnished with weapons, these can be dated roughly in the same period as the weapon burials with ‘Merovingian tradition’. The only situation which might be connected to the above defined ‘Avar tradition’ is grave 49. It contained only a spearhead with reed-leaf-shaped blade (type II) (Fig. 8/1), but it is situated next to grave 44 (Fig. 9). In the latter only horse bones were discovered and, based on the situation documented during the excavation, it cannot be excluded that it was a partial horse burial in a separate grave144. In this burial three rosette-shaped mounts belonging to the harness (Fig. 8/2–4) and a pear-shaped bone whip-handle (Fig. 8/5) were discovered145. On the grounds of the topographical situation it is likely that the horse buried in grave 44 belonged to grave 49.

4

2

3

0 3 cm

1 0 3 cm

5 Fig. 8. Band: 1. grave 49; 2–5. grave 44. After Kovács 1913.

Taking the above sketched situation as a starting point, the question arises: why the graves from the core area of the cemetery did not contain any weapon? If one assumes the generally accepted  Kovács 1913, 368.  For a more detailed discussion on the topic see Dobos 2010/2011, 379–380 (with further bibliography). 144  Dobos 2010/2011, 379, 384. 145  The mounts belong to one of the most common types of mounts used for decorating the harness through the Avar Age. Whip-handles similar to the one from Band are known from Early Avar Age contexts; the type itself can be traced back to Eastern origins: see Garam 1998, 117–119. 142 143

N

42

43

32

10

??

26

24

25

39

40

44

3 2

17

15

1

13

12

14

30

56

29

11

?

16

54

28

27

59

91

84

82

87

83

79

spearheads of type IE

64

94

spearheads of unkown type

105

?

107

109

121

163

156

horse teeth

horse bones arrowheads of unkown type

169

170

171

174

175

179

176

177

183

178

185

186

182

184

10 mcm 0 0 10

153

157

164

168

167

166

arrowheads of type C

141

142

149

154

150

155

158

173

180

pyramidal bronze mount belonging to the spatha belt

132

133

134

140

137

143

151

159

160

161

181

arrowheads of type B

124

125

135

136

138

139 144

146

145

61

147

172

helmet

119

120

126

127

131

128

129

130

62

63

152

arrowheads of type A

111

122 117

55

116

123

115

118

113

114

112

72

110

103

71

104

106

99

75

108

69

104a

98

76

102

101

100

95

97

77

80

78 74

68

Legend

96

53

?

66

85

92

86

67

93

65

90 81

89

88

57

spearheads of type III

8

18

33

34

52

spearheads of type IB

6

7

21

19

?20?

36

35

?

60

spearheads of type II

4

23

37

50

51

58

spearheads of type IA

5

9

22

49

48

47

73

162

165

Fig. 9. Distribution map of the weapon graves and horse burials in the cemetery at Band. Redrawn after Kovács 1913.

31

38

41

45

46

70

148

74 Alpár Dobos

Weapons and weapon depositions in the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania

75

chronological model, namely that the cemetery developed from the central area towards the western and eastern peripheries, it would suggest that in the early phase the community from Band did not bury the deceased with weapons (or all of the weapons were taken out when the graves were disturbed) (Fig. 9). Another possibility would be the reconsideration of the relative chronology of the cemetery. Unfortunately, there are very few graves which can be dated more precisely. For the weapon burials of ‘Merovingian tradition’ only a general dating can be proposed: the period between the last third of the 6th century and the beginning of the 7th century. The proportion of the weapon burials at Noșlac is significantly higher. In total 25 graves146 were furnished with weapons, i.e. 22.80% of the 114 graves. Similar to the situation from Band, at Noșlac the most numerous are the graves containing arrowheads, namely 13, representing 52% of the weapon burials. Their number within one grave varies between one and six (grave 87147). The second most popular is the category of the seaxes: including grave 68 (where the existence of a seax is not totally sure) nine such weapons were discovered (34.61%). These are followed by the swords (7 pieces = 26.92%) and the spearheads, respectively the axes (3 pieces each = 11.53%). Regarding the weapon combinations a rather wide variety can be observed: 1. spatha – seax: grave 21 2. spatha – spear: grave 6 3. spatha – arrow(s): graves 17 and 89 4. seax – arrows – axe: grave 101a 5. seax – arrows: graves 33b and 101b 6. spear – arrows: grave 16 7. arrows – axe: grave 87 8. single-edged sword – spear: grave 11. Out of the 26 weapon graves, 11 contained components of Merovingian type belt-sets (Fig. 10)148. All these burials, together with the variants 1–7 of the above presented weapon combinations, are situated in the south-eastern part of the cemetery. For this area a general dating in the last third of the 6th – beginning of the 7th century can be accepted.

0 3 cm

Fig. 10. Three-part belt-set from Noșlac, grave 17 (photo taken by the author).  Among these there are two double burials (33 and 101) where both individuals were buried with weapons.  Due to the fragmentary state of preservation this number is not totally sure. 148  Graves 6, 10, 16, 17, 25, 28, 33a–b, 63, 87, 89, 101a. 146 147

76

Alpár Dobos

As it was already pointed out149, at Noșlac the horse burials lie on the north-western periphery of the cemetery. From the viewpoint of the weapons, the most important burials from this area are graves 11 and 12. The latter is a horse burial which, beyond any doubt, belonged to grave 11. Based on the grave-goods (single-edged sword with straight blade and spearhead belonging to type IV in grave 11; bit with cheekpieces and stirrups with straight footplate in grave 12) these two burials cannot be dated earlier than the Middle Avar Period (Fig. 7). This dating is supported also by the observation that the custom of depositing the axe in the burial of the horse instead of that of the warrior occurs for the first time in Middle Avar Period contexts150. Taking into consideration the grave-goods coming from the other burials of the grave group, a later dating, i.e. in the Late Avar Period cannot be excluded either. Summing up, at Noșlac the two different traditions can be quite clearly isolated. These are separated in two different areas and can be dated in two different periods. The main question, whether the two areas represent two distinct burial places or they belong to different phases of the same cemetery cannot be answered without new excavations. The proportion of the weapon graves is relatively high in the partially unearthed cemetery from Unirea-Vereșmort. The four graves furnished with weapons represent 23.52% of the 17 excavated graves. Unlike the other cemeteries, at Unirea-Vereșmort the number of the burials with spatha is the highest (3 = 75% of the weapon burials), followed by the ones containing arrowheads (2), shield-bosses (2) and spearheads (1). Of course, due to the very low number of the researched graves, it is too hazardous to draw conclusions regarding the proportion of the weapon burials from Unirea-Vereșmort. Even if disturbed, the burials in discussion are among the most richly furnished ones from the Band-Vereșmort group. Two different combinations could be identified, both containing three weapon categories: spatha – leaf-shaped spear – arrowheads (grave 5) and spatha – arrowheads – shield (grave 13). Both the weapon types and their combination, as well as the iron mounts with silver wire inlay discovered in graves 12 and 13 indicate burials of ‘Merovingian tradition’. As it was mentioned before, in the vicinity of the cemetery researched by Roska another grave was discovered. It belonged to a 25–28 years old man who was buried together with a horse151 equipped with a bit, a pair of stirrups and mounts decorating the harness. The grave was very richly furnished: it contained among others a single-edged sword, archery equipment, fragments of a chain mail, elements of a pressed belt-set, and a golden earring. The publishers of the burial considered that it probably belonged to the final phase of the cemetery identified by Roska. The grave was dated in the 7th century152. Recently an earlier dating, more precisely the end of the 6th – first quarter of the 7th century was proposed by Erwin Gáll153. A closer dating of the single-edged sword is offered by the hilt covered with silver sheet and the ring pommel. The latter was considered by several scholars of Central Asian origin154. Because of this reason László Simon considered that it was brought in the Carpathian Basin by the Avars and, consequently, it can be dated beginning with the earliest phase of the Avar Period155. However, it seems that in the Carpathian Basin the swords with ring pommel and hilt covered with precious metal sheet can be dated in the second third of the 7th century156. The combination of the decorated hilt and the ring pommel, respectively the suspension loops with similar shape as the ones from Unirea is a characteristic of the princely graves of Kunábony-Bócsa type; however, these are more richly decorated (generally with gold) and are provided with a guard. These can be dated in the second part of the Early Avar Period157.  Rusu 1962, 291; Rusu 1964, 43–45; Dobos 2010/2011, 388.  Szücsi 2012, 129; Szücsi 2014, 137. 151  It seems that it was a partial horse burial. 152  Rustoiu/Ciută 2008, 91. 153  Gáll 2014, 299. 154  See Csiky 2009, 153–154. 155  Simon 1991, 273. 156  Csiky 2009, 157. 157  Csiky 2009, 121–122; for a general overview of the Kunbábony-Bócsa type burials see Daim 2003, 481–483. 149 150

Weapons and weapon depositions in the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania

4

3 0

5 0 3 cm

3 cm

2

7

8

6 0 3 cm

10 9

1 0 10 cm

0 3 cm

11 0 3 cm

Fig. 11. Grave-goods discovered at Bratei – cemetery 3, grave 218. After Bârzu 2010.

12

77

78

Alpár Dobos

1

5

2

6 4 0 3 cm

3 7 0 3 cm

0 3 cm

Fig. 12. Grave-goods discovered at Bratei – cemetery 3, grave 278. After Bârzu 2010.

Weapons and weapon depositions in the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania

79

Fig. 13. Distribution map of the weapon graves and horse burials in the cemetery no. 3 at Bratei. Redrawn after Bârzu 2010.

80

Alpár Dobos

At Bratei – cemetery 3158 the proportion of the weapon burials is somewhat lower (51 graves = 17.46% of the 292 excavated graves). Among these, the most frequent are the ones furnished with arrowheads (42 graves = 82.35% of the weapon graves). The number of the deposited arrowheads varies between one and eight (grave 121). The other weapon categories are much less represented: five graves contained spatha (9.80%), and only one was equipped with seax (1.96%). Spearheads occur in a higher proportion, more precisely ten examples were discovered coming from eight graves (11.68%). In the case of the spearheads, the typological differences can offer important details concerning their functionality. The light spearheads discovered in pairs in graves 21 and 22 (Fig. 3/7–10) were probably used for throwing ( javelins) which indicates that they belong to the distant combat weapons. The spearhead with narrow leaf-shaped blade (type IB) (Fig. 3/6) can be interpreted as a weapon used by the infantry, while the five pikes with reed-leaf-shaped blade (Fig. 3/14–18) can be associated with the cavalry. This latter observation is also supported by the fact that four such pieces were discovered in horse burials. The weapon combinations in the cemetery 3 from Bratei are far less varied as it was the case with Noșlac or with Unirea-Vereșmort. The most complex combination comes from grave 218: spatha – seax – reed-leaf-shaped spearhead – barbed arrowhead (Fig.  11). With the exception of this burial, only the spatha from grave 214 was associated with an arrowhead. Unlike Noșlac and UnireaVereșmort, the individuals buried with spatha from Bratei were not equipped with Merovingian type belt-sets. For this reason, the presence of the weapon burials with ‘Merovingian tradition’ is not as significant as in the two mentioned cemeteries. On the other hand, the weapon graves bearing an ‘Avar tradition’ can be defined by the combination of horse burials with reed-leaf-shaped spearheads and harness (Fig. 12)159. Taking a look at the plan of the cemetery (Fig. 13) one can observe that the graves with weapons show a concentration in the southern part. The two mentioned groups do not cluster in well-defined groups, but they lie in the same area. It seems that there is no significant chronological difference between them160. A further argument in this respect is the association of the spatha and seax with the reed-leaf-shaped spearhead in grave 218 (Fig. 11). A closer absolute dating of the graves in discussion is quite difficult. For the graves with spatha the last third of the 6th century – beginning of the 7th century can be generally proposed, a dating supported also by the Byzantine buckle discovered in grave 218 (Fig. 11/7)161. In the partially excavated cemetery from Târgu Mureș three weapon graves were identified: two of them contained a spearhead (both of type III) (Fig. 3/22–23) and one was furnished with arrowheads. In the cemetery from Bistrița the number of the weapon burials is low. Only three graves contained weapons (5% of the 60 excavated graves): all of them were furnished with spearheads (Fig. 3/11, 20, 25); in grave 34 the spearhead was associated with six arrowheads. At Fântânele weapons were discovered in five graves (8.77% of the 57 researched graves which surely belonged to the cemetery). The spearhead of Hellmitzheim type from grave 14 (Fig. 3/13) and the combination of a shield-boss with a pyramidal bronze mount in the disturbed grave 19 which indicates an initial spatha – shield association shows connections with the weapon burials of ‘Merovingian tradition’. In the cemetery at Galații Bistriței only the pyramidal bronze mount from grave 39 suggests the existence of a spatha.

Conclusions As it was pointed out, from the viewpoint of the weapon burials, the Band-Vereșmort group does not show a uniform picture. The differences detected in the individual cemeteries might be attributed, at least partially, to the different intensity of the grave disturbing activity162. Therefore, it can be pre158  The weapon burials discovered in cemetery 3 at Bratei were already analyzed: Dobos 2015 (in press); therefore in the present study only the main results will be summarized. 159  See also Gáll 2014, 305. 160  Gáll 2014, 305. 161  See note 67. 162  It seems that the most affected cemeteries are the ones from Band and Fântânele.

Weapons and weapon depositions in the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania

81

sumed that the initial proportion of the weapon burial was considerably higher. In this respect the already mentioned pyramidal bronze mounts are warning signs which indicate the existence of swords which were taken out. In addition, one should take into account the possibility that certain weapon types could be made of organic materials. In this context it is worth mentioning that no antler laths belonging to composite bows were discovered in the analyzed material163; therefore the existence of simple wooden bows can be supposed164. Similarly, the number of the iron shield-bosses is extremely low in the cemeteries in discussion. This observation points toward the presumption that simple wooden shields might have been used, even if the traces of such objects were not noticed during the excavations165. Another important question is: to what extent the grave disturbing activities affected the proportion of the different weapon categories? In this respect the observation made by Helmuth Roth, according to which the spathae and the seaxes represented one of the targets of those who reopened the burials, while the spears generally were left in the grave166, is interesting. Indeed, the quantity of the spears is generally higher than that of the swords in the Transylvanian row-grave cemeteries, too. The only exceptions are the cemeteries from Unirea-Vereșmort and Noșlac; the latter was disturbed in the smallest degree. On the other hand, the fact that the spearheads were more frequently left in the grave could be explained rather with their peripheral position inside the grave167 than with an intentional act. The analysis of the individual cemeteries pointed out that the impact of the two cultural models (the ‘Merovingian’ and ‘Avar’ traditions) shows significant regional differences. The weapon burials with ‘Merovingian’ tradition are the most intensive in the cemeteries situated in the Middle Mureș Valley (Noșlac and Unirea-Vereșmort), but they can be detected as well in the rest of the cemeteries. An interesting observation is that in cemetery 3 at Bratei the Merovingian type belt-sets are completely missing. The same situation can be noticed in the case of the female graves, too: the typical elements of the ‘Merovingian’ type female assemblages are lacking. Instead, an unusual high quantity of Byzantine import pieces can be observed168. In the Early Avar Period the burials with ‘Avar’ tradition are the best detectable at Bratei. Regardless if the grave discovered in 2008 at Unirea-Vereșmort belonged to the same cemetery as the ones excavated by Roska, it attests a strong presence of the ‘Avar’ tradition in the area during the Early Avar Age. The two models, which seem to be contemporary, cannot be sharply separated in any of the mentioned cemeteries. The only exception is constituted by the necropolis from Noșlac, but in this case the reasons are chronological ones. Graves with ‘Avar’ tradition are completely missing from the cemeteries from the northern part of Transylvania (Bistrița, Galații Bistriței, Fântânele)169. The explanation of these cultural differences requires further research. As a working hypothesis it can be presumed that the geographical location of the different cemeteries could have a decisive role. In the cemeteries from the central part of Transylvania (Noșlac, Unirea-Vereșmort, Band, and probably Târgu Mureș170) both the assemblages with ‘Merovingian’ and ‘Avar’ tradition are relatively well represented. The necropolises situated in the northern region of Transylvania (Bistrița, Galații Bistriței, Fântânele) are less affected by the weapon combinations of ‘Merovingian’ tradition, while those with ‘Avar’ tradition are completely missing. This phenomenon can be probably explained by their peripheral geographical position and, in consequence by the less intense contacts with other communities. The cemetery 3 from Bratei represents another category. Here the elements connected to the Merovingian cultural milieu are less frequent then in the case of the cemeteries from the Middle Mureș Valley. Instead, the high quantity of the already mentioned artefacts of Byzantine origin suggests more intensive relations towards south. On the grounds of the general characteristics of the weapon graves belonging to the BandVereșmort group, it seems that these are relatively similar to the ones from the eastern part of  The only exception is represented by the warrior grave from Unirea-Vereșmort: Rustoiu/Ciută 2008, Pl. 5/4.  For the topic of the wooden bows see Capelle 1982, 274–276. 165  For traces of wooden shields in the Anglo-Saxon material see Härke 1992, 39–40; for the problem of the wooden shields without metallic components see Capelle 1982, 269–274. 166  Roth 1977, 287–289; Roth 1978, 67–71. 167  The spears were generally deposited along one of the long edges of the burial pit. 168  For a more detailed discussion referring to the topic see Dobos 2015 (in press). 169  In this regard the existence of animal/horse bones do not represent per se a convincing argument. 170  The number of the excavated graves at Târgu Mureș is too low to draw solid conclusions. 163 164

82

Alpár Dobos

Transdanubia171. Like in the case of the Transdanubian cemeteries, the distant combat weapons are dominant in Transylvania. From this point of view a significant difference can be observed in comparison with the Merovingian area, where the distant combat weapons are pushed into the background in the Late Merovingian Period172. In this case the possibility of a local tradition cannot be totally excluded either, taking into consideration that in the Gepidic Age the elements of the archery represented the most frequent weapon type173. Unfortunately, the high degree of the disturbed graves and the lack of anthropological analysis hinder the possibility of a more detailed analysis regarding the social structure of the communities which used the Transylvanian row-grave cemeteries in the Avar Age. Based on the scarcely information it seems that the spathae were generally deposited in the graves of the adults, while arrowheads appeared also in burials belonging to children or young individuals.

Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, grant no. CNCS – UEFISCDI, no. PN-II-ID-PCE–2011–3-0278. The author would like to express his gratitude towards dr. Ioan Stanciu (Institute of Archaeology and Art History, Cluj-Napoca) for the permission to examine the original documentation of the cemetery at Noșlac as well as towards dr. Călin Cosma (Institute of Archaeology and Art History, Cluj-Napoca) for the drawings of the grave-goods discovered at Noșlac and stored in the History Museum from Aiud.

References Alcock 1981 L. Alcock, Quantity or Quality: The Anglian Graves of Bernicia. V. I. Evison (ed.), Angles, Saxons and Jutes. Essays Presented to J. N. L. Myres (Oxford 1981), 168–186. Bakó 1960 G. Bakó, A mezőbándi temető népének és anyagi kultúrájának eredetéről. Archaeologiai Értesítő 87, 1960, 22–31. Bakó 1962 G. Bakó, Elemente slave în necropola de la Bandu de Câmpie. Studii și cercetări de istorie veche 13, 1962, 451–459. Bálint 1989 Cs. Bálint, Die Archäologie der Steppe. Steppenvölker zwischen Volga und Donau vom 6. bis zum 10. Jahrhundert (Wien – Köln 1989). Bálint 1993 Cs. Bálint, Probleme der archäologischen Forschung zur awarischen Landnahme. M. Müller-Wille, R. Schneider (Hrsg.), Ausgewählte Probleme europäischer Landnahmen des Früh- und Hochmittelalters. Methodische Grundlagendiskussion im Grenzbereich zwischen Archäologie und Geschichte, Band I. Vorträge und Forschungen 41 (Sigmaringen 1993), 195–273. Bálint 1995 Cs. Bálint, Kelet, a korai avarok és Bizánc kapcsolatai (Régészeti tanulmányok) (Szeged 1995). Bálint 2010 Cs. Bálint, A contribution to research on ethnicity: a view from and on the east. W. Pohl, M. Mehofer (Hrsg), Archaeology of Identity – Archäologie der Identität. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosphisch- Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 406, Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 17 (Wien 2010), 145–182. Barbiera 2005 I. Barbiera, Sixth Century Cemeteries in Hungary and Italy: a Comparative Approach. W. Pohl, P. Erhart (Hrsg.), Die Langobarden. Herrschaft und Identität. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 329, Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 9 (Wien 2005), 301–320. Bârzu 2010 L. Bârzu, Ein gepidisches Denkmal aus Siebenbürgen. Das Gräberfeld 3 von Bratei (bearbeitet von R. Harhoiu). Archaeologia Romanica 4 (Cluj-Napoca 2010).  For the most significant characteristics of the Transdanubian cemeteries see Csiky 2011, 22–23.  Reiß 2007, 222–223. 173  Kiss 2011b, 146–147. 171 172

Weapons and weapon depositions in the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania

83

Bârzu / Harhoiu 2008 L. Bârzu, R. Harhoiu, Gepiden als Nachbarn der Langobarden und das Gräberfeld von Bratei. J. Bemmann, M. Schmauder (Hrsg.), Kulturwandel in Mitteleuropa. Langobarden – Awaren – Slawen. Akten der Internationalen Tagung in Bonn vom 25. bis 28. Februar 2008. Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 11 (Bonn 2008), 513–578. Beninger / Mitscha-Märheim 1970 E. Beninger, H. Mitscha-Märheim, Das langobardische Gräberfeld von Nikitsch, Burgenland. Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland 43 (Eisenstadt 1970). Bóna 1979 I. Bóna, Gepiden in Siebenbürgen – Gepiden an der Theiß (Probleme der Forschungsmethode und Fundinterpretation). Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 31, 1979, 9–50. Bóna 1988 I. Bóna, Die Geschichte der Awaren im Lichte der archäologischen Quellen. Popoli delle steppe: unni, avari, ungari. 23–29 aprile 1987, Tomo I–II. Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi Sull’alto Medioevo 35 (Spoleto 1988), Tomo secondo, 437–463. Bóna 2002a I. Bóna, Kisköre-Pap tanya (Kom. Heves). I. Bóna, M. Nagy, Gepidische Gräberfelder am Theissgebiet I. Monumenta Germanorum Archaeologica Hungariae 1 (Budapest 2002), 191–196. Bóna 2002b I. Bóna, Szolnok – Szanda (Kom. Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok). I. Bóna, M. Nagy, Gepidische Gräberfelder am Theissgebiet I. Monumenta Germanorum Archaeologica Hungariae 1 (Budapest 2002), 197–237. Bóna / Nagy 2002 I. Bóna, M. Nagy, Hódmezővásárhely-Kishomok (Kom. Csongrád). I. Bóna, M. Nagy, Gepidische Gräberfelder am Theissgebiet I. Monumenta Germanorum Archaeologica Hungariae 1 (Budapest 2002), 34–189. Bóna / Horváth 2009 I. Bóna, J. B. Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder in West-Ungarn. Monumenta Germanorum Archaeologica Hungariae 6 (Budapest 2009). Brather 2000 S. Brather, Ethnische Identitäten als Konstrukte der frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie. Germania 78, 2000, 139–177. Brather 2002 S. Brather, Ethnic Identities as Constructions of Archaeology: The case of the Alamanni. A. Gillett (ed.), On Barbarian Identity. Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle Ages. Studies in the Early Middle Ages 4 (Turnhout 2002), 149–175. Brather 2005 S. Brather, Alter und Geschlecht zur Merowingerzeit. Soziale Strukturen und frühmittelalterliche Reihengräberfelder. J. Müller (Hrsg.), Alter und Geschlecht in ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Gesellschaften. Tagung Bamberg 20.–21. Februar 2004. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 126 (Bonn 2005), 157–178. Capelle 1982 T. Capelle, Erkenntnismöglichkeiten ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Bewaffnungsformen. Zum Problem von Waffen aus organischem Material. Bonner Jahrbücher des Rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn im Landschaftsverbad Rheinland und des Vereins von Altertusfreunden im Rheinlande 182, 1982, 265–288. Christlein 1973 (1975) R. Christlein, Besitzabstufungen zur Merowingerzeit im Spiegel reicher Grabfunde aus West- und Süddeutschland. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 20, 1973 (1975), 147–180. Čilinská 1966 Z. Čilinská, Slawisch-awarisches Gräberfeld in Nové Zámky. Archaeologica Slovaca Fontes 7 (Bratislava 1966). Corsten 1995 M. Corsten, Die stempelverzierten Gegenstände der Merowingerzeit (München 1995). Csallány 1961 D. Csallány, Archäologische Denkmäler der Gepiden im Mitteldonaubecken (454–568 u. Z.). Archaeologia Hungarica 38 (Budapest 1961). Cseh 1990 J. Cseh, Adatok az V–VII. századi gepida emlékanyag egységéhez. Függelék: Erdély V–VII. századi gepida lelőhelykatasztere, Szolnok Megyei Múzeumi Évkönyv 7, 1990, 29–77. Csiky 2007 G. Csiky, A kora avar lándzsák tipológiája. Archaeologiai Értesítő 132, 2007, 305–323.

84

Alpár Dobos

Csiky 2009 G. Csiky, Az avar kori szúró- és vágófegyverek. Osztályozás – tipológia – kronológia – technológia. PhD dissertation (manuscript), Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem (Budapest 2009). Csiky 2011 G. Csiky, Armament and Society in the Mirror of the Avar Archaeology. The Transdanubia-Phenomenon Revisited. I. M. Țiplic (ed.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference Interethnic Relations in Transylvania. Militaria Mediaevalia in Central and South Eastern Europe. Sibiu, October 14th–17th, 2010. Studia Universitatis Cibiniensis, Series Historica 8, Supplementum 1 (Sibiu 2011), 9–34. Csiky 2011–2012 (2013) G. Csiky, Az avar közelharci fegyverek története. Funkcionális megközelítés. Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából, Új Sorozat 6–7 (16–17), 2011–2012 (2013), 71–91, 1–6. tábla. Csiky 2012 G. Csiky, Saxe im awarenzeitlichen Karpatenbecken. T. Vida (szerk./ed.), Thesaurus Avarorum. Régészeti tanulmányok Garam Éva tiszteletére / Archaeological Studies in Honour of Éva Garam (Budapest 2012), 371–393. Daim 2003 F. Daim, Avars and Avar archaeology. An introduction. H. W. Goetz, J. Jarnut, W. Pohl (eds.), Regna and Gentes. The relationship between late antique and early medieval peoples and kingdoms in the transformation of the Roman world. The transformation of the Roman World 13 (Leiden – Boston 2003), 463–570. Dobos 2010/2011 A. Dobos, Az erdélyi soros temetők lovastemetkezései. Zs. Körösfői (szerk.), Erdély és kapcsolatai a kora népvándorlás korában. Molnár István Múzeum Közleményei 3 (Székelykeresztúr / Cristuru Secuiesc 2010/2011), 377–403. Dobos 2011 A. Dobos, The Reihengräberfelder in Transylvania after 100 years of archaeological research. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 46, 2011, 171–206. Dobos 2015 A. Dobos, Notes on artefacts with punched decoration discovered in the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania. S. Cociș, V. A. Lăzărescu, M. Gui, D.-A. Deac (eds.), Ad Finem Imperii Romani. Studies in honour of Coriolan H. Opreanu. Bibliotheca Ephemeris Napocensis 8 (Cluj-Napoca 2015), 107–128. Dobos 2015 (in press) A. Dobos, Notes on the weapons and weapon depositions from cemetery 3 at Bratei (Sibiu County, Romania). Transylvanian Review, Supplement (Cluj-Napoca 2015) (in press). Dobos / Opreanu 2012 A. Dobos, C. H. Opreanu, Migration Period and Early Medieval cemeteries at Fântânele (Bistriţa-Năsăud County). Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum 5 (Cluj-Napoca 2012). Ferencz / Nagy / Lăzărescu 2009 Sz. Ferencz, Sz. Nagy, V. A. Lăzărescu, Necropola din secolul al VI-lea p. Ch. / The sixth century A.D. necropolis. S. Mustață, F. Gogâltan, S. Cociș, A. Ursuțiu (eds.), Cercetări arheologice preventive la Florești-Polus Center, jud. Cluj (2007) / Rescue excavations at Florești-Polus Center, Cluj County (2007). Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum 1 (Cluj-Napoca 2009), 419–474. Freeden 1991 (1995) U. von Freeden, Awarische Funde in Süddeutschland? Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 38, 2, 1991 (1995), 593–627. Gaiu 1992 C. Gaiu, Le cemetiére gépide de Bistriţa. Dacia. Revue d’archeologie et d’histoire ancienne, Neuvelle Serie 36, 1992, 115–124. Gaiu 1999 C. Gaiu, Cultura materială şi spirituală a populaţiei din nordul Transilvaniei de la retragerea aureliană până la slavi. PhD dissertation (manuscript), Universitatea Babeș-Bolyai (Cluj-Napoca 1999). Gáll 2014 E. Gáll, The Avar conquest and what followed. Some ideas on the process of ’Avarisation’ of Transylvanian Basin (6th–7th centuries). S. Cociș (Hrsg.), Archäologische Beiträge. Gedenkschrift zum hundersten Geburtstag von Kurt Horedt, Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum 7 (Cluj-Napoca 2014), 295–323. Garam 1990 É. Garam, Bemerkungen zum ältesten Fundmaterial der Awarenzeit. H. Friesinger / F. Daim (Hrsg.), Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bayern, Teil 2 (Wien 1990), 253–272.

Weapons and weapon depositions in the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania

85

Garam 1995 É. Garam, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Tiszafüred. Cemeteries of the Avar Period (567–829) in Hungary 3 (Budapest 1995). Garam 1998 É. Garam, Avar kori csont ostor vagy korbácsvégek és ostorbuzogányok. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 1998, 109–121. Garam 2001 É. Garam, Funde byzantinischer Herkunft in der Awarenzeit vom Ende des 6. bis zum Ende des 7. Jahrhunderts. Monumenta Avarororum Archaeologica 5 (Budapest 2001). Gavrituchin 2008 I. Gavrituchin, Archaeological heritage of the Avar Khaganate and the southern part of Eastern Europe. Periodisation, dating and synchronisation. Antaeus 29–30, 2008, 63–125. Gepizii 2011 C. Gaiu (ed.), Gepizii. Războinici și artizani. Catolog de expoziție (Bistrița 2011). Hajnal 2012 Zs. Hajnal, A Kölked-feketekapui ‘A’ és ‘B’ temetők együttes értékelése. T. Vida (szerk./ed.), Thesaurus Avarorum. Régészeti tanulmányok Garam Éva tiszteletére / Archaeological Studies in Honour of Éva Garam (Budapest 2012), 607–644. Harhoiu 1979 R. Harhoiu, Raport preliminar privind săpăturile arheologice de la Galaţii Bistriţei. Materiale și cercetări arheologice 13, 1979, 321–323. Harhoiu 1999–2001 R. Harhoiu, Quellenlage und Forschungsstand der Frühgeschichte Siebenbürgens im 6.–7. Jahrhundert. Dacia. Revue d’archeologie et d’histoire ancienne, Neuvelle Serie 43–45, 1999–2001, 97–158. Harhoiu 2001 R. Harhoiu, Archäologische Kulturgruppen des 6.–7. Jahrhunderts in Siebenbürgen. Forschungsgeschichtliche Überlegungen. Slovenská Archeologia 49, 2001, 139–163. Harhoiu 2004–2005 R. Harhoiu, Allgemeine Betrachtungen zum Bestattungssittenbild Siebenbürgens im 4. und bis zur Mitte des 9. Jahrhunderts. Dacia. Revue d’archeologie et d’histoire ancienne, Neuvelle Serie 48–49, 2004–2005, 283–334. Harhoiu 2008 R. Harhoiu, Das gepidische Gräberfeld von Galaţii Bistriţei. Revista Bistriței 22, 2008, 183–241. Harhoiu 2010a R. Harhoiu, Chorologische und chronologische Betrachtungen zum Gräberfeld 3 von Bratei. In: Bârzu 2010, 149–159. Harhoiu 2010b R. Harhoiu, Where Did All the Gepids Go? A Sixth- to Seventh-century Cemetery in Bratei (Romania). F. Curta (ed.), Neglected Barbarians. Studies in the early Middle Ages 32 (Turnhout 2010), 209–244. Härke 1992 H. Härke, Angelsächsische Waffengräber des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts. Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters, Beiheft 6 (Köln 1992). Härke 1997 H. Härke Material Culture as Myth: Weapons in Anglo-Saxon Graves. C. K. Jensen, K. H. Nieslen (eds.), Burial & Society. The Chronological and Social Analysis of Archaeological Burial Data (Aarhus 1997), 119–127. Hica 1974 I. Hica, Un cimitir din secolul al VII-lea e. n. la Valea Largă ( jud. Mureş). Studii și cercetări de istorie veche și arheologie 25, 1974, 517–526. Horedt 1958 K. Horedt, Untersuchungen zur Frühgeschichte Siebenbürgens (Bukarest 1958). Horedt 1977 K. Horedt, Der östliche Reihengräberkreis in Siebenbürgen. Dacia. Revue d’archeologie et d’histoire ancienne, Neuvelle Serie 21, 1977, 251–268. Horedt 1986 K. Horedt, Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter. Antiquitas 3/28 (Bonn 1986). Husár 2014 M. Husár, Žrd’ovo-bodné zbrane včasného stredoveku v Karpatskej kotline. 1. diel. Typológia a jej vyhodnotenie. (Nitra 2014).

86

Alpár Dobos

Hübener 1980 W. Hübener, Eine Studie zu den Beilwaffen der Merowingerzeit. Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 8, 1980, 65–127. Hübener 1989a W. Hübener, Die Langsaxe der späten Merowingerzeit. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 21, 1989, 75–84. Hübener 1989b W. Hübener, Über merowingerzeitliche Schildbuckel. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 21, 1989, 85–97. Kiss 1992 A. Kiss, Germanen im awarenzeitlichen Karpatenbecken. F. Daim (Hrsg.), Awarenforschungen, Bd. 1. Studien zur archäologie der Awaren 4 (Wien 1992), 21–135. Kiss 1996 A. Kiss, Das awarenzeitlich gepidische Gräberfeld von Kölked-Feketekapu A. Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren 5 (Innsbruck 1996). Kiss 1999/2000 A. Kiss, Die Frage des Weiterlebens der Gepiden. Neue Entwicklung nach dem Abschluss des Manuskripts (1992) der ,Monographie Kölked-Feketekapu A’. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 51, 1999/2000, 359–365. Kiss 2011a A. P. Kiss, Die awarenzeitlichen Gepiden in Transdanubien? Gemischte Argumentationen in der Forschung bei dem Weiterleben der Gepiden. B. Vida (ed.), Church and Ethnicity in History. First Year of Conference V4 for Doctoral Candidates in Ostrava (Ostrava 2011), 10–21. Kiss 2011b A. P. Kiss, Észrevételek a Tisza-vidéki gepida fegyveres temetkezések értékeléséhez. Bíró Sz. (szerk.), Hadak útján. A népvándorlás kor kutatóinak XIX. konferenciája. Győr-Moson-Sopron Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága, Tanulmányok 3 (Győr 2011), 141–156. Koch 1977 U. Koch, Das Reihengräberfeld von Schretzheim. Germanische Denkmäler der Völkerwanderungszeit A/13 (Berlin 1977). Koch 2001 U. Koch, Das alamannisch-fränkische Gräberfeld bei Pleidelsheim. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 60 (Stuttgart 2001). Kovács 1913 I. Kovács, A mezőbándi ásatások. Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából 4, 1913, 265–429. Kovács 1915 I. Kovács, A marosvásárhelyi őskori telep, skytha- és népvándorláskori temető. Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából 6, 1915, 226–325. Kovrig 1955a I. Kovrig, Adatok az avar megszállás kérdéséhez. Archaeologiai Értesítő 82, 1955, 30–44. Kovrig 1955b I. Kovrig, Contribution au problème de l’occupation de la Hongrie par les avars, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 6, 1955, 163–192. Körösfői / Székely 2007 Zs. Körösfői, A. Székely, Gepida temető Székelykeresztúron (Szabadság tér, 44. szám – Garázsköz), Acta Siculica, 2007, 231–237. Martin 1990 M. Martin, Awarische und germanische Funde in Männergräbern von Linz-Zizlau und Környe. Ein Beitrag zur Chronologie der Awarenzeit. Wosinsky Mór Múzeum Évkönyve 15, 1990, 65–90. Martin 1996 M. Martin, Tauschierte Gürtelgarnituren und -beschläge des frühen Mittelalters im Karpatenbecken und ihre Träger. D. Bialeková / J. Zábojník (Hrsg.), Ethnische und kulturelle Verhältnisse an der mittleren Donau vom 6. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert (Bratislava 1996), 63–74. Martin 2008 M. Martin, Die absolute Datierung der Männergürtel im merowingischen Westen und im Awarenreich. Antaeus 29–30, 2008, 143–174. Menghin 1983 W. Menghin, Das Schwert im frühen Mittelalter. Chronologisch-typologische Untersuchungen zu Langschwertern aus germanischen Gräbern des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Wissenschaftliche Beibände zum Anzeiger des Germanischen Nationalmuseums 1 (Stuttgart 1983).

Weapons and weapon depositions in the late row-grave cemeteries in Transylvania

87

Nagy 2005a M. Nagy, Magyarcsanád – Bökény (Kom. Csongrád). J. Cseh, E. Istvánovits, E. Lovász, K. Mesterházy, M. Nagy, I. M. Nepper, E. Simonyi, Gepidische Gräberfelder im Theissgebiet II. Monumenta Germanorum Archaeologica Hungariae 2 (Budapest 2005), 97–116. Nagy 2005b M. Nagy, Szőreg – Téglagyár (Kom. Csongrád). J. Cseh, E. Istvánovits, E. Lovász, K. Mesterházy, M. Nagy, I. M. Nepper, E. Simonyi, Gepidische Gräberfelder im Theissgebiet II. Monumenta Germanorum Archaeologica Hungariae 2 (Budapest 2005), 120–202. Nawroth 2001 M. Nawroth, Das Gräberfeld von Pfahlheim und das Reitzubehör der Merowingerzeit. Wissenschaftliche Beibände zum Anzeiger des Germanischen Nationalmuseums 19 (Nürnberg 2001). Nestor / Zaharia 1973 I. Nestor, E. Zaharia, Raport preliminar despre săpăturile de la Bratei, jud. Sibiu (1959–1972). Materiale și cercetări arheologice 10, 1973, 191–201. Polus 2008 D. Alicu (coord.), Polus. Istorie pierdută – Istorie regăsită (Cluj-Napoca 2008). Reiß 2007 R. Reiß, Nahkampf und Fernkampf in der Merowingerzeit. Eine Studie über Waffentechnik und Kampfesweise der Franken vom ausgehenden 5. bis zur Mitte des 8. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 39, 2007, 211–244. Roman et alii 2014 C. A. Roman, Sz. Nagy, E. Piroska, T. Tecar, A. Pop, M. Ferenczi, F. Gheorghiță, O. Gyurka, T. Szebenyi, Com. Luna, jud. Cluj. Punct: Nod Rutier. Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România, Campania 2013 (București 2014), 83–84. Roska 1934 M. von Roska, Das gepidische Grabfeld von Vereşmort-Marosveresmart (Turda-Tordaaranyos, Siebenbürgen). Germania 18, 1934, 123–130. Roth 1977 H. Roth, Bemerkungen zur Totenberaubung während der Merowingerzeit. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 7, 1977, 287–290. Roth 1978 H. Roth, Archäologische Beobachtungen zum Grabfrevel im Merowingerreich. H. Jankuhn, H. Nehlsen, H. Roth (Hrsg), Zum Grabfrevel in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit. Untersuchungen zu Grabraub und „haugbrot“ in Mittel- und Nordeuropa. Bericht über ein Kolloquien der Kommission für Altertumskunde Mittel- und Nordeuropas vom 14. bis 16. Februar 1977. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse 3/113 (Göttingen 1978), 53–84. Rustoiu / Ciută 2008 G. T. Rustoiu, M. Ciută, Mormântul unui călăreţ avar recent descoperit la Unirea – Vereşmort ( jud. Alba). Apulum 45, 2008, 71–98. Rusu 1962 M. Rusu, The Prefeudal Cemetery of Noşlac (VIth–VIIth centuries). Dacia. Revue d’archeologie et d’histoire ancienne, Neuvelle Serie 6, 1962, 269–292. Rusu 1964 M. Rusu, Cimitirul prefeudal de la Noşlac, Probleme de Muzeografie (Cluj 1964), 32–45. Sági 1964 K. Sági, Das langobardische Gräberfeld von Vörs. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 16, 1964, 359–408, Taf. XXI–XXXVIII. Schulze-Dörlamm 2006 M. Schulze-Dörlamm, Awarische Einflüsse auf Bewaffnung und Kampftechnik des ostfränkischen Heeres in der Zeit um 600? M. Mode, J. Tubach (eds.), Arms and Armour as Indicator of Cultural Transfer. The Steppes and the Ancient World from Hellenistic Times to the Early Middle Ages. Nomaden und Sesshafte 4 (Wiesbaden 2006), 485–507. Siegmund 2000 F. Siegmund, Alemannen und Franken. Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 23 (Berlin – New York), 2000. Simon 1991 L. Simon, Korai avar kardok. Studia Comitatensia 22, 1991, 263–346.

88

Alpár Dobos

Sós / Salamon 1995 Á. Cs. Sós, Á. Salamon, Cemeteries of the Early Middle Ages (6th–9th Centuries A. D.) at Pókaszepetk (Budapest 1995). Stadler 2008 P. Stadler, Ethnische Verhältnisse im Karpatenbecken und Beziehungen zum Westen zur Zeit des Awarischen Khaganats im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert. J. Bemmann, M. Schmauder (Hrsg), Kulturwandel in Mitteleuropa. Langobarden – Awaren – Slawen. Akten der Internationalen Tagung in Bonn vom 25. bis 28. Februar 2008. Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 11 (Bonn 2008), 657–678. Stadler 2010 P. Stadler, Ethnische Gruppen im Awarenreich. W. Pohl, M. Mehofer (Hrsg.), Archaeology of Identity – Archäologie der Identität. Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 406, Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 17 (Wien 2010), 111–143. Steuer 1968 H. Steuer, Zur Bewaffnung und Sozialstruktur der Merowingerzeit. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 37, 1968, 18–87. Steuer 1970 H. Steuer, Historische Phasen der Bewaffnung nach Aussagen der archäologischen Quellen Mittel- und Nordeuropas im ersten Jahrtausend n. Chr. Frühmittelalterliche Studien 4, 1970, 348–383. Steuer 1982 H. Steuer, Frühgeschichtliche Sozialstrukturen in Mitteleuropa. Eine Analyse der Auswertungsmethoden des archäologischen Quellenmaterials. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Dritte Folge 128 (Göttingen 1982). Stoodley 1999 N. Stoodley, From the cradle to the grave: age organization and the early Anglo-Saxon burial rite. World Archaeology 31, 456–472. Szücsi 2012 F. Szücsi, A kora- és közép avar kori balták és fokosok. Zs. Petkes (szerk.), Hadak útján XX. Népvándorláskor Fiatal Kutatóinak XX. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete, Budapest – Szigethalom, 2010. október 28–30. (Budapest 2012), 121–137. Szücsi 2013–2014 F. Szücsi, Avar kori balták, bárdok, szekercék és fokosok. Baltafélék a 6–8. századi Kárpát-medencében. Alba Regia 42, 2013–2014, 113–186. Veeck 1926 W. Veeck, Der Reihengräberfriedhof von Holzgerlingen. Fundberichte aus Schwaben, Neue Folge 3, 1926, 154–201, Taf. I, XXIII–XXXI, XXXIV. Vida 2000 T. Vida, Merowingische Spathagurte der Awarenzeit. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 2000, 161–175. Vida 2008 T. Vida, Conflict and coexistence: The local population of the Carpathian Basin under Avar rule (sixth to seventh century). F. Curta (ed.), The Other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans. East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 2 (Leiden – Boston 2008), 13–46. Vogt 2006 M. Vogt, Spangenhelme. Baldenheim und verwandte Typen. Kataloge vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Altertümer 39 (Mainz 2006). Wernard 1998 J. Wernard, „Hic scramasaxi loquuntur“. Typologisch-chronologische Studie zum einschneidigen Schwert der Merowingerzeit in Süddeutschland. Germania 76, 1998, 747–787. Zaharia 2010 E. Zaharia, Forschungsgeschichte (33 Jahre unter den Sachsen). Bârzu 2010, 7–11.

S

hooting the evil. “Scythian” arrowheads in Avar age graves from the Carpathian Basin 1 Aurel Rustoiu

Academia Română – Filiala Cluj Institutul de Arheologie şi Istoria Artei Str. Kogălniceanu 12–14 RO – 400084 Cluj-Napoca [email protected]

Abstract: Numerous “antiquities” – prehistoric or Roman objects “discovered” and reused in new functional and symbolic manners – are known from Avar age graves identified in the Carpathian Basin. Among these objects are numerous “Scythian” bronze arrowheads of the end of the Early Iron Age. Most arrowheads come from female burials (and rarely from those belonging to men or children) from different cemeteries in the Great Hungarian Plain. These artefacts were commonly reused as amulets, and some were included in magical or healing rituals. Keywords: “Skythian” arrowheads; Avar age; Carpathian Basin; graves; amulets; magic.

S

ome studies of the last decades have shown that the weapons were far more than simple fighting tools, as they also played an important symbolic role2. This characteristic is underlined by their social significance and also by the manner in which they were ritually treated. Furthermore, the weapons were an important part of the symbolic language which contributed to the construction of different individual and collective identities within many communities. They were the distinctive sign of the warrior class and also of the “citizens”, those who were allowed to participate in the public life and in the process of decision-taking. For instance, Caesar (BG VI, 18) writes that the Celts from Gaul did not allow the children to participate in public gatherings if they were below the age at which were entitled to bear weapons. Along the same lines, Tacitus (Germania XIII, 1) mentions that the Germans “... transact no public or private business without being armed. It is not, however, usual for anyone to wear arms till the state has recognised his power to use them. Then in the presence of the council one of the chiefs, or the young man’s father, or some kinsman, equips him with a shield and a spear. These arms are what the “toga” is with us, the first honour with which youth is invested. Up to this time he is regarded as a member of a household, afterwards as a member of the commonwealth”3. As a consequence, within several communities the weapons appear not only in graves belonging to warriors, but also in those of some craftsmen or healers, as symbols of their membership to the freemen class4. The weapons placed by some communities in children’s burials5, or those sometimes found in the female ones, whose owners were acknowledged as “honorary males”6, can be interpreted in the same manner, as a symbol of their virtual belonging to the warrior class.  This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministry of Education, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-ID-PCE–2011–3-0278. 2  See for example Wells 2007. 3  Complete Works of Tacitus. Tacitus. Alfred John Church. William Jackson Brodribb. Lisa Cerrato. Edited for Perseus, New York: Random House Inc. Reprinted 1942. 4  See Henning 1991; Rustoiu 2008, 90–98; Rustoiu / Berecki 2015; Tănase 2010, 78–81 etc. 5  Nicolaescu-Plopşor/Wolski 1975, 54; Rustoiu / Comşa 2004; Härke 2004 etc. 6  Arnold 1995; Simniškytė 2007. 1

90

Aurel Rustoiu

On the other hand, recent anthropological studies indicate that things in general have a social history in the same way as the human beings, and gain a social biography in relation with them7. Norse sagas, Arthurian legends or Irish literature, and sometimes even archaeological data show that the heroes’ weapons were considered as having their own soul, identity and name8. Having a soul and a life history like the human beings, these objects went through a social evolution from “birth” to “death” which included a series of rites of passage that marked their lifetime9. This interpretative framework allows a better understanding of the manner in which the weapons were treated from a ritual point of view. One illustrative example is provided by the ritual “killing” of the weapons (swords were bent and other elements of the panoplies of arms were destroyed before being placed in burials); other examples include the placing of weapons in sanctuaries, ritual pits or waterbodies. However, the symbolic meaning of the weaponry is not related solely to the real, functional objects, but also to those that had a mystic, supernatural or magical origin. This is the case of “found” weapons, the prehistoric ones which were recovered more or less accidentally during the Roman or early medieval period. These gained a new life history and a new social biography by being reused practically and symbolically within the new environment. This category includes weapons and tools made of flint or other rocks, which were “found” later and interpreted by different populations as materializations of the thunderbolt or as arrows fired by supernatural beings, fairies or elves10. Thus, according to the sympathetic magic, these objects were useful as protection against thunderbolts or aggressive supernatural beings. For example, prehistoric flint tools were inserted into the walls or other construction elements of the houses from Western Europe or Scandinavia, to protect them against thunderbolts11. This custom is attested up to the modern times among some populations from Eastern Europe, for instance the Romanians used the so-called “thunderbolt stones” (tools made of flint or metal, recovered from the ground or water)12. In conclusion, the manner in which these “found” objects were used at the beginning of the medieval period indicates that both their function and meaning were reinvented. The archaeological contexts, as well as their use, indicate that their functionality switched from the profane, practical domain to the magical one by gaining apotropaic properties. Taking into consideration the symbolic complexity of the weapons, both regular and “supernatural”, the aim of this article is to analyse the role and significance of the “Scythian” bronze arrowheads of the end of the Early Iron Age, which were found in a series of Avar age graves from the Carpathian Basin. These “Scythian” arrowheads are part of a category of artefacts which is quite commonly found in Avar age burials from the Carpathian Basin. The reuse of antique objects that belonged to earlier periods was a relatively widespread phenomenon in temperate Europe during the second half of the 1st millennium AD. Archaeologists named these artefacts differently (“antiquities”, “archaika”, “survivals”, “relics” etc.); some of them came from prehistoric or proto-historic sites, but the majority of them were produced during the Roman times. They were mostly found in graves, in Western Europe coming from the Anglo-Saxon13 or Merovingian environment14, while in Eastern Europe they appeared in the Carpathian Basin mainly in burials of the Avar period15. In certain European areas such “antiquities” were still present in contexts dated to the end of the 1st millennium and the beginning of the 2nd millennium AD16. The interpretation of the significance of “antiquities” in Avar age burials is directly related to their context of discovery. Thus, on one hand, their shape, chronology and primary function has to be taken into consideration. On the other hand, their new functions and subsequent symbolic meaning are indicated by their state of preservation at the time of reuse and the eventual modifications  Kopytoff 1986; Gosden / Marshall 1999; Joy 2009 etc.  Pearce 2013. Excalibur, the famous sword of King Arthur, is probably the best example. 9  Fogelin / Schiffer 2015. 10  Meaney 1981, 210–213; Gilchrist 2012, 247. 11  Gilchrist 2012, 247; see further in Meaney 1981. 12  Bărbulescu 2001, 206. 13  Meaney 1981, 192–238; Eckardt / Williams 2003. 14  Mehling 1998; Pion 2011; Pion 2012. 15  Kraskovská 1971; Garam 2010; Rustoiu 2015. 16  Gilchrist 2008; Ungerman 2009; Dragotă / Rustoiu 2011. 7 8

Shooting the evil. “Scythian” arrowheads in Avar age graves from the Carpathian Basin

91

or adaptations, their colour, their precise position within the funerary inventory in relation to the corpse, as well as the age and gender of the deceased17. From this point of view, studies regarding the „antiquities” discovered in Merovingian graves from Western Europe have shown that some of these old objects were reused in the same manner as in their original context18, while the function of others was modified through a practical and/or symbolic reinterpretation. The latter group consists of several categories of finds. Some of them were reused as ornaments, for example fragments of glass or metal vessels were transformed into beads or pendants. Other artefacts were invested with different symbolic meanings, for example the blue glass bracelets of La Tène type were reused as amulets19. Lastly, a series of “ancient” objects were only reused as raw materials, being recycled for different practical scopes20. The “antiquities” from Avar age graves in the Carpathian Basin illustrate a series of situations which resemble those from the Western European contexts, albeit with some particularities that characterise the geographic and cultural area in question21. Thus the “Scythian” bronze arrowheads of the end of the Early Iron Age, found in Avar age cemeteries and discussed below, are part of these regional particularities and of a specific cultural environment from the period in question.

Fig. 1. Distribution area of the Vekerzug culture at the end of the Early Iron Age (dashed line) and distribution area of the Avar age finds (dotted line).

Still, which is the origin of these artefacts and how these were “discovered” by the people of the Avar age? The majority of the graves of this period which contain “Scythian” bronze arrowheads belong to different cemeteries from the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain. At the end of the Early Iron Age (from the second half of the 7th century until the arrival of the first Celtic colonists around the middle of the 4th century BC), this area was inhabited by populations having different origins, some coming from the northern Pontic region. Many years ago, this pattern made M.  Mehling 1998; Pion 2011; Pion 2012.  In these cases the objects are more commonly heirlooms transmitted from one generation to another within the same family, over a longer period of time. 19  Haevernick 1968; Pion 2012, 51. 20  Mehling 1998, 86–119; Pion 2012. 21  Rustoiu 2015. 17 18

92

Aurel Rustoiu

Párducz to define the entire period from the region in question as the “Scythian age” (Skythenzeit)22. Archaeologists named later the entire phenomenon either the Vekerzug culture23 or Alföld group24. The communities of this culture lived in small rural settlements and used either cremation or inhumation as funerary rite, sometimes with chariots or horses placed in graves25. In this context, it has to be noted that male burials frequently contained arrows with bronze heads (sometimes several examples), which were a symbol of the warlike identity together with other weapons26. In general, the so-called Skythenzeit covers, from the cultural point of view, different cultural phenomena that reflect the amalgamation of the local communities with different groups of warriors who arrived in the 7th–6th centuries BC from various areas of the northern Pontic region. Thus the area inhabited by Avar age communities largely superposed the one occupied later by the communities of the end of the Early Iron Age in the Great Hungarian Plain (Fig. 1). This pattern was determined by the similarities in the pastoralist economy, lifestyle and preference for a particular environment which characterised the communities of these two periods. As a consequence, several Avar settlements and cemeteries were located in areas in which the prehistoric ones previously functioned. Sometimes they superposed “Scythian” cemeteries of the end of the Early Iron Age27, the “Avar” graves cutting through those of the earlier periods, so their inventory was inevitably “plundered”. It is worth mentioning that at Ártánd and Sajószentpéter, where the Avar age cemeteries superpose those of the end of the Early Iron Age, were also found “Scythian” bronze arrowheads in contexts of the second half of the 1st millennium AD (see Table 1 and Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Distribution map of the “Scythian” arrowheads found in Avar age graves – see Table 1 – (black dots: small – 1 example; medium – 2–3 examples; large – 5 examples) and of the “Scythian” cemeteries superposed by Avar age ones (black squares): 1. Ártánd; 2. Kunszentmárton; 3. Sajószentpéter; 4. Szentes; 5. Vámosmikola (see Kemenczei 2010a, 42).  Párducz 1973.  Chochorowski 1985. 24  Kemenczei 2009. 25  Párducz 1973, 40; Chochorowski 1985; Kemenczei 2009. 26  For the typology and distribution of the “Scythian” arrowheads in the Carpathian Basin see Párducz 1973; Chochorowski 1985, 86–94; Kemenczei 1994; Kemenczei 2009, 44–47. 27  See a list of “Scythian” cemeteries superposed by those of the Avar age in Kemenczei 2010a, 42. 22 23

Shooting the evil. “Scythian” arrowheads in Avar age graves from the Carpathian Basin

93

There are also some cases in which Avar age settlements occupy the area of some old “Scythian” cemeteries. For example, at Hajdúnánás in north-eastern Hungary the sunken huts and their annexes (pits, trenches) belonging to the Avar period destroyed graves dated to the end of the Early Iron Age28, so this could have been an occasion to recover “Scythian” grave goods. Lastly, some “Scythian” arrowheads could have been obtained upon the accidental identification of some Early Iron Age sites, given that such artefacts were also found in these contexts. One recent discovery from north-eastern Hungary is relevant. At Dédestapolcsány – Verebce-bérc in the Bükk Mountains was identified a settlement fortified with earth ramparts and ditches belonging to the Early Iron Age. The settlement was besieged and destroyed in the second half of the 7th century BC upon the arrival of the northern Pontic Scythians in this region. Over 200 bronze arrowheads which were used during the siege were found on one side of the fortification, on a narrow area, either above ground or at a shallow depth under the turf layer29 (Fig. 3). This case is far from isolated. A quite similar site was identified at Smolenice-Molpír in western Slovakia, where numerous “Scythian” arrowheads were found scattered, remains of a violent siege of the Early Iron Age30. Taking into consideration these two cases, it is very possible that similar arrowheads could have been also found accidentally in the past, including in the Avar period.

Fig. 3. “Scythian” arrowheads found in the area of the Early Iron Age fortress at Dédestapolcsány – Verebce-bérc (right, earth rampart with the findspots) showing the traces of a siege from the 7th century BC. Such arrowheads could have been accidentally discovered in prehistoric sites also in the Avar period (after Szabó / Czajlik / Reméniy 2014).

It might be therefore concluded that the people of the Avar age could have obtained “antiquities” like the “Scythian” arrowheads in different ways, although most of them were more likely collected by plundering accidentally discovered graves. The following question is how the Avar age communities perceived these old objects recovered from the ground in different ways, and mostly how these came to be invested with magical or apotropaic properties? It is quite sure that the “antiquities” which were discovered more-or-less accidentally by different medieval communities were not perceived as traces of the prehistoric or Roman past, but elements of the natural environment. In the 11th century Bishop Marbodius of Rennes (in Liber lapidum) and two centuries later Albertus Magnus (in De mineralibus) explained that prehistoric stones or those displaying different engraved images, including Roman gemstones and cameos, have a natural origin and were imbued with supernatural powers. Thus R. Gilchrist has concluded “that antique items placed in medieval graves were not valued for their temporal or biographical associations, but rather for their connection to the natural world. Roman antiquities came from the earth, just like fossils and prehistoric axes and arrowheads. Stone, fossils, and ‘found objects’ such as antique intaglios and prehistoric lithics were regarded by medieval people as natural objects that possessed miraculous properties”31. In other  Fodor 2011.  Szabó / Czajlik / Reméniy 2014. 30  Hellmuth 2006. 31  Gilchrist 2012, 247. 28 29

94

Aurel Rustoiu

cases the context of discovery plays an important role in the interpretation of old objects. Some of these places were associated with a mythical past, when the Earth was inhabited by giants or other supernatural beings, so the unearthed objects were ascribed to them32. This could have been the case of the old objects recovered from the area of some prehistoric fortifications, for instance at Dédestapolcsány. To prevent the eventual unwanted consequences of dealing with such artefacts, at the end of the 8th century AD Gallic priests composed a series of prayers that had to be recited upon unearthing them33. The ideas related to their magical qualities also came from the popular beliefs about the mythical past or the legendary representations of the surrounding environment. This is the case of the aforementioned prehistoric stone tools and weapons, which were seen as materializations of the thunderbolts. Other “antiquities” were appreciated due to their colour, as different hues provided protection against various perils34. One example is provided by the glass beads or fragments of glass bracelets of the Late Iron Age. Returning to the “Scythian” arrowheads from Avar age graves, the question is whether these were recognized as real weapons or as objects with a different function. Since the composite bow was one of the weapons of choice, a real sign of the ethnic and warlike identity of the Avar age populations who arrived in the Carpathian Basin from the Asiatic steppes in the second half of the 6th century AD35, one has to presume that the “Scythian” bronze arrowheads were correctly identified morphologically and functionally. Moreover, numerous “Avar” burials contain composite bows from which only the lamellae made of deer antler were preserved, as well as many arrows with iron heads of different types and dimensions (see Fig. 8). As a consequence, if the “Scythian” bronze arrowheads were correctly identified, then the question is how they were interpreted or reused during the Avar period? The answer to this question could come from the systematic analysis of the contexts of discovery. From the distribution point of view, the analysed bronze arrowheads come from ten cemeteries located, with two exceptions, in the northern and eastern part of the Great Hungarian Plain (Fig. 2). As already noted, this region was characterised by a dense habitation also at the end of the Early Iron Age, when these artefacts were first used. The arrowhead from grave no. 1392 at Zamárdi, on the southern bank of the Balaton Lake, could have circulated due to the individual mobility that was specific to the Avar period, although it could have also been “discovered” in a prehistoric site from Transdanubia36. Another arrowhead comes from Budapest, in the immediate vicinity of the former area of the Vekerzug culture, so its presence in an Avar age cemetery located on the right bank of the Danube can be easily explained. As concerning the frequency of the “Scythian” arrowheads in the mentioned cemeteries, some were single finds, while other cemeteries include several graves containing these artefacts. A total number of 17 graves containing such artefacts were identified (see Table 1). Table 1. Avar age graves with “Skythian” arrowheads in their inventories. Place of discovery

Grave no.

Gender

Preservation

Location in grave

Alattyán (H)

490

F

Good

Alattyán (H)

496

F

Alattyán (H)

700

Ártánd (H)

77–78

Secondary use

Bibliography

Observations

Right collarbone Pendant

Kovrig 1963, 45, pl. 33/15.

Near right femur, glass and limestone beads and one shell

Good

On the chest

Pendant

Kovrig 1963, 45, pl. 33/23.

M

Good

On the chest

Pendant

Kovrig 1963, 58–59, pl. 44/17.

F+ C

Good

One above the left shoulder one on the chest, between the ribs, in heart area

Necklace (?)

Kralovánszky 1994, 46, Fig. 9/9–10.

A few glass beads around the neck, others in the pelvis area and near the left knee

 Ungerman 2009, 243–244.  Effros 2003, 16–17; see also Krämer 1965, 238. 34  Meaney 1981, 206–209; Ungerman 2009, 242–243; see also Paine 2004. 35  Daim 2003, 465–468. 36  Such arrowheads were also found in sites dated to the end of the Early Iron Age in Transdanubia, including the area of the Balaton Lake: Kemenczei 2010b. 32 33

Shooting the evil. “Scythian” arrowheads in Avar age graves from the Carpathian Basin

95

BudapestFehérvári út (H)

I

F?

Good

?

Pendant?

Nagy 1973, 61, no. 4, Fig. 18/3.

Destroyed grave

Felgyő (H)

177

F

Good

Neck

Necklace

Balogh 2010, 213, Fig. 72/4.

Together with glass beads

Sajószentpéter (H)

1

F

Good

One near the right collarbone

Necklace

Végh 1964, 16, Pl. 1/20.

Together with glass beads

Szob (H)

39

F

Good

Neck

Necklace

Kovrig 1975, 162, fig. 4/1.

Together with glass beads

Szob (H)

105

F

Good

Neck

Necklace

Kovrig 1975, 181, fig. 12/5.

Together with glass beads

Tiszafüred (H)

646

F

Good

Neck

Necklace

Garam 1995, 83, pl. 109/3.

Together with glass beads

Tiszafüred (H)

769

F

Good

Neck

Necklace

Garam 1995, 94, 118/3.

Together with glass beads and one Roman bronze coin. The inventory also contains a complete brooch with a bent foot, in a purse placed near the left arm

Tiszafüred (H)

1049

F

Good

Neck

Necklace

Garam 1995, 123, pl. 143/3.

Together with a string of beads and two decorated lead plaques. Perforated arrow head

Tiszafüred (H)

1157

F

Good

Neck

Necklace

Garam 1995, 137, pl. 145/4.

String of beads and bronze plaques

Tiszafüred (H)

1190

F

Good

Neck

Necklace

Garam 1995, 140, pl. 158/4.

String of beads and oval bronze plaque

Vác (H)

284

M

Good

Near left femur

Pendant

Tettamanti 2000, 65, pl. 15/2.

Together with a bronze tweezers attached to the belt. Other objects near the right femur, including one Roman brooch, a flint piece, an obsidian piece etc. probably in a purse.

Zamárdi (H)

1392

M

Good

Left hand

Amulet in the purse

Bárdos / Garam 2009, 182–184, pl. 160/10

Together with other iron and silver objects, including one small Roman bronze coin, some flint pieces, one La Tène fragmentary bracelet with hollow knobs

Želovce (SK)

52

C

Fragmentary

On the chest near the neck

Pendant

Čilinská 1973, 43, pl. 10/2.

In the majority of the cases (13 graves) these arrowheads come from female burials, while three burials belonged to men (of which only one contained weapons, thus belonging to the “warrior class”); one grave was of a child. The latter context contained the single damaged (fragmentary) arrowhead; all others were complete when placed into the graves. At the same time, with one exception, each grave contained a single arrowhead (Fig. 4–8). The exception is a grave from Ártánd which will be discussed below (Fig. 4/4). As concerning their position in relation to the skeleton upon discovery, the majority of the “Scythian” arrowheads were found around the neck, on the chest or on the shoulders. This fact indicates that they were used as pendants worn around the neck (when they were not associated with other ornaments), or as part of some strings of glass beads, sometimes associated with other beads and pendants made of different materials. In two cases, in the male graves from Vác and Zamárdi, the arrowheads were found near the left femur and the left hand respectively. The objects with whom these were associated suggest that in the first case the arrowhead was either used as a belt pendant or was kept in a purse together with other amulets; in the second case the arrowhead must have been used as amulet together with other objects having the same function, which were again kept in a purse37.

 Garam 2010, 155–158, Fig. 5.

37

96

Aurel Rustoiu

1

3 2

4

5

Fig. 4. Avar age graves containing “Scythian” bronze arrowheads. 1. Alattyán – grave no. 490; 2. Alattyán – grave no. 496; 3. Alattyán – grave no. 700; 4. Ártánd – grave no. 77–78; 5. Budapest-Fehérvári út (see Table 1 for the source of illustrations).

Shooting the evil. “Scythian” arrowheads in Avar age graves from the Carpathian Basin

3

1 4

2

Fig. 5. Avar age graves containing “Scythian” bronze arrowheads. 1. Felgyő – grave no. 177; 2. Sajószentpéter – grave no. 1; 3. Szob – grave no. 39; 4. Szob – grave no. 105 (see Table 1 for the source of illustrations).

97

98

Aurel Rustoiu

1

2

3

Fig. 6. Avar age graves containing “Scythian” bronze arrowheads: Tiszafüred. 1. Grave no. 646; 2. Grave no. 769; 3. Grave no. 1157; 4. Grave no 1049 (see Table 1 for the source of illustrations).

4

Shooting the evil. “Scythian” arrowheads in Avar age graves from the Carpathian Basin

1

2

3

Fig. 7. Avar age graves containing “Scythian” bronze arrowheads. 1. Tiszafüred – grave no. 1190; 2. Vác – grave no. 284; 3. Želovce – grave no. 52 (see Table 1 for the source of illustrations).

99

100

Aurel Rustoiu

1a

3

2

5 4

1b

6 8 10

9

17

7

22

21

33

12

13–15

23–25

34

36

28

26

16

20

19

18

35

32

11

29

30

31

27

37

43–51

38–42

52

65 64 62

53–61 63

Fig. 8. Zamárdi – grave no. 1392 containing one “Scythian” bronze arrowhead (no. 10) and a set of “Avar” iron arrowheads (no. 53–61) (see Table 1 for the source of illustrations).

66

Shooting the evil. “Scythian” arrowheads in Avar age graves from the Carpathian Basin

101

As a consequence, it can be said that in general the presence of “Scythian” arrowheads in Avar age burials follows a certain pattern that had a symbolic meaning. More precisely, they were worn around the neck either as single pendants or as elements of some strings of beads, or were attached to the belt as amulet–pendants or were kept in purses. Consequently, grave no. 77–78 from Ártánd stand out due to the different position of the arrowheads from its inventory. First of all, this is a double burial. The pit contained the skeleton of a woman who was at least 23 years old, and that of a newborn child who was laid near the upper part of her right arm. It can be therefore presumed that both died upon childbirth. The woman wore a pair of bronze earrings and a string consisting of a few differently coloured glass beads, while other beads were found on the pelvis and around the left knee, being probably sewn on the clothes. One bronze arrowhead was found above the left shoulder, so it could have been part of the string of beads worn around the neck, as in the previously mentioned cases. However, this burial also contains a second arrowhead of the same type. This one was found on the left side of the chest, in the heart area, between the ribs. This particular funerary context points to several ways of interpreting the functional significance of this artefact in comparison with other “Scythian” arrowheads from the Avar environment. A series of myths and beliefs encountered among different populations from Europe and Asia, collected and commented by ethnographers, anthropologists and historians of religion may contribute to the interpretation of the significance of these artefacts. Some of these myths and beliefs were synthesised by Mircea Eliade, who noted, while discussing the symbolism of different tools and weapons, that there is a wide variety of complex meanings that stretches over a longer period. Thus the symbol of the bow and arrow appears in numerous myths, rituals and beliefs, having different meanings and implying different interpretations38. Some of these beliefs regarding the symbolic role of the arrows are also important for this study. For example, the arrows sometimes played a magical healing role. Some populations believed that certain illnesses and sudden pains were caused by the blow of sharpen instruments, often arrows, belonging to various demons or malefic spirits. As a consequence, the treatment sometimes required the “extraction” of these projectiles, an operation carried out by shamans or healers either through massaging or other symbolic practices of retrieval39. Among some populations, the shamans “shot” the patients with the bow using special magical arrows. The latter instruments were Fig. 9. Anthropomorphic ceramic figurine also meant to appeal or recall the souls for healing purposes. As having an iron arrowhead inside, used concerning the origin of some magical bows and arrows, among in magical practices. It comes from the Dacian settlement at Popeşti, in southern some populations from Central Asia or the northern Eurasian area Romania, from an archaeological context it was believed that they were made of a branch that has fallen dated to the 1st century BC (see note 39). down from the Cosmic Tree40. Mircea Eliade considered that all of these beliefs reflected the demonic and ambivalent nature of the bow and arrow. Probably for the same reason many populations associated the arrow with the  Eliade 1968.  One example of the Late Iron Age in the Lower Danube region is relevant for the magical role of the arrow. In the Dacian settlement at Popeşti (Giurgiu County), in southern Romania, one anthropomorphic ceramic figurine was found in a context dated to the 1st century BC (Fig.  9). Inside it was found one iron arrowhead, indicating that the figurine was modelled including the piece (Palincaş 1995, 93–95, Fig. 1–2). It is considered that such ceramic figurines, also made of other materials, were used in the northern Balkans (Sîrbu 1993a; Sîrbu 1993b) and also in the Near East or the Mediterranean as part of some magical practices (white or black), as a kind of “voodoo dolls” (Faraone 1991; Ogden 1999, 71–79; Collins 2008, 64, 92–97). In this context, it can be presumed that the figurine from Popeşti was modelled together with the arrowhead inside it to cause “pain” to an individual who was embodied by the figurine, according to the principles of sympathetic magic. On the other hand, one can also presume that the shaman wanted to “reconstruct” the cause of the “pain” felt by the subject, in order to heal him by extracting the arrow. 40  Eliade 1968, 463–465; see also Eliade 1997, 206–208. 38 39

102

Aurel Rustoiu

thunder and the thunderbolt. Shooting arrows towards the thunder source and the cloudy sky is attested from Asia to Europe, including among the Thracian populations. The scope was to fend off the evil or the demons represented by the thunder41. Ritual offerings of miniature bows and arrows upon childbirth are attested among some populations, the scope being to protect against evil spirits. These offerings brought in good luck in hunting to the men and fertility to the women. In the case of some northern European or Asian populations, such objects were suspended above the crib. At the same time, arrows were offered with the same scope within most of the Siberian tribes, in Tibet and China42. Returning to the “Scythian” arrowheads, their apparent earthly origin and their recovery in particular circumstances and locations (like the large Early Iron Age fortifications whose memory still persisted at the beginning of the Medieval Age in a legendary form, as “fortresses of the giants”, for example) probably invested them with supernatural mythical origins and properties, as in the case of other “found objects” which were used as amulets during the same period. These magical qualities were probably accentuated by their small dimensions in comparison with those of the iron arrowheads used during the period in question, which made them even more “alien” in this environment. At the same time, the green colour of the bronze patina acquired by the “Scythian” arrowheads also contributed to the perceived supernatural and magical properties of these objects. This fact may also explain their inclusion in some strings of glass beads having different colours43. Taking into consideration the symbolism of the arrow among various populations from Asia and Europe, the “Scythian” bronze arrowheads placed in Avar age burials (commonly belonging to women) could be interpreted as magical miniature objects offered upon childbirth to bring good luck, fertility or protection against illness. Furthermore, their use as pendants in strings of beads or the placing in purses together with other amulets indicate the intention of the owners to concentrate a large number of objects or “instruments” able to protect them against multiple perils. Regarding the interpretation of the functions fulfilled by the “Scythian” arrowheads, it is important to also note that only one was found in every context, suggesting a certain functional rule. The single exception is the double burial from Ártánd. As already shown, the woman in question had one arrowhead which was probably included in the string of beads worn around the neck and was acquired well before her death. The second arrowhead, found between the ribs in the heart’s area, could indicate the action of a shaman who performed a magical healing ritual attempting to resolve a problem that appeared perhaps during childbirth; his tentative seems to have failed according to the archaeological data. This is one rare example of a magical healing ritual that can be archaeologically identified. Conclusions. The “Scythian” bronze arrowheads belong to the relatively numerous category of “antiquities” discovered in the funerary inventories of the Avar period. Similarly to the majority of the “antiquities” discovered in Europe during the post-Roman provincial period, these come mostly from female or child burials, while in male burials these are rarely found. This fact suggests that such “relics” were used as amulets, a hypothesis confirmed by the analysis of archaeological contexts. In the case of “Scythian” arrowheads, both the ethnographic analogies and the contexts of discovery more likely indicate a magical healing function. Their wearing around the neck as pendants or parts of some strings of beads, or their placing in purses together with other amulets contributed to the creation of some complex magical instruments meant to protect the owner against multiple perils, like the evil eye, bad luck, infertility etc., while also fending off illnesses or sudden pains caused by the “shooting” actions of some demonic spirits. The “Scythian” arrowheads were mostly found in the Great Hungarian Plain, a region which was inhabited by different communities at the end of the Early Iron Age, having strong connections with the steppes from the northern Black Sea region. During the Avar age, a series of settlements and cemeteries were established above some Early Iron Age sites, leading to the accidental destruction of certain “Scythian” contexts (mainly graves) which also contained such arrowheads. Their reuse for magical purposes, as amulets, became relatively popular. The quite large number and the distribution indicate that at a certain date such objects became quite well-known, being deliberately sought and purchased. As a consequence, some of these arrowheads could have been exchanged. The “trade” with  Eliade 1968, 465–466.  Eliade 1968, 466. 43  For the magical apotropaic properties of the beads and colours see Paine 2004. 41 42

Shooting the evil. “Scythian” arrowheads in Avar age graves from the Carpathian Basin

103

such “relics” was also suggested in the case of other European regions. Several fragments of La Tène blue glass bracelets were found in the funerary inventories of some Merovingian graves, albeit these objects were produced in Central Europe during the Late Iron Age while missing from the western areas. As a consequence, their presence in the Western European Merovingian environment could be related to a trade or exchange of such “relics” during the period in question44. One relatively similar situation is suggested by the amphora-shaped glass beads, translucent white or greyish and rarely blue, which were produced in the Mediterranean environment during the 5th–3rd centuries BC, from where they reached the Celtic communities in the Carpathian Basin. During the Avar period, such beads are also commonly encountered in strings discovered in female burials. This presence indicates not only that these beads, which played an apotropaic role, were deliberately selected, but were also exchanged across the entire Carpathian Basin. Furthermore, this practice seems to anticipate the subsequent widespread “trade” with religious relics dating from the first centuries of the Christian period. The latter played, up to a point, the role of “antiquities” from the “pagan” environment of the early Medieval Age, like in the Carpathian Basin during the Avar period.

Bibliography Arnold 1995 B. Arnold, “Honoray males” or women of substance? Gender, status or power in Iron-Age Europe. Journal of European Archaeology 3.2, 1995, 153–168. Balogh 2010 C. Balogh, A Felgyő, Ürmös-tanyai avar kori temető. C. Balogh, K. P. Fisch (Eds.), Felgyő, Ürmös-tanya. Bronzkori és avar kori leletek (Szeged 2010), 185–382. Bárdos / Garam 2009 E. Bárdos, É. Garam, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld in Zamárdi-Rétiföldek (Budapest 2009). Bărbulescu 2001 M. Bărbulescu, Toporul preistoric cu inscripţie de la Sucidava. C. Cosma, D. Tamba, A. Rustoiu (Eds.), Studia Archaeologica et Historica Nicolao Gudea dicata. Omagiu profesorului Nicolae Gudea la 60 de ani (Zalău 2001), 203–206. Chochorowski 1985 J. Chochorowski, Die Vekerzug-Kultur. Charakteristik der Funde (Warszawa-Kraków 1985). Čilinská 1973 Z. Čilinská, Frühmittelalteriches Gräberfeld in Želovce (Bratislava 1973). Collins 2008 D. Collins, Magic in the Ancient Greek World (Oxford 2008). Daim 2003 F. Daim, Avars and Avar archaeology. An introduction. H.-W. Goetz, J. Jarnut, W. Pohl (Eds.), Regna and Gentes. The relationship between Late Antique and Early Medieval peoples and kingdoms in the transformation of the Roman world (Leiden-Boston 2003), 465–570. Dragotă / Rustoiu 2011 A. Dragotă, G. T. Rustoiu, Monede romane perforate în descoperirile funerare din sec. X–XI. C. Cosma (ed.), Studii de arheologie şi istorie. Omagiu profesorului Nicolae Gudea la 70 de ani (Cluj-Napoca 2011), 443–450. Eckardt / Williams 2003 H. Eckardt, H. Williams, Objects without a Past? The use of Roman objects in early Anglo-Saxon graves. H. Williams (Ed.), Archaeologies of remembrance. Death and memory in past societies (New York 2003), 141–170. Effros 2003 B. Effros, Merovingian mortuary archaeology and the making of early Middle Ages (Los Angeles – London 2003). Eliade 1968 M. Eliade, Notes on the symbolism of the arrow. J. Neusner (Ed.), Religions in antiquity. Essays in memory of E. Ramsdel Goodenough (Leiden 1968), 463–475. Eliade 1997 M. Eliade, Şamanismul şi tehnicile arhaice ale extazului (Bucureşti 1997; Romanian translation of Le chamanisme et les techniques archaïques de l’extase, Paris – Editions Payot 1983).  Pion 2012, 51.

44

104

Aurel Rustoiu

Faraone 1991 C. A. Faraone, Binding and burying the forces of Evil: the defensive use of “voodoo dolls” in Ancient Greece. Classical Antiquity 10.2, 1991, 165–205. Fodor 2011 I. Fodor, Skita temető Hajdúnánás határában. Archaeologia Cumanica 1, 2011, 11–26. Fogelin / Schiffer 2015 L. Fogelin, M. B. Schiffer, Rites of passage and other rituals in the life histories of objects. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 25, 2015, 1–13; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0959774315000153. Garam 1995 É. Garam, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Tiszafüred (Budapest 1995). Garam 2010 É. Garam, Kugeln – Kapseln – Taschen – Scheiben in awarenzeitlichen Gräbern. Bayerische Vorgeschichtsbläter 75, 2010, 147–167. Gilchrist 2008 R. Gilchrist, Magic for the dead? The archaeology of magic in later medieval burials. Medieval Archaeology 52, 2008, 119–159. Gilchrist 2012 R. Gilchrist, Medieval life: Archaeology and the life course (Woodbridge 2012). Gosden / Marshall 1999 C. Gosden, Y. Marshall, The cultural biography of objects. World Archaeology 31.2, 1999, 169–178. Haevernick 1968 T. E. Haevernick, Perlen und glasbruchstücke als amulette. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 15, 1968, 120–133. Härke 2004 H. Härke, The Anglo-Saxon weapon burial rite: an interdisciplinary analysis. Opus 3, Moskow, 2004, 197–207. Hellmuth 2006 A. Hellmuth, Smolenice-Molpír im Licht skythischer Angriffe auf die hallstattzeitlichen Siedlungen nördlich und südlich der mährischen Pforte. Slovenská Archeológia 44.2, 2006, 191–208. Henning 1991 J. Henning, Schmiedegräber nördlich der Alpen. Germanisches Handwerk zwischen keltischer Tradition und römisches Einfluss. Saalburg Jahrbuch 46, 1991, 65–82. Joy 2009 J. Joy, Reinvigorating object biography: reproducing the drama of object lives. World Archaeology 41.4, 2009, 540–556. Kemenczei 1994 T. Kemenczei, Pfeilspitzen from Früh-Skythentyp aus Ostungarn. Folia Archaeologica 43, 1994, 79–99. Kemenczei 2009 T. Kemenczei, Studien zu den Denkmälern skytisch geprägter Alföld Gruppe. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 12 (Budapest 2009). Kemenczei 2010a T. Kemenczei, Bemerkungen zur Kontinuität und Diskontinuität auf ausgewählten Gräberfeldern des Donau-Theis-Gebietes. Archaeologiai Értesitő 135, 2010, 27–51. Kemenczei 2010b T. Kemenczei, Funde der skythisch geprägten Alföld-gruppe in Transdanubien. Folia Archaeologica 54, 2010, 101–125. Kopytoff 1986 I. Kopytoff, The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. A. Appadurai (Ed.), The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective (Cambridge 1986), 64–91. Kovrig 1963 I. Kovrig, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Alattyán (Budapest 1963). Kovrig 1975 I. Kovrig, The Szob cemetery. É. Garam, I. Kovrig, J. G. Szabó, G. Török, Avar finds in the Hungarian National Museum (Budapest 1975), 157–208. Kralovánszky 1994 A. Kralovánszky, Az Ártánd-Kapitány-dűlő késő avar kori temető. A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve, 1994, 37–104. Krämer 1965 W. Krämer, Zur Wiederverwendung antiker Gefässe im frühen Mittelalter. Germania 43, 2, 1965, 327–329.

Shooting the evil. “Scythian” arrowheads in Avar age graves from the Carpathian Basin

105

Kraskovská 1971 L. Kraskovská, Laténske a rímske relikty v slovansko-avarských hroboch na Slovensku. Sborník praci filosofické fakulty brněnské university 16, 1971, 127–131. Meaney 1981 A. L. Meaney, Anglo-Saxon Amulets and Curing Stones. BAR British Series 96 (Oxford 1981). Mehling 1998 A. Mehling, Archaika als Grabbeigaben. Studien an merowingerzeitlichen Gräberfeldern (Rahden / Wetstf. 1998). Nagy 1973 M. Nagy, A Fehérvári úti avar temető. Budapest Régiségei 23, 1973, 59–87. Nicolaescu-Plopşor / Wolski 1975 D. Nicolaescu-Plopşor, W. Wolski, Elemente de demografie şi ritual funerar la populaţiile vechi din România (Bucureşti 1975). Ogden 1999 D. Ogden, Binding spells: curse tablets and voodoo dolls in the Greek and Roman world. V. Flint et al. (Eds.), Witchcraft and magic in Europe. Ancient Greece and Rome (London 1999), 1–90. Paine 2004 S. Paine, Amulets. A world of secret powers, charms and magic (London 2004). Palincaş 1995 N. Palincaş, Figurină de lut cu caracter magic descoperită la Popeşti, jud. Giurgiu. SCIVA 46.2, 1995, 93–104. Párducz 1973 M. Párducz, Probleme der Skytenzeit im Karpatenbecken. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 25, 1973, 27–63. Pearce 2013 M. Pearce, The spirit of the sword and spear. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 23.1, 2013, 55–67. Pion 2011 C. Pion, À propos d’objets protohistoriques et Romains deposes dans les tombes mérovingiennes de Belgique. Societe tournaissiene de geologie, prehistoire et archeologie 12, 6, 2011, 165–184. Pion 2012 C. Pion, La pratique du remploi dans les sépultures mérovingiennes de Belgique entre recyclage, esthétique et symbolique. Cahiers des thèmes transversaux ArScAn 10, 2009–2010 (Nanterre 2012), 47–55. Rustoiu 2008 A. Rustoiu, Războinici şi societate în aria celtică transilvăneană. Studii pe marginea mormântului cu coif de la Ciumeşti (Cluj-Napoca 2008). Rustoiu 2015 A. Rustoiu, Magic and memory. Prehistoric and Roman “antiquities” in Avar period graves from the Carpathian Basin (in print). Rustoiu / Berecki 2015 A. Rustoiu, S. Berecki, Weapons as symbols and the multiple identities of the warriors. Some examples from Transylvania (in print). Rustoiu / Comşa 2004 A. Rustoiu, A. Comşa, The Padea-Panagjurski Kolonii group in southwestern Transylvania. Archaeological, historical and paleo-anthropological remarks. A. Pescaru, I. V. Ferencz (Eds.), Daco-geţii. 80 de ani de cercetări arheologice sistematice la cetăţile dacice din Munţii Orăştiei (Deva 2004), 267–276. Simniškytė 2007 A. Simniškytė, Weapons in Iron Age women’s graves. A. Bliujienė (Ed.), Weapons, weaponry and man (In memoriam V. Kazakevičius). Archaeologia Baltica 8 (Klaipėda 2007), 283–291. Sîrbu 1993a V. Sîrbu, Credinţe şi practici funerare, religioase şi magice în lumea geto-dacilor (Galaţi 1993). Sîrbu 1993b V. Sîrbu, Credinţe şi practici magico-vrăjitoreşti la traco-geto-daci. Banatica 12, 1993, 129–175. Szabó / Czajlik / Reméniy 2014 G. V. Szabó, Z. Czajlik, L. Reméniy, Traces of an Iron Age armed conflict. New topographical results from the research into Verebce-bérc at Dédestapolcsány I. Hungarian Archaeology. E-Journal 2014 Spring, 1–7. Tănase 2010 D. Tănase, Prelucrarea metalelor în lumea barbară la Dunărea mijlocie şi inferioară în sec. VI–VII (Timişoara 2010). Tettamanti 2000 S. Tettamanti, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld in Vác-Kavicsbánya (Budapest 2000).

106

Aurel Rustoiu

Ungerman 2009 Š. Ungerman, Archaika in den frühmittelalterlichen Gräbern in Mähren. P. M. Vlčková, J. Mynářová, M. Tomšášek (Eds.), My things changed things. Social development and cultural exchange in Prehistory, Antiquity, and the Middle Ages (Prague 2009), 224–256. Végh 1964 K. Végh, A sajószentpéteri avarkori leletek. A Miskolci Herman Ottó Múzeumi Közleményei 6, 1964, 15–23. Wells 2007 P. S. Wells, Weapons, ritual and communication in Late Iron Age Northern Europe. C. Haselgrove, T. Moore (Eds.), The Later Iron Age in Britain and Beyond (Oxford 2007), 468–477.

A

n avar warrior’s grave recently discovered at Unirea-Vereşmort (Alba county) Gabriel T. Rustoiu, Marius Ciută Muzeul National al Unirii Str. Mihai Viteazu 12–14 510010 Alba Iulia [email protected]

Marius Ciută

IPJ Alba Str. I. I. C. Bratianu 1 510118 Alba Iulia [email protected]

Abstract: In the spring of 2008, during some minor building activities in the courtyard of Mr. Mihoc Ioan from Unirea (Vereșmort), on Traian Street no 827, a grave containing human bones and fragments of horse’s skeleton was found at around 1 m depth. The inventory is a typical for a Avar rider. The anthropological analysis of the human skeleton indicates that the deceased was a male of North-Alpin mixed with Mongoloid origin, of 25 to 28 years old, and had a height of 1,65 m. No pathologic diseases were identified through the analysis. The archaeozoological analysis of the animal bones indicated that only some fragments of the legs and skull of a horse were placed into the grave. The horse was about 4,5–5 years old and had a height of about 1,40 m. The grave discussed above is dated in the 7th century AD and probably represents the final phase of cemetery from Unirea-Vereșmort, investigated by M. Roska in 1913. Its rich inventory, as well as the wide variety of artefacts, individualizes this grave not only within the cemetery from Unirea, but also amongst the Avar funerary discoveries from Transylvania. Keywords: anthropological analysis, archaeo-zoological analysis, Avar, grave, VIIth century.

On 18.04.2008, while excavating a pit in the orchard behind his household, Mihoc Ioan, a resident of Unirea village (Vereşmort) noticed some bones emerging at ca. 1 m deep, in the Loess yellow soil, yet he could not say what sort of bones they were. Since he was no expert and there were suspicions on a “relatively recent” human body, he notified the Police Department of Unirea and Ocna Mureş, who proceeded, in a specific criminal investigation manner, to the complete “exhumation” of the skeleton. In this occasion, it was noted that the skeleton was complete and belonged to an adult individual, likely a male, while the grave goods included objects specific to remote periods: “an iron sword, a fragment of its scabbard, several metal tips similar to those used for arrows, which were all collected for further investigation”1. Once arrived at Unirea, the specialists with the Department for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of the Criminal Investigation Service with the Police Inspectorate of Alba County, confirmed that it was an inhumation grave, oriented east-west, which belonged to a warrior of the migrations period, more precisely an Avar warrior, preserved in good conditions beside the entire specific funerary inventory. Parts of the feature (iron sword with scabbard, iron arrowheads, a golden earring, other  Event Report of 18.04.2008 of the Chief of the Police Department of Unirea.

1

108

G a b r i e l T. R u s t o i u , M a r i u s C i u t ă

Fig. 1. – Map of Alba County, with the localization of Unirea commune.

adornment elements, fragments of the iron chainmail, belt with buckles and ornaments, horse bit and harness stirrups) as well as elements of the human and horse skeletons were deposited in paper bags. The entire funerary inventory was recovered – owing to the owner’s goodwill – and delivered to the National Museum of the Union of Alba Iulia. Above household, respectively its orchard, are located in Vereşmort village (Unirea II), at no. 827 Traian St., (topographic-cadastre number 1273–1274). Geo-morphologically, the site is on terrace II of Mureş river, on the right side, with southern exposure (south-eastern), in the sector oriented north-east – south-west, on the front portion of the terrace slightly climbing to a heightened area known by the locals as Maroslab and belonging to the western branch of the Târnave Plateau. The area is known for its rich salt ores located by the surface, especially in the form of salty springs. In fact, we mention the cities at Ocna Mureş, Uioara de Sus, Noşlac, şpălnaca etc., lying in the proximity. The discussed site is at ca. 3 km east the European Road E81 (DN 1) and at ca. 200 m northwards the county road 107 D, connecting the area with Ocna Mureş city. By the terrace base, where a seasonal stream flows, the place is known by the locals as “Pe Pârâu”. In the vicinity, downstream, south-eastwards and at a road junction lies a developed spring known as “Izvorul Căprioara” or “Căprioara”, while southwards, at ca. 100 m, is located the Orthodox church of the village. The analysis of the land configuration corroborated with the information provided by the locals and the representatives of the local administration confirmed that the isolate find presented herein is near the area that M. Roska researched by early 19th century, designated by the scholar as the “vegetable garden of countess Joseph Bethlen, former Susanne Nemes’s domain (…), located to the right of Mureş river, not far from the main road of Transylvania”2. Should we add to this information the fact that, according to the owner, by a house lying ca. 30–35 m eastward the place  Roska 1934, 123.

2

An avar warrior’s grave recently discovered at Unirea-Vereşmort (Alba county)

109

of his find, when the foundation excavations of a garage were carried out in 1998–1999, other similar graves oriented east-west and comprising archaeological inventory3 were discovered, one may delimit an inhumation cemetery of appreciable sizes consisting of graves placed in rows, oriented east-west and the head of the dead eastwards.

Fig. 2. – Localization of the grave from Unirea-Vereşmort.

The description made by the criminologist involved in the grave excavation reports the skeleton was placed lying on the back, stretched, head eastwards, very well preserved skull, without obvious signs of violence, hands alongside the body. The sword was discovered on the left side of the chestabdominal area, with the tilt in the chest area (those making the excavation accounted that the dead held the sword in his hand) – the downturn being thus explained as soil pressure onto it –, arrowheads being grouped to the side of the shoulder and stirrups by the lower part of the feet. Based on the results of our research, the grave-pit was rectangular with rounded corners, the depth where the skeleton lay being at ca. 1.10–1.20 m.

Funerary good4 1. Single-edged iron sword (pl. 1/1). It had an iron tang onto which the wooden tilt was attached by iron rivets. The tilt was covered in a thin silver leaf (pl. 1/2). The silver part of the tilt, in the shape of a reversed cone trunk and circular-oval in section (d = 2.7x1.37 cm), is composed of two unequal parts, set transversally one from the other with the aid of narrow bronze stripes decorated longitudinally with parallel grooves. The upper tilt part exhibits on the exterior a circular iron pommel (d = 4.43 cm), partially sunken in the tilt silver part (Ltotal = 106 cm, Lblade = 84 cm, lblade = 3.2 cm, gr.blade  = 0.6 cm). egde 2.–6. Scabbard fixing and fastening bronze fittings (pl.  1/2–7). The items are part of two sets placed along the scabbard. One set comprised two similar bronze plates attached in parallel by 5 copper rivets. From the plates upper and lower extremities started two parallel bronze-made stripes, decorated with grooves, following an oval line surrounding transversally the scabbard. Some of these stripes preserved the leather pieces of the scabbard. The other set was similar to the first, yet only one plate was recovered of the two (Lplate = 5.96 cm, lplate = 2.1 cm, dstripe = 5.6 × 2.9 cm, lstripe = 0.6 cm). 7.–16. Three-winged iron arrowheads (pl.  5/1–3, 5–11), either complete or fragmentary (L = 6.9 cm, 2.9 cm, 7.4 cm, 5.7 cm, 7.7 cm, 11.8 cm, 8.8 cm, 7.1 cm, 8.4 cm, 9.5 cm). 17. Bow reinforcement plate (pl. 5/4), of bone (L = 14.55 cm, l = 1.9 cm).  The funerary inventory was deposited, according to the same source, with the National Museum of Transylvanian History of Cluj-Napoca. 4  Further herein, we shall use the following abbreviations to describe artifact parameters: L – length, l – width, d – diameter, gr. – thickness, G – weight. 3

110

G a b r i e l T. R u s t o i u , M a r i u s C i u t ă

18. Iron chainmail fragments likely of the same ensemble (L = 6.8 cm, l = 9 cm, pl. 7/1, L = 3.2 cm, l = 2.2 cm, pl. 7/2, L = 3.5 cm, l = 2 cm, pl. 7/3, L = 6.14 cm, l = 5.8 cm, pl. 7/4). 19. Belt end made of two rectangular silver plates with one side (the lower) rounded (pl. 2/1). They are placed in parallel and attached by one extremity with a silver rivet. Brazing traces are noticeable on the inside, additionally fixing the plates onto the belt (L = 8.3 cm, l. = 2 cm, gr. = 0.05 cm). 20. Belt end made of two rectangular silver plates similar to the above (pl. 2/3), yet with the lower side (riveted) missing (L = 8 cm, l. = 2.1 cm, gr. = 0.05 cm). 21. Silver belt end made of a silver pentagonal plate with one of the tips downwards (pl. 24). The upper part and middle line are decorated with two parallel grooves each (L = 1.7 cm, l = 2.1 cm). 22.–24. Silver belt ends yet of which survived different percentages (L = 2.2 cm, l = 1.3 cm, pl. 2/8, L = 2.5 cm, l = 1.3 cm, pl. 2/10, L = 2.83 cm, l = 1.4 cm, pl. 2/13). They have an elongated pentagonal shape with a corner downwards. The upper part was decorated with parallel grooves. 25. Bronze buckle likely used to attach a knife or pouch. The link is rectangular, while the plate is elongated and thinned towards the lower side, where on either sides of the plate there is a circularoval flattened projection each. The iron prints of the prong fastening the belt are also noticeable. The plate was decorated on the side towards the buckle with an incised triangular motif (L = 5.4 cm, l = 2.1 cm, llink = 2 cm, pl. 2/2). 26. Bronze buckles with rectangular fixing link and circular fastening loop (pl.  2/15). It is believed to have been used for fastening a pouch (L = 3.3 cm, dloop = 2.1x1.9 cm, Llink = 1.2 cm, llink = 1.6 cm, gr. = 0.14 cm). 27. Belt end or silver belt applique with pierced decoration in the form of a human mask (pl. 2/12). In the upper part, the decoration is made of parallel grooves set transversally. The item was attached to the belt via 3 silver rivets. The rivets extremities preserve small iron plate pieces onto which likely, the applique was attached to the belt back (L = 4.1 cm, l = 2.14 cm). 28. Silver sheet plate likely part of a belt end (pl. 2/6). 29. Thin bronze rectangular plate with fixing rivets by the extremities (pl. 6/22). 30. Bronze plate preserved fragmentarily, rounded by one extremity. The attachment foot survived by one extremity in the form of a bronze thin plate; only the thin plate print may be noticed by the other extremity (pl. 6/26). 31. Slightly bent bronze plate, exhibiting a circular orifice by each extremity, likely for attachment (pl. 6/20). 32. Iron buckle (pl. 2/5), in the shape of a lyre, with the prong inserted over the link (L = 3.36 cm, lmax. = 3.2 cm, lmin. = 2.36 cm, Lac = 3.65 cm). 33. Iron buckle (pl. 2/7), in the shape of a lyre, thinner than the previous buckle and the prong overlapping the link (L = 3.05 cm, lmax. = 2.6 cm, lmin. = 2.1 cm, Lprong = 3.4 cm). 34.–35. Similar bronze buckles with rectangular link and double pelta–shaped plate. The iron prong (broken in one of the buckles) flipped over the link between two grooves. The buckles were attached to the belt via bronze rivets placed on plates (L = 3 cm, Llink = 1.65 cm, llink = 2.2 cm, lplate = 1.9 cm, pl. 2/14; L = 3 cm, Llink = 1.65 cm, llink = 2.2 cm, lplate = 1.9 cm, Lpin = 1/7 cm, pl. 2/16). 36. Hairpin made of a bronze plate with feet thinned by hammering and backward bending (pl. 6/21). 37.–38. Circular appliques (pl. 3/1, 2), silver-made, made by pressing and shaped as a flower with round petals partially preserved (d = 1.8 cm). 39.–41. Silver appliques (pl. 3/3, 4, 7), circular, made by pressing, in the shape of convex disks (d = 1.7 cm). 42.–43. Two silver appliques (pl. 3/5, 6), circular-flat, one complete and the other fragmentary. The complete item preserves the attachment rivet (d = 1.1 cm). 44. Fragmentary silver applique (pl. 2/11), made by pressing, in the shape of number 8 (L = 2.8 cm, l = 2 cm). 45.–58. Applique rivets (pl. 3/8–20, 23) made of a narrow bronze stripe (L = 0.6–1.2 cm, l = 0.23 cm). 59.–61. Applique rivets made of a silver wire (L = 1.63 cm, pl. 3/22; L = 0.8 cm, pl. 3/24; L = 0.67 cm, pl. 3/25). 62.–63. Silver rods made of a narrow stripe decorated with two grooves set longitudinally (pl. 1/9, L = 1.85 cm, pl. 3/21).

An avar warrior’s grave recently discovered at Unirea-Vereşmort (Alba county)

111

64. Silver rod (pl. 6/27) made of a simple stripe (L = 17.7 cm, l = 0.3 cm). 65. Golden earring (pl. 2/9) (L = 2 cm, G = 2.35 g), with circular-oval link (d = 1.55x1.3 cm) and a pearled pendant formed of four small spheres. The earring link is round in section and thins towards the extremities (dmiddle = 2 cm, dend = 0.1 cm). The pendant’s base is made of three small pearls (d = 0.26 cm), overlapped by a larger pearl (d = 0.43 cm). 66. Horse bit (pl. 4/1) hinged, made of two circular iron bars in section, whose extremities end each with a semicircular hexagonal loop. The extremity of each loop has a circular orifice through which are inserted the round links onto which the harness straps are attached. From one of the links hangs another link loose with extremities ending by two iron stripes made by hammering the extremities (L = 6.6 cm, l = 1.2 cm), set in parallel and joined by two rivets, which likely fixed another harness strap (Lbar = 10.8 cm, dbar = 0.8 cm, dlink = 3.35 cm). 67. Iron stirrup (pl. 4/2), made of a circular bar forming, via an oval loop, the attachment loop onto the saddle. The wide tread has a middle ridge and is arched towards the exterior (L = 15.3 cm, dbar = 0.7 cm, dlink = 4.1x2.7 cm, ltread = 2.9 cm). 68. Iron stirrup (pl. 4/3), of the same type as the preceding (L 15 cm, dbar = 0.7 cm, dlink = 3.9x2.7 cm, ltread = 2.9 cm). 69. Fire steel (pl. 7/7), made of an iron stripe with small-sized inverted loops (L = 9.5 cm, l = 1.6 cm, gr. = 0.23 cm). 70. Iron plate (pl. 7/8) which, according to shape and transversal section, resembles a fragmentary knife (L = 6.4 cm, l = 1.3 cm). 71. Iron plate (pl. 7/12) which, according to shape and transversal section, resembles a fragmentary knife (L = 6.9 cm, l = 1.2 cm). 72. Iron sheet (pl. 7/10), with two rivets made of the same alloy by the extremities, likely coming from the saddle (L = 6.6 cm, l = 1.3 cm). 73. Iron stripe (pl. 7/1), trapezoid, sharpened by one extremity in the shape of a chisel (L = 5.3 cm, lextremities = 1.5 cm, 1 cm). 74. Iron sheet (pl. 7/11) (L = 4.24 cm, l = 1.05 cm), broken by one extremity and bent to the other in the shape of a nail (L = 2.2 cm, d = 0.4 cm), attached by riveting to another plate parallel to the first (L = 5.2 cm, l = 1.1 cm). The described set, likely detached from the saddle, was rectangular in section, however, one of the nails and part of the plates are missing due to mechanical actions subsequent to the burial. 75. Iron set (pl. 7/9) similar to the above, yet which preserves only the extremities of the second plate in the joining area with the side rivets, of unequal lengths (Lplate = 3.7 cm, l = 1.07 cm, Lnail = 2.5 cm, 2 cm, dnail = 0.4 cm). 76. Iron set (pl. 7/6) similar to the above, yet which preserves only part of a plate and one of the side rivets (Lplate = 2.8 cm, l = 1.18 cm, Lnail = 2.44 cm, dnail = 0.4 cm). 77. Iron set (pl. 6/4) similar to the above, yet which preserves only part of a plate and, still fragmentary, one of the side rivets (Lplate = 1 cm, l = 0.94 cm, Lnail = 2.4 cm, dnail = 0.4 cm). It could be part of one of the sets described above. 78. Fragmentary iron sheet (pl.  6/10), preserving only the print of the attachment ring (Lplate = 3.04 cm, l = 1 cm). 79. Fragmentary iron sheet (pl.  6/6), with still an iron-made attachment ring (Lplate  =  1.73  cm, l = 2.2 cm, Lnail = 0.86 cm, dnail = 0.17 cm). 80. Iron nail or rivet (pl. 6/9) (L = 2.9 cm, d = 0.45 cm). 81. Iron nail or rivet (pl. 6/8) (L = 3.1 cm, d = 0.32 × 0.27 cm). 82. Iron nail (pl. 6/3), with rectangular extremity and section (L = 3.05 cm, l = 0.35 × 0.35 cm). 83. Harness strap (?) rivet (pl. 6/5) made of iron sheet (L = 2.65 cm, l = 0.4 cm, h = 1.3 cm). 84. Iron stripe (pl. 7/5) fold in two by one extremity and an oval link formed by the other extremity (L = 7.8 cm, l = 1.35 cm). 85. Iron bar (pl.  6/2) similar to a mandrel, with rectangular section body and circular section upper extremity (L = 45 cm). 86.–95. Fragments of variable size iron plates (pl. 6/12–19, 23–25). *

112

G a b r i e l T. R u s t o i u , M a r i u s C i u t ă

The three-winged arrowheads were recorded at: Szentes-Berekhát5, Szentes-Kökényzug6, Band7, Börcs-Nagydomb mormântul (M) 1, M. 28, Szegvár-Sápoldal9, Fajsz-Garadombon M. C, M. 410, Tiszafüred11, Fülöpháza-Petőfi utca12, Öcsöd-MRT 96a13, Valea lui Mihai14 etc. Noticeably, this artifcat type is no chronological reference mark since iron-made three-winged arrowheads are found from the 6th century until the 9th century. The bone bow is as frequent as the iron arrowheads. We mention herein a few examples: KölkedFeketekapu B15, Börcs-Nagydomb16, Szegvár-Sápoldal17, Fajsz-Garadombon18, Jászapáti-Nagyállás úti19, Fülöpháza-Petőfi utca20, Kiskörös-Csukástó21, Öcsöd-MRT 96a22; without any more accurate chronological reference marks, bone bows being discovered in Early, Mid and Late Avar archaeological features. The belt ends made of two silver thin plates set in parallel (no. 19, 20) are rather common in funerary Avar inventories from Hungary and have analogies at Fülöpháza-Petőfi utca23, Gátér24, BörcsNagydomb25, Jászapáti-Nagyállás úti26, etc. Similar belt ends (no. 22–24) were discovered at Gerla27 and Hajdudorog M128. The two flower-shaped appliques (no. 37–38) decorate, in this case, given their small number, the belt29 or strap (straps) holding the sword, alike at Szegvár-Sápoldal30. Other appliques of the sort are also known at Kölked-Feketekapu B31, Börcs-Nagydomb32, etc. Silver circular-concave appliques (no. 39–41) are frequent at Kölked-Feketekapu B33, SzegvárSápoldal34, Tiszafüred35, Kunágota36, Hajdudorog37, Band38, Gerla39 etc., without any special chronological value. Circular-flat appliques (no. 42–43) have correspondences at Hajdudorog40, Band41, Kecel42, Deszk 43 – L etc.  Csallány 1961, pl. LXXXVI/5–7.  Csallány 1961, pl. VII/1–3, 5–7, 9, 16. 7  Kovács 1913, fig. 43/1, 67/3, 68/5. 8  Tomka 2005, fig. 5/4–10, 7/23–24. 9  Bóna 1979, fig. 3/2. 10  Bologh / Kőhegyi 2001, fig. 3/8–13, 8/10–12. 11  Garam 1995, fig. 208/12. 12  Bologh 2002, fig. 8/9. 13  Madaras 2004, fig. 4/1–5. 14  Cosma 2002, pl. 265/8, 10. 15  Kiss 2001, pl. 62/1–3, 65/1–9, 90/2–9, 11–13, 101/13–15. 16  Tomka 2005, fig. 8, 11. 17  Bóna 1979, fig. 3/7–9. 18  Bologh/ Kőhegyi 2001, fig. 6/13–18, 8/1–9. 19  Madaras 1990, fig. 13/9–15, 14/7–10, 15. 20  Bologh 2002, fig. 8/8. 21  Bologh 2002, fig. 13/4. 22  Madaras 2004, fig. 4/1–5. 23  Bologh 2002, fig. 8/1, 2. 24  Bologh 2002, fig. 9/8. 25  Tomka 2005, fig. 4/13–14. 26  Madaras 1990, fig. 19/6, 7. 27  Kürti 1990, pl. 2/20–22. 28  Garam 1992, pl. 45/8 with solidus from Heraclius issued between 610 and 613. 29  László 1940, fig. 2/5. 30  Bóna 1979, fig. 2/5; Garam 1992, pl. 15/11–16 with solidus from Mauritius Tiberius (582–602). 31  Kiss 2001, pl. 45/B166/1–7, 10–13, 54/B194/1–7, 9–10. 32  Tomka 2005, fig. 7/22. 33  Kiss 2001, pl. 96/B 573/1, 3. 34  Bóna 1979, fig. 5/1–2; Garam 1992, pl. 23/1–12 with solidus from Mauritius Tiberius. 35  Garam 1995, fig. 216/1. 36  Garam 1992, pl. 8/1–20 with solidus from Justinian issued between 545 and 565. 37  Garam 1992, pl. 46/7–13, 47/1–20 with solidus from Heraclius issued between 610 and 613. 38  Kovács 1913, fig. 66/5. 39  Kürti 1990, fig. 2/24–43. 40  Garam 1992, pl. 38/22–26 associated with solidus from Heraclius issued between 610 and 613. 41  Kovács 1913, fig. 73/2. 42  Bologh 2004, fig. 1/5–7. 43  Bologh 2004, fig. 13/4. 5 6

An avar warrior’s grave recently discovered at Unirea-Vereşmort (Alba county)

113

The 8-shaped applique (no. 44), made by pressing and undecorated, is known from the belt set of Martinovka type at Deszk – G44. The discussed belt end or belt applique (no. 27) is rare and belongs to belt sets of Martinovka type. Similar items were discovered in Hungary in the cemetery at Adony45 or in an unspecified place46, in Serbia, at Sonta47 and Crimea area at Čufut-Kale, grave 3448. At Dyrso it emerges in M. 455 and M. 451, in the latter grave associated with the earring49 herein. Similar iron buckles with those described herein are frequent and were discovered at KölkedFeketekapu B50, Hajdudorog51, Öcsöd-MRT 96a52. Buckle no. 25. We found no  analogies for the discussed item in the studied bibliography, yet the buckle plate has similarities with the pseudo-buckles in the belt fittings range of Martinovka type. We refer here to the artifacts discovered at: Bócsa53, Gubermes, Környe, Rácalmás-Rózsamajor, Szekszárd-Bogyiszlói út, Epifanova, Kiskunfélegyháza-Pákapuszta, Budapesta-Farkasrét54, BörcsNagydomb55, Bócsa56. Buckle no. 26. Similar specimens, yet with certain differences were evidenced at Szob – the fastening loop is oval57, Vörösmart – the fastening loop is oval and sharp in the lower part58 – and Regöly – the fastening loop is pelta-shaped59. The perfect analogy was discovered at Hajdudorog M. 160. Buckles no. 34–35. In the studied literature we found no perfect analogies for such specimens. In the eastern space emerge a series of buckles with similar spring (rectangular, with wider frame compared to the overall size of the link) with the specimens herein, yet the plate is different in shape: Unirea-Vereşmort61 Avilovka62, Bylyn63, Kerč64. The last specimen has the plate arched inwards on both sides, yet it is more elongated than the artifacts here. We could not find another plate resembling with the discussed buckles, however, the appliques of “fishschwanzförmige” type among the belt fittings of Martinovka type65 are similar. The earring in this paper is of common type, made of gold and silver and bronze. It emerges in many cemeteries, like at: Band66, Deszk – G67, Tiszafüred68, Tiszakécske-Bögpuszta69, Cikó70, Dunapentele71, unknown site72, Kecel-Határdülő73, Kölked-Feketekapu B74, Alattyán75, Szegvár-Oromdülő76, Čir Bologh 2004, fig. 3/11.  Bologh 2004, 264, fig. 5/9; Garam 2001, pl. 92/9. 46  Garam 2001, pl. 92/8. 47  Bologh 2004, 269, fig. 5/8. 48  Bologh 2004, fig. 5/7. 49  Bálint 1992, pl. 54/A. 50  Kiss 2001, pl. 55/B207/1, 63/B209B/2. 51  Garam 1992, pl. 39/9 with solidus from Heraclius issued between 610 and 613. 52  Madaras 2004, fig. 6/3. 53  Lászlo 1955, pl. XLVII/8. 54  Bologh 2004, fig. 6/22–28. 55  Tomka 2005, fig. 4/12. 56  Kalmár 1943, pl. XXV/1. 57  Kalmár 1943, pl. XXVI/4. 58  Kalmár 1943, pl. XXVI/6. 59  Kalmár 1943, pl. XXVI/7. 60  Garam 1992, pl. 39/9 with solidus from Heraclius issued between 610 and 613. 61  Roska 1934, fig. 2/C/10. 62  Bálint 1992, pl. 37/7. 63  Bálint 1992, pl. 34/12. 64  Bálint 1992, pl. 35/3, 9. 65  Bologh 2004, fig. 6/3–8. 66  Kovács 1913, fig. 66/4. 67  Garam 1992, pl. 32/6–7 with solidus from Phokas issued between 602 and 610. 68  Garam 1995, fig. 149/19–21. 69  Garam 1993, 108, no. 138c, pl. 99/3. 70  Garam 1993, 59, no. 10a, pl. 3/4, golden. 71  Garam 1993, 62, 63, no. 20a, 20c, pl. 28/1–2, 19, golden. 72  Garam 1993, 71, 72, no. 55, 56, 63, pl. 34/9–10, 35/5. 73  Garam 1993, 79–80, no. 92, pl. 47/15–16, golden. 74  Kiss 2001, pl. 55/B207/8, 9, 79/B420/14, 79/B427/12–13, 87/B518, 88/B542/1, 92/B 556/1. 75  Kovrig 1963, pl. VIII/21, VIII/46, XI/9–10, XVII/31–32, XXXIV/40–41. 76  Lörinczy 1992, 84, fig. 4/3. 44 45

114

G a b r i e l T. R u s t o i u , M a r i u s C i u t ă

jurt77, Dyrso78 and Zalakomár79. This earring type dates broadly, starting with the 7th century until the first third of the 9th century. The golden items date in the Carpathian Basin mainly to the 7th century until the first half of the following century, yet in the eastern European area they date earlier. Hinged bits exhibiting two orifices by the straps attachment loop were found at Kölked-Feketekapu B – where they emerge beside iron hackamores80 –, Imrehegy81 and Tiszafüred82. The stirrup described above is frequent in the Avar cemeteries at Kölked-Feketekapu B83, SzegvárOromdülő84, Gerlá85, Deszk – D86, Tisza-füred87, Valea lui Mihai88, Sânpetru German89, Aiud90, Stremţ91 etc. According to Éva Garam, this stirrup type emerges in the Early and Mid Avar environments92. Fire steels with less evolved heads may be found in the Carpathian Basin in different environments. The majority date during the 6th–7th centuries AD93 and the first two-three decades of the 8th century94. Thus, this fire steel type95 was evidenced at: Kölked-Feketekapu B96, Pişcolt-Nisipărie97, Börcs-Nagydomb98, Kiszombor99, Szöreg100, Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa101 and Sărata Monteoru102. At Hajdudorog, the fire steel103 is associated with a golden coin from Heraclius I (610–641) issued during 610–613104, buckle no. 26105, three-winged arrowheads106, bone bow107, belt ends no. 22–24108, appliques no. 42–43109 and appliques no. 39–41110. Another fragmentary fire steel appeared at SzegvárSápoldal111, associated with a coin copy of a solidus from Mauritius Tiberius (582–602), yet issued in 583/584112, beside buckle no. 32113, appliques no. 39–41114, arrowheads115, bone bow116, belt ends no. 19–20117 and appliques no. 37–38118.  Bálint 1989, 31/1–2, golden, together with belt items of Martinovka type.  Bálint 1992, pl. 54/A, 55/24, beside belt items of Martinovka type. 79  Szőke 1992, pl. 3/144, 5/230. 80  Kiss 2001, pl. 54/B194/8, 55/B197/1, 58/20, 63/B209B/1, 66/B215/1, 70/B237/1, 91/1, 92/B 569/1, 97/1. 81  Balogh 2002, fig. 11/1. 82  Garam 1995, fig. 214/4 associated with a bone hackamore. 83  Kiss 2001, pl. 42/7, 8, 61/B209A/3–4, 88/B540/4–5, 91/22–23. 84  Lörinczy 1992, fig. 9/6–7. 85  Kürti 1990, pl. 2/45–46. 86  Csallány 1943, pl. XXVIII/2, 3. 87  Garam 1995, fig. 215/2. 88  Cosma 2002, pl. 265/1, 2. 89  Dörner 1960, fig. 3/4a-b. 90  Horedt 1958, 71, fig. 10/11–13. 91  Horedt 1958, 85, fig. 19/2–3. 92  Garam 1987, 194, 196. Regarding the correlation of the discussed stirrup type with footwear type see Ţiplic 2005, 191–195. 93  Németi 1983, 140. 94  Stanciu 1999, 132. 95  For further details on the issue see Stanciu 1999, 130–132. 96  Kiss 2001, pl. 23/B37A/1, 24/26, 55/B207/13, 83/B449/6. 97  Németi 1983, fig. 8/10; Stanciu 1999, pl. 4/3. 98  Tomka 2005, fig. 15/17. 99  Csallány 1961, pl. CXXIX/2, CXXXII/23, CXLI/18. 100  Csallány 1961, pl. CLXXI/30. 101  Csallány 1961, pl. CCXXX/5. 102  Nestor et alii 1953, 84, fig. 15. 103  Garam 1992, pl. 39/1. 104  Garam 1992, 143. 105  Garam 1992, pl. 39/9. 106  Garam 1992, pl. 43. 107  Garam 1992, pl. 42/3–8. 108  Garam 1992, pl. 45/8. 109  Garam 1992, pl. 38/22–26. 110  Garam 1992, pl. 47. 111  Bóna 1979, fig. 2/11; Garam 1992, 139, pl. 16/2. 112  Garam 1992, 140, pl. 15/3–4. 113  Garam 1992, pl. 23/25. 114  Garam 1992, pl. 23/1–12. 115  Garam 1992, pl. 20/1–3. 116  Garam 1992, pl. 19/1–3. 117  Garam 1992, pl. 16/8. 118  Garam 1992, pl. 15/11–16. 77 78

An avar warrior’s grave recently discovered at Unirea-Vereşmort (Alba county)

115

Iron chainmail emerge in the German environment119 associated with iron helmets at: SzentesBerekhát M. 190, 89, 139, 15120, Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa M. 29121, Szőreg M. 79, M. 17, M. 74122, likely protecting the warrior’s backhead123. In the eastern area at Čir-jurt, iron chainmail124 emerge together with three-winged arrowheads125. This artifact type is documented with the Turkish populations during the 6th–7th centuries126, while at Tiszafüred127 the chainmail dates later. The straight single-edged sword without guard was recorded in the Avar cemeteries at Csanytelek128, Fajsz-Garadombon M. C129, Csóka130 etc. It is believed that in the Mid Avar period, swords were replaced by sabres131, yet at Sânpetru German, a sabre similar to the specimen herein132 emerges beside Martinovka type belt fittings and a solidus from Heraclius and Heraclius Constantinus, coin issued between 615 and 625133. For an earlier dating of the sabre also plead the scabbard fittings. The bronze plates fixing the support straps and the scabbard fittings resemble in shape with a series of finds in Early Avar graves. The differentiation consists in the fact that the latter are made of precious metal and are richly decorated: Bócsa – first half of the 7th century134, Kecel – end of the 6th century – first quarter of the 7t century135, Kunákota – first third of the 7th century136, associated with appliques no. 39–41137 and the tilt loop138. According to C. Balint, the discussed fitting belongs to the Early Avar period139. This fitting type (“3-shaped”), dated to the Early Avar period has no resemblances outside the Carpathian Basin except the princely grave at Malo Pereşcepino140. Based on the artifacts type and the richness of the inventory, the discussed grave is different than the rest of the graves investigated by M. Roska in 1914. We refer here to the abundant silver objects and the existent golden earring. In the case of the 1914 finds, the silver objects are spread in several graves. The richest seem M. 8 and M. 13141. The golden earring fragment in M. 14 is not associated with other artifacts made of precious metal142. The bit, stirrups and sword evidence that respective grave belongs to a knight, compared to the rest of the warriors in the cemetery at Unirea who, based on sword types, seem pedestrian. The type of three-winged iron arrowhead is unknown in the cemetery at Unirea, while in the grave discovered in 2008 there are no less than 10 specimens, associated also with a bone reinforcement plate, similarly unknown to the rest of the graves in the discussed cemetery. Thus, the grave inventory enables us to argue that the dead buried in the cemetery at Unirea-Vereşmort was a warrior at the top of the community hierarchy. Arrowheads and bone bows143 are lacking from the Gâmbaş group, only two swords being known at Aiudu de Sus144 and Cicău145, yet they are provided with a guard, are slightly curved and the second  For further details on the origin of the chainmail see Lebedynsky 2001, 188.  Csallány 1961, 262, pl. LXXXIII/14, LXXVII/10, LXXXV/4–7. 121  Csallány 1961, pl. CCXXVIII/3–5. 122  Csallány 1961, 8, pl. CLXIV/8–9, CLXXVIII/9. 123  Lebedynsky 2001, 192, 194. 124  Balint 1989, fig. 32/5. 125  Balint 1989, fig. 32/1–2. 126  Balint 1989, fig. 122/4. 127  Garam 1995, 354, fig. 208/15. 128  Kürti 1990, pl. 1/18. 129  Bologh/ Kőhegyi 2001, fig. 5/1. 130  Kovrig, Korek 1960, fig. 6. 131  Curta 2006, 180, n. 37. 132  Dörner 1960, fig. 3/6. 133  Garam 1992, 144. 134  Garam 1993, pl. 11/1–2, 12/2. 135  Garam 1993, pl. 44/3, 45/1, 3. 136  Garam 1993, pl. 58/4. 137  Garam 1992, pl. 8/1–20. 138  Garam 1992, pl. 4/1. 139  Bálint 1989, 156. 140  Curta 2006, 180, n. 34; Lebedynsky 2001, 155. 141  Roska 1934, 125, 128. 142  Roska 1934, 128, fig. 4/C/2. 143  Horedt 1958, 72. 144  Horedt 1958, fig. 17/3. 145  Winkler / Takács / Păiuş 1977, fig. 4/1. 119 120

116

G a b r i e l T. R u s t o i u , M a r i u s C i u t ă

has a tilted hilt. In terms of the defensive weaponry, the lamellar armour or iron chainmail are not found in any grave, at least insofar as it is known. In what the artifacts made of precious metal are concerned, the grave under analysis is richer than all graves combined of the Gâmbaş group. In the case of the funerary features from group IV of row graves (late German – post 567) from Transylvania146, a series of resemblances and differentiations with the discussed grave arise. At Band appear three-winged arrowheads147, yet they no longer appear in the rest of the graves. Still there, an earring of the type herein was found yet it is bronze-made148. Other resemblances with the graves in this group are no found unless the cotemporary cemetery at Bratei is published. Once more, we must note the richness of artifacts made of precious metal in the grave at Unirea compared to the rest in this group. Originally, the cemetery at Unirea-Vereşmort was dated to the first half of the 7th century. Later, G. Bakó, when analysing the items with silver inlay and comparing them with similar finds at Környe, beside other artifacts, pushed the dating of the cemetery until 680149. The presented grave may be dated to the 7th century and likely represents the last stage of the cemetery at Unirea-Vereşmort researched by M. Roskaiîn 1913. The richness, types of artifacts in the presented grave and the social standing of the dead particularizes the respective find both within the cemetery at Unirea as well as other Avar funerary finds in Transylvania.

ADDENDUM 1 The morphotaxonomic analysis of the human skeleton150 Description of the human skeleton Skull: fragments of parietal, occipital, temporal, frontal (slightly marked glabella) bones, fragment of the skull base, mastoid process (20 mm wide), open sutures. Facial area: mandible in two pieces, right side of maxilla, fragments of the zygomatic bone (right side). Teeth status: I1, I2 (1), PM1, PM2 (1), M1, M2 (1), PM2 (3), M1 (3), PM1, PM2 (4), M1, M2 (4). Teeth scheme: 2123. Teeth fallen post mortem: quadrant 2. Molar 3 is in alveolus. Decayed teeth, especially the incisors and molar 1. No cavities or paradentosis. Chest area: sternum (body – missing lower part), two cervical vertebra, one thoracic vertebra. Plevis area: a fragment of the iliac bone. Upper limbs: left humerus (l. o. 320 mm, diam. head 46 mm, diam. trans. 26 mm, diam. sagit. 25 mm, diam. trans. inf. 30 mm, diam. sagit. inf. 26 mm – cortical layer of 6 mm), right humerus (missing proximal epiphysis), fragments of shoulder blade (scapula), left and right clavicles in two pieces (l. o. 140 mm), left radius and left ulna are preserved in small fragments. Lower limbs: left femur (l. o. 441 mm, diam. head 46 mm, diam. trans. 37 mm, diam. sagit. 25 mm, diam. trans. inf. 38 mm, diam. sagit. inf. 30 mm), right femur (l. o. 440 mm, diam. head 46 mm, diam. trans. 35 mm, diam. sagit. 26 mm, diam. trans. inf. 40 mm, diam. sagit. inf. 34 mm), left tibia (l. o. 350 mm, diam. trans. 49 mm, diam. sagit. 47 mm, diam. trans. inf. 28 mm, diam. sagit. inf. 25 mm – cortical layer of 7 mm), fragments of the left and right perineum (from bone diaphysis). Feet skeleton: left (l. o. 74 mm) and right (l. o. 74 mm) calcaneus, left and right talus, metatarasal fragments. Gender determination Skull sizes (occipital bone – occipital protuberance), glabella and mandible are indicative of a male individual. The sizes of the humerus (bone length, head diameter), femur sizes (bone length head diameter) are indicative of a male individual. The mastoid process evidences female traits. Based on the method of co-authors Éry-Kralovanszky-Nemeskéri the individual was male (+1.7).  Horedt 1977, 261–262; Horedt 1986, 29–36.  Kovács 1913, fig. 43/1, 67/3, 68/5. 148  Kovács 1913, fig. 66/4. 149  Bakó 1973, 643–651. 150  The analysis was carried out by Mr. Szilárd Gál, to whom we express our thanks herein. 146 147

An avar warrior’s grave recently discovered at Unirea-Vereşmort (Alba county)

117

Age determination The teeth (evolution stage of molar 3, decay stages of teeth M1 and incisors), the open sutures, proximal epiphysis of the humerus and femur are indicative of an adult individual aged 25–28 years (Adultus). Pathological cases do not emerge on the skeleton. Height of the dead Long bones

Left (mm)

Right (mm)

Clavicle

140

-

Humerus

320

166,84

140

Sjøvold-Rösing method according to the Martin-Saller classification -

Average

Femur

440

165,24

441

165,24

Average

Tibia

350

162,49

-

-

Small-average

Calcaneus

74

-

74

-

-

Average height

1.65 m

The individual has Nordic – Alpine features and mongoloid mandible.

ADDENDUM 2 Archaeozoological analysis of the bone remains found in the grave As mentioned in the introductory part of this paper, the grave contained beside the human skeleton also parts of a horse151. The majority of the bone fragments are marked by the preservation in a slightly acidic environment as well as by the growth traces of the vegetation roots. The analysed bones belong to a single species, namely the horse (Equus caballus). Only radius, metacarpals, tibia, tarsal, metatarsal, phalange and teeth fragments were identified, the analysis failing to include neurocranium or splanchnocranium fragments as well cutting marks made in ancient times. The teeth series is almost complete, morphological data evidencing the origin, most likely, in a male individual. The lack of the horse skull bone elements is explainable by their improper collection from the grave. Data taken from tooth eruption and decay stages enable the accurate appreciation of the animal age at the time of death, as approximately 4.5–5 years of age. The recalculated height based on values obtained in the case of the metapodials is of approximately 140 cm, while the gracility index points to an average gracility individual. It is known that both Avar and German peoples customarily buried the rider and the horse together. Commonly, cases when the entire horse was buried beside the rider are mentioned, yet it seems that circumstances when only the distal limb parts and head are buried are not entirely unusual, situation reported as common for the territory of Hungary152. The only data available for any comparative study are those of an ample work regarding the evolution of animal species on the current territory of Hungary (with data yielded from the study of 107 Avar graves at the level of 1974!)153 and the data resulted from the analysis of a horse skeleton at Cicău154. The comparisons revealed obvious similarities on the height, gender and morphological elements existent in the Avar environment above mentioned. 151  The bone material, cleaned at the collection site, was carried and analysed with the Comparative Anatomy Laboratory of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca by A. Gudea, to whom we thank herein. The analysis consisted in separating the bones upon anatomical areas and the removal of unidentifiable fragments, followed by the identification of the species by anatomical observation. Bones were later assigned to the limb they belonged. Notes were taken on traces of human processing in case of the fragments exhibiting cutting tool prints. Age estimates were made by observation of the epiphyseal stage of the bones and the state of tooth eruption and decay (Schmid 1972). Measurements were taken based on osteometry standards (Desse / Chaix 1986), while the used codes coincide with the measurement codes in the previously mentioned catalogue (details of the archaeozoological analysis shall be published by A. Gudea in a future study). 152  Bököny 1974. 153  Bököny 1974. 154  Georoceanu / Lisovschi-Cheleşanu / Georoceanu 1977, 285–294.

118

G a b r i e l T. R u s t o i u , M a r i u s C i u t ă

Fig. 3. – Anatomic parts of the horse which were identified in the grave.

References / Bibliography Bakó 1973 G. Bakó, Despre datarea mormintelor din secolul al VII-lea de la Vereşmort (com. Unirea). Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche 24, 4, 1973, 643–651. Bálint 1989 C. Bálint, Die Archäologie der Steppe: Steppenvölker zwischen Volga u. Donau von 6. Bis zum 10. Jh. (Wien, Köln 1989). Bálint 1992 C. Bálint, Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Stepe. Das Grab von Üč Tepe (Sowj. Azerbajdžan) und der beschlagverzierte Gürtel im 6. Und 7. Jahrhundert. F. Daim (Hrsg.), Awarwnforschungen. Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren 4, Band I (Wien 1992), 309–496. Balogh 2002 C. Balogh, Régészeti adatok Bács-Kiskun megye területének kora avar kori történetéhez. Előmunkálatok a Duna-Tisza köze avar kori betelepülésének kérdéseihez. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve – Studia Archaeologica VIII, 2002, 291–339. Balogh 2004 C. Balogh, Martinovka-típusú övgarnitöúra Kecelről. A Kárpát-medencei maszkos veretek tipokronológiája”. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve – Studia Archaeologica X, 2004, 241–303. Bologh / Kőhegyi 2001 C. Bologh, M. Kőhegyi, Fajsz környéki avar kori temetők II. Kora avar kori sírok Fajsz-Garadombon. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve – Studia Archaeologica VII, 2001, 333–363. Bököny 1974 S. Bököny, History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe. Akademiai Kiado (Budapest 1974). Bóna 1979 I. Bóna, A Szegvár – sápoldali lovassír. Adatok a korai avar temetkezési szokásokhoz. Archaeologiai Értesítő 106, 1, 1979, 3–32. Cosma 2002 C. Cosma, Vestul şi nord-vestul României în secolele VIII–X D.H. Interferenţe etnice şi culturale în mileniile I a. Chr. – I p. Chr., VI (Cluj-Napoca 2002).

An avar warrior’s grave recently discovered at Unirea-Vereşmort (Alba county)

119

Csallány 1943 D. Csallány, A. Deszk D. számú temető avar sírjai. Archaeologiai Értesítő, S III, IV, 1–2, 1943, p. 160–173. Csallány 1961 D. Csallány, Archäologische Denkmäler der gepiden im Mitteldonaubecken (454–568 u. Z.). Archaeologia Hungarica S.N., XXXVIII (Budapest 1961). Curta 2006 Fl. Curta, Apariţia slavilor. Istorie şi arheologie la Dunărea de Jos în veacurile VI–VII (Târgovişte 2006). Desse / Chaix 1986 J. Desse, L. Chaix, Ostéo Base – Réseau de donées ostéometriques pour l’archéozoologie. Procédures, codages, exploitation des donnés, organisation de réseau, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Paris 1986). Dörner 1960 E. Dörner, Mormânt din epoca avară la Sînpetru – German. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche 11, 2, 1960, 423–433. Garam 1987 É. Garam, Der awarische Fundstoff im Karpatenbecken und seine zeitliche Gliederung. B. Hänsel (Hrsg.), Die Völker Südosteuropas im 6. Bis 8. Jahrhundert, Südosteuropa Jahrbuch, 17 (München / Berlin 1987), 191–202. Garam 1992 É. Garam, Die münzdatierten Gräber der Awarenzeit”. F. Daim (Hrsg.), Awarwnforschungen. Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren 4, Band I (Wien 1992), 135–250. Garam 1993 É. Garam, Katalog der awarenzeitlivhen Goldgegenstände und der Fundstücke aus den Fürstengräbern im Ungarischen Nationalmuseum. Catalogi Musei Nationalis Hungarici, Seria Archaeologica I (Budapest 1993). Garam 1995 É. Garam, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Tiszafüred, Cemeteries of the Avar Period (567–829) in Hungary 3 (Budapest 1995). Garam 2001 É. Garam, Funde byzantinischer Herkunft in der Awarenzeit vom Ende des 6. Bis zum Ende des 7. Jahrhunderts. Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 5 (Budapest 2001). Georoceanu / Lisovschi-Cheleşanu / Georoceanu 1977 P. Georoceanu, C. Lisovschi-Cheleşanu, M. Georoceanu, Studiul osteologic al unui schelet de cal dintr-un mormînt avar din Transilvania. Acta Musei Napocensis XIV, 1977, 285–294. Horedt 1958 K. Horedt, Contribuţii la istoria Transilvaniei sec. IV–XIII (Bucureşti 1958). Horedt 1977 K. Horedt, Der östliche Reihengräberkreis in Siebenbürgen. Dacia NS 21, 1977, 251–268. Horedt 1986 K. Horedt, Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter, Antiquitas R. 3, 28 (Bonn 1986). Kalmar 1943 J. Kalmar, Népvándorláshori akasztóhorgok és veretek. Archaeologiai Értesítő, S III, IV, 1–2, 1943, 149–159. Kiss 2001 A. Kiss, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld in Kölked-Feketekapu B. Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 6, (Budapest 2001). Kovács 1913 I. Kovács, A mezőbándi ásatások. Dolgozatok (Cluj) IV, 2, 1913, p. 265–429. Kovrig 1963 I. Kovrig, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Alattyán. Archaeologia Hungarica S. N., XL (Budapest 1963). Kovrig / Korek 1960 I. Kovrig, J. Korek, “Le cimetière de l’époque avare de Csóka (Čoka)”. Acta Archaeologica Hungaricae, 12, 1–4 (Budapest) 1960, 257–311. Kürti 1990 B. Kürti, Avar sírleletek Csanytelekről és Gerláról. A Szolnok Megyei Múzeumi Évkőnyv (Szolnok) VII, 1990,79–86. László 1940 G. László, Avarkori pásztorkészségeink. Archaeologiai Értesítő, S III, I, 1–2, 1940, 91–98. Lászlo 1955 G. László, Études archéologiques sur l’histoire de la société des avars. Archaeologia Hungarica SN., XXXIV (Budapest 1955).

120

G a b r i e l T. R u s t o i u , M a r i u s C i u t ă

Lebedynsky 2001 I. Lebedynsky, Armes et guerriers barbares au temps des grandes invadions (IVe au VIe siècle apr. J. – C. (Paris 2001). Lőrinczy 1992 G. Lőrinczy, Vorläufiger Bericht über die Freilegung des Gräberfeldes aus dem 6–7. Jh. In Szegvár-Oromdülő. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 1992, 81–124. Madaras 1990 L. Madaras, A jászapáti Nagyállás úti avar temető. Újabb adatok az avar kori csontlemezes tegez történetéhez. A Szolnok Megyei Múzeumi Évkőnyv (Szolnok) VII, 1990, 167–206. Madaras 2004 L. Madaras, Kora avar kori sírok Öcsödről. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve – Studia Archaeologica, X, 2004, 339–363. Nestor et alii 1953 I. Nestor, A. Alexandrescu, E. Petrescu, V. Zirra, Şantierul Sărata-Monteoru. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche 4, 1–2, 1953, 69–89. Roska 1934 M. Roska, Das gepidische Gräberfeld von Veresmort-Marosveresmart (Turda-Tordaaranyos, Siebenbürgen). Germania 18, 1934, 123–130. Schmid 1972 E. Schmid, Atlas of Animal Bones for Prehistorians, Archeologists and Quaternary Geologists (Amsterdam – London – New York, Elsevier Publishing Company. u, M. S., L. 1972). Stanciu 1999 I. Stanciu, “O nouă aşezare slavă timpurie din zona Someşului Inferior (Culciu Mare-Zöldmező, comuna Culciu, judeţul Satu Mare). Relaţii româno-ucrainene. Istorie şi contemporaneitate (Satu Mare 1999), 127–148. Szőke 1992 B. M. Szőke, Die Beziehungen zwischen dem Ostalpenraum und Westungarn in der ersten Hälfte des 9. Jahrhunderts. F. Daim (Hrsg.), Awarwnforschungen. Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren 4, Band II (Wien 1992), 841–968. Tomka 2005 P. Tomka, Korai avar sírok Börcs-Nagydombon (Győr-Moson-Sopron megye). Archaeologiai Értesítő 130, 1–2, 2005, p. 137–179. Ţiplic 2005 M. I. Ţiplic, Contribuţii la istoria spaţiului românesc în perioada migraţiilor şi evului mediu timpuriu (secolele IV–XIII) (Iaşi 2005). Winkler / Takács / Păiuş 1977 I. Winkler, M. Takács, Gh. Păiuş, Necropola avară de la Cicău. Acta Musei Naponcesis, XIV, 1977, p. 269–283.

An avar warrior’s grave recently discovered at Unirea-Vereşmort (Alba county)

121

2

1

5 4

7 3

6

9 8

Pl. 1 – 1. Single-edged iron sword; 2. Iron tang; 2–8. Scabbard fixing and fastening bronze fittings; 9. Silver rods.

122

G a b r i e l T. R u s t o i u , M a r i u s C i u t ă

2

3

1 4

6 5

7

9 8

10

11

12

14

13

15

16

Pl. 2 – 1. Belt end; 2 Bronze buckle; 3. Belt end; 4 Silver belt; 5. Iron buckle; 6. Silver sheet plate; 8 Silver belt; 9. Golden earring; 10. Silver belt; 11 Fragmentary silver applique; 12. Belt end or silver belt applique; 14–16 Bronze buckles.

An avar warrior’s grave recently discovered at Unirea-Vereşmort (Alba county)

2

1

3

4

7

6

5

123

8

14

13

22

12

15

18

17

21

11

10

9

16

19

23

20

24

25

Pl. 3 – 1–2. Circular appliques; 3–4, 7. Silver circular appliques; 5–6. Silver appliques (fragmentary); 8–20, 22–25 Applique rivets (fragmentary); 21. Silver rods.

124

G a b r i e l T. R u s t o i u , M a r i u s C i u t ă

1

2

3

Pl. 4 – 1. Horse bit; 2–3. Iron stirrups.

An avar warrior’s grave recently discovered at Unirea-Vereşmort (Alba county)

2 3 1

6

5

4 7

8

11 9

10

Pl. 5 – 1–3, 5–11. Three-winged iron arrowheads; 4. Bow reinforcement plate.

125

126

G a b r i e l T. R u s t o i u , M a r i u s C i u t ă

Pl. 6 – 1. Iron bar; 2. Iron bar; 3. Iron nail; 4. Iron set; 5. Harness strap (?) rivet; 6. Fragmentary iron sheet; 9. Iron nail or rivet; 8 Iron nail or rivet; 10. Fragmentary iron sheet; 12–19, 23–25. Fragments of variable size iron plates; 20. Slightly bent bronze; 21. Hairpin; 22. Thin bronze; 26. Bronze plate; 27. Iron plate.

An avar warrior’s grave recently discovered at Unirea-Vereşmort (Alba county)

127

2

4

1

3

7

6

5 8

9

11 10

12

Pl. 7 – 1–4. Iron chainmail fragments; 5. Iron stripe; 6, 9. Iron set; 7. Fire steel; 8, 12. Iron plate; 10–11. Iron sheet.

A

xe, Battle Axes and Battle Knives from Avar-Time Graves in Vojvodina Ivan Bugarski

Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade [email protected]

Abstract: The article analyses the somewhat neglected finds of the battle axes and the battle knives from the southern part of the Avar Khaganate. Just as in the case of axes, size of the objects is the main criterion for distinguishing between the knives and the battle knives. It is concluded that the battle axes were a common type of weapon in Avar use, while the battle knives constitute the least characteristic group of their weapons. Keywords: Axes, Battle Axes, Battle Knives, Avars, Vojvodina

I

n this paper I will present the somewhat neglected finds of a tool and certain types of weapons from the south of the Avar Khaganate, that is from present-day northern Serbian province of Vojvodina, and their contexts. The battle axes and the battle knives are not among the most famous Avar weapons, like, for example, their reflex bows1. At that time, axes and battle axes shared the same shapes, originating in the distant past2; artefacts of the same design were to be used for centuries afterwards3. So far, excluding the recent efforts by Frigyes Szücsi4, battle axes from Avar territory have not been processed as a whole, and the sporadic finds of battle knives were brought together in a section of an article by Gergely Csiky5. Thus, one may conclude that the two groups have not been studied sufficiently and that even the function of the finds is not resolved in an unambiguous way. The majority of Avar-time axes, including the ones to be presented, is of a simple, triangular shape. Some of them – the axe-hammers – have their backs flattened. Despite the axes belonging to particular typological groups are of a common design, there are no identical specimens6. Somewhat different are the so-called L-shaped axes, also known from the contexts preceding7 and following the Avar domination time8. Apart from adding the finds from the southern part of the Khaganate to the existing records, the article’s aim is to help resolve the issue of the functional use of the axes and, to some extent, of that of the knives as well. Iron knives comprise the most abundant group of utensils in Avar use. They are commonly found in both genders’ graves and in those of children, and are thus seen as the most elementary possession of a free Avar9. Most of the knives are small in size, but there are also larger ones, up to 20 cm in length and more. It is not always easy to distinguish between the knives and the  Ricz 1983.  e.g. Akhmedov/Vorontsov 2012; Rupnik 2014. 3  e.g. Kirpichnikov 1966, 26–43, T. XI; Górecki 2001, 136–142, Ryc. 84, 85/1–6. 4  Szücsi 2012; 2014. 5  Csiky 2012. 6  Szücsi 2012, 136–137. 7  e.g. Quast 2012, 364, Abb. 12, 13. 8  e.g. Kouřil 2005, 89, Abb. 17/6; Iotov 2004, 91–92, Obr. 44; Górecki 2001, 140, Ryc. 85/7–11. 9  Kovačević 1977, 102. 1 2

130

I va n B u g a r s k i

battle knives (short seaxes, Kurzseaxe)10, and, perhaps unlike seaxes in general11, the latter group of finds did not comprise a characteristic class of Avar weaponry.

An Axe and the Battle Axes We will start our survey with an atypical axe find from Lovćenac (Szeghegy). It was found accidentally in 1901, according to some vague mentions in a horseman’s grave12, or in a double burial13, perhaps male14, which also produced horse bones15. A chain and a silver earring from this grave would rather refer to a woman having been buried alongside the (horse)man. Relying on these finds, and the Salona– Histria type purse buckle, the grave is usually dated to the first half of the seventh century16, but thanks to a solidus of Emperors Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine, minted between 616 and 62517, its date can be narrowed down to the second quarter of that century. The bulk of the finds is illustrated in an archive photograph (Fig.  1)18. Together with a ceramic pot, the grave produced a wooden bucket and a rare finding of the copper cauldron. A heavily corroded spearhead and the fragments of a sword and a shield (?) came from this grave too, as well as two iron stirrups with circular loops, a sickle and an axe. This simple axe is 25 cm long, and was recently classified as variant 5a-H-I of Szücsi’s detailed typology which considers the forms of cutting edges, sockets, and butts19. It has been suggested that this is a battle axe20, a matter to be discussed below. The next finds come from Aradac (Aradka). This cemetery, also including a certain number of Germanic funerals21, can be dated to the Early and Middle Avar Periods, i.e. from the end of the sixth century to around the year 700. Grave 3 (III) produced a sheet Fig. 1 – Lovćenac, a selection of finds, after Garam 1982. strap-end22, which belongs to the ear cf. Csiky 2012, 377.  Csiky 2012, 386. 12  Vinski 1958, 13. 13  Somogyi 1997, 62. 14  Garam 1992, 144. 15  ADAM 2002, 229. 16  Vinski 1958, 13; Dimitrijević/Kovačević/Vinski 1962, 56, Sl. 3. 17  Somogyi 1997, 62. 18  Garam 1982, Abb. 9. 19  Szücsi 2014, 161. 20  Dimitrijević/Kovačević/Vinski 1962, 55, Sl. 1, 2; Garam 1992, 144, 159; Curta 2013, 177, n. 178. 21  Nadj 1959. 22  Nadj 1959, 63, T. XXV/13. 10 11

Axe, Battle Axes and Battle Knives from Avar-Time Graves in Vojvodina

131

liest FA phase of Zábojník’s seriation, dated up until 65023, a cast bronze matrice from the end of the sixth and the first third of the seventh centuries24, a similarly dated Salona–Histria type buckle25, and a so-called disentangling hook26. It is possible that there was also a sword in this grave, and an axe find should be mentioned as well. The battle axe is 11 cm long27, and belongs to the 4b-A variant of the reference typology28. Grave 3 (III) can be dated to the end of the sixth and the first third of the seventh centuries (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 – Aradac, grave 3 (III), a selection of finds, after Nadj 1959 (no scale).

The second axe from this cemetery was found in grave 108, which contained a very interesting assemblage of Germanic military equipment. Along the right-hand edge of the grave pit, from top to bottom there were neatly arranged parts of a shield, the battle axe, and three three-winged arrowheads, one of them perforated29; such arrows were used to cause fire damage30. The shield is very interesting. With its handle partly preserved and the umbo31 sans bouton, it resembles a find from the Više Grobalja cemetery at Viminacium. The use of such shields occurred already in the second half of the fifth century, but the majority of the finds came from later contexts. Throughout the seventh century these were typical of the Lombards in Italy, and there is another Germanic, probably Gepidic find from the territory of the Avar Khaganate32. In this grave there was also, presumably, a quiver hook33. The 13 cm long battle axe is of a simple design (Fig. 3). It was only mentioned in the article by Frigyes Szücsi, but was not attributed to any of his variants34. The grave was dated to the second half of the sixth century35. A massive silver earring and a bone purse-clasp36 cannot assist us in dating it more accurately. Given the context of the funeral, and the fact that the published ground plan of the cemetery37 does not present the graves excavated in 1961 (one of them being grave 108), it can only be suggested that this grave dates from the end of the sixth and the first half, or the first two thirds, of the seventh century. Around 670/680 another, Middle Avar culture emerged, and Roman and Germanic features in Avar cemeteries can no longer be traced38.

 Zábojník 1991, 233, 248, Taf. 1/2, Abb. 1.  Dimitrijević/Kovačević/Vinski 1962, 11, T. XVII/2; cf. Garam 2001, 137–138, Taf. 101/3, Tabelle 1. 25  Uenze 1966, 142–146, Abb. 1/4; Varsik 1992, 80–81, Taf. I/10; VI; Garam 2001, 109; af. 75/10, 11, Tabelle 1. 26  Nadj 1952, 133, 134, Sl. 1. 27  Nadj 1959, 66, T. XXVI/1. 28  Szücsi 2014, 147. 29  Nadj 1973, Y 160 (3) 1–3. 30  Kovačević 1977, 119; Bugarski 2009a, 115, Sl. 100. 31  Nadj 1973, Y 160 (3) 2, 3/7. 32  Ivanišević/Kazanski/Mastykova 2006, 42–43, Fig. 24/5. 33  Nadj 1973, Y 160 (3) 2/7. 34  Szücsi 2014, 147. 35  Nadj 1973, Y 160/7. 36  Nadj 1973, Y 160 (3) 1/1, 9. 37  Nadj 1959. 38  Vida 2008, 41. 23 24

132

I va n B u g a r s k i

Fig. 3 – Aradac, grave 108, after Nadj 1973 (no scale).

The Nova Lederata quadriburgium, a bridgehead of the Lederata fortification system on the nowinundated Sapaja isle along the Banat shore of the Danube39, is the location of a highly interesting grave from the Early Middle Ages. This single grave was dug into the debris layer in the well-explored fort, and produced a ceramic vessel and a battle axe. Regrettably, the finds are poorly illustrated in the otherwise detailed publication by Danica Dimitrijević40. The pot represents a relatively small group of vessels of an eastern, nomadic origin, labeled as IIIB group in the typology by Tivadar Vida. Most likely, it belongs to the IIIB/c subgroup, characteristic of the Early and Middle Avar Periods41. The quoted drawing is not accompanied by the scale, and dimensions of the two objects are not mentioned in the article by Dimitrijević42. Yet, if the scale was at 1:3, the battle axe would be ca 12 cm long, and the vessel ca 14 cm high, which are both usual sizes (Fig. 4). The grave was dated to the seventh century43, and mistakenly to the eighth in a more recent account44, but its dating may be placed within the last three quarters of the seventh century.

 Jovanović 1996.  Dimitrijević 1984, 45–46, Sl. 7. 41  Vida 1999, 129–130, Abb. 51, Taf. 175. 42  Dimitrijević 1984, 45–46, Sl. 7. 43  Dimitrijević 1984, 45–46. 44  ADAM 2002, 229. 39 40

Axe, Battle Axes and Battle Knives from Avar-Time Graves in Vojvodina

133

Fig. 4 – Sapaja, grave finds, after Dimitrijević 1984 (no scale).

The find from Selenča (Bácsújfalu), again, comes from a very vaguely described context (Fig. 5)45. By all appearances, in 1943 several horsemens’ graves, rather than a hoard, were damaged, producing a variety of archaeological finds collected by the workers46. The finds were dated to the first half47, or to the last quarter of the seventh century48. The latter suggestion is more accurate if we take into account the seriation ordering of Avar belt pieces49, which, according to Zábojník’s work, come from the MS I and MS II phases (650–675; 675–700)50. The gilded horse harness fittings51 are very much like those from the graves of the so-called Tótipuszta-Igar group52, and very characteristic are the silver sheet harness fittings, having analogous finds in Kunágota and Ozora, dated by coins of Emperor Constantine IV53, and in Kunszentmárton54. Two pairs of stirrups with circular loops were collected as well, and five snuffle bits55. From Selenča there is another copper cauldron56, and some very interesting silver sheet fittings57, perhaps of a knife58. As for weaponry, a spearhead and a helmet cheek-piece were found59, as well as a total of seven iron armuor plates60. It is not surprising that the part of a helmet, particularly rare in Avar use, gained some attention61, while an axe find did not. The iron battle axe from Selenča is 12.2 cm long62. It belongs to Szücsi’s 2b-B variant63. Axes from the large, unpublished Bankert cemetery near Bačka Topola (Topolya) were only listed in a footnote, among the other finds from the site64. After analyzing the very scant available information, the Bankert cemetery may be dated to the Middle and Late Avar Periods (ca 670–800), rather than to the seventh and the first half of the eighth centuries65.

 Vinski 1958, 13, n. 82; Dimitrijević/Kovačević/Vinski 1962, 56; ADAM 2002, 315.  Tomka 2008, 250–252. 47  Vinski 1958, 13; Dimitrijević/Kovačević/Vinski 1962, 57. 48  ADAM 2002, 43. 49  Vinski 1958, 13; T. VI; Dimitrijević/Kovačević/Vinski 1962, 56–57, Sl. 2, 3, T. XI/2, 50  Zábojník 1991, 233, 235, 248, Taf. 20/1–4, 15, 21/1,2 Abb. 1. 51  Vinski 1958, 13, T. VI; Dimitrijević/Kovačević/Vinski 1962, 56, Sl. 1. 52  Bóna 1970, 262, Figs. 12, 13, 16. 53  Dimitrijević/Kovačević/Vinski 1962, 56, T. XI/1; cf. Vinski 1958, 17, T. XVII/1–4; Garam 2001, Taf. 137. 54  Csallány 1933, Taf. II/2. 55  Vinski 1958, 13, T. V/18–23, Sl. 6; Dimitrijević/Kovačević/Vinski 1962, 57, Sl. 6, 7. 56  Garam 1982, 86, 88, Abb. 11; 1992, 161. 57  Vinski 1958, 13, T. VI; Dimitrijević/Kovačević/Vinski 1962, 56–57. 58  Tomka 2008, 251. 59  Dimitrijević/Kovačević/Vinski 1962, 57, T. XI/3. 60  Bugarski 2006a, 170–171, n. 55, Fig. 9. 61  cf. Glad 2009, 115, Cat. no. 61. 62  Dimitrijević/Kovačević/Vinski 1962, 57, Sl. 4. 63  Szücsi 2014, 147. 64  Mrkobrad 1980, n. 581. 65  cf. ADAM 2002, 29. 45 46

134

I va n B u g a r s k i

Fig. 5 – Selenča, a selection of grave finds, after Vinski 1958, Dimitrijević/Kovačavić/Vinski 1962, Bugarski 2006a (no scale).

The find from Mandjelos (Nagyolaszi) is of a later date. The axe was found in grave 6 of this Late Avar cemetery (Fig. 6), in a context which also produced the belt pieces matching Zábojník’s types from the SS III phase66. Thus, grave 6 can be dated between the years 750 and 780. This L-shaped battle axe is 11 cm long67. It is not without analogous finds from Avar contexts68. From an accidentally uncovered warrior’s grave at the Janda locality in Stari Slankamen (Szalánkemén), also in the Srem Region, came a heavily corroded battle axe, 11.7 cm long, accompanied by characteristic Late Avar belt elements69, which on the basis of reference seriation can be dated to the second half, if not to the last quarter of the eighth century70. This axe is not illustrated.  Zábojník 1991, 239, 240, Taf. 18/4, 5, 23/6, 27/11, Abb. 1.  Tadin 1995, 262, T. VIII/7, III/19. 68  e.g. Zábojník 2004, Obr. 18/2; see footnotes 7 and 8 above. 69  Dimitrijević/Kovačević/Vinski 1962, 90, Sl. 1–3; Kovačević 1973, 53; ADAM 2002, 329. 70  Zábojník 1991, 239–242, 248, Taf. 24/13, 17, 27/2, 30/14, Abb. 1. 66 67

Axe, Battle Axes and Battle Knives from Avar-Time Graves in Vojvodina

135

Fig. 6 – Mandjelos, grave 6, after Tadin 1995 (no scale).

Three Late Avar graves were found by chance in near-by Zemun Polje (Zimony), in the periphery of a multi-layered site in the location of Roman mutatio Altina. Two graves were female, and the third was of a wealthy male wearing gilded belt garniture of Mediterranean origin71, whose pieces can be attributed to types of the SS III phase of Zábojník’s typology.72 Despite previous suggestions73, the grave can be dated to 750–780. The same burial produced two beads as well, and a 15.5 cm long battle axe, (Fig. 7)74 belonging to the 2a-I-II type of Frigyes Szücsi75. Two axes cannot be dated narrowly. The first find came from grave 90 at the Žuta Jama cemetery in Mali Idjoš (Kishegyes). This 16 cm long axe with a 4 cm wide cutting edge was listed in an old account by Kálmán Gubitza76, and attributed to the 2-H-I type of Szücsi’s classification77, but the grave itself is not dated more precisely. The cemetery can be dated to between the end of the sixth and the end of the eighth centuries78. From the Telečka site in Kula there is an accidental find from 1954, when brick factory workers apparently ruined several graves. From one of them a pair of golden Szent-Endre type earrings and a skull were collected, and some two meters from this grave an axe was found. Another interesting finding was a Bronze Age ceramic vessel79. The Szent-Endre type earrings are dated to the last quarter of the sixth and especially to the first half of the seventh century80, or to its opening two thirds,81 but it cannot be claimed that the axe too came from the Early Avar Period.  Dimitrijević 1966, 53–55, T. I–V.  Zábojník 1991, 239, 240, 248, Taf. 22/15, 21, 27/3–13, 31/6, Abb. 1. 73  Kovačević 1973, 53; Mrkobrad 1980, n. 578; ADAM 2002, 431. 74  Dimitrijević 1966, 55, T. VI/1. 75  Szücsi 2014, 165. 76  Gubitza 1911, 128–129. 77  Szücsi 2014, 155. 78  cf. Vinski 1958, 14; Mrkobrad 1980, n. 511; ADAM 2002, 232–233. 79  Velenrajter 1955, 65. 80  Ormándy 1995, 152–153, Abb. 1/1–3; 8. 81  Balogh 2014, 144. 71 72

136

I va n B u g a r s k i

Lastly, two more finds from Vojvodina are mentioned in Szücsi’s lists, but these are not axes. The 29 cm long object from the Middle Avar cemetery Bogojevo I (Gombos)82 was labeled as an axe only with caution83, and in the first publication it was described as a csákány (pick)84. And a tool from the Ciglana Polet cemetery in Vrbas (Verbász)85 was attributed to the group of “double hammer axes”86. Yet such findings do not have cutting edges, and therefore it is semantically incorrect to label them as axes. Moreover, those Avar-time hammers were recently described as goldsmiths’ tools87, perhaps vom römischen Typ88.

Fig. 7 – Zemun Polje, grave finds, after Dimitrijević 1966 (no scale).

The Battle Knives We have noted some difficulties, if not inconsistencies, in distinguishing between the knives and the battle knives. If we stick to the common 20 cm blade length criterion, there are only four battle knives from Avar-time graves in Vojvodina to be discussed in our survey. To be sure, there are a further couple of ca 20 cm long knives, but that would be the full length of a knife (including tang), not of its blade only89. Following Heinrich Härke, such objects may be labeled as large knives, “because they are too small to be real weapons, and in order to avoid confusion with short seaxes, [...] although borderline cases obviously exist (as they would with virtually any other subdivision of blade sizes)”90. The first battle knife to be presented here comes from the Mokrin (Homokrév) cemetery in northern Banat. Horseman’s grave 62 was rich in finds (Fig. 8). Among the variety of corroded iron objects there were parts of horse riding equipment, including stirrups. The objects serving this purpose were made out of bone as well. There were several three-winged arrowheads, and two iron knives, one of them 25.3 cm long, with partly preserved bronze sheet sheath91.  Vinski 1958, 14; Dimitrijević/Kovačević/Vinski 1962, 39; ADAM 2002, 62.  Szücsi 2012, Fig. 5; 2014, 152. 84  Cziráky 1900, 263. 85  Nagy 1971, 208, T. XXIII/9. 86  Szücsi 2014, 155; cf. Szücsi 2012, Fig. 3/8. 87  Bálint 2010, 150, Pl. 19. 88  Rácz 2014, 114, Taf. 73/3, 74/2–4. 89  Nadj 1959, 56, 67, T. II/13; Bunardžić 1985, Cat. no. 293, Fig. 28/4. 90  Härke 1989, 145. 91  Ranisavljev 2007, 22, 53, T. XXII–XXIV. 82 83

Axe, Battle Axes and Battle Knives from Avar-Time Graves in Vojvodina

137

Fig. 8 – Mokrin, grave 62, a selection of finds, after Ranisavljev 2007 (no scale).

The most characteristic find from grave 62 is the silver sheet strap-end, attributable to the seriation types from both FS and MS phases, that is up to the years 650 and 70092. At Tiszafüred, similar strap-ends are dated up to 670/68093. In his cited monograph, Aleksandar Ranisavljev dated the Mokrin cemetery up to the year 632, when the Kutrigurs, having been defeated by the Avars, left the Carpatian Basin94, but in a review of this book it was noted that some finds belong to a later date within the seventh century, up to 670/68095 or even a little later. From a grave at the Pionirska Street site in Bečej (Óbecse) there is another battle knife. It is 22 cm long, and traces of cloth and wood are preserved by corrosion (Fig. 9). Apart from a fragmented bronze link, only a small (5.2 cm) iron knife was collected from this ruined grave. Yet, judging by the position of the grave at this cemetery, where Avar graves of different dates are distributed in spatially distinct zones, it might well be presumed that grave 15 was from the earlier group of burials96. The third battle knife comes from horseman’s grave 94 at the Vojka cemetery in the Srem Region97. The bronze sheet strap-end from this grave can be assigned to the MS II seriation phase (675–700)98, and the small cast bronze buckle with a pair of narrow sheet fittings matches the finds Fig. 9 – Bečej, grave 15, after from a Middle Avar grave at the Perlek site in Bečej99 and from Nové Zámky Mikić-Antonić 2012 (no scale).  Zábojník 1991, 233, 235, 248, Taf. 1/3, 4/7, Abb. 1.  Garam 1995, 188, Abb. 91/1–3, 6. 94  Ranisavljev 2007, 63. 95  Bugarski 2009b. 96  Mikić-Antonić 2012, 14, 113, Sl. 54, T. VII/15–1, Plan 1. 97  Bugarski 2006b, 382, 387, T. XXIX, XXX/94. 98  Zábojník 1991, 235,T. 4/8–13. 99  Mikić-Antonić 2003, 132–133, Sl. 7. 92 93

138

I va n B u g a r s k i

cemetery100. The 1.01 m long sword is not preserved, but the eliptic bronze sheet pommel fitting101 is, resembling the find from the Kölked-Feketekapu B cemetery102. A total of six reflex bow bone plates come from this grave, along with three three-winged arrowheads. Quiver bone plates were found as well103, analogous to the find from a horseman’s grave at Solymár104. The grave also produced a pair of highly corroded stirrups, not of the earliest types in Avar use, and the horse harness was decorated with gilded and round bronze sheet fittings, none of them preserved105. The battle knife was found under the right femur of the skeleton. It is 32.5 cm long, and thanks to corrosion traces of the wooden sheath are preserved, as well as six rivets once fixing the grip (Fig. 10)106.

Fig. 10 – Vojka, grave 94, after Bugarski 2006b (no scale).

 Čilinská 1966, 41,T.XXXVIII/196–1.  Bugarski 2006b, 413–414, T. XXX/94–3. 102  Kiss 2001, 94–95,Taf. 64. 103  Bugarski 2006b, 411–413, T. XXX/94–1, 2, 5, 8–13. 104  Török 1994, Taf. IX/12. 105  Bugarski 2006b, 415, 420, T. XXIX/94–1, 5. 106  Bugarski 2006b, 365, 414, T. XXIX/94–6. 100 101

Axe, Battle Axes and Battle Knives from Avar-Time Graves in Vojvodina

139

From an accidentally found grave in Apatin, the Dunavska Street site, comes another battle knife. This heavily corroded and ’arch-like curved’ weapon is 24.5 cm in length. Unlike the 88 cm long sword (sabre?), the battle knife is not illustrated107. Even if the description of the artefact is not clear enough, its dimensions suggest that the authors were right to label it as a battle knife. This warrior’s grave also produced a three-winged arrowhead. On the basis of the characteristic cast bronze belt elements – the strap-end, the buckle and the belt-fitting108 – the grave can safely be dated to Zábojník’s SS II phase (720–750)109.

Discussion and Conclusions Some ten axes from the south of the Avar Khaganate were processed in our survey. The largest find is from Lovćenac, 25 cm long, while the rest of the axes are between 11 and 13 cm in length; only the finds from Zemun Polje and Mali Idjoš are 15 and 16 cm long respectively. Similarly shaped axes from Byzantine contexts, as large as the Lovćenac one, are commonly described as tools110, and the axes in Avar graves are usually seen as weapons111. In his monograph on Early Mediaeval Bulgarian weaponry, Valery Iotov grouped morphologically similar axes of both sizes to his type 7, variants A-C, stating that these tenth- and eleventh-century objects might have been used as both tools and weapons112. The same was believed for Early Mediaeval axes from Croatia. However, on the basis of grave assemblages Maja Petrinec thinks that the finds of different dimensions were all tools113. I believe that the size of an axe is crucial for judging its functional use. If we take the size of the objects as the principal criterion for distinguishing, the Lovćenac find was a tool, and the rest of the listed axes were weapons. We can see that their size was standardized, and it has already been breefly suggested that the 11–13 cm long axes in Avar use were in fact battle axes114. It is likely that the same can be said of the 15–16 cm long finds; the burial from Zemun Polje was already described as a warrior’s grave115. In the late eighth century there were many other means of warrior representation at the disposal, but it seems that the single piece of weaponry in this grave testifies that the buried wealthy person, among other social roles, could have been (seen as) a military person as well. Similarly, Frigyes Szücsi stated that the axes with their cutting edges less than 3–4 cm in width were used as weapons116. The size of an object is directly related to its weight. Double-sized axes are much heavier. For example, the 19–24 cm long iron axes from Keszthely-Fenékpuszta are five to six times heavier than the 11–12 cm long ones117. It is obvious that the two classes of axes must have been manipulated in different ways and, consequently, used for different purposes. There are also contextual grounds to opt for this solution. In Lovćenac, the warrior status of the deceased was underscored by grave gifts like spear, sword, and perhaps shield, and along with the axe, another tool was placed in the grave – a sickle. Bearing in mind other interpretations of such finds in Avar graves118, sickles are an important testimony to agricultural activities of a population often described as nomadic119. To put such tools in a grave could mean that the buried person, in this case a warrior, had some control over the agrucultural production as well, or that the society believed that the tools might be of some value to him in the afterlife. On the other hand, the context of grave 108 at Aradac testifies that the smaller finds are battle axes. As mentioned above, the shield, the axe and the arrows were neatly distributed along the grave’s edge. It seems to me that such a display of warrior attributes was not to be disturbed by placing a tool  Dimitrijević/Kovačević/Vinski 1962, 34, Sl. 4.  Dimitrijević/Kovačević/Vinski 1962, 34, Sl. 5–8. 109  Zábojník 1991, 238, Taf. 5/4, 28/8, Taf. 37/3, Abb. 1; cf. Garam 1995, 232–235, Abb. 93–94, 254. 110  e.g. Bavant 1990, 225, Cat. no. 218, Pl. XXXVIII/218; Janković/Janković 1990, 102/15; Špehar 2010, 100, Cat. no. 420, T. XZIV/420. 111  e.g. Kiss 1977. 112  Iotov 2004, 100, T. LII/595–597, 609–610. 113  Petrinec 2009, 180–181, Sl. 83. 114  Bugarski/Ivanišević 2013, 141. 115  Dimitrijević 1966, 53–55; Kovačević 1973, 53. 116  Szücsi 2014, 168. 117  Rupnik 2014, 185, Abb. 3. 118  Slivenska 2004. 119  cf. Daim 2003, 484; Bugarski 2009a, 138–139. 107 108

140

I va n B u g a r s k i

in the middle of it. So, the axes were not put in graves because of the power of iron in itself120, but chiefly as weapons. In heavily militarized societies such as the Avars’, the symbolic value of a weapon was surely more appreciated than that of a tool. This was particularly so in the case of childrens’ burials. It was suggested recently that the symbolic power of grave-goods increases in cases where the age of the deceased does not correspond to the status value of the objects deposited in their graves121. Therefore, the single find of a battle-axe in childrens’ burials may have served as a symbol of the projected future status of a soldier122. This interpretation of the axe finds is supported not only by the graves of Avar youth123, but by the ninth-tenth centuries record from present-day Czech Republic as well124. Furthermore, children were buried as if they were warriors in the cemeteries of the sixth-seventh centuries Upper-Ob’ culture in Siberia125 and in Anglo-Saxon cemeteries126. Grave 108 at Aradac is important for yet another reason: by all appearances, it was a Germanic burial of an early date, earlier than the rest of the contexts processed here. The battle axes were in more frequent Avar use only from the Middle Avar Period onwards127, and our record from the southern part of the Khaganate follows the same statistical trend. More precisely, from the Early to the Middle Avar Period the number of axes was on the increase (ca 22% of them), while the remaining majority of the finds date from the Late Avar Period. The earliest specimens cluster in Transdanubia – but even there in small numbers128 – and from the Middle Avar Period the battle axes occur east of the Danube as well129. In that respect, one may raise the question whether the battle axes were introduced to the Avars by their Germanic subjects. The conclusion of Gergely Csiky is that even the Transdanubian Avars did not undergo significant influences from the Germanic, Merovingian world in the sphere of weaponry130. As opposed to the record from Italy, axes are very rare in Lombard cemeteries in present-day Western Hungary131, and in Gepidic cemeteries in the Tisza Region there were no finds of this kind132. As already mentioned, the battle axes were not among the most famous Avar weapons, but even if the latest list by Frigyes Szücsi was not complete, a total of 441 axes from Avar-time graves were presented133. Out of this number, 65% of the finds came from graves of adult males, and the rest from those of the old and the young134. For comparison, the total of 672 cutting weapons (seaxes, swords, and sabres) and 578 spears were listed by Gergely Csiky. Unlike in the case of axes, in the course of time from the Early to the Late Avar Period their number was decreasing135. Some ten years ago Raimar Kory listed the remains of lamellar armours from around 130 Avar burials, 40 each male and female and 15 childrens’136. The finds of armour plates were vaguely seen as a reflection of Asian traditions137; in male graves they could symbolically represent the profession of the deceased138, and in graves of women and children they perhaps had a certain apotropaic value attached to them139. As armour plates were more common in Avar graves than helmets or shields, one can only conclude that the offensive weapons were in much more frequent use than the defensive ones.  Kovačević 1977, 199.  Bugarski et al. 2013, 296–298. 122  Bugarski et al. 2013, 297. 123  e.g. Daim 1987, 233, Taf. 44/B–52, 45/A–52; Garam 1995, 10–158, 345, 388. 124  Profantová 2005, 323–325, Abb. 4. 125  Borodovskij 2001. 126  Stoodley 2000. 127  Garam 1995, 345, 349, Abb. 208/4; . 128  Csiky 2011, 16–22. 129  Szücsi 2012, 136–137. 130  Csiky 2011, 23. 131  Bóna/Horváth 2009, 184. 132  cf. Bóna/Nagy 2002; Cseh et al. 2005. 133  Szücsi 2014. 134  Szücsi 2012, 136–137. 135  Csiky 2011, 14–15, n. 36. 136  Kory 2004; cf. Bugarski 2006a. 137  Bóna 1979, 30. 138  Zábojník 2004, 45, 47. 139  Kovačević 1977, 115–116. 120 121

Axe, Battle Axes and Battle Knives from Avar-Time Graves in Vojvodina

141

Thus, the number of battle axes in male Avar-time graves is considerably larger than the number of armour plates. It almost approaches the number of spears, and the spears were the most frequent weapon type found in Avar horsemen’s graves140. This can only mean that the battle axes were characteristic Avar weapons; and yet they were somewhat neglected in the literature. It seems to me that there are two main reasons for such a modest status. First, the battle axes of the Avar time do not display distinct typological features, but those widespread in both chronological and territorial terms. Secondly, most of them come from the late seventh century and later on, that is from the time well beyond the scope of written sources. Namely, there are no historical accounts of Avar battle axes141. The other classes of Avar weaponry and horsemen’s equipment are, for example, discussed in the Strategikon, an important source from the final years of the reign of Emperor Maurice referring to the battle style of the Avars142. Or, more precisely, to that of their military elite143. After the early stages of Avar European history, thrusting and throwing weapons decrease in numbers, while the number of the battle axes was on the increase. By all appearances, this coincides with radical changes in political and military reality after the 626 Avar disaster at Constantinople, after which there were no further fierce attacks against Byzantium144, and with the general developments in military tactics and equipment. Just as in the case of axes, size of the objects is the main criterion for distinguishing between the knives and the battle knives. The length of 20 cm and over is usually attributed to the battle knives145, the shortest variant of seaxes. This is mostly in line with the estimation by Heinrich Härke, who thinks that short seaxes are 18 cm or more in blade length146. Suggesting the minimum 20 cm blade length as a parameter, Gergely Csiky clarified and slightly modified this division147. Thus, it is crucial to make a distinction between the full length of a knife, which includes the tang, and the blade length alone148. While the origin of seaxes was long believed to be an Eastern one, their presence in the Khaganate – chiefly in its northern and western fringes – is often explained as Carolingian influence on the Avars. The majority of the finds dates from the late seventh and the eighth centuries149, but, as already mentioned, until recently they were not listed in a comprehensive way. As regards the short seaxes, i.e. the 20–30  cm long battle knives, they are documented in the Eastern Pannonian cemeteries connected to the Merovingian world, and in the cemeteries of the remaining Gepidic population in Transylvania. Their occurrence in these Germanic burials is often combined with the spatha finds. In Avar contexts, such weapons appear during the opening half of the Early Avar period, to be replaced with other types of seaxes later on150. Yet, long knives, labeled as the battle ones, also come from Middle Avar graves at Tiszafüred151. Out of eight short seaxes collected by Csiky, seven are dated to the Early Avar phase; six of them come from the Környe cemetery152. The seventh weapon, a grave find from Budapest, is dated to the Middle Avar Period. According to their blade lengths, two more knives processed by the author may be ascribed to the battle knives. Three such knives were measured, with their blade lengths of 24, 28, and 31.8 cm153. Although small in numbers, our cases show that in the southern part of the Khaganate the battle knives occur in the second half of the Early Avar Period and later on, in the middle and late phases of their domination. Regardless of the dating, the graves producing such finds belong to horsemen and warriors. Just like the knives from present-day Hungary154, they were usually accompanied with swords and bows/arrowheads. On the other hand, two specimens from our record were found in  Csiky 2011, 15–16; cf. Curta 2008, 310–313.  Szücsi 2014, 168–169. 142  Maurice. 143  Kory 2002, 613. 144  Ostrogorski 1998, 118–121. 145  Čilinská 1966, 184; Petrinec 2009, 165. 146  Härke 1989, Table 1. 147  Csiky 2012, 377, n. 32. 148  cf. Härke 1989, 144. 149  cf. Csiky 2012, 373–374. 150  Csiky 2012, 377. 151  Garam 1995, 354. 152  Salamon/Erdélyi 1971. 153  cf. Csiky 2012, 388, 376. 154  cf. Csiky 2012, 387, 388. 140 141

142

I va n B u g a r s k i

horsemen’s graves. With their blades just exceeding 20 cm on average, it appears that the knives listed here were somewhat shorter than those presented by Gergely Csiky. To conclude, it appears that even in the absence of specilaized metallographic studies we can come close to determining the function of the surveyed objects on the basis of their size, and after studying the most telling archaeological contexts in which they occurred. At least in Avar time, small axes were the battle axes, a common but neglected type of weapon in their use, and the largest knives were the battle ones, constituting the least characteristic group of Avar weapons.

References ADAM 2002 J. Szentpeteri (ed.), Archäologische Denkmäler der Awarenzeit in Mitteleuropa. Varia archaeologica Hungarica XIII (Budapest 2002). Akhmedov / Vorontsov 2012 И. Р. Aхмедов, A. М. Воpонцов, Узколезвийные пpоушные топоpы pимского вpемени и эпохи великого пеpеселения наpодов с теpитоpии веpхнего и сpеднего Поочья. A. М. Воpонцов, И. О. Гавpитухин (eds), Лесная и лесостепная зоны восточной Евpопы в эпохи pимских влияний и великого пеpеселения наpодов. Конфеpенция 3 (Тула 2012), 9–54. Bavant 1990 B. Bavant, Les petits objets. B. Bavant, V. Kondić, J.-M. Spieser (eds), Caričin Grad II. Collection de l’École française de Rome 75/2 – Arheološki institut u Beogradu: ‘Caričin grad’ 2 (Belgrade – Rome 1990), 191–257. Bálint 2010 Cs. Bálint, Avar Goldsmiths’ Work from the Perspective of Cultural History. N. Adams, Ch. Entwistle (eds), Intelligible Beauty. Recent research on Byzantine jewellery. British Museum Research Publication Number 178 (London 2010), 146–160. Balogh 2014 Cs. Balogh, Az avar kori gúlacsüngős fülbevalók. Kuny Domokos Múzeum Közleményei 20, 2014, 91–157. Bóna 1970 I. Bóna, Avar lovassír Iváncsáról. Archaeologiai Értesítö 97, 1970, 243–263. Bóna 1979 I. Bóna, A Szegvár – Sápoldali lovassír, adatok a korai avar temetkezési szokásokhoz. Archaeologiai Értesítö 106, 1979, 3–32. Bóna / Nagy 2002 I. Bóna, M. Nagy, Gepidische Gräberfelder am Theissgebiet. Monumenta Germanorum archaeologica Hungariae 1 (Budapest 2002). Bóna / Horváth 2009 I. Bóna, J. B. Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder in West-Ungarn. Monumenta Germanorum archaeologica Hungariae 6 (Budapest 2009). Borodovskij 2001 A. P. Borodovskij, Frühmittelalterliche Prunkbestattungen von Kindern am Oberen Ob’, Sibirien. Eurasia Antiqua 7, 2001, 569–584. Bugarski 2006a I. Bugarski, A Contribution to the Study of Lamellar Armours. Starinar LV/2005, 2006, 161–179. Bugarski 2006b I. Bugarski, Čik i Vojka – Primeri ranosrednjovekovnih nekropola sa teritorije Bačke i Srema [unpubl. MA thesis, Univ. Belgrade 2006]. Bugarski 2009a I. Bugarski, Nekropole iz doba antike i ranog srednjeg veka na lokalitetu Čik. Arheološki institut: Posebna izdanja 46 (Beograd 2009). Bugarski 2009b I. Bugarski, Reviews: Ranisavljev, A.: Ranosrednjovekovna nekropola kod Mokrina (Srpsko arheološko društvo, Povremena izdanja 4) [Ranisavljev, A.: Early Medieval Necropolis near Mokrin] (Serbian Archaeological Society, Occasional editions 4), Beograd / Belgrade 2007, 96 pp. Archaeologia Bulgarica XIII/1, 2009, 119–123. Bugarski / Ivanišević 2013 I. Bugarski, V. Ivanišević, Ranosrednjovekovna ostava gvozdenih predmeta iz Rujkovca i slični nalazi sa područja centralnog Balkana. Starinar LXIII/2013, 131–152.

Axe, Battle Axes and Battle Knives from Avar-Time Graves in Vojvodina

143

Bugarski et al. 2013 I. Bugarski, N. Miladinović-Radmilović, I. Popadić, M. Marjanović, Early Mediaeval Burial at Stubline near Obrenovac: Spatial, Anthropological and Archaeological Analyses of the Southernmost Avar Grave. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica XLVIII, 2013, 285–305. Bunardžić 1985 R. Bunardžić, Čelarevo, Risultati delle ricerche nelle necropoli dell’ alto medioevo, Roma 27. novembre – 2. dicembre 1985 (Novi Sad 1985). Čilinská 1966 Z. Čilinská, Slawisch-awarisches Gräberfeld in Nové Zámky. Archaeologica Slovaca Fontes VII (Bratislava 1966). Csallány 1933 D. Csallány, A Kunszentmártoni avarkori ötvössír (Szentes 1933). Cseh et al. 2005 J. Cseh, E. Istvánovits, E. Lovász, K. Mesterházy, M. Nagy, I. M. Nepper, E. Simonyi, Gepidische Gräberfelder am Theissgebiet II. Monumenta Germanorum archaeologica Hungariae 2 (Budapest 2005). Csiky 2011 G. Csiky, Armament and Society in the Mirror of the Avar Archaelogy, The Transdanubia-Phenomenon Revisited. I. M. Ţiplic (ed.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference Interethnic Relations in Transylvania. Militaria Mediaevalia in Central and South Eastern Europe. Sibiu, October 14th–17th, 2010 (Sibiu 2011) 9–34. Csiky 2012 G. Csiky, Seaxe im awarenzeitlichen Karpatenbecken. T. Vida (ed.), Thesaurus avarorum. Régészeti tanulmányok Garam Éva tiszteletére – Archaeological Studies in Honour of Eva Garam (Budapest 2012) 371–393. Curta 2008 F. Curta, The earliest Avar-age stirrups, or the ‘stirrup controversy’ revisited. F. Curta, R. Kovalev (eds), The Other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans. East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450, Vol. 2 (Leiden – Boston 2008) 297–326. Curta 2013 F. Curta, The Beginning of the Middle Ages in the Balkans. Millenium 10/2013, 145–214. Cziráky 1900 G. Cziráky, Bogojeva (Gombos) régi emlékeiről. Archaeologiai Értesítö XX, 1900, 257–267. Daim 1987 F. Daim, Das awarische Gräberfeld von Leobersdorf, NÖ, Band 1. Denkschriften der philosophisch–historischen Klasse 194 – Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Frühmittelalterforschung 10 – Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren 3 (Wien 1987). Daim 2003 F. Daim, Avars and Avar Archaeology, an introduction. H.-W. Goetz, J. Jarnut, W. Pohl (eds), Regna and Gentes – The Relationship between Late Antique and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World. Transformation of the Roman World 13 (Leiden – Boston 2003), 463–570. Dimitrijević 1966 D. Dimitrijević, Der Fund von Zemun Polje im Lichte der spätawarenzeitlichen Problematik. Archaeologia Iugoslavica VII (1966) 53–76. Dimitrijević 1984 D. Dimitrijević, Sapaja, rimsko i srednjovekovno utvrdjenje na ostrvu kod Stare Palanke. Starinar XXXIII– XXXIV/1982–1983, 1984, 29–62. Dimitrijević / Kovačavić / Vinski 1962 D. Dimitrijević, J. Kovačević, Z. Vinski, Seoba naroda – Arheološki nalazi jugoslovenskog Podunavlja (Zemun 1962). Garam 1982 É. Garam, Rómaikori rézüstök korai Avar sírokban. Archaeologiai Értesítő 109, 1982, 73–88. Garam 1992 É. Garam, Die münzdatierten Gräber der Awarenzeit. F. Daim (ed.), Awarenforschungen 1. Archaeologia Austriaca Monographien 1 – Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren 4 (Wien 1992), 135–250. Garam 1995 É. Garam, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Tiszafüred, Cemeteries of the Avar Period (567— 829) in Hungary, Vol. 3 (Budapest 1995). Garam 2001 É. Garam, Funde byzantinischer Herkunft in der Awarenzeit vom Ende des 6. bis zum Ende des 7. Jahrhunderts, Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 5 (Budapest 2001).

144

I va n B u g a r s k i

Glad 2009 D. Glad, Origine et diffusion de l’équipement défensif corporel en Méditerranée orientale (IVe–VIIIe s.), Contribution à l’étude historique et archéologique des armées antiques et médievales. Archaeological Studies on Late Antiquity and Early Medieval Europe (400–1000A.D.) – BAR S1921 (Oxford 2009). Górecki 2001 J. Górecki, Gród na Ostrowie Lednickim na tle wybranych ośrodków grodowych pierwszej monarchii piastowskiej. Biblioteka Studiów Lednickich VII (Poznań 2001). Gubitza 1911 K. Gubitza, A kishegyesi régibb középkori temető. Archaeologiai Értesítö XXXI, 1911, 122–134. Härke 1989 H. Härke, Knives in Early Saxon Burials: Blade Length and Age at Death. Medieval Archaeology 33, 1989, 144–148. Iotov 2004 В. Йотов, Въоpъжението и снаpяжението от бългаpското сpедновековие VII–XI век (Ваpна 2004). Ivanišević / Kazanski / Mastykova 2006 V. Ivanišević, M. Kazanski, A. Mastykova, Les nécropoles de Viminacium à l´époque des Grandes Migrations, Collège de France – CNRS, Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance: Monographies 22 (Paris 2006). Janković / Janković 1990 M. Janković, Dj. Janković, Sloveni u Jugoslovenskom podunavlju. Muzej grada Beograda: Katalog izložbe 36 (Beograd 1990). Jovanović 1996 A. Jovanović, The Problem of the Location of Lederata. P. Petrović (ed.), Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower Danube. Cahiers des Portes de Fer – Monographies 2 (Belgrade 1996) 15–26. Kirpichnikov 1966 A. Н. Киpпичников, Дpевноpусское оpужие 2. Копья, сулицы, боевые топоpы, булавы, кистени, IX–XIII вв. Apхеология СССР: Свод аpхеологических источников Е1–36 (Москва – Ленингpад) 1966. Kiss 1977 A. Kiss, Avar Cemeteries in County Baranya. Cemeteries of the Avar Period (567— 829) in Hungary, Vol. 2 (Budapest 1977). Kiss 1996 A. Kiss, Das Awarenzeitlich Gepidische Gräberfeld von Kölked-Feketekapu A. Monographien zur Frühgeschichte und Mittelalterarchäologie 2 – Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren 5 (Innsbruck 1996). Kiss 2001 A. Kiss, Das Awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld in Kölked-Feketekapu B. Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 6 (Budapest 2001). Kory 2002 R. Kory, Avar Settlements: A Challenge to Archaeologcal Research. H. C. Güzel, C. C. Oğuz, O. Karatay (eds), The Turks: Volume 1 – Early Ages (Ankara 2002), 607–616. Kory 2004 R. Kory, Schuppen- und Lamellenpanzer. H. Jankuhn et al. (eds), Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 27 (Berlin – New York 2004), 375–403. Kouřil 2005 P. Kouřil, Frühmittelalterliche Kriegergräber mit Flügellanzen und Sporen des Typs Biskupija-Crkvina auf mährischen Nekropolen. P. Kouřil (ed.), Die frühmittelalterliche Elite bei den Völkern des östlichen Mitteleuropas (mit einem speziellen blick auf die großmährische Problematik). Materialen der internationalen Fachkonferenz Mikulčice 25.–26. 5. 2004. Spisy archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 25 (Brno 2005), 67–99. Kovačević 1973 J. Kovačević, Die awarische Militärgrenze in der Umgebung vom Beograd im VIII Jahrhundert. Archaeologia Iugoslavica XIV, 1973, 49–56. Kovačević 1977 J. Kovačević, Avarski kaganat (Beograd 1977). Maurice Mauricii Strategicon, Das Strategikon des Maurikios (eds. G. T. Dennis, trans. E. Gamillscheg). CFHB Series Vindobonensis Bd. 17 (Wien 1981).

Axe, Battle Axes and Battle Knives from Avar-Time Graves in Vojvodina

145

Mikić-Antonić 2003 B. Mikić-Antonić, Perlek – nekropola iz perioda avarske dominacije. R. Bunardžić, Ž. Mikić (eds), Spomenica Jovana Kovačevića (Beograd 2003), 112–142. Mikić-Antonić 2012 B. Mikić-Antonić, Nekropola iz perioda avarske dominacije, Lokalitet Pionirska ulica u Bečeju (Bečej 2012). Mrkobrad 1980 D. Mrkobrad, Arheološki nalazi seobe naroda u Jugoslaviji. Fontes Archaeologiae Iugoslaviae III – Monografije 6 (Beograd 1980). Nadj 1952 B. Nadj, Grobovi iz VI–VII века kod Aradca u Banatu. Rad vojvodjanskih muzeja 1, 1952, 132–134. Nadj 1959 Š. Nadj, Nekropola kod Aradca iz ranog srednjeg veka. Rad vojvodjanskih muzeja 8, 1959, 45–102. Nadj 1973 Š. Nadj, La nécropole de Mečka, Inventaria Archaeologica: corpus des ensembles archeologiques, Jugoslavija, Fascicule 17 (Y159 – Y168) (Beograd – Novi Sad 1973). Nagy 1971 S. Nagy ( = Š. Nadj), Nekropola iz ranog srednjeg veka u Ciglani Polet u Vrbasu. Rad vojvodjanskih muzeja 20, 1971, 187–268. Ormándy 1995 J. Ormándy, Granulációs díszítes Avar kori tárgyakon: Gúla – és lemezgömbcsüngős arany fülbevalók. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Ėvkönyve Studia Archaeologica I, 1995, 151–181. Ostrogorski 1998 G. Ostrogorski, Istorija Vizantije (Beograd 1998). Petrinec 2009 M. Petrinec, Groblja od 8. do 11. stoljeća na području ranosrednjovjekovne hrvatske države. Monumenta medii aevi Croatiae 3 (Split 2009). Profantová 2005 N. Profantová, Die Elite im Spiegel der Kindergräber aus dem 9. und 10. Jahrhundert in Böhmen. P. Kouřil (ed.), Die frühmittelalterliche Elite bei den Völkern des östlichen Mitteleuropas (mit einem speziellen blick auf die großmährische Problematik). Materialen der internationalen Fachkonferenz Mikulčice 25.–26. 5. 2004. Spisy archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 25 (Brno 2005), 313–334. Quast 2012 D. Quast, Einige alte und neue Waffenfunde aus dem frühbyzantinischen Reich. T. Vida (ed.), Thesaurus avarorum. Régészeti tanulmányok Garam Éva tiszteletére – Archaeological Studies in Honour of Eva Garam (Budapest 2012), 351–370. Rácz 2014 Zs. Rácz, Die Goldschmiedegräber der Awarenzeit. Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 116 (Mainz 2014). Ranisavljev 2007 A. Ranisavljev, Ranosrednjovekovna nekropola kod Mokrina. Srpsko arheološko društvo: Povremena izdanja 4 (Beograd 2007). Ricz 1983 P. Ricz, The weapons of Steppe Nomads. Balcanoslavica 10, 1983, 1–15. Rupnik 2014 L. Rupnik, Secures, asciae und dolabrae aus Keszthely-Fenékpuszta. O. Heinrich-Tamáska, P. Straub (eds), Mensch, Siedlung und Landschaft im wechsel der Jahrtausende am Balaton. Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonense 4 (Budapest – Leipzig – Keszthely – Rahden, Westf 2014) 181–204. Salamon / Erdélyi 1971 Á. Salamon, I. Erdélyi, Das völkerwanderungszeitliche Gräberfeld von Környe. Studia Archaeologica V (Budapest 1971). Slivenska 2004 Z. Slivenska, The Sickles in Graves during the Period of Early Middle Ages from the Territory of Slovakia. Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica 8, 2004, 7–11. Somogyi 1997 P. Somogyi, Byzantinische Fundmünzen der Awarenzeit. Monographien zur Frühgeschichte und Mittelalterarchäologie 5 – Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren 8 (Innsbruck 1997). Stoodley 2000 N. Stoodley, From the cradle to the grave: age organization and the early Anglo-Saxon burial rite. World Archaeology 31/3, 2000, 45–72.

146

I va n B u g a r s k i

Szücsi 2012 F. Szücsi, A kora és közép avar kori balták és fokosok. Zs. Petkes (ed.), Hadak útján XX. Népvándorláskor Fiatal Kutatóinak XX. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete, Budapest–Szigethalom, 2010. október 28–30 (Budapest 2012) 121–137. Szücsi 2014 F. Szücsi, Avar kori balták, bárdok, szekercék és fokosok. Baltafélék a 6–8. századi Kárpát-medencében. Alba Regia 42/2013–2014, 2014, 113–186. Špehar 2010 P. Špehar, Materijalna kultura iz ranovizantijskih utvrdjenja u Djerdapu. Cahiers des Portes de Fer – Monographies 7 (Beograd 2010). Tadin 1995 Lj. Tadin, Ranosrednjovekovna nekropola kod Mandjelosa (37). Z. Vapa (ed.), Arheološka istraživanja duž auto puta kroz Srem (Novi Sad 1995), 257–286. Tomka 2008 P. Tomka, Die Lehre der Bestattungsgebräuche. Antaeus 29–30, 2008, 233–263. Török 1994 G. Török, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Solymár. Das awarische Corpus 1 (Debrecen – Budapest 1994). Uenze 1966 S. Uenze, Die Schnalle mit Riemenschlaufe aus dem 6. und 7. Jahrh. Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 31 (1/2), 1966, 142–181. Varsik 1992 V. Varsik, Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen im mittleren und unteren Donauraum im 6. und. 7. Jahrhundert. Slovenská archeológia XL–1, 1992, 77–108. Velenrajter 1955 P. Velenrajter, Zlatne naušnice iz Kule. Zbornik Matice srpske (serija društvenih nauka) 10, 1955, 65–67. Vida 1999 T. Vida, Die Awarenzeitliche Keramik I (6.–7. Jh.). Varia archaeologica Hungarica VIII (Berlin – Budapest 1999). Vida 2008 T. Vida, Conflict and Coexistence: The Local Population of the Carpathian Basin under Avar Rule (Sixth to Seventh Century). F. Curta, R. Kovalev (eds), The Other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans. East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450, Vol. 2 (Leiden – Boston 2008), 13–46. Vinski 1958 Z. Vinski, O nalazima 6. i 7. stoljeća u Jugoslaviji s posebnim obzirom na arheološku ostavštinu iz vremena prvog avarskog kaganata. Opuscula Archaeologica III, 1958, 3–57. Zábojník 1991 J. Zábojník, Seriation von Gürtelbeschlaggarnituren aus dem gebiet der Slowakei und Österreichs (Beitrag zur Chronologie der Zeit des Awarischen Kaganats). Z. Čilinská (ed.), K problematike osídlenia Stredodunajskej oblasti vo včasnom stredoveku (Nitra 1991), 219–323. Zábojník 2004 J. Zábojník, Slovensko a avarský kaganát. Studia Archaeologica et Medievalia VI (Bratislava 2004).

S

axe und andere Waffen westlichen Ursprungs auf dem Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats in Valaliky-Všechsvätých* Jozef Zábojník

Slovenská akadémia vied Archeologický ústav, Akademická 2 949 21 Nitra [email protected]

Zusammenfassung: Auf dem Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats in ValalikyVšechsvätých wurden 200 Gräber freigelegt. Die Nekropole befindet sich auf dem nordöstlichen Rand des Khaganatgebietes. Das Gräberfeld ist birituell, es wurden insgesamt neun Brandgräber untersucht. Es wurde keine Superposition eines Brand- mit einem Skelettgrab festgestellt. Dies ist ein starkes Indiz dafür, dass die Gräber gleichzeitig sind. Auf dem Gräberfeld ist eine niedrige Vertretung von mehreren Arten den Gegenstände (z. B. der Säbel, die sog dreiflügeligen Pfeilspitzen u s. w.), die für die Reiternomaden des Steppenursprungs besonders charakteristich sind. In keinem Grab wurden Reste eines Kompositbogens festgestellt. In zwei Gräbern wurden Saxe und in vier Gräbern Pfeilspitzen mit tordiertem Hals gefunden, was an die starken Verbindungen mit den westlichen Khaganatregionen erinnert. Auf dem Gräberfeld in Valaliky-Všechsvätých hat offensichtlich eine Kommunität mit bedeutendem Anteil des slawischen Elementes seine Toten bestattet. Diese Bevölkerung war in den Machtstrukturen des awarischen Khaganats politisch integriert. Schlüsselwörter: Ostslowakei, die Zeit des Awarischen Khaganats, Gräberfeld, Waffen des westlichen Ursprungs

M

it der Problematik der Waffen, die ihren Ursprung im Westen Europas haben, beschäftigte ich mich vor fast vierzig Jahren im Kontext der Gegenstände westlichen Ursprungs auf den Fundstellen aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats im Karpatenbecken1. Seit der Zeit nahm eine ganze Reihe von neuen Funden zu, bzw. die älteren Funde wurden veröffentlicht. Unter die, die in der höher erwähnten Studie bündig erwähnt waren, gehören auch zwei Saxe aus dem Gräberfeld in Valaliky-Všechsvätých. Binnen kurzer Zeit nach der Veröffentlichung der betreffenden Studie wurden der fachlichen Öffentlichkeit die Resultate der Ausgrabung des Gräberfeldes in ValalikyVšechsvätých in den Jahren 1961–1962 in Form eines Kataloges, ergänzt um weniger qualitätsgerechte Fotografien des Materials2, zugänglich gemacht. Gerade während dieser Etappe der Ausgrabung fand man in zwei Grabkomplexen lange und massive Waffen mit einer Schneide, für die in der Typologie der Hiebwaffen im Gebiet von Westeuropa in dem spätmerowingischen und karolingischen Milieu der Begriff Langsax verwendet wird. Die einschneidige Waffen – Saxe – kamen jedoch im europäischen Milieu schon früher vor, wobei mehrere von ihnen vor allem mit den Hunnen verbunden werden. Aus dem Gebiet der Slowakei sind mir mehrere Exemplare bekannt. Einer von ihnen ist zum Beispiel der Sax aus dem Grab 2 auf dem Gräberfeld Levice, Flur Alsórétek, das in die Völkerwanderungszeit datiert ist3. Zwei Exemplare fand man auch auf der Anhöhe „Hradisko“ im Kataster der Gemeinde Bojná4. Die angeführte Fundstelle ist unter der Bezeichnung „Bojná II“ bekannt, wobei außer den Saxen hier  Die Studie entstand im Rahmen des Grant-Projektes 2/0050/12 der Agentur VEGA.  Zábojník 1978. 2  Pástor 1982. 3  Budinský-Krička 1950, 154.155; Točík 1962, 194 Abb. 7, 2. 4  Turčan 2003, 144 Abb. 2, 1.3. *

1

148

Jozef Zábojník

zahlreiche Denkmäler (vor allem Fibeln) aus der Völkerwanderungszeit5 gefunden wurden. In die Schlussetappe der Völkerwanderungszeit kann der Sax aus einem der Gräber auf dem Gräberfeld der Langobarden in Bratislava, Teil Devínska Nová Ves, Flur Devínske Jazero II6, datiert werden. Aus der Zeit des frühen Mittelalters sind mehrere Fundorte, wo Saxe vorkamen, bekannt. Vertreten sind sie vor allem auf den Gräberfeldern aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats. Aus dem Gebiet der Slowakei sind es Nekropolen Bernolákovo (Grab 53), Bratislava, Teil Čuňovo (Grab 127), Bratislava, Teil Devínska Nová Ves, Flur Tehelňa (Gräber 412, 524, 633, 840 und vielleicht auch Grab 124), Čataj, Flur Zemanské-Gejzove (Gräber 148 und 151), Štúrovo, Flur Vojenské cvičisko (Grab 208) und Želovce (Grab 311). Hinsichtlich der Wichtigkeit der angeführten Komplexe, die relativ bündig veröffentlicht wurden, halte ich für sinnvoll der fachlichen Öffentlichkeit detaillierte Fundumstände beider Saxe aus dem Gräberfeld in Valaliky-Všechsvätých zugänglich zu machen.

Grab 42/61 (Taf. I) Reitergrab, Mann. Grabgrube: in Form eines Rechteckes mit markant gewölbten Seiten, Länge 320 cm, Breite 220 cm, Tiefe 250 cm. Lage des Bestatteten: ausgestreckt auf dem Rücken, mit den oberen Gliedmaßen längst des Körpers. Neben der rechten Hand des Reiters umgekehrt orientiertes Skelett eines Pferdes. Orientierung: Ost–West. Funde und Beilagen: im Raum der Taille des Bestatteten zahlreiche Gürtelbeschläge (1), längst der rechten unteren Gliedmaße eine Hiebwaffe (2), daneben zwei Messer (3), in der Nähe der Beckenknochen drei Pfeilspitzen (4), bei linkem Knie ein Feuerstahl (5), neben ihm wahrscheinlich auch Feuerschlagsteine (6), um den Pferdeschädel zahlreiche dekorative Geschirrbestandteile (7), im Pferdemaul ein Zaumzeug (8), auf beiden Seiten des Pferdebrustkorbes je ein Steigbügel (9), in der Nähe die Sattelschnalle (10), in unmittelbarer Nähe des Pferdeschädels ein kleiner Eimer (11), beim Pferdeschädel auch sieben Knochenspitzen (12), in der Tiefe von 160 cm bei der westlichen Wand der Grabgrube ein Tierschädel (13), von der inneren Seite des rechten Schulterknochens in einer Tiefe von ca. 230 cm Tierknochen (14), durch das linke Unterschenkelbein ein Tierknochen übereinandergelegt (15), weitere Tierknochen beim Schädel des Reiters (16). 1. Gürtelgarnitur aus Bronzeguß: gegossene durchbrochene Hauptriemenzunge, mit einem Lilienmotiv verziert, auf der Zwingenplatte zwei Fortsätze in Form eines Dreiecks, verbunden durch Niete, Länge 75 mm (Taf. II, 1/1); drei gegossene durchbrochene kleine Nebenriemenzungen, mit einem Lilienmotiv verziert, Länge 36 mm (Taf. I, 1/2/1–1/2/3); kleine gegossene Nebenriemenzunge, an der Vorderseite mit einer achterförmigen Ranke verziert, die Rückseite bildet ein Blechteil, Länge 38 mm (Taf. II, 1/3); Schnalle mit einem ovalen Rahmen und Riemenkappe, mit einer blühenden Ranke verziert, Länge 65 mm (Taf. II, 1/4); Schnalle mit einem ovalen Rahmen und zungenförmigen Riemenkappe, mit einer Kreislappenranke verziert, Länge 51 mm (Taf. II, 1/5); fünf gegossene durchbrochene Gürtelbeschläge mit Anhänger (einer ist unvollständig), mit stilisierter Ranke verziert, Höhe 40 mm (Taf. II, 1/6/1–1/6/5); glatter gegossener propellerförmiger Beschlag mit einem dachförmigen Profil, Länge 71 mm (Taf. II, 1/7); drei wappenförmige Lochschützer, mit einer stilisierten Pflanzenverzierung, Länge 22–23 mm (Taf. I, 1/8/1–1/8/3); drei kleine Beschläge, wahrscheinlich der Nebenriemen, in Form eines Ovals, hergestellt aus Perlstab, Länge 18  mm (Taf.  I, 1/9/1–1/9/3); einfacher Riemendurchzug, hergestellt aus dickerem Blech, Länge 27  mm (Taf.  II, 1/10)7. 2. Massive eiserne Hiebwaffe – Sax – mit unmerklich abgesetztem Dorn hat einen gering gebeugten Rücken, der Klingenquerschnitt ist dreieckig, der Dornquerschnitt ist in Form eines Rechteckes, die Gesamtlänge ist 761 mm, Länge der Klinge ist 614 mm, Länge des Dorns ist 147 mm (Taf. III, 2).  Pieta 2007, 173–179 Abb. 3 und 4.  Kraskovská 1968, 209 Abb. 1, 1 7  Anhand der Angaben auf den Säckchen, in denen das Material aus dem Gräberfeld aufbewahrt ist, gehören zum Pferdegeschirr die Beschläge aus Perlstab und die kleine aus Blech gefertigte Riemenzunge. Währenddessen dies im ersten Fall weniger wahrscheinlich ist, der kleine Blechbeschlag könnte Bestandteil des Pferdegeschirrs sein. 5 6

Saxe und andere Waffen westlichen Ursprungs auf dem Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats in Valaliky-Všechsvätých

149

3. Zwei eiserne Messer in Bruchstücken, Länge 184  mm, bzw. 195  mm. Das längere Exemplar kann vielleicht für ein Kampfmesser gehalten werden, da seine Klinge eine Länge von ca. 165 mm hat (Taf. III, 3/1.3/2). 4. Drei Tüllenpfeilspitzen, zwei mit Widerhaken, eine ist vielleicht blattförmig, Länge 47, 84 und 105 mm (Taf. IV, 4/1–4/3). 5. Unvollständiger eiserner leierförmiger Feuerstahl, Länge 77 mm (Taf. IV, 5). 6. Zwei kleine Feuerschlagsteine aus Feuerstein brauner bis grauer Farbe, der kleinere von ihnen ist zum Feuerstahl durch Korrosion gebunden, Maße 10x18 mm, bzw. 17x25 mm (Taf. IV, 6/1.6/2). 7. Dekorative Bestandteile des Pferdegeschirrs: kleine trapezförmige Eisenschnalle, vielleicht von dem Kopfzeugriemen, Maße 22–26  mm (Taf.  IV, 7/1); vier Blechbeschläge in Form eines Rechteckes, mit getriebener Verzierung, Maße 17x24  mm (Taf.  IV, 7/2/1–7/2/4); hohle gegossene bronzene Rassel mit trapezförmiger Öse, im unteren Teil kreuzförmig angelegte Schlitze, drinnen war wahrscheinlich eine eiserne Murmel, die im unteren Teil zukorrodiert ist, Höhe 30 mm, Durchschnitt 23–25 mm (Taf. V, 7/3); bronzene Riemenzunge, zusammengesetzt aus zwei Blechteilen und eines Randbeschlags in Form des Buchstabens U, hergestellt aus einem Draht rechteckigen Durchschnitts, Länge 41 mm (Taf. IV, 7/4); Fragment einer Eisenphalere mit bronzenem Knopf in Form einer Rosette (Taf. V, 7/5); zwei bronzene schüsselförmige Blechphaleren mit Dreier von Öffnungen für die Niete, einer von ihnen ist an der Oberfläche versilbert?, Durchschnitt 73–75 mm, bzw. 74–77 mm (Taf. V, 7/6/1.7/6/2); kleinere unverzierte schüsselförmige Bronzephalere aus dickerem Blech, Durchschnitt 50 mm (Taf. V, 7/7); 17 Zierbuckel aus Blech in Form von Rosetten, mehrere in Fragmenten, die die Kopfzeugriemen zierten, Durchschnitt 18–20 mm (Taf. VI, 7/8/1–7/8/17). 8. Eisentrense mit Armen, beendet mit einer Öse. In ihr ist ein Ring und eine gerade Seitenstange mit doppelter Öse befestigt, Gesamtlänge der Arme 208  mm, Länge der Seitenstangen 146  mm (Taf. VII, 8). 9. Zwei eiserne Steigbügel. Das größere Exemplar mit abgesetzter trapezförmiger Öse und Armen, die die Form einer Ellipse haben. Das Trittsteg ist erweitert, nach innen gebogen und mit einer Rippe verstärkt, Höhe 178 mm, max. Breite 107 mm. Der zweite Steigbügel hat gerundete schlingenförmige Öse, rundliche Arme und plattgehämmertes, nach innen gebogenes Trittsteg, mit einer Rippe verstärkt, Höhe 143 mm, max. Breite 118 mm (Taf. VII, 9/1.9/2). 10. Unvollständige viereckige eiserne Sattelschnalle, Maße ca. 36x47 mm (Taf. VII, 10). 11. Zahlreiche Eisenbeschläge eines kleinen Eimers. Der Handgriff hat abgerundeten Querschnitt, Attachen sind gerade, mäßig erweitert. Ungleich breite Reifen haben Breite 18 mm, bzw. 25–26 mm (Taf. VI, 11/1–11/4. – Taf. VII, 11/5,11/6. – Taf. VIII, 11/7). 12. Sieben ungleich lange spitzige Knochengegenstände, Länge 121–181  mm (Taf.  VIII, 12/1– 12/3. – Taf. IX, 12/4–12/7). 13. Ein Tier-, angeblich Rindschädel. 14. Tierknochen, angeblich von Geflügel. 15. Tierknochen, angeblich von Pferd. 16. Tierknochen, angeblich von Pferd.

Grab 84/62 (Taf. X) Reitergrab, wahrscheinlich ein Mann. Grabgrube: in Form eines Rechteckes mit markant gewölbter nördlicher Wand, Länge 340 cm, Breite 160–210 cm, Tiefe 180 cm. Lage des Bestatteten: ausgestreckt auf dem Rücken, mit den oberen Gliedmaßen längst des Körpers. Neben der rechten Hand des Reiters umgekehrt orientiertes Skelett eines Pferdes. Orientierung: Ost–West. Funde und Beilagen: Längst des linken Schulterknochens Hiebwaffe (1), zwischen dem rechten Schienbein und dem Pferdeschädel eine Speerspitze (2), längst des rechten Oberschenkelbeins ein Messer (3), auf dem linken Beckenknochen eine Schnalle (4), neben dem rechten Ellenbogenknochen eine Pfeilspitze (5), um den Pferdeschädel dekorative Bestandteile des Pferdegeschirrs (6), im Pferdemaul ein Zaumzeug (7), auf beiden Seiten des Pferdebrustkorbes je ein Steigbügel (8), die Lage

150

Jozef Zábojník

der Sattelschnalle ist nicht festgelegt (9), in unmittelbarer Nähe des Pferdeschädels ein kleiner Eimer (10), neben den Beckenknochen des Pferdes ein Tierschädel (11). 1. Gut erhaltene Hiebwaffe – Sax – mit beiderseitig abgesetztem Dorn und gering gebeugtem Rücken, in oberem Teil der Klinge Reste der sog. Blutrinne mit einer Länge von ca. 145  mm, der Klingenquerschnitt ist dreieckig, der Dornquerschnitt ist in Form eines Rechteckes, die Gesamtlänge ist 764 mm, Länge der Klinge ist 610 mm, Länge des Dorns ist 154 mm (Taf. X, 1). 2. Eiserne Lanzen-/Speerspitze mit engem Blatt, in der Tülle Holzreste, Länge 248  mm, max. Breite der Schneide 20 mm (Taf. XI, 2). 3. Massives eisernes, sog. Kampfmesser mit beiderseitig abgesetztem Dorn, Gesamtlänge 213 mm, Länge der Klinge 185 mm (Taf. XI, 3). 4. Eine wahrscheinlich eiserne rechteckige Schnalle, die zerfiel. 5. Eiserne Pfeilspitze mit Widerhaken und einer Tülle, Länge 83 mm (Taf. XI, 5). 6. Dekorative Bestandteile des Pferdegeschirrs: gegossene glatte Riemenzunge ohne Verzierung, Länge 38 mm (Taf. X, 6/1); gegossene Bronzeschnalle mit Rahmen, in ihm ein Blechplättchen eingelegt, Länge 35 mm (Taf. X, 6/2); zwei unvollständige Blechbeschläge, Länge 22 mm, bzw. 27 mm (Taf.  XII, 6/3/1.6/3/2); zwei bronzene schüsselförmige Blechphaleren mit flachen unverzierten Knöpfen, Durchschnitt 82 mm (Taf. XII, 6/4/1.6/4/2); 12 bronzene, rosettenförmige, vielleicht versilberte Buckeln, die die Kopfzeugriemen zierten, 11 von ihnen mit unbekanntem Stoff ausgefüllt, Durchschnitt 16 mm (Taf. XII, 6/5/1–6/5/12); neun kleine bronzene unverzierte Buckeln, die die Kopfzeugriemen zierten, Durchschnitt 13 mm (Taf. XIII, 6/6/1–6/6/9). 7. Eisentrense mit Armen, beendet mit einer Doppelöse, in der äußeren ist ein Ring, in der inneren ist eine gerade Seitenstange (eine blieb nicht erhalten) mit kantiger Öse, Gesamtlänge der Arme 251 mm, Länge der Seitenstange 142 mm (Taf. XIII, 7). 8. Zwei eiserne, fast identische Steigbügel mit gerundeter schlingenförmiger Öse, gerundeten Armen und flachem Trittsteg, Höhe 140  mm, bzw. 148  mm, max. Breite 110  mm, bzw. 117  mm (Taf. XIII, 8/1.8/2). 9. Eiserne trapezförmige Sattelschnalle mit gerundeter Basis, Maße 36–46x55 mm (Taf. XI, 9). 10. Zahlreiche Eisenbeschläge eines kleinen Eimers, Handgriff eines fast abgerundeten Querschnitts, befestigt in Attachen einer Schwalbenschwanzform. Breite der Reife 26  mm, bzw. 30 mm (Taf. XIV, 10/1–10/10). 11. Tierschädel, angeblich vom Schaf.

Die Saxe Aus dem Gesichtspunkt der Typologie können die beiden Exemplare aus Valaliky-Všechsvätých zu den Langsaxen eingereiht werden. Ihre Funde konzentrieren sich in die westlichen Gebiete des Khaganats8, was eigentlich ganz logisch ist, weil sie mit dem Gebiet, auf dem sie sich üblich befinden, grenzten. Im Wesentlichen überrascht deshalb ihr Vorkommen auf dem Gräberfeld in ValalikyVšechsvätých, das in Košická kotlina (Košice-Becken) liegt, also auf dem Gebiet der nordöstlichen Peripherie des Khaganats. Aus dem territorialen Gesichtspunkt wurde der allernächste Langsax im Grab 77 auf dem Gräberfeld Üllő II9 gefunden. Das befindet sich eigentlich östlich der Donau, jedoch in mäßiger Entfernung in südöstlicher Richtung von Budapest. Das Gräberfeld in Valaliky-Všechsvätých ist von dieser Fundstelle ca. 150 km entfernt. Es bleibt nur in der Ebene der Vermutungen, warum die Langsaxe, also Waffen westlichen Ursprungs, gerade auf solch einer abgelegenen Stelle gefunden wurden. Aus dem Gesichtspunkt der Datierung sind mehrere Fundkomplexe, in denen Langsaxe vorkamen, wichtig. Anhand des zusammenvorgekommenen Gürtelgarnituren können mehrere Komplexe relativ präzise datiert werden. Zu den frühesten Exemplaren gehört wahrscheinlich der Sax aus dem Grab 124 auf dem Gräberfeld Bratislava, Teil Devínska Nová Ves, Flur Tehelňa. Als Bestandteil des Inventars war auch der getriebene Beschlag, hergestellt aus einem Silberblech10. Den Satz kann man in die mittlere Stufe der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats, d. h. in die zweite Hälfte des 7. Jahrhunderts,  Csiky 2012 Abb. 7. Vergleich auch die Karte I.  Sós 1955, 199.214 Taf. LXIV, 13. 10  Eisner 1952, 42 Taf. 32, 3. 8 9

Saxe und andere Waffen westlichen Ursprungs auf dem Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats in Valaliky-Všechsvätých

151

datieren. Das Problem ist, dass der Autor der Publikation selbst11 in gewissem Maß zweifelt, ob die Beilage im Grab auch der genannte Langsax war. Drei Langsaxe aus dem Gräberfeld in Zillingtal datierte F. Daim12 in die mittlere Stufe der Periode. Von ihnen ist vielleicht am besten anhand der sog. „norditalischen“ Garnitur der Sax aus dem Grab D 469 datiert. In die mittlere Stufe der Periode können wahrscheinlich auch weitere Grabeinheiten (Čataj, Grab 148, MS, zweite Hälfte des 7. Jh., bzw. Zwölfaxing, Grab 3, MS/zweite Hälfte des 7. Jh.) eingereiht werden. Die erste Hälfte der Spätstufe repräsentiert die größte Zahl der Grabkomplexe: Bernolákovo, Grab 53, SS I. Bratislava, Teil Čunovo, Grab 127, SS II/2. Viertel des 8. Jh. Grabelsdorf, Einzelgrab, SS I–SS II/1. Hälfte des 8. Jh. Micheldorf, Grab I, SS I–SS II/1. Hälfte des 8. Jh. Münchendorf, Grab 38, SS II/2. Viertel des 8. Jh. Vasasszonyfa, Grab: A (Sammlung Elemér Kund), SS II/um die Mitte des 8. Jh. In die Schlussetappen der Spätstufe können folgende Einheiten eingereiht werden: Valaliky, Teil Všechsvätých, Grab 42/61, SS III–IV/2. Hälfte des 8. Jh. Zalakomár, Grab 144, SS II–III. Aus dem erwähnten geht hervor, dass die Saxe als Waffe im Milieu des awarischen Khagants seit der mittleren Stufe der Periode bis zu seinen Abschlussphasen benutzt wurden. Diese zeitliche Feststellung entspricht im Grund der Datierung der Langsaxe im spätmerowingischen Milieu. In diesem Zusammenhang ist es wichtig sich auch mit dem Ursprung der Saxe auf den Gräberfeldern aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats zu beschäftigen. F. Daim13 hält sie für direkte Importe aus dem Westen. J. Eisner ist einer ähnlichen Meinung, lässt jedoch ihre Herstellung anhand der eingeführten Vorlagen auch in heimischem Milieu, zu14. Wie schon erwähnt wurde, die Funde von Saxen in Gräbern aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats konzentrieren sich im westlichen Teil des Karpatenbeckens und umliegenden Territorien (vor allem Niederösterreich). Aus dem territorialen Gesichtspunkt zeigt sich deshalb ihr Vorkommen auf dem Gräberfeld in Valaliky-Všechsvätých als ziemlich unlogisch. Stellen wir uns eine Frage: kann man eine Interpretation zulassen, im Sinne welcher „Ihre Anwesenheit im Košice-Becken kann man mit den engen Beziehungen dieser Region mit den Gräberfeldern des Devíner Tors interpretieren“15? Welches Territorium bildete also die Brücke zwischen beiden von sich beträchtlich entfernten Gebieten? War das vielleicht das Territorium der Südslowakei? Die Funde von Waffen westlichen Ursprungs auf dem Gräberfeld in Želovce16 könnten für dies der Beleg sein. Unlängst veröffentlichte G. Csiky17 eine wichtige Studie über Saxe aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats im Karpatenbecken. Der Autor präsentiert auch Karten der Verbreitung der Saxe anhand einzelner Arten. Es ist jedoch sehr kompliziert auf ihnen einzelne Fundstellen zu identifizieren, weil wie in den Tabellen, so auch im Katalog sie nicht beziffert sind. Geführt mit dem Bemühen diesen kleinen „Mangel“ in Ordnung zu bringen, lege ich ein Verzeichnis vor, das mit einer bündigen, jedoch übersichtlichen Form eine sofortige Information über einzelne Funde gewährt. Seine Ambition ist auch mehrere Ungenauigkeiten zu beseitigen und fehlende Angaben im Verzeichnis von G. Csiky zu ergänzen. Als Beilage der Fundliste ist auch die Karte vom Karpatenbecken mit den Funden von Saxen aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats (Karte I). Sie ist auf solcher Weise präsentiert, um die Bedeutung von einzelnen Fundorten aus dem Gesichtspunkt der Zahl der Saxe auf einzelnen Fundstellen zu berücksichtigen. Verzeichnis der Saxfunde aus dem Gebiet des Awarischen Khaganats (die Fundstellen sind alphabetisch im Sinne des slowakischen Alphabets geordnet). Die Bestimmung der Saxe nach der Art ist nach G. Csiky (2012, Tabelle 3).  Eisner 1952, 289.  Daim 1998, 101ff. 13  Daim 1998, 108–109. 14  Eisner 1952, 289. 15  Csiky 2012, 384. 16  Zábojník 1978, 195f. 17  Csiky 2012. 11 12

152

Jozef Zábojník

1. Alattyán, Flur „Tulát I“ (Ungarn) Grab: 185 Art:? Datierung: MS/2. Hälfte des 7. Jh. Literatur: Kovrig 1963, 24.140 Anmerkung: Bestimmung ist unsicher, ohne Abbildung, verschollen! 2. Bernolákovo, Flur „Šakoň“ (Slowakei) Grab: 53 Art: Langsax Datierung: Anfang des 8. Jh. Literatur: Kraskovská 1962, 437.453 Taf. XI, 5 3. Bratislava, Teil Čunovo, Flur „Maria Taferl“ (Slowakei) Grab: 127 Art: Langsax Datierung: SS II/2. Viertel des 8. Jh. Literatur: Hampel 1905, 158 Anmerkung: Abbildung auf der Seite 159 4. Bratislava, Teil Devínska Nová Ves, Flur „Teheľňa“ (Slowakei) Grab: 124? Art: Langsax Datierung: MS Literatur: Eisner 1952, 42.289 Abb. 19, 5 Anmerkung: dieses Exemplar ist jedoch fraglich 4. Bratislava, Teil Devínska Nová Ves, Flur „Teheľňa“ (Slowakei) Grab: 412 Art: Langsax Datierung: SS (GCs) Literatur: Eisner 1952, 95.289 Abb. 47, 1 4. Bratislava, Teil Devínska Nová Ves, Flur „Teheľňa“ (Slowakei) Grab: 524 Art: Langsax Datierung: SS II–III Literatur: Eisner 1952, 120.289 Abb. 71, 1 4. Bratislava, Teil Devínska Nová Ves, Flur „Teheľňa“ (Slowakei) Grab: 633 Art:? Datierung: SS II Literatur: Eisner 1952, 139.140.289 Abb. 73, 1 4. Bratislava, Teil Devínska Nová Ves, Flur „Teheľňa“ (Slowakei) Grab: 840

Art: Langsax Datierung: SS (GCs) Literatur: Eisner 1952, 180.289 Abb. 85, 1 5. Bratislava, Teil Záhorská Bystrica, Flur „Lokvy pri Morave“ (Slowakei) Grab: 16 Art: Breitsax Datierung: MS/2. Hälfte des 7. Jh. Literatur: Kraskovská 1972, 13.78 Abb. 12, 1 Anmerkung: sehr fraglich 6. Brunn an der Schneebergbahn, Lage „Intravilán/Hochquellenwasserleitung“ (Österreich) Grab:? Art: Breitsax Datierung: MS Literatur: Daim 1979, 69 Anmerkung: ohne Abbildung, verschollen 6. Brunn an der Schneebergbahn, Lage „Intravilan/Hochquellenwasserleitung“ (Österreich) Grab:? Art: Kurzsax Datierung:? Literatur: Daim 1979, 68.69 Anmerkung: ohne Abbildung, verschollen 7. Budapest XIV-Zugló, Lage „Népstadion“ (Ungarn) Grab: 5 Art: Kurzsax Datierung: MS (GCs) Literatur: Nagy M. 1998a, 109; 1998b, Taf. 84, B5, 2 Anmerkung: die Mehrheit von Gräbern ist in die SS datierbar 8. Csolnok, Flur „Kenderföldekdűlő“ (Ungarn) Grab: 7 Art:? Datierung: FS? Literatur: Erdélyi 1988, 188 9. Čataj, Flur „Zemanské-Gejzove“ (Slowakei) Grab: 148 Art: Breitsax Datierung: MS/2. Hälfte des 7. Jh. Literatur: Hanuliak/Zábojník 1982, 498 Taf. V, 1 9. Čataj, Flur „Zemanské-Gejzove“ (Slowakei) Grab: 151 Art: Langsax

Saxe und andere Waffen westlichen Ursprungs auf dem Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats in Valaliky-Všechsvätých

Datierung: vielleicht MS/2. Hälfte des 7. Jh. Literatur: Hanuliak/Zábojník 1982, 498 Taf. V, 2 Anmerkung: Datierung aufgrund des Belegungsablaufs (Zábojník 1995, Abb. 4) 10. Dormánd, Flur „Hanyipuszta“ (Ungarn) Grab: Einzelfund aus dem Jahr 1957 Art:? Datierung: 7.–8. Jh. Literatur: Szabó 1966, 45 Taf. XIV, 7 Anmerkung: Gesamtdatierung des Gräberfeldes 11. Dunaszek, Flur „Gyula major“ (Ungarn) Grab: Einzelgrab? Art: Langsax Datierung: SS Literatur: Fettich 1943, 7 Taf. XXXVIII, 1 Anmerkung: in der Fachliteratur ist die Fundstelle unter der Bezeichnung „Hédervár“ bekannt 12. Grabelsdorf, Flur „Gracarca“ (Österreich) Grab: Einzelgrab Art: Langsax Datierung: SS I–II, 1. Hälfte des 8. Jh. Literatur: Szameit 1993, 215ff. Abb. 2; 6 Anmerkung: im Grab wurde zwar die „awarische“ Garnitur gefunden, der Fundort befindet sich jedoch in Kärnten, d. h. außerhalb des Khaganatgebietes 13. Győr, Flur „Téglavető dűlő“ (Ungarn) Grab: 71 Art:? Datierung: vielleicht 7. Jh. (JZ) Literatur: Börzsönyi 1902, 20 Abb. auf der Seite 21, 6 Anmerkung: es ist nicht auszuschließen, dass es sich um einen grossen Messer mit abgebrochener Spitze (sog. Kampfmesser mit einer Gesamtlänge von ca. 30 cm) handelt. 13. Győr, Flur „Téglavető dűlő“ (Ungarn) Grab: 469 Art:? Datierung: SS II/um die Mitte des 8. Jh. Literatur: Hampel 1905, 838 Abb. auf der Seite 838, a Anmerkung: vielleicht handelt es sich um einen grossen, sog. Kampfmesser mit einer Gesamtlänge von 33,2 cm 13. Győr, Flur „Téglavető dűlő“ (Ungarn) Grab: 867

153

Art:? Datierung: wahrscheinlich SS I–II (aufgrund der Datierung der Nachbargräber) Literatur: Börzsönyi 1908, 228.229 Abb. auf der Seite 228 Anmerkung: es ist nicht auszuschließen, dass es sich um einen grossen, sog. Kampfmesser mit einer Gesamtlänge von ca. 36,5 cm handelt 14. Jászapáti, Flur „Nagyállás út“ (Ungarn) Grab: 410 Art: Kurzsax? (JZ) Datierung: MS Literatur: Madaras 1994, 96.137 Taf. L, 410, 6 15. Kehidakustyán, Flur „Központi Tsz-major“ (Ungarn) Grab: 10 Art: Breitsax Datierung: MS Literatur: Csiky 2012, 389 16. Kehidakustyán, Flur „Fövenyes“ (Ungarn) Grab: 20 Art: Langsax Datierung: Ende der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats Literatur: Szőke 2004, 372 17. Kisköre, Flur „Halastó“ (Ungarn) Grab 23 Art: Kurzsax? Datierung: 2. Hälfte des 8. Jh. Literatur: Garam 1979, 13 Taf. 29, 1 18. Komárno, Flur „Hadovská cesta“ (Slowakei) Grab: 24 Art: Breitsax Datierung: 2. Hälfte des 8. Jh. Literatur: Čilinská 1982, 361.366 Taf. XVII, 1 19. Komárno, Lage „Lodenica/ Schiffswerft“ (Slowakei) Grab: 78 Art: Breitsax Datierung: letztes Viertel des 8. Jh. Literatur: Trugly 1987, 268.287 Taf. XX, 6 20. Kölked, Flur „Fekete kapu A“ (Ungarn) Grab: A–29 Art: Kurzsax Datierung: FS Literatur: Kiss 1996, 27.233 Taf. 24, A29, 1

154

Jozef Zábojník

20. Kölked, Flur „Fekete kapu A“ (Ungarn) Grab: A–31 Art: Kurzsax Datierung: FS Literatur: Kiss 1996, 27.233 Taf. 24, A31, 2 20. Kölked, Flur „Fekete kapu A“ (Ungarn) Grab: A–39 Art: Kurzsax Datierung: FS Literatur: Kiss 1996, 29.233 Taf. 26, 19 20. Kölked, Flur „Fekete kapu A“ (Ungarn) Grab: A–295 Art:? Datierung: FS Literatur: Kiss 1996, 85.233 Taf. 64, A295, 9 20. Kölked, Flur „Fekete kapu A“ (Ungarn) Grab: A–324 Art: Breitsax Datierung: FS – MS Literatur: Kiss 1996, 91.232 Taf. 68, A324, 12 21. Környe, Flur „Homokbánya/ Gemeindeweide“ (Ungarn) Grab: 18 Art: Kurzsax Datierung: 6. Jh. Literatur: Salamon/Erdélyi 1971, 18.55 Anmerkung: ohne Abbildung 21. Környe, Flur „Homokbánya/ Gemeindeweide“ (Ungarn) Grab: 66 Art: Kurzsax Datierung: 6. Jh. Literatur: Salamon/Erdélyi 1971, 20.55 Taf. 33, 4; XXX, 4 Anmerkung: Fragment 21. Környe, Flur „Homokbánya/ Gemeindeweide“ (Ungarn) Grab: 97 Art: Kurzsax Datierung: 6. Jh. Literatur: Salamon/Erdélyi 1971, 23.55 Taf. 32, 8 Anmerkung: Fragment 21. Környe, Flur „Homokbánya/ Gemeindeweide“ (Ungarn) Grab: Einzelfund Art:?

Datierung: 6. Jh. Literatur: Salamon/Erdélyi 1971, 30.55 Taf. 34, 3 22. Lukácsháza, Flur „Hegyalja dűlő“ (Ungarn) Grab: 15 Art: Langsax Datierung: 8. Jh. Literatur: unpubliziert, freundliche Mitteilung von Gábor Kiss 22. Lukácsháza, Flur „Hegyalja dűlő“ (Ungarn) Grab: 45 Art: Langsax Datierung: 8. Jh. Literatur: unpubliziert, freundliche Mitteilung von Gábor Kiss 22. Lukácsháza, Flur „Hegyalja dűlő“ (Ungarn) Grab: 75 Art: Langsax Datierung: 8. Jh. Literatur: unpubliziert, freundliche Mitteilung von Gábor Kiss 23. Micheldorf, Flur „Schottergrube“ (Österreich) Grab: I Art: Langsax Datierung: 1. Hälfte des 8. Jh. Literatur: Kaschnitz / Abramić 1909, 245.221 Abb. 4, a 24. Mödling, Flur „Goldene Stiege“ (Österreich) Grab: 93 Art:? Datierung: MS (JZ) Literatur: unpubliziert 25. Münchendorf, Flur „Drei Mahden“ (Österreich) Grab: 38 Art: Langsax Datierung: SS II/2. Viertel des 8. Jh. Literatur: Mitscha-Märheim 1941, 32.52 Taf. 17, 10; Bachner 1985, 89.116 Taf. 21, 14 26. Nagyréde, Flur „Ragyogópart“ (Ungarn) Grab: 9 Art: Kurzsax Datierung: 2. Hälfte des 7. Jh. Literatur: Szabó 1969, 40.52 Taf. IX, 1

Saxe und andere Waffen westlichen Ursprungs auf dem Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats in Valaliky-Všechsvätých

27. Noşlac (Rumänien) Grab: unbestimmt Art:? Datierung: 2. Hälfte des 6.–7. Jh. (570–680) Literatur: Rusu 1962, 273.275 Anmerkung: Sax (ohne Abbildung) stammt aus einem der Gräber 6, 17, 21 und 43. Datierung des gesamten Gräberfeldes 27. Noşlac (Rumänien) Grab: 25 Art: Kurzsax Datierung: 2. Hälfte des 6.–7. Jh. (570–680) Literatur: Rusu 1962, 274 Anmerkung: es ist nicht auszuschließen, dass es sich um einen grossen, sog. Kampfmesser mit einer Gesamtlänge von ca. 36 cm handelt. Datierung des gesamten Gräberfeldes 28. Solymár, Flur „Dinnyehegy“ (Ungarn) Grab: 20 Art: Breitsax Datierung: MS Literatur: Török 1994, 10.31 Taf. IX, 1 29. Sommerein am Leithagebirge, Flur „Steinäcker/Rote Kreuzäcker“ (Österreich) Grab: 74A Art: Breitsax Datierung: SS I Literatur: Daim/Lippert 1984, 47.231 Taf. 50, 10 Anmerkung: Datierung aufgrund des Belegungsablaufs (Daim/Lippert 1984, Karte 34) 30. Szekszárd, Flur „Bogyiszlói út“ (Ungarn) Grab: 44 Art: Kurzsax Datierung:? Literatur: Rosner 1999, 44 Taf. 4, 44, 3 Anmerkung: in der Literatur (Rosner 1999, 16) ist erwähnt: „...Eisendolch, zweischneidig...“ 30. Szekszárd, Flur „Bogyiszlói út“ (Ungarn) Grab: 350 Art: Breitsax Datierung: 1. Hälfte des 7. Jh. Literatur: Rosner 1999, 49.129 Taf. 24, 350, 14 Anmerkung: auf einer Stelle (Rosner 1999, 49) ist eine „zweischneidige Klinge“ erwähnt, auf anderer spricht man über ein „einschneidiges Schwert“ (Rosner 1999, 129) 31. Štúrovo, Flur „Vojenské cvičisko“ (Slowakei) Grab: 208

155

Art: Breitsax Datierung: SS III/3. Viertel des 8. Jh. Literatur: Točík 1968, 55 Taf. XLII, 19 Anmerkung: Datierung aufgrund des Belegungsablaufs (Zábojník 1995, Abb. 16) 32. Táp, Flur „Borbapuszta“ (Ungarn) Grab: 50 Art:? Datierung:? Literatur: Csiky 2012, 390 32. Táp, Flur „Borbapuszta“ (Ungarn) Grab: 65 Art:? Datierung:? Literatur: Csiky 2012, 390 33. Üllő II, Flur „Vecsési községhatár“ (Ungarn) Grab: 77 Art: Langsax Datierung: SS I (GCs) Literatur: Sós 1955, 199.214 Taf. LXIV, 13 34. Váchartyán, Flur „Gosztonyi szőlőhegy“ (Ungarn) Grab: 51 Art: unbestimmt Datierung: vielleicht 8. Jh. (JZ) Literatur: Ferenczy 1963, 100 Abb. 14, 2 Anmerkung: Gesamtdatierung des Gräberfeldes 7.–8. Jh. 35. Valalíky, Teil Všechsvätých, Flur „Koscelné“ (Slowakei) Grab: 42/61 Art: Langsax Datierung: SS III–IV/2. Hälfte des 8. Jh. Literatur: unpubliziert 35. Valalíky, Teil Všechsvätých, Flur „Koscelné“ (Slowakei) Grab: 84/62 Art: Langsax Datierung: SS III–IV/2. Hälfte des 8. Jh. Literatur: unpubliziert 36. Vasasszonyfa, Flur „Gyöp“ (Ungarn) Grab: A Art: Langsax Datierung: um die Mitte des 8. Jh. Literatur: unpubliziert, freundliche Mitteilung von Gábor Kiss

156

Jozef Zábojník

36. Vasasszonyfa, Flur „Gyöp“ (Ungarn) Grab: Streufund aus den Jahren 1922–1925 Art: Langsax Datierung: 7.–8. Jh. Literatur: unpubliziert, freundliche Mitteilung von Gábor Kiss

39. Wien XI-Simmering, Flur „Csokorgasse“ (Österreich) Grab: 604 Art: unbestimmt Datierung:? Literatur: Streinz 1977, 524

37. Visonta, Flur „Nagycsapás“ (Ungarn) Grab: 74 Art: Breitsax Datierung:? Literatur: Nagy Á. 1972, 58

40. Wien XXIII-Liesing, Lage „Intravilan“ (Österreich) Grab: XVI Art:? Datierung: MS (JZ) Literatur: Mossler 1975, 83 Taf. III, 13

38. Vösendorf, Flur unbekannt (Österreich) Grab:? Art: Langsax Datierung:? Literatur: Csiky 2012, 390 39. Wien XI-Simmering, Flur „Csokorgasse“ (Österreich) Grab: 404 Art: unbestimmt Datierung:? Literatur: Streinz 1977, 508 39. Wien XI-Simmering, Flur „Csokorgasse“ (Österreich) Grab: 426 Art: unbestimmt Datierung:? Literatur: Streinz 1977, 510 39. Wien XI-Simmering, Flur „Csokorgasse“ (Österreich) Grab: 460 Art: unbestimmt Datierung:? Literatur: Streinz 1977, 513 39. Wien XI-Simmering, Flur „Csokorgasse“ (Österreich) Grab: 480 Art: unbestimmt Datierung:? Literatur: Streinz 1977, 514.515 39. Wien XI-Simmering, Flur „Csokorgasse“ (Österreich) Grab: 514 Art: unbestimmt Datierung:? Literatur: Streinz 1977, 517

41. Zagreb, Lage „Kruge“ (Kroatien) Grab: 4 Art: Breitsax Datierung: SS I Literatur: Csiky 2012, 390; ADAM 2002, 424 Anmerkung: der Sax wurde angeblich in einem Reitergrab gefunden, der Fundort befindet sich jedoch außerhalb des Khaganatgebietes 42. Zalakomár, Flur „Lesvári dűlő“ (Ungarn) Grab: 26A Art: Langsax Datierung: SS III (GCs) Literatur: Csiky 2012, 390 42. Zalakomár, Flur „Lesvári dűlő“ (Ungarn) Grab: 89 Art: Langsax Datierung:? Literatur: Csiky 2012, 390 42. Zalakomár, Flur „Lesvári dűlő“ (Ungarn) Grab: 144 Art: Langsax Datierung: SS II–III (JZ) Literatur: Szőke 2000, Taf. 12; Szőke/Vándor 1983, 72 42. Zalakomár, Flur „Lesvári dűlő“ (Ungarn) Grab: 175 Art: Breitsax Datierung:? Literatur: Csiky 2012, 390 43. Zillingtal, Flur „Unterer Kapellenberg“ (Österreich) Grab: D 372 Art: Langsax Datierung: MS II/4. Viertel des 7. Jh. Literatur: Daim 1998, 101.109 Taf. 8, 1

Saxe und andere Waffen westlichen Ursprungs auf dem Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats in Valaliky-Všechsvätých

43. Zillingtal, Flur „Unterer Kapellenberg“ (Österreich) Grab: D 418 Art: Langsax Datierung: MS/2. Hälfte des 7. Jh. Literatur: Daim 1998, 101f.109 Taf. 11, 1 43. Zillingtal, Flur „Unterer Kapellenberg“ (Österreich) Grab: D 451 Art: Breitsax Datierung: MS/2. Hälfte des 7. Jh. Literatur: Daim 1998, 102.108.109 Taf. 14, 1 43. Zillingtal, Flur „Unterer Kapellenberg“ (Österreich) Grab: D 469 Art: Langsax Datierung: 4. Viertel des 7. Jh.

157

Literatur: Daim 1998, 103.109 Taf. 17, 1 44. Zwölfaxing, Flur „Feldsiedlung“ (Österreich) Grab: 3 Art: Langsax Datierung: 2. Hälfte des 7. Jh. Literatur: Lippert 1969, 126 Taf. 35 44. Zwölfaxing, Flur „Feldsiedlung“ (Österreich) Grab: 223 Art:? Datierung: SS II Literatur: Daim 1977, 105 Taf. 3, 7 45. Želovce, Flur „Fingó“ (Slowakei) Grab: 331 Art: Breitsax Datierung: 2. Hälfte des 7. Jh. Literatur: Čilinská 1973, 24.91 Taf. LII, 29

Abkürzungen: FS – Frühstufe der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats MS – Mittelstufe der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats SS – Spätstufe der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats GCs – Gergely Csiky JZ – Jozef Zábojník

Pfeilspitzen mit tordiertem Hals Als ich mich vor mehr als 40 Jahren mit der Problematik der Gegenstände westlichen Ursprungs beschäftigt habe, für solche habe ich auch die Pfeilspitzen mit tordiertem Hals gehalten. Ihr Vorkommen, ähnlich wie es auch der Fall bei den Saxen ist, konzentriert sich auf die westlichen Gebiete des Khaganats. Östlich der Donau kommen sie nur selten vor. In vier Gräbern des Gräberfeldes18 in Valaliky-Všechsvätých fand man Pfeilspitzen mit tordiertem Hals (Taf. XV, 1–4). Es handelt sich um Exemplare mit Widerhaken und einer Tülle. In allen Fällen waren in den Gräbern Erwachsene, offensichtlich Männer, bestattet. In markant beschädigtem Grab 22/60 wurde auch eine Lanzen- bzw. Speerspitze und gegossene bronzene Gürtelverzierung – sog. Propellerbeschlag, gefunden. Sie ermöglicht die zeitliche Einreihung des Grabes in die Zeit um die Mitte des 8. Jahrhunderts. Das reichste Inventar stammt aus dem Grab 24/60. Dem Reiter gab man in das Grab außer der Pfeilspitze auch einen eisernen Säbel und sein Gürtel wurde mit mehreren gegossenen bronzenen Beschlägen verziert. Die Grabkollektion kann anhand ihn in die dritte Phase der späten Stufe, d. h. in die dritte Viertel des 8. Jahrhunderts datiert werden. Auch wenn wir zulassen würden, dass die Pfeilspitzen mit tordiertem Hals nicht eindeutige Belege der Importe aus dem Westen sind, auf dem Gräberfeld in Valaliky-Všechsvätých dominieren eindeutig die Tüllenpfeilspitzen mit Widerhaken. Es handelt sich also um den Typ, dessen Entwicklung im Milieu des Karpatenbeckens seit der Urzeit verfolgt werden kann. Nicht außergewöhnlich sind auch die blattförmigen Tüllenpfeilspitzen. Auf dem Gräberfeld fand man von ihnen sechs Stücke in fünf Gräbern. Und umgekehrt, in Valaliky-Všechsvätých kamen die sog. „nomadischen“ Pfeilspitzen19 in zwei Gräbern immer je ein Stück, vor. Ich möchte die Hoffnung ausdrücken, dass das Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats in Valaliky-Všechsvätých in naher Zukunft der fachlichen Öffentlichkeit in Form einer Monographie  Gräber 10/60, 12/60, 22/60 und 24/60.  Sog. dreiflügelige Pfeilspitzen

18 19

158

Jozef Zábojník

zugänglich gemacht wird. Auf dieser Stelle möchte ich die vorläufigen Kenntnisse über das Gräberfeld in Form von folgenden Thesen präsentieren: – Das Gräberfeld in Valaliky-Všechsvätých befindet sich auf dem nordöstlichen Rand des Gebietes des Awarischen Khaganats; – Das Gräberfeld ist birituell, dessen Beweis neun Brandgräber sind (davon sind fünf die sog. Gruben- und vier die Urnengräber)20; – In keinem Fall wurde die Superposition eines Brand- mit einem Skelettgrab festgestellt, was starkes Indiz ihrer Gleichzeitigkeit ist; – Kleine Vertretung von mehreren Arten der Gegenstände (z. B. der Säbel, die sog. dreiflügeligen Pfeilspitzen u. s. w.) belegen einen weniger markanten Einfluss des nomadischen Elementes des Steppenursprungs; – In keinem der Gräber des Gräberfeldes wurden Reste eines Kompositbogens festgestellt; – Das Vorkommen von Saxen und Pfeilspitzen mit tordiertem Hals indiziert ein markantes Verbinden der Bevölkerung, die auf dem Gräberfeld in Valaliky-Všechsvätých bestattete, mit den westlichen Gebieten des Khaganats; – Auf dem Gräberfeld in Valaliky-Všechsvätých bestattete offensichtlich eine Kommunität mit markantem Anteil des slawischen Elementes. Diese war politisch in den Machtstrukturen des Khaganats integriert. Übersetzt von Ľubomír Novotný Literaturverzeichnis

Adam 2002 J. Szentpéteri (Hrsg.), Archäologische Denkmäler der Awarenzeit in Mitteleuropa. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica XIII/1 (Budapest 2002). Bachner 1985 M. Bachner, Das awarische Gräberfeld von Münchendorf, Niederösterreich. H. Friesinger / F. Daim (Hrsg.), Die Bayern und ihre Nachbarn II. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Frühmittelalterforschung 9 (Wien 1985), 69–122. Börzsönyi 1902 A. Börzsönyi, Győri temető a régibb középkorból. Archaeologiai Értesítő 22, 1902, 12–24. Börzsönyi 1908 A. Börzsönyi, Győri sírmező a régibb középkorból. Archaeologiai Értesítő 28, 1908, 208–230. Budinský-Krička 1950 V. Budinský-Krička, Prehistorické a ranodejinné nálezy v Leviciach. Archeologické Rozhledy 2, 1950, 153–158. Csiky 2012 G. Csiky, Saxe im awarenzeitlichen Karpatenbecken. T. Vida (Hrsg.), Thesaurus Avarorum. Régészeti tanulmányok Garam Éva tiszteletére. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Éva Garam (Budapest 2012) 371–393. Čilinská 1973 Z. Čilinská, Frühmittelalterliches Gräberfeld in Želovce. Archaeologia Slovaca Catalogi V (Bratislava 1973). Čilinská 1982 Z. Čilinská, Dve pohrebiská z 8.–9. storočia v Komárne. Slovenská Archeológia 30, 1982, 347–393. Daim 1977 F. Daim, Das awarische Gräberfeld von Zwölfaxing. Ergebnise der Grabung 1974. Fundberichte aus Österreich 16, 1977, 95–126. Daim 1979 F. Daim, Awarische Funde aus Wien und Niederösterreich. Mitteiluneg der Anthropologischen Gesselschaft in Wien CIX, 1979, 55–101. Daim 1998 F. Daim, Das awarische Gräberfeld von Zillingtal: sechs Gräber mit „westlichen“ Gegenständen. Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland 100, 1998, 97–135.  Die zweite Etappe der Ausgrabung wurde in den 80er Jahren des vorigen Jahrhunderts realisiert. Noch vor dem Beginn der Forschungsarbeiten wurde auf der untersuchten Fläche mit Hilfe von Schwermechanismen die Oberfläche in eine Tiefe von ca. 40 cm entfernt. Diese Tatsache konnte die Vernichtung von weiteren, flach vertieften Brandgräbern, verursachen.

20

Saxe und andere Waffen westlichen Ursprungs auf dem Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats in Valaliky-Všechsvätých

159

Daim / Lippert 1984 F. Daim, A. Lippert, Das awarische Gräberfeld von Sommerein am Leithagebirge, NÖ. Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren 1 (Wien 1984). Erdélyi 1988 I. Erdélyi, A section of the Csolnok Avar Cemetery. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 40, 1988, 191–206. Ferenczy 1963 L. Ferenczy, A váchartyáni avarkori temető. Archaeologiai Értesítő 90, 1963, 84–107. Fettich 1943 N. Fettich, Győr a népvándorláskorban. E. Lovas (Hrsg.), Győr története a XIII. század közepéig. Régeszeti emlékek III (Győr 1943). Garam 1979 É. Garam, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Kisköre. Fontes Archaeologiae Hungariae (Budapest 1979). Hampel 1905 J. Hampel, Alterthümer des frühen Mittelalters in Ungarn II (Braunschweig 1905). Hanuliak / Zábojník 1982 M. Hanuliak, J. Zábojník, Pohrebisko zo 7.–8. stor. v Čataji, okr. Bratislava-vidiek. Archeologické Rozhledy 34, 1982, 492–503.583–588. Kaschnitz / Abramić 1909 Q. Kaschnitz, M. Abramić, Funde aus der Zeit der Völkerwanderung bei Kirchdorf-Micheldorf (O.-Ö). Jahrbuch für Altertumskunde III, 1909, 214–222. Kovrig 1963 I. Kovrig, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Alattyán. Archaeologia Hungarica XL (Budapest 1963). Kraskovská 1962 Ľ. Kraskovská, Pohrebisko v Bernolákove. Slovenská Archeologia 10, 1962, 425–476. Kraskovská 1968 Ľ. Kraskovská, Hroby z doby sťahovania národov pri Devínskom Jazere. Archeologické Rozhledy 20, 1968, 209–212. Kraskovská 1972 Ľ. Kraskovská, Slovansko-avarské pohrebisko pri Záhorskej Bystrici. Museum Nationalis Slovacum Institutum Archaeologiae Fontes I (Bratislava 1972). Lippert 1969 A. Lippert, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Zwölfaxing in Niederösterreich. Prähistorische Forschungen 7 (Horn / Wien 1969). Madaras 1994 L. Madaras, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Jászapáti. Das awarische Corpus. Avar corpus füzetek. Beihefte II (Debrecen / Budapest 1994). Mitscha-Märheim 1941 H. Mitscha-Märheim, Die frühmittelalterlichen Gräberfunde von Mistelbach, Katzelsdorf, Münchendorf und Schwechat. Niederdonau/Natur und Kultur 8 (Wien / Leipzig 1941). Mossler 1975 G. Mossler, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Wien-Liesing. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesselsachaft in Wien CV, 1975, 79–95. Nagy Á. 1972 Á. Nagy, 123. Visonta–Nagycsapás. Régészeti Füzetek 25, 1972, 58. Nagy M. 1998a M. Nagy, Awarenzeitliche Gräberfelder im Stadtgebiet von Budapest I. Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 2 (Budapest 1998). Nagy M. 1998b M. Nagy, Awarenzeitliche Gräberfelder im Stadtgebiet von Budapest II. Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 2 (Budapest 1998). Pástor 1982 J. Pástor, Slovansko-avarské pohrebisko vo Valalikoch, okr. Košice-vidiek. Historica Carpatica 13, 1982, 305–333. Pieta 2007 K. Pieta, Hradiská Bojná II a Bojná III. Významné sídlo z doby sťahovania národov a opevnenia z 9. storočia. K. Pieta, A. Ruttkay, M. Ruttkay (Hrsg.), Bojná. Hospodárske a politické centrum Nitrianskeho kniežatstva. Wirtschaftliches und politisches Zentrum des Fürstentums von Nitra. Archaeologia Slovaca Monographien. Studia IX (Nitra 2007), 173–190.

160

Jozef Zábojník

Rosner 1999 Gy. Rosner, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld in Szekszárd-Bogyszlói Straße. Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 3 (Budapest 1999). Rusu 1962 M. Rusu, The prefeudal cemetery of Noşlac (VIth–7th centuries). Dacia 6, 1962, 269–292. Salamon / Erdélyi 1971 Á. Salamon, I. Erdélyi, Das völkerwanderungszetliche Gräberfeld von Környe. Studia Archaeologica V (Budapest 1971). Sós 1955 A. Cs. Sós, Le deuxième cimetière avare d’Üllő. Acta Archaeologica Academie Scientiarum Hungaricae VI, 1955, 193–230. Streinz 1977 L. Streinz, Wien 11–Csokorgasse. Fundberichte aus Österreich 16, 1977, 475–531. Szabó 1966 J. Gy. Szabó, Az egri múzeum avarkori emlékanyaga II. Sírleletek Dormánd-Hanyipusztáról. Az Egri Múzeum Évkönyve IV, 1966, 29–69. Szabó 1968 J. Gy. Szabó, Az egri múzeum avarkori emlékanyaga III. Sírleletek Nagyréde-Rogyogópárton. Az Egri Múzeum Évkönyve VI, 1968, 29–67. Szameit 1993 E. Szameit, Das frühmittelalterliche Grab von Grabelsdorf bei St. Kanzian am Klopeinersee, Kärnten. Ein Beitrag zur Datierung awarischer Bronzen im Ostalpenraum. Mit einem Beitrag von Peter Stadler, Wien. Archaeologia Austriaca 77, 1993, 213–242. Szőke 2000 B. M. Szőke, Das archäologische Bild der Slawen in Südwestungarn. R. Bratož (Hrsg.), Slovenija in sosednje dežele med antiko in karolinško dobo. Začetki slovenske etnogeneze. Slowenien und die Nachbarnländern zwischen Antike und karolingischer Epoche. Anfänge der slowenischen Ethnogenese (Ljubljana 2000), 477–505. Szőke 2004 B. M. Szőke, Archäologische Angaben zu den ethnischen Verhältnissen Pannoniens am Anfang der Karolingerzeit. G. Fusek (Hrsg.). Zborník na počesť Dariny Bialekovej (Nitra 2004), 371–382. Szőke / Vándor 1983 B. M. Szőke, L. Vándor, 8.–9. századi birituális temető Zalakomár határában. A. Degre (Hrsg.): Közlemények Zala megye közgyűjteményeinek kutatásaiból 1982–1983. Zalai Gyűjtemény 18. 1982–1983 (Zalaegerszeg 1983), 69–86. Točík 1962 A. Točík, Nové nálezy z doby sťahovania národov na juhozápadnom Slovensku. Študijné zvesti Archeologického ústavu Slovenskej akadémie vied. Nitra 9, 1962, 187–218. Török 1994 Gy. Török, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Solymár. Das awarische Corpus. Avar corpus füzetek. Beihefte I (Debrecen / Budapest 1994). Trugly 1987 A. Trugly, Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des Awarischen Reiches bei der Schiffswerft in Komárno. Slovenská Archeologia 35, 1987, 251–344. Turčan 2003 V. Turčan, Nálezy z doby sťahovania národov z Bojnej. Zborník Slovenského národného múzea. Archeológia. Bratislava 13, 2003, 143–148. Zábojník 1978 J. Zábojník, K výskytu predmetov západného pôvodu na pohrebiskách z obdobia avarskej ríše v Dunajskej kotline. Slovenská Archeologia 26, 1978, 193–214. Zábojník 1995 J. Zábojník, Soziale Problematik des nördlichen und nordwestlichen Randgebietes des Awarischen Kaganats. Slovenská Archeologia 43, 1995, 205–344.

41

25

29

36

22

6 43

24

39 44

16 15

5

42

4

3

2

11

9

13

18

32

19

21

20

30

31 8 28 7 33

34

45

26

1

14

37 17

10

27

³500 m

–b

100 km

³1000 m

–c

Karte I. Verbreitung der Saxen im Karpatenbecken. Die Fundstellen sind qualitativ unterscheiden. a – 1 Stück. – b – 2 Stücke. – c – 3 und mehrere Stücke.

12

23

38

40

35

0

³300 m

–a

Saxe und andere Waffen westlichen Ursprungs auf dem Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats in Valaliky-Všechsvätých

161

Jozef Zábojník

1/9/1

16 1/9/2

14

-250

1/9/3 -180

162

4 10

1

1

9/2

9/1

1 4

3

4

2

1/8/1

6 5

12

15

7

1/8/2

11 8

7

-160

42/61

1/2/1

0

50 cm

1/8/3 0

1/2/2

Taf. I. Grab 42/61 und seine Beigaben.

5 cm

1/2/3

Saxe und andere Waffen westlichen Ursprungs auf dem Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats in Valaliky-Všechsvätých

1/3

1/1

1/7 1/5

42/61

1/10

1/6/1

1/4 0

1/6/2

1/6/3

5 cm

1/6/4

Taf. II. Beigaben aus dem Grab 42/61.

1/6/5

163

164

Jozef Zábojník

3/2 2 3/1

42/61

0

0

a b

5 cm

5 cm

Taf. III. Beigaben aus dem Grab 42/61. 2 Maßstab a.– 3/1.3/2 Maßstab b.

Saxe und andere Waffen westlichen Ursprungs auf dem Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats in Valaliky-Všechsvätých

4/1

4/2 7/1

42/61

4/3

0

5 cm

6/1 6/2

7/4 5

7/2/1

7/2/2

Taf. IV. Beigaben aus dem Grab 42/61.

7/2/3

7/2/4

165

166

Jozef Zábojník

7/7

7/5

7/3

7/6/1

42/61

0

5 cm

7/6/2

Taf. V. Beigaben aus dem Grab 42/61.

Saxe und andere Waffen westlichen Ursprungs auf dem Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats in Valaliky-Všechsvätých

7/8/1

7/8/3

7/8/5

7/8/4

7/8/7

7/8/11

7/8/6

7/8/8

7/8/12

7/8/15

7/8/2

7/8/9

7/8/10

7/8/13

7/8/14

7/8/17

7/8/16

11/2

11/1

11/3 0

0

a b

42/61 11/4

Taf. VI. Beigaben aus dem Grab 42/61. 11/1–11/4 Maßstab a.– sonst Maßstab b.

5 cm

5 cm

167

168

Jozef Zábojník

42/61

0

a b

0

5 cm

5 cm

8

9/1 9/2

11/5

10 11/6

Taf. VII. Beigaben aus dem Grab 42/61. 10 Maßstab b. – sonst Maßstab a.

Saxe und andere Waffen westlichen Ursprungs auf dem Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats in Valaliky-Všechsvätých

11/7

0

0

a b

5 cm

5 cm

42/61

12/1

12/2

Taf. VIII. Beigaben aus dem Grab 42/61. 11/7 Maßstab a.– 12/1–12/3 Maßstab b.

12/3

169

170

Jozef Zábojník

12/4

12/5

42/61

0

5 cm

12/6

12/7

Taf. IX. Beigaben aus dem Grab 42/61.

Saxe und andere Waffen westlichen Ursprungs auf dem Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats in Valaliky-Všechsvätých

1

11

4

5

3 8

-180

-120

2

6 6

10

7 0

50 cm

84/62 1 0

6/1

6/2

0

a

5 cm

b

Taf. X. Grab 84/62 und seine Beigaben. 1 Maßstab a.– 6/1.6/2 Maßstab b.

5 cm

171

172

Jozef Zábojník

5

84/62

0

0

a b

5 cm

2 5 cm

9

3

Taf. XI. Beigaben aus dem Grab 84/62. 2 Maßstab a.– sonst Maßstab b.

Saxe und andere Waffen westlichen Ursprungs auf dem Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats in Valaliky-Všechsvätých

6/3/1

6/3/2

6/5/1

6/5/2

6/5/3

6/5/4

6/5/5

6/5/6

6/5/7

6/5/8

6/5/9

6/5/10

6/5/11

6/5/12

84/62 0

5 cm

Taf. XII. Beigaben aus dem Grab 84/62.

6/4/1

6/4/2

173

174

Jozef Zábojník

6/6/1

6/6/2

6/6/3

6/6/4

6/6/6

6/6/7

6/6/8

6/6/9

0

0

a

6/6/5

84/62

5 cm

b

5 cm

7

8/1

Taf. XIII. Beigaben aus dem Grab 84/62. 7.8/1.8/2 Maßstab a.– sonst Maßstab b.

8/2

Saxe und andere Waffen westlichen Ursprungs auf dem Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganats in Valaliky-Všechsvätých

10/2

10/3

10/1

10/5

10/4

10/6

0

5 cm

10/7

10/8

84/62

10/9 10/10

Taf. XIV. Beigaben aus dem Grab 84/62.

175

176

Jozef Zábojník

2

1

0

3

5 cm

4

Taf. XV. Die Pfeilspitzen mit tordiertem Hals: 1 Grab 10/60. – 2 Grab 12/60. – 3 Grab 22/60. – 4 Grab 24/60.

A

metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms Csiky Gergely

Institute of Archaeology HAS RCH 1014 Budapest Úri utca 49 [email protected]

Abstract: After the classification of Avar-age polearms based on formal attributes such as the shape of the blade, respectively its ratio compared to the socket and manufacturing technique of the latter I became aware of the importance of metrical data compiled and measured in large quantities of spearheads from 7th–8th centuries as a control of my former studies. My intention is a statistical assessment of the available data both on univariate, binary and multivariate levels in order to reveal its patterns, variability, functional differences and maybe manufacturing centres. Keywords: polearms, statistics, metrical data, classification, functional analysis.

Methods – Statistical approaches in the study of measurements After finishing my PhD thesis on Avar-age polearms and edged weapons, one of my opponents Béla Miklós Szőke drew my attention to the fact that I did not fully exploit the possibilites of my metrical data1. During my survey of spearheads I measured various parts of several artefacts such as total length (L), blade-length (bL), blade width (bW), blade thickness (bTh), neck diameter (ND1–2), socket length (SL), outer and inner socket diameter (SD1–2) and socket depth (SDp) (fig. 1). The main sense of these measurements was to observe functional differences: blade width is one of the major factor in distinguishing thrusting lances from wide and flat-bladed spearheads which were attributed with a cutting function2. The inner diameter and depth of the socket shows us how thick the shaft was and how deep it penetrated to the socket, therefore it is useful for describing how stable the spearhead was fixed to the shaft. Metrical data has not been applied frequently for the classification of weapons neither in Hungarian scholarship nor in other countries in the Carpathian Basin. There are some applications of metrical data sets in the publication of Pókaszepetk cemetery, where one attribute for the classification of spearheads was the ratio of blade compared to the socket, however without citing exact metrical data or proportions (blade length/socket length)3. In my doctoral thesis metrical data were used for revealing functional differences (thrusting, cutting and throwing weapons) and partly for creating variants4. The use of metrical data for classification of weapons is more frequently used in the study of Roman period Barbarians: Piotr Kaczanowski analysed spearheads of the Przeworsk culture based on their proportions: total length/socket length, blade width/blade length, length of the tip of the blade/ blade length5. The same methodology using the same proportions was applied to the spearheads of the Roman Imperial era Barbaricum of the Carpathian Basin by Dénes Hullám who used a cluster analysis for evaluating his data set6. In my point of view the deficiency of both approaches was that they used  I am indebted to Béla Miklós Szőke for motivating me to write this paper.  Csiky 2013, 75–76. 3  Sós / Salamon 1995, 69–73. 4  Csiky 2009, 52–79. 5  Kaczanowski 1995. 6  Hullám 2013, 91–128. 1 2

178

C s i ky G e r g e ly

Fig. 1. Measurements on Avar-age polearms.

Fig. 2. Form groups of Avar-age polearms.

relative proportions instead of pure metrical data, therefore the differences in absolute measurements could not be discovered. My approach is only partly similar with the aforementioned studies, since in my view relative proportions are important in classifying artefacts, but some details can only be observed by using pure, unprocessed metrical data. In Hungarian archaeology univariate analysis is often neglected compared to complex multivariate methods like seriation7, although the analysis of single numerical batches provides huge amount of information about the nature of our data8. In my paper my intention is to present my data set first by univariate analyses (minimal and maximal values, mean, median, lower and upper quartile, variance, standard deviation etc.), later using binary methods these data sets will be compared by correlation coefficients and finally using three data sets (see below) a cluster-analysis. Only after these analyses relative proportions (such as blade length/socket length, blade length/blade width, blade width/blade thickness, socket length/socket diameter) will be examined both by uni- and multivariate analyses.

The available data and its potential From the 630 spearheads mentioned in my doctoral thesis and in an upcoming monograph on the topic at least one measurement is available only for 463 specimens. All the available information were compiled to a table (table 1). Total length of spearheads are available in the highest number  Seriation was often used for creating a chronological system based on belt sets, see Stadler 1985; Zábojník 1991; Szalontai 1995, 127–143. 8  Archaeological applications of univariate analyses: Drennan 2009, 3–61. 7

179

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms

(441 cases) since it is the most frequently published measurement, blade width and socket diameter are known in large quantities (282 and 287 cases), while blade and socket length are a bit less-known (249 and 245 cases). The smallest amount of data considers to blade thickness (150), neck diameter (92 and 17), inner diameter of the socket (143) and socket depth (82): most of these data are only measured by the author of this study. The aformentioned overview means that only a part of the data set is suitable for multivariate analysis: 208 spearheads of our data have the following four measurements: blade length, blade width, socket length and outer socket diameter. In what follows I will limit my multivariate cluster analysis only to these four factors. Some words about the limitations of the measurements: all of the artefacts examined are made of ferrous metal, therefore the iron corrosion considerably hinders us in acquiring exact data. Several artefacts are fragmentary, and even in the case of intact specimens the ancient processing (such as chiseling) of these weapons could result in smaller measurements than it used to be right after the artefact’s manufacture. Table 1. ID

site

gr. No.

type L

bL

bW

1

Aiud

I

P.I

28

16

2

25.4

bTh

nD1 nD2

1.5

sL

SD1

12

2

SD2 SDp

EA

period EA

2

Aiud

II

P.I

11.4

1.8

14.1

2.5

3

Aiud

III

P.IV 28

15

2

13

1.7

EA

4

Aiudul de Sus

P.III 23

13

3.2

10

2.4

MA

15

4

8

3

5

Aradac–Mečka

A

P.I

23

6

Aradac–Mečka

1

P.I

20.8

EA

7

Aradac–Mečka

72

P.III 19

9.7

4.3

9.5

3.8

EA

8

Baja–Allaga szőlő

P.I

21.3

10.2

2.7

6.8

2.9

EA

20.4

2.5

EA

9

Band

49

P.I

12

2.4

9

3

EA

10

Band

115

P.III 20.2

8

3

12.6

2

EA

11

Band

142

P.I

34.4

18

3

16.4

3.6

EA

12

Band

159

P.I

38.4

20

4

18.8

3.5

EA

13

Band

179

P.III 26.8

15

4

12

3.5

14

Bernolákovo–Sakoň

23

P.I

16.5

7.5

2.3

8

2.5

2

15

Bernolákovo–Sakoň

34

P.I

25.5

14

1.8

1.4

10

3

2

16

Bernolákovo–Sakoň

53

P.III 28.8

13

2.6

0.8

14.5

2.9

2

17

Bernolákovo–Sakoň

59

P.I

10

2.1

0.7

8.5

2

1.4

18

Bicske–Óbarok

P.III 29.8

22.5

4.6

0.7

7,4

2.4

11

13

3.2

19.5

19

Biharkeresztes–Lencséshát

P.I

24

20

Bočar kod Kikinde

P.I

37

P.I

46.3

21

Bočar kod Kikinde

22

Bóly–Sziebert puszta–A

1

1.6 1.2

1

EA LA 5.8

LA LA

5

LA EA EA EA EA

P.III 20.7

9.5

2.5

1.1

10.5

3

LA

23

Bóly–Sziebert puszta–A

8

P.III 29

15

4.2

1.2

13.4

2.8

EA

24

Bóly–Sziebert puszta–A

20

P.I

27

12

3

1

13.5

2

LA

25

Bóly–Sziebert puszta–A

21

P.I

22

10.5

2

1

26 27

Bóly–Sziebert puszta–A Budakalász–Dunapart

59 19

P.III 21.6 P.I 21.6

13.5 10

4.5

1.5

11.5 6.6

2.7 3

EA MA

10.5

2.5

28

Budakalász–Dunapart

55

P.I

20.5

11

2.4

1

1.7

9

3.1

2.3

9

7.5

2.8

2.2

6.8

EA

6

2.4

2

6

MA

29

Budakalász–Dunapart

68

P.I

17.6

8.5

2.4

0.8

1.5

30

Budakalász–Dunapart

85

P.II

21.1

14

0.9

0.8

0.9

0.8

EA

31

Budakalász–Dunapart

93

P.I

18.6

10

2

0.8

6.5

2

32

Budakalász–Dunapart

200

P.I

24.5

9

2.1

0.8

15.5

2.4

1.9

33

Budakalász–Dunapart

223

P.III 27.8

15

3.7

0.5

7.5

2.9

2.2

34

Budakalász–Dunapart

245

P.III 17.1

6.5

2.8

0.9

8.5

3

35

Budakalász–Dunapart

260

P.III 25.8

16

3.7

0.6

9.5

2.7

2.2

36

Budakalász–Dunapart

281

P.I

27.5

15.5

2.3

0.8

11

2.9

2.3

37

Budakalász–Dunapart

291

P.I

24

14.5

2.2

0.8

8

2.9

38

Budakalász–Dunapart

299

P.I

22.5

11

2.2

1

9.5

3.4

39

Budakalász–Dunapart

341

P.III 24.6

14

4.5

0.5

8.5

2.4

40

Budakalász–Dunapart

432

P.III 28

14

4.4

0.6

13

41

Budakalász–Dunapart

437

P.III 30

18

3.8

0.8

10

1.2

1.2

EA

LA EA 5.7

EA EA

7.2

EA

2.1

8

EA

3

9

EA

2.4

1.9

6.4

EA

2.6

2.2

9.5

EA

EA

EA

180

C s i ky G e r g e ly

42

Budakalász–Dunapart

452

P.IV 22.1

11.5

2.3

0.9

8.5

2.9

2.7

43

Budakalász–Dunapart

468

P.I

10.5

2.2

0.7

7.5

2.8

2.3

6.5

EA

44

Budakalász–Dunapart

480

P.III 31.9

20

3.7

0.6

10.5

2.3

2

9

EA

45

Budakalász–Dunapart

529

P.I

26.5

14

2.5

0.9

1

9

2.8

2.5

7.5

EA

46

Budakalász–Dunapart

540

P.III 28.6

17

4

0.6

1.1

10

2.8

2.3

9

EA

47

Budakalász–Dunapart

551

P.I

24.6

12.5

1.8

0.6

11

2.8

2.3

10.7

EA

48

Budakalász–Dunapart

577

P.I

19.7

11

2.2

0.8

7.5

2.7

2.3

7

EA

49

Budakalász–Dunapart

666

7.6

2.3

1.8

50

Budakalász–Dunapart

670

P.III 26.6

16

4.1

0.7

8.5

2.7

2.5

8.2

EA

51

Budakalász–Dunapart

680

P.I

24.5

13

1.8

0.6

10.5

3.4

2.7

6

EA

19.5

1.5

EA

EA

52

Budakalász–Dunapart

696

P.I

53

Budakalász–Dunapart

705

P.I

21.3

11

2.4

0.5

9.5

2.9

2.6

9

EA EA

54

Budakalász–Dunapart

710

P.I

19.8

9.7

2

0.9

8.7

2.7

2.4

5.5

EA

55

Budakalász–Dunapart

715

P.I

19.1

9

2

0.8

8.4

2.7

2.3

6.4

EA

56

Budakalász–Dunapart

719

P.I

21.6

10

2.2

0.8

9.4

2.7

2.1

57

Budakalász–Dunapart

728

P.I

24

11

2.4

0.6

12

2.8

1.8

9.3

EA

58

Budakalász–Dunapart

832

P.I

27.5

13

3.5

12.5

3.2

2.7

11

EA

59

Budakalász–Dunapart

851

P.I

26.5

13

2.9

11.5

3.4

3

10

EA

60

Budakalász–Dunapart

930

P.I

26.3

13

2.5

0.8

11.5

2.9

2.3

11

EA

61

Budakalász–Dunapart

993

P.I

22.5

11

2.5

0.9

10

3.4

2.8

9

EA

62

Budakalász–Dunapart

1047

P.I

23

11.5

2.3

1

11

3.3

2.6

1

EA

63

Budakalász–Dunapart

1077

P.I

24.4

14

2.4

0.9

8

2.9

2.4

8

EA

64

Budakalász–Dunapart

1096

P.III 20.4

11

3.2

0.7

7.5

2.5

1.9

5

EA

65

Budakalász–Dunapart

1155

P.I

24

13.5

2

0.9

9

3.3

2.6

8

EA

66

Budakalász–Dunapart

1162

P.I

21.5

10

2.2

0.7

10.5

2.7

2.3

11

EA

67

Budakalász–Dunapart

1177

P.I

17.7

8

2

0.4

Budakalász–Dunapart Budakalász–Dunapart

1225 1235

P.I P.I

22 22.7

12.5 12

2.6 2.2

0.8 0.9

2.5 2.3

1.9

68 69

7.5 8.5

8.5

EA EA

0.9

10

2.3

1.9

70

Budakalász–Dunapart

1271

P.III 23.6

14.5

3

0.5

0.8

9.3

1.7

1.8

EA

8.5

EA EA

71

Budakalász–Dunapart

1271

P.III 30.6

18.5

3.2

0.5

0.8

11

1.7

EA

72

Budakalász–Dunapart

1271

P.III 30.3

19

3.5

0.5

0.8

11

1.6

EA

73

Budakalász–Dunapart

1300

P.I

22.1

12.5

2.3

0.8

9.5

2.7

2.3

74

Budakalász–Dunapart

1380

P.I

27.2

15

2.4

11

3

2.4

75

Budakalász–Dunapart

1474

P.III 23.5

12

4

11.5

3

2.4

10

EA

76

Budakalász–Dunapart

1495

P.I

23.7

12

2.4

0.7

10

2.8

2.2

10

EA

77

Budakalász–Dunapart

1506

P.I

20.7

11.5

2

0.6

9

2.9

2.2

9

78

Budapest III. Szentendrei út

P.III 35.5

22

4.1

13.5

2.3

79

Budapest III. Szentendrei út

P.I

20

11

2.2

8

1.7

80

Budapest IV. Káposztásmegyer – Váci országút

P.I

23.1

81

Budapest XXI. Csepel–Háros

5

P.III 19.8

82

Budapest XXI. Csepel–Háros

52

P.II

83

Budapest XXI. Csepel–Háros

55

84

Budapest XXI. Csepel–Háros

73

P.III 23.8

85

Bugyi–Ürbőpuszta

8

P.III 21.4

EA

86

Bugyi–Ürbőpuszta

21

P.III 32

EA

87

Bugyi–Ürbőpuszta

88

Čataj I. Zemanské-Gejzovce

77

P.III 33.8

89

Čataj I. Zemanské-Gejzovce

148

P.I

90

Čataj I. Zemanské-Gejzovce

176

P.III 31.2

P.I

26.2

91

Cicău–Szelistye

3

P.II

92

Cífer–Pác I. Nad mlynom I.

85

P.III 27.3

EA EA

EA EA

1.4

EA EA

10.4

14.5

22

9

4

9.2

0.8 9

11.8

3.5

2.5

0.7

0.9

13.5

10

2 10.5

2.7

2.1

3.2

2.8

EA

2.9

2.4

EA

2.8

2.1

EA

2.8

2.4

1.5

2.6

13

3

23

7.7

9.3

EA

EA LA

3

LA

2.5

LA

2.8

LA

3.4

LA

93

Cikó

109

P.I

40.8

EA

94

Cikó

552

95 96

Cikó Cikó

553 555

P.III 18 20.6 P.I

EA EA

P.III 36.2

23.2

3.4

0.6

12.4

1.9

1.4

EA

97

Cikó

555

P.III 31.4

17.5

3.5

0.8

14

1.9

1.5

EA

98

Csákberény–Orondpuszta

44

P.III 28.2

18

3

0.5

10

1.7

1.3

EA

181

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms 99

Csákberény–Orondpuszta

44

P.III 25

17

3

100 Csákberény–Orondpuszta

44

P.III 20.5

12

3

101 Csákberény–Orondpuszta

78

P.I

22.5

0.4 1.1

8

1.4

1

8

1.6

1.2

2

EA EA

2.7

102 Csákberény–Orondpuszta

84

P.III 29

103 Csákberény–Orondpuszta

84

P.III 21

104 Csákberény–Orondpuszta

89B

P.III 28.7

16

3.3

0.6

105 Csákberény–Orondpuszta

108

P.I

16

10

2.3

0.5

EA EA EA

106 Csákberény–Orondpuszta

119

107 Csákberény–Orondpuszta

141

P.I

22

108 Csákberény–Orondpuszta

147

P.I

19.3

109 Csákberény–Orondpuszta

169

P.I

20.5

110 Csákberény–Orondpuszta

245

111 Csákberény–Orondpuszta

396

P.I

20

11

2.5

112 Csengele-Jójárt

A

P.I

24.7

12.5

2.1

12 1.4

1.4

1

EA

2.5

EA

23

EA 2.3 13

2.2

0.7

2.8

EA

1.8

EA

2.6

2.2

EA

22.5

EA 0.5

1.3 12

2.8

2.6

7.5

EA

2.7

2.2

8

EA

113 Cserkút–Szőlők

P.III 30

114 Cserkút–Szőlők

P.III 28

115 Csolnok/Dág

P.I

26

EA

116 Csolnok/Dág

P.I

26.2

EA

117 Csolnok/Dág

P.I

25.4

118 Dávod-Rétaljai szőlők

P.I

20.4

11

P.I

19.1

11

3.5

9

2.4

119 Dávod-Rétaljai szőlők

EA 4.2

EA

EA 9

2.5

EA

8

120 Devinska Nová Ves

95

P.III 21

0.6

121 Devinska Nová Ves

107

P.I

19

122 Devinska Nová Ves

124

P.I

28

19.5

3

123 Devinska Nová Ves

131

P.I

124 Devinska Nová Ves

132

P.I

28.2

16

2.8

125 Devinska Nová Ves 126 Devinska Nová Ves

147 200

P.I P.V

27 12.5

127 Devinska Nová Ves

234

P.I

27

11

2.3

0.7

128 Devinska Nová Ves

401

P.I

21.5

12

1.3

129 Devinska Nová Ves

414

P.I

32

16

2.3

130 Devinska Nová Ves

416

P.IV 28.6

20

3.4

0.7

131 Devinska Nová Ves

416

P.I

15.5

2.2

132 Devinska Nová Ves

422

P.III 29

19

133 Devinska Nová Ves

453

P.III 23.5

134 Devinska Nová Ves

524

P.IV 51

EA

12

2

1.5

7

LA

8.5

2

1.3

5

LA

8.5

2.1

1.7

12

2.1

1.4

15

2.3

1.9

1.1

9.5

2.3

2

0.7

14

2.4

8,5

1.9

0.9

13.5

2.7

2.1

9.1

LA

2.2

0.8

9.5

1.7

1.3

5

LA

13

2.3

0.9

1.4

1.2

10.5

2.4

1.6

8.5

33

3.7

1.4

1.7

1.4

17

3

1.4

1.1

MA MA

29.6

1.3

MA LA

4.5

1.1

LA 13

LA LA LA LA

LA LA

135 Devinska Nová Ves

559

P.III 36.5

23

3.8

0.4

0.9

13

2.5

2

7

136 Devinska Nová Ves

565

P.I

25

12

2.2

0.7

1.3

13

2.5

2

9

137 Devinska Nová Ves

585

P.I

19.2

11

2.2

0.5

1.3

8

2

138 Devinska Nová Ves

597

P.III 26.7

4

0.5

1.3

2.6

1.9

9

LA

139 Devinska Nová Ves

616

P.III 27

14

3

0.6

14

2.1

1.4

10.3

LA

140 Devinska Nová Ves

765a

P.III 25.3

14

2.5

0.3

11

2.3

1.8

141 Devinska Nová Ves

777

P.III 31.5

14

2.2

0.8

17

2.1

1.5

8.5

142 Devinska Nová Ves

781

P.I

24

12

2.3

0.9

11

3

2.1

9.5

LA

143 Devinska Nová Ves

815

P.I

27.8

17

1.1

1

10

3

2.1

7

LA

144 Devinska Nová Ves

842

P.IV 22.6

12

2.3

0.6

10.5

2

1.4

8

LA

P.I

22.3

14

3.7

8

2.4

2

15.3

145 Devinska Nová Ves 146 Előszállás–Bajcsihegy

20

P.II

147 Előszállás–Bajcsihegy

27

P.III 21.2

148 Előszállás–Bajcsihegy

115

P.I

149 Előszállás–Bajcsihegy

134

P.I

150 Előszállás–Bajcsihegy

142

P.III

151 Előszállás–Bajcsihegy

200

P.III 26.6

1.5

1.3

0.9

LA LA LA

LA LA

LA

2.3

0.8

2.5

14.5

2

0.4

1

6

1.5

17.4

9

1.8

0.5

1.5

8

2.8

2.3

EA

20

9

1.8

0.6

0.7

9.5

3.3

2.8

EA

2.5

2

EA

7,6 11

1.6

1.4

3 28.2 20.5

18 16

2.8 2.8

0.5 0.5

0.9

P.I P.I

9.5

3

154 Gâmbaş

P.III 22

10.3

6.5

10

2.4

9

1.7

155 Gâmbaş

I

P.I

16

7

1.7

156 Gâmbaş

IX

P.I

29.5

10.8

2

EA

9.2

152 Esztergom–Nagyhegy 153 Feketić–Ciglana

11

EA

EA EA EA

1.8

EA EA EA

182

C s i ky G e r g e ly

157 Gâmbaş

IX

P.III 21.7

158 Gâmbaş

XVII

P.I

19.8

159 Gátér

193

P.I

21.3 19.1

9

5

P.II

25.5

15

160 Geoagiu de Sus – Obreji 161 Gyenesdiás

6.9

9.8 11.7

EA 2

EA EA

1.2

10.1

2.8

10.5

2.6

EA 2

MA

162 Gyód–Máriahegy

30

P.III 29

EA

163 Gyód–Máriahegy

38

P.I

EA

23.5

164 Gyód–Máriahegy

59

P.III 27

165 Gyód–Máriahegy

67

P.III 35

166 Heria

P.I

28.8

EA EA 14.5

1.7

14.3

2.2

EA

167 Heria

P.III 30.2

18.5

3

11.7

2.2

EA

168 Heria

P.III 17

9.5

3.2

7.5

2.4

EA

3

LA

2.2

EA

169 Holiare

185

P.III 23

170 Holiare

551

P.I

19.8

P.I

19.2

171 Imrehegy 172 Iváncsa–Szabadság utca 20.

LA 2

P.I

30

173 Káloz–Nagyhörcsökpuszta

2

P.I

20

174 Kehida–TSz-major

2

P.I

45

2

2.6

175 Kehida–TSz-major

20

P.I

27

1

3

EA

176 Kehida–TSz-major

22

P.I

27

2

3

EA

177 Kehida–TSz-major

67

P.I

27

1

3

LA

178 Kiszombor O

5

P.I

27

179 Komárno–3. Váradiho u.

2

P.II

26

12

2.7

1

1.8

8

3.4

2.4

MA

3.4

3

EA EA

EA 11.5

LA

180 Komárno–3. Váradiho u.

8

P.I

27

181 Komárno–3. Váradiho u.

11

P.I

24

LA LA

182 Komárno–3. Váradiho u.

16

P.II

28

183 Komárno–3. Váradiho u. 184 Komárno–8. Lodenica

20 30

P.I P.I

35 25.2

16 15

3 3

LA LA

185 Komárno–8. Lodenica

63

P.I

25.5

12.5

3.3

186 Komárno–8. Lodenica

72

P.I

38

18

187 Komárno–8. Lodenica

85

P.I

188 Komárno–8. Lodenica

85

P.V

15

LA

189 Komárno–8. Lodenica

87

P.II

23.5

LA

190 Komárno–8. Lodenica

101

P.II

50

191 Komárno–8. Lodenica

118

P.II

30

192 Komárno–8. Lodenica

129

P.I

19

193 Komárno–8. Lodenica

130

194 Komárno–8. Lodenica

132

P.III 21

12

3.5

195 Košice–Šebastovce

48

P.IV 23.8

10.5

3.6

0.6

13

2

1.6

196 Košice–Šebastovce

67

P.IV 24.2

14

2.6

0.8

10.2

2.5

2

9.2

LA

197 Košice–Šebastovce

80

P.I

23.5

13

1.4

1

10.5

2.5

2.2

9.8

LA

198 Košice–Šebastovce

86

P.I

32.3

20

1.9

11.5

2.9

2.2

199 Košice–Šebastovce

94

P.IV 19.6

9.5

3

0.5

10

2.5

1.8

9.5

200 Košice–Šebastovce

96

P.I

23.7

13

1.4

1

10.7

2.8

2.4

9.1

201 Košice–Šebastovce

99

P.I

24

1.3

0.5

2.6

1.8

2.8

0.5

13

2.3

LA

2.3

LA

2.8

LA

14

LA

LA 10

2.5

9

2

LA

2.3

LA

8.4

30

LA 2

1.3 1.1

9.2

LA LA

LA LA LA LA

202 Košice–Šebastovce

131

P.III 39

203 Košice–Šebastovce

161

P.II

1.8

LA

204 Košice–Šebastovce

221

P.IV 21.5

11

4.2

0.5

10

3.2

2.1

205 Košice–Šebastovce

225

P.I

26

14.5

2.4

0.5

11

2.5

2

9

LA

206 Košice–Šebastovce

226

P.I

26.2

17.2

2.9

0.5

9.5

1.7

1.5

8.5

LA

207 Košice–Šebastovce

228

P.I

30

14

3.8

0.5

1.6

15

2.7

208 Košice–Šebastovce

232

P.III 33.5

17

3.1

0.5

1.5

16

2.5

2

209 Košice–Šebastovce

238

P.III 27.2

210 Košice–Šebastovce 211 Košice–Šebastovce

254 292

P.II 29.5 P.III 38

15.5 16

4 1.9

0.5 1.5

11.5 11.5

2.5 2.6

2.1 1.9

212 Košice–Šebastovce

293

P.I

213 Košice–Šebastovce

314

214 Košice–Šebastovce

321

14.1

LA

18

4

0.5

11.6

2.5

0.5

P.III 17.1

8.5

2.8

0.4

P.I

9.5

3.8

0.5

23.2 17

1.3

1.3

1

1

LA

LA LA 8 11

LA LA

20

2.5

2

13

LA

11.5

2.6

2.1

8.7

LA

8.5

1.8

1.4

LA

7.5

1.8

1.5

LA

183

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms 215 Košice–Šebastovce

374

P.I

23

LA

216 Košice–Šebastovce

411

P.I

25

LA

217 Košice–Šebastovce

417

P.II

35.5

P.I

23.2

218 Kótaj–Teleki birtok 219 Kölesd 220 Kölked–Feketekapu A

39

LA 12.5

2.3

P.III 20

16

3.2

P.I

15

2

31

2.7 0.3

221 Kölked–Feketekapu A

65

P.III 28.7

14.7

4.4

0.75

222 Kölked–Feketekapu A

142

P.III 33

17.2

4.6

1.2

10.5

4

223 Kölked–Feketekapu A

211

P.I

224 Kölked–Feketekapu A

250

P.III 19.7

20.1

225 Kölked–Feketekapu A

253

P.II

226 Kölked–Feketekapu A

257

P.III 40

1.2 1.9

0.8

5

1.7

16

3.6

12

3.6

14.8

2.9

9

3.3 2.6

227 Kölked–Feketekapu A

259

P.III 31.5

260

P.III 35

21.5 22

275

P.III 36.3

289

P.III 21.5

231 Kölked–Feketekapu A

324

P.I

24.5

232 Kölked–Feketekapu A

375

P.I

23.5

233 Kölked–Feketekapu A

386

P.III 29.5

10.5 1.9

2.3

4.5 5

2

3

EA

3

EA

12.5

3.3

EA

14

3

EA

4.2

4.2

EA

11.5

2.5

3.5

12.5

2.6

11

2.8

EA 2

392

P.III 33.1

3.5

P.I

2

236 Kölked–Feketekapu A

405

P.III 26

16

4.6

1

10

3.1

2

237 Kölked–Feketekapu A

406

P.III 30

19.1

4.6

0.6

10

2.6

2

238 Kölked–Feketekapu A

422

P.II

21.5

EA EA EA MA

239 Kölked–Feketekapu A

471

P.III 19

474

P.III 33.2

241 Kölked–Feketekapu A 242 Kölked–Feketekapu A

480 F

P.I P.I

243 Kölked–Feketekapu B

80

P.III 34.5

244 Kölked–Feketekapu B

82

P.III 26.2

10.2

4

245 Kölked–Feketekapu B

135

P.III 28

19

4.3

0.6

246 Kölked–Feketekapu B

443

P.III 36.5

22.8

4.5

0.9

247 Környe

104

P.III 21

14

3.2

248 Környe

129

P.I

23.5

12

249 Környe

P.III 31.7

250 Környe

P.III 27

251 Környe

P.III 14.2

252 Környe

P.I

253 Környe

P.III 41

254 Kővágószöllős–Tüskési Dűlő

P.IV 19.7

255 Lengyeltóti–Pusztaberény

P.I

18.6

13

2.1

256 Lopadea Noua

P.I

19.5

16

31.8

3 20.5

4

11

2.1 2.6

23.5

5.3

EA 0.7

11 10

2.7

0.8

8

3

2.3

EA

12

3.6

2.2

EA

7

2

12.5

2.5

2

EA

6.5

2.2

1.8

EA

2

11.5

2.6

2.4

21

4.4

10

3

2.3

9.2

17.5

5.5

9.5

3.2

2.5

9.5

1.5

2.6 3.2

1.8

EA EA EA

EA

EA

3.2 2.3

13

3

2.4

EA

3.3

14

3

2.4

EA

5

2

MA

1.9

3.5

1.6

LA

1

8.2

4

EA

1.3

13

2

3.5

P.I

20.2

P.I

26.5

259 Mali Iđoš

70

P.IV 17

6

P.III 50

7

13.5

LA 1.2

LA EA LA

261 Mezőkovácsháza–Agyagbánya

5

4.1

262 Mezőkovácsháza–Agyagbánya

7

P.I

263 Mistelbach–Krankenhaus

A

P.III 48

32

3.9

264 Mór–Akasztódomb

P.IV 17.8

10

2.2

265 Morávský Sv. Ján

P.IV 24.2

17

4

P.III 21.8

13

4.1

2.2

EA

20.1

267 Nagyharsány–Szarkás-dűlő

P.I

P.III 36 P.III 23

270 Oroszlány I.

18

P.I

31.3

271 Pécs–Kertváros

391

P.I

26.5

272 Pécs–Köztemető

4

P.III 33.2

EA EA

27

1

268 Noşlac 16 269 Nové Zámky I. Belohorského Záhrada 369

EA

18

258 Măgina

64

EA

26

240 Kölked–Feketekapu A

266 Nagyharsány–Szarkás-dűlő

EA EA

394

260 Malý Čepčín–Homolka

EA

3.6

234 Kölked–Feketekapu A

24.5 21.2

EA EA EA

235 Kölked–Feketekapu A

257 Lovćenac–Hollinger-ház

EA EA

EA

3.2

228 Kölked–Feketekapu A 229 Kölked–Feketekapu A

1.4

2.6

16.3

230 Kölked–Feketekapu A

EA

EA

21

16 1 0.8 1.5

2.9

2.4

8

1.6

1.3

8.6

2.6

EA

2.3

EA EA

2.8

12.5

2.5

0.7

LA

7

10

2

15

2.6

10.7

2.7

2 20

4.4

EA 3.5

LA

LA 2.2

12.5

EA MA

1.1

EA

184

C s i ky G e r g e ly

273 Pécs–Köztemető

10

P.III 35.5

20.5

4.4

1.4

12.5

2.9

EA

274 Pécs–Köztemető

30

P.III 26.5

14

3.7

1.2

8.8

2.9

EA

275 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

12

P.III 31.1

20

5

0.8

1.5

10

3

EA

276 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

16

P.I

15.5

2

0.9

15

2.5

MA

277 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

35

P.III 29

17.5

5.4

1.7

10

3

EA

278 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

42

P.III 36.5

22

4

1.3

14

2.6

EA

279 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

47

P.III 30.4

19

4.5

1.6

10.2

2.5

280 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

67

P.I

30.7

33.6

EA EA

281 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

76

P.III 32.2

19.3

3.2

0.6

1

9.4

1.7

EA

282 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

76

P.III 31

18.8

3.1

0.6

0.9

10.5

1.6

EA

283 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

82

P.I

33.1

13.8

3

1.4

18.5

2.3

EA

284 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

88

P.III 31.6

19.6

3.8

1

10

1.8

EA

3.8

285 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

88

P.III 26.8

19.6

286 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

88

P.III 23.7

18

1

EA

1

EA

287 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

117

P.III 40.3

288 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

121

P.III 27.8

17.2

4

0.9

1.2

9

2.2

EA

289 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

132

P.III 30.4

16.6

3.1

0.4

1.3

11.5

2.2

EA

290 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

171

P.III 27.6

13

3.4

1.1

12

2.1

EA

291 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

179

P.III 25.6

292 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

180

P.III 33.5

22

4.5

11.2

2.5

EA

15

1.9

20

2.7

293 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

242

P.I

36.2

294 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

332

P.I

37

295 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

360

P.III 28.5

296 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

360

P.III 28.5

EA

EA 0.9

EA EA

17.5

1.4

10.6

2

EA EA

297 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

372

P.I

19

298 Pókaszepetk–Mesterföldek

415

P.I

25.5

10.5

1.8

299 Prigrevica Sv. Ivan 300 Proştea Mare

P.I P.I

17.5 30.6

14

1 1.7

16.6

2.7

LA

301 Proştea Mare

P.III 28

16.5

3

11.5

2.3

LA

3.8

EA

302 Radvaň nad Dunajom–Virt

7

P.I

36

303 Radvaň nad Dunajom–Virt

19

P.II

29.5

304 Radvaň nad Dunajom–Virt

47

P.III 29.7

305 Radvaň nad Dunajom–Virt

62

P.I

306 Radvaň nad Dunajom–Virt

99

P.III 21.8

307 Radvaň nad Dunajom–Žitavská Tôň

10/1956 P.I

31.6

308 Radvaň nad Dunajom–Žitavská Tôň

14/1956 P.I

23.25

309 Radvaň nad Dunajom–Žitavská Tôň

24/1956 P.II

23.8

310 Radvaň nad Dunajom–Žitavská Tôň

26/1956 P.I

19.2

311 Radvaň nad Dunajom–Žitavská Tôň

1

P.I

18

312 Radvaň nad Dunajom–Žitavská Tôň

3

P.III

313 Radvaň nad Dunajom–Žitavská Tôň

6

P.II

314 Radvaň nad Dunajom–Žitavská Tôň

11

P.III 30.3

315 Radvaň nad Dunajom–Žitavská Tôň

33

P.III 22.5

316 Regöly–Kupavár

18

P.I

19.2

317 Regöly–Kupavár

108

EA 1

14.4

3

MA EA

EA 11

20

EA 2.5

EA EA LA

3.1

7.9

LA MA

10 13.5

8.9

LA

2

LA

2.4

MA

26

LA LA 13.5

LA LA

P.V

11.4

318 Sânpetru German

P.I

18.5

319 Selenča

P.I

26

EA

320 Sombor–Kukula téglagyár

P.III 26

EA

321 Sonta 322 Söjtör–Petőfi utca

MA 10.2

1.3

8.3

1.7

26.5 12

P.IV 40.6

EA 30.5

4

323 Söjtör–Petőfi utca

16

P.III 27.5

324 Söjtör–Petőfi utca

24

P.III 37.3

21

5

11

2

325 Stremţ

1

P.I

326 Štúrovo-Vojenské cvišisko 327 Štúrovo-Vojenské cvišisko

5 38

P.II 31 P.III 28

15

328 Štúrovo-Vojenské cvišisko

138

P.II

28

329 Štúrovo-Vojenské cvišisko

154

P.III 25.4

330 Štúrovo-Vojenské cvišisko

157

P.II

31

EA

1.2

3

4

4

1

2

LA

10

2.5

LA

13.7

2.8

LA

4

1.8 2

EA LA

13.3

3.2

LA

17

2.5

LA LA

12

LA

185

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms 331 Štúrovo-Vojenské cvišisko

258

P.III 33.5

332 Szeged–Kundomb

293

P.III 36

333 Szegvár-Oromdűlő

86

P.I

12

2.26 0.7

1.8

1

11

3.13

2.4

334 Szegvár-Oromdűlő

90

P.IV 22

13.7

3.84 1.6

2.2

2

8.28

3.54

2.85 7

23.3

12.5

LA EA

335 Szegvár-Oromdűlő

333

P.III 22.3

13.25

3.26 1.475 2.26 1.688 9.049 2.599

336 Szegvár-Oromdűlő

556

P.III 25.1

13.1

3.7

0.8

337 Szegvár-Oromdűlő

759

P.II

23

10.5

3.8

1.8

338 Szegvár-Oromdűlő

837

P.I

22.5

10.88

2.4

1.2

339 Szegvár-Oromdűlő

855

340 Szegvár-Oromdűlő

877

P.II

20

341 Szegvár-Oromdűlő

900

P.I

24.87 14.89

342 Szegvár-Oromdűlő

1.7 1.5

1.2 1.4

10.5

P.I

343 Szegvár-Oromdűlő

P.I

344 Szegvár-Sápoldal

P.I

3

2.1

2.89

1.7

12.163 2.64 1.62

1.88 1.73

12.05

2

2.85 1.65

6.159 EA 2.4

EA

3.38

2.49 5.47

EA

2.37 8.2

EA

3.98

3.1

EA

8

3.05

2.5

6.3

8.16

3

2.2

7.38

1.8

3

EA

345 Szekszárd–Bogyiszlói út

111

P.III 20

12

4.8

0.4

1

7

2.3

126

P.I

22.8

12

2.8

0.8

1.5

11

3.2

2.4

347 Szekszárd–Bogyiszlói út

246

P.I

18.8

9.7

2.8

0.4

1

9

2.8

2

348 Szekszárd–Bogyiszlói út

335

P.I

349 Szekszárd–Bogyiszlói út

350

P.I

20.3

12

2.1

350 Szekszárd–Bogyiszlói út

354

P.I

24.5

12

2.4

351 Szekszárd–Bogyiszlói út

356

P.III 26

352 Szekszárd–Bogyiszlói út

478

P.III 27

353 Szekszárd–Bogyiszlói út

551

P.I

23.5

354 Szekszárd–Bogyiszlói út

556

P.I

27

355 Szekszárd–Bogyiszlói út

557

P.III 28.5

356 Szekszárd–Bogyiszlói út

598

P.I

25.5

12.5

1.9

0.5

1

357 Szekszárd–Bogyiszlói út 358 Szekszárd–Bogyiszlói út

677 698

P.I P.I

22 23.5

12 13

2 1.8

0.4 0.8

1.5 1.4

359 Szekszárd–Bogyiszlói út

730

P.I

23.5

360 Szekszárd–Bogyiszlói út

754

2.2

P.I

23.2 24

EA EA

26.5

P.I

EA EA

346 Szekszárd–Bogyiszlói út

361 Szentendre–Pannónia dűlő

EA EA

3.16

11.33 3.25

11.73 11.6

9.82

3.4

0.6

1

8.5

2.3

1.5

12.5

3.2

0.3

1.1

11.5

2.8

EA MA EA

2.3

EA

4

EA 2.2

9

EA

2.4

EA

2.5

3.2

EA

3.8

2

2.3

0.8

1.1

EA

12.5 10

3 3

11

2

EA

3.6

MA

2.4 12

EA 5

3.2

4.6 15.5

EA

10.5

3.5

2.2

3

EA EA

EA EA

362 Szentes–Lapistó

109

363 Szentes–Nagyhegy

31

P.III 26.6

364 Târgu Mureş

IX

P.I

40

14

365 Târgu Mureş

XIV

P.I

36

16

366 Teiuş

III

P.III 34

367 Tiszaderzs–Szentimrei út

88

P.II

19

10

368 Tiszaderzs–Szentimrei út

92

P.I

19

8

369 Tiszafüred–Majoros

40

P.I

31

370 Tiszafüred–Majoros

46

P.II

21

371 Tiszafüred–Majoros

112

P.I

27.5

372 Tiszafüred–Majoros

113

P.II

31

373 Tiszafüred–Majoros

159

P.I

27.5

374 Tiszafüred–Majoros

171

P.III 24.5

375 Tiszafüred–Majoros

175

P.III 11.5

LA

376 Tiszafüred–Majoros

183

P.II

18.7

EA

377 Tiszafüred–Majoros

186

P.I

22

378 Tiszafüred–Majoros

199

P.II

35.5

2.1

LA

379 Tiszafüred–Majoros

207

P.I

37.5

2

EA

380 Tiszafüred–Majoros

210

P.I

30

2.3

EA

381 Tiszafüred–Majoros

212

P.I

28

3

EA

382 Tiszafüred–Majoros

231

P.I

30.3

383 Tiszafüred–Majoros

234

P.I

25.5

384 Tiszafüred–Majoros 385 Tiszafüred–Majoros

272 313

P.IV 24 P.I 30

386 Tiszafüred–Majoros

330

P.II

23

LA

387 Tiszafüred–Majoros

350

P.III 25

LA

388 Tiszafüred–Majoros

352

P.III 22

LA

11

4

0.3

1.5

4.1 3

0.8

1.6

7.5

1.9

15

2.7

EA 2.4

EA EA EA

12.6

3.4

9

2.9

10

LA 2

LA LA

3

EA LA

15

2.6

EA

3.2

LA LA

2.8

EA

EA

EA 2.5

LA LA LA

186

C s i ky G e r g e ly

389 Tiszafüred–Majoros

365

P.I

390 Tiszafüred–Majoros

379

P.III 27

17.3

LA MA

391 Tiszafüred–Majoros

395

P.IV 22

EA

392 Tiszafüred–Majoros

423

P.IV 17

LA

393 Tiszafüred–Majoros

433

P.III 17

LA

394 Tiszafüred–Majoros

447

P.I

LA

395 Tiszafüred–Majoros

451

P.III 18.3

396 Tiszafüred–Majoros

452

22.5

31.5

397 Tiszafüred–Majoros

456

P.II

398 Tiszafüred–Majoros

474

P.III 16

MA LA

21.5

399 Tiszafüred–Majoros

496

P.III

400 Tiszafüred–Majoros

507

P.II

30.5

401 Tiszafüred–Majoros

536/a

P.II

31

402 Tiszafüred–Majoros

537

MA LA LA LA LA 19.5

LA

403 Tiszafüred–Majoros

553

P.III 23.5

LA

404 Tiszafüred–Majoros

561

P.II

LA

22

405 Tiszafüred–Majoros

577

P.III 21

MA

406 Tiszafüred–Majoros

592

P.II

LA

407 Tiszafüred–Majoros

630

P.IV 32

MA

408 Tiszafüred–Majoros

638

P.I

LA

30

409 Tiszafüred–Majoros

663

P.I

26

LA

410 Tiszafüred–Majoros

685

P.II

22

LA

411 Tiszafüred–Majoros

692

P.III 35

LA

412 Tiszafüred–Majoros

706

P.III 22

LA

413 Tiszafüred–Majoros

709

P.III 19.5

LA

414 Tiszafüred–Majoros

716

P.I

415 Tiszafüred–Majoros 416 Tiszafüred–Majoros

757 783

P.III 20.6 P.II

LA MA MA

417 Tiszafüred–Majoros

809

P.IV 18

MA

24

418 Tiszafüred–Majoros

831

P.III 19.5

MA

419 Tiszafüred–Majoros

845

P.III

LA LA

420 Tiszafüred–Majoros

847

P.III 24

421 Tiszafüred–Majoros

902

P.II

422 Tiszafüred–Majoros

937

P.I

LA 20

MA

423 Tiszafüred–Majoros

945

P.I

25

LA

424 Tiszafüred–Majoros

950

P.I

25

LA

425 Tiszafüred–Majoros

968

P.II

26

LA

426 Tiszafüred–Majoros

994

P.I

24.6

LA

17

427 Tiszafüred–Majoros

1003

P.I

428 Tiszafüred–Majoros

1009a

P.III 21.1

429 Tiszafüred–Majoros

1069

P.I

430 Tiszafüred–Majoros

1142

P.II

LA LA MA

27

LA

431 Tiszafüred–Majoros

1149

P.I

21

LA

432 Tiszafüred–Majoros

1159

P.II

24.2

MA

433 Tiszafüred–Majoros

1194

P.II

24

LA

434 Tiszafüred–Majoros

1197

P.IV 16

LA

435 Tiszafüred–Majoros

1246

P.III 15

436 Tiszavasvári-Koldusdomb

1

P.I

18.8

12

437 Tiszavasvári-Koldusdomb

21

P.I

23.2

13

438 Tolna

A

P.I

22.4

439 Üröm

LA EA 10.2

3.4

EA

10

2.5

15.5

2.4

MA

10,8

2

EA MA

9.5

2.5

EA

P.III 30.2

19.5 11

26.5

2.5

4.8

440 Vác–Kavicsbánya

103

P.I

441 Vác–Kavicsbánya

189

P.III 20

8.6

442 Vác–Kavicsbánya 443 Valalíky-Všechsvätých

271 22

P.III 12.3 P.I 20.5

1.7 1.6

10.5

2.7

444 Valalíky-Všechsvätých

84

P.II

15.5

445 Valalíky-Všechsvätých

85

P.V

12.3

446 Valalíky-Všechsvätých

44/83

P.III 26.7

0.5

0.7

1.1 13

2.6

0.3

1.2

1.4

1

2

1.9

8.8

EA

LA

2.7

LA

1

LA

2.7

LA

187

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms 447 Valalíky-Všechsvätých

46/83

P.V

18.8

2.7

0.7

0.55

1.05

LA

448 Valalíky-Všechsvätých

98/83

P.I

29.4

15.2

2.8

0.5

3.25

LA

449 Várpalota–Gimnázium

142

P.I

2.5

EA

450 Várpalota–Gimnázium

195

23.2

451 Várpalota–Gimnázium

199

17.5

EA

452 Várpalota–Gimnázium

210

P.III 22.8

EA

14.5

EA

453 Várpalota–Gimnázium

210

P.III 17

EA

454 Várpalota–Gimnázium

218

P.III 20.9

EA

P.III 12.5

EA

121

P.I

22

EA EA

455 Várpalota–Gimnázium 456 Veszprém–Jutas 457 Veszprém–Jutas

173

P.I

24

458 Zalakomár–Lesvári-dűlő

545A

P.I

32

459 Zalakomár–Lesvári-dűlő

545B

P.III 33

4

2.5

MA

460 Zalakomár–Lesvári-dűlő

560

P.III 32

4

2.2

EA

461 Zámoly

P.I

22.8

462 Zámoly

P.I

15.2

EA

EA 11

2.2

0.8

EA

Univariate analysis Univariate analysis will be carried out on all available data sets (10 measurements) resulting in several data on the distribution of numerical batch. In most of the cases the measurements have normal (or Gaussian) distribution, however some deviations from the Gauss curve are often observed. Measurements are written in abbreviated form (L for total length, bL for blade-length, bW for bladewidth, bTh for blade-thickness, nD1–2 for neck-diameter 1–2, sL for socket-length, sD1 for outer socket-diameter, sD2 for inner socket-diameter, sDp for socket-depth). In the following table (table 2), rows show various aspects of the respective numerical batch: N stands for the number of available data, Min and Max for minimal and maximal values (fragmentary data included), mean is the arithmetic mean of the available data9. Std. error stands for the standard error (SE) which is the deviation of the mean in the sampling distribution, therefore it shows uncertainty or confidence of the batch10. The variance shows how far the set of number spread out: the higher the variance is the greater the variety of numbers is, while the variance of zero shows that the analysed numbers are identical. Stand. dev. stands for standard deviation (SD) showing the dispersion of data set that means the it is in clear correlation with variance11. Median is the value separating the higher and lower half of the data sample, it is an useful value for controlling if the validity of the mean12. 25 and 75 prctil stand for 25 and 75 percentile (or lower and upper quartile) of the data set: only one quarter of the data is lower than 25 percentile and only one quarter of the data is higher than 75 percentile which is a good estimate of the average data for the frequency of values with the exclusion of outliers from our data set13. The following values describe the symmetry or asymmetry of the Gauss curve composed by the batch: skewness measures the asymmetry of the distribution, it becomes clearly visible on the histograms below14. Kurtosis shows the peakedness of the probability curve: it shows deviation of the probability curve from normal distribution15. Geom. mean stands for geometric mean showing the typical value or set of numbers in the batch. Coeff. var. stands for coefficient of variation (CV) which is a ratio of standard deviation (SD) to the mean in percent16.

N

L

bL

bW

bTh

nD1

nD2

sL

sD1

sD2

sDp

441

249

282

150

92

17

245

287

143

82

Min

11.4

2.7

0.7

0.3

0.7

0.8

4.1

1

1

1

Max

51

33

6.9

2.1

2.26

2

20

4.2

3.1

13

 Drennan 2009, 17–18; Hammer 2015, 34.  Drennan 2009, 104–106; Hammer 2015, 34. 11  Drennan 2009, 29–32; Hammer 2015, 34. 12  Drennan 2009, 19; Hammer 2015, 35. 13  Drennan 2009, 28; Hammer 2015, 35. 14  Drennan 2009, 52; Hammer 2015, 35. 15  Hammer 2015, 35. 16  Hammer 2015, 35. 9

10

188

C s i ky G e r g e ly

Mean

25.38871 14.06009

Std. error

0.301771 0.2786841 0.06052339 0.02498757 0.03438143 0.08986464 0.1817012 0.03263019 0.03548321 0.2263595

2.903333

0.7489667

1.329783

1.236353

10.72902

2.640248

2.097273

8.21011

Variance

40.15995 19.33855

1.032989

0.09365681 0.1087516

0.1372861

7.758602

0.2959948

0.1800453

4.201568

Stand. dev 6.337188 4.397562

1.016361

0.306034

0.3297751

0.3705214

2.785427

0.5440541

0.4243175

2.049773

Median

24.5

13

2.8

0.7

1.3

1.1

10.2

2.7

2.1

8.5

25 prcntil

21

11

2.2

0.5

1.1

1

8.8

2.3

1.9

7

75 prcntil

29

16

3.7

0.9

1.5

1.544

12.4

3

2.4

9.3

Skewness

0.828264 1.23896

0.5865863

1.565058

0.547258

0.797515

0.7450636

-0.1408 975

-0.2382 018

-0.4611 024

Kurtosis

1.438954 2.816753

0.4825809

3.495889

0.01930907

-0.5419 839

0.9054024 0.1510743

0.07374017 1.269179

Geom. mean

24.63525 13.4322

2.722363

0.6968893

1.290363

1.188366

10.38096

2.579466

2.050642

7.865508

Coeff. var

24.96066 31.2769

35.00668

40.86083

24.79917

29.9689

25.96162

20.60617

20.23187

24.96645

Table 2. Main statistical characteristics of metrical data sets of various measurements on Avar-age spearheads.

The above table (table 2) shows the various characteristics of each batches offering a good opportunity for making comparisons. The available sample numbers were already discussed and the minimal and maximal values, mean, geometric mean, median, lower and upper quartile can be assessed separately. However, there are also some values of comparative significance such as the variance, standard deviation, kurtosis and coefficient of variation. The highest values of variance and standard deviation can be observed in the case of total length and blade length, while the socket length shows a much smaller value. This observation means that variation of the total length and blade length are the highest, while that of blade width, blade thickness, neck diameter, socket diameter and socket depth are negligible: Avar-age blacksmiths used more or less standard sizes for making these parts of the spearheads. Skewness and kurtosis are in most of the cases positive values which means that the frequency curve is normally inclines to positive (smaller) values indicating some lower limits of values, while in the case of socket diameter and socket depth the values are negative showing a greater importance of higher values. The kurtosis is positive almost in every cases showing peaked distributions which will be presented on histograms below, the only negative value falls to the second neck diameter (showing if it is oval in cross section) which is an indication of curved distribution. The data sets of all ten measurements are presented in a box plot showing the median, interquartile range (range between 25 and 75 percentile), minimal and maximal values, outliers (outstanding values presented as dots or in the case of far outliers as stars) and the inner fence shown by a whisker (values of 1.5 times larger or smaller than the box height) (diagram 1). This visualisation is especially suitable for comparisons and showing outliers (i.e. outstanding values). The huge differences between the various measurements especially in the case of total length are not surprising, however the difference in blade length and socket length clearly shows that blades of spearheads tend to be longer than sockets. Besides this visualisation shows that total length of spearheads above 42 cm are clearly beyond the normal distribution (outliers), the same is true for blade length above 24 cm and below 6 cm, blade width above 6 cm and socket length above ca. 16 cm. The values of socket depth below 6 cm show instances where the socket contained fragments of corroded wooden shaft. Besides the variations of blade thickness, neck diameter and socket diameter are shown as minimal on this box plot: these values are probably determined by the physical characteristics of the steel, a minimal value cannot be smaller, if one intends to manufacture a weapon of some use: stable and durable enough. On the other hand total length, blade length and socket length show a great variation. Histograms showing the distribution of data sets in form of I-diagrams are especially useful to observe what is normal measurement and which data are outstanding values. Besides it is of great help in making comparisons of frequency curves with normal distribution. Separate data sets with specific measurements will be presented after the corresponding histograms. Total length: The shortest spearhead (or in this case rather a javelin) is 11.4 cm long, while the longest one is of 51 cm. The total range of the values is 39.6 cm. The mean of total length is 25.38 cm and its median is 24.5 cm which are relatively close values. The histogram of total length (diagram 2) shows a peaky distribution bending towards positive (smaller) values. Similarly to the above box plot (diagram 1) the histogram shows that most of the values are between 21 and 29 cm, outliers can only

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms

189

be observed in the case of higher values: spearheads of a total length more than 41 cm are clearly outstanding and beyond normal distribution. The skewness of the batch shows that 15 cm can be regarded as kind of minimal value. The total length of the spearheads are not standardized at all and this measurement shows a great variation as a result of probably typologial, regional and functional reasons.

Diagram 1. Box plot of measurements of Avar-age polearms.

Diagram 2. Histogram of the total length of Avar-age spearheads.

Blade length: The shortest blade length is 2.7 cm (a javelin) and the longest one is 33 cm which means that the range of the values is 30.3 cm. The mean of blade length is 14.06 cm and its median is 13 cm. The histogram of blade length (diagram 3) similarly to that of total length shows a peaky distribution bending towards smaller values. Most of the values are between 11 and 16 cm (interquartile

190

C s i ky G e r g e ly

range is 4 cm), but only values above 23.5 cm and below 5.5 cm can be regarded as outliers. The shortest bladed polearm was found in Eastern Slovakia, Valalíky–Všechsvätých (grave No. 46/83) and it is clearly a javelin both in its form, proportions and measurements. Most of the short-bladed polearms can be regarded as javelins including every blade shorter than 8 cm.

Diagram 3. Histogram of the blade length of Avar-age spearheads.

Blade width varies between 0.7 and 6.9 cm, its range is 6.2 cm (diagram 4). The mean of blade width is 2.9 cm and its median is 2.8 cm which are extremely close values. Most of the values are between 2.2 and 3.7 cm (interquartile range is 1.5 cm) and only the values above 6 cm (5.95 cm) can be regarded as outliers (two spearheads from Gămbaş). All other values fall in the normal distribution, the histogram is peaked and bends towards smaller values which is quite understandable regarding the high number of narrow-bladed thrusting weapons among Avar-age polearms.

Diagram 4. Histogram of the blade width of Avar-age spearheads.

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms

191

Blade thickness varies between 0.3 and 2.1 cm, its range is 1.8 cm. Its mean is 0.74 cm, while its median is 0.7 an extremely close value. Most of the values lie between 0.5 an 0.9 cm (interquartile range is 0.4 cm) and only the values above 1.5 cm can be regarded as outliers (diagram 5). The variation of this set of data is small, it is probably determined by the physical characteristics of steel. The histogram is very peaky and it is bending towards smaller values, which is an indication of some standards in the manufacturing of weapons: a spearhead should have been relatively light and durable.

Diagram 5. Histogram of the blade thickness of Avar-age spearheads.

Neck diameter is known in 92 cases, the lowest value is 0.7 cm and highest one is 2.26 cm, its range is 1.56 cm. The mean of neck diameter is 1.32 cm and its corresponding median is 1.3 cm. Most of the values lie between 1.1 and 1.5 cm, and only two value (2.2 and 2.26 cm) above 2.1 cm are regarded as outliers both from the cemetery Szegvár–Oromdűlő (grave No. 90 and 333) but probably the corrosion on these artefacts distorted these results. The historgram (diagram 6) is peaky and it is bending towards the smaller values indicating that narrower necks were more popular probably because of their lightness.

Diagram 6. Histogram of the neck diameter of Avar-age spearheads.

192

C s i ky G e r g e ly

The socket length is known in 245 cases, its lowest value is 4.1 cm (which is of course a fragmentary piece), while the longest socket is 20 cm long: the range of the numerical data-set is 15.9 cm. The mean of socket length is 10.73 cm, while its median is 10.2 cm, these values correspond to each-other. Most of the values are between 8.8 and 12.4 cm showing an interquartile range of 3.6 cm, thus its variation is much lower than perviously expected. Values above 17.8 cm and below 5 cm are outliers (diagram 7), which seems to be too short for a normal socket caused by the frequent fragmentation of the socket of spearheads.

Diagram 7. Histogram of the socket length of Avar-age spearheads.

The outer diameter of the socket is known in 287 cases, its lowest value is 1 cm and the maximal value is 4.2 cm indicating the maximal width of the shaft. The range of data set is 3.2 cm. The mean of the outer socket diameter is 2.64 cm, while its median is 2.7 cm. Most of the values lie between 2.3 and 3 cm, its interquartile range is 0.7 cm which indicates a much lower variation perviously expected. Values above 4 cm and below 1.3 cm are clearly outliers. The histogram (diagram 8) is curved and bends towards the higher values. As a result outer socket diameters under 2 cm are consequences of fragmentation rather than original values.

Diagram 8. Histogram of the outer socket diameter of Avar-age spearheads.

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms

193

The inner diameter of the socket was only measurable on specimens without wooden remains of the shaft in the socket, as a consequence this measurement is only known in 143 cases. The lowest value is 1 cm and the highest diameter measured is 3.1 cm composing a range of 2.1 cm. This measurement shows the diameter of the wooden shaft. Its mean is 2.09 cm, while its corresponding median is 2.1 cm. Most of the measured values lie between 1.9 and 2.4 cm. Only one outlier is registered on the lower values (1 cm). The histogram (diagram 9) is curved and bends towards the higher values. As a consequence at least the upper part of the wooden shaft could have a diameter around 2 cm.

Diagram 9. Histogram of the inner socket diameter of Avar-age spearheads.

The socket depth is not measurable in cases when wooden remains of the shaft remained in the socket, therefore only 82 measurements are available. The measured values are between 1 and 13  cm (range of 12 cm) indicating that the lower values are results of measuring errors caused by wooden remains. The mean of socket depth is 8.2 cm, while its median is 8.5 cm. Most of the values lie between 7 and 9.3 cm (interquartile range of 2.3 cm) which is more acceptable. The histogram of the socket depth (diagram 10) is curved and bends towards the higher values indicating that very small values are a result of a measuring error.

Diagram 10. Histogram of the socket depth of Avar-age spearheads.

194

C s i ky G e r g e ly

As a result of the above analysis (using interquartile ranges) the average Avar-age spearhead was 21–29 cm long, its blade was 11–16 cm long, 2.2–3.7 cm wide and 0.5-0.9 cm thick. The neck of an average spearhead had a diameter of 1.1–1.5 cm, its socket was 8.8–12.4 cm long, its outer diameter was of 2.3–3 cm, while its inner diameter was of 1.9–2.4 cm. The average depth of socket was between 7 and 9.3 cm. Of course there were some exceptions of this pattern: total length and blade length tended to vary more than the socket, and in the case of all these three mentioned measurements most outliers lie highly above the average. These great differences in size of the spearheads can be explained by various factors: typological, functional and regional. These issues will be elaborated below. Avar-age polearms were classified into five form groups in my doctoral thesis based on the form of the blade. Unfortunately the shape of the blade not being a metrical data cannot be incorporated in this analysis, therefore the metrical data of these five form groups will be compared in the below tables. total length

P.I

P.II

P.III

P.IV

P.V

N

206

39

163

21

5

Min

14.5

14.1

11.5

16

11.4

Max

46.3

50

50

51

18.8

Mean

24.61126

25.19231

27.04294

24.36667

14

Std. error

0.381923

1.095515

0.5121451

1.823867

1.340522

Variance

30.04814

46.80599

42.7537

69.85633

8.985

Stand. dev

5.481619

6.84149

6.538631

8.35801

2.997499

Median

23.85

24.2

27

22.1

12.5

25 prcntil

20.5

21.1

21.8

18.8

11.85

75 prcntil

27

29.5

31.2

26.1

16.9

Skewness

1.120683

1.090961

0.3302515

2.038272

1.326277

Kurtosis

1.809236

3.302455

0.613653

4.684384

1.150132

Geom. mean

24.05859

24.34232

26.23276

23.32027

13.76556

Coeff. var

22.27281

27.15706

24.1787

34.301

21.41071

Table 3. Comparative statistical data on total length of various form groups of Avar-age spearheads.

As already known most of the Avar-age spearheads belong either to form group P.I (reed-shaped) or to P.III (lenticular-shaped), while the other three form groups (P.II: conical, P.IV: triangular, P.V: javelins) are much less represented. P.I is represented by 206 specimens, P.II by 39, P.III by 163, P.IV by 21 and P.V by only five examples. There are clear differences between the total lengths of various form groups shown by the box plot (diagram 11).

Diagram 11. Box plot of the total length of various form groups of Avar-age spearheads.

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms

195

Reed-shaped spearheads are of the largest number and their total length differs between 14.5 and 46.3 cm, the range of which is the high number of 31.8 cm. Their mean is 24.61 cm and their median is 23.85, which are highly corresponding values. Most of such spearheads are 20.5–27 cm in length. There are eight outliers longer than 36.75 cm. In contrast, conical spearheads – the main characteristic of which is the lack of neck between the blade and socket – show similar values: the shortest one is about 14.1 cm long, while the longest one is of 50 cm long (a range of 35.9 cm). The mean of the total length of such spearheads is 25.19 and their median is 24.2 cm, which are only slightly larger than the values of P.I spearheads. Most of the values lie between 21.1 and 29.5 cm, again slightly higher values. There is only one outlier (50 cm long), but 42 cm long examples are still considered to be normal. Lenticular (P.III) spearheads are clearly longer than the two aforementioned: their length varies between 11.5 and 50 cm (a range of 38.5 cm), but their mean and median are significantly larger than that of the perivious form groups: 27.04 and 27 cm. This difference is even more visible if we look at the interquartile values between 21.8 and 31.2 cm. There are only two outliers longer than 45.3 cm (!), but spearheads of a length between 40 and 45 cm are still considered to be normal. Triangular spearheads (P.IV) show the greatest variance, but they are mostly shorter than the previous artefacts. The shortest spearhead belonging to this group is of 21 cm long, while the longest one measures 51 cm (which is the longest Avar-age spearhead). Their mean is much less than the former (lenticular) spearheads: 24.36 cm and their median is even less 22.1 cm. Most of the values lie between 18.8 and 26.1 cm composing a short interquartile range of 7.3 cm. There are only three outliers on the higher values, but two of them are far outliers. Every triangular spearheads longer than 28 cm is an outlier. Javelins (P.V) are shortest of all other form groups: their length vary between 11.4 and 18.8 cm composing a small range of 7.4 cm. Their mean is 14 cm, while their median is even less: 12.4 cm long. The length of most of the javelins vary between 11.85 and 16.9 cm, and no outliers are known which is probably the consequence of the small sample size. As a result of our comparison there are no clear differences in the total length of spearheads of various form groups except for the javelins clearly showing a functional difference: throwing weapons had to be smaller and lighter than usual polearms. The variation of total length values in these form groups are equally large meaning that the length of spearheads did not correlate unequivocally with the shape of the blade. blade length

P.I

P.II

P.III

P.IV

P.V

N

128

6

98

14

1

Min

7

10

6.5

6

2.7

Max

20

16

32

33

2.7

Mean

12.47721

12.85

16.22092

15.26429

2.7

Std. error

0.222022

1.017759

0.481883

2.081726

0

Variance

6.309576

6.215

22.7567

60.67016

0

Stand. dev

2.511887

2.49299

4.770398

7.789106

0

Median

12

12.8

16

12.85

2.7

25 prcntil

11

10.375

13

10.375

1.35

75 prcntil

14

15.25

19.15

17.75

6.1

Skewness

0.71022

0.0897448

0.4426928

1.484067

0

Kurtosis

0.666877

–2.254247

0.6826779

1.603185

0

Geom. mean

12.2366

12.6473

15.50621

13.78471

2.7

Coeff. var

20.1318

19.4007

29.40893

51.0283

0

Table 4. Comparative statistical data on blade length of various form groups of Avar-age spearheads.

The above table compares the blade length of spearheads belonging to various form groups. Our first observation is that P.V group ( javelins) has only one single data therefore it is not suitable for such an examination and therefore it will be disregarded. The sample number of P.II (conical spearheads) is similarly very low the main reason of which is the lack of a clear border between the blade and the socket on conical spearheads as a consequence of the lack of the neck. If we look for similar sample sizes (as we should) only the form group P.I (reed-shaped) and P.III (lenticular) are comparable.

196

C s i ky G e r g e ly

Looking at the box plot very clear differences are observable: the blade of lenticular spearheads are much longer (diagram 12).

Diagram 12. Box plot of the blade length of various form groups of Avar-age spearheads.

The blade length of form group P.I varies between 7 and 20  cm (13  cm of range), its mean is 12.48 cm, while its median is 12 cm. Most of the reed-shaped blades are between 11 and 14 cm long, the two outliers are 20 cm long, but 19.5 cm is still considered to normal. The blade length of group P.III varies between 6.5 and 32 cm (a range of 25.5 cm), the lower values are results of javelins included in this group as a result of their blade form. Their mean is 16.22 cm, while its median is 16 cm (4 cm longer than that of P.I spearheads). Most of the lenticular blades are 13–19.15 cm long (interquartile range). There are two outliers (32 and 30 cm long, both of them date to the 8th century), but a 27 cm long blade is still considered to be normal. As a result there are clear differences in blade length at least between two form groups (P.I and P.III) probably as a result of functional differences. blade width

P.I

P.II

P.III

P.IV

P.V

N

141

8

117

14

2

Min

1

0.8

1.6

2

0.7

Max

4

3.8

6.9

4.2

1.1

Mean

2.305248

2

3.685983

3.188571

0.9

Std. error

0.047795

0.3693624

0.08231948

0.2055249

0.2

Variance

0.322099

1.091429

0.7928501

0.591367

0.08

Stand. dev

0.567538

1.044715

0.8904213

0.7690039

0.2828427

Median

2.3

2

3.7

3.45

0.9

25 prcntil

2

0.975

3

2.3

0.525

75 prcntil

2.6

2.825

4.2

3.88

1.4

Skewness

0.389068

0.549262

0.4430291

-0.3229004

0

Kurtosis

1.169044

-0.4522436

1.237371

–1.558999

–2.75

Geom. mean

2.232567

1.755961

3.576878

3.095766

0.8774964

Coeff. var

24.61939

52.023573

24.15696

24.11751

31.42697

Table 5. Comparative statistical data on blade width of various form groups of Avar-age spearheads.

The distribution of blade width by form groups is presented by the above table. Compared to total length and blade length, blade width is much more meaningful showing greater differences. However,

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms

197

as in the case of blade length the sample sizes of P.II, P.IV and P.V are not significant, therefore only reed-shaped (P.I) and lenticular (P.III) spearheads can be compared (diagram 13).

Diagram 13. Box plot of the blade width of various form groups of Avar-age spearheads.

The blade width of reed-shaped spearheads varies between 1 and 4 cm (a range of 3 cm). Its mean and median are equally 2.3 cm. Most of the values are between 2 and 2.6 cm (interquartile range is 0.6 cm), therefore every value above 3.5 cm is considered to be outlier: there are three such cases, while there is only one outlier which is considerably narrower (1 cm) than average blades. Compared to the blade width of P.I spearheads the blade width of lenticular spearheads (P.III) are much wider, its minimal value is 1.6 cm (in the case of a short-bladed javelin), while is maximal value is 6.9 cm showing a range of 6.3 cm. The mean of blade width of lenticular spearheads is 3.69 cm, which is very close to its median (3.7 cm), and which is significantly larger than the values for reed-shaped spearheads. Most of the values are between 3 and 4.2 cm presenting an interquartile range of 1.2 cm. There are two clear outliers larger than 6 cm both from the Gâmbaş cemetery in Transylvania17. The clear differences in blade width are probably the result of functional differences. According to the box plot (diagram 13) the values of P.I and P.II spearheads are similar probably showing that these artefacts were in fact thrusting weapons, while the wider blades of P.III and P.IV are probably the result of a different function: P.III spearheads usually had a longer edge, therefore they were also suitable for cutting. The low values of javelins are very few in number and they are the results of small blades. blade thickness

P.I

P.II

P.III

P.IV

P.V

N

74

5

59

11

1

Min

0.4

0.8

0.3

0.5

0.55

Max

1.65

2.1

1.475

1.6

0.55

Mean

0.780676

1.4

0.634322

0.8727273

0.55

Std. error

0.030354

0.2626785

0.02979877

0.1120803

0

Variance

0.068182

0.345

0.05239005

0.1381818

0

Stand. dev

0.261116

0.587367

0.2288887

0.3717282

0

Median

0.8

1.5

0.6

0.8

0.55

25 prcntil

0.6

0.8

0.5

0.6

0.275

75 prcntil

0.9

1.95

0.8

1.2

0.525

 Gâmbaş stray find: Horedt 1958, 96, fig. 9a/10–11; Gâmbaş grave No. IX: Horedt 1958, 99, fig. 14/2, 13.

17

198

C s i ky G e r g e ly

Skewness

1.225425

-0.0493482

1.056712

0.9905135

0

Kurtosis

2.314015

–2.486452

2.088646

-0.1422928

0

Geom. mean

0.742197

1.294055

0.5966358

0.8092979

0.55

Coeff. var

33.44748

41.95479

36.08399

42.59385

0

Table 6. Comparative statistical data on blade thickness of various form groups of Avar-age spearheads.

The blade thickness shows similar variation, however this measurement is more standardized than the aforementioned measurements because it correlates with the physical characteristics of steel. As a result, there are no great differences and the above-mentioned problems with low sample numbers of P.II, P.IV and P.V are even more dramatical. As a consequence (as usual) only P.I (reed-shaped) and P.III (lenticular) spearheads can be compared, however both of them show similar results, the differences are not significant, therefore it will not be presented in detail (diagram 14).

Diagram 14. Box plot of the blade thickness of various form groups of Avar-age spearheads. socket length

P.I

P.II

P.III

P.IV

P.V

N

118

8

100

12

1

Min

3.5

6

5

7

4.5

Max

20

17

20

17

4.5

Mean

10.69314

10.6875

10.82949

10.33167

4.5

Std. error

0.266408

1.157034

0.2517753

0.8091726

0

Variance

8.374811

10.70982

6.339081

7.857124

0

Stand. dev

2.893927

3.272586

2.517753

2.803056

0

Median

10.1

11

10.5

10

4.5

25 prcntil

8.5

8.25

9.225

8.335

2.25

75 prcntil

12.125

11.875

12.5

12.375

6.25

Skewness

0.663865

0.6937391

0.5494448

1.306976

0

Kurtosis

0.856389

1.481102

1.033105

1.765125

0

Geom. mean

10.30622

10.25563

10.54129

10.02532

4.5

Coeff. var

27.06341

30.62069

23.24905

27.13073

0

Table 7. Comparative statistical data on socket length of various form groups of Avar-age spearheads.

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms

199

Since the neck diameters are normally standard it would not be of much use of analyse that data set, instead the data set of socket length are presented as a table above. As already mentioned several times conical spearheads (P.II), triangular spearheads (P.IV) and javelins (P.V) can be omitted as a consequence of their low sample number. The comparison of socket length between reed-shaped (P.I) and lenticular (P.III) spearheads are of some importance regarding the differences in blade length and blade width. On contrary of our expectations, there are no clear differences in socket length of reed-shaped and lenticular spearheads, their mean (P.I: 10.69 cm; P.III: 10.82 cm), median (P.I: 10.1 cm, P.III: 10.5 cm) and interquartile range (P.I: 8.5–12.125 cm and P.III: 9.225–12.5 cm) do not show clear differences. The same can be observed on the box plot (diagram 15).

Diagram 15. Box plot of the socket length of various form groups of Avar-age spearheads. socket diameter

P.I

P.II

P.III

P.IV

P.V

N

141

16

109

13

2

Min

1.6

2

1.4

1.6

1

Max

4

3.8

4.2

3.54

1.05

Mean

2.705177

2.764375

2.509716

2.518462

1.025

Std. error

0.040191

0.120045

0.05588469

0.1735225

0.025

Variance

0.227758

0.2305729

0.3404177

0.3914308

0.00125

Stand. dev

0.47724

0.4801801

0.5834533

0.6256443

0.03535534

Median

2.7

2.65

2.5

2.5

1.025

25 prcntil

2.4

2.5

2.05

1.95

0.75

75 prcntil

3

3.1625

2.9

3

1.2625

Skewness

-0.14605

0.373737

0.278945

-0.0488083

0

Kurtosis

-0.25344

0.1992421

-0.02469536

–1.312371

–2.75

Geom. mean

2.661083

2.72556

2.441329

2.443627

1.024695

Coeff. var

17.64173

17.37029

23.24778

24.84232

3.449301

Table 8. Comparative statistical data on socket diameter (outer) of various form groups of Avar-age spearheads.

Similarly the outer socket diameter does not show any clear differences between reed-shaped and lenticular spearheads neither in their means, medians nor in their interquartile range as presented by the above table and the box plot (diagram 16).

200

C s i ky G e r g e ly

Diagram 16. Box plot of the outer socket diameter of various form groups of Avar-age spearheads.

As a result of the analysis above, differences between the various data sets of spearheads belonging to various form groups are only observable in the case of blade length and blade width. This result is not surprising at all, since the classification was based on the attributes of the blade. If metrical data does not fit into the scheme of form groups, does it show any differences by periods? The Avar Age was traditionally divided into three subsequent periods: Early (568–650), Middle (650–700) and Late Avar (8th-early 9th century) phases (abbreviated as EA, MA and LA). In what follows univariate analyses of metrical data by the above-listed periods will be presented to reveal if there is a correlation between the age of the artefact and its metrical data. Total length

EA

MA

N

263

28

LA 150

Min

12.5

11.4

11.5

Max

46.3

33

51

Mean

25.44475

23.475

25.64767

Std. error

0.371087

0.99846

0.572077

Variance

36.21658

27.9138

49.09082

Stand. dev

6.018021

5.283351

7.006484

Median

24.5

23.65

25

25 prcntil

21

20.15

21

75 prcntil

29

26.875

29.425

Skewness

0.674423

-0.3454

1.040812

Kurtosis

0.326414

0.136458

2.276467

Geom. mean

24.76541

22.82744

24.75842

Coeff. var

23.65133

22.50629

27.31821

Table 9. Comparative statistical data on total length of Early, Middle and Late Avar-period spearheads.

The table above shows the data set of total length of spearheads belonging to various periods which is also illustrated in a box plot (diagram 17). Similar values can be observed in the minimal and maximal values as well as in the case of the mean and median. The number of Middle Avar period polearms is few which explains only partly its smaller values. The biggest difference is in the maximal total length of polearms: three spearheads of the 8th century (grave No.

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms

201

524 of Devínska Nová Ves18: 51 cm, grave No. 101 of Komárno-Shipyard19: 50 cm, grave „A” of Mistelbach20 48 cm) are larger than the longest Early Avar period spearhead (46.3 cm from Bočar kod Kikinde).

Diagram 17. Box plot of the total length of Early, Middle and Late Avar-period spearheads.

bL

EA

MA

LA

N

170

11

68

Min

6

10.5

2.7

Max

27

19.5

33

Mean

13.94861

14.04545

14.34118

Std. error

0.303379

0.746064

0.676159

Variance

15.64663

6.122727

31.08903

Stand. dev

3.955582

2.474415

5.575753

Median

13

13.5

13.75

25 prcntil

11

13

10.625

75 prcntil

16.7

15.5

16

Skewness

0.708192

0.792821

1.564091

Kurtosis

-0.00483

1.465629

3.43518

Geom. mean

13.42014

13.85549

13.39497

Coeff. var

28.35826

17.61719

38.87933

Table 10. Comparative statistical data on blade length of Early, Middle and Late Avar-period spearheads.

A similar feature can be observed in the case of blade lengths, where Late Avar specimens are of the greatest values, while Middle Avar spearheads show the less variation (diagram 18).  Eisner 1952, 119–120, Obr. 71/1.  Trugly 1993, 194., Abb. 8., Taf. V/7. 20  Mitscha-Mähreim 1941, 7, Taf. 1/15; Distelberger 1996, 105–109. 18 19

202

C s i ky G e r g e ly

Diagram 18. Box plot of the blade length of Early, Middle and Late Avar-period spearheads. bW

EA

MA

LA

N

190

15

77

Min

0.8

0.9

0.7

Max

6.9

4.5

5

Mean

3.019684

2.406667

2.712987

Std. error

0.075599

0.251371

0.103516

Variance

1.08588

0.94781

0.825092

Stand. dev

1.042056

0.973555

0.908346

Median

2.8

2.2

2.6

25 prcntil

2.2

1.8

2.15

75 prcntil

3.8

3

3.45

Skewness

0.697282

0.704683

0.043199

Kurtosis

0.513701

0.40069

-0.47817

Geom. mean

2.844014

2.223188

2.54235

Coeff. var

34.50877

40.45243

33.4814

Table 11. Comparative statistical data on blade width of Early, Middle and Late Avar-period spearheads.

The values of blade width by periods show greater difference: Early Avar spearhead blades were usually wider also shown by the mean, median, upper quartile and maximal value, while Middle and Late Avar period spearhead blades were usually narrower (diagram 19).

Diagram 19. Box plot of the blade width of Early, Middle and Late Avar-period spearheads.

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms

sL

EA

MA

LA

N

163

10

72

Min

4

5

3.5

Max

20

15.5

20

Mean

10.38601

10.35

11.38194

Std. error

0.201684

1.2131

0.369977

Variance

6.630248

14.71611

9.855585

Stand. dev

2.574927

3.836158

3.139361

Median

10

10.25

11

25 prcntil

8.5

6.45

9.275

75 prcntil

11.7

14.55

13.225

Skewness

0.774273

0.033235

0.408177

Kurtosis

1.564642

–1.48295

0.546513

Geom. mean

10.07614

9.663268

10.93267

Coeff. var

24.79227

37.06433

27.58194

203

Table 12. Comparative statistical data on socket length of Early, Middle and Late Avar-period spearheads.

Socket lengths do not show any significant differences between the periods probably due to its functionality. As a result some minor chronological differences could be observed based on metrical data: Late Avar (8th century) spearheads tend to be longer, while their blade is somewhat narrower than it used to be during Early Avar period (6th – early 7th centuries). Most of the raw metrical data do not show any significant differences both by means of form groups or periods, therefore the univariate analyses of proportions may be of some importance. In the present paper three ratios were used for characterizing spearheads: the ratio of blade length and blade width showing the narrowness of the blade, the ratio of blade width and blade thickness showing the thickness or flatness of the blade and the ratio of blade and socket length showing overall proportions. bL/bW

P.I

P.II

P.III

P.IV

N

118

5

95

13

Min

2.5

2.763158

1.584615

2.619048

Max

15.45455

15.55556

10.71429

8.918919

Mean

5.558487

8.621287

4.57726

5.122602

Std. error

0.164302

2.450435

0.154306

0.53987

Variance

3.185442

30.02317

2.261976

3.788981

Stand. dev

1.784781

5.47934

1.503987

1.946531

Median

5

8.421053

4.418605

5

25 prcntil

4.542424

3.314912

3.540541

3.367188

75 prcntil

6.078869

14.02778

5.405405

6.691176

Skewness

2.054996

0.210859

1.077984

0.610915

Kurtosis

7.660885

–2.13799

2.49221

-0.43776

Geom. mean

5.328294

7.056362

4.34825

4.79201

Coeff. var

32.10911

63.55595

32.85779

37.99887

Table 13. Comparative statistical data on ratio of the blade length and blade width by various form groups of Avar-age spearheads.

The ratio of blade length and blade width show the shape (narrowness) of the blade: the higher number indicates narrower blade. Not surprisingly there are clear differences between form groups in this value: reed-shaped (P.I) and conical (P.II) spearheads show the highest numbers (i.e. narrowest blades), while this ratio is lower in the case of broader lenticular and triangular blades.

204

C s i ky G e r g e ly

bW/bTh

P.I

P.II

P.III

P.IV

N

74

5

59

11

Min

1.1

1.125

2.210169

2.4

Max

7.6

2.875

13.33333

8.4

Mean

3.235439

1.76127

6.278428

4.388384

Std. error

0.15963

0.325802

0.297697

0.563741

Variance

1.885658

0.530736

5.228782

3.495841

Stand. dev

1.373193

0.728516

2.286653

1.869717

Median

3

1.428571

6

3.833333

25 prcntil

2.444444

1.195833

5

2.642857

75 prcntil

3.6375

2.493056

7.5

6

Skewness

1.241581

1.087195

0.82349

0.955628

Kurtosis

1.931361

-0.0586

1.066086

0.512035

Geom. mean

2.977507

1.653382

5.877615

4.060217

Coeff. var

42.44225

41.36312

36.42079

42.60605

Table 14. Comparative statistical data on ratio of the blade width and blade thickness by various form groups of Avar-age spearheads.

The ratio of blade width and blade thickness showing functional differences (thrusting vs. cutting) through the thickness of the blade indicates even greater differences between various from groups (diagram 20). The lower values show thicker blades mostly suitable for thrusting, while the higher values indicate flat blades. As a result of the comparison, reed-shaped (P.I) and conical (P.II) blades are especially suitable for thrusting with their low ratios, while most of the lenticular blades (P.III) were simply too flat for such a purpose. Spearheads with triangular blades (P.IV) were in between of P.I and P.III form groups which was already observed during the formal classification.

Diagram 20. Box plot of the ratio of the blade width and blade thickness by various form groups of Avar-age spearheads. bL/sL

P.I

P.II

P.III

P.IV

N

112

5

92

12

Min

0.580645

1.111111

0.634921

0.807692

Max

4.571429

2.333333

3.26087

2.352941

Mean

1.238028

1.542864

1.589

1.448514

Std. error

0.044437

0.206871

0.05669

0.138635

Variance

0.221161

0.213977

0.295661

0.230636

Stand. dev

0.470277

0.462577

0.543747

0.480246

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms

Median

1.13961

1.428571

1.595455

1.362745

25 prcntil

1.010018

1.251208

1.18125

1.110714

75 prcntil

1.372159

1.891667

1.89916

1.86953

Skewness

3.858849

1.71607

0.729466

0.682436

Kurtosis

23.17178

3.628721

1.075864

-0.4762

Geom. mean

1.180264

1.495152

1.498041

1.379308

Coeff. var

37.986

29.9817

34.21947

33.15437

205

Table 15. Comparative statistical data on ratio of the blade length and socket length by various form groups of Avar-age spearheads.

The ratio of blade and socket length shows overall proportions of the spearhead. Unfortunately conical (P.II) and triangular (P.IV) are not suitable for an analysis as a consequence of their low number. Significant differences can be observed in the case of reed-shaped (P.I) and lenticular (P.III) spearheads: the blade and the socket of reed-shaped spearheads is more proportionate except for some far outliers their ratio is between 1 and 1.3 in most of the cases, while lenticular blades are usually much longer than their socket: its interquartile range varies between 1.18 and 1.899. As a result clear differences in proportions of various form groups can be observed in each cases validating similar examinations.

Binary analysis Binary analyses are based on the comparative examination of two data sets which are examined for correlation coefficients. It would not make much sense to examine correlation coefficients between total length and blade length or socket length since they correlate with each other by definition. Instead correlation coefficients are more informative in the cases of the comparison of blade length and blade width, or in the case of socket length and socket diameter. A similar method is used as an enquiry for correlation between blade length and socket length. As a result, the correlation coefficient of blade length and blade width in the whole data set is 0.45079 which is a positive correlation, but it seems to be insignificant. If we re-examine it by form groups the result for P.I is 0.18177 (a weak positive correlation). Conical spearheads (P.II) shows strong negative correlation (-0.81837): longer blades are usually narrower which is evident for conical blades). As for lenticular blades (P.III) it is 0.25605 (a weak positive correlation), for P.IV it is 0.41791 (a stronger positive correlation) and finally for P.V this correlation coefficient is not measurable. As a result, strong correlation was only observed in the case of conical spearheads (P.II) which was negative correlation as a consequence of its geometric form. All other correlation coefficients show that there were no standardized forms of blade, a strong positive correlation would mean that the ratio of blade length and blade width was constant. Another main question concerns the correlation of socket length and socket diameter. The correlation coefficient of these two data sets is 0.17825 which is a very weak (insignificant) positive value. The re-examination of correlation coefficients of these two data sets by major blade forms ended in the following results: P.I: 0.20058, P.II: -0.26543, P.III: 0.19247, P.IV: -0.074101 and P.V is not measurable. As a result, no strong correlation was observed between socket length and socket diameter, and in the cases of two form groups (P.II and P.IV) even weak negative correlations can be observed. A strong correlation between these two data sets would mean that their ratio is constant which is clearly not the case. The correlation of blade length and socket length ended in a weak positive coefficient of 0.25866 which means that these factors are insignificantly interrelated. As for correlation coefficients by form groups the results are the following: P.I: 0.34277, P.III: 0.21191, P.IV: 0.6103 (P.II and P.V were not measurable). As result only P.IV (triangular) spearheads show a strong positive correlation between blade and socket length, which can be regarded as significant. All other results show weak positive correlations the strongest of which concerns the reed-shaped spearheads. Summarizingly the search for correlations between various measurements did not end in conclusive results, the typological variation is too great for standardized ratios of blade length and width, socket length and diameter or blade and socket length. However, there are some meaningful

206

C s i ky G e r g e ly

observations: examining the whole data set the strongest positive correlations could be observed in the case of the ratio of blade length and width. The strongest negative correlation is between these two measurments of the blade of conical spearheads: a purely geometrical reason. The second strongest positive correlation in the whole data set was between the blade and socket length and triangular spearheads even show a strong positive correlation in this respect.

Multivariate analyses After the univariate and binary analyses of the mentioned data sets cluster analyses were used based on three measurements: blade length, blade width and socket length. Cluster analysis shows a dendrogram of the closest neighbours in the examined data sets, therefore it is very useful for the examination of metrical data. Socket diameter was not used as a criterium because as a result of the univariate and binary analyses it seemed to be an independent variable. A cluster analysis using these three variables was made first made for spearheads of all form groups in order to reveal inter-type relations, than two of the form groups with sufficient number of data (reed-shaped: P.I and lenticular: P.III spearheads) were analysed separately. The first dendrogram (diagram 21) shows some surprizing results: two spearheads from different sites both dated to the 8th century are close neighbours, although their blades belong to different form groups. The hooked spearhead (’Hakenlanze’) from grave No. 524 of Devínska Nová Ves21 has a narrow, triangular blade (P.IV), the spearhead from grave ’A’ of Mistelbach22 is lenticular (P.III). The measurements of both of these spearheads are very similar, their common characteristic is their huge size (48–52 cm long, blade length: 32–33 cm, socket length: 16–17 cm). These oversized spearheads were found in Late Avar (8th century) burials with horses, belt sets and large number of grave goods, therefore it is possible that the large size of these weapons were the results of a higher social status.

Diagram 21. Cluster analysis of Avar-age spearheads by three variables (blade length, blade width and socket length).

The dendrogram of the cluster analysis both for reed-shaped (diagram 22) and lenticular (diagram 23) spearheads also revealed some similarities hidden so far. Spearheads with very similar metrical data (almost the same size) are located very close to each-other on the dendrogram (closest neighbours). These spearheads are often not only closest neighbours on the diagram, but geographically too: most of them were found at the same site or even in the same grave group suggested by the similar grave numbers23.  Eisner 1952, 119–120, Obr. 71/1.  Mitscha-Mähreim 1941, 7, Taf. 1/15; Distelberger 1996, 105–109. 23  Some examples: reed-shaped spearheads (P.I): Budakalász–Dunapart, grave No. 529 and 1077; Budakalász–Dunapart, grave No. 200 and 715; Budakalász–Dunapart, grave No. 680 and 930; Budakalász–Dunapart, grave No. 705 and 728 (unpublished, excavation by A. Pásztor and T. Vida); Előszállás–Bajcsihegy, grave No. 115 and 134 (unpublished, IKM 52.186.1 21 22

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms

207

Diagram 22. Cluster analysis of Avar-age reed-shaped spearheads by three variables (blade length, blade width and socket length).

Diagram 23. Cluster analysis of Avar-age lenticular spearheads by three variables (blade length, blade width and socket length). and Kovrig 1955b, 169), lenticular spearheads (P.III): Budakalász–Dunapart, grave No. 341 and 432; Budakalász–Dunapart, grave No. 260 and 670 (unpublished, excavation by A. Pásztor and T. Vida); Devínska Nová Ves, grave No. 765a and 777 (Eisner 1952, 161–162, t. 81/8; 163, t. 84/6); Kölked–Feketekapu A 65 and 405 (Kiss 1996, 33, Taf. 29/4; 113, Taf. 78/6).

208

C s i ky G e r g e ly

What is the importance of this observation from an archaeological point of view? The closeness of two burials is usually the result of two factors: 1. chronological, 2. social. The chronological factor is used for horizontal stratigraphical examination of various cemeteries, while using social factor it is possible to reveal kinship groups in a cemetery. In my view the geographical closeness of spearheads of similar size is a consequence of local production of these weapons on each site and their chronological interrelatedness can be the result of surviving workshop traditions.

Conclusions The large number of metrical data measured on hundreds of Avar-age spearheads can be used by various methods for various purposes. Univariate methods are especially suitable for describing the basic characteristics of each data sets, for distinguishing outliers (values far beyond normal distribution) and for comparative analyses both by means of form groups (typological features) or by periods (chronological features). As a result of our univariate analyses some functional characteristics could be verified wich were already observed during the classification: metrical data can help us to distinguish javelins (throwing weapons), cavalry lances (narrow and thick-bladed thrusting polearms) and polearms of cutting function (wide and thin-bladed spearheads) all of which are traditionally called polearms. Identifying outstanding values (outliers) are important both in study functional and social differences: the smallest polearms are probably javelins, while the oversized spearheads correlate with wealth and prestige. Unfortunately the anthropological studies carried out so far are insufficient for a comparison of age groups or body height with the length of polearms, although I think they could correlate. Binary analysis can reveal correlations of two measurements and standard proportions, however according to our investigation no standardized proportions were used during the Avar Age. This result questions the validity of former cluster analyses carried out on the base of proportions rather than raw metrical data. Multivariate analyses, such as cluster analysis is suitable for comparing more than two numerical batches and therefore to create subgroups based on metrical data. Our dendrograms show that most of the similar spearheads were found at the same site and mostly they are dated to the same period. The interpretation of this phenomenon is evident: these weapons were produced on a local level during the Early Middle Ages and no standards were used during their manufacture. This fact helps us to understand the great variance of Avar-age spearheads in their measurements which resulted in the fact that we cannot find two weapons of exactly the same form and size during that period.

References ADAM 2002 Szentpéteri J. (ed.), Archäologische Denkmäler der Awarenzeit in Mitteleuropa. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica XIII/1 (Budapest 2002). Balogh 2002 Cs. Balogh, Régészeti adatok Bács-Kiskun megye területének kora avar kori történetéhez. Előmunkálatok a Duna–Tisza köze avar kori betelepülésének kérdéseihez. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve – Studia Archaeologica 8, 2002, 291–339. Bárdos 1978 E. Bárdos, Előzetes jelentés a pusztaberényi avar temető és Árpád-kori telep feltárásáról. Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei 3, 1978, 81–94. Béreš 1984, J. Béreš, Záchranný výskum vo Valalikoch-Všechsvätých. Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 1983, 40–41. I. Bóna 1957, I. Bóna, Az ürbőpusztai avar temető. Archaeologiai Értesítő 84, 1957, 155–174. Bóna 1970, I. Bóna, Avar lovassír Iváncsáról – Grave of an avar horseman at Iváncsa. Archaeologiai Értesítő 97, 243–263. Bóna 1971a I. Bóna, A népvándorlás kora Fejér megyében, J. Fitz– J. Makkay (eds.), Fejér megye története az őskortól a honfoglalásig 5 (Székesfehérvár 1971), 221(5) – 314(94).

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms

209

Bóna 1979 I. Bóna 1979, A Szegvár–sápoldali lovassír. Adatok a korai avar temetkezési szokásokhoz. – Das Reitergrab von Szegvár-Sápoldal. Beiträge zu den frühawarischen Bestattungssitten. Archaeologiai Értesítő 97, 3–32. Bóna 1980 I. Bóna, Studien zum frühawarischen Reitergrab von Szegvár. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarium Hungaricae 32, 1980, 31–95. Bóna 1982–1983 I. Bóna, A XIX. század nagy avar leletei – Die großen Awarenfunde des 19. Jahrhunderts. A Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve 1982–83, 81–160. Bóna I. 1986a I. Bóna, Daciától Erdőelvéig. Erdély és a Kelet-Alföld a népvándorlás korában (271–895). Köpeczi B. (ed.), Erdély története három kötetben (Budapest 1986), 107–234. Bóna 1990 I. Bóna I. 1990 Beiträge zum asiatischen Ursprung der awarenzeitlichen partiellen Pferdebestattungen. A Wosinsky Mór Múzeum Évkönyve 15, 1990, 113–124. Budaváry, Vojtech 1936 Budaváry, Vojtech, Zpráva o výskume „Homolky” v Malom Čepčíne (okr. Turčiansky Sväty Martin) r. 1936. Bericht über die Untersuchung auf „Homolka” in Malý Čepčín (Bez. St. Martin am Turetz) im J. 1936. Sborník Muzeálnej slovenskej spoločnosti 30. 94–100. Budinský-Krička 1956 V. Budinský-Krička, Pohrebisko z neskorej doby avarskej v Žitavskej Tôni na Slovensku – Ein Gräberfeld aus der späten Awarenzeit in Žitavská Tôň in der Slowakei. Slovenská Archeológia 4/1, 1956, 5–131. Budinský-Krička / Točik 1984 V. Budinský-Krička, A. Točik, Jazdecký hrob 94/1967 z doby avarskej ríše v Košiciach, čast’ Šebastovce, Zborník prác ˇLudmile Kraskovskej (k životnému jubileu) (Bratislava 1984), 172–195. Budinský-Krička / Točik 1991 V. Budinský-Krička, A. Točik 1991, Šebastovce. Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Reiches. Katalog (Nitra 1991). Čilinská 1963 Z. Čilinská, Slovansko-avarské pohrebisko v Žitavskej Tôni,” Slovenská Archeológia 11/1, 1963, 87–120. Čilinská 1966 Z. Čilinská, Slawisch-awarisches Gräberfeld in Nové Zámky. Archaeologica Slovaca Fontes 7 (Bratislava 1966). Čilinská 1982 Z. Čilinská 1982, Dve pohrebiská z 8.–9. storočia v Komárne – Zwei Gräberfelder aus dem 8.–9. Jh. in Komárno. Slovenská Archeológia 30, 1982, 347–393. Čilinská 1984 Z. Čilinská, Depoty železnych predmetov z konca 8. storočia na Slovensku. Zbornik prác L’udmile Kraskovskej (k životnému jubileu) (Bratislava 1980), 163–171. Ciugudeanu 1974 H. Ciugudeanu 1974, Mormîntul unui călăreţ de la Măgina, jud. Alba. Studii şi Cercetări De Istorie Veche 25, 1974, pp. 457–459. Cosma / Dobos / Rustoiu / Rustoiu / Oargă 2013 C. Cosma, A. Dobos, G. T. Rustoiu, A. Rustoiu, O. Oargă, Războinici în Transilvania din epoca Avară. Catalogul expoziţiei (Cluj-Napoca 2013). Csallány Gábor 1899: Csallány Gábor. Népvándorláskori temetőről Szentesen. Archaeologiai Értesítő 19, 1899, 416–419. Csallány D. 1939 D. Csallány, Kora-avarkori sírleletek – Grabfunde der Frühawarenzeit. Folia Archaeologica 1–2, 1939, 121–180. Csallány 1953 D. Csallány, A bácsújfalusi avarkori hamvasztásos lelet. Adatok a kuturgur-bolgárok (hunok) temetési szokásához és régészeti hagyatékához, Archaeologiai Értesítő 80, 1953, 133–141. Csallány 1956 D. Csallány, Archäologische Denkmäler der Awarenzeit in Mitteleuropa (Budapest 1956). Csallány D. 1960a D. Csallány, Szabolcs-Szatmár megye avar leletei. A nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 1, (1958), 31–87.

210

C s i ky G e r g e ly

Csallány Dezső 1963 Csallány Dezső, A kuturgur-bolgárok (hunok) régészeti hagyatékának a meghatározása. Archaeologiai Értesítő 90, 1963. 21–38. Csiky Gergely 2009, Csiky Gergely 2009, Az avar kori szúró- és vágófegyverek. Osztályozás – tipológia – kronológia – technológia. PhD Thesis, manuscript, Eötvös Loránd University (Budapest 2009). Csiky Gergely 2013 Csiky Gergely 2013? Az avar közelharci fegyverek története – Funkcionális megközelítés. Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából VI–VII 2011–12 (2013) 71–92. Demeter / Fülöp / Lukácsi / Siklósi 1996 Z. Demeter, G. Fülöp, L. Lukácsi, G. Siklósi Gyula, Zámoly története és néprajza (Székesfehérvár 1996). Dimitrijević / Kovačević / Vinski 1962 D. Dimitrijević, J. Kovačević, Z. Vinski 1962, Seoba Naroda. Arheološki nalazi jugoslovenskog Podunavlja (Zemun 1962). Distelberger 1996 A. Distelberger, Das awarische Gräberfeld von Mistelbach (Niederösterreich), (Monographien zur Frühgeschichte und Mittelalterarchäologie 3) (Innsbruck 1996). Dörner 1960 E. Dörner, Mormînt din epoca avară la Sînpetru-German. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche 11, 1960, 423–431. Drennan 2009 Robert D Drennan, Statistics for Archaeologists. A Common Sense Approach. 2nd Edition. Interdisciplinary Approaches to Archaeology (Springer, London – New York 2009). Eisner 1933–34 J. Eisner 1933–1934, Prehistorický výskum na Slovensku a v Podkarpatské Rusi roku 1932 a 1933. Sborník Muzeálnej slovenskej spoločnosti 27–28, 1933–1934, 166–188. Eisner 1941 J. Eisner, Die vor- und frühgeschichtliche Forschung auf dem Gebiete der Slowakei und der ehemaligen Karpathenukraine in den Jahren 1918–1938, Südost (deutsche) Forschungen VI. 3/4, 1941, 353–380. Eisner 1952 J. Eisner, Devínska Nová Ves. Slovanské pohřebiště (Bratislava 1952) Erdélyi / Németh 1969 I. Erdélyi, P. Németh, A várpalota–gimnáziumi avar temető. (A Bakonyi Múzeum avarkori leletanyagának ismertetése) I, A Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei 8, 1969, 167–198. Fancsalszky Gábor 2006: Fancsalszky Gábor, Régészeti adatok Székesfehérvár környékének népvándorláskori topográfiájához. Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis 35, 2006, 73–92; 1–11. táblák. Fülöp Gy. 1984 Gy. Fülöp 1984, Újabb avar kori temetők Fejér megyében. Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis 21, 1984, 255–259. Fusek 2006 G. Fusek, Výklenkové hroby na včasnostredovekom pohrebisku v Cíferi, v časti Pác. Študijné Zvesti Archeologického Ústavu Slovenskej Akadémie Vied 39, 2006, 27–54. Garam 1992 É. Garam, Die münzdatierten Gräber der Awarenzeit. F. Daim (ed.), Awarenforschungen I. Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren 4 (Wien 1992), 135–250. Garam 1995 É. Garam, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Tiszafüred. Cemeteries of the Avar Period (567–829) in Hungary 3 (Budapest 1995). Gubitza 1907 K. Gubitza, A kishegyesi régibb középkori temető. Archaeologiai Értesítő 27, 1907, 346–363. Gubitza 1908 K. Gubitza, Újabb népvándorláskori lovas sírok a Bácskában. Archaeologiai Értesítő 28, 1908, 417–421. Gubitza 1909 K. Gubitza, Bács-Bodrog vármegye őskora. Magyarország Vármegyéi és Városai. Bács-Bodrog Vármegye II (Budapest 1909), 1–27. Gubitza / Trencsényi 1908 Gubitza Kálmán, Trencsényi Károly 1908: A Bács-Bodrog vármegyei történelmi társulat múzeumának képes kalauza (Zombor 1908).

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms

211

Hammer 2015 Hammer, Øyvind: PAST – Paleontological Statistics Version 3.06. Reference manual. Natural History Museum, University of Oslo. 1999–2015. http://folk.uio.no/ohammer/past/past3manual.pdf Hampel J. 1900 J. Hampel, Újabb hazai leletek az avar uralom korából. Archaeologiai Értesítő 20, 1900, 107–125. Hampel 1902 J. Hampel, Régiségek a honfoglalás korából. Archaeologiai Értesítő 22, 1902, 296–316. Hampel 1903 J. Hampel, A n. múzeum régiségosztály gyarapodása az 1903. évben. Archaeologiai Értesítő 23, 425–447. Hampel 1905 J. Hampel, Alterthümer des frühen Mittelalters in Ungarn I–III (Braunschweig 1905). Hanuliak / Zábojník 1982 M. Hanuliak, J. Zábojník, Pohrebisko zo 7.–8. stor. v Čataji, okr. Bratislava-vidiek. – Gräberfeld aus dem 7.–8. Jh. in Čataj, Bez. Bratislava-Land. Archeologické Rozhledy 34, 1982, 492–503, 583–588. Heinrich-Tamáska O. 2005 O. Heinrich-Tamáska, Studien zu den awarenzeitlichen Tauschierarbeiten. Monographien zur Frühgeschichte und Mittelalterarchäologie 11, Wien 2005. Horedt 1956 K. Horedt, Avarii în Transilvania. Les avars en Transilvanie. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche 7, 1956, 393–406. Horedt K. 1958 K. Horedt, Contribuţii la istoria Transilvaniei în secolele IV–XIII, Biblioteca Istorică VII (București 1958). Horedt K. 1968 K. Horedt, Das Awarenproblem in Rumänien. Študijné Zvesti Archeologického Ústavu Slovenskej Akadémie Vied 16, 1968, 103–120. Hullám / Hullám 2013 D. Hullám, G. Hullám, Mi felett törünk lándzsát? Kísérlet a Kárpát-medencei Barbaricum lándzsáinak új szempontú vizsgálatára. A cluster analysis of Przeworsk and Sarmatian spearheads. Á. Szabó Á. (ed.): Res Militares Antiquae. Specimina Nova, Suppl. XII (Pécs 2013), 91–128. Husár 2005 M. Husár, Kopije a oštepi ako výzbroj bojovníka z obdobia avarského kaganátu na Slovensku, (Diplomá Práca) (Nitra 2005). T. Juhász I. 1973 T. Juhász I., Néhány Békés megyei avarkori leletről. A Békés Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei 2, 1973, 99–113. Kaczanowski 1995 P. Kaczanowski, Klasyfikacja grotów broni drzewcowej kultury Przeworskiej z okresu rymskiego. Klasyfikacje Zabytków Arheologicznych I. Universitet Jagielloński (Kraków 1995). Kada 1906 E. Kada, Gátéri (kun-kisszállási) temető a régibb középkorból, Archaeologiai Értesítő 26, 1906, 135–155, 207–221. Kiss 1977 A. Kiss 1977, Avar Cemeteries in County Baranya. Cemeteries of the Avar Period (567–829) in Hungary 2 (Budapest 1977). Kiss 1996 A. Kiss, Das awarenzeitlich gepidische Gräberfeld von Kölked–Feketekapu A. Monographien zur Frühgeschichte und Mittelalterarchäologie 2. Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren 5 (Innsbruck 1996). Kiss A. 2001 A. Kiss, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld in Kölked–Feketekapu B. Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica Hungariae 6 (Budapest 2001). Kiss / Somogyi 1984 G. Kiss, P. Somogyi 1984, Tolna megyei avar temetők. Awarische Gräberfelder im Komitat Tolna. Dissertationes Pannonicae III/2 (Budapest 1984). Kovács 1913 I. Kovács, A mezőbándi ásatások,” Dolg 4 (C, pp. 279–389. A mezőbandi asatasok / Les fouillages de Mezőband. Dolgozatok. Erdély Nemzeti Múzeum 4, 1913, 265–429. Kovács 1915 I. Kovács, A marosvásárhelyi őskori telep, skytha- és népvándorláskori temető. Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából 6, 1915, 226–325.

212

C s i ky G e r g e ly

Kovrig 1955a I. Kovrig, Adatok az avar megszállás kérdéséhez. Archaeologiai Értesítő 82, 1955, 30–44. Kovrig 1955b I. Kovrig, Contributions au probleme de l’occupation de la Hongrie par les Avars. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarium Hungaricae 6, 1955, 163–192. Kovrig I. 1975 I. Kovrig, The Tiszaderzs Cemetery. I. Kovrig (ed.), Avar Finds in the Hungarian National Museum. Cemeteries of the Avar Period (567–829) in Hungary 1 (Budapest 1975), 209–239. Kőhegyi 1989 M. Kőhegyi, Baja története a kezdetektől 1944-ig (Budapest 1989). Kraskovská L’. 1962, L’ Kraskovská, Pohrebisko v Bernolákove. Slovenská Archeológia 10, 1962, 425–476. Lehoczky 1874 T. Lehoczky, Régészeti böngészet hazánk északi vidékein. Archaeologiai Értesítő 8, 1874, 280–281. Mesterházy 1987 K. Mesterházy, Kora avar részleges lovastemetkezés Ártándról és Biharkeresztesről. (Frühawarische partielle Pferdebestattungen aus Ártánd und Biharkeresztes). Folia Archaeologica 38, 1987, 219–245. Mitscha-Märheim 1941 H. Mitscha-Märheim, Die frühmittelalterlichen Gräberfunde von Mistelbach, Katzelsdorf, Münchendorf und Schwechat. Niederdonau – Natur und Kultur 8, 1941, 3–58, 24 plates. Mrkobrad 1980 D. Mrkobrad, Arheološki nalazi seobe naroda u Jugoslaviji. Archäologische Funde der Völkerwanderungszeit in Jugoslawien. Fontes Archeologiae Iugoslaviae III. Monografije 6 (Beograd 1980). Nađ 1959 S. Nađ 1959, Nekropola kod Aradca iz ranog sredneg veka. Rad Vojdođanskih Muzeja 8, 1955, 45–109. Nagy G. 1913 G. Nagy, Erdély a honfoglalás idejében a régészeti leletek világánál. Archaeologiai Értesítő 33, 1913, 268–275, 293–294. Nagy1998 M. Nagy, Awarenzeitliche Gräberfelder im Stadtgebiet von Budapest I–II. Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica Hungariae 2 (Budapest 1988) Némethi / Klima 1992 M. Némethi, L. Klima, Kora avar kori lovastemetkezések, A nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 30–32, 1992, 173–239. Papp 1962 L. Papp, A bólyi avarkori temető. Der awarenzeitliche Friedhof von Bóly. A pécsi Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 7, 1962, 163–193. Papp 1963 L. Papp, A nagyharsányi avar kori temető. Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Nagyharsány. A pécsi Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 8, 1963, 113–141. Pástor 1961 J. Pástor, Pohrebisko vo Všechsvätých. Archeologické Rozhledy 13, 1961, 375–385, ill. 148–154. Pástor J. 1982 J. Pástor, Slovansko-avarské pohrebisko vo Valalíkoch, okr. Košice-vidiek. Historica Carpathica 13,1982, 305–333. Popa 1961 A. Popa, Materiale din perioda de trecere la feudalism în zona oraşului Alba Iulia. Apulum 4, 1961, 221–232. Pulszky 1874 F. Pulszky, A magyarországi avar leletekről. Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Értekezések a történelmi tudományok köréből III. 7, 1–12. Rhé / Fettich 1931 Gy. Rhé, N. Fettich, Jutas und Öskü. Zwei Gräberfelder aus der Völkerwanderungszeit in Ungarn mit einem anthropologischen Anhang von L. Bartucz. Seminarium Kondakovianum (Prag 1931). Roediger L. 1903a L. Roediger, Ásatásainkról. A Bács-Bodrog vármegyei Történeti Társulat Évkönyve 19, 1903, 143–149. Roediger L. 1903b L. Roediger, Koraközépkori lovas sírleletről Szeghegyen (Bács-Bodrog m.). Archaeologiai Értesítő 23, 1903, 272–276.

A metrical approach in the study of Avar-age polearms

213

Roska 1927 M. Roska, Adatok a magyarság erdélyi honfoglalásához. Erdélyi Irodalmi Szemle 1927, 258–264. Roska 1934 M. Roska, Das gepidische Grabfeld von Vereşmort-Marosveresmart (Turda–Tordaaranyos, Siebenbürgen). Germania 18, 1934, 123–130. Rosner 1975–1976 Gy. Rosner, A Szekszárd, Bogyiszlói úti avar temető ló- és lovastemetkezései. A Béri Balogh Ádám Múzeum Évkönyve 6–7, 1975–1976, 79–109. Rosner 1999 Gy. Rosner, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld in Szekszárd–Bogyiszlói Strasse. Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica Hungariae 3 (Budapest 1999). Rusu 1962 M. Rusu, The prefeudal Cemetery of Noşlac (VIth–VIIth Centuries). Dacia. N.S. 6, 1962, 269–292. Salamon / Erdélyi 1971 Á. Salamon, I. Erdélyi, Das völkerwanderungszeitliche Gräberfeld von Környe. Studia Archaeologica 5 (Budapest 1971). Salamon / Sebestyén K. 1995 Á. Salamon, Cs. Sebestyén K., The Szeged–Kundomb Cemetery. Das awarische Corpus 4, 1995 (Debrecen – Budapest 1995), 8–109. Simon 1991 L. Simon, Korai avar kardok. Studia Comitatensia 22, 1991, 286–346. Sós 1958 Á. Cs. Sós 1958, Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld von Oroszlány. Folia Archaeologica 10, 1958, 104–124. Sós / Salamon 1995 Á. Cs. Sós, Á. Salamon, Cemeteries of the Early Middle Ages (6th–9th Centuries A. D.) at Pókaszepetk (ed. Szőke B. M.) (Budapest 1995). Stadler 1985 P. Stadler, Seriation awarischer Gürtelgarnituren I–II. Dissertation. Manuskript (Wien 1985) Szalontai 1995 Cs. Szalontai, A késő avar kori liliomos övveretek. Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei 11, 1995, 127–143. Szatmári 1988 S. Szatmári, Avarkori lelőhelyek Komárom megyében. G. Gombkötő (ed.), Komárom megye története I (Tata 1988), 203–233. Szentpéteri 1993 J. Szentpéteri, Archäologische Studien zur Schicht der Waffenträger des Awarentums im Karpatenbecken. I. Die waffenkundliche Hinterlassenschaft des awarischen Reiches. ActaArchHung 45, 1993, 165–246. Szőke 1994 B. M. Szőke, A népvándorlás kor és a korai középkor története Nagykanizsán és környékén. Nagykanizsa. Városi monográfia I (Nagykanizsa 1994), 145–214. Szőke 2002 B. M. Szőke, Avar kori központok a határ mentén. in Központok a Zala mentén. A Göcseji Múzeum állandó kiállítása. Katalógus (Zalaegerszeg 2002), 65–87. Tettamanti 2000 S. Tettamanti, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld in Vác-Kavicsbánya. Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica Hungariae 5 (Budapest 2000) Točík 1968a A. Točík, Slawisch-awarisches Gräberfeld in Holiare. Catalogi Archaeologici I (Bratislava 1968). Točík 1968b A. Točík, Slawisch-awarisches Gräberfeld in Štúrovo. Archaeologica Slovaca – Catalogi II (Bratislava 1968). Točík 1992 A. Točík, Materiály k dejinám južného Slovenska v 7.–14. storočí. Študijné Zvesti Archeologického Ústavu Slovenskej Akadémie Vied 28, 1992, 5–250. Török 1954 Gy. Török, Kora-avar sírok Móron. Archaeologiai Értesítő 81, 1954, 54–60. Trugly 1987 A. Trugly, Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Reiches bei der Schiffswerft in Komárno. Slovenská Archeológia 35/2, 1987, 251–344.

214

C s i ky G e r g e ly

Trugly 1993 A. Trugly, Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Reiches bei der Schiffswerft in Komárno II. (1987–1989). Slovenská Archeológia 41/2, 1993, 191–307. Vinski 1958 Z. Vinski, “O nalazima 6. i 7. stoljeća u Jugoslaviji s posebnim obzirom na arheološku ostavštinu iz vremena prvog Avarskoga Kaganata. – Zu den Funden des 6. und 7. Jahrhunderts in Jugoslawien mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der archäologischen Hinterlassenschaft aus der Zeit des ersten awarischen Khaganates,” Opuscula Archaeologica 3, (Zagreb), 13–67. Winkler / Takács / Păiuş 1977 I. Winkler, M. Takács, G. Păiuş, Necropole avară de la Cicău. Das awarische Grabfeld von Cicău. Acta Musei Napocensis 14, 1977, 221–237. Wosinsky 1896 M. Wosinsky, Tolnavármegye története az őskortól a honfoglalásig I–II (Budapest 1986). Zábojník 1991 J. Zábojník, Seriation von Gürtelgarnituren aus dem Gebiet der Slowakei und Österreichs (Beitrag zur Chronologie der Zeit des awarischen Kaganats). K problematike osídlenia stredodunaskej oblasti vo včasnom stredoveku (Nitra 1991), 219–321. Zábojník 1995 J. Zábojník, Soziale Problematik der Gräberfelder des nördlichen und nordwestlichen Randgebietes des awarischen Kaganats. Slovenská Archeológia 43/2, 1995, 205–336.

R

anderscheinungen einer Randkultur. Awarische Männerrepräsentation und mediterraner Einfluss in Randgebieten des Karpatenbeckens (erste Hälfte 8. J.h. N. Chr.) Szenthe Gergely

Hungarian National Museum Department of Archaeology H–1088 Budapest, Hungary, Múzeum krt. 14–16. [email protected]

Zusammenfassung: Die Studie untersucht eine Gruppe von Elementen der spätawarenzeitlichen materiellen Kultur, die an Gürtelbeschlägen feste Kombinationen (Gegenstandstypen) bilden oder sich mindestens ständig unter einander kombinieren. Sie sondern sich den morphologischen Kriterien und der regionalen Verbreitung nach vom Gesamtbild der zeitgenössischen „awarischen“ Materialkultur völlig ab. Obwohl sie aus der Kultur des Mittelmeerraumes stammen, kommen die meisten Elemente außer zwei Schnallentypen in solchen Kombinationen vor, die heute nur für das Transdanubien und Randgebiete des Karpatenbeckens typisch zu sein scheinen. Ihr horizontartiges Vorkommen in einem Material von minderem Niveau ist ein Zeichen der interregionalen Kontakte mit anliegenden mediterranen Gebieten, bzw. einer Anpassung bestimmter Gruppen der lokalen Bevölkerung an awarische Repräsentationsmodelle. Schlagwörter: Spätawarenzeit; regionale archäologische Gruppen; „byzantinische“ Kontakte des Karpatenbeckens; interregionale Kommunikation

I

n der materiellen Kultur des frühmittelalterlichen Karpatenbeckens kommen häufig solche Merkmale vor, die auf rege Kontakte mit dem Mediterraneum hin weisen. Nach dem archäologischen Befund war die Kommunikation zwischen Byzanz und den Awaren im 7. Jahrhundert lebhaft. Ab der zweiten Hälfte des 7. Jahrhunderts verengt sich diese Kommunikation, bis ins 8. Jahrhundert, als es lange fast verschwunden zu sein schien. Die traditionelle Awarenforschung des 20. Jahrhunderts erklärte diese Situation mit dem Zustandekommen einer einheimischen, „spätawarischen Kultur“1, die sich wegen der politischen Marginalisation, zum Teil aber bewusst eingesperrt hat2; Währenddessen sollte das Awarentum eine Identität aus der „Steppentradition“ der Awaren aufgebaut haben3. An dieser Konstruktion erschienen Risse seit den 80er Jahren. Die Aufsätze von Falko Daim4, Gábor Kiss5, und neuestens von Birgit Bühler6 erklären die Einflüsse der byzantinischen materiellen Kultur in dem spätawarenzeitlichen Karpatenbecken auf Grund der Analysen von einzelnen Gegenstandstypen, typologischen Merkmalen und letztens mithilfe Materialanalysen7 und technologiegeschichtlicher Untersuchungen8.  Zu den relativchronologischen Phasen der Awarenzeit siehe vor Allem Garam 1995 und Zábojník 1991, aber auch Daim 1989, Daim / Lippert 1987. 2  Bóna 1988, 454–455; zuletzt Szenthe Handschrift/b. 3  Szenthe Handschrift/b. 4  U.a. Daim 1990; Daim 2000b; Daim 2001; Daim 2010; Daim et al. 2010; Daim / Bühler 2012. 5  Kiss 1995; Kiss 1999–2000; Kiss 2001a; Kiss 2005; Kiss 2012. 6  Bühler 2010; Bühler 2014. 7  Daim 2000a; Daim et al. 2010. 8  Bühler 2014. 1

216

S z e n t h e G e r g e ly

Als die Awarenforschung auf die Ergebnisse der byzantinischen Archäologie und Wirtschaftsgeschichte einen Bezug nahm, konnte bald ausgesprochen werden, dass das Verschwinden von byzantinischen Gegenständen und Münzen aus dem awarischen Siedlungsgebiet nicht nur, oder nicht eindeutig den Veränderungen in der politischen Situation zwischen dem awarischen Khaganat und dem Byzantinischen Reich gefolgt hat, sondern eher weitreichenden Umwandlungen im Mediterraneum und Byzanz zu verdanken war9. Während die erste Theorie die spätawarische Kultur für unabhängig hält, und ihr dadurch als einem selbständigen Wesen – zwar unausgesprochen – eine (kulturelle) Zentrumfunktion zuspricht, positioniert die zweite die Awaren „am Rand der byzantinischen Welt“10 als marginales Phänomen innerhalb der byzantinischen Kultur. Da der Zentrum- und Peripheriencharakter eines Gebietes relativ ist, und sich sogar chronologisch verändert, es lohnt sich den zwei, scheinbar unversöhnbaren Theorien hinterzufragen. Ihr Unterschied beruht eher auf einer inneren und einer äußeren Angehensweise zu demselben Problem, was sie deshalb als dessen komplementierende Aspekte bewerten lässt. Es klingt evident, dass kulturelle Erscheinungen in einem Gebiet – in diesem Fall im Karpatenbecken – ohne die Einflüsse der äußeren Welt nicht erklärt werden können, aber auch nicht allein auf Grund von denen. Für das Verständnis der Interaktionen zwischen dem Zentrum und den Peripherien ist die detaillierte Kenntnis über ihre Kommunikation – hinter einer allgemeinen Feststellung ihrer „Kontakte“ – von besonderem Wert.

Gegenstände als Zeichen der Kommunikation Nicht zuletzt wegen der raschen Entwicklung der mediterranen Archäologie ist man heute in der Lage, es zu versuchen, auch auf Art und Weise der Kommunikation des 8. Jahrhunderts Schlüsse zu ziehen. Der vorliegenden Studie ist deshalb das Ziel gesetzt, das Erscheinen von „byzantinischen“ Gegenständen von minderer Qualität im awarischen Milieu zu analysieren. Da die meisten Studien im Thema den technologisch und ikonographisch ausgezeichneten Gegenständen der „Elitenkultur“ gewidmet sind11, scheint ein Angehen in dieser Weise gar nicht überflüssig zu sein: als gut begründete Arbeitshypothese kann formuliert werden, dass Folgerungen an andere Schichten der Kontakte mit der Hilfe der einfachen Gussgegenstände als durch die Analyse von Edelmetallgegenständen vermutlich aus Eliten-, bzw. diplomatischer Kommunikation gezogen werden können12. Zwangsläufig folgt die Frage an dieser Stelle, nach welchen Kriterien ein Gegenstand bzw. eine Gegenstandsgruppe für „byzantinisch“ gehalten werden kann. Eine breite Definition scheint dafür auch bei den weit besser geforschten Goldschmiedeartefakten auf hohem fachmännischem Niveau angemessen zu sein13. Bei den leicht reproduzierbaren Gussgegenständen definiert die sichere Angehörigkeit zur byzantinischen /mediterranen, provinzialbyzantinischen / materiellen Kultur ein einziges Kriterium: Ein Gussgegenstand gehört einem mediterranen (vielleicht byzantinischen oder provinzialbyzantinischen) Typ, wenn exakte morphologische Analogien dazu im Mediterraneum (oder in einem engeren mediterranen Gebiet) vorkommen. Die Legierung spielt in dieser Hinsicht eine sekundäre, oder – mindestens als eine Folge des Mangels an Materialanalysen aus der mediterranen Welt – eher keine Rolle. Es ist interessant, wegen des Fehlens von Vergleichsmaterial kann es doch ein Zufall sein, dass die beiden Schnallen vom Typ „Ároktő“ (siehe unten) aus einer Legierung mit etwa 50% Bleianteil bestehen14. Obwohl awarische Gussgegenstände im Allgemeinen einen relativ hohen Zinn- und Bleianteil vorweisen (meistens beide um 10%)15, die Legierung der beiden Schnallen scheint im Karpatenbecken völlig atypisch zu sein. Ein Argument für die Verwendung der Legierung kann ihre gute Giessbarkeit sein, die bei den dünnen Gegenständen einen entscheidenden Vorteil bedeuten könnte. Gábor Kiss  Bálint 2004.  Daim 2000b. 11  Obwohl es gar nicht sicher ist, was für eine Bedeutung der Begriff im awarischen Milieu haben konnte; Z.B. HeinrichTamaska 2013; Szenthe 2015, 12  Bollók 2012; Szenthe 2013a; Szenthe 2013b; Szenthe 2015. 13  Drauschke 2011, 84–87. 14  Siehe im Appendix. 15  Költő 1982; Wobrauschek / Haider / Streli 1987; Stadler 1987b. 9

10

Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur

217

bemerkte im Falle einer Schnalle aus Keszthely, dass die originalen byzantinischen Exemplare gegen die schwereren awarischen Produkte leicht und dünn seien. Obwohl ohne Materialanalyse, hat G. Kiss auch empfohlen, dass die Schnalle aus einer Legierung mit hohem Bleianteil ist16. Bei mehreren Gegenständen konnte Falko Daim den Zusammenhang von byzantinischen Gegenstandstypen (vom Typ Micheldorf-Skalistoe) und der Verwendung von „Glockenbronze“ – einer Bronze mit hohem Bleianteil – beweisen17. Im 8. Jahrhundert ist es durchaus denkbar, dass es auch solche, „echten“ byzantinischen Type gibt, die nur noch am Rand des byzantinischen Einflussgebietes zum Vorschein gekommen sind18. Eine Erweiterung der Definition scheint deshalb berechtigt zu sein: Zu dem mediterranen Kulturkreis gehören diejenige Objekte, für die Parallele in der gleichen Funktion, mit den gleichen technischen Lösungen und mit der Mehrheit der formalen Merkmalen (Gegenstandsform, Zierelemente und Ornamentik) im Mediterraneum bekannt sind. Die Mehrheit der unten behandelten Gegenstände ist nicht einmal nach dieser Definition byzantinisch. Da funktionale Analogien mit der gleichen Form, Zierelementen und Ornamentik zu den behandelten Gürtelbeschlägen und Riemenzungen außer des Karpatenbeckens (wegen der Forschungssituation, aus den Publikationen, und heute noch?) fehlen, können diese nicht als byzantinische Type identifiziert werden: Sie sind solche Produkte, die unter dem Einfluss von mediterranen Stilrichtungen (Geschmack), bzw. mit mediterranem technischem Wissen gefertigt wurden.

Faktors der Diffusion Die Vermittlung zwischen Kulturen ist ein komplexer Prozess, die durch viele Faktoren geregelt ist. Eine Übernahme ist nur vorstellbar, wenn das vermittelte Phänomen in der rezipierenden Kultur anwendbar ist. Gegen die Strukturiertheit der byzantinischen Kultur von monumentalen Gebäuden zu den kleinsten Gegenständen des alltäglichen Gebrauchs19 besteht der fortbestandene Teil der awarenzeitlichen Kultur aus Gebrauchsgegenständen und Zierelementen der Bekleidung und der Zaumzeuge. Infolgedessen analysiert man in der Wirklichkeit nur die Streuung von byzantinischen Kleinfunden im Karpatenbecken, wenn man die byzantinischen Kontakte der Awarenzeit mit archäologischen Methoden untersucht; Und wegen dem engen Spektrum, beziehungsweise begrenzter Aussagekraft dieses Quellentyps für das Ganze der menschlichen Kultur können die meisten Aspekte der Übernahme (Adaptation), Aneignung (Adoption) nicht erfasst werden20. In einigen Fällen können in der awarischen Materialkultur Einzelheiten der Umdeutung bestimmter Elementen, Selektieren21, Funktions-, und-oder Kontextwechsel22 identifiziert werden; Da aber die überwiegende Mehrheit der Gegenstände klein ist, und nur einen winzigen Teil der ehemaligen materiellen Kultur repräsentiert, bleibt die Gültigkeit solcher Entwürfe fraglich. Meistens sind hinter den Motiven/Ornamenten keine, oder minimalisierte/sehr enigmatische (mythologische, symbolische) Inhalte anzunehmen23; Im Falle unserer Objektgruppe können solche Erwägungen nicht einmal in Betracht kommen. Die Letzteren tragen als Gürtelzierden eine bestimmte Funktion, sie sind ornamental (geometrisch) und meistens sehr einfach verziert; Und an ihnen sind keine solche visuellen Elemente dargestellt, hinter deren Adaptation eine tiefere Anpassung an fremde Wertstrukturen in einer Randkultur des Karpatenbeckens rekonstruierbar wäre, oder hinter deren Verwerfen im „durchschnittlichen“ spätawarenzeitlichen Material (siehe unten) eine kulturelle Unvereinbarkeit mit der byzantinischen Kultur identifiziert werden könnte.  Kiss 2005, 204–205.  Daim 2000, 107. 18  U. a. die Schnallen von Keszthely-Dobogó (Kiss 2005) und Debrecen-Ondód (Kiss 2012). 19  Siehe z.B. die Vielfältigkeit der byzantinischen Materialkultur in Waldbaum 1983 oder Crawford 1990 an einem einzigen Fundort (Sardis). 20  Eine Beschreibung der Letzteren gibt zuletzt Hann 2013, 3–12. 21  Bálint 1993, 237; Daim 2001; Bollók 2012, 218–219. 22  Von byzantinischen Lampenketten und deren Gliedern zu Gürtelgehängen awarenzeitlicher Frauen und Taschenverschlüssen: Garam 2002, 153, Tobias 2011, 279; zu einer möglichen Umdeutung von Gegenständen als Gegenstände der Erinnerung („objects carrying memories“): Szenthe 2013a, 164–167. 23  Dazu bei einem spätawarischen Motiv Bálint 2010. 16 17

218

S z e n t h e G e r g e ly

Da die Form dieser Gegenstände in diesem Sinne neutral ist, können Informationen über die Ursachen für ihr Vorhandensein beziehungsweise für ihre Abwesenheit in bestimmten Regionen oder archäologischen Gruppen zwangsläufig nur aus der Analyse der inneren Struktur der materiellen Kultur des Karpatenbeckens gewonnen werden. Die vorliegende Studie untersucht für diesen Zweck morphologische und technische Elemente „vom byzantinischen Typ“ an Kleingegenständen. Für das Erscheinen des Lochzapfens als ein Element praktischen Zwecks ist eine formale, oberflächliche Kopiertätigkeit keine genügende Antwort. Wegen der Zeitbedürfnis des Lernens ist die Adaptation (und in einem möglichen zweiten Schritt die Adoption) von technologischen und technischen Lösungen ein längerer Prozess24. Das Benutzen eines Befestigungstyps, der den byzantinischen Parallelen/Vorgängern entspricht, setzt eine tiefere Anpassung an die mediterrane Kultur voraus. Die gemeinsame Inbetrachtnahme formaler und technischer Lösungen kann der Analyse durch den Vergleich derer Eigentümlichkeiten einerseits, durch die Erweiterung des Quellenbasis andererseits wesentlich beitragen (siehe dazu das „Dreisäulenmodell“ von Falko Daim25, das die aufeinander gebaute Untersuchung von morphologischen, technischen und technologischen Aspekten bedeutet). Die vorliegende Studie konzentriert sich auf die ersten zwei „Säulen”, d. h. auf die Zusammenhänge der morphologischen und technischen Details). Erst an einer größeren Serie lassen sich solche Qualitäten untersuchen, die in Studien, die sich an speziellen Einzelheiten begrenzten26, nicht oder nicht klar ausgesondert und analysiert werden konnten.

Gegenstände mediterranen Typs als Randerscheinung in der awarischen Materialkultur Das Vorkommen der mit Lochzapfen montierten Beschläge und der Knopfenden an Riemenzungen oder Schnallenbeschlägen gilt heute für einen eindeutigen Beweis des byzantinischen – oder vorsichtiger mediterranen – Einflusses. Dasselbe ist auch im Fall der Scharnierkonstruktionen an Riemenzungen anzunehmen, obwohl lokale Strukturen und Trends im Fundmaterial des Karpatenbeckens diese Aussage auch unterstützen27. Die Annahme ist berechtigt, dass diese Merkmale eine Rolle als Indikatoren direkter Kontakte spielen. Nicht nur darum, weil diese Einzelheiten in der mediterranen materiellen Kultur allgemein verbreitet waren, sondern weil ihr Erscheinen nördlich des Mediterraneums in bestimmten Kontexten und Gebieten konzentriert (siehe unten).

Schnallen und Beschläge mit Lochzapfen (Liste 1, Abb. 6) Die Liste der schon mehrmals behandelten Gegenstände mit Lochzapfen aus dem 8. Jahrhundert kann heute mit einigen unveröffentlichten Exemplaren ergänzt werden. 1. Schnalle, angeblich aus Südtransdanubien (Abb.  1, 7). Fundumstände unbekannt (gefunden wahrscheinlich mit Metalldetektor), aus Privatsammlung. L: 36 mm, B: 18 mm. Durchbrochener, wappenförmiger Schnallenbeschlag von minderwertiger Qualität, mit vierfüßigem Raubtier verziert. Das Maul des Tieres ist mit eingetiefter Furche gegliedert. Vor der Brust und ober dem Rücken sitzt je ein Glied aus drei Beeren (oder aus zwei Beeren und einer Komma zwischen denen). Die Oberfläche der Verzierung ist flach, die Kanten sind konisch abgeschnitten. Die Rückseite ist mit einem schmalen Rand umgrenzt, innerhalb des Randes ist es flach. An beiden Enden der Längsachse sitzt je ein Lochzapfen: as Vordere senkrecht, das Hintere parallel der Längsachse. 2. Rechteckiger, durchbrochener Gürtelbeschlag, angeblich aus Südtransdanubien (Abb.  2, 5). Fundumstände unbekannt (gefunden wahrscheinlich mit Metalldetektor), aus Privatsammlung. L: 24 mm, B: 20 mm.  Herold 2009, 125–127; Hann 2013, 7–10.  Daim 2000a, 86–87. 26  Knopfenden: Kiss 1999–2000; Lochzapfen: Zábojník 2000. 27  Szenthe 2013b. 24 25

Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur

2

219

3

1

4

5

7 6

8

Abb. 1. 1–3: Ároktő, Grabfund (1: nach Daim 1990, Abb. 1, 1); 4: Schnalle, Orosháza-Bónum-téglagyár Grab 105 (nach: Juhász 1995, Taf. VII); 5: Wien-Liesing (nach: Daim 1990, Abb. 1. 2); 6: Schnallenbeschlag, Anatolien (nach: SchulzeDörrlamm 2009, 125); 7: Schnallenbeschlag, angeblich aus Südtransdanubien, Privatsammlung; 8: Fehlguss eines Schnallenbeschlags, angeblich aus Südtransdanubien, Privatsammlung.

220

S z e n t h e G e r g e ly

3

4

5

1

2

6

7

8

Abb. 2. Kurzrechteckige Gürtelbeschläge mit Lochzapfen. 1–4: Nagypall I-Határi dűlő, Grab 16; 5: Angeblich aus Südtransdanubien, Privatsammlung; 6: Čataj Grab 159 (nach Zábojník 2007, Obr. 11); 7: Unbekanntes Fundort, nach Archivphoto; 8: Umgebung von Szeged, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum.

Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur

221

Der Beschlag ist von minderer Qualität, der Guss fehlerhaft. An der Rückseite sitzen in der Längsachse, damit parallel zwei Lochzapfen. Die Oberfläche der Verzierung ist flach, die Kanten sind konisch abgeschnitten. Mit vierfüßigem Raubtier verziert. 3. Rechteckiger, durchbrochener Gürtelbeschlag, Streufund aus Szeged (Südungarn, Theissgebiet), Ungarisches Nationalmuseum (Inv. Nr. 19.1950.3) (Abb. 2, 8). L: 28 mm, B: 28,6 mm. Der Beschlag ist mit gegossenem Perlrand und vierfüßigem, hundeartigem Tier mit stilisiertem Flügel verziert. In den Ecken der Perlrandumrahmung sitzen kleine, rundliche Vertiefungen. Verzinnt, Guss und Gestaltung von minderer Qualität. Die Lochzapfen sitzen in der Längsachse des Beschlags senkrecht, an den Kanten der Rückseite. 4. Rechteckige, durchbrochene Gürtelbeschläge, Fundort unbekannt, aus der ehem. Fleissig Sammlung (Heute verloren, nach Foto) (Abb. 2, 7). Foto ohne Maßstab Kurzrechteckige Beschläge mit gegossenem Perlrand und vierfüßigen, hundeartigen Tieren verziert. Beschläge mit gerippten Scharnierösen; An einem Exemplar blieb der geperlte Ringanhänger vorhanden. Die Lochzapfen sitzen in der Längsachse der Beschläge senkrecht, an den Kanten der Rückseiten. 5. Kreisrunde, durchbrochene Gürtelbeschläge mit Scharnierösen, Dunaszentgyörgy-Kaszás tanya. Unveröffentlichte Grabung 2009 (Ungarisches Nationalmuseum, Id. Nr. 1.63372.249.2­–3) (Abb. 3, 5). L: 25 mm, B: 23 mm. Scharnierbeschläge mit stilisiertem Band in fünf Schlingen verziert. An den Rückseiten sitzen je zwei mitgegossene Lochzapfen an beiden Enden der Querachse senkrecht. 6. Lochschützer, Fundort unbekannt, aus der ehem. Fleissig Sammlung (Ungarisches Nationalmuseum, Inv. Nr. 18.1952.7) (Abb. 3, 3). L: 27,7 mm; B: 21,5 mm. Gegossener Lochschützer mit geperltem Körper und knospenartigen Endungen. Unter den Knospen sitzen an der Rückseite die drei Lochzapfen der Längsachse parallel. 7. Lochschützer, Fundort unbekannt, aus der ehem. Fleissig Sammlung (Ungarisches Nationalmuseum, Inv. Nr. 18.1952.7) (Abb. 3, 2). L: 29 mm; B: 16,6 mm. Gegossener Lochschützer mit schlichtem Körper und knospenartigen Endungen. Unter den Knospen sitzen an der Rückseite die drei Lochzapfen der Längsachse parallel. Wegen typologischer Übereinstimmung mit der Schnalle Nr. 1. muss noch ein weiterer Gegenstand vorgestellt werden: Fehlguss eines wappenförmigen Schnallenbeschlags, angeblich aus Südtransdanubien. Fundumstände unbekannt (gefunden wahrscheinlich mit Metalldetektor), aus Privatsammlung (Abb. 1, 8). L: 46 mm, B: 23 mm. Die Rückplatte des Gegenstandes ist uneben, mit keinem Hinweis auf Montierung. Eine Öse des Scharniers fehlt. Der Rahmen des Beschlags und die vorhandene, mit Loch durchgebohrte Scharnieröse sind mit Gussnahten umrahmt. Mit vierfüßigem Raubtier verziert. Im Maulbereich des Tieres sitzt eine tropfenförmige Zierelement (Zunge?); Der Schwanz endet mit dreiblättrigem Motiv pflänzlichen Ursprungs. Den Raum hinter dem Tier füllt ein Rankenglied mit dem gleichen pflänzlichen Motiv an beiden Enden aus. Vor der Brust des Tieres erscheint ein zusammengesetztes geometrisches Motiv.

222

S z e n t h e G e r g e ly

3

2

1

4

5

6

7

Abb. 3. 1: Große Riemenzunge mit Knopfende, Mosonszentjános-Kavicsbánya Grab 44; 2–3: Lochschützer, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum aus der Fleissig Sammlung; 4: Keszthely-Dobogó, Grabfund, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum; 5: Gürtelbeschlag, Dunaszentgyörgy-Kaszás tanya, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum; 6: Gürtelbeschlag, Čataj Grab 159 (nach Zábojník 2007, Obr. 11); 7: Schnalle, Keszthely-Dobogó (nach: Kiss 2005, Abb. 1).

Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur

223

Die Exemplare aus einer Privatsammlung kamen alle aus angeblichen südtransdanubischen Fundorten zum Vorschein. Da aber einen beträchtlichen Teil des Materials für das Karpatenbecken atypische, beziehungsweise für die Balkanhalbinsel und teils für Osteuropa typische Funde ausgeben, ist es in einigen Fällen – auch bei den beiden Schnallen vom „Typ Ároktő“ – annehmbar, dass sie aus ehemaligem provinzial-byzantinischem Territorium nach Ungarn geschmuggelt wurden. Diese Möglichkeit ist wegen der typologischen Merkmale des Gegenstandes vor Allem bei dem Fehlguss Nr. 2. wahrscheinlich. Die Funde aus der Fleissig Sammlung gelangten nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg in das Ungarische Nationalmuseum. Da unter den Gegenständen der Sammlung außerordentlich viele zur sogenannten „Keszthely-Kultur“ gehören, scheint es sehr möglich zu sein, dass diese Funde aus diesem Kontext, oder allgemeiner, wahrscheinlich mit den meisten Stücken der Sammlung zusammen, aus dem Transdanubien zum Vorschein gekommen sind.

Chronologische Stellung und regionale Verbreitung Die untersuchte Gruppe von Gegenständen mit Lochzapfen war in der ersten Hälfte der Spätawarenzeit (Spätstufe I–II von J. Zábojník28) verbreitet. Die Schnallen mit figuraler Verzierung – der Typ Ároktő und der unikale Schnallenbeschlag aus Debrecen-Ondód29 – können auf Grund des Grabkontextes meistens früher (MA II-Spätstufe I) datiert werden. Die Schnalle von Ároktő begleiten ein Blechbeschlag mit konkaven Seiten und Ringanhänger, beziehungsweise eine kleine Tüllenriemenzunge, die an den Anfang der Spätawarenzeit (SS I) datiert werden können30. Für die Grabinventaren von Čataj stellte J. Zábojník dasselbe fest31. Die Gegenstände mit Lochzapfen wurden vorwiegend westlich der Donau, beziehungsweise in der westlichen Hälfte des Karpatenbeckens verwendet.

Typologische Eigenschaften und der awarische Kontext Die Gegenstände mit Lochzapfen sind im awarenzeitlichen Material meistens nicht nur durch den technischen Aspekt der Montierung, sondern auch durch andere, formal-typologische Merkmale atypisch. Die mit Vierfüsslern verzierten Gürtelbeschläge mit Lochzapfen zeigen kurzrechteckige, seltener quadratische Form vor (Abb. 2). Die Rechteckbeschläge mit ausgewogenen Länge-Breite Proportionen sind von den meistverbreiteten, langen Rechteckbeschlägen der ersten Hälfte der Spätawarenzeit mit Greifenfiguren gut abgrenzbar32. Die besten morphologischen Analogien der kurzrechteckigen Exemplare kommen unter den gepressten Blechbeschlägen der Mittelawarenzeit (MA II) vor33. Trotzdem ist die chronologische Stellung der gegossenen Stücke nicht immer, oder nicht eindeutig früh: eine allgemeine Datierung in die Spätstufe I–II scheint plausibler zu sein34. Der Perlrand der Beschläge von Szeged und derjenigen aus der Fleissig-Sammlung ist für die Rechteckbeschlägen des awarischen Kontexts atypisch35. Die Beschläge der Gürtelgarnitur von Nagypall (Abb. 2, 1–2) bilden einen Spezialfall durch das gemeinsame Vorhandensein der modellierten Nietlöcher und der mitgegossenen Lochzapfen. Das Ensemble besteht aus drei palmettenverzierten Stücken bzw. drei mit Tierfiguren. Scheinbar wurden die Lochzapfen nicht, oder in der aktuellen, mitbestatteten Garnitur nicht mehr benutzt, da sie teilweise abgefeilt wurden. Jeder Beschlag war mit Nieten an dem Gürtel befestigt, merkwürdigerweise auch in denjenigen Fällen, wo die Lochzapfen vorhanden geblieben sind.  Zábojník 1991, 237–238.  Kiss 2012, 256. 30  Zur Datierung des Beschlags siehe Phase 3. in Tiszafüred. Garam 1995, 402. Abb. 254; Auch: Zábojník 1991, 237–238. Typ 224 und 226. Taf. 38. 31  Zábojník 1991, 238. Typ 208. 32  Type bei Stadler 1990. 33  Zábojník 1991, Typ 183. Taf. 35. 34  Nagypall Grab 16 (Kiss 1977, Pl. XXVIII): Große Riemenzunge mit Tierkampsszene, die schon für die Spätstufe II typisch ist: Zábojník 1991, 238. 35  Die Rechteckbeschläge sind fast ausschließlich in die ersten zwei Zeitstufen der Spätawarenzeit datierbar, und sind mit einigen Ausnahmen mit Greifenfiguren verziert. Der Rand der Beschläge ist nur ausnahmsweise verziert: z.B. Perlrand: Tiszafüred Grab 113 (Garam 1885, Taf.  66); Orosháza-Bónum Téglagyár (Ziegelfabrik) Grab 56 und 62 (Juhász 1995, Taf. IV–V). 28 29

224

S z e n t h e G e r g e ly

Die Mehrheit der Gürtelbeschläge und Schnallen ist mit flügellosen Raubtieren verziert. Diejenigen mit Raubtiermotiv bilden innerhalb der Schnallen einen geschlossenen Typ „Ároktő“ (Abb.  1, 1; nach dem Fundort des ersten publizierten Stückes). Für diesen Typ sind der lange wappenförmige Schnallenkörper mit geschwungenem Ende, bzw. Raubtierfiguren in Profilsicht mit über den Körper geschwungenem Schwanz und mit zwei Beinen typisch. Ein spezielles Merkmal des Typs bildet das „Beeren-Komma Motiv“: ein, aus zwei Beeren und zwischen denen geschobenen Komma bestehendes Element. Es kommt im Karpatenbecken an den Schnallen aus Ároktő, Orosháza36 (Abb. 1, 4), an den zwei Streufunden angeblich von Südtransdanubien vor. Die zweidimensionale Ausrichtung der Tierfiguren ist eine gemeinsame Eigenschaft aller letzteren Exemplare37. Ähnliche, flügellose Raubtierfiguren verzieren die kurzrechteckigen Gürtelbeschläge mit Lochzapfen (Nagypall, Čataj, unbekanntes Fundort aus der Fleissig Sammlung, Abb. 2. 1, 5–7). Die besten Parallelen der Tierfiguren der beiden Gegenstandstypen im Karpatenbecken sind an gepressten Beschlägen abgebildet. Die hundeartige Tierfigur mit gehobener, geschwungener Schwanz erscheint an schildförmigen Beschlägen bzw. Riemenzungen im der mittleren Drittel- bzw. in der zweiten Hälfte des 7. Jahrhunderts38. In der zweiten Hälfte der „Mittelawarenzeit“ gelangten dann ähnliche Raubtiere, obwohl meistens in einer abstrakteren Gestalt, an die gepressten Rechteckbeschläge39. Trotz der typologischen Ähnlichkeit zeigt die regionale Verbreitung der Letzteren ein diverseres Bild, als die der gegossenen Stücke. Danach erlitt die Verwendung der kurzen rechteckförmigen Beschläge und der hundeartigen Raubtiere ohne Flügel nach einer seltenen, aber gleichen Verbreitung an der Wende der Mittel- bzw. Spätawarenzeit eine starke Eingrenzung. Bei dem Typ Ároktő und den verwandten Gürtelbeschlägen kommen die technischen Kriterien (Lochzapfen oder Nieten), die Form der Gegenstände (kurze Rechteckbeschläge mit ausgewogenen Proportionen), die flache Ausführung des Reliefs und die Einzelheiten der Verzierung/Ornamentik (hundeartige Raubtiere und Beeren-Komma Motiv) zusammen vor, und bilden im awarischen Kontext eine feste Merkmalgruppe, die mit den gleichzeitigen Gegenstandstypen des Karpatenbeckens nur sehr geringe Kontakte hatte. Das Motiv des gleichen, hundeartigen Raubtieres in Profilsicht und flacher Ausführung kommt in Südtransdanubien an zwei kleinen Riemenzungen aus Bóly40 beziehungsweise an dem schildförmigen Beschlag aus dem Grab 159 in Čataj (Abb.  4, 2)41 und an der Schnalle aus Komárno-Váradi Gasse, Grab 14 vor42. Den Anschein der regionalen Bezugslosigkeit verstärkt der einzige Nietbeschlag des Karpatenbeckens, der dem Typ Ároktő und dessen engstem typologischem Umfeld ähnliche morphologische Eigenschaften zeigt. Das hundeartige Raubtier am kurzen Rechteckbeschlag aus Grab 638 von Tiszafüred-Majoros (Abb. 4, 4)43 wendet nach rechts, ober seinem Rücken ist ein ähnliches, aber kleineres Tier abgebildet. Vor der Brust des großen Tieres erscheint das Beeren-Komma Motiv. Außer der Montierung mit vier Nieten ist der Beschlag mit den Schnallen des Typs Ároktő, bzw. mit den kurzen Rechteckbeschlägen mit Lochzapfen eng verwandt, und was noch charakteristischer zu sein scheint, für das awarische Milieu völlig atypisch. Falko Daim hat in dem Zustandekommen des Typs Ároktő wegen der schwachen Ausführung mit einer Rolle des awarischen Umfeldes gerechnet44. Die Exemplare aus Anatolien45. beweisen aber, dass dieser Typ auch zum Kreis der byzantinischen materiellen Kultur gehört, und von den Awaren unverändert benutzt, höchstens kopiert wurde (Die lokal atypische Legierung der Schnallen aus Ároktő und angeblich aus Südtransdanubien spricht mindestens für Importstücke, siehe oben).  Orosháza-Bónum-téglagyár, Grab 105, Juhász 1995, Taf. VII.  M. Schulze-Dörrlamm behandelt zwei, teilweise ähnlichen Schnallen aus Anatolien, von denen eine dem Typ Ároktő gehört, als eine Einheit (Schulze-Dörrlamm 2009, 125–126. Typ E 36). Trotz der eindeutigen Verwandtschaft gehören aber die Gegenstände nach typologischen Kriterien zu separaten Typen. 38  Garam 2001, Taf. 101, 2–5. 39  Alattyán-Tulát, Grab 234 (Kovrig 1963, Taf. XIX); Jászapáti-Nagyállás út Grab 234 (Madaras 1994, Taf. XXXV); BudapestTihany tér Grab 2 (Nagy 1998, Taf. 90); Zu den Exemplaren aus dem nördlichen und nordwestlichen Teil des Karpatenbeckens siehe Zábojník 1991, Taf. 35, 10. Typ 183). 40  Bóly-Sziebert puszta, Grab 20a und Streufund, Papp 1962, Abb. 5, 2. und VIII. t. 41  Zábojník 2000, 351. Abb. 21. Abb. 23. 42  Čilinská 1982, Taf. VI, 2–4. 43  Garam 1995, Taf. 109. 44  Daim 1990, 287–288. 45  Daim 1990, Abb 1. 1; Schulze-Dörrlamm 2009, 125–126. 36 37

Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur

225

1

2

3

4

Abb. 4. 1: Gürtelbeschlag mit Greifendarstellung, „Komitat Ung“, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum; 2: Gürtelbeschläge, Čataj Grab 159 (nach Zábojník 2007, Obr. 11); 3: Scheibenförmiger Gürtelbeschlag, „Komitat Győr“, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum; 4: Rechteckiger Gürtelbeschlag, Tiszafüred-Majoros Grab 519 (Ungarisches Nationalmuseum).

Auf Grund des Fehlgusses der zweiten Schnalle aus Südwestungarn können die „Beeren-Komma Motive“ ebenfalls gedeutet werden. Nach deren pflanzlichen Einheiten können die Letzteren mit einfachen Palmetten identifiziert werden. Sie sind wahrscheinlich Überreste einer belebten Ranke, in die die Raubtiere gesetzt waren (Abb. 1. 8). An der Schnalle erscheint eine mehr naturalistische Form der hundeartigen Raubtiere von besserer und dreidimensionaler Plastik, deren Analogien (eine andere Schnalle aus Anatolien46, Wien-Liesing47 (Abb. 1. 5) mit dem Typ Ároktő eng verwandt sind. Da am Schnallenexemplar aus Anatolien solche Beeren-Komma Motive erscheinen, die den awarischen Vorkommen gleich sind, musste die Degradation des Rankenmusters noch im byzantinischen Milieu stattfinden; Die ikonographische Basis bildeten wahrscheinlich solche Bilder, die u. A. auf der fehlerhaften Schnalle erscheinen. In diesem Fall hat also die awarische materielle Kultur einen byzantinischen Typ unverändert adaptiert. Eine Adoption des Musters erfolgte jedoch nie, wie es auch die Parallellosigkeit des oben angeführten Gürtelbeschlags von Tiszafüred-Majoros zeigt. Die unveröffentlichten Gürtelbeschläge von Dunaszentgyörgy (Abb. 3. 5) sind mit denen von Čataj Grab 115 (Abb. 3. 6) identisch. Kreisrunde oder ovale Scharnierbeschläge gibt es im awarischen Material nur vereinzelt. Zwei Streufunde im Ungarischen Nationalmuseum mit den Fundortsbezeichnungen „Komitat Győr“ (Abb.  4, 3) und „Komitat Ung“ (Abb.  4. 1, heute Ukraine) kamen an den Rändern des rekonstruierbaren awarischen Siedlungsgebietes zum Vorschein48. Beide Beschläge tragen auch in ihrer Ornamentik solche Merkmale, die im Karpatenbecken Ausnahmen sind. Zum profilierten  Schulze-Dörrlamm 2009, 125.  Daim 1990, Abb. 1. 2. 48  Siehe noch den runden Scharnierbeschlag aus Grab Šturovo, Grab 23 aus der zweiten Hälfte der Spätawarenzeit (Točik 1968b, Taf. XVIII, 3–5. 46 47

226

S z e n t h e G e r g e ly

Flügel des Greifens auf dem Exemplar aus Ung kommen Analogien im byzantinischen Material vor49. Das Verbreitungsbild des Typs zeigt einen deutlichen Akzent in der nordwestlichen Region des Karpatenbeckens50: das Unger Exemplar, das die originalsten byzantinischen Zügen aufweist, ergänzt diese Streuung mit der nordöstlichen Randregion. Ein ovaler Scharnierbeschlag aus unbekanntem Fundort (angeblich aus Ungarn) ist mit einer menschlichen Figur verziert, die auf einem bartigen Mischwesen reitet. Obwohl die Szene nicht ganz ohne Parallelen im awarischen Fundmaterial steht, ist es doch eine Rarität, deren Interpretation nicht für problemlos gilt51. Die besten Analogien der runden Scharnierbeschläge mit Ringanhängern sind außer den halbfertigen Gürtelbeschlägen von Vrap52 aus dem Schwarzmeergebiet bekannt. Sie sind manchmal mit geometrischen Mustern53, meistens aber mit geometrischer Pflanzenornamentik des Typs MicheldorfSkalistoe (Abb. 5, 1) verziert54. Die Exemplare dieses Typs erscheinen in solchen Gebieten, wo mit der (wirklichen) byzantinischen Kultur im ganzen Frühmittelalter unter breiten chronologischen Rahmen enge, oder relativ enge Beziehungen nachweisbar sind55 (Kaukasus, Krim, Kama-Gebiet, Balkan-Halbinsel, weniger im westlichen-nordwestlichen Teil des Karpatenbeckens)56: Die Beschläge aus Dunaszentgyörgy können innerhalb der Gruppe eine typologische, ornamentale Variante bilden, die in der westlichen Hälfte des Karpatenbeckens benutzt wurde. In dem Material der Spätstufe I–II bildeten rechteckige Beschläge mit pflänzlichen Ornamentik eine Ausnahme. Ihr Ornamentspektrum begrenzt sich auf den einzigen Palmettentyp, der auch in Nagypall erscheint (Abb.  2, 2)57; Unter den gleich verzierten Stücken sind aber die Beschläge aus Nagypall nach der Art der Montierung alleinstehend. Zu einzelnen Details des rechteckigen Beschlags aus Komárno (Umrahmung, Rankentyp) kommen die besten Analogien in der Balkanhalbinsel vor, die meistens durch den Einfluss der byzantinischen Materialkultur erklärt werden58. Wie die zwei erwähnten Fälle, haben die wenigen anderen Rechteckbeschläge (1. Hälfte 8. Jahrhundert) mit Pflanzenornamentik eine typologische Sonderstellung im Material des Karpatenbeckens59. Obwohl die awarischen Erscheinungsformen wegen des Mangels an genauen Analogien wahrscheinlich lokale Interpretationen sind, kann ihre in der lokalen Kultur atypische Ornamentik mit dem Einfluss von äußeren, und – im Lichte der Verbreitung von morphologischen Parallelen, wie von den axialsymmetrischen Palmettenmustern – byzantinischen Quellen erklärt werden. Etwa in der gleichen Periode, von der zweiten Hälfte des 7. Jahrhunderts sind eine Vielfalt von Variationen der axialsymmetrischen Palmettenmuster aus dem Mittelmeerbecken bekannt60: In der Erweiterung des Ornamentspektrums und in der Bevorzugung von figuralen und pflänzlichen Mustern folgen die mediterranen Schnallentypen und die Gürtelbeschläge der nördlichen Peripherie – so auch im Karpatenbecken – den gleichen Trends. Die Schnalle aus Čataj (Abb.  5. 1), ebenfalls mit einer Variante des axialsymmetrischen Palmettenmotivs, hat bislang keine direkten Analogien innerhalb des Karpatenbeckens; Nahe verwandt ist damit nur eine einfachere Palmette einer kleinen Schnalle aus Győr-Téglavető-dűlő Grab 11961. Die Analogien bilden eine Gruppe, die an weiten Gebieten von der nordwestlichen Peripherie  Ein ähnliches Stück aus Bulgarien, im Museum Šumen, siehe bei Станилов 2006, 144. Abb. 23.  Stadler 1987b, Abb. A. 6–7; Stadler 1990, 329. Typ 8. Karte 8. 51  Siehe Bálint 2004, 461–462. 52  Werner 1987, Taf. 26. 19–22; Daim 2000, Abb. 10. 53  Eski Kermen, Aибабин 1990, Abb. 53, 36. 54  Gegenstände mit der gebündelten Palmettenstrauss des Typs Micheldorf-Skalistoe, siehe Станилов 2006, 162–163, Oбp./Abb. 2. 55  Bálint 1993, 225; Im Falle des Typs Micheldorf-Skalistoe Daim 2000, 107–111. 56  Siehe Karte in Иванов / Пелевина 2001, Ris. 5. 57  Szenthe Dissertation, Taf. 3, Typ II3B3. 58  Daim 2000, 102–110. 59  Identische Beschläge in Szekszárd-Bogyiszlói út Grab 417 (Rosner 1999, Taf. 29) und Komárno-Schiffswerft Grab 103 (Trugly 1993, Taf. VI, 1–2, 4): Datierung SS I–II (Zábojník 1991, 237–238); Kreislappenornamentik mit flacher Oberfläche und konischen Kanten ist in der ersten Hälfte der Spätawarenzeit selten, und kann auch aufgrund ihre axialsymmetrische Musterpreferenz von der Rest der Ornamentik der SpA (SS, Spätstufe bei J. Zábojník) abgegrenzt werden. Ihr Erscheinen kann mit dem Einfluss des Vrap-Velino Kreises (der provinzial-byzantinischen Kultur/?/) erklärt werden (Szenthe 2014, 63–64); Ohne Parallelen stehen die Beschläge aus Mártély Grab B (Hampel 1905, Taf. 85, 2) und Kékesd 197 (Kiss 1977, Pl. XXI). 60  siehe u. A. Schulze-Dörrlamm 2009, 106, 115, Typ E31, 98–101. 61  Fettich 1943, XX. T. 2. 49 50

Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur

1

2

227

3

4

Abb.  5. 1: Gürtelschnalle, Čataj Grab 74 (nach Zábojník 2007, Obr. 10); 2–3: Große Riemenzungen, Keszthely, Grabfunde, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum; 4: Čataj Grab 115 (nach Zábojník 2007, Obr. 10).

des Karpatenbeckens durch die Balkan-Halbinsel bis den nördlichen Gebieten des Schwarzen-Meeres, im Kaukasus und im Kama-Gebiet verbreitet sind: Trotz dem zweifelhaften Inhalt des Begriffes muss der Typ zum Kreis der „byzantinischen Materialkultur“ gezählt werden62. Das vollkommene Fehlen der Vorkommnisse des Typs „Micheldorf-Skalistoe“ im Inneren des Karpatenbeckens konnte bis heute nicht erklärt werden. Das Phänomen ist umso auffallender, weil sonst die mediterran-byzantinischen Einflüsse in der Gestaltung der spätawarischen materiellen Kultur und Ornamentik eine gut dokumentierbare Rolle spielten63. Analogien zur Form der beiden Lochschützer – mit durchgeschlagenen Nieten – kommen vereinzelt vom Anfang der Spätawarenzeit vor (Spätstufe I)64. Das Erscheinen von knospenförmigen Endungen ist auch für diese Fälle atypisch. Im Grab 419 von Kölked-Feketekapu B ist der Typ mit angelöteten Nieten bekannt – eine parallellose technische Lösung, die die Sonderstellung der Garnitur innerhalb des awarischen Materials, bzw. ihre transdanubischen Kontakte betont (die große Scharnierriemenzunge des Grabes wird noch im Folgenden wegen der geometrischen Muster erwähnt).  Zum Typ Micheldorf-Skalistoe siehe Daim 2000, 107–112; Verbreitungskarte bei Иванов / Пелевина 2001, Рис. 5.  Siehe dazu die in der Einführung zitierte Literatur. 64  U. a. Kölked-Feketekapu B, Grab 419, 427 (Kiss 2001, Taf. 79); 62 63

228

S z e n t h e G e r g e ly

Abb.  6. Verbreitungskarte der Gürtelbeschläge und Schnallen mit Lochzapfen im spätawarenzeitlichen Karpatenbecken. 1: Áporka-Ürbőpuszta; 2: Ároktő; 3: Čataj; 4: Debrecen-Ondód; 5: Dunaszentgyörgy-Kaszás tanya; 6: Holiare; 7: Keszthely; 8: Komárno-ul. J. Váradiho; 9: Nagypall I-Határi-dűlő; 10: Orosháza-Bónum-téglagyár; 11: Südtransdanubien; 12: Szekszárd-Palánk; 13: Wien-Liesing; 14: Szeged.

Schnallen und Riemenzungen mit Knopfende Den Katalog der gegossenen Riemenzungen mit Knopfende, beziehungsweisen eine Liste über die Schnallen mit dem gleichen Verzierungselement hat früher Gábor Kiss zusammengestellt (hier ergänzt: Liste 2)65. Ihre Fundliste kann ich außer zwei großen Riemenzungen von unbekanntem Fundort aus Hamburg66 nur noch mit zwei unpublizierten Funden ergänzen. 1. Mosonszentjános-Kavicsbánya, Grab 44 (Ungarisches Nationalmuseum) (Abb. 3. 1). Länge: 105 mm, Breite der Tülle: 28 mm. Tüllenriemenzunge mit konkaven Seiten und spitz zulaufendem Ende. Verzierung der Vorderseite ist das typische Tierkampfszenen-Motiv der Spätstufe I–II67. Die Rückseite ist mit Kreislappenranke mit flächendeckenden Blättern verziert. 2. Császártöltés, Streufund (Ungarisches Nationalmuseum) (Abb. 11. 4). Länge: 87 mm; Breite der Tülle: 23 mm. Scharnierriemenzunge mit Tülle. Körper der Riemenzunge mit konkaven Seiten und spitz zulaufendem Ende, mit gerilltem Rand umrahmt. Musterfeld durchbrochen, mit geometrischem Schlingenbandornament verziert. Das Knopfende ist sehr stark abgerieben oder abgefeilt.

 Kiss 1999–2000, 411 und Kiss 2005, 206. Aus der Liste habe ich die Riemenzungen aus Biskupija-Crkvina (Smrdelj) und Dunaj (Wocheim) (Kollautz 1970, Taf. VIII) wegen der Unsicherheit der zeitgenössischen „politischen Zugehörigkeit” der Fundorten weggelassen: Die Exemplare gehören meiner Meinung nach eher zu den äußeren Parallelen der Riemenzungen aus dem awarischen Siedlungsgebiet. 66  Heinrich-Tamaska 2005, B4 11–12, 261, Abb. 29–30. 67  Zábojník 1991, Typ 14/5. 65

Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur

229

Regionale und chronologische Verbreitung Die Gegenstände mit Knopfende erscheinen meistens in Transdanubien und seltener allgemein an den Rändern des awarischen Siedlungsgebiets. Da die chronologische Stellung der Gruppe (SpA I– II) Gábor Kiss eingehend erörtert hat68, kann ich hier von der weiteren Analyse absehen.

Die Stelle der Gruppe innerhalb des awarischen Materials Die große Riemenzunge von Császártöltés ist das einzige Stück östlich der Donau, das mit Bandschlingenornament verziert ist. In der Gemarkung des heutigen Kalocsa, wo der Fundort liegt, befand sich aber ein wichtiger Flussübergang an der mittleren Donau von der Römerzeit. Eine geschlossene Gruppe der Riemenzungen mit Knopfende bilden die großen Riemenzungen mit Tierkampfszene. Identische Riemenzungen ohne Knopfende gehören zu einem scheinbar standardisierten Typ der Spätstufe I–II, dessen Exemplare sich in dem ganzen awarischen Siedlungsgebiet gleichmäßig streuen. In dieser Homogenität bildet die Variatante mit Knopfende nicht nur typologisch, sondern auch geographisch einen Sonderfall: sie waren an den Peripherien des Verbreitungsgebietes des Haupttyps, und zwar fast ausschließlich an dem westlichen Rand des Karpatenbeckens verbreitet. Die zwei Riemenzungen des Kunstgewerbemuseums Hamburg sind einander so nahe verwandt, dass ihre Herkunft vom gleichen Fundort mit Recht angenommen werden darf. Wegen der Unbekanntheit des Fundortes kann über die zwei Stücke nichts Weiteres gesagt werden. Die weiteren Gegenstände gelten eher für selten auch ohne Knopfende, ja sogar für unikal im Karpatenbecken. Die Riemenzunge der Sotheby’s hat zwei nahe verwandte Analogien im Karpatenbecken69, außer diesen gibt es aber dafür keine exakte Parallele70; Zu den „Flügeln” der Figuren ist eine Analogie an der Schnalle von Debrecen-Ondód zu beobachten71: Der letzte Gegenstand bestimmt wahrscheinlich zugleich auch die mediterran-byzantinische Herkunft des Figurentyps72, was auch der Quelle der Knopfenden entspricht. Die Riemenzungen von Dunaszekcső mit dem Fries aus S-förmigen Rankenabschnitten und mit dem Flechtbandmotiv, von Keszthely mit dem Peltamuster, von Balatonszőlős mit einem geometrisierten Rankentyp und von Budapest mit dem zusammengesetzten geometrischen Muster haben im Karpatenbecken nur verstreute Analogien (siehe unten, bei den geometrischen Ornamenten). Die kleine Riemenzunge mit Menschendarstellung und Spiralmuster aus Šebastovce ist unikal.

Herkunft Im mediterranen Fundmaterial kommen Schnallen mit Knopfenden oft vor. Neben der Häufigkeit gilt es für einen Beweis des mediterran-byzantinischen Ursprungs des Knopfenden, dass im Mittelmeerbecken eine Reihe von Varianten von den gegliederten Knospen oder einfachen Volutenkelchen bis den verdoppelten oder einfachen Knoten vorhanden sind73.

Zur geometrischen Ornamentik in der ersten Hälfte der Spätawarenzeit Bei den Gegenstandstypen mit Lochzapfen und Knopfenden zeigt sich eine Vorliebe für bestimmte Ornamente und Motive (geometrische Type, hundeartige Tierform). Das Vorkommen dieser Formen konzentriert sich an wenigen, geschlossenen Gegenstandstypen74, während die chronologische und geographische Verbreitung (für die erste Hälfte des 8. Jahrhunderts beziehungsweise für Transdanubien und für die Randgebiete des Karpatenbeckens) begrenzt ist. Die technischen und visuellen Merkmale75 vereinigen sich in einem Gegenstandshorizont, der sowohl typologisch,  Kiss 1999–2000; Alle Exemplare lassen sich nach formalen Kriterien und auf Grund des Fundkontextes in die erste Hälfte der Spätawarenzeit datieren. Die Tüllenriemenzungen mit konkaven Seiten und spitz zulaufendem Ende sind mit Sicherheit in den beiden ersten Zeitphasen der Spätawarenzeit datierbar (Siehe auch Zábojník 1991, 236–237; Daim / Lippert 1984, 88; Daim 1987, Abb. 28; Garam 1995, Abb. 254. 69  Siehe Fancsalszky 2007, Taf. 54, 15–16. 70  Zu den Figuren Bálint 2010. 71  Tabellen 7–10 von G. Kiss: Kiss 2012, 263; Kiss 2001b, 441. 72  Siehe die Herkunftsbestimmung der Schnalle von Debrecen-Ondód von G. Kiss 2012, 256–257. 73  Z.B. die Schnalle vom Typ Ároktő aus Kleinasien (Schulze-Dörrlamm 2009, 125, Nr. 322. 74  Siehe die Definition eines Typs bei Klejn 1982, 54–55. 75  Sie Anm. 74. 68

230

S z e n t h e G e r g e ly

als auch nach der regionalen Streuung eine Randerscheinung innerhalb der „spätawarischen“ Materialkultur vertritt. Zusammenfassend lässt sich feststellen, dass außer einiger Stücke mit Tierkampfszenen und Raubtierfriesen der hohe Anteil der im awarischen Kontext eigenartigen Ornamenten nicht nur unter den Stücken mit Knopfende, sondern auch unter den Beschlägen mit Lochzapfen augenscheinlich ist. Es bedeutet neben dem Vorhandensein eines spezifischen Raubtiermotivs vom Typ Ároktő hauptsächlich eine deutliche Präferenz für bestimmte geometrische Mustertype. Aus den aufgelisteten Fällen der Riemenenden mit Knopfende sind mehr als ein Drittel geometrisch verziert, oder zeigen geometrische Elemente mindestens an bestimmten Flächen vor. Obwohl es heute noch keine Statistiken zum Anteil der geometrisch verzierten Gegenstände im zeitgenössischen awarischen Fundmaterial zur Verfügung stehen, sind sie darin schon auf Grund einer allgemeinen Übersicht viel schwächer vertreten (zu den einzelnen Typen siehe unten). Das akzentuierte Vorhandensein der geometrischen Ornamentik scheint deshalb die grundlegendste Eigenschaft der beiden obigen, in dem Artikel behandelten Gegenstandsgruppen zu sein. Es ist wichtig anzumerken, dass in dem ganzen Verbreitungsgebiet bzw. in der ganzen Lebenszeit des untersuchten Horizontes solche Gegenstands- bzw. Beschlagtype für die materielle Kultur des Karpatenbeckens – und damit zusammen natürlich für die ganze Verbreitungsregion der behandelten Funde – typisch waren, die sich im ganzen Karpatenbecken ohne oder fast ohne regionale Unterschiede verbreiteten76. Die Gegenstände des untersuchten Horizontes kommen häufig mit den charakteristischen spätawarischen Beschlagtypen gleicher Funktion zusammen, aus den gleichen Fundzusammenhängen (Grabkontexten) vor77. Die Sonderstellung der Gegenstände mit den mediterranen technischen und formalen Elementen im Karpatenbecken ist deshalb keinesfalls chronologisch, und nur teilweise geographisch: Am wahrscheinlichsten kann es durch kulturelle Aspekte erklärt werden. Die Rekonstruktion der möglichen Ursachen für diese partielle Absonderung ist eine der Ziele des Aufsatzes.

Die frühesten geometrischen Muster der Spätawarenzeit Die frühesten spätawarenzeitlichen geometrischen Mustertype kommen sowohl an gepressten (MA II), als auch an gegossenen (Spätstufe I) Gegenständen vor. Als Grundlage der Datierung sind alle Stücke der Form nach identisch (quadratische Beschläge oftmals mit konkaven Seiten und kurze Rechteckbeschläge)78. Neben der Form gibt es Übereinstimmungen auch in der Ornamentik. Die gepressten Riemenzungen sind typologisch denjenigen gleich, die in der Spätstufe I und II verwendet wurden. Die Tüllen der ältesten Gussriemenzungen (Spätstufe I) wurden oft nicht in einem Stück gegossen, sondern wurden durch eine separate Deckplatte abgeschlossen79. Die geographische Streuung der frühesten Mustervarianten, die an gegossenen Beschlägen vorkommen, ist innerhalb des Karpatenbeckens relativ ausgewogen. Der Schachbrettmuster80 und die mit geometrischen, pflänzlichen Haken (Liste 5, Abb.  7. 1) oder Epheublättern (Abb.  7. 2, 4; gegossene Stücke: Liste 6)81 ergänzten Flechtbandmuster erscheinen an Beschlägen, Schnallen und Riemenzungen in fast standardisierter Form und im ganzen awarischen Siedlungsgebiet.

 Siehe die dominanten Type von Fancsalszky 2007 für die Gegenstände mit figürlichen Darstellungen, oder Szenthe Dissertation für die spätawarenzeitlichen Gegenstände (meistens Gürtelbeschläge) mit pflänzlichen Ornamenten. 77  Siehe u. A. die Scharnierbeschläge von Dunaszekcső-Téglagyár, Grab 42 (Sós 1966–67, Abb.  48, 1; Abb.  49, 1); Dunaszentgyörgy-Kaszás tanya, Grab 249 (unpubliziert, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum); Eine Schnalle vom Typ MicheldorfSkalistoe in Grab 619 von Holiare, mit üblichen awarischen Anhängern von Scharnierbeschlägen: Točik 1968, Taf. LXXVI, 37–41; Im Grab von Ároktő kamen ebenfalls eine awarische kleine Riemenzunge und ein Gürtelbeschlag vor: Daim 1990, 287. 78  Typologische Reihen bei Garam 1995. Pressblechbeschläge: Abb. 97, 39–50; gegossene Beschläge: Abb. 98. 13–21. 79  Daim 1987, 149, Abb. 27; Daim 2003, 501–502, Fig. 5. 80  Ohne den Anspruch an Vollkommenheit (deshalb ohne Verbreitungskarte!): Devínská Nova Ves Grab 530 (Eisner 1952, Obr. 69, 1–2); Kisköre-Halastó Grab 94 (Garam 1979, Taf. 17, 3–6); Mödling a.d. Goldene Stiege Grab 135 (Katalog Mödling 1977, 11); Szeged-Fehértó A 316 (Madaras 1995, Pl.  32); Szeged-Fehértó B Grab 69 (Madaras 1995, Pl.  13); ZamárdiRétiföldek Grab 25 (Bárdos – Garam 2009, Taf. 3); Želovce Grab 335 (Čilinská 1973, Taf. LVII). 81  Gepresst; Ohne den Anspruch an Vollkommenheit (deshalb ohne Verbreitungskarte!): Alattyán-Tulát Grab 214 (Kovrig 1963, Taf. XVII); Budapest-Tihany tér Grab 3 (Nagy 1998, Taf. 91). 76

Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur

231

1

2

4

3

Abb. 7. 1: Bandschlingenmuster mit Blatthaken, Gürtelschnalle, Szentes-Felsőcsordajárás, Grabfund, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum; 2: Bandschlingenmuster mit Epheublättern, gepresste, verzinnte/versilberte Riemenzunge aus Bronzeblech; Fundort unbekannt, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum; 3: Große Riemenzunge mit abstraktem Muster, Pilismarót, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum; 4: Bandschlingenmuster mit Epheublättern, gegossener quadratischer Gürtelbeschlag aus der Umgebung von Szeged, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum.

Geometrische Mustertype aus der ersten Hälfte der Spätawarenzeit Es gibt eine Gruppe von geometrischen Mustertypen, die nur an Gussgegenständen vorkommen (von dem Typ 2c bis Typ 9, siehe unten). Trotz des Fehlens der Blechanalogien unterscheiden sich die Beschläge und Riemenzungen morphologisch von den frühesten Typen nicht (quadratische Beschläge eventuell mit geschwungenen Seiten, Tüllenriemenzungen mit spitz zulaufendem Ende); Es ist doch wahrscheinlich, dass sie zu einer jüngeren chronologischen Phase angehören. Die meisten Type können allgemein in die Phasen Spätstufe I–II datiert werden82, obwohl mehrere Fälle, die nach den Fundzusammenhängen genauer eingeordnet werden können, eher aus der ersten Hälfte oder vom Anfang der Periode (Spätstufe I) stammen83. Im Allgemeinen kann eine deutliche Verschiebung in der Verbreitung der nur an gegossenen Gegenständen vorkommenden, d.h. späteren geometrischen Mustertypen gegen die oben besprochene früheste Gruppe zugunsten Transdanubiens erfasst werden (Abb. 8). 1.) Das einzige, im ganzen awarischen Siedlungsgebiet und unter breiteren chronologischen Rahmen gleich verbreitete geometrische Ornament der Spätstufe I–II vertreten die verschiedenen, einander eng verwandten Variationen des Fischgratmusters bzw. des damit in awarischem Kontext eng verwandten Strigilismusters84 (Liste 3, Abb.  10). In diesem Fall ergänzt eine relative Mannigfaltigkeit in den Details der Gegenstände bzw. der Muster die weite regionale Verbreitung85, die auch eine Unterscheidung zwischen den beiden Mustertypen verhindert. Sie kommen ausschließlich an Riemenzungen und rosettenförmigen Beschlägen des Hauptriemens, beziehungsweise an der goldenen Gürtelschlaufe von Tab (Abb. 8. 1)86 vor.  Zábojník 1991, 236–238.  Szekszárd-Palánki dűlő, Grab 33 (Pap 2012, 24. t.): Schmale, recteckige Blechbeschläge mit grossen, halbkugeligen Nietköpfen (Datierung: MA II-SpA I, Daim 1987, Abb. 28); Riemenzungen mit geöffneten Tülle: Datierung SpA I, Daim 1987, 149, Abb. 27); Szekszárd-Palánki dűlő, Grab 34 (Pap 2012, 25. t.): Trapezförmige Schnalle mit Blechbeschlag (Datierung Zábojník 1991, Typ 119. Taf. 25) und blecherne Zopfspange (MA II-SpA I, Daim 1987, Abb. 28); 84  Nagy 1998, Abb. 18–20. 85  Siehe Nagy 1998, Abb. 19–20. 86  Siehe Garam 1993, 106. Taf. 98, 4. Nr. 134. 82 83

232

S z e n t h e G e r g e ly

Abb. 8. Geometrische Muster in der ersten Hälfte der Spätawarenzeit: für die westliche Hälfte des Karpatenbeckens charakteristische Mustertype (in Korrelation mit den Gegenständen mit Lochzapfen und Knopfenden). 1: Bernolákovo; 2: Borovo; 3: Budapest; 4: Császártöltés; 5: Čataj; 6: Čunovo; 7: Dunaszekcső; 8: Dunaszentgyörgy; 9: Hraničná pri Hornáde; 10: Jászberény-Kálvária; 11: Keszthely; 12: Komárno; 13: Košice-Šebastovce; 14: KölkedFeketekapu; 15: Micheldorf; 16: Pilismarót; 17: Szekszárd-Palánki dűlő; 18: Vasasszonyfa; 19: Želovce.

2.) Flechtbandmuster. Den Flechtbandmustern der Awarenzeit hat Margit Nagy eine umfangreiche Studie gewidmet87. (a.) Einfache Flechtbandornamente in der Form von kontinuierlichen Achterschlaufen kommen verstreut während der Spätstufe I–II im ganzen Karpatenbecken vor88. Außer wenigen großen Riemenzungen (u.a. von Dunaszekcső mit Knopfende) sind verschiedene Varianten meistens für kleine Riemenzungen und Gürtelschlaufen typisch. Der Mustertyp bildet eine relativ oft vorkommende Form von geometrischen Ornamenten der Spätawarenzeit. (b.) Außer den einfachsten Zweibandgeflechten89 kommen Flechtbandmuster in der Spätawarenzeit nur ausnahmsweise vor90. Unter diesen vertritt das Muster der Schnalle mit Knopfende aus Borovo  Nagy 1999.  Ohne den Anspruch an Vollkommenheit (deshalb ohne Verbreitungskarte!): Große Riemenzungen: Pécel-Lebuki dűlő Grab 19 (Török 1971, 90–92, 4. ábra); Szeged-Fehértó A Grab 319 (Madaras 1995, Pl. 33); Tiszafüred-Majoros Grab 1244 (Garam 1995, Taf.  165); Üllő I-Disznójárás, Grab 174 (Horváth 1934, Taf.  X, 26); Kleine Riemenzungen: Alattyán-Tulát Grab 364 (Kovrig 1963, Taf. XXV); Alattyán-Tulát Grab 395 (Kovrig 1963, Taf. XXVIII); Alattyán-Tulát Grab 659 (Kovrig 1963, Taf. XLI); Keszthely (Hampel 1905, Taf. 163); Üllő I-Disznójárás, Grab 172 (Horváth 1934, Taf. X, 2–5); Vác (Hampel 1905, Taf.  65). Propellerförmige Beschläge: Ordas (Hampel 1905, Taf.  67, 5); Gürtelschlaufen: Edelsthal aus dem Jahre 1885 (Hampel 1905, Taf.  108); Kisköre-Halastó Grab 139 (Garam 1979, Taf.  22); Mödling (Katalog Mödling 1977, 11); Münchendorf Grab 38 (Bachner 1985, Taf. 20, 1); Ordas (Hampel 1905, Taf. 67); Tiszafüred-Majoros Grab 113 (Garam 1995, Taf. 66); Tiszafüred-Majoros Grab 175 (Garam 1995, Taf. 72); Tiszafüred-Majoros Grab 406 (Garam 1995, Taf. 88). 89  Nagy 1998, Abb. 24. 90  Siehe Tiszafüred-Majoros Grab 1124 (Garam Taf. 150). 87 88

Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur

233

1

3 2

Abb.  9. 1: Gürtelschlaufe, Tab (Photo Dabasi, UNM, Zeichnungen nach: Garam 1993, 106. Taf.  98, 4); 2: Große Riemenzunge aus Ordas, Donauufer, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum; 3: Große Riemenzunge aus JászberényKálvária, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum.

(8. Jahrhundert)91 eine Variante, die aus dem 7. Jahrhundert an awarischen Gürtelgarnituren sehr verbreitet war. Nach genauen Analogien aus Sardis92 und Hispanien93 ist die Schnalle byzantinisch. (c.) Das gitterartige Bandschlingenornament (Liste 4; Abb.  3, 5–6, Abb.  11, 4) kommt an mehreren identischen, rosettenförmigen Scharnierbeschlägen und Scharnierriemenzungen mit Knopfende vor94. Die regionale Verbreitung konzentriert sich in zwei Zentren, in dem nordwestlichen Teil des Karpatenbeckens und in Südtransdanubien. Das einzige Stück östlich der Donau kam in Császártöltés, am linken Donauufer zum Vorschein (siehe den Gegenstand auch bei den Knopfenden: Bei der Auswertung der regionalen Verbreitung muss in Betracht gezogen werden, dass ein wichtiger Flussübergang in der Region schon während der Römerzeit dokumentierbar ist).  Zur Datierung: Vinski 1954, 206–207.  Waldbaum 1983, 120. Pl. 44, 701 (Datierung Ende 6.-erste Hälfte 7. Jahrhundert); Crawford 1990, Fig. 582. 93  Schulze-Dörrlamm 2009, 153, Abb. 71 A, Datierung erste Hälfte des 8. Jahrhunderts. 94  Zu den Exemplaren aus Čataj: Hanuliak / Zábojník 1982, Tab. III, 10, 14; Zábojník 2000, Abb. 17; auch: Bernolákovo Grab 53 (Kraskovská 1962, 438, Tab. X) und Komárno-Hadovce Grab 21 (Čilinská 1982, 361, Tab. XV). Zur grossen Riemenzunge aus Keszthely: Lipp 1884, VIII. t. 194. Das Grab von Dunaszentgyörgy-Kaszás tanya mit runden Scharnierbeschlägen mit Lochzapfen wurde 2009 freigelegt, es ist unpubliziert. 91 92

234

S z e n t h e G e r g e ly

Abb. 10. Fischgrat- und Strigilismuster in der ersten Hälfte der Spätawarenzeit im Karpatenbecken. 1: Bajna; 2: Bélmegyer-Csömöki-domb; 3: Budapest; 4: Cikó; 5: Devínska Nová Ves; 6: Dunaszekcső-Téglagyár; 7: Edelsthal (Nemesvölgy); 8: Gátér-Vasútállomás; 9: Gerjen; 10: Gyomaendrőd-Kecskészug; 11: Győr-Téglavető-dűlő; 12: Keszthely; 13: Mindszent-Bozó-tanya; 14: Nadrljan-Basta Kavai L.; 15: Öskü-Agyaggödör; 16: Pančevo; 17: Pilismarót-Basaharc; 18: Székkutas-Kápolnadűlő; 19: Szentes-Kaján; 20: Tab; 21: Tiszafüred-Majoros; 22: Želovce.

Der Muster hat gute Parallelen im byzantinischen Schmuck95. 3.) Das flächendeckende Kreismuster (Abb. 5. 4) und das Gittermuster (Abb. 5. 2–3)96. Das flächendeckende, sechs- oder seltener vierstrahlige Kreismuster aus überdeckenden Kreisen ist einer der beliebten Muster in der Spätantike und in der frühislamischen Zeit. Bei dem Kreismuster können die Strahlen in einem Quadrat eingeschrieben werden, und die Kanten der Strahlen sind – den überschneidenden Kreisbogen entsprechend – geschweift. Das flächendeckende Kreismuster ist im Karpatenbecken mit anderen, einfacheren Gittermustern kontaminiert, die aus quer aufeinandergelegten, geraden Leisten bestehen. Auch wegen ihrer strukturellen Ähnlichkeit wurden dann die zwei Mustertypen in der Awarenforschung als eine Einheit behandelt97, obwohl nach den bestausgeführten Objekten die Unabhängigkeit der Beiden auch im awarischen Kontext dokumentierbar ist. In der Spätawarenzeit ist die sechsstrahlige Variante sehr selten98. In relativ größerer Zahl ist die vierstrahlige Variante bekannt; Die reine Form erscheint in mehreren Grabzusammenhängen in der ersten Periode der Spätawarenzeit aus dem ganzen Karpatenbecken99.  In den Medallionen der Brustkette des sog. Schatzes von Assiut (wahrscheinlich 7. Jahrhundert): Dennison 1918, Pl.  XXXIX; Yeroulanou 1999, 127, Fig.  226; Entwistle 2004, 298, Kat.nr. 493; eine andere Halskette: Yeroulanou 1999, 132–133, Fig. 236. 96  Nagy 1998, Abb. 17. 97  Zábojník 1991, Typ 34, Taf. 10; Daim 2000, 93–94. 98  Kleine Riemenzunge aus Keszthely-Dobogó (Lipp 1884, Taf. 5, 86). 99  Ohne den Anspruch an Volkommenheit (deshalb ohne Verbreitungskarte!): Banovci (Dimitriević / Kovačević / Vinski 1962); Bóly-Siebert puszta Grab 1a (Papp 1962, 1. t.); Čataj Grab 74 (Zábojník 2000, 348–349, Abb.  13–16); GátérVasútállomás Grab 58 (Kada 1905, 381); Majs-Merse tető Grab 4 (Kiss 1974, Fig. 20); Novi Banovci (Dimitriević / Kovačević 95

Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur

235

Es kann nicht bestätigt werden, dass die einfacheren Gittermuster allgemein eine degenerierte Variation der flächendeckenden Kreismuster seien, obwohl eine solche Vereinfachung im awarischen Material nicht ohne Parallelen stehen würde. Im byzantinischen Material sind solche Gegenstände bekannt, derer Ornamentik ein eindeutiges Gittermuster darstellt, wo die Überschneidungen der Leisten in einigen Fällen auch mit herausspringenden Knoten versehen sind100. Ein Teil der Vorkommnisse der Gittermuster im Karpatenbecken zeigt mit diesem Mustertyp eine Verwandtschaft101. Außer der Exemplare von Tiszafüred kommen Gegenstände mit Gittermuster eher in der westlichen Hälfte und am Südrand des Karpatenbeckens vor. 4.) Peltamuster. Die Scharnierriemenzunge von Keszthely102 (Abb.  11. 2) hat exakte Analogien – obwohl ohne Knopfende – in Kölked-Feketekapu B Grab 419 (Abb.  11. 1)103, Szekszárd-Palánki dűlő Grab 33104 (beide in Komitat Baranya, Südwestungarn) und Vasasszonyfa Grab 17 (Komitat Vas, Nordwestungarn)105. Die durch den Kontext datierbaren Exemplare aus Kölked und Szekszárd gehören nach den Gürtelbeschlägen zum frühesten Horizont der gegossenen Beschläge106. Neben diesen vier Exemplaren kenne ich die Muster im Karpatenbecken von einem einzigen Fundort. Die große Riemenzunge aus Jászberény-Kálvária (Kom. Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok, DonauTheiss Zwischenstromland) (Abb. 9, 3)107 ist eine zweite Variante derselben Verzierung. Obwohl Peltamuster eindeutig aus antik-mediterranen Quellen stammen, kenne ich nur entfernte Parallelen an byzantinischem Schmuck108. 5.) Das axialsymmetrische Muster der Schnalle aus Keszthely-Dobogó (Abb. 3. 7) hat Gábor Kiss als eine geometrisierende Variante des Stäbchenrankenziers behandelt109. Verwandte Muster kommen in einer Gruppe von Lochschützern vor110, die durchaus in Transdanubien – genauer in nordwestlichem Randgebiet des Karpatenbeckens und in Südtransdanubien – verbreitet sind. 6.) Dreieckfeld/Dreieckmuster (Abb. 11. 3). Riemenzungen und Beschläge mit einem Muster aus kleinen Dreiecken sind mir aus zwei Fundorten bekannt111. Zwei weitere Analogien kommen an gegossenen Gürtelschlaufen vor112.

/ Vinski 1962, 87); Socodor (Cosma et al 2013, Fig. 10); Szeged-Makkoserdő Grab 229 (Salamon 1995, Pl. 16); TiszafüredMajoros Grab 537 (Garam 1995, Taf. 100). 100  Aus Stolbica und der Krim, zitiert und datiert von Daim 2000, 92–93, Abb. 4–5. 101  Große Riemenzunge und Schnalle (Letztere mit Knopfende) aus Keszthely-Dobogó (Lipp 1884, Taf. IX, 140, Taf. X. 182); Eine zweite Riemenzunge aus Hévíz-Alsópáhok (Ungarisches Nationalmuseum); Mali Idoš-Žuta jama Grab 68 (Gubitza 1907, 356); Mödling a.d. Goldenen Stiege Grab 100 (?) (Schwammenhöfer 1976, 18, vgl. Katalog Mödling 1977, 11); SzekszárdPalánki dűlő Grab 34 (Pap 2012, Taf. 25, 34.10); Tiszafüred-Majoros Gräber 116, 325, 368, 845 (Garam 1995, Taf. 171 (!); Taf. 83, Taf. 86, Taf. 126); 102  Lipp 1884, T. VI, 74); Szenthe 2013b, Fig. 8, 1. 103  Kiss 2001, Taf. 79; Szenthe 2013b, Fig. 8, 2. 104  Pap 2012, Taf. 24, 33.11. 105  Kiss 2001, 440, Tabelle 3. 106  Zur Datierung siehe Anm. 30. 107  Fettich 1937b, Abb. 1. 108  Als Randfries: An einem frühbyzantinischen Armband: New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Z. B. in Yeroulanou 1999, 155, Fig. 92. 109  Kiss 2005. 110  Čunovo Grab 127 (Sőtér 1895, 110); Devínska Nová Ves Grab 524 (Eisner 1952, Obr. 52–54); Dunabogdány 8/4 lh. Grabfund (MRT 7, 39. t. 1–13); Edelsthal (Nemesvölgy) Grab 207 und Streufund (Sőtér 1898, 218 und IV. t. 15); GyőrTéglavető-dűlő Gräber 252, 305, 545 und 706 (Fettich 1943, 25, XVII. T. 6–8, 23, XXVIII. T. 28–29, 31, XXIV. T, 32, XXVII. T, 39, XXIV. T. 1–11), Komárno-Lodenice Grab 114 (Trugly 1993, 201, Taf. XIX); Leobersdorf-Ziegelei Polsterer Grab 65 (Daim 1987, 238, Taf.  57); Mosonszentjános-Kavicsbánya Gräber C, 227 und Streufund (Unveröffentlicht); Mödling a.d. Goldenen Stiege Grabfund (Schwammenhöfer 1976, 15); Münchendorf Grab 38 (Bachner 1985, 115–116, Taf. 20); ÖsküAgyaggödör Gräber 47 und 54 (Rhé / Fettich 1931, 46, Taf. XII, 49, Taf. XV); Romonya I Gräber 31, 41, 95 und 116 (Kiss 1977, 112, Pl. XLVI; 112, Pl. XLVII; 115, Pl. XLIX; 115, Pl. L); Szebény I Gräber 194 und 201 (Garam 1975b, 84–85, Fig. 14; 85, Fig. 15); Zwölfaxing Grab 57 und 98 (Lippert 1969, 134, Taf. 23; 141, Taf. 38). 111  Große Riemenzunge aus Dunaszentgyörgy-Fadd, Id.Nr. 1.63372.359.1; Rechteckiger Scharnierbeschlag aus Hraničná pri Hornáda Grab 32 (Pástor 1971, 150, Obr. 15; Zábojník 1991, Typ 244, Taf. 40). 112  Čunovo Grab 127 (Sőtér 1895, 110); Želovce Grab 124 (Čilinská 1973, Taf. XXII).

236

S z e n t h e G e r g e ly

1

2

3

4

Abb. 11. 1: Große Riemenzunge mit Peltamuster, Kölked-Feketekapu B, Grab 419, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum; 2: Keszthely-Dobogó, Grabfund, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum; 3: Dunaszentgyörgy, Fadd, unbublizierte Grabung im Ungarischen Nationalmuseum; 4: Gitterartiges Bandschlingenornament auf Scharnierriemenzunge.

7.) Laufender Hund. Eine einfachere Variation des „laufenden Hundes“ erscheint in KeszthelyDobogó an einer Riemenzunge und einem Pferdegeschirrbeschlag. Ähnliche Muster kamen an dem gleichen Riemenzungentyp (Tüllenriemenzunge mit konkaven Seiten und spitzem Ende) in Budapest113 (mit Knopfende) und in Pilismarót (Abb. 7, 3)114 zum Vorschein. Das Grab von Pilismarót enthält solche Beschläge, die an den Anfang der Spätawarenzeit datiert werden können115. Eine Analogie der Verzierung der spätawarischen Riemenzunge ist von dem Randfries einer byzantinischen Zierplatte bekannt116; Wie es im bekannten Teil der awarenzeitlichen Zierkunst typisch ist117, erscheint ein solches Ornament auch in diesem Fall im dominanten Musterfeld eines spätawarenzeitlichen Gegenstandes, obwohl es in der byzantinischen Kunst höchstens in untergeordneten Position, als rahmenbildender Muster benutzt wurde. 8.) Ein aus S-förmigen Abschnitten zusammengestellter vertikaler Fries verziert die Riemenzunge von Dunaszekcső. Das in Abschnitten geteilte, mit Beeren in Dreiergruppen verzierte Ornament hat im awarischen Material eine einzige Analogie (propellerförmiger Beschlag, Micheldorf Grab 1 aus 1906-07)118. Die schildförmigen Gürtelbeschläge, die Schnalle und die Riemenzungen mit Ösen datieren das Grab von Dunaszekcső später (Spätstufe II)119.

 Budapest XI-Fehérvári út Grab 39, sekundär in einer Garnitur aus der Spatstufe III–IV (Nagy 1998, Taf. 81).  Pilismarót-Öregek dűlő Grab 1 (Szabó 1975, Fig. 3). 115  Blecherne, schmale rechteckige Lochschützer; Trapezförmige Bronzeschnalle ohne Schnallenkörper (zur Schnalle Garam 1995, Abb. 99, 10/366; Zábojník 1991, Typ 120, Taf. 25). 116  Yeroulanou 1999, 131, Fig. 232. 117  Für die Blattranken: Szenthe Handschrift/a. 118  Tovornik 1985, Taf. 7, 7. 119  Zu den Parallelen siehe Zábojník 1991, Typ 45, 47, 230. Taf. 13, Taf. 14, Taf. 38. 113 114

Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur

237

AUSWERTUNG: KULTURZENTREN – MACHTZENTREN Merkmale einer Randgruppe der spätawarenzeitlichen Materialkultur Neben eindeutig byzantinischen Schnallentypen (Typ „Ároktő“ und „Typ Micheldorf-Skalistoe“) analysiert die Studie die Verbreitung von solchen Elementen, die in der regionalen Materialkultur des Karpatenbeckens mehr oder weniger aufgegangen sind. Obwohl Gegenstandstype als Ganze, die Lochzapfen und die Knopfenden verschiedene Ebenen der materiellen Kultur bilden (Funktionelle Einheit vs. Verzierungselement vs. technische Lösung), sind die Gemeinsamkeiten in ihrer Verbreitung im Karpatenbecken auffallend. Die meisten Fälle der Lochzapfen konzentrieren an geschlossenen Gegenstandstypen (Typ Ároktő; rechteckige Gürtelbeschläge meistens mit hundeartigen Vierfüßlern; Typ MicheldorfSkalistoe; runde, bzw. quadratische Gürtelbeschläge). Die Anwendung der Knopfenden ist nicht so konzentriert. Knopfenden gerieten mehrmals an solche Gegenstandstype, die in der Spätstufe I–II im ganzen Karpatenbecken verbreitet waren (Riemenzungen mit Tierkampszene), obwohl die regionale Verbreitung der Fälle in Transdanubien und in den Randgebieten des Karpatenbeckens ebenso charakteristisch ist, wie bei den Lochzapfen. Die Ursache für die unterschiedliche Konzentration der typologischen Merkmale ist wahrscheinlich, dass Knopfenden als morphologisch bedingte Zierelemente leichter und im weiteren Kreis kopierbar waren, als die Lochzapfen als weniger bekannte (und nur begrenzt sichtbare) technische Besonderheiten. Die inkonsequente Ausführung der Beschläge aus Komárno-Váradiho und Nagypall ist ein weiteres Argument dafür, dass die Befestigung des Gegenstandes am Riemen durch Lochzapfen bei den Awaren unbekannt und unbeliebt blieb. Hundeartige Vierfüßler sind nicht nur für die Schnallen des Typs Ároktő, sondern auch für eine Reihe von rechteckigen Gürtelbeschlägen typisch: obwohl die Beschläge (heute) ein awarisches Charakteristikum zu sein scheinen, kommen etliche Parallele des Tieres – oftmals mit einem degenerierten Rankenwerk – im provinzial-byzantinischen Milieu vor. Ein wichtiges Bindeglied innerhalb der Gruppe ist die Häufigkeit von geometrischen Ornamenten, die sonst im Karpatenbecken unbekannt sind. Die Häufigkeit von geometrischen Mustertypen in der ersten Hälfte der Spätawarenzeit in bestimmten Gegenden westlich der Donau weicht vom gut rekonstruierbaren Gesamtbild der gleichzeitigen spätawarischen Zierkunst stark ab120, und kann wahrscheinlich durch den Einfluss von äußeren Quellen erklärt werden. Trotzdem sind die konkreten Erscheinungsformen der Varianten von Flechtbandmustern, Gittermustern und Peltamustern wegen des Mangels an exakten äußeren Analogien meistens für lokale Phänomena zu halten. Die meisten untersuchten Merkmale bilden geschlossene Type der awarenzeitlichen Material – das heißt, Einheiten von ikonographischen, gegenstandtypologischen und technischen Merkmalen – deren Vorkommen sich in Transdanubien und an den Rändern des Verbreitungsgebietes der beiden ersten chronologischen Phasen der spätawarischen Kultur konzentriert. In den Fällen, wo auch die Fundkomplexe bekannt sind, häufen die morphologischen und technischen Merkmale des Horizontes sich nicht nur an einzelnen Gegenständen, sondern stätig sogar in geschlossenen funktionalen Einheiten, wie Gürtelgarnituren an (Nagypall Grab 16121, Čataj Grab 74, 115 und 159122 Dunaszentgyörgy Grab 249, Komárno-Váradi Gasse Grab 14123).

Geographische Verbreitung, regionale Gruppen Die geographische Verbreitung der meisten geometrischen Mustertypen, Lochzapfen und Knopfenden der Spätstufe I–II zeigt einen eindeutigen Akzent in einem Streifen vom nordwestlichen 120  Dazu mehr in dem zweitnächsten Abschnitt. Eine Gesamtauswertung der Tendenzen der spätawarenzeitlichen materiellen Kultur wurde bislang nicht publiziert: die Materialaufnahme (Szenthe Dissertation), die der Aussage über die Absonderung des untersuchten Horizontes zugrundeliegt, kann hier nicht vorgeführt werden. Doch gibt es schon eine Reihe von Werken, die in die wichtigsten Tendenzen der awarenzeitlichen materiellen Kultur einen Einblick lassen. Die Seriation von Jozef Zábojník basiert auf das Fundmaterial des nordöstlichen Karpatenbeckens; es kann mit der Gräberfeldanalyse von Éva Garam (Garam 1995) gut verglichen werden. Über südtransdanubische Fundorte und über die Gräberfelder der Großen Ungarischen Tiefebene fehlen noch eingehende Analysen, obwohl mithilfe der großen Serie von veröffentlichten Gräberfeldern auch die Materialien der letzteren Regionen dem Gesamtbild beitragen (u. A. Kiss 1977, Madaras 1994, Madaras 1995, B. Nagy 2003). 121  Kiss 1977, Pl. XXVIII. 122  Zábojník 2000, Abb. 14, Abb. 17, Abb. 21. 123  Čilinská 1982, Taf. VI.

238

S z e n t h e G e r g e ly

Karpatenbecken bis Südost-Transdanubien (Abb.  7), das geographisch einer Kontaktzone des Karpatenbeckens nach Westen und Südwesten entspricht. Innerhalb der Zone konzentrieren die Fälle in Nordwesten, in Südtransdanubien bzw. zwischen den beiden Arealen in Keszthely, indem Keszthely durch die Häufigkeit des Vorkommens scheinbar alleine ein Zentrum bildet124. Die Vorkommen an südlichen und nordöstlichen Peripherien des Karpatenbeckens sind eher verstreut. Wegen der großen Zahl der spätawarenzeitlichen Fundorte ist diese Fundsituation wahrscheinlich kein Zufall125. Als ein Anhäufungsschwerpunkt aller Merkmale des Horizontes verdient die Umgebung von Keszthely eine spezielle Beachtung. Die Spätgruppe der „Keszthely-Kultur“126 kann am einfachsten durch die Erscheinen von übergroßen Stylus-Nadeln und Körbchenohrgehängen der Frauenbleidung definiert werden127, die an eine Zugehörigkeit zur spätantiken Trachtprovinz hinweisen128. Ein Parallelphänomenon in der Männerkleidung konnte bislang nicht nachgewiesen werden. Obwohl es wegen der Forschungssituation129 nur hypothetisch formuliert werden kann, ist es trotzdem wahrscheinlich, dass die in der gleichzeitigen awarischen Kultur fremden Elementen der Männerbekleidung der beiden spätawarenzeitlichen Keszthelyer Gräberfelder (Stadt und Dobogó) und von Hévíz-Alsópáhok130, gegebenenfalls die geometrische Ornamentikpräferenz an Gürtel- und Pferdegeschirrbeschlägen sich auf die gleichen Quellen Bezug nahm, wie die Zierelemente der Frauenbleidung. Die Anhäufung der Keszthelyer Stücke scheint deshalb durch solche Kontakte der Bevölkerung der spätantik geprägten jüngeren Keszthely-Kultur begründet zu sein, die sich auswärts des awarischen Milieus richteten. Im Gegensatz der Elemente der Frauentracht, die gut von den örtlichen Vorbildern des 7. Jahrhunderts abgeleitet werden können131, kann eine ähnliche Ursprungshypothese bei den behandelten Teilen der Männerbekleidung (Gürtelteilen) in Mangel an Parallelen in der älteren Keszthely-Kultur nicht untermauert werden. Der Horizont unterscheidet sich nicht einfach oder primär durch ihre chronologische Stellung oder regionale Verbreitung von dem typisch awarischen Material der Spätstufe I–II, sondern sondert sich davon eher mit kulturellen Aspekten ab.

Kontakte zwischen dem Karpatenbecken und der äußeren Welt in „transition period“ des Mittelmeerbeckens Zu den Quellen der Gruppe Wie es oben mehrmals erwähnt wurde, kommen einzelne Muster – Tierfiguren und geometrische Motive – mit den Knopfenden und meistens auch mit den Lochzapfen zusammen, an denselben Gegenständen oder in den gleichen Garnituren vor, und bilden dadurch geschlossene Type – das heißt, Einheiten von ikonographischen, gegenstandtypologischen und technischen Merkmalen. Im Falle der Gegenstände, für die unter allen oben erwähnten Typen eine transdanubische bzw. marginale geographische Verbreitung charakteristisch ist, kann zwischen der Mittel- und Spätawarenzeit keine örtliche Kontinuität dokumentiert werden. Die Gründe der Feststellung liegen einerseits in der regionalen Verbreitung der untersuchten Materialgruppe: trotz der typologischen Ähnlichkeit von bestimmten Typen (Beschlagtypen /kurzrechteckige Beschläge mit Vierfüßlern/, der Scharnierkonstruktionen an Riemenzungen132, von Knopfenden, Ornamenten /hundeartige Tierfiguren u. A./ und Lochzapfen) mit den mittelawarenzeitlichen Analogien, ist die Verbreitung in der MA II Periode grundsätzlich anders, als in den nächsten Phasen (Spätstufe I–II). Neben der konzentrierten regionalen Verbreitung spricht auch die obenerwähnte „Typgebundenheit“ der spätawarischen Erscheinungsformen der einzelnen Merkmale gegen die Durchsetzung der mittelawarenzeitlichen Traditionen in der Entfaltung des Horizontes.  Lipp 1884, IV. t. 74, 86; V. t. 105; VI. t. 135; VIII. t. 193–194, 201.  Daten in ADAM, zu den spätawarenzeitlichen Gräberfeldern siehe Karte 4. 126  Zum Begriff und Problem der Keszthely-Kultur siehe zuletzt Vida 2008; Kiss 1997; Kiss 2011. 127  Müller 1992. 128  Vida 2008, 33, 35. 129  Siehe Kiss 2011, 499–500. 130  Kiss 2011, 491–492. 131  Vida 2008, 38. 132  Szenthe 2013a. 124 125

Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur

239

Der rekonstruierbare Einfluss, der dem Zustandekommen des Fundhorizontes zugrunde lag, scheint seine Wirkung am stärksten westlich der Donau ausgeübt zu haben. Aufgrund der minderen Qualität der behandelten Gussstücke wäre es evident, das Herkunfts-, bzw. Transfergebiet einzelner Formen oder der Gegenstandstype als Ganzen im benachbarten balkanischen (nordwestbalkanischen)133 Raum zu finden. Eine ähnliche Unterscheidung zwischen westlichen/südwestlichen (europäischen bzw. westmediterranen) und südöstlichen (ostmediterranen) Einflussbereichen, wie es im Falle der Frühawarenzeit nach den Forschungen von Tivadar Vida heute schon möglich ist134, liegt für die Spätawarenzeit heute noch ferne. Nach wenigen Hinweisen ist es doch nicht irreal. Die Type Ároktő und MicheldorfSkalistoe (oder eher deren Hauptmotive unabhängig von den Schnallen) sind dem Verbreitungsgebiet nach ostmediterrane Erscheinungsformen. Im Falle des Typs Ároktő kann die relativ ausgewogenere Streuung im Karpatenbecken – wie bei den frühawarischen Gegenstandstypen135 – die ostmediterrane Ursprungshypothese unterstützen. Dagegen scheinen diejenige Elemente, die in Transdanubien auch einzelweise, an lokalen Gegenstandstypen vorkommen (geometrische Ornamente, Knopfenden, an Gürtelbeschlägen und Riemenzungen) westliche- südwestliche Kontakte zu haben.

Lokale Kultur zwischen Byzanz und der awarischen Repräsentation: Transdabubien als Zwischenwelt Es ist möglich, aus der Analyse der inneren Strukturen der materiellen Kultur des Karpatenbeckens einige Schlüsse auf die Art und Weise der Kontakte zwischen der Region und der äußeren Welt (dem Mediterraneum und der merowingerzeitlichen Europa) zu ziehen. Der im Artikel untersuchte Fundhorizont hebt nämlich aus dem Gesamtbild der spätawarenzeitlichen Materialkultur trotzdem ab, dass die meisten Komponenten des “spätawarischen Tierstils“136 auch in der Formenwelt der spätantik-frühmittelalterlichen Europa und des Mediterraneums wurzeln (unter anderen Gegenstandsformen137, Motive wie Greifen138, Rankenvarianten139, Tierkampsszenen140, aber auch die mehr verbreiteten geometrischen Muster141). Derjenige Teil der letzteren Gegenstände, der vom hohen künstlerischen und handwerklichen Niveau ist, spiegelt den Einfluss einer nicht geographisch determinierten Elitenkultur142. Die Objekte vom durchschnittlichen Niveau zeigen dann im Allgemeinen dieselbe Formen, Ornamentik, Motivpräferenz und technische Lösungen die an den wenigen Artefakten von ausgezeichneter Qualität erscheinen, aber in einfacher/degenerierter Ausführung143. Obwohl es eine vereinfachende These ist, die der Wahrheit sicherlich nur teilweise entspricht144, ist es in großen Zügen trotzdem gültig, dass die überwiegende Mehrheit der Verzierungen der awarischen gegenständlichen Kultur – beziehungsweise der Gürtelbeschläge145 – auf den entsprechenden Gegenständen der eigenen Eliten reflektiert hat. Die wichtigste Bestätigung dieser Aussage ist die geographische Verbreitung der massenweise in die Gräber gelangten spätawarenzeitlichen Gürtelbeschläge: die meisten Type kommen in identischer Form aus weit voneinander entfernten Gebieten des Karpatenbeckens ohne regionale Akzente vor146. Es ist wahrscheinlich ein Zufall, aber trotzdem vom symbolischen Wert, dass zu dem einzigen, relativ häufig verbreiteten geometrischen  Kiss 2005, 209.  Vida 2008, 36; Vida 2009. 135  Siehe z.B. die Haarnadeln mit Vogelförmigem Kopf, Vida 2009, 244–246, Fig. 4. 136  Siehe Szenthe 2013c, nach Bierbrauer 1997. 137  Zu den Riemenzungen mit konkaven Seiten und spitzem Ende siehe: Genito 1993, 152, Fig. 1. und Ripoll-López 1998, Kat.nr. 133–135, Taf. XLIII, Fig. 29 (Betica, Hispanien); zu den Gürtelbeschlägen siehe die schildförmigen und quadratischen Stücke von Vrap (Werner 1986, Taf. 13). 138  Daim 1990. 139  Zu dem „Typ Vrap” Szenthe 2014. 140  Szenthe 2013a, 141–146. 141  Siehe oben. 142  Für Edelmetallgegenstände: Szenthe 2015. 143  Bollók 2012, 230. 144  Als Ausnahmen können die wenigen Kreislappenrankenmuster vom „Typ Vrap” aus der ersten Hälfte der Spätawarenzeit (siehe Szenthe 2014), oder die wenigen knöchernen Nadelbehälter mit geschnitztem Rankenwerk (Szenthe Handschrift) erwähnt werden. 145  Die Ornamentik der verzierten Gegenstandsgruppen der Spätawarenzeit scheint keinesfalls einheitlich zu sein (Erörterung in Szenthe Handschrift). 146  Wenige Verbreitungskarten siehe in Fancsalszky 2007; siehe auch Stadler 1990, obwohl mit veraltetem Katalog. 133 134

240

S z e n t h e G e r g e ly

Mustertyp (Strigilis- und Fischgratmuster) der Spätstufe I–II ein Gegenstück in der Elitenkultur zur Verfügung steht (siehe die goldene Gürtelschlaufe von Tab147). Da der Fundhorizont, der im Fokus der vorliegenden Studie steht, von dem spätawarischen Tierstil stilistisch unabhängig ist, und da es eine begrenzte regionale Verbreitung aufweist, ist es mit Recht anzunehmen, dass die unmittelbare geographische Nähe in seiner Entfaltung die entscheidende Rolle gespielt haben musste. Der Verkehr geschah aufgrund der minderer Qualität der Objekte auf dem Niveau des Regionalverkehrs148, die mit der Ebene der diplomatischen- und Elitenkommunikation keine oder eine sehr begrenzte Verbindung hatte.

Byzantinische Gürtelgarnituren, als direkte Zeugen der Kommunikation? Direkte Zeugnisse der Kommunikation sind solche Gegenstände, die aufgrund ihrer Verbreitung zum Kreis der byzantinischen materiellen Kultur gezählt werden können (in diesem Sinne hat das Herstellungsort keine Bedeutung: wegen der einfachen Technologie konnten die Typen überall kopiert werden). Zu dieser Gruppe gehören die Ornamentt Typen Ároktő und Micheldorf-Skalistoe. Obwohl sie meistens durch die Schnallen charakterisiert werden, sind Beide eher Verzierungsschemen, die an einer Vielfalt von Gürtelzierden, wahrscheinlich aber an kompletten Gürtelgarnituren benutzt wurden. In der Anwendung der einzelnen Typen sind bestimmte Unterschiede bemerkbar. In den beiden Fällen scheinen nur die Schnallen eine „internationale“ Verbreitung zu haben: Zum Typ Ároktő stehen Gürtelbeschläge nur aus dem Karpatenbecken (der Rechteckbeschlag aus Tiszafüred und wahrscheinlich die Lochzapfenbeschläge mit hundeartigen Tieren) zur Verfügung. Die Riemenzungen sind durch das Stück aus Vasasszonyfa von ähnlicher Ausführung vertreten149. Es kann letztlich nicht entschieden werden, ob die ganzen Schemen, oder nur die geographisch am weitesten verbreiteten Schnallen für byzantinisch gelten, die dann zur örtlichen Produktion mit Impulsen beigetragen haben.

Zu den Schichten der Kommunikation Letztendlich muss noch ein Exkurs darüber gemacht werden, warum die wenigen, sicherlich byzantinischen Gegenstandstypen im Inneren des Karpatenbeckens fehlen, und warum sie das typologische Bild des gleichzeitigen spätawarischen Tierstils unberührt ließen. Während die Wirkung des Typs Micheldorf-Skalistoe nördlich des Schwarzen Meeres in einer langen Reihe von Gürtelbeschlägen und Riemenzungen abschlug – oder nach dem zweiten Modell erscheinen dort byzantinische Gürtelgarnituren in großer Zahl –, kann man im Falle des awarischen Materials eher nur über eine Verwandtschaft der ornamentalen Themen des 8. Jahrhunderts (Tier- und Rankenornamentik) zwischen den byzantinischen und awarischen Künsten150 sprechen151. Die Adaptations- bzw. Adoptionstätigkeit der awarischen kulturellen Umwelt ist wahrscheinlich rekonstruierbar: die Filter der Transformation sind zwar unbekannt, aber die Hauptfaktoren der Selektion waren wohl die Oberflächlichkeit der awarisch-mediterranen/europäischen Kontakte152, und als deren Folge die relative Selbständigkeit der lokalen Materialkultur153; Drittens, eine (indirekte) Modellfunktion solcher Formen, die zur Zeit in der Kultur europäisch-mediterraner Oberschichten benutzt wurden und ins awarische Milieu durch die eigene Elite vermittelt wurden154. Byzantinisches, provinzial-byzantinisches (?), beziehungsweise gegebenenfalls eher vulgarbyzantinisches Formengut erscheint in den niedrigeren Schichten der spätawarenzeitlichen materiellen Kultur, als und wo der Einfluss des obigen, awarischen gesellschaftlich-kulturellen „main-stream“ schwächer, oder nicht absolut war. An den Randgebieten kann diese Situation durch das beschränkte  Zuletzt mit Literatur Szenthe 2015, 300, Abb. 3, 3.  Mango 2009, 9–13. 149  Fettich 1937a, 57, Pl. 1, Szenthe 2013a, 202, Fig. 3). 150  Die Trends, die allerdings mithilfe von Gürtelbeschlägen relativ zuverlässig rekonstruiert werden können, sind an anderen Gegenständen (Knochenschnitzereien, Metallgefässe, Pferdegeschirrbeshcläge) nicht, oder nicht so eindeutig zu beobachten (Szenthe Handschrift/a). 151  Zum Prozess ab der zweiten Hälfte des 7. Jahrhunderts: Szenthe Handschrift/b. 152  Szenthe Handschrift/b. 153  Szenthe Handschrift/b gibt eine Analyse aus der Perspektive der Forschungsgeschichte 154  Szenthe 2013a. 147 148

Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur

241

Zugriffspotential der awarischen politischen Macht erklärt werden. Im Falle Transdanubiens ist diese Interpretation aber unbefriedigend. Die Spezifika der Keszthely-Kultur, oder in der Kultur (in den Kulturen?) Südost-Transdanubiens und des nördlichen- und nordwestlichen Karpatenbeckens können eher aufgrund der Existenz solcher Gemeinschaften erklärt werden, die ihr spezielles Gruppenbewusstsein durch kulturelle Mittel ausdrückten. Im Bezug auf die jüngere Phase der Keszthely-Kultur kann so viel geäußert werden, dass die Beziehungen als äußere, und/oder ihre Lesekriterien, als innere Bedingungen für das Aussehen (des erhaltenen Teiles) der materiellen Kultur der Keszthelyer Bevölkerung und der Träger des zeitgenössischen spätawarischen Tierstils nicht übereinstimmt haben. Mindestens das äußere Kriterium, das heißt die Quelle der benutzten Formen muss in dem Einfluss eines vom Karpatenbecken fremden Milieus identifiziert werden. Geographisch teilten die Gemeinschaften der Keszthely-Kultur die Landschaft mit anderen Gruppen. Die Situation scheint der Frühawarenzeit ähnlich zu sein, als kulturell sehr differente Gruppen eng zusammenlebten155. Obwohl archäologisch nicht eindeutig dokumentierbar, ein ähnliches Bild kommt auch für die Spätawarenzeit zur Schein. In der westlichen Grenzzone des Karpatenbeckens konnte Hajnalka Herold zwischen „awarischen” und „nichtawarischen” Identitäten aufgrund verschiedener Töpfertraditionen unterscheiden156: ähnliche Folgerungen können ebenfalls durch morphologische Eigenschaften der Gürtelbeschlägen gezogen werden. Obwohl regionale Untersuchungen noch weitgehend fehlen, ist die Aussage schon gut begründet, dass zwischen nebeneinander oder in benachbarten Regionen lebenden Gemeinschaften auch in der Spätawarenzeit bedeutende kulturelle Unterschiede bestehen konnten. Diese Unterschiede äußerten sich nicht gleich in allen Aspekten des Lebens. In der Keszthely-Kultur können örtliche Spezifika sowohl in der Männer-, als auch in der Frauenbekleidung identifiziert werden (andere Aspekte, wie Bestattungsritual sind in diesem Fall – hauptsächlich wegen fehlender Grabungsdokumentationen157 – unerforscht); In SüdostTransdanubien und im nordwestlichen Karpatenbecken scheinen heute die Differenzen eher auf die Gürtelgarnituren der Männer (oder der Männerrepräsentation?) begrenzt zu sein. Die chronologisch parallel und geographisch nebeneinander lebenden Gemeinschaften hatten scheinbar differente Kommunikationskontakte. Die Bevölkerung, die ihre Identität durch eine Reihe von byzantinischen Gegenständen zum Ausdruck brachte, oder deren Objekte mindestens vielfach auf eine regionale, mediterrane Kultur Bezug nahmen, hatte aus dem Karpatenbecken auswärts richtende Kontakte. Gegenüber dem Verbreitungsbild der Typen Ároktő und Micheldorf-Skalistoe sind zeitgenössische Analogien für die meisten Gegenstände von außerhalb des Karpatenbeckens trotzdem eine Seltenheit. Parallelen der geometrischen Mustertype der Awarenzeit kommen in der byzantinischen Goldschmiedekunst fast ohne Ausnahmen ohne Fundkontexte und nur an zwischen breiten chronologischen Rahmen datierbarem Material vor. Wegen der ungünstigen Quellenlage lässt sich bei den meisten Gegenständen, Verzierungselementen und geometrischen Mustern endlich nur so viel feststellen, dass sie im Ganzen oder in den einzigen Grundelementen von antik-mediterraner Herkunft sind. Die aktuellen Variationen der geometrischen Muster gliedern sich in einer mediterranen Randkultur ein, wo die einzelnen Typen und Gegenstände lokale Phänomena bilden. Für das Verbreitungsbild byzantinischer Kleingegenstände in der zweiten Hälfte des 7. und im 8. Jahrhundert sind im Vergleich der älteren Fundtypen relativ kleine Verbreitungsgebiete mit wenigen Gegenständen typisch158. Dieses Bild kann in die Rahmen der politischen, wirtschaftlichen und kulturellen Segmentierung159, bzw. der Abkürzung und Verdünnung der Kommunikationslinien in der „Übergangsperiode“ (“transition period“)160 des gleichen Zeitalters gut eingefügt werden (der Begriff „byzantinisch“, den ich bislang mannigfaltig zu umschreiben versuchte, ist deshalb eigentlich undefinierbar).  Zum Problem der Bevölkerung des frühawarenzeitlichen Transdanubiens siehe Vida 2008.  Herold 2009. 157  Siehe Anm. 124. 158  Siehe die Type der 2. Hälfte des 7. und des 8. Jahrhunderts bei Schulze-Dörrlamm: die Type haben eine relativ enge Verbreitung: Typ E35-E37, Schulze-Dörrlamm 2009, 107–115; E39 (Typ Ároktő): Schulze-Dörrlamm 2009, 125–127. 159  Horden–Purcell 2000. 160  Siehe die Studien in Morrisson 2012. 155 156

242

S z e n t h e G e r g e ly

Obwohl die Bevölkerung Transdanubiens und der Randgebieten des Karpatenbeckens solche Merkmale zum Ausdruckbringen von gewissen Aspekten der Identität benutzte, die wahrscheinlich aus ihren eigenen überregionalen, provinzial-byzantinischen (?) Kontakten stammten, entsprach die Installation der erworbenen morphologischen Elemente dem kulturellen Milieu des Karpatenbeckens, indem die „regionsfremden“ Formen an (wahrscheinlich) lokalen Typen des Gürtelzubehörs erscheinen. Die Gürtelgarnituren bildeten solche Media, die im awarischen Repräsentationsfeld, beziehungsweise in einer bestimmten Substruktur dessen verständlich und von besonderer Wichtigkeit waren. Ihr Ziel war wahrscheinlich das Ausdruckbringen politischer Relationen oder der Relationen innerhalb der Männergesellschaft. In der Gruppenkultur der Gürteltragenden der Männergesellschaft äußert sich danach eine oberschichtete Identität, die auch auf eine Grenzerposition von bestimmten Gemeinschaften zwischen der awarischen Macht und lokalen kulturellen Strategien, beziehungsweise auf regionale und interregionale Kommunikationslinien Bezug nahm.

Fundlisten Liste 1: Schnallen und Beschläge mit Lochzapfen (Abb. 6) Schnallen: Áporka-Ürbőpuszta Grab (Marosi / Fettich 1936, Taf.  33; Bóna 1957, Lochzapfen: Marosi / Fettich 1936, 81, Taf. 31, 15; Werner 1986, Taf. 30). Ároktő (Daim 1990, 295, Abb. 7). Čataj Grab 74 (Zábojník 2000, 348–349, Abb.  13–16, Zábojník 2007, 23, Obr. 10). Debrecen-Ondód (Kiss 2005, Abb. 1) Holiare Grab 485. (Zábojník 2000, Abb. 28–29). Keszthely-Dobogó (Kiss 2005). Orosháza-Bónum-téglagyár Grab 105 (Juhász 1995, Taf. VII). Südtransdanubien, Streufund (Privatsammlung, unpubliziert). Südtransdanubien, Fehlprodukt (Privatsammlung, unpubliziert). Wien-Liesing Grab 22 (Daim 1990, 295, Abb. 7). Gürtelbeschläge: Čataj Grab 74 (Zábojník 2000, 348–349, Abb.  13–16, Zábojník 2007, 23, Obr. 10). Čataj Grab 115 (Zábojník 2000, 350, Abb.  17–18, Zábojník 2007, 24, Obr. 11). Čataj Grab 159 (Zábojník 2000, 351, Abb.  21–22, Zábojník 2007, 24, Obr. 11). Dunaszentgyörgy-Kaszás tanya Grab 249 (unpubliziert, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum). Komárno-ul. J. Váradiho Grab 14 (Zábojník 2000, 351–352, Abb. 23–27). Nagypall I-Határi-dűlő Grab 16 (Kiss 1977, Pl. XXVIII). Südtransdanubien, Streufund (unpubliziert, Privatsammlung). Umgebung von Szeged (unpubliziert, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum). Lochschützer: Nagypall I-Határi-dűlő Grab 16 (Kiss 1977, Pl. XXVIII) Unbekannter Fundort, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum.

Unbekannter Fundort, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum. Liste 2: Schnallen und Riemenzungen mit Knopfende Balatonszőlős-TSz istálló Grab C (Németh 1969, Abb. 13; MRT 2 /1962/ Taf. 25, 1). Bernolákovo Grab 53 (Kraskovská 1962, Tab. XII, 1) Borovo-Gradac (Dimitriević / Kovačević / Vinski 1962, 75, Sl. 4). Budakalász-Dunapart Grab 81 (Pásztor 1991, Taf. III, 1). Budapest XI-Fehérvári út 149–155, Grab 39 (Nagy 1998, 80, Taf. 81). Császártöltés, Streufund (unpubliziert, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum). Dunacsúny (Čunovo) Grab 54 (Sőtér 1895, Hampel 1905, III, Taf. 126, 14–16). Dunaszekcső-Téglagyár Grab 42 (Sós 1966–67, Abb. 48, 1; Abb. 49, 1). Keszthely (Kiss 2005, Abb. 1). Keszthely (Lipp 1884, Nr. 280). Keszthely-Stadt, nicht mehr identifizierbarer Grabfund (Lipp 1884, Abb. 74, Hampel 1905, III, Taf. 152, 4). Komárno  (Komárom)-Hadovce Grab 22 (Čilinská 1982, Tab. XV, 16). Mistelbach Grab ‚A‘ (Mitscha-Märheim 1941, TAf. I, 2; Distelberger 1996, Taf. 23., 1). Mosonszentjános-Kavicsbánya Grab 44 (unpubliziert, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum). Mödling a.d. Goldenen Stiege Grab 100 (?) (Schwammenhöfer 1976, 18, vgl. Katalog Mödling 1977, 11). Šebastovce-Lapiše Grab 67 (Budinský-Krička / Točik 1991, Taf. VI, 12). Šebastovce-Lapiše Grab 221 (Budinský-Krička / Točik 1991, Taf. XXVIII, 12). Šebastovce-Lapiše Grab 232 (Fettich 1943, Taf.  22; Budinský-Krička / Točik 1991, Taf. XXXIII, 26, 28). Unbekannter Fundort (Kiss 1999–2000, 141).

Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur

Unbekannter Fundort (Heinrich-Tamaska 2005, B4, 11; 261, Abb. 19). Unbekannter Fundort (Heinrich-Tamaska 2005, B4, 12; 261, Abb. 20). Vasasszonyfa Grab 160 (Fettich 1943, Taf.  22, Kiss 1985, Taf. 14). Zalakomár-Lesvári dűlő (Kiss 1999–2000, 411). Zillingtal Grab 107 (Caspart 1935, Taf. VII). Liste 3: Geometrische Ornamente der SpA I–II, 1: Fischgratmuster (Karte: Abb. 9). Axialsymmetrische Variante auf Riemenzungen und propellerförmigen Beschlägen: Bajna-Arany J. u. 1.-Nyergesi út 5. Streufund (Fettich 1937a, CIII. T., MRT 5, 41. t. 13–19). Bélmegyer-Csömöki-domb 36 (MRT 10, 106. t). Budapest XXII-Vöröskereszt u. 8 (Nagy 1998, 191, Taf. 130). Devínska Nová Ves Grab 759 (Eisner 1952, Obr. 81). Dunaszekcső-Téglagyár 42 (Cs. Sós 1966/67, 101, 48– 49. ábra). Edelsthal (Nemesvölgy) 1885. évi lelet (Hampel 1905, Taf. 111). Gátér-Vasútállomás 50 (Kada 1905, 377). Gyomaendrőd-Kecskészug 14 (Juhász 2006, 101, 5. kép). Keszthely Streufund (Lipp 1884, 24, IV. t. 88). Keszthely Streufund (Hampel 1905, Taf. 156). Mindszent-Bozó-tanya Grab 5 (Szalontai 1995, 189, 8. kép, 11–24). Nadrljan-Basta Kavai L. (Adorján-Kávai L. kertje) 1 (Dimitrijević / Kovačević / Vinski 1962, 53). Ordas, Donauufer (Ungarisches Nationalmuseum, Hampel 1905) Pančevo szórvány (Dimitrijević / Kovačević / Vinski 1962, 24–26). Pilismarót-Basaharc Grab 148 (Fettich 1965, 50). Székkutas-Kápolnadűlő Grab 25 (B. Nagy 2003, 19, 10. kép). Szentes-Kaján Grab 134 (Korek 1943–44, 18–19, XIV. t. 1–28). Tiszafüred-Majoros Grab 190 (Garam 1995, 30, Taf. 73). Tiszafüred-Majoros Grab 199 (Garam 1995, 30, Taf. 74). Želovce Grab 167 (Čilinská 1973, 64, Taf. XXIX). Rosettenförmige Beschläge: Cikó Streufund (Somogyi 1984, 67, 44. t). Edelsthal (Nemesvölgy) Streufund aus dem Jahre 1885 (Hampel 1905, Taf. 108). Gerjen Grab 102 (Kiss 1984a, 110, 49. t). Győr-Téglavető-dűlő Grab 507 (Fettich 1943, 31, XXVI. T. 19). Mindszent-Bozó-tanya Grab 5 (Szalontai 1995, 189, 8. kép, 11–24).

243

Öskü-Agyaggödör Grab 54 (Rhé / Fettich 1931, 49, Taf. XV). Öskü-Agyaggödör Grab 60 (Rhé / Fettich 1931, 49–50, Taf. XIV, 16). Želovce Grab 113 (Čilinská 1973, 58, Taf. XXI). Liste 4. Geometrische Ornamenten der SpA I–II, 2: Bandschlingenornament Bernolákovo Grab 53 (Kraskovská 1962, 438, Tab. X) Čataj Grab Grab 115 (Zábojník 2007, Obr. 10) Császártöltés (Ungarisches Nationalmuseum) Keszthely (Lipp 1884, VIII. t. 194). Dunaszentgyörgy, Grabfund (Unpubliziert, Ungarisches Nationalmuseum) Komárno-Hadovce Grab 21, Čilinská 1982, 361, Tab. XV) Liste 5. Geometrische Ornamenten der SpA I–II, 3: Bandschlingenornamente mit pflänzlichen Haken (in bestimmten Gürtelgarnituren mit mehreren Fällen) Cikó Sterufund (Somogyi 1984, 67, 44. t.). Devínska Nová Ves Grab 104 (Eisner 1952, Obr. 15). Homokmégy-Halom Grab 10 (Garam 1975a, 14, Fig. 3). Kékesd Grab 137 (Kiss 1977, 54, Pl. XVII). Kölked-Feketekapu B Grab 427 (Kiss 2001, 134, Taf. 79). Pusztamérges B Grab 18 (Korek 1945, 111, VIII. t 4). Sárosd Grabfund (Költő 1982, 60, XVI. t). Szabadszállás Streufund (H. Tóth 1992, 54, 14. t. 1). Szarvas-Grexa-téglagyár Grab 64 (Juhász 2004, 20, Taf. IX). Szentes-Felsőcsordajárás Grabfund (Fettich 1937a, 24–26, IV. t). Szentes-Kaján Grab 351 (Korek 1943–44, 41, XXXIII. T. 1–14). Wien 13-Unter St. Veit Streufund (Daim 1979, 62–66, Taf. 4–5). Liste 6. Geometrische Ornamenten der SpA I–II, 4: Bandschlingenornamente mit Epheublättern (in bestimmten Gürtelgarnituren mit mehreren Fällen) Bóly-Siebert-puszta Grab 61/a (Papp 1961, 5. kép). Gátér-Vasútállomás Grab 192 (Kada 1906a, 155). Komárno-Lodenice Grab 107 (Trugly 1993, 196, Taf. XII). Pilismarót-Basaharc 1938 (Fettich 1965, 11). Szarvas-Grexa-téglagyár Grab 78 (Juhász 2004, Taf. XI). Szentes-Nagyhegy Grab 32 (Csallány 1962, 445–447, Taf. XV). Tiszafüred-Majoros Grab 592 (Garam 1995, 78, Taf. 105). Tiszafüred-Majoros Grab 1139 (Garam 1995, 134, Taf. 152).

244

S z e n t h e G e r g e ly

Anmerkungen Aибабин 1990 A. И. Aибабин, Хpонология могильников Кpима позднеpимского и pаннесpедневекового вpемени. MAIET I (1990). Bachner 1985 M. Bachner, Das awarische Gräberfeld von Münchendorf, Niederösterreich. H. Friesinger / F. Daim (Hrsg), Die Bayern und ihre Nachbarn 2 (Wien 1985), 9–122. Bálint 1993 Cs. Bálint, Probleme der archäologischen Forschung zur awarischen Landnahme. M. Müller-Wille, R. Schneider (Hrsg.), Ausgewählte Probleme Europäischer Landnahmen des Früh- und Hochmittelalters (Sigmaringen 1993), 195–273. Bálint 2004 Cs. Bálint, A középavar kor kezdete és Kuber bevándorlása. Der Beginn der Mittelawarenzeit und die Einwanderung Kubers. Archaeologiai Értesítő 129, 2004, 35–65. Bálint 2010 Cs. Bálint, Der Schatz von Nagyszentmiklós (Budapest 2010). Bárdos / Garam 2009 E. Bárdos, É. Garam, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Zamárdi – Rétiföldek. Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 9, Teil 1 (Budapest 2009). Bierbrauer 1997 V. Bierbrauer, Tierornamentik. Lexikon des Mittelalters VIII (München 1997), 783–784. Bollók 2012 Á. Bollók, Kép- és képnélküliség a Kárpát-medencében a 6.–10. században. Bild- und Nildlosigkeit im 6.–10. Jahrhundert im Karpatenbecken. Archaeologiai Értesítő 138, 2013, 213–237. Bóna 1988 I. Bóna, Die Geschichte der Awaren im Lichte der archäologischen Quellen. Popoli delle steppe: Unni, Avari, Ungari. Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo XXXV (Spoleto 1988), 437–481. Bühler 2010 B. Bühler, Is it Byzantine Metalwork or not? Evidence for Byzantine Craftmanship Outside the Byzantine Empire (6th to 9th Centuries AD). F. Daim, J. Drauschke (Hrsg.), Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter. Teil 1. Peripherie und Nachbarschaft. Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Bd. 84,1 (Mainz 2010), 213–234. Bühler 2014 B. Bühler, Der „Schatz” von Brestovac, Kroatien: seine kulturellen Beziehungen und technologischen Aspekte. Monographien RGZM Bd. 85 (Mainz 2014). Cosma et al 2013 C. Cosma, A. Dobos, G. T. Rustoiu, A. Rustoiu, O. Oargă, Războinici în Transilvania din epoca Avară (ClujNapoca 2013). Crawford 1990 J. S. Crawford, The Byzantine shops at Sardis (Cambridge 1990). Čilinská 1973 Čilinská, Z., Frühmittelalterliches Gräberfeld in Želovce (Bratislava 1973). Čilinská 1982 Čilinská, Z., Dve pohrebíská z 8.–9. storočia v Komárne. Slovenská Archaeologia 30 (1982) 347–393. Csallány 1962 D. Csallány, Der awarische Gürtel. Acta Archaeologicae Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 14, 1962, 444–480. Daim 1979 F. Daim, Awarische Altfunde aus Wien und Niederösterreich. Mitteilungen der Archäologischen Gesellschaft Wien CIX, 1979, 55–101. Daim 1987 F. Daim, Das awarische Gräberfeld von Leobersdorf, Niederösterreich. Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren 3 (Wien 1987). Daim 1990 F. Daim, Der awarische Greif und die byzantinische Antike. H. Friesinger, F. Daim (Hrsg.), Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bayern II. Österreichische Akad. d. Wiss. Phil.-Hist. Kl. Denkschriften Bd. 204, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Frühmittelalterforschung Bd. 13 (Wien 1990), 273–303.

Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur

245

Daim 2000a F. Daim, „Byzantinische” Gürtelgarnituren des 8. Jahrhunderts. Daim 2000b, 77–204. Daim 2000b F. Daim (Hrsg.), Die Awaren am Rand der byzantinischen Welt. Monographien zur Frühgeschichte und Mittelalterarchäologie 7 (Innsbruck 2000). Daim 2001 F. Daim, Byzantine Belts and Avar Birds. Diplomacy, Trade and Cultural Transfer nt he Eight Century. The Transformations of Frontiers. From Late Antiquity to the Carolingians. W. Pohl, I. Wood, H. Reimitz (Ed). The Transformation of the Roman World Vol. 10 (Leiden-Boston-Köln 2001), 143–188. Daim 2003 F. Daim, Avars and Avar Archaeology. An Introduction. Regna and Gentes. The Relationship between Late Antiquity and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms nt he Transformation of the Roman World. H-W. Goetz, J. Jarnut, W. Pohl (Ed.), The Transformation of the Roman World Vol. 13 (Leiden-Boston) 2003, 463–570. Daim 2010 F. Daim, Byzantine Belt Ornaments of the 7th and 8th Centuries in Avar Contects. Ch. Entwistle, N. Adams, ’Intelligible Beauty’. Recent Research on Byzanthine Jewellery (London 2010), 61–71. Daim et al. 2010 F. Daim, J. Chameroy, S. Greiff, S. Patscher, P. Stadler, B. Tobias, Kaiser, Vögel, Rankenwerk – byzantinischer Gürteldekor des 8. Jahrhunderts und ein Neufund aus Südungarn. F. Daim, J. Drauschke (Hrsg.), Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter. Teil 3. Peripherie und Nachbarschaft. Monographien des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums Bd. 84,3 (Mainz 2010), 277–330. Daim / Bühler 2012 F. Daim, B. Bühler, Awaren oder Byzanz? Interpretationsprobleme am Beispiel der goldenen Mantelschliesse von Dunapataj. T. Vida (ed.), Thesaurus Avarorum. Régészeti tanulmányok Garam Éva tiszteletére. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Éva Garam (Budapest 2012), 207–224. Daim / Lippert 1987 F. Daim, A. Lippert, Das awarische Gräberfeld von Sommererin am Leithagebirge, NÖ. Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren 1 (Wien 1984). Dennison 1918 W. Dennison, A Gold Treasure of the Late Roman period. New York 1918. Dimitriević-Kovačević/ Vinski 1962 D. Dimitrijević, J. Kovačević, Z. Vinski, Seoba Naroda. Arheološki nalazi jugoslovenskog Podunavlja (Zemun 1962). Drauschke 2011 J. Drauschke, Zwischen Handel und Geschenk. Studien zur Distribution von Objekten aus dem Orient, aus Byzanz und aus Nitteleuropa im östlichen Merowingerreich. Freiburger Beiträge zur Archäologie und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends Bd. 14. 2011. Eisner 1952 J. Eisner, Devínská Nová Veś (Bratislava 1952). Entwistle 2004 C. Entwistle, Goldene Brustkette. L. Wamser (Hrsg.), Die Welt von Byzanz. Europas östliches Erbe (München 2004), 298–299. Fancsalszky 2007 G. Fancsalszky, Állat- és emberábrázolások késő avar kori öntött bronz övvereteken. Tier- und Menschendarstellungen an spätawarenzeitlichen gegossenen Gürtelbeschlägen. Opitz Archaeologica I (Budapest 2007). Fettich 1937a N. Fettich, A honfoglaló magyarság fémművessége. – Die Metallkunst der landnehmenden Ungarn. Archaeologia Hungarica XXI (Budapest 1937). Fettich 1937b N. Fettich, A Jászberény – szentimrei avar sírlelet. A Jászberényi Jászmúzeum Évkönyve 1937, 63–70. Fettich 1943 N. Fettich, Győr története a népvándorláskorban. Die Geschichte von Győr in der Völkerwanderungszeit (Győr 1943). Fettich 1965 N. Fettich, Awarenzeitliches Gräberfeld von Pilismarót-Basaharc. Studia Archaeologica 3 (Budapest 1965). Garam 1975a É. Garam, The Homokmégy-Halom Cemetery. Kovrig 1975, 11–48.

246

S z e n t h e G e r g e ly

Garam 1975b É. Garam, The Szebény I–III. Cemeteries. Kovrig 1975, 49–120. Garam 1979 É. Garam, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Kisköre. Fontes Archaeologici Hungariae (Budapest 1979). Garam 1993 É. Garam, Katalog der awarenzeitlichen Goldgegenstände und der Fundstücke aus den Fürstengräbern im Ungarischen Nationalmuseum. Catalogi Musei Nationalis Hungarici Seria Archaeologica I (Budapest 1993). Garam 1995 É. Garam, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Tiszafüred. Cemeteries of the Avar Period /567–829/ in Hungary 3 (Budapest 1995). Garam 2001 É. Garam, Funde byzantinischer Herkunft in der Awarenzeit vom Ende des 6. bis zum Ende des 7. Jahrhunderts. Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 5 (Budapest 2001). Genito B. Some evidence from Iran: on some Iranian and Central-Asiatic connections with Eastern Europe. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 45 (1993), 151–158. Gubitza 1907 K. Gubitza, A kishegyesi régibb középkori temető. Archaeologiai Értesítő 1907, 346–363. Hampel 1905 J. Hampel, Alterthümer des frühen Mittelalters in Ungarn (Braunschweig 1905). Hann 2013 M. Hann, Symbol, Pattern and Symmetry. The Cultural Significance of Structure (London – New Delhi – New York – Sydney 2013). Hanuliak / Zábojník 1982 M. Hanuliak, J. Zábojník, Pohrebisko zo 7.–8. stor. V Čataji, okr. Bratislava-vidiek. Archeologické Rozhledy 34 (1982) 492–503, 583–588. Heinrich-Tamaska 2005 O. Heinrich-Tamaska, Spätawarenzeitliche Funde in den Beständen des Museums für Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Berlin und des Kunstgewerbemuseums Hamburg. Slovenská Archaeologia LIII–2 (2005) 237–264. Heinrich-Tamaska 2013 O. Heinrich-Tamaska, Tierornamentik auf Gold und Silber – Zeichen von Herrschaft und Identität? M. Hardt, O. Heinrich-Tamaska (Hrsg.), Macht des Goldes, Gold der Macht. Herrschafts- und Jenseitsrepräsentation zwischen Antike und Frühmittelalter im mittleren Donauraum. Forschungen zu Spätantike und Mittelalter 2 (Weinstadt 2013), 381–406. Herold 2009 H. Herold, Materielle Kultur – Technologische Tradition – Identität. Untersuchungen zur Archäologie des Frühmittelalters in Niederösterreich. Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 37 (2009) 111–134. Horden–Purcell 2000 P. Horden, N. Purcell, The Corrupting Sea. A Study of Mediterranean History (Oxford 2000). Horváth 1934 T. Horváth, Az üllői és a kiskőrösi avar temető. Die awarischen Gräberfelder von Üllő und Kiskőrös. Archaeologia Hungarica XIX (Budapest 1935). Иванов / Пелевина 2001 Б. Иванов, О. Пелeвина, Детали литых набоpных поясов пpедсалтовского вpемени с „пеpевязанной” пальметтой из Болгаpии (Россиская Apхеология 2001), N. 3, 88–97. Juhász 1995 I. Juhász, Awarenzeitliche Gräberfelder in der Gemarkung Orosháza. Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 1 (Budapest 1995). Juhász 2004 I. Juhász, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld in Szarvas – Grexa-téglagyár, FO 68. Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 7 (Budapest 2004). Kada 1905 E. Kada, Gátéri (Kun-Kisszállási) temető a régibb középkorból. Archaeologiai Értesítő 25, 1905, 360–384, 402–407. Kada 1906a E. Kada, Gátéri (Kun-Kisszállási) temető a régibb középkorból. Archaeologiai Értesítő 26, 1906, 135–155. Katalog Mödling 1977 Das awarische Gräberfeld bei Mödling an der Goldenen stiege. Ausstellungskatalog der Stadt (Mödling 1977).

Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur

247

Kiss 1974 A. Kiss, Some Archaeological Finds of the Avar Period in County Baranya. Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 19, 1974, 129–142. Kiss 1977 A. Kiss., Avar Cemeteries in County Baranya. Cemeteries of the Avar Period (568–829) in Hungary 2 (Budapest 1977). Kiss 2001 A. Kiss, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld in Kölked – Feketekapu B I–II. Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 6 (Budapest 2001). Kiss 1995 Kiss, G., A késői avar aranyozott övdíszek. In: A népvándorláskor fiatal kutatói 5. találkozójának előadásai. Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei XI, 1995, 99–126. Kiss 1997 G. Kiss, A Keszthely – dobogói avar kori temető. Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Keszthely-dobogó. Zalai Múzeum 8, 1997, 115–153. Kiss 1999–2000 Kiss, G., Die spätawarenzeitlichen Riemenzungen mit Knopfende. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 51, 1999–2000, 411–418. Kiss 2001a G. Kiss, Fettich Nándor és a Vas megyei népvándorláskor-kutatás kezdetei. Vasi Szemle LV/4 (2001), 421–451. Kiss 2005 G. Kiss, Egy bizánci övcsat Keszthely-Dobogóról. A Byzantine belt buckle from Keszthely-Dobogó. Zalai Múzeum 14, 2005, 203–213. Kiss 2012 G. Kiss, Egy bizánci övcsat Debrecen – Ondódról (Eine byzantinische Gürtelschnalle von Debrecen – Ondód). T. Vida (ed.), Thesaurus Avarorum. Régészeti tanulmányok Garam Éva tiszteletére. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Éva Garam. (Budapest 2012), 255–268. Klejn 1982 L. S. Klejn, Archaeological Typology. BAR International Series 153, 1982. Kollautz 1970 A. Kollautz, Denkmäler byzantinischen Christentums aus der Awarenzeit der Donauländer (Amsterdam 1970). Korek 1943–44 J. Korek, A Szentes-kajáni avarkori temető. Dolozatok XIX, 1943–1944, 1–129. Korek 1945 J. Korek, Két Szeged környéki avar temető. Folia Archaeologica V, 1945, 102–116. Kovrig 1963 I. Kovrig, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Alattyán. Archaeologica Hungarica XL, 1963. Költő 1982 L. Költő, Avar kori bronztárgyak röntgenemissziós analízise. X-ray emission analysis of bronze objects from the Avar age. Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei V/1, 1982, 5–68. Kraskovská 1962 L’. Kraskovská, Pohrebisko v Bernolákove. Slovenská Archeologia 10, 1962, 425–476. Lipp 1884 V. Lipp, A keszthelyi sírmezők (Budapest 1884). Lippert 1969 A. Lippert, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Zwölfaxing in Niederösterreich. PF 7, 1969. Madaras 1994 L. Madaras, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Jászapáti. Avar Corpus Füzetek 2 (Debrecen – Budapest 1994). Madaras 1995 L. Madaras, The Szeged-Fehértó A and B Cemeteries. Avar Corpus Füzetek 3 (Debrecen – Budapest 1995). Mango 2009 M. Mundell-Mango, Byzantine Trade: local, regional, interregional and international. Byzantine Trade, 4th–12th Centuries. The Archaeology of Local, regional and International Exchenge. Ed. Mundell-Mango, M. Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Publications 14, Ashgate (Bodmin 2009), 3–14. Marosi / Fettich 1936 A. Marosi, N. Fettich, Dunapentelei avar sírleletek. Trouvailles avares de Dunapentele. Archaeologica Hungarica XVIII, 1936.

248

S z e n t h e G e r g e ly

Morrisson 2012 C. Morrison (ed.), Trade and Markets in Byzantium (Washington 2012). MRT 7 I. Torma (Hrsg.), Magyarország régészeti topográfiája 7. Pest megye régészeti topográfiája. A budai és a szentendrei járás (Budapest 1986). Müller 1992 R. Müller: Neue archäologische Funde der Keszthely-Kultur. F. Daim (Hrsg.), Awarenforschungen Bd. 1. Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren 4 (Wien 1992), 251–308. Nagy 1998a M. Nagy, Awarenzeitliche Gräberfelder im Stadtgebiet von Budapest I–II. MonAvarArch 2 (Budapest 1998). Nagy 1998b M. Nagy, Ornamentica Avarica I. Az avar ornamentika geometrikus elemei. Die geometrischen Elementen der awarenzeitlichen Ornamentik. Mőra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve – Studia Archaeologica IV, 1998, 377–459. Nagy 1999 M. Nagy, Ornamentica Avarica II. A fonatornamentika. Die Flechtbandornamentik. Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve – Studia Archaeologica V, 1999, 279–316. Pap 2012 Cs. Pap, Avar temető Szekszárd-Palánki dűlőn. A Wosinszky Mór Múzeum Évkönyve XXXIV, 2012 (Szekszárd), 43–145. Papp 1962 L. Papp, A bólyi avarkori temető. Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 7, 1962, 163–193. Pástor 1971 J. Pástor, Kostrové Pohrebísko v Hraničnej pri Hornáde. VyP 2 (1971) 89–179. Rhé / Fettich 1931 Gy. Rhé, N. Fettich, Jutas und Öskü. Zwei Gräberfelder aus der Völkerwanderungszeit in Ungarn. Skythika IV (Prague 1929). Ripoll-López 1998 G. Ripoll-López, Toreutica de la Bética (Siglos VI y VII DC) (Barcelona 1998). Salamon 1995 Á. Salamon, The Szeged-Makkoserdő Cemetery. Avar Corpus Füzetek. Beihefte IV (Debrecen-Budapest 1995), 109–227. Rosner 1999 Gy. Rosner, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Szekszárd-Bogyiszlói Strasse. Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 3 (Budapest 1999). Schulze-Dörrlamm 2009 M. Schulze-Dörrlamm, Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen und Gürtelbeschläge im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum. Teil 2. Die Schnallen mit Scharnierbeschläg und die Schnallen mit angegossenenm Riemendurchzug des 7. bis 10. Jahrhunderts. Kataloge Vor- und Frühgeschichtlicher Altertümer Bd. 30,1. Mainz 2010. Schwammenhöfer 1976 H. Schwammenhöfer, Ein awarenzeitlicher Bestattungsplatz in Mödling bei Wien. AW 7, 1976, 11–18. Somogyi 1984 P. Somogyi, A cikói temető. G. Kiss, P. Somogyi, Tolna megyei avar temetők. Dissertationes Pannonicae III/2 (1984). Sós 1966–67 Á. Cs. Sós, A dunaszekcsői avar kori temető. Folia Archaeologica XVIII, 1966–67, 91–122. Sőtér 1895 Á. Sőtér, Ásatások a csúnyi sírmezőn. Archaeológiai Közlemények XIX, 1895, 87–115. Sőtér 1898 Á. Sőtér, Csúny. Egy római és egy ismeretlen jellegű temetkezési hely és népvándorláskori sírmező. Mosonmegyei Emlékkönyv (Magyaróvár 1898), 117–165. Stadler 1986 P. Stadler, Ausgewählte awarische Bronzegüsse als Parallelen zu Gürtelbeschlägen von Vrap und Erseke. J. Werner, 105–118. Stadler 1987 P. Stadler, Statistische Auswertung der Analyseergebnisse awarischer Bronzebeschläge aus Leobersdorf. In: F. Daim, Das awarische Gräberfeld von Leobersdorf, NÖ. Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren Bd. 3 (Wien 1987), Bd. 2. 57–74.

Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur

249

Stadler 1990 P. Stadler, Verbreitung und Werkstätten der awarischen Hauptriemenbescläge mit Greifendarstellung. H. Friesinger, F. Daim (Hrsg.), Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bayern II. Österreichische Akad. d. Wiss. Phil.-Hist. Kl. Denkschriften Bd. 204, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Frühmittelalterforschung Bd. 13 (Wien 1990), 305–350. Szabó 1975 J., Gy. Szabó, The Pilismarót Cemetery. I. Kovrig (ed.), Avar Finds in the Hungarian National Museum. Cemeteries of the Avar period (568–829) in Hungary 1. (Budapest 1975), 241–281. Szenthe 2013a G. Szenthe, Antique Meaning – Avar Significance. Complex Iconographic Schemes on Early Medieval Small Objects. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 64, 2013, 139–172. Szenthe 2013b G. Szenthe, Vegetal Ornaments in the Late Avar decorative art. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Ser. 3. No. 1 (Budapest 2013), 303–320. Szenthe 2013c G. Szenthe, Connections between the Mediterranean and the Carpathian Basin in the 8th century AD. On the hinged strap-ends of the Late Avar Period. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica XLVIII, 2013, 195–225. Szenthe 2014 G. Szenthe, Contributions to the connections of the Vrap-Velino  horizon and the Late Avarmaterial. L. Doncheva-Petkova, A. Türk, Cs. Balogh (Hrsg.), Avars, Bulgars and Magyars on the Middle and Lower Danube (Sofia – Piliscsaba 2014), 61–76. Szenthe 2015 G. Szenthe, Über die Aussagekraft der Hinterlassenschaft einer Heidenelite. Spätawarenzeitliche Funde auf der Prüfstand. O. Heinrich-Tamaska, H. Herold, P. Straub, T. Vida (Hrasg.) „Castellum, Civitas, Urbs”. Frühmittelalterliche Zentren und Eliten in Ostmitteleuropa. Centres and Elites in Early Medieval EastCentral Europe (Budapest – Leipzig – Keszthely – Rahden, Westfalen 2015), 293–312. Szenthe Handschrift/a G. Szenthe, Mintázatok az ornamentikahasználatban. Faragott csonttárgyak az avar kor díszítőművészetében. Vortrag gehalten an der Tagung 2013 Dezember über die Archäologie der Awarenzeit, im Archäologischen Institut der Eötvös Loránd Universität Budapest. Szenthe Handschrift/b Crisis or innovation? A technology-inspired narrative of social dynamics in the Carpathian Basin during the eighth century. Festschrift für Csanád Bálint zum 65. Geburtstag. Handschrift. Szenthe Dissertation G. Szenthe, A késő avar kori növényi ornamentika. ELTE BTK doktori disszertáció 2013, kézirat. Станилов 2006 C. Станилов, Художевственият метал на бългаpското ханство на Дунав (7–9. век). Die Metallkunst des Bulgarenkhanats an der Donau (7–9. J.h.) (Sofia 2006). Tobias 2011 B. Tobias, Avar kori tarsolyzárók a Kárpát-medencében. Awarenzeitliche Taschenverschlüsse im Karpatenbecken. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve – Studia Archaeologica XII, 2011, 277–312. Točik 1968 A. Točik, Slawisch-awarisches Gräberfeld in Holiare (Bratislava 1968). Тотев / Пелевина 2010 Б. Тотев, O. Пелевина, Скpовишето от Вpап и елитаpната култуpа на дунавските блгаpи. The Vrap hoard and the elite culture of Danube Bulgarians. Apхеология (София) LII/2 (2011), 32–52. Tovornik 1985 V. Tovornik, Die Gräberfelder von Micheldorf-Kremsdorf, Oberösterreich. H. Friesinger, F. Daim (Hrsg), Die Bayern und ihre Nachbarn II. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Frühmittelalterforschung Bd. 8, 1985, 213–217. H. Tóth 1992 E. H. Tóth, Eredmények és problémák Bács-Kiskun megye avar kori kutatásában. Cumania 13, 1992, 41–74. Török 1971 Török Gy., Avar kori sírok Pécelen. Folia Archaeologica XXII, 1971, 85–96. Trugly 1993 S.  Trugly, Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des Awarischen Reiches bei der Schiffswerft in Komárno  II. Slovenská Archeologia 41, 1993, 191–307. Yeroulanou 1999 A. Yeroulanou, Diatrita (Athens 1999).

250

S z e n t h e G e r g e ly

Vida 2008 T. Vida, Conflict and coexistence: the local population of the Carpathian Basin under Avar rule (sixth to seventh century). F. Curta (ed.), The Other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans. East-Central and Middle urope in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 Vol. 2. (Leiden, Boston 2008), 13–46. Vida 2009 Vida T: Local or foreign Romans? The problem of the Late Antique population of the 6th–7th centuries AD in Pannonia. D. Quast (Hrsg.): Foreigners in Early Medieval Europe. Thirteen international studies on Early Medieval mobility. Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Bd. 78 (Mainz 2009), 233–260. Vinski 1954 Z. Vinski, Povodom našeg prvog priručnika slavenske arheologije s osvrtom na još neke novije publikacije s tog područja. Peristil i (1954), 199–207. Waldbaum 1983 J. C. Waldbaum, Metalwork from Sardis: The finds through 1974 (London 1983). Werner 1986 J. Werner, Der Schatzfund von Vrap in Albanien. Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren 2 (Wien 1986). Wobrauschek / Haider / Streli 1989 P. Wobrauschek, W. Haider, Ch. Streli, Röntgenfluoreszenzanalyse von Bronzefunden aus der Awarenzeit. F. Daim, Das awarische Gräberfeld von Leobersdorf, NÖ. Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren Bd. 3 (Wien 1987), Bd. 2. 19–44. Zábojník 1991 J. Zábojník, Seriation von Gürtelbeschlaggarnituren aus dem Gebiet der Slowakei und Österreichs (Beitrag zur Chronologie der Zeit des Awarischen Kaganats). K problematike osídlenia stredodunajskej oblasti vo včasnom stredoveku (Nitra 1991), 219–321. Zábojník 2000 J. Zábojník, Zur Problematik der „byzantinischen” Gürtelbeschläge aus Čataj, Slowakei. Daim 2000a, 327–365. Zábojník 2007 J. Zábojník, K problematike predmetov „byzantského pôvodu” z nálezísk obdobia avarského kaganátu na Slovensku. Byzantská kultúra a Slovensko – Zur Problematik der Gegenstände „byzantinischen Ursprungs” aus der Zeit des Awarischen Kaganats in der Slowakei. Zborník štúdií. Zborník Slovenského Národného Múzea Archeológia Supplementum 2 (Bratislava 2007), 13–32.

Zoltán May161 Chemical composition of buckles from the type Ároktő Cat. Number

Reference to

2.1934.1 (plate) 2.1934.1 (ring) N83 (front plate) N84 (front plate)

Ároktő Ároktő Korinek Korinek

Sb

Sn

Pb

Zn

Cu

Fe

0,12 0,10 0,06 0,20

7,17 7,48 11,57 8,91

12,95 41,42 52,42 13,80

1,23 0,82 0,53 0,94

77,84 47,19 32,40 74,99

0,09 0,60 0,51 0,15

These four bronze buckles can be considered as tin-lead-bronze according to the results obtained by XRF measurements (values given in w/w%). The very high concentrations of lead in the specimen are very noticeable and could be a distinctive feature for this group. According to chemical data of buckle 2.1934.1 (from Ároktő) the raw material of the plate and the ring is different which suggests that this object was put together with two different materials. We are planning further detailed investigation with this kind of buckles which can be a starting point a very interesting cultural and historical research.

 Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Research Center for Natural Sciences, Institute of Material and Environmental Chemistry, H–1117 Budapest, Hungary, [email protected] 161

A

var warriors in Transylvania, Sătmar and Maramureș, Crișana and Banat. Archaeological landmarks on the political status of western Romania in the Avar Khaganate* Călin Cosma

Academia Română Filiala Cluj-Napoca Institutul de Arheologie și Istoria Artei Cluj-Napoca Str. M. Kogălniceanu, Nr.12–14 RO – 400084 Cluj-Napoca [email protected]

Abstract: Geographically, the area considered for study within this scientific approach includes Transylvania, Maramureș and Sătmar, Crișana and Banat (Fig. 1). During the 7th–8th centuries, they were all affected by the expansion policy of the Avar Khaganate, with the centre in the Great Hungarian Plain. The presence of the Avar warriors in the 7th–8th centuries in Transylvania, in the north-western part of Romania, Crișana, and Romanian Banat is indisputable. This fact is based on evidence consisting of cemeteries and isolated graves which belong, without any doubt, to warriors of Avar ethnicity. The north-western area of Romania belonged to the territory of the Avar power centre on the Upper Tisza with the centre located within the range of the current city of Nyíregyháza (Hungary). Crișana, up to Crișul Alb River was controlled by the warriors stationed in the mid Tisza River Basin. The plain area between Mureș and Crișul Alb rivers and the Banat Plain was under the authority of the Avar leader ruling the centre of power in the lower Tisza region, with the centre at Kunágota. In the central area of the Transylvanian Basin an Avar centre of power with “Aul” status was established which was coordinated by the elite warriors directly subordinated to the Avar khagan. The hilly and mountainous areas of Oaș, the entire historical region of Maramureș, the Mountainous Banat, respectively the hilly and mountainous area of the Western Carpathians were situated outside the borders of the Avar Khaganate (Fig. 8). Keywords: Avars, warriors, cemeteries, political status, borders

Introductory notes Geographically, the area considered for study within this scientific approach includes only Transylvania, Maramureș and Sătmar, Crișana and Banat. The four Romanian provinces are distinct territorial entities in Romania’s physical geography1 (Fig. 1). During the 7th–8th centuries, they were all affected by the expansion policy of the Avar Khaganate, with the centre in the Great Hungarian Plain. The Transylvanian Depression, surrounded by the Carpathian Mountains, markedly stands out compared to the rest of the territories in western Romania2. Maramureș incorporates the geographic and ethnographic areas of Sătmar, Oaș and historical Maramureș3. The entire area is generically (or conventionally) also termed north-west Romania4. This north-western Romanian area also includes the western parts of the current county of Sălaj5. The geographical area of Maramureș is delimited eastwards by the Western Hills of Romania, the crests of Maramureș Mountains to the north-east  Pop 2003, 11–27.  Pop 2003, 17–20. 3  Stanciu 2011, 17–21. 4  Cosma 2002, 16–19; Stanciu 2011, 16–21 5  Cosma 2002, 16–19; Stanciu 2011, 16–21 1 2

252

Călin Cosma

and to the south, by the upper Eru river basin6. The north-west territory pertains geographically to the area of the Northern Carpathians and the upper Tisza river basin7. Crișana is delimited to the north by Eru river upper basin, to the south by Mureș river, to the east by the Western Carpathians and to the west by Tisza river8. Romanian Banat is delimited to the east by the crests of the Western Carpathians, to the north the territory being limited by Mureș river and to the south by the Danube9. Organically, north-west Romania, Crișana and Banat are interdependent with Tisza river basin10. South Banat inFigure 1. Map of historical regions of Romania. tegrates the lower basin of the Danube11. The Transylvanian Depression was and is in relation with areas past the Western Carpathians via the communication routes located both along the main river courses flowing westwards as well as the gorges and passes existent in the Western Carpathians12 (Fig. 1–8). Over the history, the geographical individuality of the four provinces in western Romania also generated distinct historical phenomena from one historical region to another. It suffices to say that in Antiquity, large part of the territory of the Transylvanian Plateau and Banat was included in the Roman empire, thus benefiting of all the advantages of the Roman culture compared to Crișana or north-west Romania, geographical areas remained in the “Barbaricum”. In the Early Middle Ages too, the four large Romanian provinces were regarded differently by the great military powers, who disputed their primacy in the Carpathian Basin13. Thus, for the 7th–8th centuries included, we believe it is rather necessary to present the scientific data independently for each territory and not in unitarily. The separate tackling of the archaeological-historical phenomena at the level of each of the four geographical territories in Western Romania is a much more efficient way of perceiving in most clear terms the cultural, economic and socio-political changes occurring during the 7th–8th centuries AD in the eastern areas of the Carpathian Basin. Historically, the dissolution of the Gepid state in 567 also meant the establishment of a new political pole in Pannonia, coordinated by the Avars, a political situation of significant importance for the history of Central South-Eastern Europe. Some historians believe that 567 was precisely the time when the Early Middle Ages started in certain riparian territories to the Danube14. Over the 7th–8th centuries, the Avar Khagans intended, via a series of warlike actions, to enlarge the empire borders on one hand and on the other, they set out to only control certain areas in the centre and south-east of Europe. The Transylvanian Plateau, Maramureș, Oaș, Sătmar, Crișana and Banat were also targeted by the Avar expansionist policy, yet differently. There was a series of hypotheses in historiography concerning the reasons which generated the extension of the Avar influence also in the eastern areas of the Carpathian Basin. The most important are as follows: the Avars’ intention to destroy the Gepid power east Tisza river, including the Transylvanian Plateau, still active in the area also after 576; the Khagans’ wish to control salt and  Cosma 2002, 16–19; Pop 2003, 12–22; Stanciu 2011, 16–21.  Stanciu 2011, 16–21. 8  Cosma 2002, 16–19; Pop 2003, 11, 17–20. 9  Pop 2003, 11, 15–21; Mare 2004, 9–11. 10  Stanciu 2002, 203; Stanciu 2011, 16–21. 11  Mare 2004, 9–11. 12  Pop 2003, 19. 13  See for instance: Erdély Története 1986, 164–177; Bóna 1990, 90–101; Rusu 1997, 177–450; Stanciu 2000, 403–426; Cosma 2002, 13–16; Bărbulescu 2003, 178–185; Nägler 2003, 199–211; Stanciu 2002, 203–236; Mare 2004, 9–24; Stanciu 2011, 13–26; Cosma 2012, 137–154. 14  Rusu 1977, 194; Pohl 1988, 52–57; Zábojník 2004, 132; Curta 2006, 178. 6 7

Avar warriors in Transylvania, Sătmar and Maramureș, Crișana and Banat. Archaeological landmarks

253

gold areas as well as to monitor the trade on Mureş river valley from the Transylvanian Plateau to Central Europe, but also the reverse; their intent to control the pasture lands in Banat, Crișana and Transylvanian Plateau (in the latter case, namely the Târnave and Someș river valleys), for the use of their own animal herds15. In what the Transylvanian Depression is concerned, some views submit that the entire intra-Carpathian territory was conquered and incorporated in the Avar Khaganate. Those assuming this also considered, beside the certain Avar archaeological sites, a series of artifacts discovered by chance and no archaeological context, yet used as evidence of an effective Avar domination of the territory where they were found16. Indeed, those items are “dispersed” all over the territory of the Transylvanian Plateau. However, one should specify that most of them are artifacts without any ethnical assigning, so they could be worn and/or used by any of the ethnicities present in the Transylvanian Depression during the last centuries of the first Christian millennium. Amongst, also count artifacts that the Avars brought to the Carpathian Basin. Most definitely yet, these “Avar objects” were assumed and used by the populations with whom the Avars entered in contact in Central and South-Eastern Europe as well. Evidently, the items date to the 7th–8th centuries, however this does not prove that respective find spots were located within the Avar Khaganate borders, as argued in a series of specialty studies17. There are though views which prudently regard the artifacts discovered by chance in various places on the territory of Transylvania18. One may note the fact that not every archaeological item “with ethnic attribute” discovered by chance, most of them unique in terms of presence in various areas of the Transylvanian Plateau, may be deemed indisputable evidence of an Avar effective control of the territories of origin. It is very likely that the item/items had been lost by an “Avar”, possibly even an Avar warrior, who was there yet only temporarily. The presence of Avar origin objects, singular and without archaeological context, in various places in the east of the Carpathian Basin may also be the result of trade exchanges between the communities of the time, while the individual who sold or bought respective items (then lost or buried it), had nothing to do with the Avar ethnicity. In the previous paragraphs we attempted to present only a small part of the issues raised by the study of the Avar presence in north-west Romania, Crișana and Banat, but especially in the Transylvanian Depression. They form the subject to be further discussed in this scientific approach. The analysis starts from previous archaeological evidence regarding the Avar presence in western Romania19, to which adds also a series of novel data in the field. Both information regarded from a novel standpoint, provides opportunities for the reassessment of the “Avar moment” in the history of the four Romanian provinces in western Romania. In order that the final results of this scientific approach be as credible as possible (in our view), we mention that we used only the funerary finds in the Transylvanian area (cemeteries and graves), assignable beyond any doubt to the Avar warriors. Further on, we added only those artifacts, which although discovered by chance, are still items that come with certainty from Avar graves. They include weapons, harness items, but also objects that decorated the clothing of the Avar warriors of various ranks and the military retainers or the high ranking individuals in the hierarchy of the Avar society. We purposefully excluded from the list of finds all those artifacts without chronological and ethnic significance discovered by chance in various places from Transylvania. They are items of which there is no topographical information and furthermore, they have no archaeological context. The reason for which we chose to refer to only the remains attributable with certainty to the Avars is simple: the Avar fighters, of various ranks and their military retainers are noticeable in the Carpathian Basin by unique dress, lifestyle and especially burial, specific to their ethnicity20. The Avar cemeteries present in a certain area closer or farther from the Avar centre in Pannonia represent the  See: Horedt 1956, 393–406; Horedt 1958, 61–108; Horedt 1968, 103–120; Rusu 1977, 169–213; Erdély Története 1986, 164–177; Bóna 1990, 90–101; Garam 1994, 171–181; Rusu 1997, 222–271. 16  Erdély Története 1986, 164–177; Bóna 1990, 90–101; Garam 1994, 171–181; Szentpéteri 2002. 17  Erdély Története 1986, 176–177. 18  Horedt 1956, 393–406; Horedt 1958, 61–108; Horedt 1968, 103–120. 19  Horedt 1956, 393–406; Horedt 1958, 61–108; Horedt 1968, 103–120; Rusu 1977, 169–213; Rusu 1997, 223–271. 20  For instance: Mauricius, XI, 2; Agathias I, 3.30; Horedt 1958, 62–69; Bóna 1980, 31–95; Erdély Története 1986, 164–166; Garam 1987, 191–202; Pohl 1988; Pohl 2003, 574–578. 15

254

Călin Cosma

best evidence that respective territories were effectively controlled by the Avar Khagans. Such reasoning may be also applied in terms of the Avar presence in Transylvania, Sătmar, Maramureș, Crișana and Banat. Avar cemeteries or isolate graves are the most important evidence to define the relation between the Avar Khaganate and the four Romanian provinces in western Romania. The use of the information targeting only the Avar warriors makes possible a pertinent analysis which may provide plausible answers to a series of questions that synthesised refer to the political, military and economic status of western Romania during the 7th–8th centuries.

Transylvania (List 1; Table 1–2; Fig. 2–4) Insofar as it is known, in the Transylvanian Plateau no cemetery dated between 567 and 650 (in absolute chronology), attributable exclusively to the Avar warriors was discovered. Yet, it was argued for a long time that Avar fighters were buried in the Gepid cemeteries of Band-Noșlac type in the Transylvanian Plateau dated to the last decades of the 6th century and until around 65021. The graves in those cemeteries, which also contained horses, a phenomenon corroborated with a series of artifacts discovered in the sepulchres, but also their peripheral position within the cemeteries were the main arguments underlying their assignment to Avar warriors22. The list of Gepid cemeteries with horse graves datable to the first half of the 7th century is not very large (List. 1; Table 1; Fig. 2). Moreover, there is no very clear and unequivocal evidence to submit that in all respective cemeteries were also buried Avar warriors. Horse burials from the Carpathian Basin are presented as a characteristic of the Avar ethnicity23, however the phenomenon is also found in the German environment24. Obviously, in order to confirm the Avar presence in the Gepid cemeteries from intra-Carpathian Transylvania, the archaeological items are really helpful. Nonetheless, unfortunately, on one side, most graves with horses were plundered25, while on the other hand, there are cemeteries where graves with horses had no funerary furniture. In both cases, it is thus very difficult to make value judgements on the ethnicity of those buried in respective graves. Archaeological sites

C

A.1. Bandu de Câmpie

X

X

A. 2. Bistrița

X

X

A. 3. Bratei

X

A. 4. Fântânele

X

A. 5. Noșlac

X

X

X

X

A. 6. Şpălnaca

X

X

X

X

A. 7. Valea Largă

X X

X

A. 8. Unirea II/Vereșmort

M

A

X

PH

X

ÎC

LC

Ac

Ca

X

X

P

Ah

Ce

OCG

X

X

Mo

X

X

X

X

X

X

FI

D

X

630–650

X

630–650

X

630–670

X?

630–650 ?

?

X

?

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

630–650

X

630–650 X

X

X

630–650 630–650

Table 1. Graves with horse skeletons or horse skeleton remains discovered in Gepid cemeteries from the Transylvanian Plateau. Legend: C – Cemeteries; M – Graves; A – weaponry; PH – harness items; ÎC – Burial with horse; LC – Belt tongue; Ac – Belt appliques; Ca – Buckles; P – Jewellery; Ah – harness appliques; Ce – Pottery; OCG – Household and domestic objects; Mo – Coins; Fi – W/A inventory; D – Dating of the Avar graves.

Still, one cannot deny the phenomenon of Avar warriors’ burial within some Gepid cemeteries in the Transylvanian Plateau. Thus, for instance, in the cemetery of over 80 graves at Noșlac, there are 5 horse graves. They are interposed with graves containing human bones and no archaeological inventory. Most definitely though, at Noșlac was also buried an Avar warrior, as evidenced by the funerary  Horedt 1956, 402–403; Horedt 1958, 87–88.  Kovács 1913, 389; Dobos 2010/2011, 377–403. 23  Horedt 1958, 65–66; Kiss 1962, 153–162; Bóna 1980, 31–95; Daim 2003, 486–487, 492; Dobos 2010/2011, 377–403. 24  Rusu 1977, 185–186; Dobos 2010/2011, 377–403; Gáll 2014, 295–323. 25  Kovács 1913, 305–389; Dobos 2010/2011, 377–403. 21 22

255

Avar warriors in Transylvania, Sătmar and Maramureș, Crișana and Banat. Archaeological landmarks

inventory composed also of harness items specific to the Avar ethnicity26. The pressed appliques in grave 44 in the cemetery at Band are also evidence of the Avar presence in the respective cemetery27.

A.2 A.4

A.1 A.5

A.7 A.8 A.6

A.3

0

100

200 km

A.1-8 - Gepidic cemeteries with remains of horse skeletons in the Transylvanian Plateau Earth dikes

Figure 2. Gepidic cemeteries in the Transylvanian Plateau with graves containing horse skeletons or horse skeleton remains. Numbers on the map correspond to Table 1.

Several remains proving the phenomenon of the burial of Avar warriors within Gepid cemeteries in Transylvania were discovered at Bratei/Cemetery 3, Șpălnaca and Unirea II/Vereşmort. At Bratei, in cemetery 3, beside the Gepid sepulchres, there are many graves with funerary inventory specific to common Avar warriors28. In the cemetery at Șpălnaca, within the 39 researched sepulchres, three (3) graves (graves 10, 19, 37), according to the anthropological analyses, belonged to Avar ethnicity individuals. The three graves contained weapons, harness items, dress accessories, jewellery and one also a golden Byzantine coin. Two graves (graves 19, 37) also contained horse skeletons29. Concerning the Avar supremacy inside the Carpathian Arc during the first half of the 7th century, one may also consider the hypothesis according to which the Avar Khagans controlled the Transylvanian Plateau also via the Gepid elites by offering them a series of advantages30. An example to this effect is the warrior grave discovered at Unirea II/Vereşmort. According to the inventory, the dead may be considered a member of the military elite of Avar ethnicity. Anthropological analyses of the skeleton show we are dealing with an adult male (27–28 years of age), yet of NordicAlpine features and few mongoloid features31. The analysis of the horse skeleton buried beside the warrior at Unirea II/Vereşmort exhibited morphological elements existent in the Avar environment of the Great Hungarian Plain32. The discussed warrior was a Gepid-Avar half-blood, while the funerary inventory suggests he adopted a lifestyle specific to the Avar military chieftains. He had a  Rusu 1962, 274, fig. 4, grave 11: 9–10; Rusu 1964, 37, grave 11, 39, fig. 3. grave 11: 8–10.  Kovács 1913, 321; Dobos 2010/2011, 391. 28  Bârzu 2010, 171–271; Dobos 2010/2011, 378. 29  Botezatu / Blăjan 1989, 351; Grosu et alii 1995, 276 and note 6; Protase et alii 2000, 104, no. 143. 30  Rusu 1977, 185–186 31  Rustoiu / Ciută 2008, 93–94. 32  Rustoiu / Ciută 2008, 94–96. 26 27

256

Călin Cosma

horse in the breed of those used by the Avars in Pannonia. He had artifacts, weapons and harness items specific to the Avars, in whose name he was involved in the control of the salt area at Ocna Mureş. The marking of a new stage in the Avars’ entry in intra-Carpathian Transylvania is based on archaeological evidence. Thus, starting with mid 7th century in the Transylvanian Plateau emerge the first cemeteries containing graves attributable to only the Avar ethnicity. This is in direct relation with the increase of the number of archaeological sites where Avar remains were discovered compared to the period until mid 7th century (List 2; Table 2; Fig. 3). Avar warriors set their camps only in the area from Mureș river bend, between Câmpia Turzii and Teiuș, and also in the Târnave rivers basin. Their location in a well delimited geographical area enables us to define of the place where they lay as the “Avar power centre” in the Transylvanian Plateau (Fig. 3). Archaeological sites

C

M

CF

A

PH

ÎC

B. 1. Aiud

X

X

X

X

B. 2. Aiudul de Sus

X

X

X

X

LC

Ac

Ca

P

Ah

X

Ce

OCG

FI

X

D 650/670 – 710/720 650/670 – 10/720

B. 3. Cicău

X

X

X

X

X

X

B. 4. Gâmbaș

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

650/670 – 710/720

X

650/670 – 710/720

B. 5. Geoagiu de Sus B. 6. Lopadea Nouă

X X

B.7. Stemț

X

B. 8. Târnava

X

B. 9. Târnăveni B. 10. Teiuș

X X

B. 11. Bratei B. 12. Câmpia Turzii B. 13. Măgina

X

X

X X

X

650/670 – 710/720 X

X

650/670 – 710/720 650/670 – 710/720

X

X

X

X

650/670 – 710/720

X X

650/670 – 710/720

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

650/670 – 760 710/720 – 800/830

X

X

X

X

710/720 – 800/830 710/720 – 800/830

B. 14. Heria

X

Sec. VIII

B. 15. Leșnic

X

B. 16. Râmeț

X

X

Sec VIII

B. 17. Sebeș

X

X

Sec VIII

X

X

Sec VIII

Table 2. Cemeteries, graves and funerary finds in the Transylvanian Plateau with inventory specific to Avar warriors Legend: C – Cemeteries; M – Graves; CF – Funerary nature; A – weaponry, PH – Harness pieces; ÎC – Burial with horse; LC – Belt tongue; Ac – Belt appliques; Ca – Buckles; P – Jewellery; Ah – Harness appliques; Ce – Pottery; OUC – Household and domestic objects; FI – W/A inventory; D – Dating.

On one hand, there are Avar cemeteries containing graves rich in dress accessories, jewellery, pottery, weapons and harness items that may be related to the elites. Within the same cemetery, beside richly furnished graves there are also graves containing only weaponry or graves with no inventory. On the other hand, in the Transylvanian Plateau there are cemeteries which contained only weapons and harness items or graves lacking any archaeological inventory (Table 2). The Avar cemeteries in the power centre by Mureș river bend, where the difference between the military chieftain, retainers, common warriors or slaves is extremely visible, are those at Teiuș and Cicău, funerary sites datable to the second half of the 7th century and the first half of the 8th century. In the 8th century, the Avar military chieftains were buried in the cemetery at Câmpia Turzii. On the other hand, the cemetery at Gâmbaş, dated to the Mid Avar period (ca. 650/670–720) is a cemetery of common Avar warriors. In the same category may be also included the cemeteries and isolate graves at Aiud, Aiudul de Sus, Heria, Lopadea Nouă, Măgina or Stremţ. All graves within above funerary sites belonged to mounted warriors. They were the “units/squads” of fighters under the command of the local Avar military chieftains in the centre located in the area of the cities at Teiuş, Cicău, Câmpia Turzii where, as already mentioned, were identified the graves of Avar military chieftains. For instance, at Măgina, we are definitely dealing with an Avar warrior, fact confirmed by the anthropological analysis, which reveals that the

257

Avar warriors in Transylvania, Sătmar and Maramureș, Crișana and Banat. Archaeological landmarks

preserved bones belonged to an adult male, aged between 28 and 30 years, having a mesocran skull of mongoloid features33.

B.3 B.13

B.12 B.4

B.6 B.16 B.2 B.1 B.5 B.7 B.10

B.15

B.14

B.9 B.8

B.11

B.17

0

100

200 km

B.1-10 - Avar cemeteries between 650/670-710/720 A.D. B.11-13 - Avar cemeteries between 710/720-800/830 A.D. B.14-17 - Avar cemeteries from the 8th century A.D. The Avar center of power during the 7th and 8th centuries A.D. in Transylvania Earth dikes

Figure 3. Avar cemeteries in the Transylvanian Plateau dating to the 7th – 8th centuries. Numbers on the map correspond to Table 2.

Regarding the weaponry in the graves’ inventory, one should notice the almost complete lack of bow remains and arrowheads34. It is curious should we keep in mind that the presence of the arrowheads in the Avar graves corroborated with their high numbers within the sepulchres was believed as designating the social standing, higher or lower of the deceased within the Avar society35. Were the warriors in the Transylvanian Plateau of a lower standing within the Avar army or simply the Avar Khagans sent to intra-Carpathian Transylvania only cavalry troops which fought only with the sword, axe and especially the spear? Most likely, the conquest of Transylvanian needed no troops formed of the much feared Avar archers. From Transylvania are lacking, at least until now, graves of Avar princes with rich inventories (golden objects), like those found in Pannonia36. From this view, circumstances in Transylvanian may be considered different than those in other provinces of the Avar empire, political-administrative entities led, in the name of the Khagan, by only one high ranking individual in the Avar Khaganate hierarchy like the high official at Kunágota (Hungary), who commanded the Lower Tisza area37, or the one who coordinated the Avar centre located in the Upper Tisza area38. It may be specified that in the Transylvanian Depression there existed a single Avar power centre. The Transylvanian “Aul” was under direct subordination to the Avar Khagan in Pannonia. The political entity was coordinated by several Avar leaders, personal representatives of the Khagan, who set up their “command centres” in various geographical locations between Teiuș and Câmpia Turzii (Teiuș,  Gál 2013, 255–259.  Horedt 1956, 398. 35  Poohl 1988, 26. 36  Lázló 1955; Garam 1993; Kováci / Garam 2002, 81–112. 37  Erdély Története 1986, 166. 38  Garam 1994, 175–179. 33 34

258

Călin Cosma

Cicău and Câmpia Turzii). They had under their command the common fighter squads buried in the Avar cemeteries discovered at Gâmbaș, Aiud, Aiudul de Sus, Heria, Lopadea Nouă, Măgina or Stremţ (Fig. 3). The fact that the Avar power centre in Transylvania may be deemed an “Aul” within the Avar Khaganate is also supported by the economic importance of the Transylvanian Plateau, springing during the Avar period firstly from the salt reserves. It is easy to notice on the map of finds that the area by the Mureş river bend (approximately in the centre of the Transylvanian Plateau), where most Avar cemeteries cluster, is precisely the territory where lay large part of the Transylvanian salt reserves. The Avar power centre in the middle of the Transylvanian Plateau was established precisely so that the Avars could directly control the salt reserves there (Fig. 3). It is thus only natural to assume that the salt reserves in the centre of the Transylvanian Depression were controlled directly by the Avar Khagans. They exercised their direct control of the Transylvanian centre via their personal representatives. The latter were prestige warriors accompanied in Transylvania by their military retainers and squads /units of fighters from the Avar army. The fact that they personally represented the Khagan, supposes that respective warriors had a higher standing in the hierarchy of the military chieftains of the Avar army. Via these loyal individuals, the Avar Khagans ensured an efficient control of the area and concurrently could stop with much more efficiency the autonomous tendencies or the extremely frequent centrifugal movements of the warlike societies of the time. All this was necessary to create optimal conditions for the practice of the salt mining activities as well as to ensure the transport safety of this product on Mureş river to the Great Hungarian Plain and also of the trade in general, which unfold on the same route. The latter activity was likely one of the main duties of the Avar warriors camped in a series of “garrisons” along Mureș river valley, downstream, towards Pannonia. Such a centre existed at Leșnic (Vețel, Hunedoara county). From there come metal artifacts datable to the 8th century, which belonged to an Avar military chieftain likely leading the garrison surveilling trade on Mureș river. The 8th century-military chieftains recorded by graves in the Transylvanian centre remained loyal to the Khagans of Pannonia. Possibly, the Transylvanian gold was also targeted by the Avars. Those supporting the idea of a mining activity on Arieș river valley also during the Avar period, specify that the archaeological evidence proving respective occupation was destroyed by continued gold mining during the Middle Ages and then, in the Modern times39. On the other hand, on the same Arieş river valley, gold panning was also supposed, which in its turn, left no traces40. Currently, it is difficult to either deny or confirm gold mining on Arieș river valley during the 7th–8th centuries. Some researchers believe Târnave Depression was a very important geographical area for the leaders of the Avar Khaganate41. For the first half of the 7th century, representative for Târnava Mare river valley is the Gepid cemetery at Bratei/Cemetery 3 (already presented), which also contained Avar graves. The presence of Avar warriors there proves the wish of the Pannonian Khagans to conquer and, most likely, control of the Gepid community or communities located somewhere around Bratei. The use of cemetery 3 at Bratei extends also into the second half of the 7th century, which suggests that the Avars buried there continued to monitor the Târnava area also during the second half of the 7th century. From the Târnave region come a series of metal artifacts dated to the second half of the 7th century. The objects are few, were found by chance and have no archaeological context42. Furthermore, most of the items exhibit no ethnical features. Thus, they are objects that provide no data references for certain scientific interpreting. Exception are only the finds at Târnăveni and Târnava, which are limited to only weapons specific to the Avars, coming most definitely from graves. They date most likely to the Mid Avar period. Still at Bratei was discovered a bi-ritual cemetery of the 7th–8th centuries, known in the specialty literature as the “Cemetery at Brateiu/La Zăvoi/Cemetery 2”. The funerary site is important for this approach due to the presence there of an inhumation grave comprising artifacts specific to the elite  For these issues see for instance: Bărcăcilă 1939–1942, 203–227; Rusu 1977, 192; Rusu 1997, 247.  For these issues see for instance: Bărcăcilă 1939–1942, 203–227; Rusu 1977, 192; Rusu 1997, 247. 41  Erdély Története 1986, 164, 168, 169, 176–177; Bóna 1990, 90–97; Garam 1994, 179. 42  Horedt 1956, 386–398; Horedt 1958, 91–108; Horedt 1968, 116–118; Erdély Története 1986, 164, 168, 169, 176–177. 39 40

Avar warriors in Transylvania, Sătmar and Maramureș, Crișana and Banat. Archaeological landmarks

259

Avar warriors of the 8th century. Although the cemetery contains several inhumation graves, the one above mentioned is the only one of a warrior. Respective individual was a warrior in the Avar elite, who played the role of controlling or leading the Slav-Avar community or communities of the 8th century, who buried their dead at Bratei/Cemetery 2. He was accompanied at Bratei by his entourage. It included for instance, some of the women buried with jewellery, persons who may be considered the spouses or concubines of the military chieftain. Still there was discovered a horse grave, where a pot was deposited by the horse skeleton. It may be deemed as the funerary inventory of an Avar warrior, whose grave was destroyed over time or possibly, it was a special horse for the community, with magical powers, benefiting of a special burial ritual, fact found also with other Avar cemeteries in Pannonia43. The few Avar cemeteries and graves in the Târnave river basin dated both to the 7th and 8th centuries make impossible arguing that an “Aul” existed there, composed only of the territory of Târnave Plateau. If for the 7th century one may accept a direct control of Târnava Mare river valley, put into effect by the warriors buried in cemetery 3 at Bratei or those at Târnănveni and Târnava, for the 8th century it is more difficult to accept same circumstances. It is difficult to believe that in the 8th century, the single Avar military chieftain recorded in cemetery 2 at Bratei succeeded to impose himself as the leader, without any support, of the Slav origin human communities from the Târnave rivers basin, communities recorded by the presence of Mediaș type cemeteries, but also a series of settlements discovered in large numbers in Târnave Plateau44. In order to maintain under control all those communities, one may assume that much more “military force” was necessary. The Avar warriors who constituted that “military force” were headquartered between Câmpia Turzii and Teiuș. The warriors there controlled also the Târnave rivers basin, one of their representatives being the elite warrior at Bratei/Cemetery 2. Even though few, the cemeteries in the Târnave Depression, datable to the 7th–8th centuries, still evidence the Avars’ interest for respective area. The scale of the constant Avar presence in respective area still remains a research theme. Possibly, the Avar Khagans, by the chieftains sent from the power centre in the Mureș river bend area, contended themselves to only levy a tax from the Slav communities in the Târnave Depression. As early as the 50’ies of the 20th century, scholars wondered if there is a relation of continuity between the two supposed entry stages of the Avars in the Transylvanian Plateau45. An unequivocal answer is impossible for now. Nevertheless, one may submit working hypotheses. We believe that one should also take into consideration the possibility of the existence of a single entry stage of the Avars in Transylvania, phenomenon occurring after 630. Such supposition may spring from the political events marking the Avar Khaganate after the defeat suffered under the walls of Constantinople in 62646. On one hand, after this date, in the entire territory of the Avar empire occurred centrifugal movements, which the Khagans eventually succeeded to stop, settling the situation to their favour47. One may not exclude the possibility that also the chieftains of the communities in the Transylvanian Plateau had been involved in the uprisings against the political structure of the Avar Khaganate. On the other hand, still after the defeat of 626, the Avar communities became increasingly sedentary, even though stock raising remained their main economic activity48. The efforts of the Avar Khagans for political and economic recovery of the empire during the second half of the 7th century further pursued in the 8th century definitely required the initiation of measures targeting inclusively vivifying salt mining in Transylvania and the trade of this product in Western Europe. In this case, one may agree with the fact that the leaders of the Avar empire with the centre in Pannonia wished to establish a direct control of the salt reserves of the Transylvanian Plateau. Thus, one may infer the initiation by the Avars during the 4th–5th decades of the 7th century of large scale military actions with the aim of conquering Transylvania. The military campaigns were  Sós / Salamon 1995, 102–111.  Horedt 1976, 35–57; Horedt 1979, 385–394; Székely1988, 169–198. 45  Horedt 1956, 403; Horedt 1958, 87–89. 46  Erdély Története 1986, 169; Daim 2003, 481, 483–484. 47  Erdély Története 1986, 169; Daim 2003, 481–482. 48  Erdély Története 1986, 169,171; Daim 2003,481, 483–486. 43 44

260

Călin Cosma

designed to tackle several issues. 1. The conquest, abolish or only control of Gepid power centres in Transylvania, still active in the first half of the 7th century; 2. The repression of the supposed Slav uprisings in Transylvania; 3. The establishment of an Avar power centre in the middle of the Transylvanian Depression with the precise aim of effectively controlling the salt reserves in the centre of the Transylvanian Plateau. The political-economic reasons above support a “single stage” of entry of the Avars in Transylvania and are completed to a certain extent by a series of arguments that may be derived from archaeological evidence. We note that from Transylvania are lacking concrete archaeological evidence attributable to the first generation of Avars settled in Pannonia. Furthermore, the Avar archaeological remains within the Band-Noșlac-Bratei type cemeteries rather date starting with the fourth-fifth decades of the 7th century. In fact, we are dealing with the same Avar warriors yet of different generations, who carried with them to the Transylvanian depression the changes occurring in both weaponry and harness as well dress accessories. In fact, we believe it is illogical to envision a first invasion of the Avars in Transylvania during the second and third decades of the 7th century with the aim of destroying the Gepid centres, then their retreat to Panonnia, and later, after at most a period of 10 years, the initiation of other conquest campaigns of Transylvania. In conclusion, without excluding apriori a “novel” entry of the Avars in Transylvania, sometime around 650, or just after, one should also take into account also the hypothesis of a single entry stage of the Avars in intra-Carpathian Transylvania just after 630, even though the current archaeological evidence is still insufficiently believable. In the approach context of the subject regarding the political status of the Transylvanian Plateau during the 7th–8th centuries, one must analyse also those views arguing that in Transylvania existed a multitude of Avar power centres49. Thus, Avar “Aul”-s and “ordu”-s (geographical and politicaladministrative units into which the territory of the Avar Khaganate50 was organised), are located up to the Carpathian curvature or in the geographical areas of the cities at Alba Iulia, Cluj-Napoca or Târgu Mureş51. We believe that in the majority of cases, things are slightly forced. For instance, there is a long way from an applique and a golden ring only with “likely place of origin at Alba Iulia” to defining a political-military Avar centre on this city territory. No Avar warrior grave was discovered on the territory of Alba Iulia or by the city peripheries although in the city territory rather extensive archaeological excavations were performed. We also add that bi-ritual cemeteries of the 7th–8th centuries discovered in a larger geographical area around the city of Alba Iulia52 are closer to the Avar power centre between Teiuş and Câmpia Turzii. We believe it is more opportune to consider that those human communities who buried their dead in bi-ritual cemeteries in the city of Alba Iulia area were much easier and faster controlled, as intervention time, by the Avar warriors camped near Mureș river bend. At Târgu Mureş, except for a single Byzantine coin of the Early Avar period, no Avar grave or cemetery were discovered53. Not even at Cluj-Napoca were identified Avar graves or cemeteries54. The find at Târgu Secuiesc is not a grave, hence it is impossible to assign it to an Avar warrior55. The sword and bit at Târgu Secuiesc, donated to the Museum of Sfântu Gheorghe, were discovered by chance. There is no evidence they were discovered together and especially within a grave56. The sword was lost, hence no chronological and ethnic analogies may be provided. In terms of the four pots at Târgu Secuiesc, it is possible they were part of a grave, however rather Slav57, than Avar. It is also mentioned a sword with curved tip discovered somewhere at Cristuru Secuiesc, used as evidence of the Avar presence in the Carpathian curvature58. Yet just by itself, it remains a heritage object only. One should also specify also the fact that during the 7th–8th centuries the Carpathian Curvature was invaded by the  Erdély Története 1986, 167–168, 171–177; Bóna 1990, 90–97.  Rusu 1977, 194–195; Erdély Története 1986, 166–167; Pohl 1988, 293–308; Garam 1994, 171–181; Rusu 1997, 232–233. 51  Erdély Története 1986, 167–168, 171–177; Bóna 1990, 90–97. 52  Aldea / Stoicovici / Blăjan 1980, 151–177; Stoicovici / Blăjan 1982, 139–154; Blăjan / Botezatu 2000, 453–470. 53  For check see: Zríny 1976, 148; Lazăr 1995, 255–261. 54  For check see: Repertoriu Cluj 1992, 118–154. 55  Comşa 1987, 228. 56  Horedt 1951, 204–205; Székely 1969, 13–14. 57  Cosma 2011, 146. 58  Erdély Története 1986, 174. 49 50

Avar warriors in Transylvania, Sătmar and Maramureș, Crișana and Banat. Archaeological landmarks

261

Slav tribes, while studies regarding the archaeological circumstances in south-eastern Transylvania do not specify the presence of Avar cemeteries or graves in respective geographical area59. Within the same framework of the scientific approach one should note that there are no absolute arguments supporting an effective political domination of the Avars in the Făgăraș and Brașov areas. Until novel information, it is actually difficult to specify whether the Avar Khagans were interested in exercising a “remote control” over the two geographical areas, territories populated by Slav communities60. In the same train of thought, changing only the geographical area, one should note that all those cast Avar origin items presented as being discovered for instance at Dăbâca and Someșeni, come from a Slav environment and by no means Avar. At Someșeni, a place on Someș river valley (the segment in the Transylvanian Plateau), we are dealing with a Slav barrow cremation cemetery, where in one of the barrows were identified bronze items used by the Avar elite61. Also at Dăbâca, a village also located in the hydrographical basin of Someș river, we are dealing still with a cremation Slav cemetery62. Both sites yet also other information show that Someș river valley up to the exit to the Transylvanian Plateau was inhabited by the Slavs during the 8th century63. This invalidates any supposition according to which Someş river valley (on the intra-Carpathian segment) was a region used by the Avars for animal farming64. Most definitely though, the Avars were interested in preserving good neighbouring relations with the Slav communities recorded in the mentioned areas. This was made by offering gifts to the Slav chieftains, gifts which consisted of metal items worn by the Avar elite. The items record the recognition by the Avars of the Slav chieftains, with whom they maintained relations at various levels. Thus the presence of the Avar items in the Slav cemeteries is explained, artifacts which conferred the one wearing them an important social standing within the Slav communities in the north-west of the Transylvanian Plateau. Archaeological data confirm that the Avars entered intra-Carpathian Transylvania on Mureș river valley and by no means on Someș river valley or the Meseșului gates, geographical areas controlled by the Slavs. In this context one should specify that the thesis according to which the Transylvanian “Aul” reported to the Avar secondary power centre in the Upper Tisza area, a political unit led by the “Iugur”65 himself (position deemed the second office in the hierarchy of the Avar empire after the Khagan66), cannot be accepted. There is no archaeological evidence supporting a direct relation between the Avar power centre in Transylvania by the Mureş river bend and the great Avar centre with the seat located on the current territory of city at Nyíregyháza, in north-east Hungary67. In conclusion, one may argue that the territory conquered and effectively controlled by the Avars inside the Carpathian arc is limited to a much smaller geographical area compared to the one presented in a series of specialty studies68. Given the current state of the research, we believe that the political domination of the Avars in intra-Carpathian Transylvania is limited to the Mureș river valley, by the Mureș river bend, with extension also to the Târnave rivers basin, territories where the Avar cemeteries cluster (Fig. 3). Outside the “borders” of the Avar empire remain spread territories from Transylvania as well as those in the north of the Transylvanian Plateau, but also the piedmont areas of the Carpathian Arc. Still within this context one must specify that the most important reason which made the Avar Khagans set up an effective domination of the Transylvanian territory in the Mureş river bend area starting with the second half of the 7th century is economical. Even if we agree with the “remote control” to which the Avar Khagans seemed to have appealed to69 for certain geographical areas, we believe that in the Transylvanian Plateau these territories were  Szèkely 1962, 46–58; Szèkely 1969, 7–22; Szèkely 1974, 55–57; Szèkely 1974–1975 a, 35–55; Szèkely 1974–1975 b, 57–61; Szèkely 1975, 71–79; Szèkely 1976, 117–123; Szèkely 1988, 169–198; Szèkely 1992, 245–306. 60  Comşa 1987, 221, 224, 227–228. 61  Macrea 1959a, 519–527; Macrea 1959b, 515–522. 62  Gáll / Laczkó 2013, 53–74. 63  Comşa 1987, 224–225, 229. 64  Erdély Története 1986, 177. 65  Garam 1994, 179. 66  Rusu 1977, 194–195; Pohl 1988, 293–300; Garam 1994, 171–181; Rusu 1997, 232–233. 67  Bóna 1993, 116–118. 68  For instance: Erdély Története 1986, 167–168, 171–177; Bóna 1990, 90–97. 69  Comşa 1987, 229; Fiedler 1996, 197, 210–211. 59

262

Călin Cosma

not very spread. By no means, the Avar control reached the hilly and mountain lands in the area of the Carpathian curvature. Furthermore, no archaeological find proves that the Avar Khagans were interested in the north-east of the Transylvanian Plateau during the last quarter of the 7th century and in the 8th century. Very likely, in that geographical area, the Avars limited themselves only to abolish the Gepid power centres, after which they withdrew from the area and settled Mureș river valley (Fig. 4).

A.2 A.4

B.12 B.3 A.8 A.5 B.4 B.13 B.14 A.7 B.16 B.2 B.6 A.6 B.1 B.5 B.7 B.10

B.15

A.1

B.9

B.11/A.3

B.8

B.17

0

100

200 km

A.1-8 - Gepidic cemeteries with remains of horse skeletons in the Transylvanian Plateau B.1-10 - Avar cemeteries between 650/670-710/720 A.D. B.11-13 - Avar cemeteries between 710/720-800/830 A.D. B.14-17 - Avar cemeteries from the 8th century A.D. Earth dikes

Figure 4. Gepidic cemeteries containing graves with horse skeletons or horse skeleton remains and Avar cemeteries and graves in the Transylvanian Plateau dating to the 7th – 8th centuries. Numbers on the map correspond to Tables 1–2.

It is thus certain that the Avar warriors paid much attention to what happened in the areas adjacent to their power centre located in the middle of the Transylvanian Plateau. From there, they intervened to maintain the peace or counteract the centrifugal tendencies of the Slav communities in the neighbouring territories. That space may be extended by 50, maximum 100 km from the Avar power centre by Mureș river bend. The Avars preferred to keep those Slav communities under observation (involving in this process also the Slav chieftains), control which in certain cases occurred by tax levy70.

Maramureș and Sătmar (north-west Romania) (List 3; Table 3; Fig. 5) For the chronological timeframe between the last two decades of the 6th century and the first four decades of the 7th century archaeological arguments certifying the effective presence of the Avar warriors in north-western Romania71 are missing. Nonetheless, one may take into account a first chronological sequence where the Avar Khaganate extended its domination up to the earthen ramparts in western Romania72, stage which may be approximately placed by mid 7th century73. In this period may be framed the inhumation cemetery discovered at Cheşereu (Bihor county). However, in none of the  Rusu 1977, 174,195–196.  Stanciu 2000, 422–423; Cosma 2002, 71–80. 72  For the earthen ramparts in western Romania see for instance: Rusu 1977, 196–197; Istvánovits / Kulcsár 2002, 625–627; Garam / Patay / Soprony 2003. 73  Stanciu 2000, 422–423; Cosma 2002, 63, 71–80; Cosma 2012, 138–144. 70 71

Avar warriors in Transylvania, Sătmar and Maramureș, Crișana and Banat. Archaeological landmarks

263

nine graves were identified artifacts that may be related to Avar warriors74. It is very likely that the cemetery at Cheşereu had belonged to an Avar community in north-western Romania dealing with animal raising. Still to such an Avar community may be related the cemetery at Valea lui Mihai/Via lui Bujanovici or Ferma lui Bujanovici, cemetery where in a few inhumation graves were also found pottery75. Alike the cemetery at Cheșereu, none of the graves at Valea lui Mihai/ Via lui Bujanovici or Ferma lui Bujanovici comprised artifacts certifying the presence of Avar warriors. In the north-western Romanian territory we recorded four places where were discovered cemeteries and graves dated to the second half of the 7th century and the 8th century. All of them, according to the funerary inventory which they contained, had belonged to Avar warriors. The archaeological remains come from: Căuaș, Dindești, Săcueni/Veresdomb, Valea lui Mihai/Rétalj. Archaeological sites

C

1. Valea lui Mihai 2. Căuaș

X X

3. Dindești 4. Săcueni

M

A

PH

LC

Ac

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

­

­

X X

CF

ÎC

X X

X X

X

X

X

Ca

P

Ah

Ce

OCG

D 650–710/720

X

710/720–760

X

725–760

X

X

X

X

X

725–800/830

Table 3. Cemeteries, graves and funerary finds in north-west Romania. Legend: C – Cemeteries; M – graves; A – weaponry, PH – harness items; ÎC – horse burial; LC – Belt tongue; Ac – Belt appliques; Ca – Buckles; P – Jewellery; Ah – Harness appliques; Ce – Pottery; OUC – Household and domestic objects. D – Dating.

The grave at Valea lui Mihai/Rétalj, dated to the second half of the 7th century had belonged to a highly ranking warrior. He was buried with weapons, harness items and a bronze applique. We note the existence within the grave of the arrowheads. The presence of such artifacts in Avar graves is deemed an attribute of the military elites76. To the 8th century date the finds at Dindești, Căuaș and Săcueni. Regardless if the Avar graves at Dindești and Căuaș are singular or were part of larger cemeteries, which is noteworthy is the fact that the items discovered within the sepulchres were worn by highly ranking Avar warriors77. Grave 2 at Săcueni/Veresdomb, according to the funerary inventory (belt with metal appliques, harness adornments), may be assigned to a highly ranking warrior in the Avar military elite. Grave 1 at Săcueni/ Veresdomb contained only weapons and harness items. It belonged to one of the warriors in the Avar squads camping at Săcueni. It is very likely that respective warrior had been part of the military retainers of the Avar leader buried in grave 2 at Săcueni/Veresdomb. The presence of Avar warriors in north-western Romania is recorded in only four funerary sites described above (Valea lui Mihai/Rétalj, Căuaș, Dindești and Săcuieni/Veresdomb). Geographically, all these places (“archaeological points”) lay almost by the north-western corner of Romania in the upper Eru river basin in the earthen ramparts area78 (Fig. 5). In absolute chronology, they date only starting with the second half of the 7th century and in the 8th century (Table 3). On one hand, the few finds in north-west Romania attributable to Avar warriors may be related to the scarce archaeological research in the respective area for the Early Middle Ages. On the other hand, the lack of Avar warrior graves in the north-western area may be due to the military policy which the Avar Khagans carried towards certain remote territories from the Avar centre in Pannonia. Thus, it is very likely that the Avars had not been interested to effectively conquer north-west Romania79. It was appreciated that north-west Romania and especially the territories located east the earthen ramparts were of no special interest for the Avar Khaganate, the reason being related to the fact that the territory did not present optimal natural conditions for the Avar lifestyle80.  Cosma 2002, 59–62, 71–72, 184–185.  Comşa 1966, 173–174, pl. XXIV; Repertoriu Bihor 1974, 84; Dumitraşcu 1978, 74–75; Stanciu 2000, 411–413, 433–434, no. 12.A; Cosma 2011, 144. 76  Poohl 1988, 26. 77  See for instance: László 1955; Garam 1987, 191–202; Cilinská 1991, 187–212; Kovács / Garam 2002, 81–112; Cosma et alii 2013, 9–17. 78  Stanciu 2000, 422–423, n. 159; Cosma 2002, 57–63, 71–76, 160–161; Cosma 2012, 138–144. 79  Bóna 1993, 115, 120; Cosma 2012, 143–144. 80  Bóna 1993, 115. 74 75

264

Călin Cosma

3 2 1 4

0

100

200 km

Avar cemeteries from the 7th century A.D. Avar cemeteries between 710/720-800/830 A.D. Earth dikes The periphery of the Avar centre on the Upper Tisza

Figure 5. Map of finds: 1. Căuaș; 2. Dindești (Satu Mare county); 3. Valea lui Mihai; 4. Săcueni (Bihor).

Nevertheless, one may not vehemently deny the Avars’ lack of interest for the respective territory. According to the archaeological evidence consisting of settlements datable to the 7th–8th centuries in the Er river and Carei plains one may argue that the Avar control, possibly even of the Avar Khaganate “borders” extended up to or just after the earthen ramparts in north-western Romania81. For the first half of the 7th century, even though concrete evidence on the existence of Avar warriors in upper area of Er river is missing, nevertheless, it may be supposed. On one hand, the presence of the warriors was necessary to ensure the safety of the Avar communities dealing with cattle raising, human communities located at a higher distance from the main Avar power centres. On the other hand, the Avar warriors had to defend the empire borders. In those border areas, most definitely, the Avars established the control over the human communities of other ethnicity than Avar, present there, from whom they levied a certain tax. North-west Romania was at the periphery of the “political border” of the Avar Khaganate. It was an area which politically was subordinated to the secondary Avar power centre located on the territory of the city at Nyíregyháza, on Upper Tisza82. From there were sent to the territory highly ranking warriors in the Khaganate hierarchy, like those at Valea lui Mihai/Rétalj, Căuaș and Dindești, to control the human communities from north-western Romania. One should also consider the hypothesis according to which some of those warriors had established small power centres with the aim of better monitoring respective geographical areas. Such situation may be supposed for Săcueni. There, on Veresdomb, lay a rather extended Avar cemetery. From within this cemetery were also part the two warrior graves already discussed of whom one was highly ranking in the Avar warriors hierarchy, who may be deemed an Avar chieftain arrived from the power centre located on Upper Tisza. In this context, one must yet specify that the Avar military leaders at the head of the small power centres established in various areas of the Avar empire were not “autonomous”. Those small power centres and implicitly their leaders were directly subordinated to a great Avar chief, highly ranking in the Khaganate hierarchy. He headed a larger territory, an Avar province, where those small power centres  Cosma 2002, 25–42, 155–161; Cosma 2012, 138–144.  Bóna 1993, 116–118; Garam 1994, 179.

81 82

Avar warriors in Transylvania, Sătmar and Maramureș, Crișana and Banat. Archaeological landmarks

265

also existed. That great military chief commanded respective province in the name and by the will of the Avar Khagan83, headquartered in Pannonia somewhere between Tisza and the Danube, an individual deemed the master or absolute ruler of the Avar Khaganate84. Thus, for north-west Romania one may not speak by no means for the 7th–8th centuries of the existence of independent Avar power centres. The military leader at Săcueni/Veresdomb, alike those at Valea lui Mihai, Căuaș and Dindești, depended on the “Aul” leader in the Upper Tisza area led by the Iugur himself, believed the second most important figure in the political hierarchy of the Avar Khaganate leadership85. We presented above the causes which should be considered when tackling the topic regarding the small number of Avar warrior cemeteries and graves in north-west Romania. However, if premature and slightly forced, one should also approach the subject on the number differences noted at the level of the Avar graves of the 7th century compared to those of the 8th century. With the reserves required by the state of the archaeological research, one may argue that it is possible that during the 7th century, the Avars did not wish to effectively conquer the north-western corner of Romania. Likely, in that period, the Avar Khagans had preferred to only control the communities in the respective geographical area by only the presence of elite warriors sent from the great Avar centre on Upper Tisza. Such a warrior was the one at Valea lui Mihai/Rétalj, who, for various reasons, lost his life and was buried where he died. It is possible that at Valea lui Mihai existed a larger Avar community, of cattle herders, who buried their dead at site Via lui Bujanovici or Ferma lui Bujanovici, which the warrior buried at site Rétalj, within the boundary of the same place, had controlled and/or defended. Starting with the second half of the 7th century and in the 8th century, important changes occur all over the Avar Khaganate86, most definitely impacting the secondary Avar power centre on Upper Tiszza and implicitly the Romanian north-western area. In the latter area the number of human settlements datable to the 8th or 8th/9th centuries87 increases. In the funerary field also is noted an increase (even tough insignificant), of the number of Avar graves. Thus, if during the 7th century we are dealing with a single site attributable to the Avar warriors (the grave at Valea lui Mihai/Rétalj), in the 8th century the number of such finds amounts to three (Căuaș, Dindești, Săcueni/Veresdomb). Concurrently, still for the 8th century, one may suppose the increase of the number of Avar warriors in north-west Romania compared to the 7th century, which favoured inclusively the establishment of small power centres like the one supposed at Săcueni. Did the interest of the Avar Khagans increase in the 8th century for the periphery of the “Aul” on Upper Tisza? This is a question to which only future research will answer. In what the defining of the political status of north-west Romania during the 7th–8th centuries is concerned, one should also consider the fact, otherwise known, that certain areas of the Avar empire (farther and without great economic importance), were controlled by the Khagans via local chieftains coming from among another origin population, whom they got interested in the domination effort88. The Avar chieftains were interested in maintaining good neighbouring relations with the communities recorded in the mentioned areas. This was carried out via the gifts they offered to the local chieftains, which consisted in metal items worn by the Avar elite. The objects evidence the acknowledgement by the Avars of the local chieftains, with whom they maintained relations on various levels. Such situation is mirrored by the finds in the Slav barrow cemetery at Nușfalău. A series of objects, but also the aspects of the Avar origin funerary ritual discovered within some of the barrows investigated at Nușfalău, certify the relations between the Avar and Slav leaders89. In the case of the cemetery at Nușfalău, it is not excluded even an “official colonisation” coordinated by the Avar Khaganate leaders90. The geographical location of the discussed cemetery lying along an important communication route linking the Transylvanian Plateau to the Pannonian stepped may be related to  Lázló 1955; Erdély Története 1986, 166; Garam 1993; Kováci / Garam 2002, 81–112.  Rusu 1977, 194–195; Erdély Története 1986, 166; Pohl 1988, 293–300; Garam 1994, 171–181; Rusu 1997, 232–233; Pohl 2003, 577. 85  Rusu 1977, 194–195; Pohl 1988, 293–300; Garam 1994, 171–181; Rusu 1997, 232–233. 86  Erdély Története 1986, 169; Daim 2003, 481–482. 87  Cosma 2002, 25–42, 155–162. 88  Comşa 1987, 229; Fiedler 1996, 197, 210–211. 89  Cosma 2002,70. 90  Stanciu 1999, 263. 83 84

266

Călin Cosma

the Avar leaders’ wish to control via local potentates, in this case colonised Slavs, access from intraCarpathian Transylvania to the west91. The specialty literature mentions an Avar buckle that was seemingly discovered at Cicârlău, a village located in the Someş plain towards Oaş, at great distance from the earthen ramparts in northwest Romania92. The information on the artifact is extremely vague, so that respective item should be regarded with caution. It is not found with the collections of the History Museum of Baia Mare93 and there are no data supporting the fact that the artifact was found in a grave. Possibly, the item was not even discovered at Cicârlău. Furthermore, there remain still questions marks if the Avar Khagans were interested in instituting a control over the copper, iron and salt ores in the Maramureş Depression. Currently, there is no information outlining that respective ores were mined94 during the Late Avar period95. We conclude that from Maramureş area is lacking any evidence recording an Avar presence in the territory. There are no data confirming not even the “remote control” over the human communities in the respective area96. As general conclusion, one may argue that only a small part of north-west Romania was incorporated within the Avar Khaganate borders. The Avar cemeteries and graves are found and cluster only in upper Er river basin. Even though few, still, these archaeological facts indicate the extension of the Avar Khaganate borders up to the line of the earthen ramparts from Eru and Carei Plains97. The northern part of Sătmar, Oaș, historical Maramureș and the western parts of Sălaj were outside the effective borders of the Avar Khaganate. For Maramureș area, as already mentioned, current data deny even an only “monitoring” of the territory by Avar warriors. Instead, for Oaș, north Sătmar and the western parts of Sălaj, one may invoke the term of “remote control”, strategy used by the Avar Khagans for certain territories past the effective empire borders. In the specialty literature, it is argued that the Avar Khaganate had established for the areas outside the borders in the east of the controlled territory a security system of the main access roads to and from Pannonia98. The security was exercised by Avar warriors or the local chieftains co-interested by the Avars in dominating the territory. Such a “strategic road” was the one connecting the upper Tisza river basin and Someş Plain99. Another important road was the one crossing Tisza by Solnoc and headed to Transylvania via the Crasna river basin, then passing by Meseş Gates to the Transylvanian Plateau. In this case, the Avars carried out the control via the local potentates, in this case the eastern Slavs buried at Nușfalău100.

Crişana (List 4;Table 4; Fig. 6) Regarding the presence of the Avar cemeteries or graves in Crișana, we record that between the upper Eru river basin up to Crişul Alb, on north-south axis, up to the Western Carpathians, eastwards, except for two Avar buckles coming from Girişul de Criş (likely the funerary furniture101), funerary finds datable to the 7th–8th centuries AD102 are lacking. In this context, one must also specify that in the above mentioned geographical area and the same chronological timeframe only a few human settlements are recorded as well. They are found only in the plain area, very close to the western Romanian border103. The single certain evidence of the Avar presence in Crișana, east the western border of Romania, comes from south Crișul Alb river at: Pecica, Peregu Mare and Socodor.  Stanciu 1999, 263.  Stanciu 2000, 420, 428; Cosma 2002, 185, no. 65. 93  Stanciu 2000, 420, 428. 94  Stanciu 2000, 425–426. 95  K. Horedt supposes for Maramureș a salt and metal mining activity during the Avar period: Horedt 1987, 26. 96  Cosma 2012, 144. 97  Stanciu 2000, 423; Cosma 2012, 138–144. 98  Bóna 1993, 115; Istvánovits 2003, 253–254. 99  Istvánovits 2003, 254. 100  Stanciu 1999, 263; Cosma 2012, 144. 101  Cosma 2002, 193, no. 99, fig. 5; Cosma 2012, 138–145, fig. 1. 102  Cosma 2002, 25–28, 35–42, 155–162, fig. 2; Cosma 2012, 138–145, fig. 1–2. 103  Cosma 2002, 25–28, 35–42, 155–162, fig. 2; Cosma 2012, 138–145, fig. 1–2. 91 92

267

Avar warriors in Transylvania, Sătmar and Maramureș, Crișana and Banat. Archaeological landmarks

Archaeological sites

C

A

PH

1. Pecica

X

X

X

2. Peregu Mare

X

X

X

3. Socodor

X

X

ÎC

LC X

X

Ac

Ca

P

X

X

X

Ah

FI

D Sec.VII

X

X

Sec.VII X

760–800/830

Table 4. Cemeteries, graves and funerary finds in Crișana. Legend: C – Cemeteries; A – weaponry, PH – harness items; ÎC – horse burial; LC – Belt tongue; Ac – Belt appliques; Ca – Buckles; P – Jewellery; Ah – Harness appliques; FI – W/A inventory; D – Dating.

2

3 1

0

100

200 km

Avar cemeteries from the 7th century A.D. Avar cemeteries between 760-800/830 A.D. Earth dikes The periphery of the Avar centre on the Lower Tisza

Figure 6. Cemeteries, graves and funerary finds of the 7th-8th centuries A.D. in Crișana: 1. Pecica; 2. Peregu Mare; 3. Socodor (Arad county).

The cemeteries at Peregu Mare and Pecica are located geographically in Mureș river valley, just to the right of the river, close to the Romanian western border (Fig. 6). Both cemeteries, according to the preserved archaeological data, date to the 7th century. Funerary goods consisting in weapons, harness items and also a few dress accessories or jewellery were collected. One may argue that in the two cemeteries were buried mainly common warriors in the Avar army. The cemetery at Socodor, dated to the second half of the 8th century is located south Crișul Alb river, to the left of the earthen rampart segments in the Western Plain of Romania104 (Fig.  6). At Socodor were unveiled several inhumation graves. Only one of those graves had inventory. It comprises artifacts specific to the funerary furniture of an Avar military chieftain. The warrior was buried with a sacrificed horse. Those buried with no artifacts designate equally the servants of the already mentioned warrior and/or possibly the common individuals of the Avar community which had its centre within the boundary of the village at Socodor. We may assume that the warrior in the cemetery at Socodor was rather the Avar community chieftain in the respective area, than an Avar fighter only passing by the territories to the left of Crișul Alb river. We thus note for Crișana the scarce Avar cemeteries and/or graves and even their absence from certain areas, like that between the lower Eru river basin and Crișul Alb river. The absence of Avar  Cosma 2012, 138–145, fig. 1–2.

104

268

Călin Cosma

funerary sites from the area north Crișul Alb river may be related to the lack of archaeological research there. On the other hand though, it is very likely that respective territory was of no great economic interest for the leaders of the Avar empire. Nevertheless, the few settlements in the Western Plain clustered to the left and right of Crișul Repede river, by the exit of the river from Romania and dating to the 7th–8th/9th centuries, still suggest a certain degree of control by the Avar warriors also over the territory where those settlements lay. The fact that all human settlements of the 7th–8th/9th centuries from the Western Plain of Romania are geographically located to the left of the earthen ramparts crossing Crișana from north to south suggests that the western border of the Avar Khaganate lay on the line of those earthen ramparts105. The settlements from the left and right of Crișul Repede belong to the larger circle of the Avar finds found in the mid Tisza river basin106. From there came Avar warriors to control and/or levy taxes from the human communities in the Romanian sector of Crișul Repede river. The lack of Avar cemeteries or graves in Crișana Plain between the upper Eru river basin and Crișul Alb, including the area of the earthen ramparts, supports the fact that this was a peripheral area of the Avar Khaganate. Data available insofar suggest the disinterest of the Avar Khagans for the area of the Western Plain, east the earthen ramparts up to the Apuseni Mountain crests. In terms of the area between Crișul Alb and Mureș rivers, we note that the Avar cemeteries, both the two from the 7th century (Pecica and Peregul Mare) as well as the one from the 8th century (Socodor) are recorded only in the plain area, west the earthen ramparts (Fig. 6). According to these data one may assume that also in the south of the Western Romanian Plain, the Avar warriors settled the border of the empire on the route of the earthen ramparts present in that area. The cemeteries at Pecica and Peregul Mare may be assigned to the first wave of Avar conquerors. Together with the cemeteries from the left of Mureș river in Romanian Banat (cemeteries to be presented below), they outline the geographical limit where the Avars stopped during a first stage after the conquest of Pannonia. It is the plain area from the left and right of Mureș river valley, without extending to the hilly area. Not even in the 8th century, the borders of the Avar empire were extended east the limit of the earthen ramparts from the Western Romanian Plain, the south sector. The few human settlements of the 8th–9th centuries from the hilly and mountain area on the Crișul Negru or Crișul Alb river valleys107, might have been easily controlled by the Avar warriors camped to the west of the earthen ramparts in south Crișana. In conclusion, one may specify that during both the 7th century as well as the 8th century in Crișana there are two distinct areas. The first is formed of the group of human settlements of the 7th–8th/9th centuries located to the right and left Crișul Repede river, before the river’s exit from the country. Those communities mark the eastern limit of the Avar Khaganate, along Crișul Repede river. They belong to the Avar finds area by mid Tisza river basin108. The second area was the area between Crișul Alb and Mureș rivers, up to the line of the earthen ramparts crossing western Romania from north to south (Fig. 6). Politically and militarily, this southern Crișana area was the north-eastern periphery of the Avar province (with the border on the earthen ramparts line), in lower Tisza area, the Avar “Aul” with the power centre at Kunagota109.

Romanian Banat (List 5; Table 5; Fig. 7) The direct Avar presence in Romanian Banat is recorded both in the 7th and during the 8th century. We recorded a number of 10 Avar cemeteries and graves datable to the 7th century and four Avar funerary features framing to the 8th century (List 5; Table 5; Fig. 7) Archaeological sites

C

1. Comloșu Mare 2. Comloșu Mare

M X

X

CF

A X

PH

ÎC

LC

Ac

Ca

106

Ah

Ce

OCG

Mo

D Sec. VII

X

Sec.VII

 Cosma 2002, 25–28, 35–42, fig. 2; Cosma 2012, 138–145, fig. 1–2.  Szentpetéri 2002, map 2–3. 107  Cosma 2002, 25–28, 35–42, 155–162, fig. 2; Cosma 2012, 138–145, fig. 1–2. 108  Szentpetéri 2002, harta 2–3. 109  Erdély Története 1986, 166. 105

P

X

Avar warriors in Transylvania, Sătmar and Maramureș, Crișana and Banat. Archaeological landmarks

3. Comloșu Mare

X

4. Dudeștii Vechi

X

5. Lunga

X

X X

6. Orșova Veche 7. Sânnicolau Mare

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

11. Cenad

X

12. Denta

X

13. Timișoara

X

14. Sânandrei

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Sec. VII

X

X

Sec. VII Sec. VII

X

X

Sec. VII X

X

X

Sec.VII Sec. VII

X

9. Sânpetru German X

X

X

8. Sânpetru German 10. Vizejdia

Sec.VII X

X

269

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Sec. VII

X

710/720 –800/830 710/720 –800/830

X

X X

X

X

710/720 –800/830 710/720 –800/830

Table 5. Cemeteries, graves and funerary finds in the Romanin Banat with inventory specific to Avar warriors. Legend: C – Cemeteries; M – Graves; CF – Funerary nature; A – weaponry, PH – Harness pieces; ÎC – Burial with horse; LC – Belt tongue; Ac – Belt appliques; Ca – Buckles; P – Jewellery; Ah – Harness appliques; Ce – Pottery; OUC – Household and domestic objects; FI – W/A inventory; Mo – Coins; D – Dating.

Geographically, with one exception (Orșova Veche), all Avar cemeteries from Banat, dated to the 7th century, are recorded only in the plain area of Mureș river, not far from the river course, very close to the western Romanian border. In the same train of thought, one should mention that overall, respective Avar funerary finds lay west the first western segment of the earthen ramparts in western Romania110 (fig. 7). The Avar grave at Sânpetru German/ Magazin, dated to the second half of the 7th century is notable. The warrior was buried with weapons, harness items, silver and bronze jewellery, a golden earring and coin, which place respective warrior among the Avar military elite. Still at Sânpetru German, yet in another area, at site Goliat, was discovered another grave dated still to the 7th century. The latter contained only weapons, harness items and horse bones, which assigns it to a common warrior in the Avar army compared to the elite warrior unburied at site “Magazin” in Sânpetru German. The graves at Sânnicolaul Mare and Dudești Vechi, dated also to the 7th century are also important. At Sânnicolaul Mare was discovered a warrior’s grave, whose belt was decorated with appliques with press-made patterns. They place the warrior in the category of high ranking warriors in the Avar army. At Dudeștii Vechi as well were discovered graves of important individuals in the warlike elite of the first stage in the evolution of the Avar Khaganate. Based on the archaeological inventory (weapons, horse burial, harness items), the Avar cemeteries and graves discovered in various sites within the boundary of villages Comloșu Mare and Lunga may be related to common warriors in the Avar army. It is not excluded that during the 7th century, in the area of the current village Comloșu Mare, a large military centre was in operation, where common fighters in the Avar army were camped. The funerary site at Orşova Veche (nearby the Danube) is different by its geographical location compared to all funerary finds above. Although dating from the 7th century, respective archaeological site lay outside the Avar finds area from the Banat Plain clustering not very far from Mureș river valley (Fig. 7). The entire archaeological material (accessories, jewellery, weapons etc.), supports the presence at Orșova Veche of one or several highly ranking individuals in the Avar elite. The Romanian Banat area remains also during the 8th century an important geographical area for the Avars. The Avar cemeteries present in the territory at: Cenad, Denta, Sânandrei and Timişoara stand proof. In all cemeteries were discovered, one, two or several graves with rich inventory which had belonged to the military chieftains in the Avar elite. The cemeteries also contained sepulchres without weapons and few dress accessories or even no inventory. In the latter were buried the servants  For various views on the earthen ramparts in the Western Romanian Plain see for instance: Rusu 1977 196–197; Istvánovits/ Kulcsár 2002, 625–628; Garam / Patay / Soprony 2003. 110

270

Călin Cosma

11 4 5

8-9 7 10 14 1-3 13 0

100

200 km

12

6

Avar cemeteries from the 7th century A.D. Avar cemeteries between 760-800/830 A.D. Earth dikes The periphery of the Avar centre on the Lower Tisza

Figure 7. Cemeteries, graves and funerary finds of the 7th-8th centuries A.D. in Banat: 1-3. Comloşu Mare; 4. Dudeştii Vechi; 5. Lunga (Timiş county); 6. Orşova Veche (Mehedinţi); 7. Sânnicolau Mare; 8-9. Sânpetru German; 10. Vizejdia; 11. Cenad; 12.Denta; 13. Timişoara; 14. Sânandrei (Timiş).

of the elites and the Avar military retainers. The fact that also during the 8th century the military elites in the Banat cemeteries were of Avar origin is confirmed by the anthropological analysis of a skeleton coming from the cemetery at Sânandrei111. 8th century – dated cemeteries are found in a much larger territory compared to that where cemeteries dating to the 7th century lay. Nevertheless, although located at greater distance from Mureș river, still, no cemetery is recorded in piedmont or mountain areas of Banat. We thus note that also the 8th century – Avar cemeteries of Banat are present only west the earthen ramparts (Fig. 7). Respective situation is an important archaeological fact supporting the idea that in Romanian Banat (alike in Crișana and to a certain extent also in north-western Romania), the earthen ramparts represented the eastern border of the Avar Khaganate112. The analysis of the geographical layout of the cemeteries associated with the dating of respective sites provides a series of notes worth keeping in mind. Thus, 7th century cemeteries and graves lay only in the plain area very close to the flow of Mureș river into Tisza river. These cemeteries together with those to the right of Mureș river, south Crișana, outline the eastern borders of the Avar Khaganate in the first half of the 7th century (Fig. 7). The duty of the warriors buried in the cemeteries laying very close to Mureş river was to defend the territory (and border), monitor and ensure optimal conditions for the goods and peoples traffic on Mureş river, from the Transylvanian Plateau to Pannonia, but also the reverse. During the 8th century, the Avar Khaganate extends its borders to a greater distance from Mureș river valley, to south-east Banat, yet still in the plain area. There is no archaeological evidence, at least insofar, suggesting or supporting the Avar control of the mountain Banat areas during the 7th–8th centuries. The finds at Denta and Orşova Veche, places located farther the Tisza and Mureş rivers, yet very close to the Danube (the latter), may be interpreted as border points, of control, established and  Muntean / Muntean 2001, 265–268, 272.  This was supposed sometime ago by M. Rusu: Rusu 1977, 196–197.

111 112

Avar warriors in Transylvania, Sătmar and Maramureș, Crișana and Banat. Archaeological landmarks

271

coordinated by the Avar power. So, one may argue that the Avars as well were interested in controlling only lower plain areas from both Romanian Banat and the plain between Mureș and Crișul Alb river, territories necessary for the maintenance of cattle herds. Although the Avar finds in Banat are more numerous than in Crișana or north-west Romania, still they are few to argue that an Avar “Aul” existed in Banat. Alike the upper Er river basin or Crișana, the plain areas of Banat must be regarded as peripheral to the Avar Khaganate. Banatul de câmpie, together with south Crișana, were part of the great Avar province located in lower Tisza area113. It is very likely that the cemeteries in 8th century Banat corresponded to small Avar power centres. They were established by the Avar military chieftains, surrounded by their own military retainers. However, none of them were independent. They all asserted their power in the territory, in virtue of a right conferred by the military chief at Kunagota (marked personality in the political and military hierarchy of the Avar Khaganate), site which was is also credited as the capital of the “Aul” on lower Tisza114. Even though one may not speak of an independent “Aul” in Banat de câmpie area, nevertheless, one may take into consideration the possibility that respective territory played a somewhat more important role in the Avar military strategy. During the Avar period, the limit of Banat plain was a border area set up on the Danube by the Avars wishing to defend it as efficiently as possible, but also to control as effectively as possible the trade in the area, by even founding customs points115. The fact that Banat was during the 8th century a territory with a somewhat importance in the political geography of the Avar Khaganate is also suggested by the famous hoard of golden items discovered by the end of the 18th century somewhere within the boundary of Sânnicolau Mare village116. A number of 23 pieces were recovered beside ca. 10 kg of gold. The vessels, cups, beakers and dress accessories, all hoard goods, are true works of art of exceptional beauty. They mix several European and Oriental artistic styles, fashionable in the 7th–8th centuries. One of the cups bears the title of an Avar office combined with two names of individuals: “jupanii” (master) Buyla and Butaul. The hoard was hidden sometime by the end of the 8th century, a highly troubled period from the point of view of the political and military events, marked by the power struggles within the Byzantine empire, the increasingly marked Bulgarian military involvement in the Lower Danube area and, as well as the start of the conflicts between the Avar Khaganate and the Carolingian empire. According to the exceptional artistic value but also intrinsic of the hoard at Sânnicolau Mare, it was deemed to have belonged to a high Avar official at the top of the Khaganate hierarchy, with the centre in Banat, powerful and also rich, who got involved in the power games of Byzantium or the battles of the Avar Khaganate with the Carolingian empire117. Very likely though, the hoard was only a small part of the famous richness held by the Avar Khagans, rescued and buried at Sânnicolaul Mare by an Avar chieftain, at a time previous to the Avar Ring destruction by the armies of Charlemagne118. Any of the reasons above may be listed when discussing why the “treasure” was hidden only to be later rescued. Most definitely, the one who buried the hoard in the ground did not survive to enjoy it at a time subsequent the militarily and politically tumultuous period by the end of the 8th century and early 9h century in South-Eastern Europe.

Final notes By the end of this approach, we wish to pinpoint a few notes. Firstly, the presence of the Avar warriors in 7th–8th century Transylvania in north-west Romania, Crișana and Romanian Banat cannot be denied. Evidence to the fact is represented by the cemeteries and isolated graves, which belong beyond any doubt to Avar ethnicity warriors. The political status of the four Romanian territories in western Romania was different within the Avar Khaganate. The leaders of the Avar empire did not consider the four Romanian provinces as a unitary territorial unit. They approached the area on separate geographical segments, according  Erdély Története 1986, 166.  Erdély Története 1986, 166. 115  Erdély Története 1986, 166. 116  For instance: Rusu 1985/1986, 31–66; Kovács / Garam 2002; Daim 2003, 515–516. 117  Rusu 1985/1986, 31–66; Kovács/Garam 2002; Daim 2003, 515–516. 118  Daim 2003, 516. 113 114

272

Călin Cosma

to their economic and strategic importance of respective areas. Thus, north-west Romania was part of the territory of the Avar power centre on Upper Tisa with the seat located within the range of the current city of Nyíregyháza (Hungary). Crișana, up to Crișul Alb river was controlled by the warriors camped in the mid Tisza river basin. The plain area between Mureș and Crișul Alb rivers and Banatul de câmpie were under the authority of the Avar leader at the rule of the power centre in lower Tisza area, with the centre at Kunagota. At the centre of the Transylvanian Depression was established an Avar power centre of “Aul” status, coordinated by the elite warrior directly subordinated to the Avar Khagan (Fig. 8). The fact that both 7th century Avar cemeteries as well as those of the 8th century in the territory west the Western Carpathians do not exceed geographically the line of the earthen ramparts crossing the western plain of Romania and Banat Plain from north to south, reinforces the previous idea that respective ramparts may be deemed the eastern “border” of the Avar Khaganate119. The parallel existence of the earthen ramparts accounts for the expansion stages of the Khaganate borders to the east of the Carpathian basin120. This is noticeable especially on the map of finds including the 8th century Avar cemeteries in Romanian Banat (Fig. 7–8). In north-west, east and south-west Romania remain outside the borders of the Avar Khaganate the hilly and mountain areas of Oaș, historical Maramureș entirely and Banatul Montan. The archaeological facts show that the Avars occupied only lower plain areas in western Romania (Fig. 8). Respective phenomenon may be explained by the fact that plain areas west the Western Carpathians was a territory proper for the nomad lifestyle of the Avar tribes, constantly in search of for plains necessary for the cattle herds maintenance. A breach in the border delimited by the earthen ramparts in western Romania was established by the entry of the Avars on Mureș river valley in the Transylvanian Depression. The Avar military raids in the Transylvanian Plateau occurred only starting with the fourth-fifth decades of the 7th century. After the subdual of the Gepids and Slavs, the Avars establish around 650 a military power centre in intra-Carpathian Transylvania. The political-military entity lay in centre of the Transylvanian Plateau, the Mureș river bend area, with the limits between the current cities at Câmpia Turzii and Teiuș (Fig. 8). That military centre continued to exist also in the 8th century. It was under the personal suzerainty of the Avar Khagan, who controlled it via its personal representatives. Its main objective was to exercise an efficient control of the salt reserves in the Transylvanian Plateau (Fig. 8). It is difficult to appreciate in very exact terms the contribution of the Avar world in the creation of the material and spiritual culture of the 8th and then 9th centuries in the territories east of Tisza river and inside the Carpathian arc121. In fact, the knowledge of the Avar environment culture of the 9th century raises still many questions even in the area of the maximum development of the material culture of the Khaganate during its existence as political entity. For the western areas of the former Avar Khaganate, effectively controlled by the Carolingian empire (the territory from the right of the Danube, the Zalavár area), the recent research of the Hungarian historiography mention that Avar evidence, then serfs of the Francs, may be found within graves by a series of specific jewellery in both male and female costume122. Following the performed analyses, it was suggested that mid 9th century was the end stage of the Avar period123. In what the Transylvanian Depression, Sătmar, Maramureș, Crișana and Romanian Banat are concerned, one may specify that there is no archaeological evidence datable to the third – fifth decades of the 9th century, recording the presence of Avar warriors in respective geographical areas. We do not vehemently deny the existence of the 8th century warrior successors124. However, their presence during the 9th century in western Romania is a phenomenon which must be scientifically grounded in concrete archaeological data. The debate is still open. We believe, though, that only future archaeological research, extremely necessary for the entire western Romanian area for the Early Middle Ages may provide essential  Rusu 1977, 196–197. See also the map of the Avar Khaganate suggested by J. Zábojník: Zábojník 2004, 7, fig. 1.  Rusu 1977, 196–197. 121  Cosma 2012, 145. 122  See for instance: Szőke 1990–1991, 145–157; Szőke 1992, 841–968; Szőke 1994, 77–84. 123  See for instance: Szőke 1990–1991, 145–157; Medgyesi 1992, 253–267; Szőke 1992, 841–968; Szőke 1994, 77–84. 124  Cosma 2012, 145. 119 120

Avar warriors in Transylvania, Sătmar and Maramureș, Crișana and Banat. Archaeological landmarks

0

100

273

200 km

Gepidic cemeteries with remains of horse skeletons in the Transylvanian Plateau Avar cemeteries between 650/670-710/720 A.D. Avar cemeteries between 710/720-800/830 A.D. Avar cemeteries from the 8th century A.D. Borders of the Avar empire in the eastern Carpathian basin Earth dikes

Figure 8. Avar cemeteries and graves in the Transylvanian Plateau, Sătmar and Maramureș, Crișana and Banat.

data to continue and develop the subject on the presence of the Avar warriors in the Transylvanian Plateau, north-west Romania and Romanian Banat. In addition, the future development of the subject also requires the publication of the novel Avar material and afferent documentation held in the deposits of the specialty museums in western Romania. Translated by: Gabriela Crsitina Balica

Acknowledgments * This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-ID-PCE–2011–3-0278.

274

Călin Cosma

List of sites from the Transylvania, Sătmar and Maramureș, Crișana and Banat where Avar cemeteries and graves dating to the 7th–8th centuries were discovered List 1. Sites where Gepid cemeteries containing graves with horse skeletons or horse skeleton remains were identified A. 1. Bandu de Câmpie ( jud. Mureș): Kovács 1913, 265–429; Dobos 2010/2011, 379–380. A. 2. Bistrița ( jud. Bistrița Năsăud): Gaiu 1992, 118, Fig. 3/1; Dobos 2010/2011, 380. A. 3. Bratei ( jud. Sibiu): Bârzu 2010, 171–271; Dobos 2010/2011, 378. A. 4. Fântânele ( jud. Bistrița Năsăud): Dobos 2010/2011, 380; Dobos / Opreanu 2012. A. 5. Noșlac ( jud. Alba): Rusu 1962, 270; Rusu 1964, 36; Dobos 2010/2011, 380. A. 6. Şpălnaca ( jud. Alba): Botezatu/ Blăjan 1989, 351; Grosu et alii 1995, 276 şi nota 6; PROTASE et alii 2000, 104, nr. 143. A. 7. Valea Largă ( jud. Alba): Hica 1974, 519; Dobos 2010–2011, 380. A. 8. Unirea II/Vereșmort ( jud. Alba): Rustoiu / Ciută 2008, 71–98; Dobos 2010/2011, 381; Cosma et alii 2013, 89–96, fig. 65.1–4. List 2. The Transylvanian Plateau: Sites where Avar cemeteries and graves were discovered B. 1. Aiud ( jud. Alba): Horedt 1958, 91–92; Cosma et alii 2013, 56–59, Fig. 27–30. B. 2. Aiudul de Sus ( jud. Alba): Horedt 1958, 93; Cosma et alii 2013, 60, Fig. 31. B. 3. Bratei ( jud. Sibiu): Zaharia 1977, 45–62; Cosma et alii 2013, 35, 61–62, Fig. 20, 33. B. 4. Câmpia Turzii ( jud. Cluj): Bajús 2005, 31–40, Cosma et alii 2013, 34, Fig. 19. B. 5. Cicău ( jud. Alba): Winkler / Takacs / Păiuş 19771977, 269–283; Georoceanu et alii 1977, 285– 294; Cosma et alii 2013, 33, Fig. 18. 1–3. B. 6. Gâmbaș ( jud. Alba): Bodrogi 1913, 22–24; Horedt 1951, 198, nr. 21; Horedt 1958, 95–100; Cosma et alii 2013, 30–31, 64–65, fig. 16–17, 38. B. 7. Geoagiu de Sus ( jud. Alba): Rustoiu / Dărămuş 2005, 483–490, fig.  1/4; Cosma et alii 2013, 65–67, fig. 30–40. B. 8. Heria ( jud. Alba): Horedt 1958, 100–101; Cosma et alii 2013, 71–72, fig. 48. B. 9. Leșnic/Veţel ( jud. Hunedoara): Széntpeteri 2002, 226. B. 10. Lopadea Nouă ( jud. Alba): Bodrogi 1913, 25– 27; Horedt 1958, 101, nr. 9, 75, 84, Fig.  13/11–12, Fig. 18/1–5; Cosma et alii 2013, 72–74; Fig. 49. B. 11. Măgina ( jud. Alba): Ciugudeanu 1974, 457–459, Fig. 1; Cosma et alii 2013, 74, Fig. 50. B. 12. Râmeț ( jud. Alba): Horedt 1958, 102; Cosma et alii 2013, 77, Fig. 53. B. 13. Sebeş ( jud. Alba): Horedt 1958, 103; Cosma et alii 2013, 84, Fig. 59.

B. 14. Stemț ( jud. Alba): Bodrogi 1913, 25; Horedt 1958, 103, nr. 17, fig. 19/1–3; Popa 1961, 225–226, nr. 6, fig. 3/a-c; Cosma et alii 2013, 85, fig. 60. B. 15. Târnava/fostă Proștea Mare ( jud. Sibiu): Horedt 1958, 101–102, nr. 10; Cosma et alii 2013, 86–87, fig. 62. B. 16. Târnăveni ( jud Mureș): Archaeológiai Értesitő, XXXIV, 1914, 153–154; Horedt 1968, 117, nr. I. 24. fig. 2.1.2. B. 17. Teiuș ( jud. Alba): Daicoviciu 1945, 210; Horedt 1951, 205; Horedt 1953, 798–814; Párducz 1954, 59– 60; Horedt 1958, 104–105; Cosma et alii 2013, 23–29, fig. 12–15. List 3. Cemeteries, graves and funerary finds in north-west Romania 1. Căuaș ( jud. Satu Mare): Fetzer 1897, 435; Horedt 1968, 116, nr. 5; Comşa 1972, 211; Cosma 2002, 182–183. 2. Dindești ( jud. Satu Mare): Németi 1983, 137–139, fig. 3/1–3; Cosma 2002, 189, nr. 83, pl. 98/1–3; Cosma et alii 2013, 63–64, fig. 36. 3. Săcueni ( jud. Bihor): Nánási / Wilhelm 1996, 128 şi n. 7–8; Cosma 2011, 143, III.A.9.1, pl. 11/48. M. 2: Nánási / Wilhelm 1996, 125–131; Cosma 2002, 220‑221, nr. 173; Cosma 2011, 143, III.A.9.2, pl. 11/49; Cosma et alii 2013, 77–80, fig. 54–55.1–2 4. Valea lui Mihai ( jud. Bihor): Németi 1983, 145–148, fig.  6/7–9, 7/1–5, 8/1–3; Cosma 2002, 235, nr. 210, pl. 265; Cosma et alii 2013, 96–98, fig. 66. List 4. Cemeteries, graves and funerary finds in Crișana 1. Pecica ( jud. Arad): Csallány 1956, 179, nr. 773; Cosma et alii 2013, 76–77, fig. 52. 2. Peregu Mare ( jud. Arad): Hampel 1898, 445; Hampel 1900, 113–114; Hampel 1905, Bd. II, 346– 348; Repertoriu Arad 1999, 101–102, nr. 1. 3. Socodor ( jud. Arad): Popescu 1949, 89, fig.  1, 90, fig. 2; Popescu 1956, 80–82, fig. 39–40; Horedt 1968, 117, nr. 20; Cosma 2002, 227, pl. 236. List 5. Cemeteries, graves and funerary finds in the Romanin Banat with inventory specific to Avar warriors 1. Cenad ( jud. Timiș): Mare 2004, 115 2. Comloșu Mare ( jud. Timiș): Medeleţ / Bugilan 1987, 123. 3. Comloșu Mare( jud. Timiș): Medeleţ / Bugilan 1987, 124. 4. Comloșu Mare ( jud. Timiș): Medeleţ / Bugilan 1987, 124. 5. Denta( jud. Timiș): Milleker 1909, 274; Milleker 1909a, 382; Mare 2004, 115. 6. Dudeștii Vechi ( jud. Timiș): Mare 2004, 116.

Avar warriors in Transylvania, Sătmar and Maramureș, Crișana and Banat. Archaeological landmarks

7. Lunga ( jud. Timiș): Medeleţ – Bugilan 1987, 146. 8. Orșova Veche ( jud. Mehedinți): Csallány 1956, 173, nr. 726; Bóna 1990, 87; Mare 2004, 116. 9. Sânandrei ( jud. Timiș): Bejan 1995, 80–82; Mare 1998, 293; Muntean / Muntean 2001, 265–279; Mare 2004, 123–125; Cosma et alii 2013, 81–82, fig. 56. 10. Sânnicolau Mare( jud. Timiș): Csallány 1956, 169, nr. 699–700; Medeleţ 1998, 307–309, 316, pl. I; Muntean 1998, 317–321; Muntean / Muntean 2001, 270; Mare 2004, 116, 123, pl. XLI/1–15; Cosma et alii 2013, 82–83, fig. 57.

275

11. Sânpetru German ( jud. Arad): Dörner 1960, 423– 433, fig. 2–4; Mare 1998, 290–291, pl. VIII; Cosma et alii 2013, 83–84, fig. 58. 12. Sânpetru German ( jud. Arad): Dörner 1970, 456, fig.13/1. 13. Timișoara ( jud. Timiș): Bejan 1983, 489–496, fig. 1–2; Mare 1998, 291–292, pl. IX; Mare 2004, 125– 126, pl. XLII; Cosma et alii 2013, 87–89, fig. 63–64. 14. Vizejdia ( jud. Timiș): Hampel 1895, 436; Milleker 1909, 292; Csallány 1956, 216, nr. 1060.

References / Bibliography Agathias I, 3.30 Agathias I, 3.30: E. Lung, Istoricii și politica la începutul Evului Mediu european (București 2001), 125, n. 138. Aldea / Stoicovici / Blăjan 1980 I. Al. Aldea, E. Stoicovici, M. Blăjan, Cercetări arheologice în cimitirul prefeudal de la Ghirbom (comuna Berghin, jud. Alba). Apulum, Acta Musei Apulensis 18, 1980, 151–177. Bajus 2005 I. Bajusz (Szerk.), Téglás István jegyzetei. Régészeti feljegyzések, I/1–2, Scientia Kiadó (Kolozsvár 2005). Bărbulescu 2003 M. Bărbulescu, De la romani până la sfârșitul mileniului I, I.A. Pop, T Nägler (Coord.), Istoria Transilvanaiei, Vol. I (până la 1541). Institutul Cultural Român (Cluj-Napoca 2003), 137–197. Bărcăcilă 1939–1942 Al. Bărcăcilă, Aurul Ardealului în perioada avarică a lui Carol cel Mare. Apulum, Buletinul Muzeului Regional Alba Iulia 1, 1939–1942, 203–227. Blăjan / Botezatu 2000 M. Blăjan, D. Botezatu, Studiul arheologic şi antropologic al mormintelor de incineraţie prefeudale (secolul VIII) de la Aba Iulia – “Staţia de salvare”. Apulum, Acta Musei Apulensis 37/1, 2000, 453–470. Bârzu 2010 L. Bârzu, Ein gepidisches Denkmal aus Siebenbürgen. Das Gräberfeld 3 von Bratei (Bearbeitet von R. Harhoiu). Mit Beträgen E. Zaharia und R. Harhoiu. Archaeologia Romanica 4 (Cluj-Napoca 2010). Bejan 1983 A. Bejan, Necropola de inhumație de sec. VIII–IX e. n. de la Timișoara – Podul Modoș. Acta Musei Napocensis XX, 1983, 489–498. Bejan 1995 A. Beja, Banatul în secolele IV–XII (Timișoara 1995). Bodrogi 1913 J. Bodrogi, Alsófehérvármegyei honfoglaláskori leletek, Az Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület hetedik vándorgyűlésének emlékkönyve (Kolozsvár 1913), 16–29. Bóna 1980 I. Bóna, Studien zum frühawarischen Reitergrab von Szegvár. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Huncaricae 32, 1–4, 31–95. Bóna 1990 I. Bóna, II. Völkerwanderung und Frühmittelalter (271–895). B. Köpeczi (Hrsg), Kurze Geschichte Siebenbürgens (Budapest 1990), 63–106. Bóna 1993 I. Bóna, A honfoglalás elötti kultúrák és népek. Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg megye monográfiája. I. KötetTörténelem és kultúra (Nyíregyháza 1993), 115–121. Botezatu / Blăjan 1989 D. Botezatu, M. Blăjan, Mormântul prefeudal (sec. VI e.n.) de la Mediaş ( jud. Sibiu). Studiu arheologic şi antropologic. Apulum, Acta Musei Apulensis 26, 1989, 347–354. Cilinská 1991 Z. Cilinská, Soziale differenzierung und ihre spiegelung im Bestattungsritus des 7.–8. Jahrhunderts in der Slowakei. Archaeologica Carpathica XXX, 1991, 187–212.

276

Călin Cosma

Ciucudeanu 1974 H. Ciugudeanu, Mormântul unui călăreţ avar de la Măgina, jud. Alba. Studii de Istorie Veche și Arheologie 25, 3, 1974, 457–459. Comșa 1966 M. Comșa, Fruhawarenzeitliche funde auv Valea lui Mihai. Sborníc Národního Muzea v Praze Seria A XX, 1–2, 1966, 173–174, taf. XXIV. Comşa 1972 M. Comşa, Unele date privind regiunile din nord-vestul României în secolele V–IX. Centenar Muzeal Orădean (Oradea 1972), 209–213. Comşa 1987 M. Comşa, Slawen und Awaren auf rumänischem Boden, ihre Beziehungen zu der bodenständigen romanischen und späteren frührumänischen Bevölkerung. B. Hänsel (Hrsg), Die Völker Südosteuropas im 6. Bis 8. Jahrhundert, Südosteuropa Jahrbuch, (München / Berlin 1987), 219–230. Cosma 2002 C. Cosma, Vestul şi nord-vestul României în secolele VIII–X d. H. Ethnic and cultural interferences in the 1st millenium B.C. to the 1st millenium A. D. 6 (Cluj-Napoca 2002). Cosma 2011 C. Cosma, Funerary pottery in Transylvania of the 7th–10th centuries. Ethnic and cultural interferences in the 1st millenium B.C. to the 1st millenium A. D. 18 (Cluj-Napoca 2011). Cosma 2012 C. Cosma, Ethnische und politische Gegebenheiten im Westen und Nordwesten Rumäniens im 8.–10. Jh. n. Chr. Ephemeris Napocensis, XXII, 2012, 137–158. Cosma et alii 2013 C. Cosma, A. Dobos, G.T. Rustoiu, A. Rustoiu, O. Oargă, Războinici în Transilvania din epoca avară (ClujNapoca 2013). Csallány 1956 D. Csallány, Archäologische Denkmäler der Awarenzeit in Mitteleuropa (Budapest 1956). Curta 2006 Fl. Curta, Apariția Slavilor. Istorie și arheologie la Dunărea de jos în secolele VI–VII (Târgoviște 2006). Daicoviciu 1945 C. Daicoviciu, La Transylvanie dans l’antiquité (București 1945). Daim 2003 F. Daim, Avars and Avar Archaeology. An Introduction. H-W. Goetz, J. Jarnut, W. Pohl (Editors), with the collaboration of. S.  Kasche. Regna and Gentes. The Relationship between Late Antique and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World, I. Wood (Series Editor), The Transformation of the Roman World, vol. 13 (Leiden-Boston 2003), 463–570. Dobos 2010/2011 A. Dobos, Az erdélyi soros temetők lovastemetkezései (Înmormântările cu cal în cimitirele cu morminte dispuse în şiruri paralele din Transilvania / The horse burials of the row-grave cemeteries from Transylvania). Körösfői Zsolt (Főszerkesztő), Erdély és kapcsolatai a kora népvándorlás korában, szerk. Körösfői Zs., Molnár István Múzeum Kiadványai, 3, (Székelykeresztúr / Cristuru Secuiesc 2010/2011), 377–403. Doboş / Opreanu 2012 A. Doboş, C. H. Opreanu, Migration period and early medieval cemeteries at Fântânele (Bistiţa-Năsăud County) (Cluj-Napoca 2012) Dörner 1960 E. Dörner, Momînt din epoca avară la Sînpetru German. Studii și Cecetări de Istorie Veche XII, 2, 1960, 423–433 Dörner 1970 E. Dörner, Cercetări și săpături arheologice în județul Arad. Materiale și Cercetări arheologice IX (București 1970), 445–465. Dumitraşcu 1978 S. Dumitraşcu, Ceramică românească descoperită în Crişana (sec. VIII–XI). Crisia VIII, 1978, 51–111. Erdély Története 1986 L. Makkai, A. Mócsy (Szerk.), Erdély Története. Első Kötet. A Kezdetektől 1606-IG (Budapest 1986), 159–177. Fetzer 1897 J. F. Fetzer, Szilágysági Régiségekröl. Archeologiai Értesítö XVII, 1897, 5, 435–436. Fiedler 1996 U. Fiedler, Die Slawen im Bulgarenreich und im Awarenkhaganat. Versuch eines Vergleichs. D. Bialeková, J. Zábojník (Hrsg.), Etnische und kulturelle Verhältnisse an der mittleren Donau vom 6. Bis. 11. Jahrhundert, Symposium Nitra 6. Bis 10. November 1994 (Bratislava 1996), 195- 214.

Avar warriors in Transylvania, Sătmar and Maramureș, Crișana and Banat. Archaeological landmarks

277

Gaiu 1992 C. Gaiu, Le cimitiere gepide de Bistriţa. Dacia N.S. 36. 1992, 115–124 Gál 2013 S. S. Gáll 2001, Analiza osteologică a mormântului avar de la Măgina, jud. Alba. Apulum. Acta Musei Apulensis 50, 2013, 255–260. Gáll 2014 E. Gáll, The avar conquest and wath followed. Some ideas of the process of the „Avarisation” of Transylvanian Basin (6th–7th) Centuries. S. Cociș (Hrsg.), Archaologische Beitrage. Zum hundersten Geburtstag von Kurt Horedt. Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum 7 (Cluj-Napoca 2014), 295–323. Gáll / Laczkó 2013 E. Gáll, N. Laczkó, Doboka kora középkori hamvasztásos temetőjéről. Néhány useum a Kis-Szamos völgye 7–9. (10.?) századi településterületéről. Dolgozatok. Az erdélyi useum érem- és régiségtárából, VIII. (XVIII.) kötet 2013, Erdélyi useum-egyesület (Kolozsvár 2015), 53–74. Garam 1987 É. Garam, Der awarische Fundstoff im Karpatenbecken und seine zeitliche Gliederung. B. Hänsel (Hrsg.), Die Völker Südosteuropas im 6. Bis 8. Jahrhundert Südosteuropa Jahrbuch, (München / Berlin 1987), 191–202. Garam 1994 É. Garam, Die Awaren (Awaren in Siebenbürgen). W. Schuller (Hrsg.), Siebenbürgen zur Zeit der Römer und der Völkerwanderung Band 29 (Köln / Weimar / Wien 1994), 171–181. Garam / Patay / Soprony 2003 É. Garam, P. Patay, S.  Soprony, Sarmatisches wallsystem im Kapratenbecken, Régészeti Füzetek II. 23. Magyar Nemzety Múzeum 2003. Georoceanu et alii 1977 P. Georoceanu, C. Lisovschi-Cheleșanu, M. Georoceanu, Studiul osteologic al unui schelet de cal dintr-un mormânt avar din Transilvania. Acta Musei Napocensis 16, 1977, 285–294. Grosu et alii.1995 Al. V. Grosu, M. Blăjan, D. Botezatu, Mormântul cu ofrandă de moluşte (secolul VIII e. N.) descoperit la Alba Iuluia “Staţia de salvare”. S. Dumitrașcu, V. Moga, A. Chiriac, S. Șipoș (Coord.), Din istoria Europei romane (Oradea 1995), 275–284. Hampel 1895 J. Hampel, A N. Múzeumi Régiségtár gyarapodása. Archaeologiai Értesítö XV, 1895, 435–438. Hampel 1898 J. Hampel, A Nemzeti Múzeum Régiségosztályának gyarapodása. Archaeologiai Értesítö 18, 1898, 444–445. Hampel 1900 J. Hampel, Újabb hazai leletek az avr uralom korából. Archaeologiai Értesítö XX, 1900, 97–125. Hampel 1905, I, II, III J. Hampel, Alterthümer des frühen Mittelalters in Ungarn. (Braunschweig), vol. I, II, III, 1905. Hica 1974 I. Hica, Un cimitir din secolul al VII-lea e. n. la Valea Largă ( jud. Mureş). Studii și Comunicări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie 25, 1974, 517–526. Horedt 1951 K. Horedt, Ceramica slavă din Transilvania. Studii și Comunicări de Istorie Veche II, 2, 1951, 189–218. Horedt 1953 K. Horedt, Cercetările arheologice din regiunea Hoghiz-Ugra și Teiuș. II. Cimitirul de la “Cetățuiea” lângă Teiuș. Materiale Arheologice privind Istoria Veche a R.P.R. 1 (București 1953), 783–815 (798–815). Horedt 1956 K. Horedt, Avarii în Transilvania. Studii și Comunicări de Istorie Veche VII, 3–4, 1956, 393–406. Horedt 1958 K. Horedt, Contribuţii la istoria Transilvaniei. Sec. IV–XIII. Biblioteca Istorică VII (Bucureşti 1958). Horedt 1968 K. Horedt, Das Awarenproblem in Rumänien. Studijné Zvesti (Nitra) 16, 1968, 103–120. Horedt 1976 K. Horedt, Die Brandgräberfelder der Mediaşgruppe aus dem 7.–9. Jh. in Siebenbürgen, Zeitschrift für Archäologie 10, 1, 1976, 35–57. Horedt 1979 K. Horedt, Die Brandgräberfelder der Mediaşgruppe aus dem 7.–9. in Siebenbürgen. Rapports du IIIe Congrés International d’Archéologie Slave, Bratislava 7–14 Septembre 1975, Tome 1, 385–394 (Bratislava 1979).

278

Călin Cosma

Horedt 1987 K. Horedt, Die Völker Südosteuropas im 6. Bis 8. Jahrhundert, Probleme und Ergebnisse. B. Hänsel (Hrsg.), Die Völker Südosteuropas im 6. Bis 8. Jahrhundert. Südosteuropa Jahrbuch, (München / Berlin 1987), 11–26. Istvánovits 2003 E. Istvánovits, A Rétköz honfoglalás és Árpád-kori emlékanyaga (Nyíregyháza 2003). Istvánovits / Kulcsár 2002 E. Istvánovits, V. Kulcsár, The history and perspectives of the research of the Csörsz Ditch (“Limes sarmatiae”). F. Freeman, J. Bennett, Z. T. Fiema, B. Hoffmann, Limes XVIII. Preceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000). A conference helt under the auspices of the Departament of Antiquites of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The Concil for the British Research in the Levant and the Departament of Archaeology at the University of Liverpool. Volume II. BAR Internationales Series 1084 (II), 2002, 625–628. Kovács 1913 I. Kovács, A mezőbandi asatasok / Les fouillages de Mezőband. Dolgozatok. Erdély Nemzeti Múzeum 4, 1913, 265–429. Kovács / Garam 2002 T. Kovács (Gen. ed.), É. Garam (Ed.), The Gold of the Avars. The Nagyszentmiklós treasure (Budapest 2002). Lazăr 1995 V. Lazăr, Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Mureş (Târgu Mureş 1995). Macrea 1959a M. Macrea, Necropola slavă de la Someşeni (r. și reg. Cluj). Materiale și Cercetări Aarheologice V (București1959), 519–527. Macrea 1959b M. Macrea, Şantierul arheologic Someşeni-Cluj. Materiale și Cercetări Aarheologice VI (București 1959), 515–522. Mare 1998 M. Mare, Rituri şi ritualuri de înmormântare în Banatul românesc între secolele IV–IX. Analele Banatului, Serie nouă, Arheologie – Istorie VI, 1998, 285–306. Mare 2004 M. Mare, Banatul între secolele IV–IX (Timişoara 2004). Mauricius, XI,2 Mauricius, Arta Militară. Fontes Historiae Dacaromanae 2 (București 1970), 552–565. Medeleţ 1998 F. Medeleţ, O descoperire de factură avară la Sânnicolau Mare ( jud. Timiş). Analele Banatului, Serie Nouă, Arheologie-Istorie VI, 1998, 307–316. Medeleţ / Buligan 1987 F. Medeleţ, I. Bugilan, Contribuţii la problema şi la repertoriul movilelor de pământ din Banat. Banatica 9, 1987, 87–198. Medgyesi 1992 P. Medgyesi, Néhány megjegyzés a közép és a késö avar kor idörendjéhez. A nyíregyházy Jósa András Múzeum. Évkönyve, XXX–XXXII (1987–1989) (Nyíregyháza 1992), 253- 267. Milleker 1909 B. Milleker, Délmagyarország Régiségleletei. A honfoglalás előtti időkbol (Temesvár 1909), vol. III. Milleker 1909a B. Milleker, A verseczi városi múzeum és könyvtár. Archaeologiai Értesítö XXIX 1909, 382–383. Muntean 1998 M. Muntean, Determinarea antropologică a unui craniu din perioada prefeudală (sec. VII–VIII) găsit la Sânnicolau – Mare ( jud. Timiş). Analele Banatului, Serie Nouă, Arheologie – Istorie VI, 1998, 317–321. Muntean/ Muntean 2001 M. Muntean, C. Muntean, Studiu antropologic şi de ritual funerar asupra unor schelete provenite de la Sânandrei ( jud. Timiş), datate în secolul VII–VIII. Analele Banatului, Serie nouă, Arheologie – Istorie IX, 2001 (2002), 265–279. Nägler 2003 T. Nägler, Transilvania între 900 și 1300, I. A. Pop, T Nägler (Coordonatori), Istoria Transilvanaiei, Vol. I (până la 1541). Institutul Cultural Român (Cluj-Napoca 2003), 199–231. Nánási / Wilhelm 1996 Z. Nánáşi, I. Wilhelm, Un mormânt din epoca târzie a migraţiilor la Săcuieni. Acta Musei Porolissensis XX, 1996, 125–131.

Avar warriors in Transylvania, Sătmar and Maramureș, Crișana and Banat. Archaeological landmarks

279

Németi 1983 I. Németi, Noi descoperiri din epoca migraţiilor din zona Carei ( jud. Satu Mare). Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie 34, 2, 1983, 134–150. Párducz 1954 M. Párducz, Le cimetièr hallstattien de Sztes-Vekerzug II (Le fouilles de 1952 et 1953). Acta Arhaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae IV, 1954, 25–89. Pohl 1988 W. Pohl, Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa 567–822 n. Chr. (München 1988). Pohl 2003 W. Pohl, A non-roman empire in Central Europe: The Avars. H-W. Goetz, J. Jarnut, W. Pohl (Ed.), with the collaboration of. S.  Kasche. Regna and Gentes. The Relationship between Late Antique and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World, I. Wood (Series Editor), The Transformation of the Roman World, vol. 13 (Leiden-Boston 2003), 571–595. Pop 2003 Gr. P. Pop, Transilvanaia, Banat, Crișana și Maramureș. Caracteristici geografice. I.A. Pop, T Nägler (Coord.), Istoria Transilvanaiei, Vol. I (până la 1541). Institutul Cultural Român (Cluj-Napoca 2003), 11–27. Popa 1961 Al. Popa, Materiale din perioada de trecere la feudalism în zona oraşului Alba Iulia. Studii şi Comunicări. Arheologie-Istorie-Etnografie (Apulum, Acta Musei Regionalis Apuensis) 4, 1961, 221–232. Popescu 1949 D. Popescu, Cercetările arheologice din R.P.R din anul 1948. Săpăturile arheologice din judeţul Arad, Socodor. Studii. Revistă de ştiinţă şi filozofie (Bucureşti) I, 1949, 2, 88–93. Popescu 1956 D. Popescu, Cercetări arheologice în Transilvania. I. Sondajele de la Socodor (1948). Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice II, (București 1956), 43–88. Protase et alii 2000 D. Protase, M. Blăjan, D. Botezatu, S. Haimovici, Şpălnaca, com Hopârta, Jud. Alba, Punct Şugud, Campania 1999. Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România, 2000, 104. http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/newcronica2000/indici/cronica.htm. Repertoriu Arad 1999 Repertoriul arheologic al Mureşului inferior. Judeţul Arad (Timişoara 1999). Repertoriu Bihor 1974 Repertoriul Monumentelor din judeţul Bihor (Oradea 1974). Repertoriu Cluj 1992 Repetroriul arheologic al judeţului Cluj (Cluj-Napoca 1992). Rustoiu / Ciută 2008 G. T. Rustoiu, M. Ciută, Mormântul unui călăreţ avar recent descoperit la Unirea-Vereşmort ( jud. Alba). Apulum, XLV 2008, 71–98. Rusu 1962 M. Rusu, The prefeudal cemetery of Noşlac (VIth–VIIth Centuries). Dacia, N.S. VI, 1962, 269–292. Rusu 1964 M. Rusu, Cimitirul prefeudal de la Noşlac. Probleme de Muzeografie (Cluj 1964), 32–45. Rusu 1977 M. Rusu, Transilvania şi Banatul în secolele IV–IX. Banatica 4, 1977, 169–213. Rusu 1985/1986 M. Rusu, Tezaurul de la Sînnicolaul Mare (Noi puncte de vedere). Anuarul Institutului de Istorie și Arheologie Cluj-Napoca XXVII, 1985–1986, 31–66. Rusu 1997 M. Rusu, Continitatea daco-romană în perioada 275–568. Istoria Transilvaniei (Cluj-Napoca 1997), 177–450. Sós / Salamon 1995 Á. Cs. Sós, Á. Salamon, Cemeteries of the Early Middle Ages (6th–9th Centuries A.D.) at Pókaszepetk (Budapest 1995). Stanciu 1999 I. Stanciu, Über die Slawischen Brandhügelgräber vom typ Nuşfalău-Someşeni (Nordwesten Rumäniens). Acta Musei Napocensis 36/1, 1999, 245–263. Stanciu 2000 I. Stanciu, Teritoriul nord-vestic al României şi Khaganatul Avar. Acta Musei Porolissensis XXIII, 2000, I, 403–451.

280

Călin Cosma

Stanciu 2002 I. Stanciu, Gepizi, avari și slavi timpurii (Sec. V–VII p. Chr.) în spațiul vestic și nord-vestic al României. Ephemeris Napocensis XII, 2002, 203–236. Stanciu 2011 I. Stanciu, Locuirea teritoriului nord-vestic al României între antichitatea târzie şi perioada de început a epocii medievale timpurii (mijlocul sec. V – sec. VII timpuriu). Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum 4 (Cluj-Napoca 2011). Stoicovici / Blăjan 1982 E. Stoicovici, M. Blăjan, Cercetări arheologice în cimitirul din secolul VIII e.n. de la Ghirbom – “Gruiul Măciuliilor” ( jud. Alba). Apulum, Acta Musei Apulensis 20, 1982, 139–154. Székely 1962 Z. Székely, Contribuţii la cultura slavă în secolele VII–VIII în sud-estul Transilvanaiei. Sudii și Comunicări de Istorie Veche XIII/1, 1962, 46–58. Székely 1969 Z. Székely, materiale ale culturii Sântana de Mureş din sud-estul Transilvaniei. Aluta I, 1969, 7–22. Székely 1974 Z. Székely, Slaves anciens dans le Sud-Est de la Transylvanie. Balcanoslavica 1, 1972 (1974), 55–57. Székely 1974–1975a Z. Székely, Aşezări din secolele VI–IX în sud-estul Transilvaniei. Aluta 6–7, 1974–1975, 35–55. Székely 1974–1975b Z. Székely, Sud-Estul Transilvanaiei în secolele VI–XIII e.n. Aluta 6–7, 1974–1975, 57–61. Székely 1975 Z. Székely, Aşezarea prefeudală de la Sălaşuri (com. Veţca, jud. Mureş). Marisia V, 1975, 71–79. Székely 1976 Z. Székely, Aşezarea prefeudală de la Bezid ( jud. Mureş). Marisia VI, 1976, 117–123. Székely 1988 Z. Székely, Aşezări din secolele VII–VIII în bazinul superior al Târnavei Mari. Studii și Comunicări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie 39/2, 1988, 169–198. Székely 1992 Z. Székely, Aşezări din secolele VI–XI p. Ch. în bazinul Oltului Superior. Studii și Comunicări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie 43/3, 1992, 245–306. Szentpéteri 2002, I–II J. Szentpéteri (Hrsg.), Archäologische Denkmäler der Awarenzeit in Mitteleuropa I–II (Budapest 2002). Szöke 1990–1991 B. M. Szöke, The question of continuity in the Carpathian Bazin of the 9th Century A. D. Anteus 19–20, 1990–1991, 145–157. Szöke 1992 B. M. Szöke, Die Beziehungen zwischen dem oberen Donautal und Westungarn in der ersten Hälfte des 9. Jahrhunderts (Frauentrachtzubehor und Schmuck). F. Daim (Hrsg.), Awarenforschungen. Archaeologia Austriaca Monographien, Band 1 und 2. Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren 4 (Wien 1992), Band 2, 841–968. Szöke 1994 B. M. Szöke, A Kárpát-medence a 9. Században. L. Kovács, (Szerk.), Honfoglalás és Régészet (Budapest) 1994, 77–84. Winkler / Takacs/ Păiuş 1977 I. Winkler, M. Takacs, Gh. Păiuş, Necropola avară de la Cicău. Acta Musei Napocensis XIV, 1977, 269–283. Zábojník 2004 J. Zábojník, Slovensko a Avarský Kaganát. Studia Archaeologica et Medievalia 6 (Bratislava 2004). Zaharia 1977 E. Zaharia, Populaţia românească în Transilvania în secolele VII–VIII. Cimitirul nr. 2 de la Bratei (Bucureşti 1977). Zríny 1976 A. Zríny, Repertoriul localităţilor din judeţul Mureş cu descoperiri arheologice din secolele IV–XIII e. n. Marisia V, 1976, 125–151.

T

he horse harness, spurs and stirrups in Bohemia in 8 th and 9 th century Naďa Profantová

CSc, Archeologický ústav AV ČR Praha, v.v.i., [email protected]

Abstract: The paper completed finds of stirrups, bridles, horse harness decorations (19 sites) and spurs from Bohemia 8–9th centuries. Most of the finds are Avar Khaganat in origine, imports, partly also Moravian or Czech territory products after Avar cultural pattern (the find of repoussage forging form on the harness decoration from Tismice). Presence of the spurs with hooks (22 sites, 6 are bronze ones) could indirectly indicate the existence of forming nobility in territory of Czech Republic, because Avars don’t ride the horse with spurs. Some of most luxurious type of spurs are western imports (Skorkov, Sv. Jan pod Skalou, Kolín, Křinec). Keywords: horse harness, stirrups, Bohemia, Early Middle Ages

I. Introdution

W

eapons and horse harnesses are very important archaeological finds because of theirs potential to be quite exactly dated and to indicate social status among the grave finds. There are no graves with stirrups in Bohemia1. Spurs appear in graves from a half of th 9 century till the end of 10th century. From about 850 A.D. we can date the change of burial rite from cremation to inhumation. That is why, the number of finds connected with horse riding before 850 A.D. is quite low. The majority of the finds from 8th century are stirrups, bridles and decorations of harness are in ‘Avar’ type and are mostly also Avar Khaganate in origin. Most of the finds comes from hill-forts, hills and newly also from settlements. Because of this situation we usually can’t say, if the finds, mainly decorations, were used in the same case as in Avar culture milieu. The find of repoussage forging form on the harness decoration from Tismice could mean (Fig. 8:7), that the anticipated local production takes after the Avar cultural pattern.

II.1. Bridles There are only 3–4 sites with the finds of part of sideboards of bridle in Bohemia, which could be dated to the 8th and the beginning of 9th century: Kal and Tismice hill-forts and Semice hoard-find (Fig. 1: 1–4)2. We can recognise the 3 basic types: 1. With es shaped sideboard with animal-head; 2. Similar one without animal-heads, but with rectangular loop; 3. Straight twisted bridlesides (like Tismice and probably later Křinec). The last type was probably used from 8th to 10th century (Klecany near Prague). The specific sideboard with two ovals is a part of iron find 2 from Kal (Fig. 1:1), it has a parallel in Izvoare-Bahna in Romania3, dated to the 6–7th centuries. Probably it is eastern type of bridles. The Merovingian type of bridle with the iron fittings and straight and curved in the end of sideboards was found in the hoard-find in Plužná, dated to the end of 8th and first half of 9th century4.  The exception could be a fragment from cremation barrow in Ledenice-Borovany.  Profantová 2010, Abb.10:6, 16:1. 3  Mitrea 1998, fig 27:9. 4  Profantová 2011, obr. 6:1. 1 2

282

N a ďa P r o fa n t ová

The hoard-find was found in NW direction from Prague, probably on the road later known as Žitava (Zwikau). The bridle sideboard of eastern – Oldhungarian/Magyar provenience from 10th century man knows only from Libice nad Cidlinou in Bohemia5 in two variants: first straight with inlays, second as a local copy of antler sideboard. The luxurious bronze piece as well as iron ones are found in Moravia (Stavenice, Mikulčice)6.

2 1

4

0 3 cm

3

5

6

0 3 cm

Fig. 1. Bridles and stirrus 8th–1st third of 9th cent. 1–2 Kal, distr. Jičín, 3 Tismice, distr. Kolín, 4 Semice, distr. Nymburk, 5 Roždalovice, distr. Nymburk, 6 Benátky near Litomyšl. 2, 4, 6 After Profantová 2010, 5 after Profantová 2015, fig. 6; 1,3 Unpublished. Drawing L. Raslová, Institut of archaeology Prague, v.v.i.

 Profantová 2008, obr. 6b, 6c:4.  Profantová 2012a.

5 6

The horse harness, spurs and stirrups in Bohemia in 8th and 9th century

283

II.2. Stirrups Riders in the Early Medieval Period guided their horses with spurs and snaffle with a metal bridle, while holding their balance with the help of stirrups. The iron stirrups of Avar Khaganat Period types (Fig. 1:5,6) were found repectivelly in Roždalovice (Middle Bohemia, strayfind is typologically older one – from the end of 7th–8th cent.), the find from Benátky near Litomyšl, near Bohemia-Moravian border7. The bottom of stirrup was probably found in barrow 28 with cremation burial in Ledenice in south Bohemia8, it was in very bad condition9, in accordance to the situation of the find it could be dated to the period from the end of |7th up to first half of 9th century. The import of stirrups from Carolingian empire started during than the find the 9th century. The western type of stirrup – as in – with turned (by 90 degrees) neck and oblong loop is present in hoardfind of 3 stirrups from Prachov (NE Bohemia, Fig. 2:2)10 and the other piece with relief arms from Kolín. This is luxurious type with inlays11. Two of stirrups from Prachov have geometrical decoration, one of them in openwork, and wide bottom (Fig. 2:1,3). I search for their origin in Moravia, the similar pieces are known from Klášťov12 and Břeclav-Pohansko13.

0 5 cm

1

2

3

Fig. 2. Zámostí/Prachov- stirrups, After Lutovský / Beranová 2009.  Profantová 1992, Taf. 1:16.  Poláček 1981, 27, obr.13:4 9  Poláček 1981, 27, obr.13:4. 10  Profantová 2011, obr. 6:2. 11  Košnar 1982, Tab. X, XI. 12  Geisler / Kohoutek 2014, obr. 7:D1/6–7. 13  Vignatiová 1992, Tab. 8:1a. 7 8

284

N a ďa P r o fa n t ová

Fig. 3. Early medieval stirrups in Bohemia: 1. Stirrups of Avar origin (8th century); 2. stirrups with openwork decoration (9th cent.); 3. stirrups with inlay decoration 10–1st half of 11th cent.; 4. ‘old hungarian’ type of stirrup. Ledenice is not on the map because of problematic clasification. After Profantová in press 1, with completion.

In the beginning of 10th century “Hungarian pear-shaped typ” of stirrup appears; it was found only in the neighbourhood of Plešivec-Hill and it is now lost (Tab. 1).14 Site

Decoration

Dating

Type

End of 8 century

Benátky bei Litomyšl

th

´Avar´ type

Dobruška-Běstviny

inlay, markt

2nd half of 10th–11th century

Local Moravian or Czech type?

Kolín

inlay

9th–10th century

Carolingian type

Kopidlno

twister

7–8th century?

´Avar´ type

Ledenice-Borovany

End of 7th- end of 9th c.

Avar? type

Praha-Malá Strana, Mostecká

inlay

10th century

Carolingian-Ottonian type

Prachov-

2 inlay

9th century

Local(?) type

3. openwork and inlay

9th century

Local (?) type

Plešivec hill, Rejkovice and surroundings

? not preserved

1st half of 10th century

Oldhungarian type

Rožďalovice

without

8th century

´Avar´ type

Skuteč-Hlinsko surroundings

inlay Ring-shaped with Protrusion

10th–12th century

Oldhungarian or imitation of it (private collection)

Třeboc, Fundplace Láz

not preserved

? 11–12th century

?

Zbečno

inlay

10th century

Western type

Tab. 1. The stirrups from Bohemia (8–11th century), after Profantová 2012b, Tab. 1, completed.  Profantová 2008, obr. 3.

14

The horse harness, spurs and stirrups in Bohemia in 8th and 9th century

285

II.3. Spurs (8–9th century) The finds of spurs are also very important, because they are better datable then other finds15. Presence of the spurs could indirectly indicate the existence of forming nobility in territory of Czech Republic, because Avars don’t ride the horse with spurs. The oldest Early Medieval spurs are pieces with hooked terminals. The origin of the idea of the production of spur with hooks was transformed from Late Roman period through Merovingian milieu to Bohemia, Moravia and South Slovakia. It is not clear yet, if it has become during 2nd half of 7th or in 8th century. There are 22 sites with spurs with hooks in Bohemia (Fig. 7)16. They are concentrated along the communications (Mořinka, Tetín, Toušeň, Mukov, Štěpánov) and in the hill-fort (Dolánky- Rubín, Toušeň, Budeč, Stará Kouřim, Tetín, Tismice, Mořinka (undated fortification) and Sekeřice (undated hill-fort) and so on, or strategical points (Chlum in E Bohemia), and hill-fort´s surroundings (Sadská near Klučov, Sobotka-Spyšová near Vesec hill-fort). They are no finds in the Western Bohemia yet. Typologically they are two main groups, with the hooks: 1 with the hooks hooked inside (I.1., fig. 5:I). This type prevail. 2 the hooks are hooked outside (I.2). Both type have variant with relatively low arch (I.1.A, I.2.A, after Wachowski B-C) and with high one (I.1.B, I.2.B, fig. 5; after Wachowski D, as exception E). The spurs of the second version are usually later (Benátky near Litomyšl, Sv. Jan pod Skalou, Všestary-Chlum). II. Spurs with eyelets. The variant with eyelets outside and inside hooked (Fig. 5.II, see later). The spurs have three main technological groups17: T1 bronze cast pieces T2a with alone prick joint with rivet (this technological group, for example Rubín, Sadská – fig. 4:1, Sobotka-Spyšová – fig. 4:3, Mukov, Sv. Jan pod Skalou – fig. 5:I.1.c) T2b with the prick connected with the band around arm (one piece from Dolánky-Rubín) T3 iron monolith spurs These are domestic in origin and appear quite often (after X-ray snaps); for example Stará Kouřim, Klučov, Otmíčská Hora, Toušeń – 3rd piece, Jičíněves – fig. 4:4, Češov, some pieces of Rubín)18. The new detail is tinning of the lot of iron pieces (Mořinka, Sekeřice – one piece, control by RFA analyses, in Moravia Brno-Líšeň) and rarely also bronze pieces (Roštín in Middle Moravia, unpublished)19. The larger group of spurs of type I.1.A were produced in Moravia – from Uherské Hradiště are known unfinished bronze peaces20 and maybe also in Bohemia (probably iron pieces). There are 5–6 bronze pieces of type I.1 in Bohemia (Mukov, Sadská, Sobotka-Spyšová, Strakonice, Tismice – only parts of two pieces, and probably Skorkov, which is a spatial imported variant). The cast bronze spur from Mukov was repaired, in place where the hook started. Part of broken hook was reattached by soldering (Sn 25, 68 and Pb 17, 34%). In the case of bronze spur of Sadská, it is recorded grinding of hooks (Fig. 6A). All these spurs have analogies in Moravia (Mikulčice, Uherské Hradiště and Olomouc)21 with exception of Skorkov. The most luxurious is the gilded bronze decorated find without preserved prick (it could be an iron one) from Skorkov (Middle Bohemia), which also has no hooks. It has embossed arms. It is not exclude, that this spurs is a western import. It could be dated to the last third of 8th and the first third of 9th century. Their Carolingian analogies are often also without archaeological context (for example Barsleben, old grave, Phahlheim-Letten – in the wood or Rhein near Manz22. The iron analogy with inlay decoration is known from late Merovingian warrior grave 921 from Mengen, but without preserve terminals23. Important for the dating of this spur is shape of the arms and their terminals. The end is not preserved in our case, but it was the hook or eyelet.  Profantová 1994.  Profantová 1994, ibidem in print 1. 17  Cf. Profantová 1994; Wachowski 1991. 18  Cf. Profantová 1994, obr.1; Profantová / Špaček 2003, obr. 3:5. 19  The evidence of tinning we have also in cases of some cast bronzes of Late Avar Period. 20  Profantová 1994, 67–69, obr. 6; Poulík 1985, obr. 5. 21  We have more than 15 RFA analyses up today, but not the pieces from Uherské Hradiště, only from Mikulčice, Olomouc, Mukov, Sadská, Sekeřice. In all cases is typical presence of Zn – from 0, 1- to 2,8%, often about 0,3- 1,6%. 22  Stein 1967, Taf. 65:17,18, 34:4, a 87:2; Koch 1984, Taf. 9:1; Nawroth 2001, Abb. 86, 198. 23  Walter 2008, Taf. 265:6. 15 16

286

N a ďa P r o fa n t ová

The next type of spur is also western origin. It has band arms, that are narrowing in the end and with hooks. The hooks are made separately and then forge together with arm(Fig. 5, I.1c). The prick is fastened with rivet (I.1.c, fig. 5). The spur is the only one in Bohemia, analogy has in late Merovingian – early Carolingian milieu24. Very similar case is the spur from the grave 515 from Mengen in Merovingian burial ground25. Our spur was found in Sv. Jan pod Skalou, near prehistoric hill-fort with imprint of early medieval presence (Late Avar Period finds). Find from inhumation grave in Stehelčeves in Middle Bohemia (9th cent.) has similar proportion to the spur from Sv. Jan pod Skalou and to the spurs with eyelets, but it has different terminals, that has rivets on the end of band decorated arms26. The spurs with eyelets from grave 788 in Čakajovce (West Slovakia) with buckles and strap-ends are also dated to the 1st third/half of 9th century27. Also the spur from Sv. Jan pod Skalou could be dated to the end of 8th–1st half of 9th century.

II.3.2. Spurs with hooks turned out Some of the spurs with hooks could connect with western production (see above), especially the pieces with hooks turned out as Štěpánov in North-western Bohemia (fig. 4:5). It has analogy in Karlburg am Main28 and other sites29.

2 1

4

3

0 3 cm

6

5 Fig. 4. Spurs with hooks in Bohemia 1: 1. Sadská, distr. Nymburk; 2. Sobotka-Spyšová, distr. Mladá Boleslav; 3. Mukov, distr. Teplice; 4. Jičíněves, distr. Jičín; 5. Štěpánov, distr. Teplice; 6. Sekeřice, distr. Nymburk. 1–3 bronze pieces, rest iron ones. Drawing L. Raslová Institut of archaeology Prague, v.v.i.  For example Theune 1999, Taf. 11: 6 – spur with eyelets.  Walter 2008, Taf. 153:7. 26  Sláma 1977, Profantová 1994, obr. 4:1, rest unpublished. 27  Rejholcová 1995, Tab. 126. These spurs in grave context are the only ones in West Slovakia. 28  Ettel 2001, Taf. 60: 18. 29  For example Bunte 2013, Taf. 36:2. 24 25

The horse harness, spurs and stirrups in Bohemia in 8th and 9th century

287

The production of the spur from Všestary-Chlum (type I.2b) can be influenced from west as well as from south Poland). It stays an open question without clear archaeological context. That spurs could be dated to the end of 8th and beginning of 9th century.

II.3.3. Dating – possibilities Spurs with hooks we do not know from inhumation graves in Czech Republic with one exception of Mutěnice in South Moravia (1st half of 9th century)30. It is indirect evidence for dating these types of spurs to the 8th century and in Bohemia probably also to the beginning of 9th century. Mostly they could be date to the 8th century and the beginning of 9th century. Only in the Toušeň stronghold spurs were found inside the settlement feature (Nr. 1) and in settlement layer (Nr. 3)31 and published. The similar situation is in Tišice settlement (3 pieces) in Middle Bohemia, but it is unpublished. The pottery from the features and layer could be dated to the 8th and the first third of the 9th century. It is in correlation with the situation in Moravia, especially in Mikulčice. There are found minimally in 4–5 cases in settlement features together with Late Avar Period bronzes or needle-case (feat. 138, 199, 1044, XX/60 and probably also 571)32. The spurs are found together with Late Avar Period bronze fitting in the same place also in Dolánky- Rubín, Mořinka, Sekeřice (Fig. 4:6), Tismice (only end parts of spurs) and Budeč. The originally decorated spur from the hill-fort Češov is without detail context, but from the place we know also fitting with Anglo-Carolingian animal decoration from the end of 8th century33. The largest concentration of the spurs with hooks is known from Rubín hill (more than 8 pieces) in NW Bohemia34, then are the sites with 3 pieces (Toušeň, Tišice) and two pieces (Mořinka, Budeč/ Kováry and Sekeřice –all situated in Middle Bohemia). The high of spur´s arm is in case of Bohemia´s spurs in category B/C (concrete 40–60 mm, 10 pieces) after K. Wachowski and |D (61–83 mm, 8–9 pieces)35. The decoration of bronze pieces is usually geometrical, plastic relief (often ribbed) as well as engraved (cf. Fig. 4:1–3, 6b). The prick is circular or not often quadrate in section (Fig. 4,5). The exceptions are two bronze pieces from Sadská and Mukov with octagon section (Fig. 4: 1,3) and with the same pieces in Moravia. The new finds of spurs with hooked terminals were found in Češov, Sekeřice, Jičíněves, VšestaryChlum (strategical point), Mořinka, Mukov, Sobotka-Spyšová (Fig. 4:2), Štěpánov (found in the wood, Fig. 4:5) and Tismice (unpublished). The piece Nr. 2 from Sekeřice were decorated on the pricks as well as on the arms and both pieces are tinned (Fig. 4:6, 6B). Spurs with eyelets In Bohemia there is very rare type of spurs with eyelets hooked outside. This spurs was found only in Sekeřice „prehistoric” hill-fort (fig. 5, piece 1)36. It has very short prick and it is western origin, the good analogy is known from rich grave 20/1893 from Pfahlheim dated to the 7th century37 with spathe, bridle and cross-shaped mounts. Find from Sekeřice I date with caution to last third of 8th and beginning of 9th century because of other finds from the hill (arowheads, lance, Late Avar bronze mounts). Later(?) version with eyelets hooked inside is known from suburb in Libice nad Cidlinou (fig. 5: IIa)38. The similar spur with eyelets is known also from Mikulčice in Moravia39. The eyelet-spurs are known from Merovingian and also more rare from early Carolingian milieu (for example Osnabrück with reparation)40.  Kavánová 1982.  Profantová / Špaćek 2003. 32  Klanica 1995, Abb. 8, 19, 26; Profantová 1992, Taf. 15, 19. 33  But some iron loops from 9th century, too. Profantová 1999; Profantová 2012. 34  But it is quite smaller than Mikulčice in Moravia with cca 70–75 pieces (Profantová 2010, Tab. 3) and similar to Brno – Líšeň with cca 8–10 pieces. A lot of them (5) is with separately prodused prick T2.1 and and T2.2 and with inlay using silver wire. Only one piece is a bronze spur (unpublished). 35  Wachowski 1991, 87. I have not written about two exception of spurs with long prick and hooks, one is unpublished yet, both are from the 10th century. 36  Profantová in print 1, fig. 11:1. 37  Nawroth 2001, Abb. 8, Tab. 39. 38  Profantová 1994, Obr. 5:4. 39  Klanica 1986, obr. 30:6. 40  Gabriel 1991, 182 ff. 30 31

288

N a ďa P r o fa n t ová

The Sekeřice spur could be dated to the end of 8th and 1st third of 9th century. The production of Libice spur is dated to 1st half of 9th century, maybe also 60s of the c., settlement context is not published, and it is probably later. From Křinec hill have come two spurs with rectangular plates and cross-shaped terminals and filigree decoration around the rivets, in one case the spur is probably of Carolingian origin dated to the 1–2nd third of 9th century41. The oldest spurs from the graves are spurs with plates and vertical lines of rivets from the rich warriors graves in Kolín, Kouřim, gr. 55 and grave of warrior in front of the fortification, and Nymburk-Zálabí (dated between 810–870, prob. about 850–860 AD)42. Loop and strapeends from the spur sets are also found in Bohemia, sometimes in the regions, which are without spur finds yet (surroundings of Vysoké Mýto in Eastern Bohemia (Svařeň), the western analogies, for examp. Unterthürheim)43, the similar loop are known and unpublished also from Middle Bohemia (Tatce).

I1

I2

a

b

a

c

b

0 3 cm

II

a

b

Fig. 5. The main types of spurs with hooks and eyelets and short prick in Bohemia (I, II) I.1.a Mořinka Nr. 1, I.1.b Benátky near Litomyšl, I.1.c Sv. Jan pod Skalou; I.2a Štěpánov, I. 2.b Všestary –Chlum; II.1a Libice n. Cidlinou, II.2b. Sekeřice, Nr. 1. I.1.b, II. 1 after N. Profantová 1994, rest drawing L. Raslová, Institut of archaeology Prague, v.v.i.  Profantová in print 1.  Profantová 1994; Košta / Lutovský 2014, tab. 10, The new unpublished stray find of large spur of this type is from Opárenské údolí near Litoměřice. The map of grave with spurs Profantová 2013, Abb. 1. 43  Koch 1984A, Abb. 3. 41 42

The horse harness, spurs and stirrups in Bohemia in 8th and 9th century

a

289

b

Fig. 6. a. Sadská, detail of grinding of hook; b. Sekeřice, detail of tinning and decoration of spur. Microphoto D. Perlík.

Fig. 7. Map of the spurs with hooks in Bohemia find up to 2013. Symbols 1. spur with hooks; 2. hill-fort; 3. Find in the hill-fort or undated hill-fort; 4. Find in the settlement. Full 3 and more spurs in site, sites: 1. Benátky; 2. Češov; 3. Dolánky- Rubín; 4. Jičíněves-wood; 5. Klučov-háčky odlomeny; 6. Kouřim; 7. Kováry Budeč- akropole; 8. Levý Hradec- noncomplet; 9. Mukov; 10. Otmíče, probably Otmíčská Hora hill-fort; 11. Sadská (Kersko); 12. Sekeřice; 13. Sobotka-Spyšová and hill-fort Vesec; 14. Strakonice; 15. Tetín (lost, only photo); 16. Tišice; 17. Toušeń; 18. Štěpánov; 19. Mořinka (hill-fort undated); 20. Tismice; 21. Sv. Jan pod Skalou; 22. Všestary – Chlum; B –Brno- Líšeň in Moravia, lying in the road to Bohemia. Skorkov is not in map.

II.4. Decorations The decorations of horse harness are found in smaller number than Late Avar Period mounts from belts. I know 17–19 sites in Bohemia (Tab. 2). A lot of phaleras were found in Bohemia during the last 6–7 years including luxurious types in shape of wild boar and horse, often also with engraved plant ornament. This type of decoration were found in Dolánky-Rubín, Podhůří-Jedlová (unpublished), Nová Ves I near Kolín, Tismice, Lipany, Nepřevážka, Hostim (Fig. 8:11–13,15–17, minimally 7 sites, the only published find is from Dolánky).44  Profantová 2010, Abb. 9:13.

44

290

N a ďa P r o fa n t ová

2

5

1 3

4

6

9

8

7

0 3 cm

12

11

13

10

14

17 15

18

16

23

22

19

20

21

24 26

27

25

Fig. 8. Horse harness decoration of Late Avar type from Bohemia (selection): 1. Bošín; 2 Kosoř / Praha-Radotín; 3, 4. Budeč / Kováry; 5, 25–27. Kal; 6. Lštění; 7, 14–15, 18–22, 24. Tismice; 8. Dobřichovice; 9. Lipany; 10–11. Dolánky-Rubín; 12, 17. Nová Ves I; 13. Hostim; 16. Nepřevážka; 23. Zámostí/Prachov. 1 after Profantová / Vích 2012, 2 Profantová 2015a, 3, 4, 10–11,18–20, 23, 24–26. after Profantová 2010, rest unpublished. Drawing L. Raslová, Institut of archaeology Prague, v.v.i.

The horse harness, spurs and stirrups in Bohemia in 8th and 9th century

291

Usually the mounts are small pieces, only Dolánky, Nová Ves I (Fig. 8: 11, 12) and Lipany are little bit larger and mainly Podhůří is gilded luxurious large piece (7 cm). High status had the man, who´s horse was decorated with openwork phalera from Budeč, which has close parallel in Děvínská Nová Ves near Bratislava, in Komárno and its sourroundings45 as well as in Vörs near Balaton lake. More than three decorated pieces of harness we know only from Tismice (minimally 9–10 pieces, fig. 8:7,14–15,18–22,24) and from Kal (4 pieces and 2 bridlesides), Dolánky-Rubín (3 pieces, 2 of them are wild boar shaped, fig. 8:11 and 10) and Lipany (tab. 1, fig. 8:9, rest unpublished). Two pieces were found in Budeč/Kováry (Fig. 8:3,4), Nová Ves I (fig. 8:12,17). The special attention is necessary got to an luxurious part of gilded phalera-cap from Bošín in Eastern Bohemia (fig. 8:1). It has parallels in Komárno (Gr. 101 and 142) as well as Szentes- Berekháti in Hungary46. This decoration could be dated to 2nd half of 8th century till 1st third of 9th century. The phalera from Mořinka/Dobřichovice decorated with ´sun´ motif (Fig. 8:8) has parallel in burial ground in Hortobagy-Arkus47 and newly in Slovakia. This find has one more verge with plant ornament and it is dated to 8th century. The find from Kal (Fig. 8:5) has parallel type in Komárno, grave 121. Komárno find has different geometrical decoration48, so our find with plant, concretely a leaf decoration is unique. It was produced in the end of 8th century. The decoration from Lštění, Zámostí and strap-end from Tismice (Fig. 8:6, 14, 23) – all with plant decoration, two of them also with spotted/dotted background, are connected with the Komárno and Blatnica (Slovakia) milieu (production centre is supposed near or in Komárno). The decoration with loop from Lštění has analogies also in Mikulčice49 and no so exact in Keszthely. The decoration Nr. 36 from Tismice with silver foil (quite unique technique) and plant ornament is very exclusive, and it belong to the same production centre as the above mention pieces (Fig. 8:24). Some archaeological objects found in the Bohemian territory document the following plundering by the Slavonic tribes in the territory of the Avar Khaganate after its destruction 795–6 (Tismice??). The others horse decorations could document the appearance of ´foreign´ troop from the territory of Avar Empire (for example situation in Kal). Some of the pieces could change the function and be used as a decoration of belt. Site

Type of site

Nr.of harness decoration

Dating (production)

Bělčice, Be

?

1 jingle-bell

8th- beg. 9th cent.

Bošín

settlement

1 gilded *

End of 8th-beg. 9th

Broučkov u Kouřimi

Settlement

1 small piece

8th cent.

Dolánky

Hill-fort

3 *(1 unpublished)

8th cent.

Dobřichovice

settlement

1*

8th- beg. 9th cent.

Hostim

Hill-fort

1*

8th cent.

Kal

Hill-fort

4*

8th cent.

Kosoř/Praha Zličín

Undated Hill-fort

1*

8th cent.

Kováry-Budeč

Hill-fort 9th cent.

2–3 *

End of 8th begin. of 9th cent. (production)

Lštění/Čtyřkoly

Hill-fort

1 gilded*

End of 8th begin. of 9th cent.

Lipany

Settlement

3, min. 1 gilded 1*(unpublished)

8th cent.

Nepřevážka

Sorroundings hill-fort

1 gilded *

8th cent.

Nová Ves I

Settlement

2–3 *

8th cent.

Nová Ves II

Settlement

1

8th century

Praha- Šárka

Hill-fort

2

8 th–1th third of 9th cent.

Počaply

Hill-fort 10th cent.

1

Production 8th cent.

Podhůří

Hill settlement

1 gilded luxurious+ jingle -bell

8th cent.

Sv. Jan pod Skalou

Hill settlement

1 + 1 jingle-bell

8th cent.

 Profantová 2010, 219, Abb. 5-map.  Profantová / Vích 2012, 201, obr. 2–4. 47  Die Awaren, Abb. 87. 48  Profantová 2003, 542–3, obr. 2. 49  Profantová 2004, obr. 4, 5; Profantová 2010, Abb. 25:6. 45 46

292

N a ďa P r o fa n t ová

Tismice

Hill-fort

9, + 2 jingle-bells, *

8th century

Zámostí

Hill-fort

1*

8/9th cent

Tab. 2. The numbers of horse harness decorations from Bohemia, data after Profantová 2010, and 2015a; Profantová / Vích 2012 and unpublished. * mean drawings in fig. 8

IV. Graves with horses There are documented the graves of horsemen or horse-grave. Unfortunately, all minimally 3 cases are early finds or undocumented ones. The burial of horse from Přerov nad Labem (yard Nr. 62 in square) preserved part of yang horse skeleton (7–12 months old)50 and wooden and all-iron metalwork bucket (taxus, H.168 mm, 5 hoops] of Moravian type with broken out trapezoid bucket mounts, and also brass mount of sheath dagger or knife (H. 53 mm) and knife (Fig. 9, knife is lost). Grave can be dated to the Early Middle Ages (9th century and beginning 10th century is quite probable)51. The alliron metalwork bucket are in Bohemia rare, one is known from Kolín duke grave others from the two graves from Kouřim (duke and child, Nr. 120 with sword and spurs, and Nr. 132, 9th century)52. The taxus wood was used for buckets in Bohemia (9th- beg. 10th century) as well as in the graves from Late Avar Period in Komárno (the bucket was given specially to horse in graves). The radiocarbon dating from bones has not been made yet.

1

2

0 3 cm

3 0 3 cm

Fig. 9. Přerov n/L, náměstí. The grave of horseman, 1. brass; 2–3. iron. The bucket is important for dating of grave. Drawing L. Rasslová, Institut of archaeology Prague, v.v.i. Unpublished.

 Specification: R. Kyselý, Institut of archaeology Prague, v. v. i.  Profantová 2004. 52  Šolle 1959, 470, obr. 78:3,4, and Košta / Lutovský 2014. 50 51

The horse harness, spurs and stirrups in Bohemia in 8th and 9th century

293

In the 150 cm deep grave from Praha/Prague-Lysolaje behind a head of man has preserved incomplete vessel decorated with comb-formed oblique puncture and wavelet decoration. This vessel has plastically formed shoulders. This decoration has analogy in pot from grave 16/2003 in RoztokyŽalov53 as well as in the pot in Prague- Dolní Liboc/Vokovice- Šárka54 and in Middle-eastern Bohemia. The man lay hunched up above the horse. The horse was oriented with head to the Northwest. The bowl can be safely dated to the late 9th–1st half of 10th century55. The 2 horsemen’s graves from Libice nad Cidlinou/u cukrovaru56 were a part of burial ground mostly dated to the 10th century. But there were also found earrings from the Avar Khaganat Period (1st half of 8th cent.)57. Grave 41 has also skeleton of horse on back and above him a man skeleton oriented by head to East. Its orientation is different from the graves dated to 10th century. Grave 82 was only a half of horse skeleton with “head turned on the back and bended forelegs” and above him a man skeleton without any other finds58. The grave of horseman is also mentioned from Kal in eastern Bohemia, near early medieval hillfort with a lot of mounts from Avar Kaghanat Period, without any other documentation. The similar case is known from Dobřichovice in Middle Bohemia, the skeleton of horse was undated. The ritual graves of horse are known as well as from Moravia (Nemilany, Dolní Věstonice, Krčmaň near Olomouc, Břeclav-Pohansko)59 but without archaeological equipment and quite often also without connection to the man burial. The age of horses in Nemilany is variable – young, mature and old. The burial grounds with horse burials are dated to 9th–1st third of 10th century. The interpretation of the knowledge is quite discussion, probably we can meet with an especial ritual, possibly influenced from south-eastern Europe.

V. Conclusions Riding the horse was necessary for war as well as for diplomacy. The concentrations of finds interpreted as parts of horse harness and spurs show us – more strategical hill-forts or places. This role was held in Bohemia by Rubín hill (Dolánky), newly also Kal (probably plundered by army)60,Toušeň and Tismice in end of 8th – beginning of 9th century. Similar role was played by Kouřim, Kolín, Levý Hradec and Čěšov hill-fort during 9th and the first half of 10th century. The character of some unpublished settlements – concretely Tišice with 3 finds of spurs with hooks is unclear yet, probably in this case is in connection of ford through Elbe river. The number of sites with hooked spurs with short prick (21- 22) was higher than the sites with spurs with plates and short prick (16). Spurs with plates prevail in graves of 2nd half of 9th and beginning of 10th century61. It is a strong difference from the Moravia region. Explanation of this could be influenced by level of research of burial grounds, but not exclusively. The important is also shorter interval of burying with spurs during 9th century in Bohemia. The quite large concentration of spurs with hooks is newly also in lower reaches of the river Berounka, in the way leading in western direction to Bavaria. The situation had changed during the wars of Charlemagne against Avars in the end of 8th century. The spurs of various forms (bronze decorated item with long arm, spurs with eyelets, then with plates with rivets and short prick) started to be imported from the west and as well as some weapons (especially swords). The contacts with Carolingian empire were quite often, and not only peaceful. The military campaigns were in the years 805–806 (against Canburg hill-fort). Carolingian troops plundered Elbe territory in Middle Bohemia for 40 days62. Some luxurious finds of Carolingian origin could be in connection with this event: luxurious bronze spur from Skorkov,  Tomková a kol. 2012, obr. 120, also other obr. 7:1.  Sláma 1977, Taf. 22:4. 55  Korený 2010, obr. 1. 56  Píč 1909, 120. 57  Profantová 1992, Taf. 5:4. 58  Turek 1946, 54. 59  For example Přichystalová-Kalábek 2014, chapt. 9, tab. 2. 60  Profantová 2003. 61  Profantová in print, Tabel 4. 62  Chronicon Moissiancence Ad A. 805, Pertz Ed. 1826, 307–308. 53 54

294

N a ďa P r o fa n t ová

bronze loop from sword set from Hradsko63, some coins of Charlemagne, for ex. Kostelní Hlavno, Tismice64. Silver and bronze wires, casts and a forging form for production of repoussage decoration of harness could be evidence of local production after Avar cultural pattern or of presence of craftsman from the Carpathian basin. The emergence of elites in Bohemia in the last third of the 8th and the 1st half of the 9th century is evidenced by combination of archaeological finds such as hooked spurs, cast belt fittings or saxes and other weapons as well as the building of the oldest hill-forts (Kal, Tismice, Klučov, Dolánky and so on)65. Differences in the elite´s groups are partly recognisable in 2nd half of 9th century, in the connection of exploration of elite inhumation graves. The double grave from Kolín was the highest status one. The residence of some dukes are known from the last third of 9th and 1st half of 10th century (Levý Hradec, Němětice).

Sources: Pertz 1826 Chronicon Moissiancence, Ed. G. H. Pertz. MGH SS I. T 1. Hannover – Berlin 1826, MGH SS, 307–308.

Literature Die Awaren Die Awaren in Europa. Katalog, [in:] W. Meier – Arendt W. (Hrsg.), Awaren in Europa. Schätze eines asiatisches Retiervolkes 6.–8. Jh. Eine Ausstellung des Ministeriums für Kultur und Bildung der VR Ungarn, Museum für Frühgeschichte Frankfurt am Main, Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg (Frankfurt am Main 1985), 24–86. Bubeník 1999 J. Bubeník, Poznámky o nejstarších hradištích raného středověku v Čechách – Bemerkungen zu den ältesten Burgstätten des Frühmittelalters in Böhmen. Archeologické rozhledy 51, 1999, 631- 648. Bunte 2013 T. Bunte, Fibeln und Keramik des 6.bis frühen 11. Jahrhunderts aus der Ortswüstung Balhorn bei Paderborn. Studien zum Kulturwandel von der merowingischen zur karolingisch-ottonishen Zeit (Münster 2013). Lutovský / Beranová 2009 M. Lutovský, M. Beranová, Slované v Čechách. Archeologie 6.–12. století (Praha 2009). Ettel 2001 P. Ettel, Karlburg-Rosstal-Oberammerthal. Studien zum frühmittelalterlichen Burgenbau in Nordbayern. Frühgeschichtliche und provinzalrömische Archäologie. Materialien und Forschungen 5 (Rahden / Westfahlen 2001). Geisler / Kohoutek 2014 M. Geisler, J. Kohoutek, Klášťov-Vysoké Pole. Inventář hromadných nálezů železných předmětů a shrnutí terénních výzkumných sezón 2005–7 – Klášťov- Vysoké Pole. Inventory of mass finds of metal items and summary of field surveys in 2005–2007. Pravěk NŘ 28 Supplementum, 5–112. Gabriel 1991 I. Gabriel, Hofkultur, Herrschaftssitzen, Burghandwerk, Hauswirtschaft. M. Müller-Wille (Hrsg), Starigrad / Oldenburg in slawischer Herrschersitz des frühen Mittelalters in Ostholstein (Neumünster 1991), 181–250. Klanica 1986 Z. Klanica, Počátky slovanského osídlení našich zemí – Die Anfänge der slawischen Besiedlung unserer Länder (Praha 1986). Klanica 1995 Z. Klanica, Zur Periodisierung vorgrossmährischer Funde aus Mikulčice. F. Daim, L. Poláček (Hrsg.), Studien zum Burgwall von Miklučice. Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno 2, Bd. I (Brno 1995), 379–469. Kavánová 1982 B. Kavánová, Slovanské pohřebiště v Mutěnicích, okr. Hodonín – Ein slawisches Gräberfeld in Mutěnice, Bez. Hodonín. Archeologické rozhledy XXXIV, 1982, 504–520.  Profantová 2011, obr. 12:1.  Militký / Profantová / Videman 2013. 65  Bubeník 1999 with lit.; Profantová in press 2. 63 64

The horse harness, spurs and stirrups in Bohemia in 8th and 9th century

295

Koch 1984 U. Koch, Der Runde Berg bei Urach, Band V, Teil 1. Die Metallfunde der frügeschichtlichen Perioden aus den Plangrabungen 1967–1981 (Heidelberg 1984). Koch 1984 R. Koch, Stachelsporen des frühen und hohen Mittelalters. Zeitschrift für Archaölogie des Mittelalters 10, 1982, 63- 83. Korený 2010 R. Korený, Cesta z raného střdověku do doby stěhování národů a zase zpátky. Jezdecký hrob z Prahy Lysolají. Archaeologica Pragensia 20, 2010, 401–403. Košnar 1982 L. Košnar, Raně středověké třmeny z Kolína a Zbečna – Die frühmittelalterlichen Steigbügel von Zbečno und Kolín. Praehistorica X, Varia Archeologica 3, 1982 (Praha), 53–74. Košta / Lutovský 2014 J. Košta, M. Lutovský, Raně středověký knížecí hrob z Kolína – Early medieval princely burial from Kolín. Fontés Archeologici Pragenses V, 41 (Praha 2014). Nawroth 2001 M. Nawroth, Das Gräberfeld von Pfahlheim und Reitzubehör der Merowingerzeit (Nürnberg 2001). Militký / Profantová / Videman 2013 J. Militký, N. Profantová, J. Videman, Pozdně římské mince a denár Karla Velikého (768–814) z areálu hradiště Tismice – Late Roman coins and a denier struck under Charles the Great from the grounds of the Tismice hill fort (Kolín district). Numismatický sborník 27 (Praha 2014), 35–46. Mitrea 1998 I. Mitrea, Așezarea din secolele VI–IX de la Izvoare-Bahna. Reăliţati archeologice și cocluzii istorice. Biblioteca Memoriae Antiquitatis IV (Piatra Neamț 1998). Píč 1909 J. L. Píč, Starožitnosti země České III/1. Čechy za doby knížecí (Praha 1909). Poláček 1981 Poláček 1981, Slovanské mohyly v prostoru Ledenice-Borovany (České Budějovice 1981). Poulík 1985 J. Poulík, Svědectví výzkumů a pramenů archeologických o Velké Moravě. J. Poulík, B. Chropovský (ed.), Velká Morava a počátky československé státnosti (Praha 1985), 9–80. Profantová 1992 N. Profantová, Awarische Funde aus den Gebieten nördlich der awarischen Siedlungsgrenzen. F. Daim (Hrsg), Awarenforschungen II, 605–778 (Wien 1992). Profantová 1994 N. Profantová, K nálezům ostruh z konce 7.–9. stol. v Čechách – Spurs from the 7th–9th century in Bohemia, Památky archeol. – supplementum 2 – Mediaevalia Archaeologica Bohemica 1993 (1994), 60–85. Profantová 1999 N. Profantová, Bronzové raně středověké nákončí z Češova, okr. Jičín – Frühmittelalterliche Bronzeriemenzunge aus Češov, Bez. Jičín. Archeologické rozhledy LI, 1999, 614–630. Profantová 2003 N. Profantová, Další kovové nálezy z hradiště Kal, okr. Jičín– Weitere Metalfunde aus dem Burgwall Kal, Bez. Jičín. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 7, 2003, 541–552. Profantová 2004 N. Profantová, Raně středověká bronzová kování ze Zámostí, hradiště Prachovské skály, okr. Jičín. G. Fusek (ed.) Zborník na počest D. Bialekovej (Nitra 2004), 293–302. Profantová 2008 N. Profantová, Problém interpretace staromaďarských nálezů v Čechách – Problem of interpretation of old Magyar finds in Bohemia. T. Štefanovičová, J. Hulínek (Eds.), Boj pri Bratislave v r. 907 a jeho význam pre vývoj stredného Podunajska (Bratislava 2008), 149–168. Profantová 2010 N. Profantová, Awarische Funde in der Tschechischen Republik. Forschungsstand und neue Erkenntnisse. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 45, 2010 (Kraków), 203- 270. Profantová 2011 N. Profantová, Karolinské importy a jejich napodobování v Čechách, případně na Moravě (konec 8.–10. století) – Karolingische Importe und ihre Nachamung in Böhmen, bzw. in Mähren (Das ausgehende 8.–10. Jahrhundert). V. Turčian (Ed.), Karolínská doba a Slovensko – Sborník SNM –supplementum (Bratislava 2011), 71–104.

296

N a ďa P r o fa n t ová

Profantová 2012 N. Profantová, Honosné udidlo ze Stavenic, okr. Šumperk – A luxurious equestrian bit from Stavenice, Northern Moravia. Archeologické rozhledy 64, 153–156. Profantová 2012a N. Profantová, Nově získané kovové předměty z hradiště Češov a jeho okolí – Newly recovered objects from the hill-fort of Češov and its surroundings, Archeologie ve středních Čechách 16, 315–320. Profantová 2012b N. Profantová, Tausiertes Steigbügel aus dem Gegend Dobruška. B. Tobias (Hrsg.), Die Archäologie der frühen Ungarn. Chronologie, Technologie und Methodik. Internationaler Workshop des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz am 4. und 5. Dezember 2009. RGZM Tagungen (Mainz 2012), 295–308. Profantová 2013 N. Profantová, Gräber mit Sporen aus Böhmen. F. Biermann, T. Kersting, A. Klammt (Eds.), Sozialle Gruppen und Gesellschaftstrukturen im westslawischen Raum, BUFM 70, 2013, 57–76. Profantová 2015 N. Profantová, Bronzefunde des 7. Jahrhunderts aus Městec Králové, Bez. Nymburk, Böhmen. O. Heindrych-Tamáska, H. Herold, P. Straub, T. Vida (Eds.), „Castellum, Civitas, Urbs“. Zentren und Eliten in Frühmittelalterlichen Ostmitteleuropa. Castellum pannonicum pelsonense V. 6 (Budapest, Leipzig, Keszthely, Rahden, Westf 2015), 248- 263. Profantová 2015a N. Profantová, Nová raně středověká výšinná poloha z Kosoře a |Prahy-Radotína, in: J. Podliska et al. (ed.): V za(u)jetí malostranských stratigrafií. Sborník k životnímu jubileu Jarmily Čihákové (Praha 2015), 48–67. Profantová 2015b N. Profantová, (in press 1): Neue Waffen- und Reitausrüstungfunde aus Mittle- und Östböhmen. P. Kouřil / L. Poláček (Ed.), Bewaffnung und Reiterausrüstung des 8.-bis 10. Jahrhunderts in Mitteleuropa, ITM 9 (Brno). Profantová in press 2 N. Profantová, Hill-forts with collections of Avar Khaganat Period finds in Bohemia. Some interpretation modells. S. Eichert (Ed.): Ostalpenraum revisited, Siedlungsfund, Opfer? Schlachtrelikt (Wien). Profantová / Stolz 2006 N. Profantová, D. Stolz, Kovové nálezy z hradiště v Tismicích a pokus o interpretaci významu hradiště – Metal finds from the hillfort of Tismice and attampt to the interpretation of importance of the hillfort in the Early Middle Age. Archeologie ve Středních Čechách 10, 2006 (Praha), 793–838. Profantová / Špaček 2003 N. Profantová, J. Špaček, Příspěvek k poznání raně středověkého osídlení v Toušeni (Lázně Toušeň), okr. Praha-východ – Der Beitrag zur Erkenntnis der frühmittelterlichen Besiedlung in Toušeň, Bez. Prag-Ost. Archeologie ve středních Čechách 7, 2003 (Praha), 509–529. Profantová / Vích 2012 N. Profantová, D. Vích, Zlacený vrchlík z Bošína (okr. Ústí nad Orlicí) a problém dokladů přítomnosti elity ve východních Čechách – Gilded cap from Bošín (Ústí n / Orlicí distr.) and evidence of the presence of an early medieval elite in Eastern Bohemia. J. Doležel, M.Wihoda (Eds.), Mezi raným a vrcholným středověkem (Brno 2012),197- 207. Přichystalová / Kalábek 2014 R. Přichystalová, M. Kalábek, Raněstředověké pohřebiště Olomouc – Nemilany. Katalog. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2014. Spisy Masarykovy univerzity v Brně. Rejholcová 1995 M. Rejholcová, Pohrebisko v Čakajovciach (9.–12. storočie). Katalóg (Nitra 1995). Sláma 1977 J. Sláma, Mittelböhmen im frühen Mittelalter I, Katalog der Grabfunde. Praehistorica V (Praha 1977). Stein 1967 F. Stein, Adelsgräber des achten Jahrhunderts in Deutschland I (Berlin 1967). Šolle 1959 M. Šolle, Knížecí pohřebiště na Staré Kouřimi – Fürstliche Besstattungstätte in Stará Kouřim. Památky archeologické 50, 1959, 353–506. Theune 1999 C. Theune, Frühmittelalterliche Grabfunde im Hegau (Bonn 1999). Tomková a kol 2012 K. Tomková a kol, Levý Hradec v zrcadle archeologických výzkumů. Pohřebiště I (Praha 2012). Turek 1946 R. Turek, Slavníkova Libice (Praha 1946).

The horse harness, spurs and stirrups in Bohemia in 8th and 9th century

297

Vignatiová 1992 J. Vignatiová, Břeclav-Pohansko II. Slovanské osídlení jižního předhradí – Břeclav-Pohansko II. Die slawische Besiedlung der südlichen Vorburg. Brno: Masarykova univerzita 1992. Wachowski 1991 K. Wachowski, Oddziaływania zachodnie na wytwórczość ostróg haczykowatych u Słowian. Przegląd archeologiczny 38, 85–107. Walter 2008 S. Walter, Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld von Mengen (Kr. Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald). Materialhefte zur Archäologie in Baden-Württemberg 82, 2008.

E

arly medieval arrowheads from the area of todays Slovakia Michal Holeščák

Archaeological institute of Slovak academy of Sciences, Akademická 2, Nitra 949 01

Abstract: Typology of early medieval arrowheads is vital part in analysing the archery practices as the whole. This article contains the typology, based on the published finds from the area of todays Slovakia. Main focus is on the morphological aspects, like the shape of the cross section and blade, which in connection with way of attaching to the shaft created alphanumerical code used to identify basic types, which are then considered in chronological frame of early medieval period, from 7th to 11th century. Keywords: arrowhead, archery, Avar Kaghanate, Old Hungarian, Early Medieval, Slovakia, typology

A

rrow consists of more parts, mostly organic, namely arrowhead, shaft and fletching. In archaeological material is arrowhead the most commonly found part, although in some areas, remains of wooden shafts are also preserved. Specifically on the 10th century locality of Levice-Géňa1 remains of the cornus sanguinea were found on the thorn of the arrowhead. Typology of the arrowheads, found in the contexts from 7th to roughtly 11th century in the area of Slovakia wasn´t yet done complexly, and it´s a first step in understanding the evolution of ranged weapons in early medieval region of northen part of Carpathian Basin. In Slovak archaeological literature exists only one paper, that consists of typological evaluation of arrowheads. It was written by Alexander T. Ruttkay and deals with full set of arms and armour from 9th to 14th century2, which means it doesn´t include whole timescale used in this paper. Other synthetical work relevant to early medieval, specifically so called Old Hungarian arrowheads comes from the pen of K. Sebestyén3. Finds of trilateral heads from the area of Avar Khaganate were processed by J. Kálmár4. Even though these papers were written and published in the first half of the 20th century, its still widely quoted till this time. Having abundance of new finds from different localities, arose the need for new and complex evaluation of these finds by modern methods. Because of this I propose a new typological scheme that mirrors all the new aspects that can be discerned on this artefacts. Standard and traditional criteria in discerning types of arroheads is the way, by which they are connected to the shaft: by socket or thorn5. Origin of the arrowheads with a thorn are is commonly found in the east European and Asian analogies6 and are used with the composite bow. In area of todays Slovakia is this theory supported by finds of trilateral arrowheads with thorn commonly together with bone or horn lateral bow plates in graveyards of Avar Khaganate period7, same is the situation in Hungary8. Again from the 10th century Old Hungarian graves, flat arrowheads with thorn are commonly found together with bow remains. Problematic is although connecting the leaf-shaped  Nevizánsky 2006, 301.  Ruttkay 1976. 3  Sebestyén 1932. 4  Kálmár 1944–45. 5  Ruttkay A. 1976, 326. 6  Medvedev 1966, fig. 16–17. 7  Kosdi 1998, tab. 1. 8  Madaras 1995, 175. 1 2

300

Michal Holeščák

arrowheads with thorne with eastern origin, since they are commonly found and probably originated in southern Scandinavia and todays Holland9.

Typology of arrowheads In typological analysis, 680 coming from 85 localities were taken into consideration. Localities were divided into three main chronological phases, based on the publicated results of whole locality. These three phases include: 7th to 8th century- period of the Avar khaganate, 9th century – with pregreat Moravian and Great Moravian period and 10th to 11th century- from post-great Moravian period until the beginning of formation of Hungarian empire. All arrowheads are described by the functional determinants like weight, dimensional measurments and morphology of the blade. Description of the shape of arrowhead is inspired by the work of V. Yotov for arrowheads from the area of Bulgaria10. As first, i consider cross-section of the blade and second the shape of the blade, which are in my opinion the main functional determinants. Third determinant is the ending od the arrowhead in the place where it connects with the shaft, and last determinant is the special features that can be visible, like tordation or so on. Result of this typology is alpha-numerical code that is with connection with wight and measurments able to describe all the arrowhead from this region. Result of the morphological characteristics is alphanumerical code, that hierarchically describes all the analysed aspects. Arrowheads are in the first level divided by the cross section of the blade into categories, represented by capital latin letters. In the second level, they are separated into variants, described by roman numbers, with possible subvariants described by small latin letters. At the end of alphanumerical code is the way it is attached to the shaft and possible special attributes, like perforation or twisting. Analyses counted with 648 published items, which could have been described by all the determinants. Further analysis based also on metric values will be needed, although because of the scattered material and other problems with preservation of the metal finds, this sort of analysis is still yet to be done.

Blade cross-section – categories Categories, as primary descriptant are based on the cross-section of the blade, usualy in his centre or the widest measurable distance. There are three basic categories: Category A – flat cross-section For this category is typicall flat or slightly lenticular cross section. I tis most common category, including 468 items, which is 78% of the database, running through all the analysed time periods. Category B – Arrowhead with trilateral cross-section For this category is characteristic trilateral cross section, with its blades arranged in 120° intervals. Chronologically is connected in the area of Slovakia only with the period of Avar Khaganate11, although few items could survive untill the early beginning of the 9th century. Identifie were 105 specimen, which makes 17% of the database. Category C – Arrowhead with square cross-section Nemecky: Pfeilspitze mit quadrat Querschnitt Category is characterized by square or rhombic cross section. Specific variant for this category is awlshaped blade. Its occurence is only 2%, although its found in two chronological phases: in the period of Avar Khaganate and in the 10th–11th century graves of so called Old Hungarians, missing in the 9th century.  Kempke 1991.  Yotov 2004, 22–30. 11  Kosdi 1998, 19; Zábojník 2009, 48. 9

10

Early medieval arrowheads from the area of todays Slovakia

301

Category D – Arrowhead with round cross-section This category is characteristic for round or slightly oval shape of the blade cross-section. Contains 3% of database, purely with the awlshaped blade in the 7th and 8th century.

Shape of the blade – variants Second level of the typological scale is differentiation of individuals into variants, based on the shape of the blade. It contains nine different shapes: I – Leafshaped (Fig. 1: I) Variant with the blade in the shape of the willow leaf, with maximal width either approximately in middle of the blade, or in the lower third. It´s falling in categories A, with 104 specimen which is 32% and in category B with 45 specimen, which makes 42% of all trilateral arrowheads. II – Tearshaped (Fig. 1: II) Variant with tearshaped blade, with maximal width close to the thorn or socket. Most usual is in the B category, where 21 specimen makes 20%. III – Convex-concave (Fig. 1: III) Variant with convex blades in upper half and concavely thinning in the lower, towards the shaft. Most usually with thorn, its typical for the last time period. This variant contains 44 specimen, which makes it 7% from the database. IV – Kiteshaped (Fig. 1: IV) Variant with the kite shaped blade, specifically found with thorn. It can be divided in the two subvariants, depending in whic part the maximum width is located. Subvariant a is with the maximum width in the upper half of the blade, which is 53 specimen, only in category A, which makes it 11% of this category. Subvariant b is with maximum width in the lower half, with 26 specimen in variant A (21) and B (5), in both makes approximetly 4,5%. V – Rhombic (Fig. 1: V) Variant with rhombic shape of the blade. Commonly taken as the typical arrowhead shape for so called Old Hungarians, which was usually noticed also with connection of the raids in western countries in the 10th century12. This variant contains 68 specimen, which falls into category A, making 14% of it. VI – Hooked (Fig. 1: VI) Variant with loosely triangular shape of the blade, with one (subvariant a, with only 12 specimen) or two (subvariant b, with 156 specimen, making 33% of category A) back hooks. Only in this variant, twisted socket is present, which can or can not be some chronological or typological identificator. Problem is with identificating the older published arrowheads, since it is not possible to discern, if they were twisted or not. VII – Forked (Fig. 1: VII) Variant, which is similar to the triangular variant VI, althoug the hooks not towards the archer, but the oposite side, in the shape of so called „swallow tail“. Only the thorn attachment of the shaft is visible, in the 10th century. This type can be connected with the new set of arrowheads, brought in the 10th century by the so called Old Hungarians. This variant is only connected with 15 specimen, which means just around 3% from the A category. VIII – Awlshaped (Fig. 1: VIII) Awlshaped blade variant, with paralel blade sides, slightly shaprening in the upper half of the arrowhead. It is common in the quadratic, oval and the trilateral cross section variant, although most common is in categories C and D, in which he makes full 100%, while in B category it makes 11%. IX – Blunt (Fig. 1: IX) Variant with the four-angular blade, in some cases rounded in the lower half of the blade. This variant is common in the trilateral category B period (in which it makes 14%), always with the thorn attachment to the blade.

 Schullze-Dorrlam 2002.

12

302

Michal Holeščák

I

II

III

IV

V

b

a

VI

b

a

VII

VIII

IX

Fig. 1: Variants of arrowheads according to the shape of their blade.

Early medieval arrowheads from the area of todays Slovakia

303

Way of attaching to the shaft After category, variant and possible subvariant is in this alphanumerical code the way of attaching arrowhead on the shaft. Traditionally, it was mentioned as the first noticeable determinant. Although, in this typology, the most important factors are those, which influence the usability of the arrow, like the shape of the blade, while i consider the way of attaching to the shaft as a matter of technology and cultural tradition more than something, that by itself affects the trajectory and impact of the arrow. In ways of attaching to the shaft are two possibilities: 0 – socket The arrowhead is ended with slightly widening socket, made of a coiled metal plate. In some cases, the rivet on the lowest part was preserved, which helpoed to secure the socet to the wood of the shaft. It is possible to assume, that it could be used with every specimen, or at least more of whom are known, althought the traces are not visible because of the post deposition or other processes. It is also common, to find only the socket, which was better preserved than the blade itself, thank to its more robust shape. Out of the fully analysed specimen, 34% are connected to the shaft with the socket. 1 – thorn Arrowhead is ended with thickening thorn of roughly oval shape, which was stuck inside the shaft and then probably secured with string of organic material. As already mentioned, in some cases, the bits of the shaft were presented. In general, arrowheads in thorn are traditionally supposed to have nomadic origin. Although, it can be true, most noticeably with category B and some special shapes of the A category, can not be said for certain for every arrowhead. Mostly is already mentioned leafshaped arrowhead with the thorn, which probably originated not in the eastern, steppe zone, but in the nordic. Out of the analysed specimen, 64% of them are attached to the shaft by thorn.

Specific treatment of the arrowhead At the end of the alphanumerical code, the special treatment, if noticeable, is characterised. There were found three specific treatments, of different kinds of arrowheads: P – perforated blade Usually found in the lower third of the blade, in stead of one specimen (on which it can be not intentional or result of the post deposition processes) all of perforated specimen falls into category B. Most characteristic is this treatment in the blunt variant IX, where it makes 80% of the specimen. These perforations can be possibly used for attaching organic material with incendiary device. Other possibility is to make whistling sound during the flight, for creating signal device, but the experiment for this must be made. Also, why is it found on the blund arrowheads without proper experiment remains mystery. T – twisted socket or thorn This treatment is mostly common on socket with the variant VI of category A with two hooks in which it makes 7,7%. In awlshaped variant VIII in categories C and D, where can be twisted as the socked, so the thorn. I must add, that this treatment can be after post deposition processes or due to the low quality of the state of publication not visible. So the twisting may had occured more commonly as noted in the database. Z – with profilated neck Specific profilation, or plastic stripe on the neck, in the close vicinity of the attachment to the shaft, only found on the thorn. Same as in case of twisting socket or thorn, due to many reasons, this special treatment could have been overlooked in the database or during the restauration or publication. This treatment is more common only at variant VIII, there i tis identified on 10% of the specimen.

Types of arrowheads By describing every item from the database of arrowheads using before mentioned criterias, 24 types of arrowheads can be recognised. However, I included into chronological analyse only those,

304

Michal Holeščák

which have higher representation than 2% from the database. After this step, 15 basic types crystalized, which were included into the final analysis. Three chronological phases were created according to the dating of analysed localities: Avar Khaganate period (7th–8th century), 9th century (including the Pre-great Moravian and Great Moravian periods) and ending of 9th century to 11th century (from Post-Great Moravian period till the beginning of formation of Hungarian kingdom). However, some of the localities are dated in more than one of these widely defined phases, smoother chronology of every archeological situation must be considered in the future papers. Type AI0 – Flat leafshaped arrowhead with socket In this type was possible to include 38 specimen from 16 localities. Most of them, 73% falls into the first chronological phase, 7th–8th century. However, in smaller numbers, it continues till the end of studied period. Type AI1 – Flat leafshaped arrowhead with thorn This type includes 61 specimen from 29 localities. Chronologically, it primary falls into last time period, from which 85% of this type were discovered. Specimen found on the localities dated into 9th century can be however connected with the ending decades and are the same than those from the 10th and 11th century. Same type of this arrowhead, but with more subtle blade are scarcely found in the 7th to 8th century, but they can not be the same type, even when then look alike. More probable ist their origin in the northern regions, and after that period, unrelated arrowheads comes with the Old Hungarians. Type BI1 – Trilateral leafshaped arrowhead with thorn This type includes 45 specimen from 13 localities, all of them dated into first chronological period, with sporadic occurence in the beginning decades of the 9th century. It is possible to assume, that this type of arrowheads can be identified purely with the bearers of the Avar Khaganate culture. Type BII1 – Trilateral tearshaped arrowhead with thorn This type includes 21 specimen from 6 localities. As well as with the type BI1, all of them folling in the same period. It is important to notice, that one third of this type had perforation in the blade, which calls for more experimental research. Type AIII1 – Flat convex-concave arrowhead with thorn This type includes 37 specimen from 23 localities. Nearly all of them are dated to the end of the 9th–11th century, which, in connection with common occurence in graves with other specific types points to their connection with the Old Hungarians. Type AIVa1 – Flat deltoid arrowhead with maximal width in the upper third and thorn This type is represented by 53 specimen from 26 localities. All the specimen can be dated in the latest period. Together with the types AIVb1, AV1 and AVIII1 is a part of typical set of arrows used by the Old Hungarians. Type AIVb1 – Flat deltoid arrowhead with maximal width in the lower third and thorn This type represents 18 specimen from 16 localities. Other characteristics are thesame than in the type AIVa1. Type AV1 – Flat rhombic arrowhead with thorn This type represents 68 specimen from 28 localities. In small numbers, this type can be loosely identified in the 7th–8th century localities, however it is also possible, that this was more connected to the leafshaped arrowheads with thorn from this era, and the main occurence is in analysed region due to Old Hungarian influences. Type AVIb1 – Flat arrowhead with two hooks and socket Most typical type in the whole database, containing 155 specimen from 41 localities. Most of its finds can be related to the first chronological phase, but it is commonly found in whole analysed time period, with declining representation. Type AVII1 – Flat forked arrowhead with thorn This type contains 15 specimen from 11 localities, dated purely in the last time period, which with connection to analogies connects this type to Old Hungarian archers. Its shape could have been best suited for hunting, or shooting on unarmed opponents, because its specific shape is designed to make wide, bleeding wounds.

Early medieval arrowheads from the area of todays Slovakia

305

Type BVIII1 – Trilateral awlshaped arrowhead with thorn Type represented by 12 specimen from 7 localities. Purely found in the first time period, most commonly in the same grave than type BI1. Type CVIII1 – Angular awlshaped arrowhead with thorn This type is represented by 10 specimen from 4 localities. Two of them can be dated to first chronological phase, the rest into the others. Time discrepancy between them can make the similarity of this arrowheads purely coincidental. However, based on the shape, this type could have been best used against armored oponent or the biggest animals with the thickest hide. Type DVIII0 – Round awlshaped arrowhead with socket Type represented by 9 specimen from two localities, both dated in the first chronological period. It´s similar type than the more later west european arrowhead called „bodkin“, but most surely this connection is only coincidental. The shape suggests the same usage than type CVIII1. Type BIX1 – Trilateral flat arrowhead with thorn This type is represented by 15 specimen from 5 localities. Same as the other types from trilateral category B, this one is also found purely in the firsl chronological phase, and is connected with the culture of Avar Khaganate.

Summary Arrowheads in the early medieval period from the area of todays Slovakia have been divided, according to morphological determinants to the 15 basic types. In the analysis, three chronological phases were recognized. First phase, 7th to 8th century, is the period of the Avar Kaghanate. Most common was category with flat cross section, mainly the hooked and leafshaped arrowheads, with socket, which also continued till the whole analysing period. Second group, dated only in this period is the category with trilateral cross section and thorn. This group, with different shapes of blades can be connected with nomadic elements in Avar Kaghanate. In the area of Slovakia is the situation little bit different than published finds from closest region in todays Hungary. There, the trilateral category is purely dominant. Answer to this contrast can be explained by different cultural origins, since the border of the Kaghanate was running through Slovakia, with mainly Slavic element, with their typical arrowheads with hooks and socket, living in the north of the border and main Kaghanate culture inside the borders. Of course, theese two cultural regions influenced each other, so the mixed set of arrowheads was used. Second chronological phase is 9th century. Since this period is shorter than before, also the material fund is smaller. Typical for this phase is the flat cross section category of arrowheads with hooked or leafshaped blades and socket. With mostly Slavic element inhabiting this area at this time, we can assume theese forms to be typical for them. Of course, it cannot be said, that Slavs invented them, because we can see this basic forms in all cultures and all time periods. Other thing to say is, that sporadical finds of trilateral arrowheads can be found in the beginning of 9th century, which can be connected with not so immediate end of using theese arrowheads even few decades after destruction of the Avar Kaghanate. On the other hand, in the latest decade of the 9th century, new element is coming in the form of Old Hungarians, and their typical arrowheads with thorn are started to be recognized. Last chronological period that was analysed falls into post Great Moravian period at the last decade of 9th century till the 11th century, when the funeral rite changes into cemetery burials without inventory. At this period, markant changes in the used types of arrowheads is visible. Main thing to recognize is occurence of so called Old Hungarian arrowheads, which are also found in the graves of the horse archers in something like sets. Forked, kiteshaped and rhombic flat arrowheads were the main ranged weapon of nomads of this time. Dominance of hooked arrowhead is ending, but still remains in the finds, not disappearing totally.

Acknowledgement This article was supported by grant 2/0050/12 of VEGA agency „From a Detail to a Whole. Reflexion of Current Needs of Archaeological Research in the Early Middle Ages“

306

Michal Holeščák

References Kalmár 1944–45 J. Kalmár, Az avar nyílhegy. Archaeologiai Értesítő, V–VI, 1944–45, 283–293. Kempke 1991 T. Kempke, Starigard / Oldenburg. Hauptburg der Slawen in Wagrien: III. DieWaffen des 8.–13. Jahrhunderts (Neumünster 1991). Kosdi 1998 Š. Kosdi, Výbava lukostrelca v nálezoch z pohrebísk obdobia Avarského kaganátu na území Slovenska. Studia historica nitriensia 7, 1998, 11–33. Madaras 1995 L. Madaras, The Szeged – Fehértó A and B cemeteries. Das Awarisches Corpus, Beihefte III (DebrecenBudapest 1995). Medvedev 1966 A. Medvedev, Ručnoje metateľnoje oružije (luk i strely, samostrel) VIII–XIV vv. (Moscow 1966). Nevizánsky 2006 G. Nevizánsky, Staromaďarské jazdecké pohrebisko v Leviciach-Géni. Slovenská Archeológia 54, 2006, 285–328. Ruttkay A. 1976 A. Ruttkay, Waffen und Reiterausrüstung des 9. bis zur ersten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts in der Slowakei. Slovenská Archeológia 24, 1976, 245–359. Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002 M. Schulze-Dörrlamm, Die Ungarneinfälle des 10. Jahrhunderts im Spiegel archäologischer Funde. In: J. Henning (Hrsg.), Europa im 10. Jahrhundert. Archäologie einer Aufbruchszeit (Mainz 2002), 109–122. Sebestyén 1932 K. Cs. Sebestyén, A magyrok íja es nyila. Dolgozatok Szeged, 1932, 162–197. Yotov 2004 V. Yotov, Vyorzhenieto i snarjazhenieto ot bylgarskoto srednovekovie (VII–XI vek) (Varna 2004). Zábojník 2009 J. Zábojník, Slovensko a avarský kaganát (Nitra 2009).

E

arly mediaeval arrows discovered in Sylvanian Basin (Romania) Dan Băcueţ-Crişan

Muzeul județean de istorie și artă Zalău [email protected]

Abstract: The area in discussion is known as Sylvanian Basin or the Central Sylvanian Basin. As known, the early mediaeval archaeological sites are characterized by the dominant presence of artefacts made ​​of clay (ceramics). However, archaeological contexts resulted at the end of the research, offered, although in a very limited quantity, other artifacts made ​​of different materials: bone, stone, metal. A special group, belonging to the category of artifacts made ​​of metal, is the group of the arrows, pieces that appear rarely in early mediaeval inventories. In Sylvanian Basin, are known so far 15 exemplaries -all made ​​of iron – discovered in five settlements and three fortresses. The early medieval arrows from Sylvanian Basin were discovered during several types of archaeological research: surface, systematic and rescue. The archaeological sites from which these arrows come from, cover a large chronological area that stretches from the middle of the VIIth century until XIIIth–XIVth centuries. Keywords: Early Middle Age, arrows, Sylvanian Basin, typological classification, chronology

a. Geography. Motivation

T

he existence of several studies related to Northwestern Romania in the early mediaeval period determined me to straighten my attention to a smaller geographical area, which is also a part of the Northwestern Romanian territory (pl. I/a-b). The area in discussion is known as Sylvanian Basin or the Central Sylvanian Basin1. Geographical boundaries are drawn in Northwest by Culmea Sălajului, in East by Meseş Mountains and in West by Plopiş Mountains and Silvania Hills (pl. I/c).

Fig. 1. Sylvanian Basin map.  Morariu/Sorocovschi 1972, 27; Mac / Idu 1992, 39.

1

308

Dan Băcueţ-Crişan

Unfortunately, the archaeological research done so far on early mediaeval period still have a limited character, thus the accumulated knowledge has an appropriate level. Besides the fact that new research has been made in only a few objectives, not few are the cases in which in the case of the older excavations the results have not been published yet2. Of the 93 archaeological sites discovered so far in Sylvanian Basin, dating from the VIIth –XIth centuries, only 35 were excavated (surveys, systematic, rescue research).

Fig. 2. Sylvanian Basin. Archaeological findings from second half of VIIth–XIth centuries (after Băcueţ-Crişan 2014).

Of those 35 sites excavated by various archaeological diggings, 21 sites are dated to the second half of the VIIth – first half of the Xth centuries and 14 sites – in the second half of the Xth–XIth centuries3.

Fig. 3. Sylvanian Basin. Excavated sites, dated in the second half of VIIth–XIth centuries (after Băcueţ-Crişan 2014).

 Băcueţ-Crişan 2014, 17.  Băcueţ-Crişan 2014, 23, 53.

2 3

Early mediaeval arrows discovered in Sylvanian Basin (Romania)

309

As known, the early mediaeval archaeological sites are characterized by the dominant presence of artefacts made o ​​ f clay (ceramics). However, archaeological contexts resulted at the end of the research, offered, although in a very limited quantity, other artifacts made ​​of different materials: bone, stone, metal. A special group, belonging to the category of artifacts made ​​of metal, is the group of the arrows, pieces that appear rarely in early mediaeval inventories. In Sylvanian Basin, are known so far 15 exemplaries – all made ​​of iron – discovered in five settlements and three fortresses (pl. II)4. NR. CRT.

NAME

TYPE

1

Popeni „Pe pogor”

settlement

NUMBER OF PIECES 1

2

Cuceu „Valea Bochii”

settlement

2

3

Aghireş „Sub păşune”

settlement

5

4

Marca „Sfărăuaş” I

settlement

1

5

Zalău „Piaţa Agroalimentară Centrală”

settlement

1

6

Şimleu Silvaniei „Observator”

fortress

3

7

Giurtelecu Şimleului „Coasta lui Damian”

fortress?

1

8

Ortelec „Cetate”

fortress

1

Fig. 4. Type of sites and number of the arrows.

b. Artifacts description The early medieval arrows from Sylvanian Basin were discovered during several types of archaeological research: surface, systematic and rescue. 1. The settlement from Popeni „Pe pogor” (second half of the VIIth – first half of the VIIIth centuries). In 1979 an iron arrow was recovered from an area destroyed by plowing, an thorned three-leafshaped iron arrow5 (pl. III/3). 2. The settlement from Cuceu „Valea Bochii” (second half of the VIIIth – first half of the IXth centuries). The channel dugged in 1978 to bring water from Somes to Zalău city divided a house in which an socketed two-leaf-shaped iron arrow6 (pl. IV/3). 3. The settlement from Cuceu „Valea Bochii” (second half of the VIIIth – first half of IXth centuries). In dwelling L. 2/1999 was discovered an thorned three-leaf-shaped iron arrow7 (pl. III/2). 4. The settlement from Aghireş „Sub păşune” (XIIIth–XIVth centuries). In feature C 30/2008 (dwelling) was discovered an small thorned romboid iron arrow8 (pl. III/7). 5. The settlement from Aghireş „Sub păşune” (second half of the Xth – early XIth centuries). In feature C 35/2008 (household) was discovered an long thorned triangular iron arrow9 (pl. III/4). 6. The settlement from Aghireş „Sub păşune” (VIIIth – beginning/first half of IXth centuries). In feature C 68/2008 (dwelling?) was discovered an thorned simple-leaf-shaped iron arrow10 (pl. III/8). 7. The settlement from Aghireş „Sub păşune” (VIIIth – beginning/first half of IXth centuries). In feature C 72/2008 (household?) was discovered an socketed simple-leaf-shaped iron arrow11 (pl. IV/5). 8. The settlement from Aghireş „Sub păşune” (second half of the Xth – early XIth centuries). The short thorned triangular iron arrow12, comes from the living level/layer (pl. III/5).  Please note that we only consider the arrows already published in the literature. We do not exclude the possibility of other findings, older, but unpublished. 5  Băcueţ-Crişan 2006, pl. 7/1. 6  Băcueţ-Crişan 2006, pl. 44/1. 7  Băcueţ-Crişan 2006, pl. 64/6. 8  Băcueţ-Crişan et al. 2009, pl. 179/3. 9  Băcueţ-Crişan et al. 2009, pl. 191/7. 10  Băcueţ-Crişan et al. 2009, pl. 266/8. 11  Băcueţ-Crişan et al. 2009, pl. 266/9. 12  At the time of discovery it was considered that the artifact is a small iron chisel (Băcueţ-Crişan et al. 2009, 56, pl. 266/10), but after restoration, we noticed that in fact, the artifact is an arrow (Băcueţ-Crişan 2014, pl. 82/4). The piece was found into the layer, when drawing the traces of the dwelling C. 71/2008 (VIIIth–IXth centuries) and did not belong to the inventory of this dwelling! The arrow is post dwelling C. 71/2008 and belongs to the housing level/layer from X–XIth centuries. 4

310

Dan Băcueţ-Crişan

NR. CRT. NAME

TYPE

CHRONOLOGY

1

Popeni „Pe pogor”

settlement

second half of the VIIth – first half of the VIIIth centuries

2

Cuceu „Valea Bochii”

settlement

second half of the VIIIth – first half of the IXth centuries

3

Aghireş „Sub păşune”

settlement

VIIIth – beginning/ first half of the IXth centuries – second half of the Xth – beginning of the XIth centuries – XIIIth–XIVth centuries

4

Marca „Sfărăuaş” I

settlement

second half of VIIth century

5

Zalău „Piaţa Agroalimentară Centrală”

settlement

XIth–XIIIth centuries

6

Şimleu Silvaniei „Observator”

fortress

first half of the Xth century

7

Giurtelecu Şimleului „Coasta lui Damian”

fortress?

Xth–XIth centuries

8

Ortelec „Cetate”

fortress

XIth century

Fig. 5. Sites chronology in which the arrows were discovered.

9. The settlement from Marca „Sfărăuaş” I (second half of the VIIth century). In feature C. 32/2012 (household) was discovered an thorned three-leaf-shaped iron arrow13 (pl. III/1). 10. The settlement from Zalău „Piaţa Agroalimentară Centrală” (XIth–XIIIth centuries). In feature C. 67/2011 (dwelling) was discovered an thorned simple-leaf-shaped iron arrow14 (pl. III/9). 11. The fortress from Şimleu Silvaniei „Observator” (Xth century). An socketed two-leaf-shaped iron arrow15 found in trench S. 1/1994 research campaign from1995 (pl. IV/2). 12. The fortress from Şimleu Silvaniei „Observator” (Xth century). An socketed two-leaf-shaped iron arrow16 found in trench S. 1/1994 – research campaign from 1994 (pl. IV/1). 13. The fortress from Şimleu Silvaniei „Observator” (Xth century). An socketed two-leaf-shaped, twisted rod, iron arrow17 discovered during the research campaign from 2000 (pl. IV/4). 14. Giurtelecu Şimelului „Coasta lui Damian” (Xth–XIth centuries). An big thorned romboid iron arrow18 (pl. III/6) discovered in 1998, during systematic research into a prehistoric site. The arrow was discovered into a defensive ditch dated into the dacians time, a ditch that might have been used in the early mediaeval era19. 15. The fortress from Ortelec „Cetate” (XIth century). In trench S. IV/1980 at a depth of 0, 30-0, 35 m there was discovered an socketed simple-leaf-shaped iron arrow20 (pl. IV/6). NR. CRT.

NAME

TYPE

1

Popeni „Pe pogor”

destroyed feature

2

Cuceu „Valea Bochii”

destroyed feature, dwelling

3

Aghireş „Sub păşune”

dwellings, households, level/layer

4

Marca „Sfărăuaş” I

household

5

Zalău „Piaţa Agroalimentară Centrală”

dwelling

6

Şimleu Silvaniei „Observator”

fortified enclosure

7

Giurtelecu Şimleului „Coasta lui Damian”

fortification ditch

8

Ortelec „Cetate”

fortified enclosure

Fig. 6. Type of sites in which the arrows were discovered.

 Unpublished. Archaeological research results are still in process.  Unpublished. Archaeological research results are still in process. See the report on rescue excavations in Băcueţ-Crişan / Pripon 2012, 260–261. 15  Pop et al. 2006, pl. 17/8. 16  Pop et al. 2006, pl. 14/7. 17  Pop et al. 2006, pl. 21/4. 18  Băcueţ-Crişan 2000, fig. III. 19  Băcueţ-Crişan 2014, 126. 20  Cosma 2000, 473, fig. 7/2; Cosma 2002, 150, 210, pl. 182/10. 13 14

Early mediaeval arrows discovered in Sylvanian Basin (Romania)

311

c. Typological classification proposal To classify in a typologically manner these artifacts we intend, in the first place, to pursue the fixing of the iron arrow on the wooden rod and then the formal characteristics of the iron tip. So, based on the fixing type there are two main categories: – A Category. Thorned arrows. – B Category. Socketed arrows. After separating the two main categories, following the formal characteristics of the pieces, each category has several variants/subtypes. Given the formal characteristics, the arrows from A Category can be classified into: – Type A. I. Thorned three-leaf-shaped iron arrow. Discovered into the settlements from Popeni „Pe pogor”, Cuceu „Valea Bochii” and Marca „Sfărăuaş” I. – Type A. II. Thorned triangular (long or short) iron arrow. Discovered into the settlement from Aghireş „Sub păşune”. – Type A. III. Thorned romboid (big or small) iron arrow. Variants/Subypes: big (discovered at Giurtelecu Şimleului „Coasta lui Damian”), small (discovered at Aghireş „Sub păşune”). – Type A. IV. Thorned simple-leaf-shaped iron arrow. Discovered at Aghireş „Sub păşune” and Zalău „Piaţa Agroalimentară Centrală”. Given the formal characteristics, the arrows from B Category can be classified into: – Type B. I. Socketed two-leaf-shaped iron arrow. Variants/Subtypes: long and usual rod (discovered at Popeni „Pe pogor” and into the fortress from Şimleu Silvaniei „Observator”), long and twisted rod (discovered into the fortress from Şimleu Silvaniei „Observator”). – Type B. II. Socketed simple-leaf-shaped iron arrow (small leaf, long rod). Discovered at Aghireş „Sub păşune”. – Type B. III. Socketed simple-leaf-shaped iron arrow (big leaf, short rod). Discovered at Ortelec „Cetate”.

d. Reports to other typological classifications The archaeological results show that the arrows from A.I. type have been used between the VIth– IXth centuries, on a large scale21, the VIIth–VIIIth centuries representing in fact the maximum spread of this type of arrow22, the long and narrow thorned three-leaf-shaped arrows being characteristic especially to IXth century23. The arrows belonging to type A.II and A.III have very good analogies in the Hungarian warriors necropolis from Xth–XIth centuries from Hungary24. On a large scale were used also the type B.I. arrows, during the VIIth–XII/XIIIth centuries25. Comparing the proposed classification – for the arrows discovered in Sylvanian Basin – with the classification proposed by A.N. Kirpičnikov for the arrows from Russia (IXth–XVth centuries)26 we find the following correspondence: – Type A. II. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type II (Kirpičnikov). – Type. A. III. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type VI (Kirpičnikov). – Type A. IV. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type VII (Kirpičnikov). – Type B.I. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type IX (Kirpičnikov). – Type B. II. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = possible Type XIII (Kirpičnikov). Comparing the proposed classification – for the arrows discovered in Sylvanian Basin – with the classification proposed by A. Nadolski for the arrows from Poland (X–XII centuries)27 we find the following correspondence: – Type. A. III. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type III (Nadolski). – Type A. IV. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type III (Nadolski).  Stanciu / Matei 1994, 140; Ruttkay 1976, 331.  Stanciu / Matei 1994, 141. 23  Fiedler 1992, 217. 24  Istvánovits 2003, 314, 334. 25  Kraskovská 1972, 150; Török 1973, fig. 6/1; Ruttkay 1976, 327–328; Budinský-Krička / Točik 1991, pl. XXI–XXII, XXXII, XXXIX, XLII, XLVII; Hilczer-Kurnatowska / Kara 1994, 131; POPOVIĆ 1999, fig. 219/1; Bláha 2001, 54. 26  Kirpičnikov 1986, tab. XIII. 27  Nadolski 1954, 270–272, Tab. XXX–XXXII. 21 22

312

Dan Băcueţ-Crişan

– Type B.I. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = posibil Type II (Nadolski). – Type B. II. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = posibil Type II (Nadolski). Comparing the proposed classification – for the arrows discovered in Sylvanian Basin – with the classification proposed by A. Ruttkay for the arrows from Slovakia (IXth – first half of the XIVth centuries)28 we find the following correspondence: – Type A. I. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type B. 6. (Ruttkay) – Type A. II. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type B. 4. (Ruttkay). – Type. A. III. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type B. 2. (Ruttkay). – Type A. IV. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type B. 1 (Ruttkay). – Type B.I. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type A. 1. (Ruttkay). – Type B. II. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type A. 5. (Ruttkay). – Type B. III. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type A. 7. (Ruttkay) Following the classifications proposed by A. Ruttkay, but this time for the arrows dated during the Great Moravia (IXth century)29, we find the following correspondence: – Type A. I. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type. IX. (Ruttkay) – Type A. II. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type. VII. (Ruttkay). – Type. A. III. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type. VI. (Ruttkay). – Type A. IV. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type. V (Ruttkay). – Type B.I. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type. I. (Ruttkay). – Type B. II. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type. II. (Ruttkay). – Type ip B. III. (Băcueţ-Crişan) = Type. IV. (Ruttkay)

e. Historical and archaeological considerations. Conclusions So far, 15 iron arrows were discovered in Sylvanian Basin. They were discovered as a result of systematic or rescue excavations. Regarding the type of the site from which they come from, 10 arrows come from settlements and 5 arrows were discovered in fortresses. Archaeological features from wich they come from are also of several types: houses, households. The archaeological sites from which these arrows come from, cover a large chronological area that stretches from the middle of the VIIth century until XIIIth–XIVth centuries.

Fig. 7. Sylvanian Basin. Arrows datable in the Middle and Late Avar Khaganate.  Ruttkay 1976, 327, abb. 54.  Ruttkay 1982, 177, tab. II.

28 29

Early mediaeval arrows discovered in Sylvanian Basin (Romania)

313

Archaeological realities captured here shows that Sylvanian Basin was on the fringes of the gepids world30 and outside the area occupied by the early avars31. Analyzing the arrows findings in Sylvanian Basin on the chronological stages, we observe the following situations: – the arrows discovered at Popeni „Pe pogor”, Cuceu „Valea Bochii”, Marca „Sfărăuaş” I, Aghireş „Sub păşune” (VIIIth–IXth centuries) are dated between the middle of the VIIth century and first half of IXth century, a horizon that characterizes the Middle and Late Avar Khaganate. – the arrows discovered into the fortress from Şimleu Silvaniei „Observator” are dated in the first half of the Xth century, a post Avar Khaganate stage and before/ante the Hungarians came into the area.

Fig. 8. Sylvanian Basin. Arrows datable in the post Avar Khaganate stage and before/ante the Hungarians came into the area.

– the arrows discovered at Aghireş „Sub păşune”, datable in the second half of the Xth – beginning of the XIth centuries (and the arrow discovered at Giurtelecu Şimleului „Coasta lui Damian”) can be attributed to the first inclusions of the Hungarians into the area, not earlier than the middle of the Xth century, as the archaeological findings show.

Fig. 9. Sylvanian Basin. Arrows attributed to the first inclusions of the Hungarians into the area.  Stanciu 2011, 68.  Stanciu 2011, 87.

30 31

314

Dan Băcueţ-Crişan

– the arrow discovered into the fortress from Ortelec „Cetate” and the other discovered at Zalau „Piaţa Agroalimentară Centrală” and Aghireş „Sub păşune” (XIIIth–XIVth centuries) are dated during the Hungarian Kingdom.

Fig. 10. Sylvanian Basin. Arrows dated during the Hungarian Kingdom.

Following the geographical order of the early mediaeval arrows from Sylvanian Basin, we noticed that they come from strategically placed locations, on the main routes of travel (valleys/river course), in the major crossing points or power centers or near them: – from Barcău and Crasna rivers (or their branches). – in the major crossing points: Marca „Sfărăuaş” I – where Barcău river leaves the last branches of Plopiş Mountains; the settlements from Popeni „Pe pogor”, Cuceu „Valea Bochii”, Aghireş „Sub păşune” and fortress from „Cetate” next to the Meseş Gate (Porta Mesesina). – in the power centers or near them: the arrows from Şimleu Silvaniei „Observator” (power centre) and the one from Giurtelecu Şimleului „Coasta lui Damian”.

Fig. 11. Sylvanian Basin. Placing the settlements in which the arrows were discovered and their categories.

Early mediaeval arrows discovered in Sylvanian Basin (Romania)

315

Corroborating the datings regarding the sites from which arrows come from and the classification we proposed, now we can track what types and subtypes were used in different chronological stages (pl. VI): A Category – Type A. I. = middle of the VIIth century, second half of the VIIth – first half of the VIIIth centuries, second half of the VIIIth – first half of the IXth centuries. – Type A. II. = second half of the Xth – beginning of the XIth centuries. – Type A. III. = second half of the Xth – beginning of the XIth centuries, XIIIth–XIVth centuries. – Type A. IV. = VIIIth – beginning/first half of the IXth centuries, XIth–XIIIth centuries. B Category – Type B. I. = second half of the VIIIth – first half of the IXth centuries, first half of the Xth century. – Type B. II. = VIIIth – beginning/first half of the IXth centuries. – Type B. III. = XIth century. One aspect that is not yet fully clarified is related to the concrete way of using these arrows: which of these were for hunting and which were for fighting? Some types were from the beginning destinated for fighting, but we believe that in difficult situations, all kinds of arrows could be used in fighting. Also, we suppose that in the case of the arrows used for hunting, there is a certain classification, related to the type of hunting. According to the typological classification mentioned above, in Sylvanian Basin, the thorned iron arrows (A Category) are of several types than the socketed iron arrows (B Category). The thorned iron arrows are more than the socketed iron arrows. Certainly, the proposed classification for the arrows discovered in Sylvanian Basin can be improved. Such a classification is useful in the analysis and internal classification of archaeological material discovered into the site (settlement, cemetery, fortress), there can be studied the chronological evolution of this type of artifact and can complete other classification systems established for other artifacts. The considerations and conclusions expressed above refers only to the discoveries from Sylvanian Basin and are based on current state of research in the area. Translated by Cătălina Opriş-Crişan

Bibliography Băcueţ-Crişan 2000 D. Băcueţ-Crişan, Câteva piese medievale (arme) din Muzeul de Istorie şi Artă Zalău. Acta Mussei Porolissensis XXIII, 2000, I, 577–588. Băcueţ-Crişan 2006 D. Băcueţ-Crişan, Aşezările medievale timpurii de la Popeni “Pe pogor” şi Cuceu “Valea Bochii” ( jud. Sălaj) (Zalău 2006). Băcueţ-Crişan 2014 D. Băcueţ-Crişan, Contribuţii arheologice privind nord-vestul României în sec. VII–XI. Cercetări în Depresiunea Silvaniei (Cluj-Napoca 2014). Băcueţ-Crişan et al. 2009 D. Băcueţ-Crişan, S. Băcueţ-Crişan, I. Bejinariu, H. Pop, Al. V. Matei, Cercetări arheologice preventive pe traseul şoselei ocolitoare a municipiului Zalău (Cluj-Napoca 2009). Băcueţ-Crişan / Pripon 2012 D. Băcueţ-Crişan, E. Pripon, Şantierul arheologic Zalău “Piaţa Agroalimentară Centrală”. In: Cronica Cerccetărilor Arheologice. Campania 2011 (Târgu Mureş 2012), 260–261. Bláha 2001 J. Bláha, Archeologické poznatky vyvoji a vyznamu Olomouce v obdobi Velkomoravske rise. L. Galuška, P. Kouřil, Z. Měřínský (Eds.), Velka Morava mezi vychodem a Zapadem (Brno 2001), 41–68. Budinský-Krička / Točik 1991 V. Budinský-Krička, A. Točik, Sebastovce. Gräberfeld aus der zeit des awarischen reiches (Nitra 1991). Cosma 2000 C. Cosma, Fortificaţii din secolele X–XI din vestul şi nord-vestul Romăniei. Consideraţii privind stadiul actual al cercetărilor. Acta Musei Porolissensis XXIII, 2000, I, 472–475.

316

Dan Băcueţ-Crişan

Cosma 2002 C. Cosma, Vestul şi nord-vestul României în secolele VIII–X d. H. Ethnic and cultural interferences in the 1st millenium B.C. to the 1st millenium A. D. 6 (Cluj-Napoca 2002). Fiedler 1992 U. Fiedler, Studien zu Gräberfeldern des 6. bis 9. Jahrhunderts an der unteren Donau 2 (Bonn 1992). Hilczer-Kurnatowska / Kara 1994 Z. Hilczer-Kurnatowska, M. Kara, Die Keramik vom 9. bis zur Mitte des 11. Jahrhunderts in Grobpolen. H. Brachmann, F. Daim, L. Poláček, Č. Staňa, J. Tejral (Hrsg.) Slawische Keramik in Mitteleuropa vom 8. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert I (Brno 1994), 121–142. Istvánovits 2003 E. Istvánovits, A Rétkőz honfoglalás és Árpád-kori emlékanyaga (Nyiregyháza 2003). Kirpičnikov 1986 A. N. Kirpičnikov, Russische Waffen des 9.–15. Jahrhunderts. Waffen-und Koßtümkunde. Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für historische Waffen-und Koßtümkunde 1986, I, 1–22. Kraskovská 1972 L. Kraskovská, Slovansko-avarské pohrebisko pri Záhorskej Bystrici (Bratislava 1972). Mac / Idu 1972 I. Mac, P. D. Idu, Dealurile şi depresiunile Silvaniei. Geografia României IV, 1992, 39–48. Morariu / Sorocovschi 1972 T. Morariu, V. Sorocovschi, Judeţul Sălaj (Bucureşti 1972). Nnadolski 1956 A. Nadolski, Studia nad uzbrojeniem polskim w X, XI i XII wieku (Łódź 1954). Pop et al. 2006 H. Pop, I. Bejinariu, S.  Băcueţ-Crişan, D. Băcueţ-Crişan, D. Sana, Zs. Csók, Şimleu Silvaniei. Monografie arheologică (Cluj-Napoca 2006). Popović 1999 M. Popović, The fortress of Ras (Beograd 1999). Ruttkay 1976 A. Ruttkay, Waffen und Reiterausrüstung des 9. Bis zur ersten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts in der Slowakei (II). Slovenska Archaeologia 24, 1976, 2, 245–395. Ruttkay 1982 A. Ruttkay, The organization of the troops, warfare and arms in the period of the great Moravian state. Slovenská Archeológia XXX, 1982, 1, 165–198. Stanciu 2011 I. Stanciu, Locuirea teritoriului nord-vestic al României între antichitatea târzie şi perioada de început a epocii medievale timpurii (mijlocul sec. V-sec. VII timpuriu) (Cluj-Napoca 2011). Stanciu / Matei 1994 I. Stanciu, Al. V. Matei, Sondajele din aşezarea prefeudală de la Popeni-Cuceu, jud. Sălaj. Câteva observaţii cu privire la ceramica prefeudală din Transilvania. Acta Musei Porolissensis XVIII, 1994, 135–163. Tőrők 1973 Gy. Török, Sopronköhida IX. századi temetöje (Budapest 1973).

Early mediaeval arrows discovered in Sylvanian Basin (Romania)

Pl. I. The Sylvanian Basin map.

317

Pl. II. Early mediaeval arrows discovered in the Sylvanian Basin.

318 Dan Băcueţ-Crişan

Early mediaeval arrows discovered in Sylvanian Basin (Romania)

319

1 2 3

4

5

7 6

8

9

Pl.  III. Sylvanian Basin. Arrows (A Category) discovered at: Marca „Sfărăuaş” I (1), Cuceu „Valea Bochii” (2), Popeni „Pe pogor” (3), Aghireş „Sub păşune” (4–5, 7–8), Giurtelecu Şimleului „Coasta lui Damian” (6), Zalău „Piaţa Agroalimentară Centrală” (9) (2–3 after Băcueţ-Crişan 2006; 4–5, 7–8 after Băcueţ-Crişan et al. 2009; 6 after Băcueţ-Crişan 2000).

320

Dan Băcueţ-Crişan

2

1

4

3

5 6

Pl.  IV. Sylvanian Basin. Arrows (B Category) discovered at: Şimleu Silvaniei „Observator” (1–2, 4), Cuceu „Valea Bochii” (3), Aghireş „Sub păşune” (5), Ortelec „Cetate” (6) (1–2, 4 after Pop et al. 2006; 3 after Băcueţ-Crişan 2006; 5 after Băcueţ-Crişan et al. 2009; 6 after Cosma 2002).

Early mediaeval arrows discovered in Sylvanian Basin (Romania)

1

321

2

3

4

5

Pl. V. Sylvanian Basin. Arrows discovered in the settlement from Aghireş „Sub păşune” – photo (after Băcueţ-Crişan 2014).

Pl. VI. The chronology of the early mediaeval arrows types discovered in the Sylvanian Basin.

322 Dan Băcueţ-Crişan

T

he find of Sfântu Gheorghe, Covasna County (1943): questions, which might be raised Valeri Yotov

Varna Museum of Archaeology 41, Blvd. Maria Louisa 9000 Varna, Bulgaria [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract: The author pointed his attention again on the interesting findings of 1943 in Sfântu Gheorghe, Covasna County in Romania: a destroyed grave and the discovered inside it sword. According to the hypothesis of A. Kiss and R. R. Heitel, the grave was connected with the early penetration of Hungarians in Transylvania. The author launched a new opinion on this case, using several available data connected with this topic. First of all, most authors who investigated the region of Central Southern Carpathians agree that there are no early Magyarian necropolises (of first half of 10th century) found there. Secondary, the ritual characteristic of the 1943 grave in Sfântu Gheorghe is not typical only for the Magyars in the 9th–10th centuries, but it is typical also a for other ethnic groups and people who lived in the region before them, among them – Avars and Proto-Bulgarians. It is interesting that until now there was no attempt to connect the 1943 Sfântu Gheorghe grave with the well documented evidence: both by historical sources and finds of material culture of Bulgarian presence in that region as well as cemeteries. They are mentioned by a numbers of authors with the term Bulgarian expansion in Transylvania the 9th and 10th centuries. The author totally agreed with the thesis that the sword in the above mentioned grave of 1943 in Sfântu Gheorghe is of Byzantine origin but this is another find which evidenced the Bulgarian invasion in this region during that period. Keywords: Sfântu Gheorghe, Covasna County, destroyed grave, funeral ritual, Byzantine sword, Bulgarian expansion in Transylvania

T

he information on the interesting findings in 1943 in Sfântu Gheorghe, Covasna County has been repeatedly commented. We owe them to Zoltán Székely – the famous archaeologist who worked a long time in the Székely National Museum1. In short, he noted that the construction of a brick factory was found a destroyed grave was found a skeleton located to the East – West, but it is unclear where the head was (presumably – to the West). In the pit of the grave was found also the skull of a horse; horse bones (it is not clear exactly where they were). In addition there was found one spear-head (length – 14 cm) with sleeve (diameter 2 cm), one knife and other metal pieces. The most important find is a sword (Fig. 1) – 81,5 cm long (75,5 cm – blade; 6 cm – handle), maximum width of the handle – 2 cm. On the handle there is no trace of bone or wood. The sword-guard is made of bronze – a total of length 11,5 cm. Z. Székely dated grave and accordingly the sword in 5th–7th century AD, without linking it to a specific ethnic group. Forty years later, A. Kiss briefly analyzed the characteristics of the funeral ritual, and noted that in the Carpathian region this type was typical for: Late Avarian period (720–804) or time of “The conquering of Country” by Magyars (10th–11th centuries) – finally, a reservedly accept the second hypothesis2. He also gave opinion of the Byzantine origin of the sword. Later, R. R. Heitel, in his study of the early penetration of Hungarians in Transylvania joined the interpretation of A. Kiss and goes further  Székely 1945, 1–15; Székely 1948, 61–64. The Z. Székely literature is unavailable for me. Cited after: Kiss 1987, 210.  Kiss 1987, S. 202, 206–207, Abb. 7 (in note 80, A. Kiss offers gratitude to I. Bóna, who has declared similar opinion in Bóna 1977).

1 2

324

Va l e r i Yo t ov

– even connects with a military march (unclear who/?) of Hungarian king Stephen I (1000/?–1038)3. In my opinion A. Kiss’ analysis and R. R. Heitel`s too in this direction is not supported by enough arguments and can be corrected. First of all, Z. Székely noted for a single grave but no doubt this is accidentally finding and possible that it is a real necropolis. We really do not know whether this necropolis was excavated – probably no. In this connection, a more detailed analysis – whatever has in among many authors – of this topic shows that there are no found of early (at first half of 10th century) Magyars necropolises in this region – Central Southern Carpathians4. I think therefore weaken the opinion of A. Kiss and R. R. Heitel. Two – the placing a skull of a horse is characteristic not only for the Magyars in the 9th–10th century5, but is a funeral ritual common before them – also to Avars6 and Proto-Bulgarians7. In the frequent mentioning of the most interesting find from the grave of Sfântu Gheorghe – sword, there is no  attempt to connect it with well documented evidence of material culture of the Bulgarians (including – cemeteries), which mentioned extensively with the characteristic “Bulgarian expansion Fig. 1. Sword found in destroyed grave in Sfântu Gheorghe, in Transylvania the 9th and 10th centuries”8. Covasna county (after Kiss 1987, 206, Abb. 7). Lately, this expansion has been supported also by more systematic research: not only interpretation of the written sources, but analysis the increasing new archaeological finds too9. A. Kiss drew the attention to shape of the bronze sword-guard from Sfântu Gheorge 1943 grave and linked it with Byzantine masters of weapons. This is the place to point out that after the analysis of some Arabian sources made of B. Fehér10 I allowed myself to make a comment on the origin of some types of swords, respectively sword-guards, namely that they are originating from the Arab World but still rather traditional and commonly attributed to Byzantine models. Most of these Arab / Byzantine examples of swords and sword-guards has been determined as types and chronologically well defined (Fig. 2–5)11. The sword, and particularly the sword-guard from the grave of Sfântu Gheorghe does not have close parallels, but dimensions and characteristics (for example – the width of the blade (about 6,5 cm) suggest to a dating of the end of 9th–10th centuries, further leads us to neglect the proposed by Z. Székely date in 5th–7th centuries AD.  Heitel 1994–1995, 437–439.  See last in: Madgearu 2001, 277, 280; Madgearu 2002–2003, Ţiplic 2006, 61–68, map. 9. 5  Bálint 1971, 85–108; Балинт 1972, 177–178. 6  Балинт 1995, c. 43–44. 7  C. Balint noted that the many Hungarian archaeologists supported opinion to “the strong Onogur-Bulgarian`s influence in the Carpathian Basin to the Middle Avarian period and culture” – Балинт 1995, c. 39, 49. See also: Aксенов, Тоpтика 2001, c. 199–200. Рашев 2008, c. 198. 8  See last in: Madgearu 2002–2003. 9  See systematization of “funerary pottery in Transilvania of the 7th–10th centuries”, great part of them is no doubt has ProtoBulgarian origin: Cosma 2011. 10  Fehér 2001, 157–164. 11  Yotov 2011; Yotov 2012, 219–226; Yotov 2014, 93. 3 4

The find of Sfântu Gheorghe, Covasna County (1943): questions, which might be raised

b

a

325

c

Fig. 2. “Garabonc” Byzantine type of sword (9th century): a. sword from grave 55 in Garabonc-I necropolis, Hungary; b. sword found near Kharkov, Ukraine; c. sword defines to Samanidi dynasty period 8th–9th century (after Yotov 2011, 116–117, Plate II).

a

b

Fig. 3. “Kunagota” Byzantine type of sword (first half of 10th century): a. swords and sword-guard from Kunagota grave 1; b. bronze matrices from Iran – at the Metropolitan Museum of Art; c. bronze matrices from manufacturing – unknown place (after Yotov 2011, 117–118, Plate III).

c

326

Va l e r i Yo t ov

a

c

b

Fig. 4. “Pliska 1948” Byzantine type of sword (second half of 10th century): a. from Păcuiul lui Soare fortress (after Diaconu, Baraschi 1977, 137, Pl. XX–11); b. from Pliska– first capital of First Bulgarian Kingdom (after Yotov 2014, 97, Plate IV–1); c. probably from Egypt (Louvre collection – after Nicolle 1991, 305, fig. 5).

a

b

c

Fig. 5. “Galovo” Byzantine type of sword (10th century): a. from Galovo, North-Western Bulgaria; b. from unknown place in North-Eastern Bulgaria; c. from Central Arabia (after Yotov 2014, 99, Plate VIII).

The find of Sfântu Gheorghe, Covasna County (1943): questions, which might be raised

327

We known many pictorial parallels of the Byzantine swords, but I turn attention especially: to the illuminated Byzantine manuscript of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, dated ca 880 (Fig. 6)12 and to the Fresco of Joshua (10th century) from Hosios Loukas monastery in Boeotia, Greece (Fig. 7)13.

Fig. 6. Pictorial parallels of the Byzantine swords: two drawings in the illuminated Byzantine manuscript of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, dated ca 880 .

Fig. 7. Pictorial parallels of the Byzantine swords: a. Fresco of Joshua (10th century) from Hosios Loukas Monastery in Boeotia, Greece; b. detail.

 Omont 1929, Pls. XXXII (137v), XXXIX (215v) = Manuscript Greek 510. Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, folio 137 and folio 215v. 13  Chatzidakis 1997, 16, fig. 5. 12

328

Va l e r i Yo t ov

There is obviously need more detailed analytical characteristics, but I think that the sword from Sfântu Gheorghe, Covasna County is Byzantine origin but was found in a grave / possible necropolis, which is probably connected with the period of Bulgarian domination in this region in 9th century. In this connection I would like remind the fair note of A. Madgearu14 for number of specific 9th century artifacts; objects in deposits (weaponry, equipments – battle-hammers, stirrups; tools) – all of ProtoBulgarian and Byzantine origin, which rather suggests that the invasion in Transylvania there war representatives of the Proto-Bulgarians but also of Byzantine prisoners when Bulgarian ruler Khan Krum (803–814) has deported North of Danube River15. In this area should be focused the efforts for analyzing the large number of 9th – first half of 10th century archaeological discoveries in South-Central and South-Western Carpatian bend: fortress, cemeteries, etc. They are located mostly near mountain passes and rivers fords, mostly control of the traffic traders with salt, no an engagement to its production – main target of Bulgarian invasion16. I think that the find from Sfântu Gheorghe, Covasna county (1943) – the grave (possible necropolis) and the sword, was one of them.

Bibliography Bálint 1971 C. Bálint, Les tombes à ensevelissement de cheval chez les hongrois du IXe–XIe siécles. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 2, 1971, 85–108. Bóna 1977 I. Bóna, Die Geschichte Siebenbürgens, manuscript of 1977. Cosma 2011 C. Cosma, Funerary pottery in Transylvania of the 7th–10th centuries. Ethnic and cultural interferences in the 1st millenium B.C. to the 1st millenium A. D. 18 (Cluj-Napoca 2011). Diaconu / Baraschi 1977 P. Diaconu, S. Baraschi, Păcuiul lui Soare, II. Așezarea medievală (secolele XIII–XV) (București 1977). Fehér 2001 B. Fehér, Byzantine sword art as seen by the Arabs. Acta Antiqua Academie Scientiarum Hungaricae 41, 2001. Heitel 1994–1995 R. R. Heitel, Die Archäologie der ersten und zweiten Phase des Eindrigens der Ungarn in das innerkarpatische Transilvanien. Dacia N. S. XXXVIII–XXXIX, 1994–1995, 389–439. Kiss 1987 A. Kiss, Frühmittelalterliche Bizantinische Schwerter im Karpatenbecken. Acta Archaeologica Hungarica XXXIX, 1987, 193–210. Madgearu 2001 Al. Madgearu, Salt Trade and Warfare in Early Medieval Transilvania, Ephemeris Napocensis XI, 2001, 271–283. Madgearu 2002–2003 Al. Madgearu, Transilvania and the Bulgarian expansion in the 9th–10th centuries, Acta Musei Napocensis 39–40, II, 2002–2003 (2005), 41–65. Omont 1929 H. Omont, Miniatures des plus anciens manuscrits grecs de la Bibliotheque Nationale du VI-e au XIV-e siècle (Paris 1929). Ţiplic 2006 I. M. Ţiplic, Transilvania in the Early Middle Ages (7th–13th C.) (Alba Iulia 2006). Yotov 2011 V. Yotov, A new Byzantine type of swords (7th–11th centuries). Niś and Byzantium IX, 2011, 113–124. Yotov 2012 V. Yotov. Bulgarian control over the Salt Road in Transylvania during the 9th century: The archaeological evidence. Salt and Gold: The role of Salt in Prehistoric Europe (Provadia • Veliko Tarnovo 2012), 323–331. Yotov 2014 V. Yotov, Byzantine Sword (7th–11th c.). Tsar Samuil (†1014) in battle for Bulgaria (Sofia 2014), 91–103.  See detailed listed in: Madgearu 2002–2003, p. 44.  This deportation is has commented in many studies. See last in: Madgearu 2002–2003, notes 18. 16  Yotov 2012, 323–331. 14 15

The find of Sfântu Gheorghe, Covasna County (1943): questions, which might be raised

329

Chatzidakis 1997 M. Chatzidakis, Hosios Loukas (Athens 1997) (  =  http://images.icon-art.info/public/Byzantium/ Chatzidakis%201997%20-%20Hosios%20Loukas%20%28BAiG%29.pdf ). Nicolle 1991 D. Nicolle. Byzantine and Islamic Arms and Armour; Evedence for Mutual Influence. Graeco-Arabica 4, 1991, 299–323. Székely 1945 Z. Székely, Adatok a Székelyföld népvándorlás korához (Sfântu Gheorghe 1945) 1–15. Székely 1948 Z. Székely, Sepsiszentgyörgy története a középkor végéig (Sepsiszetgyörgy 1948). Aксенов / Тоpтика 2001 В. С. Aксенов, A. A. Тоpтика, Пpотоболгаpские погpебения Подонья и Пpидонечья VІІІ–Х вв.: пpоблема поливаpиантности обpяда и этноистоpической интеpпpетации, Степи Евpопы в эпоху сpедневековья 2 (Донецк 2001), 199–200Л Балинт 1972 Ч. Балинт, Погpебения с конями у венгpов в ІХ–Х вв., Пpоблемы аpхеологии и дpевней истоpии угpов (Москва 1972), 177–178. Балинт 1995 Ч. Балинт, Введение в аpхеология аваp, Типология и датиpовка аpхеологических матеpиалов Восточной Евpопы (Ижевск 1995), 38–87. Рашев 2008 Р. Рашев, Бългаpската езическа култуpа VІІ–ІХ в. (София 2008).

B

attle-axes in the cemeteries from Banat, Crișana and Transylvania (10 th century) Aurel Dragotă

Universitatea „Lucian Blaga” Sibiu [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract: Battle-axes (fokos/fokosch, fejsze, balta) appear mostly in warrior graves dated in the 10th century. In our territory, three major types of axes can be distinguished: the balta type shape, axes with faceted edge and a type displaying two blades bowed in the same direction. In the graves containing axes, a horse offering is sometimes present, but also in various combinations: pottery (Alba Iulia- Stația de Salvare/S. VIII/M. 1; Cluj-Napoca- Str. Pata/M. 15), sabre (SzentesSzentlászló/M. 6), quiver fragments (Szentes-Szentlászló/M. 6), arrowheads, knives, a strike-a-light, stirrups (Szentes-Szentlászló/M. 2, M. 6; Tiszavasvári – Aranykerti tabla/M. 4), curb bit, trapezoidal or oval buckle and rings 13 Giesler. In the 10th century, the axes were deposed in the chest area on the right side, in the pelvic area, on the right arm, on the lower limbs, with the blade towards the edge of the grave, stuck between the legs or layed in the quiver. The analysis of the funerary inventories (Hungarian adornments of Eastern invoice, arms and harnesses) demonstrates the indisputable fact that the second path of the Hungarian penetration in Transylvania, the Mureș Valley, was used only after the mid–10th century. Keywords: weaponry, axe, socket hole, blade, edge

B

attle-axes (fokos/fokosch, fejsze, balta) appear mostly in warrior graves dated in the 10th century. In our territory, three major types of axes can be distinguished: the balta type shape, axes with faceted edge and a type displaying two blades bowed in the same

direction. – Alba Iulia- Staţia de Salvare. S. XXXIII/M. 1 (?). Battle-axe made of iron with socket hole and long edge, square in section and bent in the same direction with the blade /L = 14,1 cm, W = 2,5 cm MNUAI F. 7991 (Pl. IV/2)1. The funerary inventory of the grave also included a strike-a-light and a flint piece.2 S. VIII/M. 1 . Identical battle-axe displaying the same shape /L = 15 cm, W = 3,7 cm, MNUAI F. 7318 (Pl. III/7; IV/1) discovered in the second phase of the cemetery, / associated with two pots, an iron knife, a strike-a-light and flint piece as well as two finger rings. At the lower limbs of the deceased, a horse offering was deposed, consisting of its skull and limbs. The axe was laid near a pot on the left side, nearby the knees / the joint of the femur with the leg.3 – Alba Iulia- Palatul Apor4 – Biharia- Dealul Şumuleu/M. IV. Iron battle-axe with socket hole and two blades (Pl. I/1). One of the blades is wider; the other is longer and flattened. Both blades are curved in the same direction  Ciugudean 1996, 15, fig. 86; Ciugudean 2006, 30, fig. 43. R. R. Heitel indicates that the axes were identified near the right arm. 2  We express our thanks to Dr. Horia Ciugudean (Muzeul Național al Unirii din Alba Iulia) for his kindness in delivering us the graphic material and information upon the discovery context of these weapon pieces. 3  Ciugudean 2006, 30, fig. 44; Ciugudean 2007, 257. 4  Heitel 1994–95, 418–419. 1

332

Aurel Dragotă

/L = 18,5 cm, W. blade = 3,5 cm; 9,5 cm. Funerary inventory: flint piece, articulated curb bit, four arrows, iron strike-a-light, stirrups.5 – Cluj-Napoca- Str. Pata/M. 15. Iron battle-axe deposed near the right femur. In the inventory of this grave also appear a knife, a strike-a-light, a flint piece, pottery, ring 13 Giesler, finger ring and two beads.6 – Deva- Micro 15/M. 5. Battle-axe (MCDR 27128) made of iron with curved blade and elongated faceted edge displaying a socket hole. The inventory of this grave also includes a ring 13 Giesler and a strand of beads of clay, amber and snails.7 – Dudeştii Vechi- Movila lui Dragomir/M. IV. Iron battle-axe with deteriorated blade and socked hole /L = 11,3 cm, W. blade = 5,4 cm (Pl. II/1).8 – Gîmbaş- Măguricea/M. 3. Battle-axe with inwards curved blade and elongated socket hole (L = 155 mm; Pl. II/2)/deposed on the left side of the deceased.9 Another iron axe discovered in this necropolis displays the same characteristics of the IV B Kovács shape (Pl. III/3).10 – Orăştie- Dealul Pemilor X2/ M. 18. Funerary inventory: a bracelet on the right forearm, a quiver near the right shoulder where also arrow heads and a battle-axe were found (L = 15 cm, W = 4,8 cm; Pl. III/6), four iron chain loops, two stirrups on both sides of the left tibia, articulated curb bit with bone stopper / near the right foot, and two earrings (?) in the parietal areas.11 – Timişoara-Cioreni/M. B (man). Battle-axe (fokosbalta) with diamond shaped passive side (L = 14 cm, W. blade = 2,7 cm; Pl. III/1). The funerary inventory is made of a bronze button, arrowheads, two circular iron finger-rings, fragment of a quiver and a bracelet of shape 4 Giesler.12 The axe with narrow blade and slightly elongated socket hole (III A Ruttkay, VIII A Kirpičnikov, VI C Kovács) has its origin in the Eastern area13 where similar pieces have been identified14 in Gorodistsche/oblast Chmelnizki15 and the Hungarian cemeteries from Pécs-Somogy (L  =  13  cm)16, Kecskemét17, Kiskunfélegyháza-Radnóti Miklós utca (11,8 × 3,2 cm; 2,6 × 2,1 cm)18, SzékesfehérvárDemkóhegy/M. 6 (L = 13 cm)19, Tiszaeszlár-Sinkahegyi (pl. II/3)20 and Majs/M. 844 (Pl. II/5)21. The piece discovered in Püspökladány-Eperjesvölgy/M. 205 (L = 13, 7 cm, W = 2,6 × 2,05 cm) can be associated with a pair of stirrups, arrowheads, a knife and trapezoidal buckle.22This type of axe has a length of 10,2–15,5 cm and a width of 3,2–5,4 cm. In Tiszabercel-Ráctemető/M. 10 (man), the iron axe deposed on the right arm (L = 10,2 cm; Pl. II/4) near some arrowheads. The horse’s skull and limb bones have been found on the left side of the pelvis down to the ankles, whereas stirrups were placed between the knees and a curb bit between the legs.23 This type shows parallels in the area of the Kievan Rus and can be dated before the mid–10th century. In Szentes-Szentlászló/M. 2 (man) this type of axe appears on the right side of the chest, combined with five arrowheads /near the right arm and an iron knife /near the left foot.24 The axe of an elongated diamond shape (IV A Ruttkay, IV B Kovács, I Kirpičnikov) is spread mostly in the Hungarian milieu25 and shows analogies in the Eastern space26, so at Gorodistsche/  Karácsonyi 1903, 410, fig. 6/8 a-b; Cosma 2001, 172, Pl. 7/1; Cosma 2002, 153, 176, Pl. 56/1.  Heitel 1994–95, 415; E. Gáll / B. Gergely / S. Gál, 2010, 128. 7  Țuțuianu 2005, 264. 8  Bejan et alii 2005, 28, fig. 4/2. 9  Dragotă et alii 2010, 66, pl. II/18. 10  Nagy 1913, 271. 11  Țiplic-Pinter 2007, 155; Pinter-Țiplic 2006, 81, fig. 179. 12  Rădulescu-Gáll 2001, 156, 180, Fig. 18/3; Gáll 2013, 485, pl. 263/1. 13  Kovács 1980/81, 249. 14  Aleškovskij 1960, pl. 2/16–17. 15  Kirpičnikov 1986, pl. X/25. 16  Dombay 1961, 80, fig. 7. 17  Hampel 1905, 636, pl. 422/10. 18  Fodor 1996, 333, fig. 2. 19  Hampel 1905, 580–581, pl. 393/4 a-b; Vaňa 1954, pl. VIII/2; Fehér et alii 196270; Kiss 1966, 47, fig. 2/5–5 a. 20  Jósa 1914, fig. II. 21  Kiss 1983, 133, Fig. 78. 22  Fodor 1996, 252, fig. 21; Nepper 2002, 219, fl. 183/9. 23  Istvánovits 2003, 193, 338, pl. 182, fig. 171/3. 24  Széll 1941, 233, pl. I/16; Fehér et alii 1962, 74. 25  Ruttkay 1976/2, 310, fig. 42; Kovács 1980/81, 249. 26  Aleškovskij 1960, pl. 1/6, 9; Starostin et alii 1973, 260, Pl.2/19. 5 6

Battle-axes in the cemeteries from Banat, Crișana and Transylvania (10th century)

333

♦

♦

Map 1. The spreading of axes III A, IV A and IV C Ruttkay in Banat, Crișana and Transilvania.

oblast Chmelnizki27, Tankeevka/M. 3028 (Pl. I/8), M. 4229 (Pl. I/9), M. 35130 (Pl. II/10) or in the excavations of Karos III/M. 3 (17,2 × 4,5 cm; Pl. I/7)31, Trnovec nad Vahom/H. Jatov Trnovec32 (Pl. III/6), Ibrány- Esbó- halom /M. 147 (Pl.  III/5)33 and Nagyhalász-Homok-tanya (L  =  17,4  cm; Pl.  III/2)34. The length of this shape measures between 14, 1 cm–17, 4 cm, whereas the blade’s width is between 2,5 cm–4,8 cm. A. N. Kirpičnikov considers that type I occurs in the discoveries dated in the 10th–13th centuries. Its characteristics are an elongated shape and a square head. The axe of Biharia (IV C Ruttkay, II Kirpičnikov, I A Kovács) shows similarities with the pieces of Eastern origin35. Typologically close discoveries were evidenced in the upper basin of the river Tisza, whiche were dated at the beginning of the 10th century or in its last third. Analogies are known in Demecser – Borzsova puszta36 (L = 17,1 cm, W = 2,3 × 2,7 cm; 3,3 cm; Pl. I/3), Tiszavasvári – Aranykerti  Kirpičnikov 1986, pl. X/8.  Khalikova-Kazakov 1977, 96, pl. III/1. 29  Khalikova-Kazakov 1977, 967, pl. IV/7. M. 42 is the only grave where two axes appear, both on the left femur. 30  Khalikova-Kazakov 1977, p. 122, pl. XII/8. At Tankeevka appears an axe on the grave, mostly laid on the lower limbs (right or left). The blade is mostly directed towards the edge of the grave. Alongside horse offerings, these graves also show various artifacts: Saltovo earrings, buckle, knives, buttons, rhombic appliques on a band on the skull, ceramics near the skull and curb bit. 31  Révész 2006, 175, pl. 113/8. 32  Točik 1955, 489–494, fig. 241; Fehér et alii 1962, 42. 33  Istvánovits 2003, 90, pl. 79. 34  Istvánovits 2003, 338, pl. 133/2, fig. 171/8; Jósa 1914, Fig. VIII. 35  Kovács 1980/81, 248. 36  Hampel 1905, 629, pl. 418/3. 27 28

334

Aurel Dragotă

tabla/M. 4 (L = 15,3 cm, W = 2,3 x2, 6 cm; 2, 7 cm; Pl. I/5)37, Nagyhalász-Zomborhegy /M. A (L = 15,6 cm, W = 5,3 cm; Pl. I/2)38 and Bodrogvécs (Somotor-Več)39 (L = 18,1 cm, W. blade = 7,5 cm, W = 2,7 × 2,8 cm, Pl.I/6).40 Regarding this shape whose origins seem to be much older,41 L. Kovács repertorized six pieces discovered in the Hungarian excavations from the Carpathian Basin. The Eastern origin of this type of axe could be sustained by some pieces close to the Kievan milieu of the 10th century, but their spread starting from this area is still unclear. In hypothetical terms, two possibilities have been advanced: their dissemination by the Hungarian communities of the space between the rivers Dnieper and Don (Lebedia-Etelköz) or by means of the Russian druzhinas of the 10th century.42 The length of this shape varies between 17,1–18,5 cm, and the width of the blade measures 3,3–9,5 cm. The picker shaped and flattened side measures 2,3–3,5 cm. The presence of this shape in the Eastern areas, especially along the river Volga, is supported by a series of discoveries, which show close characteristics.43 A battle-axe of this shape was identifies in the cemetery of Szentes- Szentlászló /M . 7 (man). The axe was discovered near the deceased’s pelvis and has the following measurements: L = 17,1 cm and W = 5,1 cm/1,8 × 1,9 cm (Pl. I/4). The grave inventory also included a pair of stirrups, an iron curb bit, an iron buckle and an iron knife44. Type II Kirpičnikov shows analogies in the Eastern area at Tschernigow and has been dated in the 10th–11th centuries.45 The type IV of the battle-axes is frequent in the Hungarian horizon and shows certain differences in dimensions and shape. Type IV A has a trapezoidal curved shape with a length between 14,5–15 cm and a blade width of 4,6 cm. Type IV C is characterized by a more palpable curving and measures: L = 19 cm, W. blade = 7,8 cm46. In the graves containing axes, a horse offering is sometimes present, but also in various combinations: pottery (Alba Iulia- Stația de Salvare/S. VIII/M. 1; Cluj-Napoca – Str. Pata/M. 15), sabre (Szentes-Szentlászló/M. 6), quiver fragments (Szentes-Szentlászló/M. 6), arrowheads, knives, a strike-a-light, stirrups (Szentes-Szentlászló/M. 2, M. 6; Tiszavasvári – Aranykerti tabla/M. 4), curb bit, trapezoidal or oval buckle and rings 13 Giesler. The axes have been deposed on a certain part of the deceased’s body or stuck in the grave, so that it conferred protection to the defunct.47 In the 10th century, the axes were deposed in the chest area on the right side, in the pelvic area, on the right arm, on the lower limbs, with the blade towards the edge of the grave, stuck between the legs or layed in the quiver. Battle-axes III A and IV C Ruttkay disseminated in our area during the first half of the 10th century, and the IV A variant is correlated with discoveries from the second half of the century. The last variant often occurs on the river Mureș, where it forms the majority (61%), being followed by the variants III A (31%) and IV C (8%). The analysis of the funerary inventories (Hungarian adornments of Eastern invoice, arms and harnesses) demonstrates the indisputable fact that the second path of the Hungarian penetration in Transylvania, the Mureș Valley, was used only after the mid10th century. Translated by: Ioan Albu

 Révész 2005, 166–177, pl. VIII/5; Révész 2007; Tóth 2014, 137, Pl. 92/6.  Istvánovits 2003, 147, 338, pl. 134, fig. 171/5; Jósa 1914, fig. IV; Kovács 1989, 167, fig. 2. 39  Hampel 1905, 459, pl. 339/7 a-b. 40  Kovács 1989, 170, fig. 4/3. 41  A primary shape placed in the 7th century was identified in the necropolis from Kerepes/M. G. Cf. Török 1973, 117, fig. 9/4. 42  Kovács 1989, 171. 43  Ahmerov 1955, 160, pl. VI/2. This axe is a primary variant, like the one in Kerepes, with rectangular blade and with both components showing an incipient bending in the same direction; Aleškovskij 1960, pl. 1/1. 44  Széll 1941, 234, pl. II A/1; Fehér et alii 1962, 74; Kovács 1989, 170, fig. 4/5. 45  Kirpičnikov 1986, pl. X/10. 46  Ruttkay 1976/2, 307. 47  Tettamanti 1975, 110. 37 38

Battle-axes in the cemeteries from Banat, Crișana and Transylvania (10th century)

335

Fig. 1. Chart types of axes percentage values.

References Ahmerov 1955 R. B. Ahmerov, Mogil’nik bliz g. Sterilitamaka. Sovetskaja Archeologija 22, 1955, 153–176. Aleškovskij / Alechkovsky 1960 M. H. Aleškovskij, Kurgany russkih družinnikov XI–XII vv./Tumulus de guerriers russes des XIe et XIIe siėcles. Sovetskaja Archeologija 1/1960, 70–90. Bejan et alii 2005 A. Bejan, D. Tănase, E. Gáll, C. Kalcsov, Necropola medievală timpurie de la Dudeştii Vechi-„Movila lui Dragomir” (Jud. Timiş). Arheologia Medievală II, 2005, 27–44. Ciugudean 1996 H. Ciugudean, Anul 1000 la Alba Iulia. Între istorie şi arheologie. Catalogul expoziţiei (Alba Iulia 1996). Ciugudean 2006 H. Ciugudean, Alba Iulia – Stația de Salvare. H. Ciugudean, Z. K. Pinter, G. T. Rustoiu (Coord.), HabitatReligie-Etnicitate: Descoperiri arheologice din secolele IX–XI în Transilvania/Habitat-Religion-Ethnicity: 9th–11th Century Archaeological Finds in Transylvania. Catalog de expoziţie/Exhibition Catalogue (Alba Iulia 2006), 12–32. Ciugudean 2007 H. Ciugudean, Pottery offerings in the Early Middle Age cemetery of Alba Iulia-„Stația de Salvare”. Călin Cosma (Ed.),Funerary offerings and votive depositions in Europe’s 1st millennium AD.: cultural artifacts and local identities (Cluj-Napoca 2007), 243–262. Cosma 2001 C. Cosma, Necropole, morminte izolate şi descoperiri funerare cu caracter incert din secolele al IX-lea şi al X-lea din nord-vestul şi vestul României. Ephemeris Napocensis XI, 2001, 165–269. Cosma 2002 C. Cosma, Vestul şi nord – vestul României în secolele VIII–X d. H. Ethnic and cultural interferences in the 1st millenium B.C. to the 1st millenium A. D. 6 (Cluj-Napoca 2002). Dombay 1961 J. Dombay, Árpád-kori temetők Baranyában II. / Friedhöfe aus der Arpaden-Zeit im Komitat Baranya II. A Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 6, 1961, 69–84. Dragotă et alii 2010 A. Dragotă, G. T. Rustoiu, Zeno K. Pinter, I. Marian Ţiplic, M. Drîmbărean, Consideraţii pe marginea necropolei de la Gîmbaş (secolul al X-lea). / Considerations on the necropolis from Gîmbaş (Xth century). Patrimonium Apulense IX, 2010, 91–104. Fehér et alii 1962 G. Fehér, K. Éry, A. Kralovánszky, A Közep-Duna-Medence Magyar honfoglalás-és kora Árpád-kori sírleletei. Régészeti Tanulmányok II (Budapest 1962). Fodor 1996 I. Fodor, A honfoglaló magyarság. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum (Budapesta 1996).

336

Aurel Dragotă

E. Gáll / B. Gergely / S. Gál 2010 E. Gáll, B. Gergely, S. Gál, La răscruce de drumuri. Date arheologice privind teritoriul oraşului Cluj -Napoca în secolele X–XIII (Cluj-Napoca 2010). Gáll 2013 E. Gáll, Az Erdélyi-medence, a Partium és a Bánság 10–11. századi temetői, 1–2 (Szeged 2013). Hampel 1905 J. Hampel, Alterthümer des frühen Mittelalters in Ungarn, I–III (Braunschweig 1905). Heitel 1994–1995 R. R. Heitel, Die Archäologie der ersten und zweiten Phase des Eindrigens der Ungarn in das innerkarpatische Transilvanien. Dacia N.S. 38–39, 1994–1995, 389–439. Istvánovits 2003 E. Istvánovits, A Rétköz honfoglalás és Árpád-kori emlékanyaga (Nyíregyháza 2003). Jósa 1914 A. Jósa, Honfoglaláskori emlékek Szabolcsban. Archaeologiai Értesitö XXXIV/3, 1914, 168–184. Karácsonyi 1903 J. Karácsonyi, A Bihari honfoglaláskori lovas-sírokról. Archaeologiai Értesitö XXIII, 1903, 405–412. Khalikova / Kazakov 1977 E. A. Khalikova, E. P. Kazakov, Le cimetière de Tankeevka. Les anciens hongrois et les ethnies voisines a l’est (Budapest 1977), 21–222. Kirpičnikov 1986 A. N. Kirpičnikov, Russische Waffen des 9.–15. Jahrhunderts. Waffen und Kostümkunde 28/2, 1986, 85–129. Kiss 1966 A. Kiss, Gräberfelder aus den 10–11. Jahrhunderten in der umgebung von Szekesféhérvár und die Frage der Fürstlichen residenz. Alba Regia VI–VII, 1966, 43–88. Kiss 1983 A. Kiss, Baranya megye X–XI. századi sírleletei. / Grabfunde aus dem 10 und 11 Jahrhundert im komitat Baranya (Budapest 1983). Kovács 1980/81 L. Kovács, Vooruženie vengrov- obretatelej rodiny: sabli, boevye topory,, kop’ja/ Die waffen der landnehmenden Ungarn: säbel, kampfäxte, lanzen. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 10/11, 1980/81, 243–255. Kovács 1989 L. Kovács, A Nagzhalász – Zomborhegyi 10. századi magyar temetőrészlet./Ungarischer Friedhofsteil von Nagzhalász – Zomborhegy aus dem 10. Jahrhundert. Communicationes Archæologicæ Hungariæ 1989, 165–176. Nagy 1913 G. Nagy, Erdély a honfoglalás idejében a régészeti leletek világánál. /La conquéte de Transylvanie et les trouvailles. Archaeologiai Értesitö 33, 1913, 268–275, 293–294. Nepper 2002 M. Ibolya Nepper, Hajdú-Bihar megye 10–11. szazádi sírleletei, I–II (Budapest-Debrecen 2002). Pinter / Țiplic 2006 Z. K. Pinter, I. M. Ţiplic, Orăștie – Dealul Pemilor X2. H. Ciugudean, Z. K. Pinter, G. T. Rustoiu (Coord.), Habitat-Religie-Etnicitate: Descoperiri arheologice din secolele IX–XI în Transilvania/Habitat-ReligionEthnicity: 9th–11th Century Archaeological Finds in Transylvania. Catalog de expoziţie/Exhibition Catalogue (Alba Iulia 2006), 78–83. Rădulescu / Gáll 2001 A. Rădulescu, E. Gáll, Das landnahmezeitliche Gräberfeld von Temesvár (Timişoara) – Csókaerdö. Acta Archaeologica Hungaricae 52, 1–3, 2001, 155–193. Révész 2005 L. Révész, Honfoglalás kori temető Tiszavasvári-Aranykerti táblán (Dienes István ásatása nyomán)/ Das landnahmezeitliches Gräberfeld von Tiszavasvári-Aranykerti tábla (nach der Grabung von István Dienes). A Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve XLVII /2005, 161–213. Révész 1996 L. Révész, A karosi honfoglalás kori temetök. Régészeti adatok a Felsö-Tisza-Vidék 10. századi történetéhez (Miskolc 1996). Révész 2007 L. Révész, Landnahmezeitliches Gräberfeld in Tiszavasvári-Aranykerti Tábla (Nach der Ausgrabung von István Dienes). Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 85, 2007, 295–339.

Battle-axes in the cemeteries from Banat, Crișana and Transylvania (10th century)

337

Ruttkay 1976 A. Ruttkay, Waffen und Reiterausrüstung des 9. bis zur ersten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts in der Slowakei (II). Slovenská Archeológia XXIV / 2, 1976, 245–396. Starostin et alii 1973 P. N. Starostin, E. P. Kazakov, R. S. Gabjašev, Igimskij mogil’nik/Necropole d’Igime. Sovetskaja Archeologija 1973, 1, 260–264. Széll 1941 M. Széll, XI. századi temetők Szentes környékén. / Les cimetières du XI ème siècle aux environs de Szentes. Folia Archaeologica III–IV, 1941, 231–267. Tettamanti 1975 S. Tettamanti, Temetkezési szokások a X–XI. sz. – ban a Kárpát – medencében./Begräbnissitten im 10–11. Jh. im Karpatenbecken. Studia Comitatensia 3, 1975, 79–123. Točik 1955 A. Točik, Nové výskumy na pohrebištiach z. X. a XI. st. na Slovensku. Archeologické Rozhledy VII, 1955, 489–494, 497–501, 560–561, 565–566. Török 1973 Gy. Török, VII. századi sírok Kerepesről / Gräber aus dem 7. Jahrhundert in Kerepes. Folia Archaeologica XXIV, 1973, 113–134. Tóth 2014 A. Tóth, A Nyíri mezőség a 10–11. században (Szeged 2014). Ţiplic / Pinter 2007 I. M. Ţiplic, Z. K. Pinter, Necropola medieval timpurie de la Orăştie-Dealul Pemilor X2. 3. Campaniile arheologice din anii 2001–2004. Brukenthal Acta Musei II. 1, 2007, 153–164. Ţuţuianu 2005 D.-C. Ţuţuianu, Necropola medieval-timpurie de la Deva-Micro 15. Date vechi – consideraţii noi. Sargeţia XXXIII/2005, 255–270. Vaňa 1954 Z. Vaňa, Mad’iaři a Slované ve svĕtle archeologických nálezů X–XII. století / Les Magyares et les Slaves à la lumière de fouilles archéologiques du X.–XII e siècle. Slovenská Archeológia 2, 1954, 51–104.

338

Aurel Dragotă

1

2

4

7

5

8

3

6

9

Pl.  I. 1: Biharia – Dealul Şumuleu/M. 4 (after Cosma 2002); 2: Nagyhalász-Kiszombor – hegy (after Jósa 1914); 3: Demecser – Borzsova puszta (after Hampel 1905); 4: Szentes – Szentlászló /M . 7 (after Kovács 1989); 5: Tiszavasvári – Aranykerti tabla/M. 4 (after Tóth 2014); 6: Bodrogvécs (after Hampel 1905); 7: Karos III/M. 3 (after Révész 2006); 8: Tankeevka/M. 30 (after Khalikova-Kazakov 1977); 9: Tankeevka/M. 42 (after Khalikova-Kazakov 1977).

Battle-axes in the cemeteries from Banat, Crișana and Transylvania (10th century)

1

2

4

3

5

7

8

339

6

9

10

Pl.  II. 1: Dudeştii Vechi – Movila lui Dragomir/M. IV (after Bejan et alii 2005); 2: Gîmbaş – Măguricea (after Hampel 1905); 3: Tiszaeszlár-Sinkahegyi (after Jósa 1914); 4: Tiszabercel-Ráctemető/M. 10 (after Istvánovits 2003); 5: Majs/M. 844 (after Kiss 1983); 6: Püspökladány-Eperjesvölgy/M. 205 (after Nepper 2002); 7: SzékesfehérvárDemkóhegy/M. 6 (after Hampel 1905); 8: Kecskemét (after Hampel 1905); 9: Pécs-Somogy (after Dombay 1961); 10: Tankeevka/M. 351 (after Khalikova-Kazakov 1977).

340

Aurel Dragotă

1

2

5

6

3

4

0 3 cm

7

Pl.  III. 1: Timişoara-Cioreni/M. B (after Gáll 2013); 2: Nagyhalász-Homoktanya (after Jósa 1914); 3: Gîmbaş – Măguricea (after Nagy 1913); 4: Orăştie-Dealul Pemilor X2 (after Pinter-Ţiplic 2006); 5: Ibrány – Esbó- halom /M. 147 (after Istvánovits 2003); 6: Trnovec nad Vahom/H. Jatov Trnovec (after Točik 1955); 7: Alba Iulia – Stația de Salvare. Inv. 7318 (drawing: Horia Ciugudean).

Battle-axes in the cemeteries from Banat, Crișana and Transylvania (10th century)

341

1

2 0 3 cm

Pl.  IV. 1: Alba Iulia – Stația de Salvare. M. VIII/M. 1; 2: Alba Iulia – Stația de Salvare. S.  XXXIII/M. 1. Inv. 7991 (drawing: Horia Ciugudean).

A

n insight on social status around the year 1000 AD, reflected by the funeral inventory of some graves found on the Lower Mureș Valley Florin Mărginean

Arad Museum, Romania [email protected]

Abstract: This research practically starts from the analysis of three graves discovered in the area of the Lower Mureș Valley. The choice of research subjects was somewhat subjective and selective, as they are interesting because of the the social status they have apparently had during their life time. We consider that the proposed graphic reconstructions and small additions to the repertoire of funerary discoveries will contribute to a better knowledge – and why not, a better understanding – of a historical period marked by radical political, ethnic and religious changes, from a micro-region of the Carpathian Basin. Keywords: social status, funeral inventory, graves, Lower Mureș Valley, Arad County

T

he analysis of 10th–11th century funerary finds from Western Romania and, in our case, from the Lower Mureș Valley, a micro-zone of the Carpathian Basin, came under the attention of researchers mainly during the last two decades. This situation was not caused by the lack of discoveries in this area, but rather, one might say, by the censorship put in place over the analysis of a delicate historical period, which unfortunately even today implies, in some cases, more subjectivity than objectivity1. After overcoming this barrier, it could be easily determined based on the analysis funeral findings (among other procedures as well), that the space delimited by the Apuseni Mountains, Criş Rivers, Tisza and the Danube was intensely inhabited. As expected, the burial practices here were heavily influenced by those who have politically dominated these areas. Based on a purely formal assessment, we can acknowledge that most of the findings from the area of Arad, belonging to this period of time, were published just in brief. Unfortunately, in the case of most of these findings there was a severe lack of work methodology, and thus, the collection and presentation of information being inadequate, it could not possibly contribute over time to a better scientific revaluation2. Subsequently, I will try to briefly present the history of the funerary findings from the present territory of the Arad County. The first and some of the most important funerary findings were made during late 19th century at Mâsca and Földvár puszta (presently located somewhere at the border of the Zimandul Nou village3), and were initially published by L. Réthy4, having since been reanalyzed in  I would like to give my thanks for the graphic reconstructions, drawings, and the suggestions offered in preparing this study to the colleagues Raluca Diana Matei and Elena Roxana Stăncescu. 1  Popa 1991, 153–188; Țiplic 2008, 161–190. 2  See in this respect the sometimes too passionate, but otherwise useful and necessary analysis by E. Gáll, în Gáll 2013, 862–869. 3  Given the indicated toponym, Földvár puszta, and its meaning during modern times, in conjunction with the realities in the field, where traces of another earth fortification could not be found, I would propose, with caution, to locate these findings at/near the citadel of Santana „Cetatea Veche”, from where pottery fragments dating from the 11th–12th centuries have emerged. The name „Feldioara”, received by a part of the Zimandul Nou village, an intensively farmed area nowadays, seems to be completely unrelated to the old toponym, being given to the colony established there during the communist period. However it is worth mentioning the observations made by I. Bóna regarding this kind of toponym, which helps pin-point the location of Arpadian earth fortifications, which is why we will not dwell on it now. 4  Réthy 1898, 124–131. *

344

Florin Mărginean

various studies. The importance of these early discoveries was not due to the large number of inventory pieces found (as was the case of the findings from Földvárpuszta), but it was rather due to their great significance (as was the case at Mâsca) as indicators of social status, and possibly of religious belief (the case of the findings near the Zimand border). Equally important could be the series of findings from Pecica – Șanțul Mare, discoveries made under the coordination of several generations of archaeologists, such as L. Dömötor, M. Roska5 or D. Popescu6, presented in a volume coordinated by I. H. Crișan dedicated to Dacian discoveries, in a short, but succinct chapter written by E. Dörner7. Based on the documents archived by the Museum of Arad, I have reanalyzed and published the results of these excavations, which at the present date may be considered to be one of the greatest necropolis belonging to the 10th–13th centuries excavated on the Lower Mureș area8. Aside from these inconsistent findings (such as those from Felnac, Șiria, Covăsânț, etc.) other discoveries of this kind have not been recorded until after World War II. The discoveries from Vărșand “Movila dintre vii”, concluded under the coordination of D. Popescu9, have inaugurated the series of discoveries in the post-World War II period. Recently, these findings have been completed by a series of new information10. The discoveries from Șiclău, published as a report by M. Rusu and E. Dörner11, then the discoveries from Șeitin, published by L. Mărghitan12, and the ones from Sânpetru German, published by E. Dörner13, have followed, and have since been analyzed and completed in a recent personal study14. Following this period, no other significant similar funerary discoveries have been recorded. Only after 1989, the findings from Nădlac15 and Pecica16 are to be noted, thus completing with them the repertoire of this type of discoveries. As it can be concluded from the aforementioned information, most of the findings were made because of chance occurrences and hazard (such was the case of the findings from Șiclău, Arad, Șeitin or Sânpetru German). None of these locations were researched thoroughly, the reasons why being well known. Even in the case of the funerary discoveries made during systematic archaeological excavations, the coordinating researchers aimed in fact to study other historical periods (as is the case of the discoveries from Vărșand or Pecica). Under these circumstances we can safely assume that the restrictions and the isolation imposed by the communist regime, the lack of systematic research programs, and especially the lack of specialists dedicated to this time period did not favour the realization of any synthesis and analysis that might be compatible to those in neighboring countries – here I refer especially to Hungary, Slovakia or the countries which used to be part of Yugoslavia. The few synthesis published after 1990 regarding funerary findings have naturally also included the discoveries from the area of Arad, which contributed to filling a void of information and, last but not least, to the better understanding of this historical period17. However, this puzzle is missing a number of complementary analysis (anthropological, archaeozoological, laboratory analysis, etc.), without which a modern archaeological investigation could not be imagined, regardless of what the object of the research is – funeral findings, settlements, citadels, or any other forms of habitat. Starting from this database, to which I personally contributed over the past decade in order to bring it up to date18, I will try to subsequently present some of the cases that I consider relevant to the chosen topic. The chosen order could indicate characters who had leadership or military roles, or a good status in the society they were part of. Unfortunately, only in one case, that of discoveries from Nădlac, I had benefit of an anthropological analysis, which I may say is one of the very few ones conducted in this area19.  Roska 1912, 1–71.  Popescu 1944, 71–73. 7  Crișan 1978, 16–30. 8  Mărginean 2011, 224–225. 9  Popescu 1956, 125–143. 10  Oța / Dragotă / Ducman 2006, 75–120. 11  Rusu, Dörner 1962, 705–712. 12  Mărghitan 1965, 581–586. 13  Dörner 1970, 457. 14  Mărginean 2011, 99–110. 15  Mărginean / Huszarik 2007, 17–38. 16  Mărginean / Andreica 2013, 321–338. 17  Bálint 1991; Cosma 2002; Heitel 2004–2005, 389–439; Țiplic 2006; Oța 2007; Gáll 2013. 18  Gáll 2013. 19  Băbău / Andreica / Mărginean 2008. 5 6

An insight on social status around the year 1000 AD, reflected by the funeral inventory of some graves

345

Fig. 1. Satellite image of the location of the Arad “Ceala” finds (in medallion, a location map after E. Dörner).

The first example to be discussed is the one of the grave discovered in Arad “Teritoriul G.A.S. Ceala”. The chanced findings from the north-west area of Arad, located on the former territory of the G.A.S. Ceala, presently the area of the Gai neighborhood, and their publishing by the late Egon Dörner, are still of great interest due to a number of reasons. The most important one is tied to the fact that we are dealing with discoveries from different eras, which analyzed separately bring to light aspects regarding the habitation of the Lower Mureș Valley during different time periods20. Regarding these findings, we know that in the summer of 1964 the workers at G.A.S. Ceala found, on a terrace of the Mureș, during the removal of sand and gravel, various metal objects nearby a human skeleton, destroyed upwards from the pelvis during the completion of their work assignment. Unfortunately the exact location of the site cannot be accurately pin-pointed in the field today, the only clues to its position being offered by E. Dörner in the article he published in 1970, where we know that the site, which I marked in red and yellow on the map above (see the satellite map of the location suggested by E. Dörner), is located 1.5  km north of the Arad-Pecica road, and about 8 km west of the center of Arad. The place in question was long used as a sand quarry21. The changes that have occurred in half a century have certainly modified the landscape, but comparing the old information with current pictures makes me believe that the location of the Fig. 2. Drawing of the grave discovered at Arad “Ceala” (after E. Dörner) and suggested reconstruction. territory I marked is most likely the one in which these findings were made.  Dörner 1970.  Dörner 1970, 447.

20 21

346

Florin Mărginean

What interests us in the present study is related to inventory of a burial tomb, partially disturbed by the process of sand extraction. Given the situation described in the field, with pieces discovered by chance and a less than clear archaeological context, it is difficult to assess whether what we have in discussion is in fact a single grave or more. However, analyzing the presentation made by the author of these findings22, and also a number of pieces recorded in the inventory register of the museum, the discussion remains open from both points of view. The distinction between these two situations would be particularly important, as it would allow us to determine the social status that the deceased might have had, but we will dwell more on this idea below. Judging by the descriptions made in the published research report, the stratigraphy in the field was not complex, the deceased having been rested directly on sand23. Thus, we know that out of a surface situated at -1,41 meters the inferior limbs of a human skeleton (oriented WNW-ESE) were excavated. At the extension of the left leg, at -1,20 meters, there was the skull and a few bones of a horse. The funeral inventory recovered on site consisted of: two stirrups, a bit, a buckle, a nail? and a knife24, all made of iron, a bow strengthener made of bone, a ring with a bronze disk and pieces of an iron sword blade. The pieces of metal recovered subsequently naturally complete the lower half of the skeleton which can be recorded archaeologically25. However, the discussion will remain open in any case, regardless of the fact the the findings might have come from an isolated grave, a small group of graves or even cemetery. In the absence of any other information from the field and considering the burial practices of the late 10th century, when the area in question was occupied by Hungarians, all of the situations above are possible. The only evidence of the existence of any other graves is given by a sword blade fragment and three rings, which have not been recorded with a clear context. But what interests us in the present discussion is the funerary inventory of precisely only one tomb, partially documented, which indicates that the individual buried there had a certain social position, a military rank perhaps (see the above drawing and reconstitution). From the Fig. 3. Satellite image of the location of Nădlac “Lutărie” finds (in medallion the general layout of the excavation). analyses performed in the entire Carpathian Basin we can deduce that the individual buried near Arad certainly belonged to the ruling elite26. This situation is interesting, and extremely suggestive regarding the possible rank of the deceased considering that such funerary inventory pieces are rare in the Lower Mureș Area, where most findings indicate people belonging to the middle and lower class27. It might be that this class separation is the very reason that had prompted the choice of an isolated burial place, although it is not necessarily mandatory.  Dörner 1970, 447.  Dörner 1970, 447. 24  Regarding these two pieces the author feels unsure, since while the knife is a common inventory object present in many graves of this kind, the nails are rather rare and thus make us believe that we are facing another kind of piece. 25  From previous discoveries, a sword with a heavy decorated bronze guard, with the handle bent towards the opposite side of the blade, was acquired through purchase. The lot was completed with two bracelets, one whole, consisting of a band with widened ends, and one fragmentary preserved. To these were added a few pieces that might indicate the presence of at least one grave, three bronze rings (actually links), a bracelet similar to the ones found in initial grave and a fragment of a sword blade. 26  Bálint 1969, 107–114; Bálint 1991; Gáll 2001, 128; Gáll 2004–2005, 336–337; Gáll 2013. 27  Kürti 1994, 167–169. 22 23

An insight on social status around the year 1000 AD, reflected by the funeral inventory of some graves

347

The second case to be discussed and analyzed is that of grave 13, discovered at Nădlac “Lutărie”. Out of the 15 graves researched at Nădlac28, based on the funerary inventory and the position of the grave in the cemetery I have chosen the grave marked with number 13 as being relevant to our present study. Within the present landscape of the town, the site is situated 3.5 km north of the current course of the Mureș, north-west of the city, 50 m west of the current cemetery, bordered to the northwest, west and southwest by an irrigation channel (see the map). Although the nature of the findings makes them fall into the category of small cemeteries which belonged either to a family or most likely to a clan, the validation of the archaeological information by the anthropological analysis performed on almost all of the skeletons (the only exception being graves 1–3)29 brings a valuable addition to all of our interpretations. Unfortunately a more complex form of analysis is missing, and thus we cannot make assumptions regarding the possible degrees of kinship that might have existed between the buried individuals. Regardless of these impediments, we will subsequently try, based on the existing evidence, to present the situation of this grave, which is part of a larger group – this organization might indicate the existence of familial or social links between the deceased individuals. The grave designated by us as M 13 was discovered as part of a row, situated 2 meters north-west of M 06, and belonging to a group made up of four other graves (M06, M07, M08 și M14 – see the plan above). The sepulchral pit, oval in shape (L=2,10 m, l=0,80 m), is situated at -0,40 m, oriented NW-SE. The deceased was placed directly on yellow clay soil, in supine position, with his face turned towards the left (north-east), his left arm lightly arched next to the body Fig. 4. Drawing of grave M 13 at “Lutărie” and suggested reconstruction. and with his right hand resting on the abdomen. The skeleton, found in its anatomical position, had the length of 1,75 m, its inferior limbs being placed parallel to each other in the sepulchral pit. The inventory which accompanied the deceased proved to be made up of extremely interesting pieces: two pendants, a heart-shaped plaque, a flint and steel, a rectangular belt buckle, a small knife, the fragments of a bit, and two stirrups. Along side them, on the right of the deceased, his quiver – which could be only partially recovered due to the advanced stages of corrosion – was found: the preserved fragments are an oval buckle and three ornamental bone plates placed around the opening, one without any decorations and the other two decorated with engraved circles. In the quiver there were placed six diamond shaped, shafted arrows, five elongated and a flattened one, all positioned ritually upwards, towards the opening. The trapezoidal quiver was reinforced with iron rods, consisting of three strengthening bands, terminated in diamond-shaped heads and fastened with rivets in the material of the quiver (leather or fabric). Due to poor conservation status, the frames of the quiver were recovered only partially, the drawings and the photographs being the only witnesses of their appearance in the moment of their discovery on the site. On the same side with the quiver there was a bow, of which only a semicircular bone plaque, from the middle of the bow, and four hardened bone ends, were preserved. The hardened ends were made out of long, polished bones (L=20 cm), cut at an angle at the wider end and narrow towards the free end of the bow. In the narrow end clefts were made to fix the rope. The opening of the bow was around 1,20 m. Only two of the hardened ends were preserved in a good condition, the other two being recovered in fragments. Both the narrower end of the quiver and the ends of the bow were placed under the elbow of the right arm of the deceased.  Mărginean / Huszarik 2007.  Băbău / Andreica / Mărginean 2008; Andreica 2013.

28 29

348

Florin Mărginean

In this case we face the grave of a warrior, most likely not an important one, as suggested by his funerary inventory (see the above drawing and reconstitution). It is worth mentioning that besides the weaponry and harness pieces, only one ornamental plaque from a strap was found30, which could be another piece of evidence to support the arguments stated above31. Besides this piece, two heartshaped pendants, one placed on the face of the deceased and another on the left side of the grave32, complete the image of a ritual whose symbolic meaning we are missing or can only suspect33. All of these, combined with the results of an anthropological analysis, have determined that we are dealing with a man found at a fairly advanced age for his time, over 60 years old, with an above average stature34. It is quite possible that the funerary inventory could indicate what social status the deceased had in his early years, the pieces buried with him having a ritual role. Perhaps analyzes such as those conducted by Á. Bíró could be useful in order to determine the truth behind this hypothesis35. What is also interesting is that this grave is part of a distinct group within the otherwise small cemetery. One can distinguish at least two groups, maybe three in the cemetery. The group to which grave 13 belongs also includes M06 (a teenager, approximately 18 years old), M07 and M08 (adult women between 45–50 years old) and M14 (adult male over 60) buried at the end of this line of graves, with poor inventory and an interesting pathology36. In the absence of a DNA analysis it is very difficult to rule out the possible family relationships between the deceased individuals, but any scenario is possible. A final case, just as interesting, is the tomb discovered at Sânpetru German “G.A.S.”. The tomb was discovered in 1962 on the former G.A.S., after the excavation of a pool, on a site situated at approximately 2 km SSE from the center of the village (see the map)37. The site is located before the entrance in the Sânpetru German halt, on the left side of the Arad-Sânnicolau Mare railway, where presently only the ruins of the G.A.S. can be observed. The site is located on the second terrace of the piedmont plain of Vinga. Arguably typical terraces, they are actually steps of Fig. 5. Satellite image of the location of Sânpetru German “GAS” finds. piedmont cones, arranged in a fan formation towards the southwest38. As with other funerary discoveries, we can notice a good choice of burial place, hidden from view and especially safe from the annual flooding of the Mureş. But the landscape certainly looked different than today, even if we would only take into account the fact that the Mureş bed was not adjusted and that its floods produced many changes in the surrounding landscape. It can be assumed that a large part of its territory was covered by forests, thickets and reeds. Non flood-able areas, represented by high terraces, side valleys and hills, were a safe place of refuge compared to the lower areas where swamps were usually formed. However there were many banks in the swampy areas that have been carefully chosen as living or burial spaces (as indicated by  Mărginean / Huszarik 2007, 27, pl. 5/3.  Gáll 2001 / 128–129. 32  Mărginean / Huszarik 2007, 27, pl. 5/4–5. 33  Mărginean / Huszarik 2007, 27. 34  Băbău / Andreica / Mărginean 2008, 195–196. 35  Bíró 2014. 36  Băbău / Andreica / Mărginean 2008, 191–193, 195–196. 37  Dörner 1970, 457; Mărginean 2013, 99–110. 38  Posea 2007, 365. 30 31

An insight on social status around the year 1000 AD, reflected by the funeral inventory of some graves

349

the findings from Arad “Teritoriul G.A.S. Ceala”, Nadlac-Arad Highway, Pecica-Site 1839 and probably by the findings from Șimand, which we will subsequently present). As was the case of the grave discovered at Arad – “Teritoriul G.A.S. Ceala”, it is very likely that the findings at Sânpetru German are part of an isolated grave. In the drawn box (1,5×1 m) the remains of a skeleton oriented west-east, at 1,20 m beneath walking level, were uncovered. It was placed in the sepulchral pit supine, with the arms resting along side the body and the legs parallel to each other. The inventory which accompanied the deceased was composed of several parts, which were largely bronze ornaments, but also the iron parts of the harness deposited ritually. Thus, on the right side of the head, an iron bit with sidebars was placed, while around the leg area two saddle stirrups and a buckle were placed, all of iron. Other 38 harness ornaments completed the preserved inventory, out of which four round ornaments and a rectangular one were found over the right shoulder, two rectangular ones were on the right collarbone, and two round ones were over the left Fig. 6. Drawing of the grave at Sânpetru German “GAS” and suggested reconstruction. shoulder. Another big round harness ornament and 15 small round ones were kept along the right arm, while 13 small round ornaments were on the chest, left arm wrist and on the legs of the skeleton. On the chest, two bronze Saltovo-type earrings were placed, connected through a cloth wire on which three small impure silver spheres were strung (only one of them was preserved), along with three other bronze cast buttons. Also on the chest there were two beads, one made out of a green paste and one yellow, and several metal plates out of a thin white metal40. The grave found at Sânpetru German is part of a series of symbolic funerals with a horse (I/1a group), classified more than 40 years ago by Cs. Bálint41, a study to which E. Gáll42 brought new additions. Based on the stored inventory it seems that we are dealing with the grave of a woman, who probably had no particular social status, just an above average material situation. Of particular interest in the funerary inventory are the harness pieces and ornaments, the clothing ornaments and accessories43 of the deceased being few and rather unimportant, but interesting due to the fact they aid in the determination of the deceased’s possible ethnicity. However, the Saltovo-type pair of earrings allow a relative dating of this discovery, a comprehensive study on this type of jewelry having been made by L. Révész more than three decades ago44. The duration of use of this type of jewellery in this space was estimated to have been between about 890/900 and 1000, afterwards this type of earrings seeming to disappear from funerary inventories. This was attributed to the gradual disappearance of the middle class during the 11th century. Ranked in Group B after Révész, Saltovo type earrings seem to be a good indicator for the reconstruction of the territory occupied by Hungarians at a certain time. As of yet, such findings are not known in the Transylvanian space, the author putting this on account of the deficiencies in research. The other ornaments and clothing accessories complete the funerary inventory, much more modest than the harness pieces and ornaments, of a woman who was buried at Sânpetru German in the first half of the 10th century (see the above drawing and reconstitution).  Mărginean / Andreica 2013.  Mărginean 2013. 41  Bálint 1969, 107–114. 42  Gáll 2004–2005, 375–385. 43  Mărginean 2013, 101, pl. II/1–2. 44  Révész 1988, 141–155. 39 40

350

Florin Mărginean

In close relation with the findings from Sânpetru German, I will present some pieces found by chance near the Simand border. On the southwestern boundary of this village, three parts (harness ornaments, probably part of a funerary inventory) were found. From the same area emerge some other types of findings, belonging to at least three historical periods, some being easily datable around the 3rd– 5th centuries and others at the end of the Middle Ages and the Ottoman conquest period45. The parts in question are three ornamental plaques, out of which two are belt end tips46. Unfortunately, they were found in the ploughed land, without any other context which might aid our arguments. Nevertheless, the almost perfect analogies with the funerary inventory of the grave discovered at Sânpetru German G.A.S. allow us to make this assessment47. In the absence of an archaeological research we can not know whether this is a single grave, as was the case at 1 2 3 Sânpetru German, or 0 5 cm group of graves. The fact is that we can Fig. 7. Satellite image and map with the location of the three items deal only with part of discovered within the boundary of Șimand village. a funerary inventory which can be dated as  Regarding this point, based on the information provided both by documents and historiography, and by cartographic sources, in conjunction with the discoveries in the field, it is now likely that here we are dealing with the old hearth of a village that disappeared in the late 16th century or at the beginning of the 17th century named Tovisegház (which translates into Romanian as „The church in/with thorns”). This place is very close to an area where similar discoveries were made, namely to Macea „Topilă” (see Gáll 2013, 307). The processing of the discoveries is still ongoing and will be the subject of another article. 46  Findings catalog: 1. Ornamental plaque fragment (probably belt end tip); alloy; pressing; an elongated strip terminated at one end in an broken arch, while at the other end is was probably straight, on the visible part a plant décor can be distinguished, being fitted with the help of small claws, of which only one was preserved; Lpreserved = 2,5 cm, l = 1,2 cm, g = 0,15 cm; Șimand village border; Complexul Muzeal Arad; without inventory number; Fig. 1. 2. Ornamental plaque (probably belt end tip, harness ornament); alloy, adorned in gold on the visible side; pressing; shaped as a rectangular “blazon” with two of the ends slightly rounded(L = 3 cm, l = 2,2 cm, g = 0,15 cm), with three spikes to aid attaching. The piece has a decor which consists of four elongated petals arranged around a small hemispherical bump, all surrounded by an embossed contour given by the shape of the piece; Șimand village border; Complexul Muzeal Arad; without inventory number.; Fig. 2. 3. Ornamental plaque; alloy; pressing; slightly concave, circular shape (Ø = 3,4 cm, g = 0,2 cm), has on the inside two spikes to aid attaching, of which one was preserved with a rectangular plate, probably to avoid detachment. The other spike is loose, probably after the piece suffered minor repairs, the fixing place for the attaching spike being perforated. The piece’s decor consists of a series of six circles connected by two prominent bands each, arranged on the edge, surrounding a flower with three petals, with a concave bump in the middle, circled by a rosette made of several embossed points; Șimand village border; Complexul Muzeal Arad; without inventory number; Fig. 3. 47  Dörner 1970, 457; Mărginean 2013, 99–110. 45

An insight on social status around the year 1000 AD, reflected by the funeral inventory of some graves

351

belonging in the second half of the 10th century. Two of the ornamental plaques were covered with gold, which could be indicators of the social status of the deceased. As with other graves with similar inventory, we might have a character that was at least part of the middle-class community of the time. The findings find analogue pieces in relatively close geographic sites: Pecica, Sânpetru German – G.A.S., Comloșu Mare, Şiclău48, Ártánd, Hencida49. From a historical point of view, the characters presented here can be dated as belonging to the middle of the 10th century and most likely to the period afterwards, when the area of the Lower Mureș Valley was divided between the influence of the Byzantines, represented here most likely by Glad, then surely by Ahtum, and the influence of the newcomers from northern Pontic steppes, the Hungarians, with the whole „procession” of populations that they have subjected50. The funerary findings from this geographical area and their more recent interpretations come to confirm this argument51. With the publication of all of the discoveries in this area, we might consider the positivist stage to be finally outdated. But this is only a small step, as this stage must also be completed with complementary analysis (laboratory and anthropological analysis, ethnographic comparisons and experimental archeology, graphic simulations, etc.), on which we will be able to rebuild at least part of the funerary ritual practices, and ultimately how the population found here at the end of the first millennium AD was socially organized52. All of this is necessary and useful especially in light of the fact that with the Christianization of the population from the Carpathian Basin area, somewhat abrupt changes have occurred in the people’s and society’s attitudes towards death and thus towards funeral rituals53. An important role in regard to this was played by the institution of the church, be it the Western or the Eastern one54. The change was gradual, some remnants of paganism being inherited by the society somewhat naturally, but the triumph of Christianity became obvious. This phenomenon can be seen in the context of funerary discoveries, and also in the laws at the end of the 11th century and the centuries that followed55.

Acknowledgments This work was possible with the financial support of the European Social Fund, Operational Program Human Resources Development 2007–2013, Priority no.1 “Education and training in support for growth and development of the knowledge society”, Key Area of Intervention 1.5 “Doctoral and post-doctoral research support” Title: “MINERVA – Cooperation for elite career in PhD and postdoctoral research”, ID POSDRU 159/1.5/S/137832.

Bibliography Andreica 2013 L. Andreica, Implications of a tibia and fibula fracture in the secondary adaptation of the skeleton of an individual discovered in Nădlac “Lutărie” (Arad County). Ziridava Studia Archaeologica 27, 247–252. Bálint 1969 Cs. Bálint, A honfoglalás kori lovastemetkezések néháni kérdése. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve (Szeged) 1, 1969, 107–114. Bálint 1991 Cs. Bálint, Südungarn im 10. Jahrhundert, Studia Archaeologica 11 (Budapest 1991). Băbău / Andreica / Mărginean 2008 A. Băbău, L. Andreica, F. Mărginean, Analiza antropologică a osemintelor descoperite în cimitirul medieval timpuriu de la Nădlac „Lutărie” (Jud. Arad). Brukenthal Acta Musei III, 1, 2008, 191–206.

 Rusu / Dörner 1962, 705–712; Gáll 2013, 444–457.  Fodor 1996, 211, 233–234. 50  Madgearu 1993, 5–10; Madgearu 1996, 10–20; Curta 2002, 267–272 (along with the literature specified); Engel 2006, 41–43. 51  Oța 2008, 191–192. 52  Curta 2002, 267–270, 275. 53  Țiplic 2014, 12–21. 54  Moravcsik 1970, 102–119; Bollók 2010, 39–57; Bollók 2012, 131–144; Rusu 2008, 42–56. 55  Gáll 2010, 265–286; Gáll 2010b, 287–312. 48 49

352

Florin Mărginean

Bíró 2014 Á. Bíró, Weapons in the 10–11th century Carpathian Basin. Studies in weapon technoloy and methodoloy – rigid bow applications and southern import swords in the archaeological material. Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex Instituto Archaeologico Universitatis de Rolando Eötvös nominatae Ser. 3. No. 2 (Budapest 2014), 519–540. Bollók 2010 A. Bollók, Pogányság és kereszténység között. A Kárpát-medence a magyar honfoglalás korában, în Keresztény gyökerek és a boldog magyar élet. (Budapest 2010), 39–57. Bollók 2012 A. Bollók, Byzantine missions among the Magyars during the later 10th century?, în M. Salamon, M. Wołoszyn, Al. Musin, P. Špehar (Eds.), Rome, Constantinople and Newly-Converted Europe. Archaeological and Historical Evidence (Kraków – Leipzig – Rzeszów – Warszawa 2012), 131–144. Bóna 1995 I. Bóna, Az Árpádok korai Várairól (Debrecen 1998). Cosma 2002 C. Cosma, Vestul şi nord-vestul României în secolele VIII–X d.H. Ethnic and cultural interferences in the 1st millenium B.C. to the 1st millenium A. D. 6 (Cluj-Napoca 2002). Crişan 1978 I. H. Crişan, Ziridava. Săpăturile de la „Şanţul Mare” din anii 1960, 1961, 1962, 1964 (Arad 1978). Curta 2002 F. Curta, Transilvania în jurul anului 1000. Ephemeris Napocensis XII, 267–288. Dörner 1970 E. Dörner, Cercetări şi săpături arheologice în judeţul Arad. Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice 9 (București1970), 445–463. Engel 2006 P. Engel, Regatul Sfântului Ştefan. Istoria Ungariei medievale (895–1526) (Cluj-Napoca 2006). Fodor 1996 I. Fodor (ed.), The Ancient Hungarians (Budapest 1996). Gáll 2004–2005 E. Gáll, Burial customs in the 10th–11th Centuries in Transylvania, Crişana and Banat. Dacia, N. S. XLVIII– XLIX, 2004–2005, 335–454. Gáll 2010a E. Gáll, The analysis of churchyard cemeteries in Transylvania from the 11th–13th centuries. Transylvania Review XIX, Supplement No. 5:1, 2010. Gáll 2010b E. Gáll, Krisztianizáció és régészet. A erdélyi-medencei 11–13. századi templomkörüli temetõk kutatásának stádiuma. Petkes Zs. (ed.) Hadak Útján XX. Népvándorláskor Fiatal Kutatóinak XX. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete (Budapest-Szigethalom 2010). Gáll 2013 E. Gáll, Az Erdélyi-Medence, a Partium és a Bánság 10–11. századi temetői, szórvány-és kincsleletei (Szeged 2013). Heitel 1994–1995 R. Heitel, Der Archäologie der ersten und zweiten Phase des Eindringens Ungarn in das innerkarpatische Transilvanien. Dacia, N. S., 38–39, 1994–1995, 389–439. Kürti 1994 B. Kürti, Honfoglalók a Maros-torok táján. Kovács László (ed.), Honfoglalás és régészet (Budapest 1994), 161–170. Madgearu 1993 A. Madgearu, Contribuţii privind datarea conflictului dintre ducele bănăţean Ahtum şi regele Ştefan I al Ungariei. Banatica, 12, II, 1993, 5–12. Madgearu 1996 A. Madgearu, “Gesta Hungarorum” despre prima pătrundere a ungurilor în Banat. Revista Istorică, Seria nouă (București), tomul 7, 1–2, 1996, 5–22. Mărginean, Huszarik 2007 F. Mărginean, P. Huszarik, Cimitirul medieval timpuriu de la Nădlac “Lutărie” ( jud. Arad). Arheologia Medievală VI, 2007, 17–38. Mărginean 2011 F. Mărginean, Cercetări privind necropola medieval timpurie de la Pecica “Şanţul Mare” (sec. X/XI–XIII). Analele Banatului, SN 2011, 221–251.

An insight on social status around the year 1000 AD, reflected by the funeral inventory of some graves

353

Mărginean 2013 F. Mărginean, New considerations on the grave discovered in the Sânpetru German G. A. S. (Arad county). Studia Universitatis Cibiniensis, seria Historia 2011, 99–110. Mărginean / Andreica 2013 F. Mărginean, L. Andreica, Un mormânt izolat descoperit pe valea inferioară a Mureșului. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie 3–4, 63, 2013, 321–338. Moravcsik 1970 G. Moravcsik, Byzantium and Magyars (Budapest 1970). Oţa 2008 S. Oţa, Orizonturi funerare din Banatul istoric (Sibiu 2008). Oța / Dragotă / Ducman 2006 S. Oța, A. Dragotă, G. Ducman, Piese din colecțiile MNIR, provenite din descoperiri cu caracter funerar, din Transilvania și Crișana (sec. X–XII). Patrimonium Apulense, V–VI, 2006, 75–120. Popescu 1944 D. Popescu, Raport asupra săpăturilor de la Pecica-Rovine şi Semlac ( jud. Arad). Raport asupra activităţii ştiinţifice a Muzeului Naţional de Antichităţi în anii 1942 şi 1943 (Bucureşti 1944), 71–73. Popescu 1956 D. Popescu, Cercetări arheologice în Transilvania. Săpăturile de la Vărșand. Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice II (București 1956), 125–143. Posea 1997 G. Posea, Câmpia de vest a României (câmpia Banato-Crişană) (Bucureşti 1997). RepArh 1999 Repertoriul arheologic al văi Mureşului Inferior (Timișoare 1999). Réthy 1898 L. Réthy, Két árpádkori temető Arad megyében. Archaeológiai Értesitő 18, 1898,124–131. Révész 1988 L. Révész, Gömbsorcsüngős fülbevalók a Kárpát-medencében. A Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve, (Miskolc) XXV–XXVI, 1988, 141–159. Révész 1996 L. Révész, A karosi honfoglalás kori temetők. Régészeti adatok a Felső-Tisza-vidék X. századi történetéhez. Magyarország honfoglalás kori és kora Árpád-kori sirleletei 1 (Miskolc 1996). Roska 1912 M. Roska, Ásatás a pécska-szemláki határban levő Nagy Sánczon. Dolgozatok (Cluj) III, 1912, 1–73. Rusu, Dörner 1962 M. Rusu, E. Dörner, Săpătura de salvare de la Şiclău, Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice 8 (București1962), 705–712. Rusu 2008 A. A. Rusu, Creștinismul românesc în preajma Anului O Mie: în căutarea identității. O. Cristea, G. Lazăr (Eds.), Vocația istoriei. Prinos profesorului Șerban Papacostea (Brăila 2008, 39–67). Ţiplic 2006 I. M. Ţiplic, Transylvania in the Early Middle Ages, (Alba-Iulia 2006). Țiplic 2008 I. M. Țiplic, Arheologia și istoria la începutul mileniului trei. Banatica 18, 2008, 161–194. Țiplic 2014 I. M. Țiplic, Considerații cu privire la apariția creștinismului medieval în Europa Centrală și de Sud-Est. Transilvania (Sibiu) 7, 2014, 12–21.

A

n attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10 th century and the first quarter of the 11 th century in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat with an outlook to the Carpathian Basin Erwin Gáll

Institute of Archaeology Vasile Pârvan, Romanian Academy, senior researcher III Bucharest, Ro [email protected]

Abstract: One of the classic inventory pieces of the burials with horses are the stirrups, which signals the existence of a saddle in the grave, form a significant number of the material culture of the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century. The article aims to examine stirrups in a more complex way covering all the elements of the body of the stirrup. It means the analysis of both functional and technological details. Our analysis is regional, but by this we would like to draw attention to the fact that a more complex analysis of stirrup finds might cast light to several connections that could not have been noticed by earlier studies due to their methods. Keywords: Transylvania/Crișana/Banat, 10th–11th century, burials, horses stirrups

A. Introduction: on the burial in the 10th century (Fig. 1)

B

urial customs are considered the most important elements in the definition of the 10th century cultural ‘horizon’, cultural ‘conglomeration’1. The burial customs mainly reflect the emotional reactions of the family members, relatives and the community when someone passes away2, and the most important condition of the quality and the quantity of grave furnishings was the wealth of the individual, the family or the community, certainly in most cases it was closely related to the social status of the deceased. It is expressed clearly with the quality and quantity of the ritual sacrifices, weapons, clothes and jewellery placed in the grave. We have to bear in mind that the quantity of the objects and sacrifices largely depends upon the political or economic situation in a region, the significance of the roads crossing it, or whether it is in a central or peripheral situation and to all these, some occasional foreign presents (!) should be added, which are palpable in some cases and might indicate the political significance of a person or a family. The various aspects of burial customs are in close connection with the way the mourners’ grief is shown as the relationship of the deceased person with the mourners was differentiated during their lifetime and it stayed the same at the moment of death. Burial customs are the materialization of this psychological situation that can be seen in the graves, and the quality and quantity of grave furnishings connected to them. Therefore, one cannot talk about the grief of the mourners as it is different from time to time. So the ‘parcel of furnishings’ is also different in terms of its quality and quantity in each and every case. In our opinion, the feeling of grief is the core of the psychological phenomenon in connection with burials, the picture of the other world is a complementary element in the process of mourning and the burial, which can both relieve the grief of the mourners, and it can influence  On the concept of the dynamic character of the culture, see for example: Mannheim 1995, 25–51.  Brather 2008, 255, Fig. 5.

1 2

356

Erwin Gáll

burial customs and the various objects placed in the grave, i. e. the grave furnishing. The process of this phenomenon is illustrated below:

other world

e

iev

rel

mourners

grief

he st

ef

gri

in fu flue rn nc ish es ing th sr eb eg uri ist al ere cu d i sto n t ms he a gr nd av es

treatment of the dead

burial customs and furnishings registered in the graves

Fig. 1. The possible connection between the grief of the mourners and the picture of the other world.

The archaeologically excavated grave contains the remains of a deceased person or of several people, but the goods found in the grave might relate to how the mourners represent the deceased person’s prestige and they can (also) emphasize the importance of the family3. It is quite understandable, in the ‘pagan’ age, that the mourning community or family wants/wanted the deceased person to appear in shining glory when they escort/escorted him/her on their last journey, in the presence of the local community. So the grave good assemblage found alongside the deceased person was meant to indicate the economic potential, welfare, prestige, influence and power of the mourners and their legitimacy, and as a consequence of this the (achieved) social position, status or rank of the deceased person4. We can speak of the symbolization of the status of the deceased person, although it must be admitted that this happens in an indirect way (by the relatives). Therefore it might be risky to see grave goods as the concrete reflections of the mobile, frequently changing or stagnating social positions of individuals from different social groups. However, it is undeniable that there must have been a close relationship between them, although, at least in theory, this might not have prevailed into modern times. It can be firmly stated that grave assemblages could symbolize the last status/statuses5 of the deceased person, and therefore we can talk about a static other-world representation of the statuses the individuals of a society had achieved by the time they died. The grave furnishing is only ‘temporarily’ visible to those who are left behind6, but their mnemonic power is undeniable and this statement in the 10th century can absolutely be applied to the weapon and horse burials7. In contrast with this, the outer elements of burials/cemeteries, such as the topographical location, mounds etc, and their integration into the landscape do not only affect the landscape itself but the state and identity of the community too. Based on this important social-psychological aspect, the topographical location of the burials seems to be connected to the level of organisation in a community and to symbolise the social differences between communities or groups of people8.  For example: Härke 2000; Parker Pearson 2001.  In this sense we can cite Parker Pearson’s words: ‘Tombs are not just somewhere to put bodies: they are representations of power. Like ritual, funerary architecture legitimizes and extends the hegemonic order’. Parker Pearson 2001, 196. 5  In an abstract sense status, even in the early Middle Ages, meant a social position. Status in its abstract meaning is a position in a pattern, so each individual has several statuses as everyone is part of the materialization of several patterns. It is an important fact that society has created two types of statuses: the proprietory (e. g. sex, age) and the acquired status (e. g. warrior), whose symbolism, a treasure trove of its symbols can be found in the burials of the time of the 'Hungarian Conquest'. The factor of the social class or cast may rarely substitute (if at all) for the gender, the age or the biological relations. The role is the dynamic aspect of the status, the individual plays a role when practicing his/her rights and obligations that make up the social status. The very complicated phenomenon of the two status types can be observed in the formation of group identities in the early Middle Ages. Gilkeson 2010, 65; Linton 1964, 113–115. 6  Effros 2003, 175. 7  Høilund Nielsen 1997, 129–148. 8  For example, in the 19th century in Gâmbaș, besides the two big cemeteries (the Reformist and the Orthodox) there was the graveyard of the Zeyk family containing a few graves. From this point of view see also: Effros 2003, 122. 3 4

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

357

In early medieval societies male violence has a complexity and a social-embedded nature. However, violence and the use of weapon were integral elements of masculine personal identity, particularly for elites9. In these ways, weapons became an integral part of commemorating personal and group identities. The symbolic significance and mnemonic impact of weaponry could also have derived from the rich and complex decorations applied to weaponry (for example in the 10th century sabre from Schatzkammer or the weaponry from the rich graves from Rakamaz, Karos, Zemplin, etc.). These decorated weapons may have been powerful visual statements of identity. In our opinion, the use of weapons and its prestige influenced these communities’ picture of the other world effectively ‘militarizing’ it. Among the burial customs of the ‘conquering Hungarians’ one of the symbols of the male warrior was the weapon and parts of the horse in the grave, which must have been in connection with the concepts and the way of thinking of the 10th century ‘Hungarian conquerors’ and their image of the other world. However, all this was not constant, but in a continuous, dynamic change as can be traced back with more or less certainty due to funerary archaeology.

B. Horse burials. A problem of structural integration and spread of a mode? (Fig. 2–4) The horse burial and its variants in the Conquest Period have been considered – improperly – as a ‘Hungarian’10 ethno- or elite specific burial type, nevertheless this problem is much more complex.

17

7–8

45

42

39 49

14?, 15–16 44

10 11 19–27

34

48

38

5

12? 32

29

37 40– 41 46

31

4

36

2

30 47

6

33

1

18

35

13?

3 9

43 28

50

N

Fig. 2. The remains of 10th–11th century horse burials in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat.  Ellis Davidson 1989, 11–24.  The archaeological inheritance of the ‘conquering Hungarians’ should not be regarded as ethnospecific but as a regional cultural ‘conglomeration’ which was characteristic of the Carpathian Basin in the 10th century. The archaeological finds that have been left for us from the 10th century Carpathian Basin, mainly finds from cemeteries, are not the relics of a community with a uniform identity, and definitely not the relics of an ethnic group. The very subjective narrative sources themselves speak of a population in the 10th century that spoke at least two languages, but there are several sources which report the rapid structural integration of the Slavonic population. In more detail: A. H. 1996, 38; Bálint 2005, 37–56; Bálint 2006, 277–347; Gáll 2013a, Vol. I, 637–640, 821–824, 880–881, 900–903, 905–907. 9

10

358

Erwin Gáll

More than three decades ago, Csanád Bálint classified the horse burials of the Carpathian Basin; 355 finds were collected and described by the Hungarian archaeologist. In his catalogue he could include and describe only a few cases from the present day Transylvania, Banat and Crișana/Partium11. According to the data, 108 graves, single graves or stray finds (bits, stirrups) can be registered in 50 sites which are to be classified as horse burials or some variants of them (see Annex 1). There are 25 stray finds, in 16 cases the type of the horse burial is unknown due to the not professional excavation or the graves were either disturbed or ransacked and in 3 cases the graves are not published. In 65 cases the graves are well documented and the type of the horse burial can be identified. Horse burials first of all could have symbolised male warrior identity, whose representations could have been imitated by women. This phenomenon in the various social communities is definitely connected to the status of women inferior to that of men. The data show that the proportion of male horse burials was much more bigger (or they were imitated by those who buried them). Besides the sociological questions, the possibility of different cultural background or a population of different origin (we did not use the word ethnos on purpose) should also be considered in relation to horse burials. Legend - symbolic horse burials (Bálint type I) - horse burials with the hide deposited at the feet (Bálint type II)

- stuffed horsehide (Bálint type III)

7

45

7

- folded horsehides (Bálint type IV)

45 39 15

44

16

44 34

4

34

48

31

40

2

30 19, 20, 21, 22, 24 26 20, 23, 25, 27

47

50

18

35

2

9

35

N

Fig. 3. The classification of horse burials in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat.

The horse burials of Type I, i. e. the symbolic horse burials, in the eastern and southern Banat and south Transylvania are in stark contrast to the other type of horse burials in the north-western Banat and Northern Transylvania. How can we account for this situation? At the moment mainly chronological differences can be seen, so the suggestion that symbolic horse burials became more common in the second half of the 10th century is well grounded12. But if we accept the chronological data, it also should be taken into consideration that in the second half of the 10th century not just the number of symbolic horse burials increased but the number of graves and cemeteries also show a huge growth  Șiclău, Biharea, Cluj-Napoca-Zápolya Street, Sfântu Gheorghe-Eprestető. Bálint 1969, Map.  Bálint 1969, 107–114.

11 12

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

359

compared to the number of graves dated to the first half of the 10th century, so this issue should be analysed in a statistical aspect too. Analysing on a quantitative scale it is obvious that according to modern typochronology, the number of cemeteries that can be dated to the second half of the century is bigger, so it is logical that the number and percentage of horse burials should also be bigger. The fact that horse burials are to be found in different geographical environments and in cemeteries of different sizes raises the question of whether all horse burials can be considered 10th century ‘Hungarian conqueror’ burials? The best example of this is the person in Alba Iulia-Staţia de Salvare Trench 4 Grave 1: the skeleton in this partial horse burial was placed in the grave in E–W direction and a stone cover was placed on it.

Burial customs registered in the cemeteries’ type Alba Iulia Brânduşei street - E–W orientations - stone coverings

Trench IV Grave 1 - partial horse burial - E–W orientation - stone coverings

Burial customs registered in the typical 'Hungarian Conquerors' cemeteries’ - partial horse burials - weapon burials - W–E orientations

Fig. 4. Burial customs of different origins in Trench IV, Grave 1, Alba Iulia-Stația de Salvare.

It is important to emphasize that stone-brick cover burials and E–W orientation (reverse orientation) can be classified as a custom alien to the ‘conquering Hungarian’ burials13. Based upon the only unpublished, grave in which all three customs can be observed, it is impossible to answer the question by archaeological means whether the 10th century conquerors adopted the tradition of reverse orientation (it is also alien to the population of horse–weapon burials) and that of stone-brick cover burials or the population of reverse orientated burials adopted the custom of horse–weapon burials from the ‘conquering Hungarians’. How can we account for this? Can we see this as a sign of acculturation and structural integration? The only remaining question is: how deeply and to what extent did it affect the conquered people? So it seems to us that the issue of the territorial range of horse burials and their spread in the 10th century in the Carpathian Basin, like the issue of lock rings with S-shaped ends14, is not an economic15 but a cultural-anthropological issue too, and may be connected to the mingling of the ‘conquering Hungarians’ with the population that was conquered or brought here, or to the new eastern population from the second half of the 10th century, and their cultural acculturation, assimilation and structural integration, which might have taken place at different paces. This kind of processes can take place sooner or later, in our opinion, this could be generated by two phenomena: 1. Why were the conquerors interested in integrating the different layers or individuals of the conquered population into their structures? 2. To what extent could the individuals of the conquered population integrate, in this case becoming a ‘conqueror Hungarian’? Reconstructing the complicated sociological and socio-psychological phenomena generated by the political-military elite after the conquest is an even more difficult task. Taking into consideration the written sources and the archaeological finds, in the first step the definition of structural integration can be applied to the relationship between the ‘Hungarian conqueror’ political-military structure and a part of the local communities at the end of the 9th century and the beginning of the 10th. We have to mention that the goal of the integration process is the organisation of the mutual relationship of communities, in accordance with the principle of fitting to one another. However, as a result of this, sometimes cultural enclaves change integrity to such extent that only the third generation will be able to accommodate to the whole system16. In our opinion, integration also requires a necessity to adapt  Gáll 2010, 294–303; Gáll 2013a, Vol. I, 153–156, 597–601, 602–606, 637–640, 871–875, 880–881.  Gáll 2009, 157–175; Gáll 2013a, Vol. I, 163–168, 641–658, 882–883. 15  Bálint 1969, 112. 16  AEKK 2010, 182. 13 14

360

Erwin Gáll

and a capacity, which in turn modifies the cultural features of a particular entity, accompanying acculturation17. For example on the integration process, the name of ‘Bugat Rex’ (Bogat) is mentioned by Liutprand, which means that Slavonic units led by Slavonic chiefs or big men also took part in the ‘Hungarian’ power structure’s western military expeditions18. So structural integration might have triggered such processes that can be proved by the above mentioned archaeological examples, although to a limited extent. In our opinion, these are the archaeological examples of the imitation and social adaptation of fashion waves generated within the frames of power structures. Only the networks of power structure can account for their gaining ground, at the same time they can undoubtedly be interpreted to have been above (groups of populations)19.

C. Stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first third of the 11th century (Fig. 5) One of the classic inventory pieces of the burials with horses are the stirrups20, a fact which signals the existence of a saddle in the grave. The saddle made of organic material usually decomposes so the remaining elements which can be found by archaeologists are the iron stirrups and the bigger sized strap buckles.

12

12

6

36

36 31 39

9

29

8

27 30 38

14–21

31

29

3

25

3–4

25

23 34

23

33 32 30 5

32 24 5

40

10 11 10

35

27

7

39

35 9

6

37

1 1

13

24 37

2

13 28

26 2

28 22

40

N

Fig. 5. The 10th–11th century stirrups in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat.  AEKK 2010, 21–22. In our research of this era, we think the term acculturation level created by Gyöngyi Bindorffer appropriate, its highest level or its result is cultural assimilation. Bindorffer 2001, 141. 18  Kordé 1994, 116; Langó 2007, 18, note 13. 19  According to Sebastian Brather, archaeology cannot be used to identify ‘ethnic’ groups, which opinion the author of these lines can only agree with. Brather 2002, 152–156. 20  On the 10th–11th century stirrups in the Carpathian Basin: Hampel 1896; Hampel 1900, 239; Hampel 1905, 55–59; Szőke 1962, 33–34; Bakay 1965, 19, 21; Bakay 1965, 142–149; Dienes 1966, 208–232; Ruttkay 1976, 353–256, Abb. 74; Mesterházy 1981, 220–222; Kovács 1985, 125–139; Kovács 1986, 195–225; Schulze-Dörlamm 1988, 373–478; Révész 1996, 43–46; Révész 1999, 267–299; Istvánovits 2003, 348–351; Langó 2007, 131. kép.

17

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

361

The stirrups form a significant number of the material culture of the 10th century (few of them may even be dated to the 11th century) in the three regions together with the other harness parts: from 40 sites 131 pieces are known. In 56 burials altogether 95 stirrups were identified and to this we can add the 36 pieces of stray stirrup finds. From the Transylvanian Basin 24 (Annex 2: S. 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 22, 26, 28), from the Banat 42 (Annex 2: S. 5, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 30, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 40) and from the Partium 65 examples (Annex 2: S. 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 25, 27, 29, 31, 35, 36, 39) are known. As can be seen on Fig. 5, although grave finds have been excavated in Transylvania in the greatest number21, the number of stirrups (and the number of burials with horses) excavated in the Banat and the Crișana/Partium is higher than the number of stirrups found in Transylvania, but it can be connected to the number of burials with horses. In the majority of the cases the stirrups found in graves turned up in pairs, in few cases only one stirrup was registered: Biharea-Somlyóhegy Graves 2, 4 and 6, Dudeştii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound VIII, Hodoni Grave 3, Cluj-Napoca-Plugarilor Street Grave 25, Cluj-Napoca-Zápolya Street Graves 1 and 11, Nădlac Graves 4 and 6, Șiclău Grave 9, Tărian Grave 36, Tomnatic-Kleine Hügel Grave 2.

The methodological basis of the attempt to classify stirrups (Fig. 6) In the past more than 170 years a considerable amount of stirrup finds have been excavated in the graves dating from the 10th and the first third of the 11th centuries until the so-called pagan funerary customs were gradually superseded by the Christian ones. Since then hardly any detailed analyses of this category of objects have been done, researches were content with the classification of the main types that can easily be distinguished at first sight. Therefore we tried to carry out a more complex analysis of the stirrups covering all the details. The parts of stirrups that have been distinguished by us are shown in Fig. 6: strap loop

strap loop opening for the strap leather arch

neck arch

body form

opening for the strap leather

body form

‘knob’ decoration foot plate

foot plate Fig. 6. The stirrup’s constitutive parts.

This classification took into account the following details that are partly formal and partly technological: A. 1. the shape of the strap loop of the stirrup A. 2. the shape of the body of the stirrup A. 3. the shape of the arches of the body of the stirrup, so the cross-section of the stirrup A. 4. the analysis of the shape of the foot plate B. 1. the analysis of the weight of the stirrups Our analysis is regional, but by this we would like to draw attention to the fact that a more complex analysis of stirrup finds might cast light to several connections that could not have been noticed by earlier studies due to their methods. Starting from this supposition, we applied the aforementioned analytic method consisting of five points. In the classification of the stirrup groups we considered the body of the stirrup and the crosssection of the arches of the stirrup the most important, so these constituted the most important part of our analysis.

Type based analyses So we are trying to analyse the stirrup finds available to us based upon the aforementioned method. According to the earlier analyses, 7 main groups of stirrups can be distinguished: pear-shaped  Gáll 2013a, Vol. I, 564–586, Fig. 149–171.

21

362

Erwin Gáll

stirrups, forged shoulder-handled stirrups, trapeze-shaped stirrups, stirrups with straight foot plate, curved arches and strap loop with neck (see: Révész’s type 1 and 2), so called the ‘Cluj’ (Kolozsvár) stirrup type, trapeze-shaped stirrup forged together with the strap loop, stirrups with ‘forked arches’. The seventh of these types is a Western European variety, which is thought in a ‘romantic’ way to have caught on through the raids, although there is a number of other explanations for it.

C.1.1. So called pear-shaped stirrups (see Annex 2; Fig. 7–16; Plate 1; Table 1) Classically, the terminology of the ‘pear’ – shaped cavalry stirrup used in the literature, from a formal point of view, is not exactly defined. This group of stirrups makes up the greatest part of stirrups found in 10th century graves, therefore we considered it important to analyse and classify them as exactly as is possible. The latest attempt was made by Eszter Istvánovits, who tried to separate the stirrup shapes called ‘pear’ and ‘round’ by her. On a formative basis, this division is not well-founded as is mentioned by the author herself22, as no item can be distinguished from the so called pear shaped stirrups based upon the ‘round’ shape of their body (there is no round stirrup concerning its shape) and the shape of the strap loop and that of the foot plate is the same in each case. In our region 67 types of pear-shaped stirrups have been registered: 20 pear-shaped stirrups in the Banat (15 items in 9 graves in 8 sites, and 5 items have been found in 4 sites as stray finds)23, 9 items have been found in the Transylvanian Basin (8 items in 6 graves in 5 sites and a stray find), and 38 items in the Crișana/Partium (31 items were found in 18 graves in 5 excavation sites and 7 items were found in 4 sites as stray finds). So it was the Transylvanian Basin where the smallest number of pear-shaped stirrups has been found.

6

36

36 31

31

11 10 25

35 29 9

8

29

3

3–4

25 26

34

32 15–16, 19, 21

11

39

35 9

6

2

32 24 37 37 40

28 40

N

Fig. 7. The number of 10th–11th century pear shaped stirrups in each site in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat.  Istvánovits 2003, 349.  Our table does not show the pear-shaped stirrups found in Graves 2 and 3 in Mound IV Dudeștii vechi-Pusta Bucova (three items) and Dűlő III in Cenadul Sârbesc-Pojána (1 item).

22 23

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

363

As has been mentioned, the different parts of the stirrups have been examined separately by us from a methodological point of view. A similar analysing method was followed in the case of pearshaped stirrups. So in the case of strap loops 8 types have been distinguished (Type I: 2 subtypes; Type II: 2 subtypes; Type IV: 2 subtypes; Type V: 4 subtypes), among the shapes of stirrup bodies 6 types (Type II: 3 subtypes; Type III: 3 subtypes; Type IV: 2 subtypes; Type V: 2 subtypes; Type VI: 4 subtypes), and among stirrup foot plates 4 types have been separated. Among stirrup arches, which represent an important technological aspect as will be seen later, 4 shapes have been distinguished: flat, round, rhombus and rectangular. (Plate 1) Based on this research method, the findings of our categorization are shown in the comprehensive chart below: Sites

Types of strap loops I – type, 1 – subtype

Types of stirrup bodies I – type, 1 – subtype

The crosssection of stirrup arches

Shape of the foot plates

Foot plate types I – type, 1 – subtype

Biharea Grave 7/no. 2

V/3

I

plate

curved

I

Hodoni Grave 3

V/3

I

plate

curved

-

Cluj-Napoca-Zápolya street Grave 11

V/3

I

plate

curved

I

Șiclău Grave 12/no. 1

V/3

I

plate

curved

-

Timișoara-Cioreni stray find

V/3

I

plate

curved

I

Tărian Grave 36

V/2

I

plate

curved

I

Voiteg Grave 3/no. 1

III

I

plate

curved

I

Cheglevici no. 1

III

I

plate

curved

I

Șiclău Grave 11/no. 2

V/4

I

plate

curved

III

Șiclău Grave 1/no. 1

V/4

I

plate

curved

IV

Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound V Grave 3/no. 1

V/2

IV/3

plate

partially curved

Tărian Grave 28/no. 2

V/4

IV/3

plate

Vărșand stray find

III

IV/3

Cluj-Napoca-Zápolya street Grave 10/no. 2 (with 14C analyses)

III

Dudeștii Vechi Mound I/no. 2 Cheglevici no. 2

The overall types of pear-shaped stirrups types-subtypes Pear – Pe Pe1a1



→



→ Pe1a1



→ Pe1a1 → Pe1a1 → Pe1a1 → Pe1a2 → Pe1a3 → Pe1a3

→ Pe1a4a

→ Pe1a4b

I



→ Pe1b1

curved

III

plate

curved





→ Pe1b2

IV/3

plate

curved

I

III

IV/3

plate

curved

IV

III

IV/3

plate

curved

I

Arad County – stray find

IV/2

IV/3

plate

curved

I

Biharea Grave 5/no. 2

IV/2

IV/3

plate

curved

-

Biharea Grave 7/no. 1

IV/2

IV/3

plate

curved

I

Orăștie Grave 43

IV/2

IV/3

plate

curved

-

Jigodin

V/1

IV/3

plate

?

-

Dudeștii Vechi-Mound I/no. 1

IV/2

IV/3

plate

partially curved

Biharea Grave 5/no. 1

II/2

IV/3

plate

curved

I

Șiclău Grave 2/no. 1

V/3

II/3

plate

curved

II

IV



→ Pe1b3



→ Pe1b4





















→ Pe1b3

→ Pe1b4

→ Pe1b5

→ Pe1b5

→ Pe1b5

→ Pe1b5

→ Pe1b6

→ Pe1b6

→ Pe1b7

→ Pe1c1

364

Erwin Gáll

Cluj-Napoca-Zápolya street Grave 10/no. 1 (with 14C analyses)

V/2

VI/1

plate

partially curved

I



→ Pe1c2

Biharea Grave 8/1

III

VI/1

plate

curved

I

Biharea Grave 2

IV/2

VII/2

plate

curved

-



→ Pe1c3

Șiclău Grave 12/no. 2

IV/1

II/3

plate

curved

IV

Biharea Grave 1/no. 2

IV/2

II/3

plate

curved

-



→ Pe1c5

Șiclău Grave 2/no. 2

II/2

VII/2

plate

partially curved

II

Biharea Grave 8/no. 2

I/2

II/3

plate

curved

I

II/3

plate

curved

-

Șiclău Grave 1/no. 2



→ Pe1c4 → Pe1c6 → Pe1c7



→ Pe1c8



→ Pe1d



→ Pe1c8

Biharea Grave 3/no. 1

III

V/1

plate

curved

I

Biharea Grave 3/no. 2

III

V/1

plate

curved

I

Cluj-Napoca-Zápolya street Grave 6/no. 1

IV/1

V/1

plate

curved

IV

Cluj-Napoca-Zápolya street Grave 6/no. 2

IV/1

V/1

plate

curved

IV

Cluj-NapocaPlugarilor street Grave 25

IV/1

V/1

plate

curved

IV



→ Pe1d

Timișoara-Cioreni Grave A /no. 1

V/1

III

plate

curved

I

Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound V Grave 3 /no. 2

VII

plate

?

I





→ Pe1e

→ Pe1f

Mâsca/no. 1

VI

VII/1

plate

partially curved

III

Mâsca/no. 2

VI

VII/1

plate

partially curved

III



→ Pe1g1

Dudeștii VechiDragomir’s mound Grave 4

III

VII/ 2

plate

partially curved

I



→ Pe1g2

Biharea Grave 1/no. 1

I/1

II/2

circle

curved

-

Timișoara-Cioreni Grave A/no. 2

I/1

II/2

circle

curved

III



→ Pe2a1

Biharea Grave 6

II/1

IV/2

circle

curved

-

Tărian Grave 28/no. 1

IV/1

V/2

circle

?

-

Şagu stray find

VI

V/2

circle

?

-

Pecica no. 5

VI

V/2

circle

?

-

Alba Iulia-Stația de Salvare Trench XV/1981/Grave 20

VI

VII/1

circle

curved

-



→ Pe2c

Voiteg Grave 3/no. 2

V/1

VII/4

circle

partially curved

II

Arad Grave X/no. 1

V/1

II/1

rhombus

curved

I



→ Pe2d

Arad Grave X/no. 2

V/1

II/1

rhombus

curved

III

Sânpetru German/ no. 1

II/2

II/1

rhombus

curved

I

Sânpetru German/ no. 2

II/2

II/1

rhombus

curved

I









→ Pe1d

→ Pe1d

→ Pe1d

→ Pe1g1



→ Pe2a1



→ Pe2b





→ Pe2a2 → Pe2b

→ Pe2b



→ Pe3a1



→ Pe3a3





→ Pe3a2

→ Pe3a3

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

Biharea Grave 4

II/2

II/2

rhombus

curved

I

Șiclău Grave 10/no. 2

I/2

IV/1

rhombus

curved

IV

Șiclău Grave 8/no. 1

VI

VIII/2

rhombus

partially curved

IV

Șiclău Grave 10/no. 1

II/2

VIII/2

rhombus

partially curved

II

Pecica no. 3

I/2

VII/ 4

rhombus

partially curved

I

Pecica no. 4

VIII

VI/2

rhombus

?

-

Salonta Grave 2/no. 1

V/4

VII/3

rectangular

?

-

Salonta Grave 2/no. 2

V/4

-

rectangular

?

-

Șiclău Grave 11/no. 1

III

VII/3

rectangular

?

-



→ Pe3a3



→ Pe3b









Table 1. A typological table of the pear-shaped stirrups according to their components.

365

→ Pe3a4 → Pe3c1 → Pe3c2 → Pe3d

→ Pe4.1

→ Pe4.2 → Pe4.2

As can be seen, according to the classification and analysis of the components of pearshaped stirrups, 42 variants of 15 sub-types (1: a–g, 2: a–d, 3: a–d) of four types (Types 1–4) have been distinguished. Based upon the data shown in the table, it can be stated that a lot of variants of the components of pear-shaped stirrups were known to and used by the masters of that era (strap loop, arch, foot plate), and it resulted in a huge variety in the case of this group of stirrups. (Plate 1) There are 7 sub-types of stirrups with flat arches falling in Type 1 of pear-shaped stirrups. One of the items of Type 1a1 (Grave 11, Cluj-Napoca Zápolya Street) was inlaid with silver and copper plate. Hardly any parallel of it is known in the Carpathian Basin. Those four sub-types belong to Type 2 whose arches have round cross-section. Type 3 contains stirrups whose arches have a rhombus cross-section. Only three items belong to Type 4 whose arches were forged into a rectangular shape similarly to those of the typical trapeze-shaped stirrups.

Observations on the technology of making pear-shaped stirrups (Plate 1) 1. Focussing on the components of the stirrup finds available to us, it can be stated in connection with the items belonging to this group of stirrups that the elaboration of the arches connecting the flat strap loops with the flat curved foot plates is the result of different technological working processes. It means that flat arches were produced in a way different from the way round, rhombus or rectangular arches were made, which were soldered to the flat strap loops and the flat curved foot plate in the end. 2. Concerning the stirrups with flat or possibly round arches, in the case of the more simple items the strap loop and the arches must have been manufactured together. 3. In connection with the pear-shaped stirrups there is another aspect concerning their manufacturing or the quality of their elaboration. If one observes the sub-types and variants of the types of pear-shaped stirrups, it can be clearly stated that the items falling in sub-type 1a1 are the most elaborated. Therefore it may not be a coincidence that the one found in Grave 11 Cluj-Napoca was ornamented. Among the pear-shaped stirrups we do not know any items that are elaborated similarly to sub-type 1a1 or in the same quality. 4. The shape of the arches of Types 2, 3 and 4 (with round, rhombus and rectangular cross-sections) is completely different from that of the stirrups with flat arches, but it shows a close connection with the shape of the stirrups used in the 8th–9th centuries, among which round, rhombus and rectangular shaped arches are also known but with an important difference, namely that there are no flat arches. This technological difference raises a number of questions.

Typological observations (Fig. 8/A–B; Plate 1) Due to the huge number of pear-shaped stirrups a lot of typological observations can be made. 1. The greatest number of pear-shaped stirrups fall into Type 1 or the type with flat arches.

366

Erwin Gáll

5

5

5

4,5 4

4 3,5

3

3

3

3

2,5 2

2

2 2

2

2

2

2

1,5 1

1

1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1

1 1

1 1

1 1 1 1 1

Pe4.1-2

Pe3d

Pe3c2

Pe3b

Pe3c1

Pe3a4

Pe3a3

Pe3a2

Pe3a1

Pe2c

Pe2d

Pe2b

Pe2a2

Pe2a1

Pe1g2

Pe1f

Pe1g1

Pe1e

Pe1d

Pe1c8

Pe1c7

Pe1c6

Pe1c5

Pe1c4

Pe1c3

Pe1c2

Pe1c1

Pe1b7

Pe1b6

Pe1b5

Pe1b4

Pe1b3

Pe1b2

Pe1b1

Pe1a4b

Pe1a3

Pe1a4a

Pe1a2

0

Pe1a1

0,5

42

45 40 35 30 25 20

10

15

8

10

3

5 0

Pe1

Pe2

Pe3

Pe4

Fig. 8/A–B. The number of 10th–11th century pear-shaped types in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat (Pe – pear).

2. It can be assumed that Type 1 could have been the basic type, the great amount of them might indicate this and the other types, namely Types 2–4, copied its shape (strap loop and the body of the stirrup). Their chronological connections will be mentioned later. 3. The most elaborated sub-type variant called 1a1 must have served as the example of other variants of sub-type 1a. 4. The typological analysis of strap loops shows that a considerable amount of strap loops copy the trapeze shape of strap loops of sub-type 1a1.

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

367

5. Most pear-shaped stirrups have no neck. It holds for Type 1, where a neck can only be seen in the case of sub-type 1g1. Similarly, necks are not characteristic of sub-types 3a and 3b, necks can only be found in the case of 3c1. In the case of Type 4, which only contains three items, necks have not been observed. As opposed to them, the neck is characteristic of the items that belong to 2a1–2a2, 2b, 2c, and the only group where necks have not been observed is 2d. Below we are to explain why it is so. 6. A considerable number of the pear-shaped stirrups have curved foot-plates, but in some cases (11 items) one can see only partially curved foot plates (see: Table 1). Observing the stirrups (Pe1b1, Pe1b6, Pe1c2, Pe1c7, Pe1g1/2 items, Pe1g2, Pe2d, Pe3b, Pe3c1, Pe3c2), it is conspicuous that some of them fall in the category of stirrups with transitional features. 7. A characteristic feature of some of the pear-shaped stirrup types that they constitute a transitional form towards the trapeze-shaped stirrups that are to be discussed later: the item Pe2c found in Alba Iulia, the item of Type 2d1 found in Pecica and the stray finds excavated in Mâsca (Type Pe1g1) clearly belong here. In connection with the stirrups excavated in Mâsca, it has to be noted that they were found together with 4 other trapeze-shaped stirrups in a cemetery with approximately 8 graves.

Observations concerning the geographical distribution of pear-shaped stirrups (Fig. 9–14) 1. The stirrups of sub-type 1a with flat arches have only been documented in the Great Plain and the most elaborated item was found in Northern Transylvania (Cluj-Napoca Zápolya Street, Grave 11). Legend - type Pe1a1 - type Pe1a2 - type Pe1a3 - type Pe1a4a 36 6

- type Pe1a4b

11 35

9 24 37 40

N

Fig. 9. The 10th–11th century Pe1a1–1a4 type stirrups in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat (Pe – pear).

2. In contrast with this, sub-types 1b, 1c, 1d were common in a much larger area, some items have been found in the Transylvanian Basin too, not just in the Crișana/Partium and the Banat:

368

Erwin Gáll Legend - type Pe1b1 - type Pe1b2 - type Pe1b3 - type Pe1b4 36

6

- type Pe1b5 - type Pe1b6 11

39

- type Pe1b7

4

9

26

16, 19

28

N

Fig. 10. The 10th–11th century Pe1b1–1b7 type stirrups in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat (Pe – pear). Legend - type Pe1c1 - type Pe1c2 - type Pe1c3 - type Pe1c4 6

- type Pe1c5 - type Pe1c6

35

10–11

- type Pe1c7 - type Pe1c8 - type Pe1d

37

- type Pe1e

N

Fig. 11. The 10th–11th century Pe1c1–1c8, Pe1d, Pe1e type stirrups in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat (Pe – pear).

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

369

Legend - type Pe1f - type Pe1g1 - type Pe1g2

25 16, 21

N

Fig. 12. The 10th–11th century Pe1f, Pe1g1–1g2 type stirrups in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat (Pe – pear).

3. Stirrups that have arches with round cross-section (Type 2) are known from the Crișana/ Partium and the Banat too, the only stirrup falling in the category of the transitional form found in the Transylvanian Basin is the one excavated in Alba Iulia. Legend - type Pe2a1 - type Pe2a2 - type Pe2b - type Pe2c

6

- type Pe2d

36

29

34

2

37

40

N

Fig. 13. The 10th–11th century Pe2a1–2a2, Pe2b, Pe2c, Pe2d type stirrups in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat (Pe – pear).

4. Type 3 with rhombus cross-section and Type 4 with rectangular cross-section arches have only been found in the Crișana/Partium and the Banat so far.

370

Erwin Gáll

Legend - type Pe3a1 - type Pe3a2 - type Pe3a3 - type Pe3a4 6

31

- type Pe3b - type Pe3c1 - type Pe3c2

35

- type Pe3d

3

29 32

- type Pe4.1-2

N

Fig. 14. The 10th–11th century Pe3a1–3a4, Pe3b, Pe3c1–3c2, Pe3d, Pe4 type stirrups in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat (Pe – pear).

Based on the geographical distribution of pear-shaped stirrups we can see that burials with horses were much more common in the Crișana/Partium and Banat (eastern parts of ) areas than in the Transylvanian Basin, which may be traced back to complex reasons ranging from the quantity of livestock to the burial customs. However, it must be emphasized that in the 10th century the Transylvanian Basin only meant its western swathe (the Valley of the Middle Mureș and some areas along the Someșul Mic), where the presence of the so called ‘Hungarian conquerors’ can only be detected in isolated areas24.

The chronological evolution of the types, sub-types and variants of pear-shaped stirrups (Fig. 15) The chronological classification of the pear-shaped stirrups during the 10th century and at the beginning of the 11th century is practically impossible as they were used as everyday objects and not as fashion elements, therefore their chronological range is much longer than that of the ever changing fashion elements. Pear-shaped stirrups are known from all the three regions, but they have been found in a much smaller quantity in the Transylvanian Basin. The chronological classification of each variant can be made relying on the grave furnishing and the environment (although relatively). The chronological range of some variants makes it clear that these items could have been used for several decades or even a century. As a consequence, these objects cannot be put into a narrow chronological range:

 Gáll 2013a, Vol. I, 826–837, 905–919.

24

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin 900

1a1

950 Cluj-Napoca Zápolya str. Grave 11, Biharea Grave 7

900

950

1a2

900

950

900

950

900

900

900

1030

950

1000

1030

1000

1030

950

1000

1030

950

1000

1030

950

1000

1030

950

1000

1030

950

1000

1030

950

1000

1030

1000

1030

950

1000

1030

950

1000

1030

950

1000

1030

950

1000

1030

950

1000

1030

Orăștie Grave 43

Biharea Grave 5

900

1c1

Șiclău Grave 2

900 Cluj-Napoca Zápolya str. Grave 10 (with 14C analyses)

900 Biharea Grave 8

900 Biharea Grave 2

900

950

1c5

Șiclău Grave 12

900 Biharea Grave 1

900

1c7

Șiclău Grave 2

900 Biharea Grave 8, Șiclău Grave 1

Biharea Grave 8, Cluj-Napoca Zápolya str. Grave 6, Cluj-Napoca Plugarilor str. Grave 25

900

Timișoara Grave ‘A’

900

950

1000

1030

1000

1030

Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound V Grave 3

900

950

1g1

Mâsca stray finds/no. 5–6

900

950

1g2

950

900

1030

1000

Biharea Grave 1

1030 Timișoara Grave ‘A’

900

2a2

1000 Dudeștii Vechi-Dragomir's mound Grave 4

900

2a1

950

1000

Biharea Grave 6

1030 Timișoara Grave ‘A’

950

1000

1030

1000

1030

1000

1030

Tărian Grave 28

900

950 Alba Iulia-Stația de Salvare Tr. XV/1981/Grave 20

900

950

Voiteg Grave 3

900

3a1–3a2

900

3a3

900

3a4

900

950

1000

1030

1000

1030

1000

1030

1000

1030

1000

1030

1000

1030

1000

1030

Arad-Ceala Grave X

950 Biharea Grave 4, Sânpetru German single grave

950 Șiclău Grave 10

950 Șiclău Grave 8

900

3c1

950 Șiclău Grave 10

900

950

900

950

4.1-2 Pe

1000

Dudeștii Vechi-Mound I

1b7

3b

950

950

900

2d

1030

Biharea Grave 5, Grave 7

1b6

2c

1000

Dudeștii Vechi-Mound I

1b5

2b

1030

Cluj-Napoca Zápolya str. Grave 10 (with 14C analyses)

900

1f

1000

Tărian Grave 28

1b4

1e

1030

950

900

900

1000

Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound V Grave 3

900

1d

1030

950

1b2

1c8

1030

Șiclău Grave 1

900

1c6

1000 1000

950

1b1

1c4

1030

Șiclău Grave 11

1a4b

1c3

1000

Voiteg Grave 3

1a4a

1c2

1030 Hodoni Grave 3

Tărian Grave 36

1a3

1b3

1000 Timișoara stray find

Șiclău Grave 12

371

Șiclău Grave 11, Salonta Grave 2

Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound IV Grave 3

Fig. 15. The relative chronology of the pear-shaped stirrups in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat.

372

Erwin Gáll

Observation concerning the pear-shaped stirrups (Fig. 16) Compared to the stirrups of the 8th–9th centuries, the pear-shaped stirrups of the 10th century, especially Type 1a with flat arches, did not only represent a new and up to that time unknown shape, but also a new technological process. It must be emphasized that compared to the stirrups of the 8th–9th centuries, in the case of type Pe1 the technological and formative discontinuity is quite obvious, so it was a completely new object. As opposed to this, a technological connection can be observed in the case of types Pe2–3, as both the round shaped and the rhombus arches and the neck attached to the rectangular strap loop are common among the finds from the 8th and 9th centuries in the Carpathian Basin. In consequence, both a discontinuity and a technological continuity with the previous era can be observed. We can find two (relative) explanations for the appearance of the stirrup type with flat arches (Type 1) and its spreading, but we can agree on that we can talk about a completely new shape and a new technological process in their manufacturing: 1. a cultural-political explanation: this type can be connected to the ‘Hungarian conquest’ and migration in the 10th century, but it could only be proved by finding its earlier parallels dating from the 9th century east of the Carpathian Basin25; 2. in a new context of the 10th century, it can be considered as the result of an inner technological evolution or development. Whichever explanation is true, one thing is sure: these lighter stirrups gained ground in connection with the great changes that took place in the 10th century, either it was political or cultural or economic. 800

square-shaped strap loop with neck and arches with round section

trapeze-shaped strap loop

900

rhombus section

the neck missing

the neck missing plate section new technology in the 10th century

Pe1a pear-shaped body curved foot plate

Pear 1c pear-shaped body

Pe1b pear-shaped body

fan-shaped strap loop

930

concave section Pe2c pear-shaped body

without ‘knob’ decoration

square section

pear shaped body Pear 1d

rhombus section

trapeze-shaped body Pear 3c2 partially-curved foot plate

1000

Fig. 16. The structural and chronologically connections of the different pear-shaped stirrup types.  According to Antal Attila Türk, it is unknown in the area east of the Carpathian Basin, the issue could be further investigated in the region of the Altai Mountains.

25

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

373

Concerning the cross-sections of the components and the arches of Types Pe2–3, a clear but at the same time only partial formal and technological continuity can be observed. However, compared to the stirrups of the 8th–9th centuries, the design of the body of these stirrups and their grooved and curved foot plate represent a completely new manufacturing process. As a consequence, from a typological and technological point of view the small number of stirrups of Types Pe2–3 can partly be connected to the stirrups with flat plates, on the other hand, they show resemblance to the late Avar stirrups. The question as to whether it can be considered as a cultural or technological continuity or the continuity of the people cannot be answered as yet. However, it is quite obvious that concerning their components they show a close connection with the flat stirrups of Type 1 and also with the components of the stirrups of the previous age. At the same time, it is also important that some items of Type Pe3 and Type Pe4 can be regarded as transitional forms towards the so called trapeze-shaped stirrups, so one can talk about a change in the shapes of stirrups in a given time period. Certainly, the question may arise as to what effects triggered the changes of these shapes or whether one can assume foreign influence in the background, but these questions remain unanswered yet. At the end of our analysis, we are trying to show the typological and chronological connections between the stirrups of Types Pe1, Pe2–3 and Pe4 in the following way.

C.1.2. Forged shoulder-handled stirrup [Fig. 19; Plate 3/1–2] Thought to be an archaic type, two variants can be separated: 1. In the case of the first variant the drill of the shoulder cannot be seen (Pecica–2 pieces, Șiclău-I point D – 1 piece, -Grave 9 – 1 piece). (Annex 2: S. 27, 35) 2. On the second variant the shoulder separated from the body of the stirrup can already be seen, practically it can also be considered as a transitional form towards the pear-shaped stirrups (ClujNapoca-Zápolya Street Grave 8–2 pieces). (Annex: S. 11) The chronological range of the forged shoulder-handled stirrups with archaic forms is similar. The items found in Cluj-Napoca-Zápolya Street Grave 8 can be dated to the first third of the 10th century, and the one found in Grave 9 in Șiclău to the middle of that century. The dating of the two stray finds in Pecica and the stirrup found in Grave I.D. in Șiclău are much less certain.

C.1.3. The trapeze-shaped stirrups (Fig. 17–18; Plate 2; Table 2) The trapeze-shaped stirrups are considered by archaeologists to be the most important basis of the dating of the 10th century material culture26. The most significant characteristic of this stirrup type is the fan-like strap loop, the square arches and the ‘knobs’ set between the arches and the foot plate. To this type 34 items can be attributed (Annex 2: S. 5, 12, 13, 15, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 37, 39): 13 items are known from the Banat, 6 items were found in 4 graves of 4 excavation sites, and 7 stray finds were found in 4 other sites. Much fewer items have been found in the Transylvanian Basin, only 6 items have been found in 3 sites: 5 items were found in three graves and there is a stray find27. The greatest amount, 15 items, was found in the Partium. 8 items were found in 5 graves of one site (S. 27) and 7 stray finds were excavated in 3 other sites. From a methodological point of view, like in the case of the pear-shaped stirrups, the different components of the stirrups have been analysed separately. Thus among the strap loops of stirrups, 6 types have been separated (Type II: 2 subtypes; Type III: 2 subtypes; Type VI: 2 subtypes), 3 types in the case of stirrups bodies (Type I: 3 subtypes; Type II: 2 subtypes; Type III: 2 subtypes), whereas foot plates can be divided into 4 types. A very important aspect of these foot plates, as opposed to the foot plates of pear-shaped stirrups, is the fact that a major part of their foot plates, especially in the case of Types Tr2, is only partially curved (see Table 2). Among stirrup arches, which represent an important technological aspect, as will be demonstrated later, three shapes can be distinguished: mainly the rectangular one, and there is one item with semi-circular and one with circular cross-section. However,  Hampel 1896, 766; Szőke 1962, 83.. This important analysis was carried out by them in 1986. Kovács 1986, 204–225. Since then only one typological table of this group of stirrups has been shown by Péter Langó. Langó 2007, 131. kép. 27  In this classification table of ours we did not indicate the stirrup found in Grave 41 in Orăștie. At the same time, probably more trapeze-shaped stirrups are known from the Orăștie cemetery! 26

374

Erwin Gáll

in the case of trapeze-shaped stirrups another aspect must be taken into consideration: the existence or lack of ‘knob’ ornaments between the arches and the foot plate. This is one of the bases of our classification. (Plate 2) Legend -

- trapeze-shaped stirrups 1a

-

- trapeze-shaped stirrups 1b

-

- trapeze-shaped stirrups 2a

-

- trapeze-shaped stirrups 2b

-

- trapeze-shaped stirrups 2c

12 12

- unclassifiable trapeze-shaped stirrup

39 25

27

25 27

15, 18, 21 5 15, 18, 21

30

33

24

30 37

5

24

13

37

28 22 13

28

N

Fig. 17. The number and types of 10th–11th century trapeze-shaped stirrups in each site in the Transylvanian Basin, the Partium and the Banat (Tr – trapeze).

Based on this research method, the findings of our categorization are shown in the comprehensive chart below: Archaeological sites

Nădlac Grave 4

Types of Types of stirstrap loops rup bodies: I – type, I – type, 1 1 – subtype – subtype

The cross-section of stirrup arches

Shape of the foot plates

Foot plate types I – type, 1 – subtype

III/1

I/1

rectangular

curved

II

Nădlac Grave 6

I

I/2

rectangular

partially curved

I

Vărșand stray find

I

I/2

rectangular

partially curved

IV

Nădlac Grave I /no. 1

II/1

I/2

rectangular

curved

I

Nădlac Grave 13/no. 1

III/1

I/2

rectangular

curved

I

Nădlac Grave I/2

III/1

I/2

rectangular

curved

I

Sânpetru German-stray find

III/1

I/1

rectangular

curved

I

Orăștie Grave 7/no. 2

III/2

I/2

rectangular

curved

I

Orăștie Grave 7/no. 1

II/2

I/2

rectangular

curved

I

Nădlac Grave 9/no. 2

V

I/2

rectangular

partially curved

I

Banat stray find/no. 1

V

I/2

rectangular

curved

I

Banat stray find/no. 2

VI

I/2

rectangular

curved

I

II/1

II

rectangular

curved

I

Timișoara-Cioreni stray find 1

The overall types of trapeze-shaped stirrups (Trapeze – Tr)



→ Tr1a



→ Tr1b3









→

Tr1b1

→

Tr1b3

→

Tr1b5

→

Tr1b7

→

Tr1b2

→ Tr1b4 → Tr1b4 →

Tr1b6

→

Tr1b8

→

Tr1b7

→ Tr2a1

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

Timișoara-Cioreni stray find 2

II/1

II

rectangular

curved

I

Curtuiușen/no. 1

III/1

II

rectangular

curved

I

Periam/no. 1

III/1

II

rectangular

curved

I

Mâsca/no. 3

IV

II

rectangular

curved

I

Curtuiușen/no. 2

IV

II

rectangular

curved

I

Periam/no. 2

IV

II

rectangular

curved

I

Hodoni Grave 17/no. 1

IV

II

rectangular

curved

I

Hodoni Grave 17/no. 2

IV

II

rectangular

curved

I

Nădlac Grave 9/no. 1

V

II

rectangular

partially curved

I

Nădlac Grave 13/no. 2

III/2

II

rectangular

partially curved

III

Mâsca/no. 4

VI/1

II

rectangular

partially curved

I

Dudeștii Vechi-Dragomir’s mound Grave 4

VI/1

II

rectangular

partially curved

I

Mâsca/no. 5

VI/2

II

rectangular

partially curved

I

Mâsca/no.6

VI/2

II

rectangular

partially curved

I

Deva Grave 3/no. 1

VI/1

III/1

semicircle

curved

I

Deva Grave 3/no. 2

VI/1

III/1

semicircle

curved

I

Eresteghin

III/1

III/1

circle

partially curved

-

Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound IX/no. 1

-

II

rectangular

partially curved

I

Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound IX/no.2

-

II

rectangular

partially curved

I

Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound IV Grave 3

-

II

rectangular

?

I

375

Tr2a1



→



→ Tr2a2







Table 2. A typological table of the trapeze-shaped stirrups according to their components.

→ Tr2a2 →

Tr2a3

→ Tr2a3 →

Tr2a3

→

Tr2a4

→

Tr2a6

→

Tr2a7

→ Tr2a3 → Tr2a3 → →

Tr2a5 Tr2a6

→ Tr2a7 → Tr2b

→ Tr2b → Tr2c → →

Tr2 Tr2

→ -

According to the classification and analysis of the components of trapeze-shaped stirrups, 18 variants of 5 sub-types (1: a–b, 2: a–c) of two types (Types 1–2) have been distinguished by us. Sub-type Tr1b contains 8 variants, among which Variants 1–2 and 5–8 are made up of one item respectively, whereas Variants 3 and 4 contain two items each. Three sub-types of stirrups with ‘knob’ ornaments between the arches and the foot plate have been categorized into Type 2 of trapeze-shaped stirrups. 7 variants can be categorized into sub-type ‘a’ of Type 2, out of which Variants 4–5 contain one item each, Variants 1–2 and 6–7 contain two and Variant 3 contains five items. The main characteristic feature of the stirrups with trapeze-shaped body is the rectangular cross-section of the arches. Sub-types b and c of Type 2 have one variant each. The main characteristic of Sub-type b is the semi-circular cross-section of the arches, whereas the item of Type c has a circular cross-section.

Technological and typological observations (Plate 2) 1. Only one stirrup falls in the category of Sub-type Tr1a, which constitutes a transitional form between trapeze-shaped and pear-shaped stirrups concerning its technology and shape. According to its fan-shaped strap loop, the design of the neck and the rectangular shape of its cross-section, the stirrup found in Grave 4 in the Nădlac cemetery can be classified as a trapeze-shaped stirrup, but the shape of its body resembles that of the pear-shaped stirrups and the ‘knob’ ornament is also missing here. Therefore, based upon its outside features this stirrup can be defined as the prototype of trapeze-shaped stirrups forming a transitional item between the two groups of stirrups. At the same time, it also has to be mentioned that this stirrup is much lighter than many of the pear-shaped stirrups (167.3 grams). This type must have been the prototype of classic trapeze-shaped stirrups with ‘knobs’ between the arches and the foot plate, which can be as much as 60 grams heavier. 2. Most trapeze-shaped stirrups have a square-shaped cross-section and their openings for the stirrup leather were rectangular. Among the 33 trapeze-shaped stirrups available for us, there is no ‘knob’ ornament on 12, which constitute 36.36%, or approximately one third of the material. In some cases stirrups with ‘knob’ ornaments were found together with stirrups without these ornaments, so there

376

Erwin Gáll

can’t have been a chronological difference between the use of the two sub-types. Nevertheless, it begs the question whether the lighter trapeze-shaped items without ‘knob’ ornaments can be considered a transitional type or prototype, and thus the stirrups classified by us as Type 1 could have appeared earlier (certainly it does not mean that this sub-type could not have been used later). This theory is supported by the transitional pear-shaped stirrups (Alba Iulia-Stația de Salvare, Mâsca nos. 5–6, Pecica Item 1) or Variant 1a of the trapeze-shaped stirrups that resemble the pear-shaped stirrups. 3. One of the most characteristic features of the trapeze-shaped stirrups, as opposed to pearshaped stirrups, is that the neck was under the strap loop, which can be observed on each item of both types. In our opinion, it can clearly be connected to the shape designs of the earlier stirrups of the 8th and 9th centuries, which can be observed in a few cases on the pear-shaped stirrups too. 4. In many cases the design of the foot plate is curved, it is mainly characteristic of the trapezeshaped stirrups with ‘knob’ ornaments.

Their geographical distribution and chronology (Fig. 17–18) In our analysis, trapeze-shaped stirrups have been divided into two types, the dividing criteria being the ‘knob’ between the arches and the foot plate apart from other features. However, they are known from all the three regions in the Transylvanian Basin in small numbers. (Fig. 17) 1a

900 900

1b1

900

1b3–1b4

900

1b5–1b6

900

1b7

900

2a1

900

2a3

900

2a4

900

2a5

Tr

1000

1030

1000

1030

1000

1030

1000

1030

Nădlac Grave 6

950 Nădlac Grave I, 13

950

Orăștie Grave 7

950 950

1030

1000

1030

1000

1030

Timișoara stray finds

950

Hodoni Grave 17, Mâsca stray find/no. 3

950

1000

1030

1000

1030

1000

1030

1000

1030

Nădlac Grave 9

950 Nădlac Grave 13

900

950

900

1000 Nădlac Grave 9

950

2a7

2

950

900

2a6

2b

950 Nădlac Grave 4

Dudeștii Vechi-Dragomir's mound Grave 4 Mâsca stray find/no. 4 Mâsca stray finds/no. 5–6

950

1000

1030

Deva Grave 3

900

950

1000

1030

1000

1030

Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound IX

900

950 Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound IV Grave 3

Fig. 18. The relative chronology of the trapeze-shaped stirrups in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat.

The chronological analysis of this type of stirrups was carried out by László Kovács three decades ago. According to the materials he collected, this item became common in the second half of the 10th century and it was mainly characteristic of male graves28. However, Kovács did not make a distinction among the types, sub-types and variants of the trapeze-shaped stirrups. It is important because the stirrup of type 1a excavated in Grave 4 in Nădlac can be considered the prototype of trapeze-shaped stirrups, so this item may constitute a transitional form between the trapeze-shaped and the pearshaped stirrups. In our opinion, this fact casts a different light on the evolution of trapeze-shaped stir Kovács 1986, 204–225.

28

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

377

rups and in general on the evolution of stirrups in the 10th century Carpathian Basin. This assumption is supported by the location of the grave within the cemetery as Grave 4 is situated right in the middle in the two lines of graves that stretch from the north towards the south. The grave in which the stirrup of Type Tr1a was found dates from the middle of the century, but the stirrup must have been made one or two decades earlier, so the characteristic features of the stirrup that can be considered the prototype of the trapeze-shaped stirrups might have appeared as early as the thirties of that century. Taking it into consideration, the following chronological system of the trapeze-shaped stirrups has been drawn up by us:

C.1.4. Stirrups with straight foot plate, curved arches and strap loop with neck (also called Révész’s type 1 and 2)29 (Fig. 19; Plate 3/3) The items that are classified into this category: Felnac–2 items, Alba Iulia-Stația de Salvare Trench XXXIII/Grave – 1 piece, Șiclău Grave 8 – 1 piece (Annex 2: S. 2, 35). On the item excavated in Grave 8 in Șiclău it can be observed that its curved foot plate broke due to its long use and later the two parts were attached by grooving. This practice can be observed in many cases on the stirrups of the time of the ‘Hungarian conquest’, mainly on those items where they tried to change the shape of the foot plate30. This stirrup type, which was scanty in the Carpathian Basin, has recently been analysed by László Révész in a paper. However, his chronological observations must be accepted with some reservations, the items he dated to the first two thirds of the 10th century can be dated to an earlier period in two cases. Our earliest item is the stirrup excavated in Grave 8 in Șiclău, the item found in Felnac dated to a somewhat later period was taken to a museum at the beginning of the 20th century together with other finds dating from the second half of the 10th century and the early 11th century. The dating of the item excavated in the cemetery in Alba Iulia-Staţia de Salvare is doubtful; it can be dated to the second half of the 10th century.

C.1.5. The ‘Cluj’ (‘Kolozsvár’) type (Fig. 19; Plate 3/4) It is represented by an unknown type in the literature, which comes from Grave 1 – Zápolya Street and because of its uniqueness we suggest the name ‘Cluj’ type. The stirrup found in Grave 1 can be considered a trapeze-shaped stirrup at first sight, although László Kovács did not classify it into this category in 198631. However, László Révész and the author classified it into this type32. The item found in Cluj-Napoca was discussed as part of this group, but due to the characteristic features of its shape, we drew attention to the fact that it cannot be considered a ‘classic’ trapeze-shaped stirrup33. This type is a ‘hybrid’ combining the characteristics of two other stirrup types, the stirrups with straight foot plate, curved arches and strap loop, and those of the trapeze-shaped stirrups respectively. The design of the strap loop is similar to that of the strap loop of the stirrup type with curved arches and flat foot plate, but the opening for the stirrup leather on the item found in Cluj-Napoca is very big compared to the strap loop. It is attached to the body of the stirrup or the arches with a long neck. Similarly to the trapeze-shaped stirrups, the shoulders of the stirrups are wide, they are almost aligned with the foot plate of the stirrup and the arches with rhombus cross-section are very thin. Similarly thin arches can only be observed on the second stirrup found in Grave 2 in RakamazGyepiföld, whose flat foot plate was cut off and a curved metal sheet was riveted on, instead. The foot plate of the stirrup was originally designed to be curved, so this second feature does not fit this stirrup type either, which was named by László Révész. Based upon these characteristics it seems that the stirrup must have been made by a 10th century master in a period when the ‘Révész’ type stirrups with curved arches and flat foot plates were still known, but already the trapeze-shaped stirrups were also  In the literature first it was called Saltovo type by Csanád Bálint, then Esztergom type by Schulze Dörlamm. The mistakes made by these two authors were corrected by László Révész, who, nevertheless, for reasons he could not affect, did not know the finds from the Crișana/Partium. Révész 1999, 267–299. 30  László Révész listed several such repaired stirrups: Heves-Kapitányhegy, Szomód-Bocskahegy, Rakamaz-Gyepiföld Grave 2. Révész 2001, 77, Note 145. 31  Kovács 1986, 204–225. 32  Kovács 1986, 204–225; Révész 1996, 45–46; Gáll 2002, 296. 33  Gáll 2002, 296. 29

378

Erwin Gáll

made, so we can see it as a ‘hybrid’, and with a small simplification we could compare it to the swords with sabre hilts. Therefore we suggest the name ‘Cluj’ type for its uniqueness. We date it to the second third of the 10th century due to the above mentioned typological features.

C.1.6. Stirrups with ‘forked arches’ (Carolingian-Norman variety) (Fig. 19; Plate 3/5) Two items from one site have been classified into this category: Tărian-Csordásdomb Grave 38–2 items (Annex 2: S. 36). They were dated to the second third of the 10th century the earliest by Károly Mesterházy34. Based on the analysis of Mesterházy, the items excavated in Tărian can also be dated to the first two decades of the 10th century.

C.1.7. Trapeze-shaped stirrup forged together with the strap loop (Fig. 19; Plate 3/6) Only one item from one site can be categorized into this type: Alba Iulia-Staţia de Salvare Trench XV/1981/Grave 20 – 1 item (Annex 2: S. 2). A perfect counterpart of this stirrup was found in Grumezoaia, Moldova 20 km away from the River Prut35, but we know a close analogy also from Mohács-Téglagyár Grave 436. Legend -

- Forged shoulder-handled stirrup 1

-

- Forged shoulder-handled stirrup 2

-

- ‘Révész's’ stirrup type

-

- The ‘Cluj’ (‘Kolozsvár’) type

-

- Stirrups with 'forked arches'

-

- Trapeze-shaped stirrup forged together with the strap loop

36 36 11 35

11 35

29 29 23 23

2

N

Fig. 19. Rare stirrup types, different from the 10th–11th century trapeze and pear shaped stirrups in the Transylvanian Basin, the Partium and the Banat.

C.1.8. Stirrups of unknown types (Annex 2) We know of at least 10 excavation sites where stirrups were found whose types are unknown for various reasons: Alba Iulia-Izvorul Împăratului (2 stirrups), Alba Iulia-Stația de Salvare (several stirrups), Biharea-Castle (?), Cluj-Napoca-Zápolya street Grave 9 (2 stirrups), Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta  Mesterházy 1981, 220–222.  Spinei 2009, Fig. 8. 11. 36  Kiss 1983, 241, 108. ábra 4. 34 35

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

379

Bucova Mound III (2 stirrups), Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound VIII (1 stirrup), Dudeștii Vechi Mound VI (2 stirrups), Pecica (1 stirrup), Șiclău point I. E (1 stirrup), Tomnatic-Kleine Hügel Grave 2 (1 stirrup), Vărșand-Laposhalom Grave 33 (2 stirrups) (Annex 2: S. 1, 2, 7, 11, 14, 17, 20, 29, 35, 38, 39).

C.2. The importance of weighing the stirrups (Plate 4) We hold it important to weigh the stirrups from a methodological point of view, as the manufacturing differences or similarities between the various categories of stirrups and the raw material used for them can be detected more exactly. Nonetheless, some data can be gleaned that raise the question in connection with some pairs of stirrups which can be considered to constitute a pair from a typological point of view, but in another aspect their connection as a pair is questioned. Moreover, we considered this analysis important to examine to what extent the statements found in the literature about ‘light’ pear-shaped stirrups and ‘heavy’ trapeze-shaped stirrups are true or whether they are just topoi or stereotypes. Our analyses have shown that the stirrups can be divided into three groups according to their weights: Group I (the group of light stirrups): between 50–100 grams. Mainly the pear-shaped stirrups (abbreviated as Pe), and a so called ‘Révész’ type stirrup can be classified into this category (R). The lightest stirrup that can be categorized here weighs 55.0 grams. 10 pear-shaped stirrups fall in this category altogether with the following sub-type varieties: Pe1a1, Pe1a4a, Pe1a4b, Pe1b3, Pe1b5, Pe3a4, Pe3b varieties are represented by 1 item each, whereas 2 items fall into the categories of Pe1d and Pe3a3. The only ‘Révész’ (R) type stirrup is a similarly light one (60.0 grams). Only one trapeze-shaped stirrup falls in this category, Variety Tr1b8 (Banat-stray find). (see Annex 2) Group II (the group of middle weight stirrups): between 100–170 grams. The typological classification of these stirrups is much more colourful. Besides Varieties Pe1a1, Pe1b3, Pe1c2, Pe1c4, Pe1g1, Pe3a1 and Pe3c of the pear-shaped stirrups, the various sub-types of the four types of trapeze-shaped stirrups (abbreviated as Tr), namely the items of Varieties Tr1a, Tr1b2, Tr1b3, Tr1b7 and Tr2a3 weighing 124–168 grams also fall in this category. Almost all trapeze-shaped stirrups can be classified into Sub-type 1, but in one case, on a stirrup excavated in Grave 17 in Hodoni a ‘knob’ ornament can be seen where the foot plate is attached to the arches. The stirrups found in Pecica, which represent the first variety of forged shoulder-handled stirrups (113.6 and 126.6 grams), also belong here together with the ‘Révész’ 1 type stirrup from Felnac, the stirrup found in Zápolya Street, which is called ‘Cluj’ type by us (122 grams) and the ornamented stirrup found in Grave 11 in Zápolya Street, Cluj (150 grams). Group III (the group of heavy stirrups): above 170 grams. Several categories of stirrups belong to the group of the heaviest stirrups. It must be noted that even among the pear-shaped stirrups there are some that weigh more than 170 grams. The heaviest ones are the Arad-Ceala varieties of Type Pe3a2 and the stirrups of Type Pe1g1 from Mâsca, which resemble the trapeze-shaped items concerning their strap loops and Type Pe2d2 from Pecica, which is the closest to the shape of the body of trapeze-shaped stirrups. Most trapeze-shaped stirrups, namely Tr1b1, Tr1b3, Tr1b4, Tr1b7, Tr2a2, Tr2a3, Tr2a4, Tr2a5 and Tr2a7 weighing approximately 200 grams also fall in this category. The forged shoulder-handled stirrup (F2) excavated in Grave 8 in Zápolya Street Cluj weighs 192 grams and the so called ‘Révész’ type stirrup from Felnac has a similar weight. The following observations can be made as a result of our investigations: 1. Based on Pl. 4 it can be argued that the lightest stirrups are the flat ended pear-shaped ones. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to suppose that all of the pear-shaped stirrups can be classified in the group of light stirrups, since there are pieces weighing 150, 170 and 178 grams, and even stirrups of 200 grams can be found among the transitional ones. 2. Not all trapeze-shaped stirrups are heavy. A few examples are much lighter than some of the pear-shaped stirrups categorized in the lighter group and the stirrups with forged ears, among which only one was decorated with a ‘knob’ at the meeting point of the arches and the foot plate (HodoniPocioroane Grave 17 – Stirrup 1). We can conclude that among the pieces of stirrups the trapezeshaped stirrups are the heaviest indeed, especially the items belonging to sub-type 2 with ‘knobs’.

380

Erwin Gáll

3. Among the heavy pieces we find the archaic stirrups with forged shoulders from Cluj-NapocaZápolya Street Grave 8 and also the ‘Révész’ type from Felnac – 2nd stirrup. In the light of this analysis we can see a more detailed picture of the weights of the 10th century stirrup types, sub-types and their varieties. It seems clear to us at this moment that the weights of I – A and B sub-types of the trapeze-shaped stirrups without ‘knobs’ do not differ from the weights of most of the pear-shaped ones, with forged ears, or from the ‘Cluj’ type and the curved arches ‘Révész’ type stirrups. Naturally, these patterns will have to be completed with new stirrup weights, but in our opinion, a certain tendency can clearly be seen.

C.3. Ornamented stirrups (Fig. 20–24; Plate 5–7) In the region researched by us 10 stirrups were decorated: the one found in Grave 1 in Zápolya Street called ‘Cluj’ type by us, the pear-shaped stirrup of Type Pe1a1 from Grave 11 in the same cemetery, and from the group of trapeze-shaped stirrups the ones from Grave 17 in Hodoni, the stirrups found in Régi Pósta Street in Periam and the four stray finds excavated in Mâsca. In each case, the arches and parts of the strap loop were ornamented by different methods and technical solutions. Based upon their differences they have been divided into two groups by us, noting that there are no typological connections between them. As the ornamentation on the item found in Grave 1 in Zápolya Street has not been preserved, we could not classify it.

C.3.1. Group I (Fig. 20–22; Plate 5–6) The stirrup in Grave 11 Cluj was made with the so called ‘plaque’ technique. The arches of the stirrup and the two sides of the neck were probably ornamented with the same curved silver plaque. At the edges of the arches a furrow ran along which the silver plaque was hammered into. Before the silver plaque was fastened onto the stirrup arches and the neck, 19 pear-shaped ornaments which were made of brass plaques with their tips outward were placed in the furrows in the following fashion: the edges of the brass plaques were bent a little into a curved shape, and the edge of the object was bent into a right angle and then they were hammered into the pear-shaped furrow that had already been engraved. It can be supposed that each pear-shaped ornament was hammered into a separate hole because on the macro photos taken by us it can clearly be seen that the tiny pear-shaped holes are of different sizes, so they were made one by one. The ornamentation was preserved on both sides of the strap loops, on which the silver plaques were hammered independently of the arches. On the Cluj-Napoca stirrup the aim to emphasize the contrast of light and dark colours is obvious: the base plaque is light and the pear-shaped ornaments are darker. It is clear that this contrast aims to boost the optical effect of the object in the eye of the observer. This effect of harmony, nevertheless, requires further investigation. The stirrup found in Grave A Rakamaz-Strázsadomb (?) and the one in Grave 2 Berehove/ Beregszász are almost the exact counterparts of the stirrup analysed by us37. Both items were found in typical graves of the ‘conquering Hungarians’ with rich furnishings (Rakamaz Grave A: garment buttons, an ornamented belt, a sabre with gold accessories, a death mask made of gold plaques, a sabre tache; Berehove/Beregszász Grave 2: an ornamented belt, a sabre, bits). If the stirrup in Rakamaz was really found in Grave A, its position within the cemetery allows us to infer that it could not have been placed in the grave before the second third of the century. The person in the Beregszász grave was categorized as ‘a member of the first (biological) generation’ by Károly Mesterházy, but it is difficult to date Grave two within the 10th century. In Grave 1, which was found approximately 30 metres south of Grave 2 in 1890, a stirrup with forged strap loop and with arches with ‘knobs’ was found together with the well-known mitre tip. In our opinion, the former one can be dated to/from the second third of the century, based upon the ‘knob’ between the foot plate and the arches. Another similar item is known from the Hungarian National Museum, but nothing exact can be said of it as it was a stray find38. The worn stirrup found in Tarnaörs comes from a ransacked burial with a horse. The ornament on these stirrups is considered Variety I by us.  Rakamaz-Strázsadomb (A. H. 1996, 110–119); Berehove/Beregszász-Kishegy (Jankovich 1943, 101, XXIV. táb.).  Fettich 1937, 57.

37 38

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

381

inlaid with silver plate

inlaid with copper plate

0

3 cm

inlaid with copper plate

inlaid with silver plate

0

3 cm

Fig. 20. Cluj-Napoca-Zápolya Street Grave 11 (Macro photos of the ornamentation of the stirrup).

The pair of stirrups found in Grave 1 Poroshalom in Sárrétudvari has a very similar ornamentation. The only technical difference, which is very important though, is that the silver plaque forming the background is missing in the latter case, only the pear- or drop-shaped pattern can be seen on the neck and the arches of the stirrup. This type is considered Variety II by us. It cannot be neglected that in Grave 2, which was excavated next to Grave 1 in Sárrétudvari, similarly to the grave in Cluj-Napoca, leaf-shaped breast band ornaments were found. In Grave 1 Poroshalom a male aged 40–45 lay, so even if this grave was dug in the 930’s, the skeleton can be classified biologically to the ‘first (biological) generation’ of the ‘conquering Hungarians’39. The exact counterparts of this stirrup are the inlaid ones excavated in Grave 54 Püspökladány. Even here only the pattern was hammered in, the silver plaque is missing from the background and the fact that the majority of the inlays is missing indicates that the stirrup was used for a long time. A man aged 64–69 lay in the grave, so even if he died around the middle of the century, biologically he could have belonged to the ‘first generation’ of the ‘conquering Hungarians’, and the stirrup must have been made in the first half of the century40. An ornamentation different from the aforementioned can be observed on the stirrup that was found as a stray find in Balkány. On the pear-shaped stirrup of Type 1a1 found in Verébsár dűlő in 1904 leaves can be seen on a small stem with their tips downwards above the silver plaque constituting the background and they meet at the middle of the upper arc. On the outer side of the arches there is a strip separated from the inner field by a grooved furrow, which ends in a leaf pattern on the two sides of the strap end (Variety III)41.  M. Nepper 2002, 394–395, Pl. 344–350. táb.  M. Nepper 2002, 138–139; A. H. 1996, 248, Fig. 5. 41  Jósa 1914b, 174; K. k. 1996, 129–130, Fig. 1. 39 40

382

Erwin Gáll

The ornamentation of the next ‘plaque’ technique (Variety IV) is known from Oros stray find42. Likewise, is a pear-shaped stirrup (1a1). The arch and the sides of the strap loop are inlaid with silver strips in square-form filled with pairs of oblique lines and framed by a double line. The strip was hammered into the grooves of the design. Both sides of the pear-shaped stirrups found in Grave 50 in Cemetery II Karos are ornamented with the ‘plaque’ technique VI. Based upon those parts that have been preserved in a better condition, they used to form a so called ‘wolf-teeth’ pattern43. Legend - Variety I - Variety II - Variety III - Variety IV - Variety V

8 3 7

6

2

9

4

5 1

N

Fig. 21. The 10th century stirrups inlaid with silver or/and copper plates in the Carpathian Basin: 1. Cluj-Napoca/ Kolozsvár-Zápolya (actually: gen. Traian Moșoiu) Street Grave 11; 2. Berehove/Beregszász Grave 2; 3. RakamazStrázsadomb Grave ‘A’; 4. Balkány stray find; 5. Sárrétudvari-Poroshalom Grave 1; 6. Püspökladány-Eperjesvölgy Grave 54; 7. Tarnaörs-Szentandrási határ stray find; 8. Karos-Cemetery II Grave 50; 9. Oros-Nagyszőlő stray find.

From these data, we can draw the following conclusions: 1. From a technical and aesthetic point of view, the stirrups of Variety I can be considered the most beautiful and most elaborate, which are known only from badly and partly excavated cemeteries, unfortunately. Based upon the aforementioned, to our mind, the stirrups of this type were made in the Carpathian Basin and their owners must have acquired them here. 2. The stirrups made in a similar way can be categorised into the same variety of pear-shaped stirrups (Type Pe1a1). 3. It also has to be mentioned that the skeletons in the graves that can be dated to the first half of the 10th century according to the grave inventories belonged to people aged 40–45 or 60 in all cases. 4. Stirrups ornamented this way are only known from the upper reaches of the River Tisza/Tisa, from the neighbouring regions of Bihor/Bihar and Heves and from the Cluj-Napoca site. In the other regions of the Carpathian Basin this type is completely unknown at the moment. Therefore these stirrups can be dated to the first half of the 10th century. As can be seen, stirrups with such ornaments are known only from the north-eastern region of the Carpathian Basin, so  A. H. 1996, 160–161.  Révész 1996, 25, 74. táb. 1–2.

42 43

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

383

their irradiation covered only a small part of the Carpathian Basin. There are several interpretations concerning their geographical distribution from the moving workshops of certain masters and their apprentices to the migration of persons. If we map the salt quarry areas in the Carpathian Basin we can observe that only on its outer northern areas respectively inside areas in the Transylvanian Basin we can find important salt resources. If we match these geological mappings with the archaeological mappings conducted to date in these areas it is not hard to observe that a part of the funerary finds in the first two thirds of the 10th-century are concentrated in north-eastern areas of the Carpathian basin and the north of Transylvanian Basin. If we examine other finds dating from the same period in connection with the geographical distribution of this stirrup and its ornamentation, we receive concentric circles which show a great concentration of the find in the region of the Upper Tisza/Tisa and the further one goes, the rarer the finds become. It can indicate the existence of a ‘power area’ in the given region (the Upper Tisza/Tisa region) and its network system and expansion. We think that the dense concentration of the finds in the region of the Upper Tisza/Tisa may indicate a ‘core’ centre, a so called ‘power area’ which created many small interdependent ‘power areas’ in the Carpathian Basin, mainly in the northern regions reigned by the political-military elite in the 10th century. If we map the salt quarry areas in the Carpathian Basin we can observe that only on its outer northern areas respectively inside areas in the Transylvanian Basin we can find important salt resources, particularly in the Someșul Mic Valley. The presence of the population of the Cluj cemeteries in this part of Northern Transylvania must have been due to the need to control the mining and transport of salt44. Legend - Sabres with gold and silver accessories

- Sabres 1–4

- Mount ornamented sabretaches - Ornamented stirrups in the first two-thirds of the 10th century

48

49–50

18

37–47 81– 82 118

2 121

23–25

26–27

08

117

32

78 14

86

80

109

9

35

31 15–17 116

5–6

79 122–123

99

70 115 30

34

103

36

75–76 103

95

85

111

110

96

72 64

37– 47 52–56 73

97

3 100–102 120 89

68

114 71

4

98 77

–1

112

10

10 4

94

119 57–58 11–12

83–84 63

69 51

8

60–62

90 93

29

113 19–22

7

74

88 33

87 65

28 13

1

91–92 59

66 67

N

Fig. 22. The 10th century ‘core centre’ in the Carpathian Basin in the light of the sabres, the ornamented sabre taches and the ornamented stirrups.

 In more detail: Gáll 2013a, 826–931, 911–915; Gáll 2013b, 469–480.

44

384

Erwin Gáll

Therefore, the area of Cluj-Napoca could have been a far-flung peripheral ‘power area’ of this power network and according to the cemeteries, similar power areas could have existed within the frames of a peripheral network that was attached to the ‘core’ centre in the Middle Tisza/Tisa region and in the Kisalföld (Little Plain). In our opinion, the stirrup found in Grave 11 Cluj-Napoca can be interpreted in this context. As has already been mentioned elsewhere, the item excavated in Cluj-Napoca must have belonged to a person who was the member of a heterogeneous community controlling the mining and the transport of salt in the Someșul Mic Valley. At this moment it cannot be questioned that the western part of the Transylvanian Basin was conquered by the ‘Hungarian’ power structure mainly or exclusively because of the salt in the first half of the 10th century. The question concerning the way this stirrup ended up near Cluj-Napoca, whether through the regional commercial channels attached to the aforementioned power network (nothing is known about the existence of markets, but the Arab dirhems found in the Upper Tisza/Tisa region seem to confirm that they existed!45) or it was a present or the owner migrated to the region of Cluj-Napoca, cannot be answered by archaeological means. Nevertheless, based upon other items in the grave that had no analogies in the Carpathian Basin, it may be supposed that in this case we can assume the migration of the person.

Group II Subgroups 1–2 (Fig. 23–24; Plate 7) Each of the stirrups in this group belong to the category of trapeze-shaped stirrups, so the ornamentations on the stirrups from Grave 17 in Hodoni, on the ones found in Régi Pósta Street in Periam and on the four stray finds in Mâsca are the same or similar. They can be divided into two subgroups. On the two latter items from Mâsca under inventory numbers 45/1898. 5–6. not the simple strip ornamentation can be seen, but on the arches small triangles of wire strips turned towards one another can be observed that were hammered in. This design is very similar to that of the pear- or leaf-shaped ornaments. When examining the objects, the parallel strips can easily be observed. The contrast between the unornamented background and the patterns is striking.

Ornament Group I

ornament Group II subgroup 2

ornament Group II subgroup 1

ornament Group II subgroup 2

Fig. 23. The relation between the ornamentations of Group I and Group II subgroups 1 and 2.  Brather 1994–1995, 99.

45

385

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

On the items from Mâsca under inventory numbers 45/1898. 3–4, instead of the strip ornamentation a wide rectangular silver ornamentation can be seen, which were made by putting or hammering thick strips or silver bars into the furrows grooved beforehand. As far as we could observe, the furrows are tapering towards their upper end. A similar technology was applied on the stirrups found in Grave 17 in Hodoni and the items from Régi Pósta Street in Periam. Based upon these, we think that there was a distinct evolution in the ways of ornamentation in the 10th century and they were in connection with one another showing that we can talk about the development or change of a local method of ornamentation demonstrated by the previous figure. Based upon our observations various conclusions can be drawn concerning the ornamentation of Group II of ornamented stirrups: 1. In our region all the stirrups ornamented in this fashion are trapeze-shaped. If one examines their counterparts in other regions of the Carpathian Basin, a very similar picture is given. 2. The ‘genetic’ relation to the ornamentation of Group I (‘plaque’ technique) is supported by the fact that in some cases (e. g. Mâsca–45/1898. 5–6) the silver strips were hammered in the shape of a pear, trying to imitate or replace the current fashion with a new method. So chronologically, ‘plaque technique’ was followed by the technique where the silver or brass stripes were hammered into the furrows grooved on the sides of the stirrup. Based upon these, we think that there was a distinct evolution in the ways of ornamentation in the 10th century and they were in connection with one another showing that we can talk about the development or change of a local method of ornamentation. It is demonstrated by the figure above. Legend - Ornament group I - Ornament group II

8

20

1

7 12

21

15 5

11 18

14 22–24 27

3

10 9

17

19

4

2

25–26

13 16

6

N

Fig. 24. The geographical distribution of ornamentation Group I and II in the Carpathian Basin (the numbers of the sites of Group I see Fig. 21). Sites where ornamentations of Group II were found in the Carpathian Basin: 1. Beszterec; 2. BékésVölgypart; 3. Bugyi Grave 20; 4. Csongrád-Vendelhalom Grave 17; 5. Hajdúszoboszló Árkoshalom Graves 74, 114, 145, 185; 6. Hodoni-Pocioroane Grave 17; 7. Hurbanovo-Bagota Grave 3; 8. Karos-Necr. I stray finds; 9. Kecskemét-Magyari tanya Grave 1; 10. Körösszegapáti-Pállapály stray find; 11. Lőrinci-Selypi puszta Grave 1; 12. Mosonmagyaróvár region stray find; 13. Muszka-Site 1 (Náchtnébel Ödön földje) destroyed graves (3); 14. Nagytarcsa-Homokbánya Grave A; 15. NyíregyházaJánosbokor stray find; 16. Periam-Régi Posta street stray finds; 17. Pincehely destroyed grave; 18. Püspökladány-Eperjesvölgy Grave 200; 19. Sárrétudvari-Hízóföld Graves 41, 185 and 197; 20. Szabolcs county stray find; 21. Svätý Peter-Kisrét Grave 60; 22. Székesfehérvár-Demkóhegy Grave 33; 23. Székesfehérvár-Rádiótelep Grave A; 24. Székesfehérvár-Táci Street Grave 2; 25. Szentes-Nagyhegy destroyed grave; 26. Szentes-Nagytőke destroyed grave; 27. Zalaszentgrót-Téglagyár Grave 1/a.

386

Erwin Gáll

3. The switch from ‘plaque’ technique ornamentation (Group I) to the stripes hammered into the arches of the stirrup (Group II) can be explained by the fact that the latter one required much less process and time, therefore much less technical knowledge was needed and it could be acquired by more people. Its much bigger quantity and the fact that it was wider-spread can be explained away by this. 4. The ornamentation type of Group II was common in a completely different geographical area than that of Group I. If the first one is considered to have been characteristic of the north-eastern region (Upper Tisza/Tisa region, Bihor/Bihar region and the area surrounding Cluj), the ornamentation method of Group II can be considered the typical stirrup ornamentation method of the Carpathian Basin. Therefore in connection with the geographical distribution of this ornamentation we can talk about the irradiation of the fashion of stirrup ornamentation in the Carpathian Basin from the middle or the second half of the 10th century. 5. This method of ornamentation is mainly known in the case of trapeze-shaped stirrups clearly attesting a later fashion and manufacturing process. On the other hand, its geographical distribution shows such social processes that can be defined as structural integration in the simplest and clearest way.

D. General conclusions concerning the stirrups According to the general opinion in the literature, the 10th century political-military elite brought an ‘exotic’ material culture to Central Europe46. Therefore it is not surprising that the research of the heirloom of this elite has always been in the focus of research47. Not so much has been written on the possible adaptations taking place in the Carpathian Basin48. Therefore we try to present our statements and deductions point by point.

D.1. On the evolution of 10th century stirrups (Fig. 25) D.1.1. Pear-shaped stirrups: continuity and discontinuity in their shape and manufacturing In the 10th century it was not only the colourful archaeological heritage of the military elite of the age of the ‘Hungarian conquest’ that meant discontinuity compared with the finds dating from the 9th century, but the shape and the manufacturing method of the majority of stirrups also show this. As has been mentioned above the pear-shaped stirrups of Type 1 with flat arches can be defined as the elements of a completely new material culture compared to the late Avar age, they show a discontinuity concerning their shape and technique. From the point of view of typology and the manufacturing technique, the appearance of this completely new shape (migration and/or technological development) cannot be explained clearly until we have exact data on the weights of the stirrups of the late Avar era. The pear-shaped stirrups with flat arches that have been analysed so far weigh approximately between 50–170 grams (Plate 4), whereas those that can be considered transitional stirrups generally weigh more (200 grams). But it can be stated that in the 10th century these stirrups with flat arches were popular: 42 of the 63 pear-shaped stirrups found in the area researched by us, or 66% of them, have flat arches (Type 1), so it is clear that in the 10th century the new type of stirrup was popular. To establish that this type of stirrup and this manufacturing technique was brought to the Carpathian Basin as a result of the ‘Hungarian’ migration and political-military conquest, we would need to excavate finds of this type east of the Carpathian Basin dating from the 9th century. Some features of the pear-shaped stirrups of Types 2 and 3, like the rectangular strap loops, the design of the neck, the round or rhombus arches and the narrow foot plate all show a close resemblance to the shapes and the manufacturing method of the stirrups used in the 8th–9th centuries. Practically, it is only the pear shape that means a change. In these cases one might assume that in the different regions of the Carpathian Basin the new fashionable type was imitated, but the  For example: Wieczorek/Fried/Müller-Wille 2000, II; Bálint 2000, 342.  Bálint 2007, 545–562. 48  It can be due to the fact that the research of the late Avar period ends with the first quarter of the 9th century, mainly owing to some German influence, and therefore they count with a lack of finds for almost a century except for some peripheral regions and the western part of the Transdanubian region. Stadler 2008, Fig. 9–10. 46 47

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

387

manufacturing method of the stirrup remained the same. The question as to whether behind this partial technological continuity there was a continuity of the people, or it only indicates a continuity of knowledge and trade cannot be answered yet. However, we consider it of outmost importance to investigate this issue further.

1.2. On the structural connections of the different stirrup types (Fig. 25) Despite the relevant differences between the shapes and manufacturing of trapeze-shaped and pear-shaped stirrups, a structural connection can be pointed out. It can be observed between some types of the pear-shaped stirrups (Pe2c, Pe3c2, Pe1g1) and Type 1 of the trapeze-shaped stirrups. Therefore these stirrups are considered to be transitional types. Based upon our chronological observations, as a stirrup that was found in a grave dated to the mid–10th century (Grave 4 in Nădlac), it could have merged as the prototype of the trapeze-shaped stirrups back in the 30’s of the 10th century. It may not be an exaggeration to call this stirrup a ‘hybrid’ both from a typological and a technical point of view. It seems that trapeze-shaped stirrups appeared among the populations of the Carpathian Basin as a result of an inner ‘evolution’ ‘development’ of this type of object or in other words they are the results of a technological advancement, although some foreign influence cannot be excluded either. Our next figure goes to show this, where we tried to demonstrate this organic evolution in the case of manufacturing stirrups. The trapeze-shaped stirrups without knobs can be categorised as early items, which is perfectly shown by the find excavated in Grave 41 of Cemetery II in Karos. Certainly, the stirrups without knobs were used at the same time as the trapeze-shaped ones with knobs, which is clearly indicated by the fact that in many cases these two sub-types can be found together in the graves. The knob decoration between the foot plate and the arches became a typical master stroke of the age from the second third of the 10th century (such as Berehove/Beregszász), which were used as decorations and were adapted in the case of trapeze-shaped stirrups in many cases49. In the issue concerning to what extent the growing popularity of trapeze-shaped stirrups can be connected to the spreading of double-edged swords, the author of this paper is rather sceptical. In our opinion, they did not spread due to political or military reasons, it can be triggered by the typological evolution of stirrups and the change in material culture for different reasons. To our mind, that the classic variants of this type with ‘knobs’ can be considered the ‘most developed’ items.

D.2. The geographical spread of the stirrups in the Carpathian Basin Concerning this issue, the question may arise as to how the various types spread at a macroregional level. At the moment the author of this paper supposes a chain of alternative explanations: an acceptable explanation could be the movement of the masters carrying the knowledge within a region, or the ‘migration’ of knowledge.

D.3. The issue of ornaments on the 10th century stirrups The ornamentation of Group 1 of the ornamented stirrups can be dated to the first half of the 10th century. They were limited to the north-eastern parts of the Carpathian Basin as is shown by Fig. 18 and Fig. 22, so they can be considered regional within the Carpathian Basin. Nevertheless, the shape of pear or elongated drop as a decoration can be seen on ornamentations (e. g. Tarcal), being a general ornamentation element of the ‘exotic culture’ characteristic of the elite of the new 10th century conquerors. It can be observed that this ornamentation lingered on among the ornamentations in Subgroup 1 of Group II. On the one hand we can talk about a connection between Group II and the ornamentation of Group I concerning their ornamentations, on the other hand, in the aspect of manufacturing one can see a discontinuity as the technique used here was not the so called ‘plaque technique’, but brass and silver strips were hammered on the furrows grooved on the arches of the iron stirrup. The second version of this ornamentation technique is much simpler: the furrows are made for the brass or silver strips that are hammered into them. However, the geographical distribution of this variant is different from that of Group I: that was a regional type characteristic of the graves with weapons and  Szőke 1962, 83.

49

388

Erwin Gáll

800

900

square-shaped strap loop with neck and arches with round section

rhombus section

trapeze-shaped strap loop the neck missing plate section new technology in the 10th century

Pear 1c pear-shaped body

Pe1b pear-shaped body

Pe1a pear-shaped body

curved foot plate curved foot plate

curved foot plate

square section Pear 1d pear shaped body

930

fan-shaped strap loop

fan-shaped strap loop square section

Tr1a pear-shaped body

concave section without ‘knob’ decoration

square-shaped strap loop, without neck

Pe2c pear-shaped body

without ‘knob’ decoration

rhombus section partially-curved foot plate

curved foot plate

trapeze-shaped body Pe3c2

partially-curved foot plate

rhombus-shaped strap loop

950

fan-shaped strap loop

square section

square-shaped strap loop

square-shaped strap loop with ‘knob’ decoration

square section Tr1b1–8 trapeze-shaped body

partially-curved foot plate

without ‘knob’ decoration

Tr2a1–7 trapeze-shaped body

Tr2a1–7 trapeze-shaped body

with ‘knob’ decoration partially-curved curved foot plate foot plate

fan-shaped strap loop round section

concave section Tr2b trapeze-shaped body

with ‘knob’ decoration curved foot plate

Tr2c trapeze-shaped body

partially-curved foot plate

Fig. 25. Structural connections of the different stirrup types and their chronological ‘evolutions’.

with ‘knob’ decoration

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

389

sabres, whereas this one became common in the whole Carpathian Basin in the second half of the 10th century. It can be firmly stated that we can talk about the irradiation of a fashion and an ornamentation technology. As it may be put a type of knowledge caught on and the commercial channels across the Carpathian Basin expanded. All this could have emerged and worked in a power network.

D.4. Regionalism and the issue of structural integration in connection with stirrups in the Transylvanian Basin (Fig. 26) As has been mentioned the burials with horses were the scantiest in the Transylvanian Basin, and therefore the lowest number of stirrups have been found here, although among the three regions researched here, this is the one with the highest number of graves known to us. However, the few stirrups are so varied and in some cases represent stirrup types unknown in other regions of the Carpathian Basin that several questions may arise. In connection with the cemeteries in Cluj-Napoca, which can be dated to the first two thirds of the 10th century, we have already stated earlier that it must have been an organised population of different origins50. This is quite firmly supported not only by archaeological but also anthropological research51. Inferring from their varied burial customs and the harnesses that were in many cases unknown in other parts of the Carpathian Basin, they could have been people brought and organised here to transport the salt and they could have been interdependent of the ‘power area’ in the Upper Tisza/Tisa region. In our opinion, the stirrup finds reflect the polycultural and heterogeneous characteristics of these communities as there are not two stirrups of the same type except for the ones found in Grave 6 in Zápolya Street and in Grave 25 in Plugarilor Street. Based upon the varied burial customs we think that a social-political phenomenon called the structural integration of the individuals can be observed in the Cluj cemeteries. Besides the various customs registered, the sabre is the primary status symbol in the graves of mature males can be identified as a symbol creating group identity, besides the personal identity. A good example of the structural integration is represented by Grave 4 in Zápolya Street. In this disturbed grave with sabre furnishing, a stone slab of considerable size was placed under the head. It is conspicuous because no such custom is known in the cemetery, on the other hand this custom is common in Central-Eastern Europe, except for the classic cemeteries of the ‘Hungarian conqurors’, it is known in the Transylvanian Basin too, in Grave 11 of Cemetery Blandiana ‘B’52 dating from the second half of the 10th century. As can be seen, it is a case when different funerary customs are mixed in the same grave. The atypical stirrup finds excavated in the valley of the Middle Mureș also raise questions. From the cemetery excavated in Staţia de salvare Alba Iulia the stirrups from only two graves are known. Besides the already described atypical pear-shaped stirrup, a trapeze-shaped stirrup with strap loop handles was also found that has no counterpart in the Carpathian Basin, only in the 10th century Moldova. The stirrups found in Grave 7 in Orăștie are also unique in the Carpathian Basin as there is no opening for the strap leather on their strap loops. Some objects of the material culture (bow end bones, bits and stirrups) found in the cemeteries in Alba Iulia-Stația de Salvare and Orăștie bear significant differences from the classical finds of the ‘conquering Hungarians’. Bits with the single-piece bar were found only in burials east of the Tisza/Tisa (7 burials)! It also has to be noted that more than half of the bits with single-piece bars were found in Southern Transylvania. It can be supposed, based on the large amount of bar-bit finds, that either a new migration of small groups of populations coming from the east, in the second half of the 10th century, could have taken place or these belonged to the settled people, different from the ‘conquering Hungarians’. Some finds in Northern Transylvania (Cluj-Napoca) and in the region of the Middle Mureș (Alba Iulia, Gâmbaș, Orăștie) show regional features. However, in Cluj-Napoca most finds seem to indicate connection with the Upper Tisza/Tisa region53, whereas the valley of the Middle Mureș have parallels in the Great Plain54. The heterogeneity of the finds excavated in northern and southern Transylvania  Gáll 2013a, Vol. I, 826–831, 911–915; Gáll 2013b, 469–475, 476–478.  Marcsik 2002–2003, 88: note 85. 52  Gáll 2013a, Vol. I, 335–336. 53  Gáll 2013a, Vol. I, 822–823, 829–831, 913–915; Gáll 2013b, 474–475. 54  Gáll 2013a, Vol. I, 822–823,831–834, 905–908, 915–917. 50

51

?

Child

F

- button decorated with granulations

- straps on clothes

- buckle

Gr. 5

?

Gr. 8 N

3m

- harness ornaments

Gr. 1

- heart-shaped harness ornaments

- bit (Gáll 1bc)

- bit (Gáll 1b)

- sabre

0

3 meters of soil slope

C

The ‘Cluj’ (’Kolozsvár’) type

Pe1c2

- stirrups

Pe1a1 - subtype of the pear type stirrups

Gr. - Grave

- partial horse burials (Bálint type II, III, IV)

C - the ‘Cluj’ (’Kolozsvár’) stirrup type

F - Forged shoulder-handled stirrup

?

Bálint type III Bálint type IV

Gr. 10

sheep bone

Pe1b3

Gr. 9

3 meters of soil slope

Parcel no. 76

14C analysis

Pe1a1

Gr. 11

Fence

Gyula László’s excavation

32,5 m

Bálint type II?

Gr. 7

Pe1d

Gr. 6

Bálint type II

Fig. 26. The interpretative map of cemetery sections in Cluj-Napoca-Zápolya Street.

- quiver or bow ear mounting

- bow

- quiver

- arrowhead

István Kovács’s excavation

- decorated strap finger ring (Gáll 5b)

- simple button

?

poultry bones

stone under the head

Destroyed grave by the sand-pit

Gr. 4

Gr. 3

farrow bones

- simple strap finger ring (Gáll 5a)

- earring

- lock ring

Legend

- skeleton

Parcel no. 78

Gr. 2

0m

Fence

Fence

Fence

390 Erwin Gáll

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

391

draw our attention to the mobility of the smaller and bigger communities, to the economic-commercial networks and to the evolution of the power structures. The vast commercial system covering the 10th century Carpathian Basin, Eastern Europe and their connections with Byzantium and the Arab world should be further investigated, but it can firmly be stated that in this huge early medieval commercial network, the Transylvanian Basin had an insignificant position as a periphery. Moreover, taking into consideration the quantity of the burials with horses (and therefore the stirrups too) and their geographical locations in the 10th century Transylvanian Basin, it ibecomes understandable why we can talk about a ‘peripheral Transylvania’ in the 10th century! Compared to the finds in the plains of the Carpathian Basin, in the Upper Tisza/Tisa region or in the Kisalföld (Little Plain) dating from the first two thirds of the 10th century, in the Transylvanian Basin only some isolated cemeteries are known from the conquest period, so they could not have brought huge masses, it must have been a conquest with another purpose (the need for salt) and therefore one can talk about other power constructions, political and cultural realities and other social processes. So it can be stated that the Transylvanian Basin was in a peripheral position within the 10th century ‘Hungarian power network’, which is reflected by the poor archaeological finds and the wide variety of stirrups compared to other regions of the Carpathian Basin. This can indicate the great cultural heterogeneity of the population. A deeper analysis of them should be carried out in the future.

Appendix: C analysis of the horse bone from Grave 10 Cluj-Napoca Zápolya Street

14

The analysis of 14C dating of the bone sample was conducted by HEKAL AMS55 Laboratory, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Institute for Nuclear Research ISOTOPTECH ZRT led by dr Mihály Molnár, 14C expert. The results are quoted as their radiocarbon age in years before present (yr BP). The values are quoted corrected to -25‰ for δ13C. The radiocarbon age is the conventional uncalibrated 14C age and is quoted in years “before present (BP)”, where “present” has been defined as the expected natural level for ~1950AD. The data have been calibrated with the help of Calib 6.0 (www.calib.org). In the table the 2 sigma (level of reliability is >95%) calibrated time intervals are given. The following values have been measured: One Sigma Ranges: [start:end] relative area [cal AD 890: cal AD 900] 0.186087 [cal AD 918: cal AD 963] 0.813913 Two Sigma Ranges: [start:end] relative area [cal AD 873: cal AD 981] 1. AMS 14C measurement code DeA–6392

HEKAL sample identifier

Name of sample

I/1110/1

Horse bone, Cluj-Napoca, Zápolya Street, Grave 10

Conventional 14 C age (year BP) (± 1s) 1133

±

Calibrated calendar age (cal AD) (± 2s) 20

873–981

Fig. 27. The result of the sigma 2.

C analyses of the bone sample resulted the calibrated calendar age range AD 873–981 at 2 sigma probability. One sigma probability age range as the most probable age is between AD 900–963, the first half of the 10th century. 14

 Molnár et al. 2013a, 665–676; Molnár et al. 2013b, 338–344.

55

392

Erwin Gáll

Fig. 28/a–c. The graphs of the 14C analyses.

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

Annex 1. The remains of 10th–11th century horse burials in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat (the list of the archaeological sites used on Fig. 2–3). 1. Alba Iulia-Izvorul Împăratului 2. Alba Iulia-Stația de Salvare 3. Alba Iulia-The Roman Catholic Cathedral 4. Arad-Ceala 5. Arad County 6. Banat (Museum of Banat) 7. Biharea-Somlyóhegy 8. Biharea-Castle (?) 9. Blandiana ‘C’ 10. Cenadul Sârbesc-Poiana III 11. Cheglevici 12. Cipău (?) 13. Ciucsângeorgiu (?) 14. Cluj-Napoca-Kalevala street? (actually: Semenicului street) 15. Cluj-Napoca-Plugarilor street 16. Cluj-Napoca-Zápolya street (actually: gen. Traian Moșoiu) 17. Curtuiușeni 18. Deva-Micro 15 19. Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound III 20. Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound IV 21. Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound V 22. Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound VIII 23. Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound IX 24. Dudeștii Vechi-Mound I (Közlegelő) 25. Dudeștii Vechi-Mound V

26. Dudeștii Vechi-Mound VI 27. Dudeștii Vechi-Dragomir’s mound 28. Eresteghin-Zádogostető 29. Felnac 30. Hodoni-Pocioroane 31. Mâsca-Site 1 32. Mâsca-Site 2 33. Miercurea-Ciuc-Jigodin 34. Nădlac-Lutărie 35. Orăștie-Dealul Pemilor X2 36. Pecica-Șanțul Mare 37. Periam 38. Săcălaz 39. Salonta-Halom domb 40. Sânpetru German-G.A.S. 41. Sânpetru German-stray find 42. Sântandrei 43. Sfântu-Gheorghe-Eprestető 44. Șiclău-Gropoaie 45. Tărian-Csordásdomb 46. Teremia Mare-Stock Kristóf-Weinflur 36/1 47. Timişoara-Cioreni 48. Tomnatic-Kleine Hügel 49. Vărșand-Laposhalom 50. Voiteg

Annex 2. The 10th–11th century stirrups in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/ Partium and the Banat (the numbering of the archaeological sites used on Fig. 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19) (for another data, see: Gáll 2013, Vol. I–II). Legend C – stirrups, the ‘Cluj’ (‘Kolozsvár’) type F – stirrups with ‘forked arches’ Pe – pear-shaped stirrup R – Stirrups with straight foot plate, curved arches and strap loop with neck (‘Révész’s’ type) LH – trapeze-shaped stirrups with loop handles/ears 1. Alba Iulia-Izvorul Împăratului (Alba county, Transylvanian Basin) Grave ?. Stirrup no. 1. Type: have no data. Weight: have no data. Grave ?. Stirrup no. 2. Type: have no data. Weight: have no data. 2. Alba Iulia-Stația de Salvare (Alba county, Transylvanian Basin) Trench XV/1981/Grave 20. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Pe2c. Weight: have no data. Trench XV/1981/Grave 20. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: LH. Weight: have no data.

Trench XXXIII/Grave 1. Stirrup. Type: R1. Weight: have no data. 3. Arad-Ceala (Arad county, Crișana/Partium) Grave X. Stirrup no. 1. Type: Pe3a1. Weight: 162,7 grams. Grave X. Stirrup no. 2. Type: Pe3a2. Weight: 178,6 grams. 4. Arad-County (Museum of Arad) (Arad county, Crișana/Partium) Stirrup. Type: Pe1b5. Weight: 88,8 grams. 5. Banat (Museum of Banat) (Timiș county, Banat) Stray find. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Tr1b7. Weight: 124,6 grams. Stray find. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Tr1b8. Weight: 93,5 grams. 6. Biharea-Somlyóhegy (Bihor county, Crișana/Partium)

393

394

Erwin Gáll

Grave 1. Stirrup no. 1. Type: Pe2a1. Weight: have no data. Grave 1. Stirrup no. 2. Type: Pe1c6. Weight: have no data. Grave 2. Stirrup no. 1. Type: Pe1c4. Weight: have no data. Grave 3. Stirrup no. 1. Type: Pe1d. Weight: have no data. Grave 3. Stirrup no. 2. Type: Pe1d. Weight: have no data. Grave 4. Stirrup no. 1. Type: Pe3a3. Weight: have no data. Grave 5. Stirrup no. 1. Type: Pe1b7. Weight: have no data. Grave 5. Stirrup no. 2. Type: Pe1b5. Weight: have no data. Grave 6. Stirrup no. 1. Type: Pe2a2. Weight: have no data. Grave 7. Stirrup no. 1. Type: Pe1b5. Weight: have no data. Grave 7. Stirrup no. 2. Type: Pe1a1. Weight: have no data. Grave 8. Stirrup no. 1. Type: Pe1c3. Weight: have no data. Grave 8. Stirrup no. 2. Type: Pe1c8. Weight: have no data. 7. Biharea-Castle Stray find(s). Unknown type of stirrup or stirrups. 8. Cenadul Sârbesc-Poiana III (Arad county, Banat) Grave ? Stirrup, fragmentary. Type: Pe, undefiniable. Weight: have no data. 9. Cheglevici (Timiș county, Banat) Stray find. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Pe1a3. Weight: 124,8 grams. Stray find. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Pe1b4. Weight: 135,1 grams. 10. Cluj-Napoca-Plugarilor street (Cluj county, Transylvanian Basin) Grave 25. Stirrup. Type: Pe1d. Weight: have no data. 11. Cluj-Napoca-Zápolya street (actually: gen. Traian Moșoiu) (Cluj county, Transylvanian Basin) Grave 1. Stirrup. Type: C. Weight: 122,0 grams. Grave 6. Stirrup no. 1. Type: Pe1d. Weight: 55,0 grams. Grave 6. Stirrup no. 2. Type: Pe1d. Weight: 57,0 grams.

Grave 8. Stirrup no. 1. Type: F2. Weight: 192 grams. Grave 8. Stirrup no. 2. Type: F2. Weight: have no data. Grave 9. Stirrup no. 1. Type: have no data. Weight: have no data. Grave 9. Stirrup no. 2. Type: have no data. Weight: have no data. Grave 10. Stirrup no. 1. Type: Pe1c2. Weight: 157,5 gramm. Grave 10. Stirrup no. 2. Type: Pe1b3. Weight: 100,1 grams. Grave 11. Stirrup. Type: Pe1a1. Weight: 150,3 grams. 12. Curtuiușeni (Bihor county, Crișana/Partium) Stray find. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Tr2a2. Weight: have no data. Stray find. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Tr2a3. Weight: have no data. 13. Deva-Micro 15 (Hunedoara county, Transylvanian Basin) Grave 3. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Tr2b. Weight: have no data. Grave 3. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Tr2b. Weight: have no data. 14. Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound III (Timiș county, Banat) Grave. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: have no data. Weight: have no data. Grave. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: have no data. Weight: have no data. 15. Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound IV (Timiș county, Banat) Grave 3. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Pe. Weight: have no data. Grave 3. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Tr. Weight: have no data. 16. Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound V (Timiș county, Banat) Grave 3. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Pe1b1. Weight: have no data. Grave 3. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Pe1f. Weight: have no data. 17. Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound VIII (Timiș county, Banat) Grave. Stirrup. Type: have no data. Weight: have no data. 18. Dudeștii Vechi-Pusta Bucova Mound IX (Timiș county, Banat) Grave. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Tr2. Weight: have no data. Grave. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Tr2. Weight: have no data.

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

19. Dudeștii Vechi-Mound I (Közlegelő) (Timiș county, Banat) Grave X. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Pe1b6. Weight: 80,6 grams. Grave X. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Pe1b4. Weight: 58,9 grams. 20. Dudeștii Vechi-Mound VI (Timiș county, Banat) Grave. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: have no data. Weight: have no data. Grave. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: have no data. Weight: have no data. 21. Dudeștii Vechi-Dragomir’s mound (Timiș county, Banat) Grave 4. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Pe1g2. Weight: have no data. Grave 4. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Tr2a6. Weight: have no data. 22. Eresteghin (Covasna county, Transylvanian Basin) Stray find. Stirrup. Type: Tr2c. Weight: have no data. 23. Felnac Stray find. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: R. Weight: 160,3 grams. Stray find. Stirrup, no. 2, fragmentary. Type: R. Weight: have no data. 24. Hodoni-Pocioroane Grave 3. Stirrup. Type: Pe1a1. Weight: have no data. Grave 17. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Tr2a3. Weight: 144,7 grams. Grave 17. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Tr2a3. Weight: > 200 grams. 25. Mâsca-Site 1 Stray find. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Pe1g1. Weight: 178,2 grams. Stray find. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Pe1g1. Weight: 164,8 grams. Stray find. Stirrup, no. 3. Type: Tr2a3. Weight: have no data. Stray find. Stirrup, no. 4. Type: Tr2a6. Weight: have no data. Stray find. Stirrup, no. 5. Type: Tr2a7. Weight: 210 grams. Stray find. Stirrup, no. 6. Type: Tr2a7. Weight: 187 grams. 26. Miercurea-Ciuc-Jigodin Stray find. Stirrup, fragmentary. Type: Pe1b6. Weight: have no data. 27. Nădlac-Țiglărie Grave I. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Tr1b3. Weight: 168,3 grams.

395

Grave I. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Tr1b4. Weight: 198,2 grams. Grave 4. Stirrup. Type: Tr1a. Weight: 167,3 grams. Grave 6. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Tr1b1. Weight: 246,0 grams. Grave 9. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Tr2a4. Weight: 210,4 grams. Grave 9. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Tr1b7. Weight: 171,2 grams. Grave 13. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Tr1b3. Weight: 223,2 grams. Grave 13. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Tr2a5. Weight: 226,6 grams. 28. Orăștie-Dealul Pemilor X2 Grave 7. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Tr1b5. Weight: have no data. Grave 7. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Tr1b6. Weight: have no data. Grave 43. Stirrup. Type Pe1b5. Weight: have no data. 29. Pecica-Șanțul Mare/Nagysánc Stray find. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: F1. Weight: 126,6 grams. Stray find. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: F1. Weight: 113,6 grams. Stray find. Stirrup, no. 3. Type: Pe3c2. Weight: 200 grams. Stray find. Stirrup, no. 4, fragmentary. Type: Pe3d. Weight: have no data. Stray find. Stirrup, no. 5, fragmentary. Type: Pe2b. Weight: have no data. Stray find. Stirrup. No. 6. Type: have no data. Weight: have no data. 30. Periam Stray find. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Tr2a2. Weight: 208 grams. Stray find. Stirrup. Type: Tr2a3. Weight: have no data. 31. Salonta-Halom domb Grave 2. Stirrup, no. 1, fragmentary. Type: Pe4.1. Weight: have no data. Grave 2. Stirrup, no. 2, fragmentary. Type: Pe4.1. Weight: have no data. 32. Sânpetru German-G.A.S. Single grave. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Pe3a3. Weight: 84,2 grams. Single grave. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Pe3a3. Weight: 88,8 grams. 33. Sânpetru German-stray find

396

Erwin Gáll

Stray find. Stirrup. Type: Tr1b4. Weight: > 200,0 grams. 34. Șagu Stray find: field walk. Stirrup, fragmentary. Type: Pe2b. Weight: have no data. 35. Șiclău Grave 1. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Pe1a4b. Weight: 61,7 grams. Grave 1. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Pe1c8. Weight: have no data. Grave 2. Stirrup, no. 1, fragmentary. Type: Pe1c1. Weight: have no data. Grave 2. Stirrup, no. 2, fragmentary. Type: Pe1c7. Weight: have no data. Grave 8. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Pe3b. Weight: 60,0 grams. Grave 8. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: R. Weight: 51,7 grams. Grave 9. Stirrup, no. 2, fragmentary. Type: F1. Weight: have no data. Grave 10. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Pe3c1. Weight: 115,6 grams. Grave 10. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Pe3a4. Weight: 97,0 grams. Grave 11. Stirrup, no. 1, fragmentary. Type: Pe4.2. Weight: 64,0 grams. Grave 11. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Pe1a4a. Weight: 49,81 grams. Grave 12. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Pe1a1. Weight: 126,0 grams. Grave 12. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Pe1c5. Weight: 59,6 grams. Stray find, point I.D. Stirrup. Type: F1. Weight: 103 grams. Stray find, point I.W. Stirrup. Type: have no data. Weight: have no data.

36. Tărian Grave 28. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Pe2b. Weight: have no data. Grave 28. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Pe1b2. Weight: have no data. Grave 36. Stirrup. Type: Pe1a2. Weight: have no data. Grave 38. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: F. Weight: have no data. Grave 38. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: F. Weight: have no data. 37. Timişoara-Cioreni Stray find. Stirrup. Type: Pe1a1. Weight: 180 grams. Stray find. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Tr2a1. Weight: 190 grams. Stray find. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Tr2a1. Weight: 203 grams. Grave A. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Pe1e. Weight: 178,0 grams. Grave A. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Pe2a1. Weight: 166 grams. 38. Tomnatic-Kleine Hügel Grave 2. Stirrup. Type: have no data. Weight: have no data. 39. Vărșand Grave 33. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: have no data. Weight: have no data. Grave 33. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: have no data. Weight: have no data. Stray find. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Pe1b3. Weight: 76 grams. Stray find. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Tr1b2. Weight: 142 grams. 40. Voiteg Grave 3. Stirrup, no. 1. Type: Pe1a3. Weight: 147,82 grams. Grave 3. Stirrup, no. 2. Type: Pe2d. Weight: 109,79 grams.

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

397

Bibliography AEKK 2010 Antropológiai – etnológiai – kultúratudományi kislexikon. A. A. Gergely–R. Papp / A. Szász / G. Hajdú / A. Varga (Szerk.) (Budapest 2010). A. H. 1996 I. Fodor (Ed.), The Ancient Hungarians. (Budapest 1996). Bakay 1965 K. Bakay, Régészeti tanulmányok a magyar államalapítás kérdéseihez. Dunántúli Dolgozatok 1. (Pécs 1965). Bakay 1967 K. Bakay, Archäologische Studien zur Frage der ungarischen Staatsgründung. Angaben zur Organisierung des fürstlichen Heeres. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (Budapest) 19, 1967, 105–173. Bálint 1969 Cs. Bálint, A honfoglalás kori lovastemetkezések néhány kérdése (Über die Pferdebestattungen der Landnahmezeit). Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1969/1, 107–114. Bálint 2000 Cs. Bálint, A honfoglalástól az államalapításig. A. Wieczorek / H-M. Hinz (Szerk.), Európa közepe 1000 körül (Stuttgart 2000), 342–348. Bálint 2005 Cs. Bálint, Ki volt „magyar” a honfoglaláskorban és Szent István korában?. I. Romsics / M. Szegedy Maszák (Szerk.), Mi a magyar? (Budapest 2005), 37–56. Bálint 2006 Cs. Bálint, Az ethnosz a kora középkorban (A kutatás lehetőségei és korlátai) (The Ethnos in the Early Middle Ages [Possibilities and limits of research]. Századok. A Magyar Történelmi Társulat Folyóirata (Budapest) 140/2, 2006, 277–347. Bálint 2007 Cs. Bálint, On „Orient-preference” in archaeological research on the Avars, proto-bulgarians and conquering Hungarians. J. Henning (Ed.), Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium. Millenium Studies 5/1 (Berlin–New York 2007), 545–562. Brather 1994–1995 S. Brather, Frühmittelalterliche Dirham-Schatzfunde in Europa. Probleme ihrer wirtschaftgeschichtlichen Interpretation aus archäologischer Perspektive. Zeistchrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters (Köln) 23–24, 1994–1995, 73–153. Brather 2002 S. Brather, Ethnic Identities as Constructions of Archaeology: The case of the Alamanni. A. Gillett (Ed.), On Barbarian Identity. Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle Ages. Studies in the Early Middle Ages 4 (Turnhout 2002), 149–175. Brather 2008 S. Brather: Kleidung, Bestattung, Ritual. Die Präsentation sozialer Rollen im frühen Mittelalter. S. Brather (Hrsg.), Zwischen Spätantike und Frühmittelalter. Archäologie des 4. bis 7. Jarhunderte im Westen. Beck, H. Geuenich, D. Steuer, (Hrsg.): Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. 57 Band (Berlin–New York 2008), 237–274. Dienes 1966 I. Dienes, A honfoglaló magyarok lószerszámának néhány tanulsága (Quelques enseignements tirés de l’harnachement des Hongrois conquérants). Archaeológiai Értesítő 93, 1966, 208–234. Effros 2003 B. Effros, Merovingian Mortuary Archaeology and the Making of the Early Middle Ages (Berkeley–Los Angeles–London 2003). Ellis Davidson 1989 H. Ellis Davidson: The Training of Warriors. S.  C. Hawkes (Ed.), Weapons and Warfare in Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology 1989, 11–24. Fettich 1937 N. Fettich, A honfoglaló magyarság fémművessége / Die Metallkunst der landnehmenden Ungarn. Archaelogia Hungarica (Budapest) 21 (Budapest 1937). Gall 2002 E. Gall, Contribuţii privind elaborarea sistemului cronologic al descoperirilor funerare din secolul X. în Bazinul Transilvan (Chronologische Beiträge zu den Bestattungsitten des 10. Jahrhunderts aus dem siebenbürgischen Becken). Ephemeris Napocensis 12, 2002, 289–312.

398

Erwin Gáll

Gáll 2009 E. Gáll, The date of the appearance of the S-ended lock-rings in the Transylvanian Basin. Ephemeris Napocensis 18, 2009, 157–175. Gáll 2010 E. Gáll, Burial Customs and the Question of 10th Century Population in the Transylvania. Acta Archaelogica Carpathica 45, 2010, 271–314. Gáll 2013a E. Gáll, Az Erdélyi-medence, a Partium és a Bánság 10–11. századi temetői (10th and 11th Century burial sites, stray finds and treasures in the Transylvanian Basin, the Partium and the Banat). L. Kovács– L. Révész. (Szerk.), Magyarország honfoglalás és kora Árpád-kori sírleletei 4 (Szeged 2013), Vol. I–II. Gáll 2013b E. Gáll, The Question of the Centres of Power in the light of the Necropolises from the 10th Century in Transylvanian Basin. The case of the Cluj’s necropolises. M. Hardt / Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska (Hrsg.), 23. Internationales Symposium Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklungim mittleren Donauraum. Macht des Goldes, Gold der Macht Herrschafts- und Jenseitsrepräsentationen zwischen Antike und Frühmittelalter im mittleren Donauraum (Leipzig 2013), 461–481. Gilkeson 2010 J. S. Gilkeson, Antropologists and the Rediscovery of America, 1886–1965 (Cambridge 2010). Hampel 1896 J. Hampel, A honfoglalási kor hazai emlékei (Budapest 1896). Hampel 1900 J. Hampel, A honfoglalási kor hazai emlékei. Gy. Pauler–S. Szilágyi (Szerk.), A magyar honfoglalás kútfői (Budapest 1900 [reprint 1995]), 507–826. Hampel 1905 J. Hampel, Alterthümer des frühen Mittelalters in Ungarn I–III (Braunschweig 1905). Härke 2000 H. Härke, Social analysis of mortuary evidence in German protohistoric archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19 (New York 2000). Høilund Nielsen 1997 K. Høilund Nielsen, Animal Art and the Weapon Burial Rite – a Political Badge?. Cl. Kj. Jensen, K. Høilund Nielsen (Eds.), Burial and Society. Aarhus University Press (Aarhus 1997), 129–148. Istvánovits 2003 E. Istvánovits, A Rétköz honfoglalás és kora Árpád-kori emlékanyaga (Das landnahme- und arpadenzeitliche Nachlassmaterial des Rétköz). L. Kovács–L. Révész. (Szerk.), Régészeti gyűjtemények Nyíregyházán 2. Magyarország honfoglalás és kora Árpád-kori sírleletei 4. Szerk (Nyíregyháza 2003). Jankovich 1943 J. Jankovich, A Lehóczky-Múzeum honfoglaláskori leleteiről. Gy. László, A honfoglaló magyarok (Kolozsvár 1943), 100–104, XXIV–XXVII. tábla. Kordé 1994 Z. Kordé, Bogát. Gy. Kristó (Szerk.), Korai Magyar történeti lexikon (9–14. század) (Budapest 1994), 116. Kovács 1985 L. Kovács, Honfoglalás kori sírok Nagytarcsán. I: Temető utca 5. (Adatok a gombos nyakú kengyelek értékeléséhez) (Landnahmezeitliche Gräber in Nagytarcsa I: Temető-Gasse Nr. 5. [Beiträge zur Wertung der Steigbügel mit knopfförmigem Hals]). Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae (Budapest) 1985, 125–139. Kovács 1986 L. Kovács, Über einige Steigbügeltypen der Landnahmezeit. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 38 (1986), 195–225. Langó 2007 P. Langó, Amit elrejt a föld…A 10. századi magyarság anyagi kultúrájának régészeti kutatása a Kárpátmedencében (Budapest 2007). Linton 1964 R. Linton, The Study of Man: An Introduction (New York 1964). Mannheim 1995 K. Mannheim, A gondolkodás struktúrái. Kultúraszociológiai tanulmányok (Budapest 1995). Marcsik 2002–2003 A. Marcsik, Studiul antropologic al scheletelor descoperite în cimitirul de secol X din Cluj-Napoca, str. Plugarilor (Anthropological Study of Human Skeleton discovered at the 10th Century Cemetery from Str. Plugarilor, Cluj-Napoca). Acta Musei Napocensis. Seria Historica 39–40, 2002–2003/2004, 83–90.

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

399

Mesterházy 1981 K. Mesterházy, Karoling-normann típusú kengyel a honfoglaló magyaroknál (Steigbügel karolingisch-normannischen Typs bei den landnehmenden Ungarn). Folia Archaeologica 32, 1981, 211–223. Molnár et al. 2013a M. Molnár, R. Janovics, I. Major, J. Orsovszki, R. Gönczi R, M. Veres, Ag. Leonard, SM. Castle, T. Lange, L. Wacker, I. Hajdas, A. Jull, Status report of the new AMS 14C sample preparation lab of the Hertelendi Laboratory of Environmental Studies (Debrecen, Hungary). Radiocarbon 55/2–3, 2013a, 665–676. Molnár et al. 2013b M. Molnár, L. Rinyu, M. Veres, M. Seiler, L. Wacker, H-A. Syna, EnvironMICADAS: a mini 14C AMS with enhanced Gas Ion Source Interface in the Hertelendi Laboratory of Environmental Studies (HEKAL), Hungary. Radiocarbon 55/2–3, 2013, 338–344. M. Nepper 2002 I. M. Nepper, Hajdú-Bihar megye 10–11. századi sírleletei (Die Grabfunden aus dem 10.–11. Jh. in Komitat Hajdú-Bihar). L. Kovács, L. Révész. (Szerk.), Magyarország honfoglalás és kora Árpád-kori sírleletei 3 (Budapest–Debrecen 2002). Parker Pearson 2001 M. Parker Pearson, The archaeology of death and burial. Texas A&M University Anthropology Series 3 (Texas 2001). Révész 1996 L. Révész, A karosi honfoglaláskori temetők. Régészeti adatok a Felső-Tisza vidék X. századi történetéhez (Die Gräberfelder von Karos aus der Landnahmezeit. Archäologische Angaben zur Geschichte des oberen Theißgebietes im 10. Jahrhundert). L. Kovács, L. Révész. (Szerk.), Magyarország honfoglalás és kora Árpádkori sírleletei 3 (Miskolc 1996). Révész 1999 L. Révész, Honfoglalás kori temető Tengőd-Hékútpusztán (Friedhof aus der Zeit der Landnahme in TengődHékútpuszta). Hermann Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 37, 1999, 267–299. Révész 2001 L. Révész, Aranyszántás Balotán (Goldenes Ackerfeld in Balota) (Budapest–Kiskunhalas 2001). Ruttkay 1976 A. Ruttkay, Waffen und Reiterausrüstung des 9. bis zur ersten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts in der Slowakei II. Slovenská Archeológia 24/2, 1976, 245–395. Schulze-Dörlamm 1988 M. Schulze-Dörlamm, Untersuchungen zur Herkunft der Ungarn und zum Beginn ihrer Landnahme. Jarhbuch des Römisch-Germanische Zentralmuseums (Mainz) 1988 (1991), 373–478. Spinei 2009 V. Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the MidThirteenth Century (Boston 2009). Stadler 2008 P. Stadler, Avar chronology revisited, and the question of ethnicity in the Avar quaganate. F. Curta (Ed.) with the assistance of R. Kovalev, The Other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans (Leiden–Boston 2008), 47–82. Szőke 1962 B. Szőke, A honfoglaló és kora Árpád-kori magyarság régészeti emlékei. Régészeti Tanulmányok 1 (Budapest 1962). Wieczorek / Fried / Müller-Wille 2000 A. Wieczorek, J. Fried, M. Müller-Wille, Európa közepe 1000 körül. A. Wieczorek, H-M. Hinz (Szerk.), Európa közepe 1000 körül I–III (Stuttgart 2000).

1b7

1b6

1b5

1b4

1b3

1b2

1b1

1b

Type VI

Type IV

1c8

1c7

1c6

1c5

1c4

1c3

1c2

1c1

1c

Type VII

1d

2

Type V

Type VIII

2

1

2

1 Type II

2

Type I

1e

3

Type III

1f

4

1g2

1g1

1g

Type I

2a3

2a1

2a2

2a

Type II

Type III

2b

Type IV

1

2c

2 Type III

Type I

1

2d

3

1

3a4

3a3

3a2

3a1

Type VI

2

1

3a

Type IV

3

2

2 Type II

3b

4

3

3c2

3c1

3c

1 Type V

2

3d

4.1

4

Plate 1. The typology of 10th–11th century pear-shaped stirrups based on their subcomponents in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat.

1a4b

1a4a

1a3

1a2

1a1

1a

1

1

400 Erwin Gáll

1

Type V

Type II

2

Ib7

1b8

1b6

1b5

1b2

1b4

2

1b3

1b1

1b

1 2 Type VI

1 Type III

2a5

2a6

2a4

IV

2a3

2a7

2a

III

2a2

II

2a1

Types I

2b

1

1

Type II

2

2 Type I

1

2c

Type III

3

2

Plate 2. The typology of 10th–11th century trapeze-shaped stirrups based on their subcomponents in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat.

1a

1a

Type IV

Type I

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

401

402

Erwin Gáll

2

1

3

4

5

6

Plate 3. 10th–11th century stirrup types in the Transylvanian Basin, the Crișana/Partium and the Banat. 1–2. Forged shoulder-handled stirrup; 3. The type so called ‘Révész’ type; 4. The type so called ‘Cluj’/’Kolozsvár’ type; 5. Stirrup with ‘forked arches’; 6. Trapeze-shaped stirrup forged together with the strap loop.

250 grams

200 grams

150 grams

100 grams

50 grams

Pe1a1

Pe1a4a

Pe1b3

Pe1b3

76,0 grams

61,7 grams

49,81 grams

59,6 grams

Pe1a4b

100,1 grams

150,3 grams

Pe1a1

170,0 grams

Pe1a1

Pe1d

Pe3a3

84,2 grams

55,0 grams 57,0 grams

Pe1d

80,0 grams

Pe1b6

Pe3a1

Pe3a3

Pe3a4

Pe3b

Tr1b3

93,5 grams

Tr1b8

124,6 grams

Tr1b7

142,0 grams

Tr1b2

168, 3 grams

Tr2a2

Tr2a4 Tr2a7

Tr2a3

Tr2a3

Trapeze-shaped stirrups (Tr)

144,7 grams

Tr2a7

187,8 gramS

210,4 grams 208,0 grams

Tr2a3

Tr2a5

226,6 grams

>200,0 grams 190,0 grams

167, 3 grams

Tr1a

Tr2a3

220,0 grams

Tr2a2

200,0 grams

Tr1b7

171, 2 grams

198,2 grams

Tr1b4

223,2 grams

Tr1b3

Plate 4. The weight of stirrups according to their types, subtypes and variants.

51,7 grams

88,8 grams

Pe3c

115,6 grams

97,0 grams

Pe3a2 178,6 grams

162,7 grams

Pear-shaped stirrups (Pe)

88,8 grams

Pe1b5

Pe1c4

164,8 grams

126,0 grams

157,7 grams

Pe1c2

Pe1g1

178,2 grams Pe1g1

Pe2d2

200, 0 grams

Tr1b1

246 grams

210,0 grams

F-2

60,0 grams

R-1

160,3 grams

R-1

R-2

122,0 grams

C

Stirrups with The Forged straight foot, ‘Cluj’ shoulder- curved arches (‘Kolozsvár’) handled and strap stirrup stirrups loop with neck type (C) (F) (‘Révész’s type 1-2) (R)

113,6 grams

F-1

126,6 grams

F-1

192,0 grams

175,0 grams

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

403

404

Erwin Gáll

1

0

3 cm

Plate 5. Cluj-Napoca-Zápolya Street Grave 11: 1.

An attempt to classify the stirrups dating from the 10th century and the first quarter of the 11th century in the Transylvanian Basin

Variety I

405

Variety II

Variety III

Variety IV

Variety V

Plate 6. The varieties of the ornaments of the stirrups inlaid with silver or/and copper plates in the Carpathian Basin.

406

Erwin Gáll

0

3 cm

0

3 cm

2

1

0

3 cm

3

0

3 cm

4

Plate 7. 1–4. The trapeze-shaped stirrups from Mâsca-site 1.

Cărţi apărute în seria / Books published in the series / Erschienene Bände in der Reihe INTERFERENŢE ETNICE ŞI CULTURALE ÎN MILENIILE I. A. CHR. – I. P. CHR. ETHNIC AND CULTURAL INTERFERENCES IN THE 1ST MILLENNIUM B.C. TO THE 1ST MILLENNIUM A.D. ETHNISCHE UND KULTURELLE INTERFERENZEN IM 1. JHT. V. CHR. – 1. JHT. N. CHR. I. A. Rustoiu, H. Pop, A. Ursuţiu, Fl. Gogâltan, Al. Gudea, HABITAT UND GESELLSCHAFT IM WESTEN UND NORDWESTEN RUMÄNIENS VOM ENDE DES 2. JAHRTAUSENDS V. CHR. ZUM ANFANG DES 1.  JAHRTAUSENDS N. CHR., Cluj-Napoca 2002. II. C. Cosma, Al. Gudea, HABITAT UND GESELLSCHAFT IM WESTEN UND NORDWESTEN RUMÄNIENS IN DEN 8.–10. JAHRHUNDERTEN N. CHR., Cluj-Napoca 2002. III. A. Rustoiu, RĂZBOINICI ŞI ARTIZANI DE PRESTIGIU ÎN DACIA PREROMANĂ (KRIEGER UND SCHMIEDE IM VOR RÖMISCHEN DAKIEN), Cluj-Napoca 2002. IV. INTERREGIONALE UND KULTURELLE BEZIEHUNGEN IM KARPATENRAUM (2. JHT. V. CHR. – 1. JHT. N. CHR.), (Herausgeber A. Rustoiu, A. Ursuţiu), Cluj-Napoca 2002. V. A. Ursuţiu, ETAPA MIJLOCIE A PRIMEI VÂRSTE A FIERULUI ÎN TRANSILVANIA (THE MIDDLE STAGE OF THE FIRST IRON AGE IN TRANSSILVANIA), Cluj-Napoca 2002 (Premiul „Vasile Pârvan” al Academiei Române). VI. C. Cosma, VESTUL ŞI NORD-VESTUL ROMÂNIEI ÎN SECOLELE VIII–X D. H. (THE WEST AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF ROMANIA IN THE 8TH – 10TH CENTURIES A.D.), Cluj-Napoca 2002 (Premiul „Vasile Pârvan” al Academiei Române). VII. COMERŢ ŞI CIVILIZAŢIE. TRANSILVANIA ÎN CONTEXTUL SCHIMBURILOR COMERCIALE ŞI CULTURALE ÎN ANTICHITATE / TRADE AND CIVILIZATION. TRANSYLVANIA IN THE FRAME OF TRADE AND CULTURAL EXCHANGES IN ANTIQUITY, Editori Călin Cosma şi Aurel Rustoiu, Cluj-Napoca 2005. VIII. E. Nemeth, A. Rustoiu, H. Pop, LIMES DACICUS OCCIDENTALIS. DIE BEFESTIGUNGEN IM WESTEN DAKIENS VOR UND NACH DER RÖMISCHEN EROBERUNG, Cluj-Napoca 2005. IX. Al. I. Gudea, CONTRIBUŢII LA ISTORIA ECONOMICĂ A DACIEI ROMANE. STUDIU ARHEOZOOLOGIC (CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF ROMAN DACIA. AN ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL APPROACH), Cluj-Napoca 2007. X. FUNERARY OFFERINGS AND VOTIVE DEPOSITIONS IN EUROPE’S 1ST MILLENNIUM AD. CULTURAL ARTEFACTS AND LOCAL IDENTITIES, Editor Călin Cosma, Cluj-Napoca 2007. XI. N. Gudea, CASTRUL ROMAN DE LA FELDIOARA. ÎNCERCARE DE MONOGRAFIE ARHEOLOGICĂ / DAS RÖMERKASTELL VON FELDIOARA. VERSUCH EINER ARCHÄOLOGISCHEN MONOGRAPHIE, Cluj‑Napoca 2008. XII. Berecki S., THE LA TÈNE SETTLEMENT FROM MOREŞTI, Cluj-Napoca 2008 (Premiul Societăţii Muzeului Ardelean – Erdélyi Múzeum Egyesület). XIII. A. Rustoiu, RĂZBOINICI ŞI SOCIETATE ÎN ARIA CELTICĂ TRANSILVĂNEANĂ. STUDII PE MARGINEA MORMÂNTULUI CU COIF DE LA CIUMEŞTI / WARRIORS AND SOCIETY IN CELTIC TRANSYLVANIA. STUDIES ON THE GRAVE WITH HELMET FROM CIUMEŞTI, Cluj-Napoca 2008.

XIV. D. Bondoc, N. Gudea, CASTRUL ROMAN DE LA RĂCARI. ÎNCERCARE DE MONOGRAFIE / THE ROMAN AUXILIARY FORT FROM RĂCARI. AN ATTEMPT OF MONOGRAPH, Cluj-Napoca 2009. XV. Alexandru I. Gudea, SOLDATUL ROMAN ÎN DACIA (106–275 p. Chr.). STUDIU DE ARHEOZOOLOGIE PRIVIND CREŞTEREA ANIMALELOR ŞI REGIMUL ALIMENTAR ÎN ARMATA ROMANĂ, Cluj-Napoca, 2009. XVI. Nicolae Gudea, Christiana Minora, Studii, articole şi note în legătură cu creştinismul timpuriu din Dacia romană, Dacia postromană şi unele provincii vecine / Studien, Aufsätze und Notizen betreffend die Geschichte des frühen Christentums in Dakien, in den dakischen Provinzen nach Aurelian’s Rückzug und in einigen Nachbarprovinzen, ClujNapoca, 2011. XVII. Aurel Rustoiu, Mariana Egri, The Celts from the Carpathian Basin Between Continental Traditions and the Fascination of the Mediterranean. A Study of the Danubian Kantharoi / Celţii din bazinul carpatic între tradiţiile continentale şi fascinaţia Mediteranei. Un studiu privind kantharoi-i danubieni, Cluj-Napoca, 2011. XVIII. Călin Cosma, Funerary Pottery in Transylvania of the 7th–10th Centuries, Cluj-Napoca, 2011. XIX. Dumitru Tudor, Gheorghe Popilian, Dorel Bondoc, Nicolae Gudea, Castrul roman de la Slăveni  / Das Römergrenzkastell von Slăveni, Cluj-Napoca, 2011. XX. Călin Cosma (ed.), STUDII DE ARHEOLOGIE ŞI ISTORIE. OMAGIU PROFESORULUI NICOLAE GUDEA LA 70 DE ANI / STUDIES IN ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY. AN ANNIVERSARY VOLUME TO PROFESSOR NICOLAE GUDEA ON HIS 70TH BIRTHDAY , Cluj-Napoca, 2011. XXI. Aurel Dragotă, PODOABE ŞI ACCESORII VESTIMENTARE DIN BANAT, CRIŞANA ŞI TRANSILVANIA (SECOLELE X–XI) / Jewelries and costume ornaments from Banat, Crisana and Transylvania (10th–11th centuries), Cluj-Napoca, 2014.