Abstract: Research on late antique and early medieval economic and social processes during the past three decades called
for, and enabled, a fresh look at the history of the ‘LateAvar period’of the Carpathian Basin, corresponding exactly to the ‘long eighth
century’ of the Mediterranean and European world. This paper offers a rather sketchy new model, alongside raising questions and
framing a research programme focusing on social and economic historical processes. Therefore, using the archaeological evidence
as a solid foundation, I have proposed a set of research hypotheses as starting points for regional and micro-regional studies.
Keywords: Early medieval archaeology, long eighth century, early medieval transformation, Avar archaeology, nomadic
culture, social display, elite culture, social and economic structures
This paper is dedicated to Éva Garam
on the occasion of her eightieth birthday
as a token of my appreciation of her guidance
in all things Avar
INTRODUCTION
Heyday and decline of the Avars’steppe power
According to the Byzantine sources, the ‘runaway’Avars ‘fleeing the Turks’arrived to Europe in the 550s.
After establishing themselves in the Carpathian Basin in 567–568, the Avar Khaganate survived for some two and
a half centuries. On the testimony of the written sources, the age of the Avars can be divided into two main periods,
with the boundary between the two roughly marked by the siege of Constantinople in 626.1
These two periods can
also be traced in the archaeological material, although in this case, the chronological boundary can be drawn in the
middle third of or the later seventh century.2
THE ‘LATE AVAR REFORM’AND THE ‘LONG EIGHTH CENTURY’:
A TALE OF THE HESITATION BETWEEN STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATION
AND THE PERSISTENT NOMADIC TRADITIONS (7TH
TO 9TH
CENTURY AD)
GERGELY SZENTHE
Hungarian National Museum, Department of Archaeology
14–16 Múzeum krt, H-1088, Budapest, Hungary
szenthe.gergely@hnm.hu
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70 (2019) 215–250
0001-5210 © 2019 The Author
DOI: 10.1556/072.2019.70.1.8
1
 Bóna 1988; Pohl 2002, 282–284.
2
 Hungarian scholarship sets the chronological boundary
between the two periods to the 670s using historical arguments (summarised
by Bálint 2004b), but based also on the archaeological record
through the latest coin-dated graves such as Ozora (solidus of
Constantine IV, Constantinople, 669–674, Somogyi 1997, 71) and
Kiskőrös-Pohibuj-Mackó-dűlő, Grave 53 (an Avar imitation of a coin
of Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine, 669–674, Somogyi 1997,
50–52). From the 1990s onward, several different interpretations were
proposed: Martin 1990 dates the initial phase of the Late Avar transformation
(the Mittelawarische period) to the 630s, while Vida 1999
to the 650s, based on the ceramic evidence.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
GERGELY SZENTHE216
Lacking historical narratives of their own, our knowledge of Avar history comes from their contacts with
neighbouring states with a tradition of literacy. The first phase of the Avar period was taken up with the wars against
Byzantium, which seems to have ended with the aborted Sasanian-Avar siege of Constantinople. Around this time,
the Avars disappeared from the written sources of the neighbouring world. From the 630s, the Carpathian Basin
sank into virtual oblivion, as if prehistoric times had descended again – only from a few scattered references do we
know that the Avars still lorded over the region prior to Charlemagne’s campaigns in the 790s.
Traditionally, the defeat at Constantinople is pinpointed as the most important cause of the crisis of the Early
Avar-period nomadic state and its economic structures, which led to its collapse by the later seventh century.3
In fact, it
was the cessation of the Byzantine gold tribute that resulted in the deconstruction of the Avar steppe power, leading to
the loss of their Eastern European territories. Instead of a single crushing military defeat suffered by the Avars, the
primary reason for the crisis can rather be sought in the decline of the early Byzantine state in the wake of an all-encompassing
social and economic crisis4
that was no longer able to produce the resources with which it had in fact sustained
the polities on the steppe. The disintegration of the EarlyAvar nomadic state can thus in all likelihood be ascribed to the
lack of resources which, as a self-destructive process, ultimately led to the collapse of power and an internal strife between
the elites that had hitherto been united by the material advantages and the military efficiency demanded by the
military campaigns. The latter also meant the end the Early Avar period from a structural point of view.
In order to judge the significance of the transformation process that began from the mid-seventh century,
it is important to examine the nature of the preceding collapse. According to the written record, the Avar Khaganate
became a regional polity whose political interests were restricted to the Carpathian Basin only after the Avars were
ousted from the Eastern European territories during the 630s – whether by the Bulgars or in the wake of a civil war5
(Fig. 2). Yet, curiously enough, the booty acquired by the Avars during their campaigns and the tribute extorted from
Byzantium do not appear east of the Carpathians,6
where the first burials containing Byzantine articles as well as
coins appear exactly from the second third of the seventh century onward, in the ‘Bulgarian era’. Most likely, this
horizon of graves dated by Byzantine coins can be linked to the phenomenon of lavishly furnished elite burials
emerging at the same time. However, the horizon of elite graves, a Prunkgrabhorizont as defined by Georg Kos-
sack,7
emerged simultaneously also in the Carpathian Basin, principally in its eastern half.8
Before this period,
burials richly furnished with valuable precious metal articles have a concentration in Transdanubia,9
while articles
of Byzantine origin, principally coins deposited in burials, occur in a much more restricted circle in the contemporaneous
archaeological material of the Hungarian Plain.10
Before the 630s, the burials east of the Danube were rather
poor in precious metal objects, which were in any case mostly small sheet silver ornaments, the only exceptions
being the gold coins.11
Apart from the coins, these graves are much more similar to the steppean, than to the Transdanubian
assemblages. Therefore, one may rightly ask whether this can be attributed to the cultural preferences and
burial customs of the population of the Carpathian Basin that diverged from those of the steppe. All the more so, as
in the light of the salient differences between the quality and value of grave assemblages from Transdanubia and
the Hungarian Plain, booty and tribute are not directly reflected in the archaeological record. Very likely, aside from
the lack of the custom of depositing oboli on the steppe, several other elements influenced the nature of the archaeological
legacy, which raises various problems in treating the assemblages in question as a reliable source for
reconstructing power relations. According to one model, the lack of elite burials on the vast territory between the
Danube and the Eastern European steppe before the 630s can be explained by the cultural preferences of the population
and by its social and/or funerary display, rather than by the fact that the redistribution system of the Avar
3
 Pohl 2002, 282; Vida 2016, 256–257.
4
 See below.
5
 Gesta Dagoberti, cap. 28; Nikephoros, Breviarium cap.
24, 9–15 (see also Szádeczky-Kardoss 1998, 212–213).
6
 On the Eastern European steppe, precious metal objects
of Byzantine origin, including coins, were not deposited in burials
before the same period (for the coins, see Somogyi 2005, 200–203; for
the other finds and the chronology of the ‘Sivashovka horizon’, see
Curta 2008, 158–161).
7
 Kossack 1974, a term first adopted for Avar archaeology
by Vida 2016.
8
 Yet, the similarities between the Mala Pereshchepina assemblage
and the Avar ‘Prunkgräber’ of the Carpathian Basin (Bócsa
and Kunbábony, see below) provide strong arguments for the very
intensive communication between the elites in the Carpathian Basin
and on the Eastern European steppe. These strong elite contacts can
be easily fitted into a model of the power network of a single political
formation.
9
 First noted by Csallány 1939, 31–32., Garam 1993,
Garam 2001, Szenthe 2015a, Bálint 2006, 148–149, reached a
similar conclusion, although he pointed out that the differences could
be traced to the divergences in the modes of social display as practiced
by the population of the two regions.
10
 See Somogyi 2014, 248–249.
11
 Garam 1992. A late date for the Kunágota grave fits
nicely into this overall picture: see Bollók–Szenthe 2018.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
THE LATE AVAR REFORM AND THE LONG EIGHTH CENTURY 217
Khaganate did not extend to this territory.12
Nevertheless, as a structural link, the burials from the 630s feature both
contemporaneous and earlier coins and various other articles of Byzantine origin in both regions, which indicates a
common pattern in the archaeological record.13
While the exact date of when these Byzantine articles reached the
northern steppe region and the Carpathian Basin is a matter of conjecture, it can be reasonably assumed, as in the
case of Tépe and Kunágota, that the earlier objects were at least partly among the goods arriving to the Avars in the
sixth and the early seventh century.
Thus, while historical sources indicate the presence of the Avar power structure on the Eastern European
steppe, there seem to be no decisive arguments against this in the archaeological record. If Avar power had indeed
extended to the territory east of the Carpathian Basin, the vast territory extending eastward from the Carpathian
Mountains in the west and from the Lower Danube in the south was vital to the early khaganate, although we do
not know how far the Avar dominance extended on the Eastern European steppe (Fig. 1).14
This steppe and foreststeppe
area had probably been the Lebenswelt for most of the nomadic groups under Avar rule, which in this case
naturally formed a solid foundation for the Avar social system as well as for the army.15
The Avars’ confinement to
the Carpathian Basin must have meant a fatal blow to their military power by reducing the number of troops that
could be trained in nomadic cavalry tactics, particularly regarding heavy cavalry.16
On the testimony of the archaeological record, the Carpathian Basin was inhabited relatively densely. The
groups arriving from the steppe settled among the Gepids in its eastern half (the Great Plain and Transylvania)17
and
among the remnants of the Lombard18
and the late antique population19
in its western half (Transdanubia). Although
the blending between different peoples probably began quite quickly as reflected by several newly opened rowgrave
cemeteries,20
the cultural heterogeneity remained strong until the late seventh century due to internal migra-
tions21
and the possibly continuous infiltration of Eastern European groups.
It is uncertain, however, how the loss of the steppe territories affected the Carpathian Basin demographically.
In all likelihood, some groups of the ‘Avar’ elites were ousted from the Eastern European steppe only at this
time, from the lands that provided a far more ideal environment for the lifestyle of the nomadic aristocracy and their
clans than the narrow environmental niches22
suitable for nomadic pastoralism in the Carpathian Basin. The appearance
of a new grave horizon of unrivalled richness of the nomadic elite in the 630s–670s in the Carpathian Basin
(henceforth referred to as the Kunbábony-Kunágota-Ozora group) can perhaps be linked to the immigration of the
privileged groups of Early Avar power to the plainland ringed by the Carpathians.
The social and administrative structures of the Avar Khaganate were doubtless determined by its nomadic
traditions.23
A model based on the distribution of booty and goods acquired during military campaigns or by diplomatic
means through the threat of military actions24
was the basic structure on which the social and cultural func-
12
 For a similar lack of Byzantine coins among Danube
Bulgars, see Somogyi 2005, 188–189.
13
 For Eastern Europe, see Curta 2008, 158–161; for the
Carpathian Basin, see, e.g., the Byzantine bowl of the Tépe assemblage
in Garam 2001, 173; For a recent discussion of the Kunágota
assemblage, see Bollók–Szenthe 2018. It must also be borne in mind
that the material culture patterning calls for extreme caution when
assessing the intensity of the relations with Byzantium and the amount
of the tribute. It is quite feasible that the sudden increase in the number
of the solidi of Heraclius deposited in burials in the Carpathian Basin
(see, e.g., Somogyi 2014, 87) and on the Eastern European steppe
(Curta 2008, 158–159), generally attributed to the increase in the
tribute at the onset of Heraclius’ rule (Bollók 2019), is merely an
optical illusion caused by the change in the modes of funerary display
rather than an actual reflection of the rise in the amount of the tribute
reconstructed from the higher number of coins.
14
 For a critical analysis of the problem, see Pohl 2002,
271–274. Nikephoros records that Kuvrat revolted successfully
against the Avars in the 630s (Nikephoros, Breviarium, 22). Walter
Pohl’s contention that there is a total lack of archaeological evidence
on Avar rule east of the Carpathians rests on shaky ground because the
Early Avar Khaganate was a culturally heterogeneous formation, even
in the Carpathian Basin (see below).
15
 From this perspective, it is of secondary relevance
whether the elites of the eastern territories were under direct control
of, or only dependent on, the khagan (for a discussion of the problem
on a theoretical level, see Szabó–Bollók 2018, 521–531).
16
 For Avar cavalry tactics, see Pohl 2002; for a brief discussion,
see Csiky 2015, 61–64; for a more detailed one, see Curta
2016; for heavy cavalry tactics in the Eastern European steppe zone,
see Gulyás 2018, 111.
17
 Kiss 2015, 191–240.
18
 Koncz 2015.
19
 Vida 2009.
20
 Most clearly attested in the large cemeteries of Transdanubia
(Vida 2008, 15–17).
21
 Smaller population groups settling elsewhere during the
later seventh century could be archaeologically identified in several
cemeteries, which had already been in use earlier: e.g. at Alattyán
(Kovrig 1963, 188); Szarvas-Grexa-téglagyár (Juhász 2004); VácKavicsbánya
(Szenthe 2014).
22
 See below.
23
 Pohl 2002, 163ff.
24
 For the nomadic state and the nomadic economy, see,
e.g. Ecsedy 1979, Vásáry 1983, 202–210.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
GERGELY SZENTHE218
tions of the Avar Khaganate rested during its early period, until the resources acquired from the sedentary
civilisation of the south were available for maintaining the interregional power system of the Early Avar-period
khaganate. Quite clearly, the deconstruction/regionalisation of the (nomadic) power structures of the northern periphery
occurred simultaneously with the complex crisis of the Byzantine Mediterranean, leading to the disappearance
of the booty and gifts that had sustained the system under the khagan’s rule. In this sense, the Avar polity can
be considered to be a ‘secondary’or ‘shadow’empire,25
whose cohesion was maintained as a response to the strength
of the Byzantine Empire, given the immense demand for the military power necessary for acquiring the booty from
the urban civilisation.
Until the late seventh century, precious metal articles, weaponry and special types of horse burials were
the associated elements of the representative grave inventories of high-status men. Among these, the prominence
of horses26
and of certain types of weaponry,27
and the outstanding importance of the ornate belts indicate the
25
 Barfield 2001.
26
 Daim 2003a.
27
 Csiky 2015, 8–20, with the relevant literature.
Fig. 1. The greatest probable extent of the Early Avar Khaganate (map by Erwin Gáll)
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
THE LATE AVAR REFORM AND THE LONG EIGHTH CENTURY 219
Fig.2.TheextentoftheLateAvarKhaganate(afterGáll2018)
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
GERGELY SZENTHE220
dominance of the symbols of nomadic prestige. Unlike women’s graves, the richest of which can be assigned to
local communities living under Avar rule in the Transdanubia,28
nomadic prestige radiates from all high-status male
burials29
– hardly a coincidence, given the patriarchal ancestor worship of nomadic cultures.30
Some of the most
lavishly furnished graves contained sets of steppe-type drinking vessels such as ewers, goblets and, in some cases,
a rhyton31
made of precious metals. The almost standard sets offer a glimpse into the world of the feasts/drinking
rituals of ‘high society’.32
Interestingly enough, the richest ‘Avar’ elite graves in question – all solitary burials or
small burial places – date from the period following the peak of Avar power, from the years between the 630s and
670s, which corresponds to the first period after the loss of the Eastern European territories and the cessation of the
Byzantine gold tribute. Although traditionally divided into different groups based on various similarities33
and assumptions
resting on the dating of single objects taken out of their context,34
the assemblages are in fact strongly
related to each other.35
All in all, the assemblages appear to have emerged from one and the same social and cultural
process within a relatively short period. In terms of the grave goods and the ritual elements, the graves are part of
an elite grave horizon. The Prunkgrabhorizont36
can be seen as the last manifestation of the prestige economy of
the Avar Khaganate’s early period.
The analogous Mala Pereshchepina37
assemblage indicates that this process was not restricted to the Carpathian
Basin. The emergence of the grave horizon followed the loss of the resources It is reflected by a phase-shift
in the grave goods of outstanding value, both in the Carpathian Basin and in Eastern Europe. Most plausibly, the
Mala Pereshchepina–Kunbábony–Kunágota-Ozora horizon is a reflection of the crisis permeating the nomadic
prestige economy through the enormous wealth sacrificed for funerary deposition, as posited by G. Kossack.
Barely attested in the written records,38
the communication between the Carpathian Basin and the Eastern
European steppe is reflected primarily in the archaeological evidence. Several objects linking the material culture
of the two regions such as metal vessels,39
some costume accessories expressing social prestige or status such as the
lunula-shaped ornament from Kunbábony,40
weaponry41
and a certain buckle type42
attest to direct communication,
but very probably without the oft-assumed intermediary role of Byzantium.43
Thus, curiously enough, at the time
of the Avar civil war (and/or the revolt of Kuvrat) and in the ensuing period, we witness a revival of the contacts
between the Carpathian Basin and Eastern Europe in the material culture. During the first decades after the disintegration
of Avar steppe power (ca. 630–670), the impact of these contacts shows a concentration in one particular
region of the Carpathian Basin, specifically the Great Plain, and seems to be restricted to the military elite, unlike
in the initial phase of the Avar era.44
It is therefore uncertain whether the increasingly intense communication be-
28
 Vida 2008, 18–31.
29
 The issue of the different traditions of prestige has been
addressed by Bálint 2006, 148. For the presence of nomadic ‘peoples’
rather than mobile elites, see Sneath 2007, 164ff. The nomadic groups
migrating to the Carpathian Basin were probably no more than small
elite groups, at least until the 630s. However, after the loss of the steppe
territories, larger ‘Avar’groups could have been forced to resettle there.
30
 For the importance of kinship and the cult of ancestors
among nomadic peoples, see Sneath 2007, 176–180; Khazanov
1994, 138ff.
31
 Garam 2002, 82–92.
32
 For a critical analysis, see Bálint 2004b, 214–216.
33
 The Kunbábony and Bócsa assemblages are regarded as
a separate group owing to the presence of belt sets with ‘pseudo-buckles’
(Garam 2000, Garam 2005, 420–426). The Ozora, Igar and
Dunapentele assemblages became the hallmarks of ‘middle Avar horizon’
associated with new immigrants from the east, mostly with
Bulgars (Bóna 1988). The highly similar assemblage from Kunágota
was interpreted as one of the earliest graves of theAvar period (Bálint
1993, 211, revised by Attila Kiss). Kiss argued for a late date for the
Kunágota assemblage. Basing his arguments on the assumed Bulgarian
immigration of the 670s, he dated the assemblage to the period
after the 670s (Kiss 1991, 71–72).
34
 Best illustrated by the different proposals for the date of
the Kunágota grave, based either on the solidus of Iustinian I (­Somogyi
1997, 59–60), or on the (assumed) chronological position of the belt
mounts (earlier seventh century, Daim–Rácz 2001, 487). The qualitative
difference between the hammered and chiselled Kunágota belt
mounts and the similar pieces from Ozora made with the repoussé
technique was often used as an argument in the dating of these assemblages,
see Daim–Rácz 2001, 487–488.
35
 Kiss 1991, Tabelle 1.
36
 Kossack 1974.
37
 Werner 1984.
38
 The migration of Kuber, the fourth son of Kuvrat to the
Carpathian Basin is one of the few events relating to the region mentioned
in the written sources. For a discussion, see Bálint 2004a,
Somogyi 2008, 361ff and Bálint 2008.
39
 Garam 2001.
40
 Stark 2009.
41
 Csiky 2015.
42
 Szenthe 2015a.
43
 Szenthe 2015a, 357–358; Gáll 2018, 152–159. See
also note 5.
44
 É. Garam noted that the geographical distribution of the
earlier group of high-quality Byzantine articles in the Avar lands
shows a definite concentration in Transdanubia, while the later group
(mid- and later seventh century) predominates east of the Danube
(Garam 2001, 178ff).
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
THE LATE AVAR REFORM AND THE LONG EIGHTH CENTURY 221
tween the Carpathian Basin and Eastern Europe is simply an indication of migrating groups that felt threatened by
the growing power of Kuvrat (and/or, at a later date, possibly of the Khazars), or whether it is indeed proof of bilateral
contacts. Nevertheless, as I would like to suggest below, the growing prominence of east–west communications
as reflected in the archaeological record may be the sign of a new system emerging from the mid-seventh
century onwards, following the decline of the Early Byzantine oikumene in the Mediterranean.
The Late Avar period and the emergence of a regional structure
The results of Avar studies during the past two decades call for a radically new theoretic frame for the ‘Late
Avar period’, the second half of the Avar rule in the Carpathian Basin (ca. 650–800/820).45
Chronologically, the
time frame corresponds to the Dark Ages or the Transition Period46
of the Mediterranean, lasting from roughly the
later seventh to the onset of the ninth century, a period that is generally described as ‘the long eighth century’.47
It is probably no coincidence that the great era of Early Avar military activity – a disastrous period for
Byzantium, indeed – can be roughly correlated with the late antique Little Ice Age,48
whose end in the mid-seventh
century may have affected the khaganate too.49
The transformation in the later seventh century, as reflected in the
archaeological record, was on a scale that would in itself justify the distinguishing of a new era, the ‘Late Avar
period’. At this time, we witness the spread of a uniform culture across the entire Carpathian Basin, including a new
material culture, which lacked the previous period’s massive influx of imports.
Quite obviously, not only global variables like climate had their impact on the Avar Khaganate as a complex
system. Particular changes in the dominant subsystem, the Byzantine Empire, no doubt affected other subordinate
subsystems, the Avar Khaganate among them.50
At roughly this time, the early Byzantine system of Late
Antiquity was succeeded by a less intensive one, in which exchange and communication were built up from a network
of small-scale regional/interregional contacts.51
As the Eastern Roman ‘superpower’ ceased to exist, a more
balanced political and cultural structure emerged across Europe and in the Mediterranean, and, as Chris Wickham
puts it, this network of local/regional entities was the antecedent of the later medieval European structures.52
From
an archaeological perspective, this involved a regionalisation of archaeological ‘cultures’.
For the Avars, this process led to the crisis of the ‘prestige economy’ because the influx of Byzantine
luxury goods ceased and led to the inevitable transformation of the local network in its wake. The loss of power and
the diminution of the wealth of the Avar aristocracy must have been a direct consequence; it would appear that the
sources of wealth and power no longer depended on the position occupied in the distribution system,53
but shifted
towards a position based on the elite’s control or downright ownership of production structures. As I shall try to
demonstrate below, the patterns in the structural transformation of Avar culture, economy and, possibly, society of
the Carpathian Basin54
indicate that early medieval European processes were in play in this region too. Nevertheless,
this process was heavily affected by internal factors such as the loss of the eastern territories, immigration, internal
migrations and the advanced state of the shift to sedentism among the nomads in the Carpathian Basin.
45
 For the chronological phases of the Avar period, see
Daim 2003b, with the relevant literature.
46
 For a recent discussion, see Haldon 2012.
47
 Hansen–Wickham 2000.
48
 Büntgen et al. 2016.
49
 For an overview of environmental research on the AvarPeriod
Carpathian Basin, see Preiser-Kapeller 2018.
50
 For the problem of centre–periphery relationships regarding
the Avars and Byzantium, see Gáll 2018, 152–154.
51
 For connectivity in the Mediterranean, see Horden–
Purcell 2000; for connectivity in the wider European context, see
McCormick 2001, Wickham 2005.
52
 Wickham 2005, esp. 828ff.
53
 See in Clarke 1978, 428–435.
54
 Interpreted exclusively within a regional framework, as
symptoms of the internal crisis of the Avar Khaganate: Bóna 1988.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
GERGELY SZENTHE222
ASPECTS OF THE ‘LATE AVAR’ TRANSFORMATION
Global agents and the climatic change
The more favourable period in the wake of the Little Ice Age,55
a period marking the consolidation of the
early medieval world56
recovering from the crisis and its fragmentation into a motley of regional units corresponds
to the Late Avar period in the Carpathian Basin.
Changing patterns in the connectivity of the Carpathian Basin and the surrounding world
As the socio-economic and cultural context of the Late Avar Khaganate, the European and Mediterranean
system can be perceived as a web of communications. In the case of the khaganate, we know next to nothing about the
channels of these contacts; the nature of the interactions – long-distance or regional trade, diplomatic gifts, etc. – can
only be categorised through a meticulous assessment of the relevant historical sources. Unfortunately, these only contain
a few scattered references to supra-ethnic elites and diplomatic contacts.57
The probably regular long-distance or at least
inter-regional communication that shaped the broad spectrum ofAvar material culture cannot be identified more closely.
The transformation of the internal cultural and social system can best be studied through material culture.
The material presented and discussed here comes from the realm of so-called ‘small finds’. However, knowing that
personal utilitarian and other articles express socio-cultural relations,58
their complexity can be taken as a reflection
of the period’s social structures.
In contrast to the preceding period, when most of the articles used by the elite were crafted using a wide
array of sophisticated techniques,59
the metal artefacts so relevant to any analysis of the Avars’archaeological legacy
from the Transition period include many technologically simple pieces even among the articles originating from
what is usually labelled ‘Byzantine’ culture.60
Viewed from a broader perspective, a rapid change can be noted in
prestige display from the late seventh century onward, even in the cultural contexts that can be identified as Byzantine.
Besides cast gold buckles,61
the belt mounts of the Vrap hoard and of several assemblages of the Balkan
Peninsula are regarded as the products of a Byzantine cultural milieu.62
However, the prestige value of these items
was ultimately determined by their rough metal weight. From this time, the elite tended to display its wealth simply
through the precious metal value of the given article,63
while the importance of ‘aesthetic labour’64
and the number
of articles with a high aesthetic-technological value seems to have declined. In Luke Lavan’s words, we witness the
emergence of a ‘post-hierarchical society’ in the Mediterranean at this time.65
The same is true also for the period’s Avar material culture, which is extensively known from cemeteries.
While in the case of the Early Avar period, it hardly seems an understatement to speak of the overwhelming formal
dominance of Byzantine objects, most of them superb, high-quality articles,66
the still existing contacts of the Late
Avar period with the Byzantine world were considerably more indirect. At the same time, objects identified as
original Byzantine pieces largely disappeared from the Avar archaeological material, or were restricted to a thin
layer of elite culture.67
In the late seventh century, a uniform material and – as far as this can be established from
the funerary rituals – spiritual culture extending to virtually all wakes of life with minimal regional divergences
emerged across the entire Carpathian Basin. No matter which Late Avar metal artefact we choose, whether the
previously mentioned ornate belts or other articles, they outline an extremely dense communications network en-
55
 Büntgen et al. 2016.
56
 The environmental studies on the Avar-period Carpathian
Basin are summarised in Preiser-Kapeller 2018.
57
 At least for the Late Avar period: see Szádeczky-­
Kardoss 1998, 259–271.
58
 For more recent work on this issue, see, e.g., ­Kristiansen
2004; Maldonado–Russell 2016.
59
 Bühler 1999; Heinrich-Tamaska 2008.
60
 Szenthe 2016, 358–360.
61
 Werner 1988.
62
 Daim 2000, 94–107; Szenthe 2014.
63
 See the golden belt sets in the Vrap hoard, usually identified
as Byzantine products: Daim 2000, 94–106.
64
 Wengrow 2001.
65
 Lavan 2006, xxxiii.
66
 See esp. Daim 2000, Daim 2010, Bálint 2010.
67
 For the problems in the identification of ‘Byzantine’ objects,
see Daim 2010, Gáll 2018, 152. Nevertheless, only a few Byzantine-type
artefacts are known in the eighth-century Carpathian
Basin: see the lists compiled by Garam 2001, compared to Szenthe
2015b.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
THE LATE AVAR REFORM AND THE LONG EIGHTH CENTURY 223
meshing the entire Carpathian Basin.68
Moreover, the artefact types conveying more sophisticated visual messages,
ornate belt sets and horse gear, but also earrings with pendants and certain brooch and bracelet types among them,
are typically restricted to the Carpathian Basin.69
Nevertheless, even if the dominant elements and particular forms are local, the major trends in the spatial
patterning of the material culture and in the ornamentation of the objects are also encountered in the neighbouring
world. The later seventh- and the eighth-century variants of the so-called ‘Byzantine buckles’, to remain in the field
of the objects of daily use, that can be set in parallel with the Avar small finds have a more restricted geographic
distribution and are fewer in number than the earlier pieces, whose use extended across the greater part of the
Mediterranean or even its entire basin.70
At the same time, the later buckles tend to be more profusely decorated.
The trends in their figural, geometric and vegetal ornament, the decorative motifs are often identical to those on
Avar objects71
– the differences can be interpreted within the framework of interacting regional cultures.
Thus, in contrast to the Early Avar period, the small finds attest to a cultural partnership with Byzantium
and the other European powers in the Late Avar period, the implication being that instead of prospering at their
expense, the khaganate had by now become part of the European communications network and had created its own
material culture that was intelligible to the neighbouring world. In the wake of an acculturation, Avar culture
adopted elements of a shared visual imagery and adapted them to its own taste, adjusting them to its own needs.
Contacts between Late Avar and foreign elites
A certain group of superb objects (no matter how relative their qualitative excellence72
) embody direct
Mediterranean contacts in the Late Avar ornamental style. In this case, morphological uniqueness may correlate
with the need for social display of the upper echelons even within the elite.73
I have chosen a leafy palmette with
engraved dot-and-comma motifs to illustrate the impacts on the level of elite contacts since this motif links a series
of different objects from various regions of Europe and the Mediterranean. The Warnebert and Nymwegen reliquaries
were made in a late Merovingian milieu at the close of the seventh century.74
The engraved palmettes adorning
their sides represent a rare, well identifiable variant, whose counterparts on gold- and silverwork can be assigned
to the later seventh–earlier eighth century. This variant of the geometric scroll ornament is a typically ByzantineMediterranean
motif. Among others, it is attested in a similar form on Byzantine crescentic earrings (Fig. 3),75
sheet
metal crosses from Italy and south-western Germany,76
belt fittings of the late Merovingian culture,77
and on Avar
belt sets from Mártély, Grave B78
(Fig. 4), and Szentes-Nagyhegy, Grave 32 (Fig. 5).79
It must be highlighted that both belt sets are unique in the Avar milieu. The figural frieze on the obverse of
the large strap-end from Mártély is the exact counterpart of two early Byzantine ivory carvings, themselves clumsy
late antique renderings of Heracles and the Ceryneian hind (Fig. 6).80
It seems quite certain that the image was transmitted
to theAvars, who were unaware of its meaning, as part of this cultural communications network between elites.
The elite contacts were either contemporaneous or, given the earlier date of the known analogies, they had possibly
transmitted the impact of the Byzantine contacts from the Early Avar period through the treasuries of the Avar elite
filled with Byzantine prestige goods during the seventh century. Objects such as carved ivory panels (as well as
68
 For numerous artefact types see Fancsalszky 2007.
69
 See Szenthe 2016. Avar artefact types, occur but rarely
beyond the boundaries of the Avar settlement territory (for Danube
Bulgaria, see Rašev 2008, Tab. LXVIII–LXX; for a large strap-end in
Perniö, Finland, see Fettich 1930), the single exception being the
emerging settlement centres in the Morava Valley: for the latter, see
below.
70
 See the types in Schulze-Dörrlamm 2009.
71
 For griffins and four-legged predatory animals, see Daim
1990; for several other object types, see Daim 2000.
72
 High-quality precious metal objects such as the belt fitting
(strap slide) from Tab (Szenthe 2015b, Abb.3.3) and Ewer 2 from
Nagyszentmiklós (Gschwantler 2002, 15–17) represent a very small
group of Late Avar-period material culture and are mostly stray finds
(see more below). Prominent grave assemblages almost without exception
contain cast gilt bronze objects which are simple pieces from
a technological point of view, but have a relatively sophisticated iconography
with richly detailed ornamental and figural designs, the latter
an otherwise atypical trait in contemporaneous Avar ornament.
73
 For the demand of uniqueness on the highest level of
elite culture, see Nicolay 2014, 291–294.
74
 Haseloff 1984, Figs 1–2. For the objects, see recently
Quast 2012, 65–67.
75
 Temple 1990, Cat.no. 10.
76
 Haseloff 1975, 58–59, Fig. 27, a–b, Plate 26, 3;
­Werner 1974, Fig. 14, a–b.
77
 Gurmels/Dürrenberg grave nr. 318, Schwab 2006, Fig. 8.
78
 Hampel 1905, Pl. 80–81.	
79
 Csallány 1962, 445–446, Pl. XV.
80
 Szenthe 2013, 151–154.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
GERGELY SZENTHE224
­magnificent goldwork and textiles) could have been revived as heirlooms of the ‘great forefathers’and used as models
for shaping the new material culture of the elites at the beginning of the new era, known to us as the LateAvar period.81
Nevertheless, the very existence of elite contacts can be deduced from the high quality of the known
analogies and their fine iconography. In the cited examples it is perhaps in itself symbolic on what type of objects
the stylistically identical scroll ornament appears, as the mount-decorated belts from the Avar milieu stands in sharp
contrast to the articles of the Christian and Byzantine world.
Connectivity on an interregional level
Besides elite contacts, there is some evidence for a lower level of communication between neighbouring
regions across the political and cultural border zones of Late Avar culture, particularly in Transdanubia.82
Certain
technical and morphological traits in the material culture of local population groups that are not attested in ‘main-
81
 For the role of luxury goods, and particularly for the role
played by commodities of foreign origin in social display and in preserving
the stability of the elite’s social position, see Canepa 2010,
123–127. For the interpretation of Byzantine objects from a contextual,
postprocessual perspective as ‘carriers of memories’ (Shalem
2005), see Szenthe 2013, 166–167.
82
 See Szenthe 2015d, 223–236.
Fig. 3. 1: The Warnebert reliquary (after Haseloff 1984: Figs 1–2); 2: Byzantine gold earring with crescentic pendant
(after Temple 1990, Cat.no. 10)
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
THE LATE AVAR REFORM AND THE LONG EIGHTH CENTURY 225
Fig. 4. Gilt copper-alloy belt set, Mártély-Csanyi-part, Grave B, earlier eighth century (Hungarian National Museum, author’s photo)
1
2
3
4
5
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
GERGELY SZENTHE226
stream’Avar material culture or are of regional significance in the Carpathian Basin – such as attachment loops on
belt mounts, knop-terminalled buckles and strap-ends, certain types of geometric designs and dog-like figures –
demonstrate that local groups had used a common ornamental vocabulary with the populations living in the adjacent
Mediterranean contact zone of the Carpathian Basin (Northern Balkans, Eastern Alps, Istria), although they also
drew from the ornament on other types of costume accessories. These ‘foreign’ morphological traits were adopted
on the typical prestige items of Avar culture, namely in the decoration of ornate belts. Accordingly, although the
population groups living in Transdanubia and in the peripheral regions of and around the khaganate – as far away
as Carinthia – had Mediterranean elements in their culture, they expressed social prestige through the mediums
commonly used in the Avar world.
Local variables: internal structures of the Khaganate in the Carpathian Basin
‘Proud to be an Avar’? An identity redefined. Material culture and decorative art of the Late Avar period
The ornamented objects, predominantly belt mounts and strap-ends, reflect the richness and complexity of
the decorative art of the Late Avar period that can be divided into four clearly distinguishable stylistic and chronological
groups in the greater part of the material83
and a small group of unique objects.
In view of their lavish ornamentation and the high number of morphological variations,84
ornate belts and
ornamented horse gear apparently played an important role in the prestige display of Avar society. Although the
ornamental trends appearing in Late Avar decorative art can be generally noted in the broader area of the Carpathian
Basin and in the Mediterranean too, a closer look clearly reveals that stylistic details and the distinctive regional
group85
are decidedly Avar creations, as are individual artefact types (Fig. 7), which therefore reflect the specific
83
 For these stylistic groups, see Szenthe 2015c.
84
 For types and variations, see, e.g., Zábojník 1991;
Fancsalszky 2007.
85
 For Late Avar decorative art, its chronology and ornamental
styles, see Daim 2003b; Fancsalszky 2007; Szenthe 2012,
Szenthe 2013.
Fig. 5. Gilt copper-alloy belt set, Szentes-Nagyhegy, Grave 32, earlier eighth century (Móra Ferenc Museum, Szeged; photo by Ádám Vágó)
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
THE LATE AVAR REFORM AND THE LONG EIGHTH CENTURY 227
Fig. 6. Heracles and the Ceryneian hind in early medieval contexts. 1: Mártély, large strap-end, Hungarian National Museum;
2–3: Late antique ivory carvings with an identical composition (2: Metropolitan Museum of Art, after Weitzmann 1971, Fig. 3;
3: Cathedra Petri, Rome, after Weitzmann 1982, Fig. 1)
1 2 3
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
GERGELY SZENTHE228
demands of Avar culture and society. It would appear that the geographical distribution of these objects correlates
with the spatial extent of theAvar Khaganate, expressing the distribution system that maintained its social and power
network. While the unique artefacts such as the above-mentioned ornate belt set from Mártély were decorated with
Mediterranean ornamental forms bespeaking direct contacts, the average Late Avar belt mounts and strap-ends were
covered with a profusion of figural and vegetal ornament, four-legged predatory creatures (griffins), animal combat
scenes and a proliferation of tendril patterns.
The expression of a newly emerging group identity must have been of primary importance in the formative
phase of Late Avar decorative art, as reflected by the many ‘creative’ and unique traits incorporated into the ‘Late
Avar animal style’ (earlier eighth century AD).86
Iconographic details such as the assumed visual narrative set in
four medallions on Ewer 2 of the Nagyszentmiklós treasure87
and the animal combat scenes which are otherwise
atypical in the European cultural context,88
as well as the widespread vegetal motifs (Kreislappenranke, a variant
of the tendril ornament, and the Blütenzier,89
a simple trefoil palmette)90
suggest a consciously adapted visual programme,
whose emergence is only conceivable at a time of profound social and cultural transformations.91
The Late
Avar animal style created elements independently92
and/or selected motifs of steppe origin (motifs from old Turkic,
or perhaps Early Avar, cultural contexts and possibly adoptions from Central Asia93
). Motifs of Mediterranean origin
which became widespread in the Avar animal style were compatible with this ornamental vocabulary (griffins,94
a
Mediterranean-type animal combat scenes,95
and a profusion of different scroll ornaments such as those of the
Mártély belt set, see above).
Changes in settlement patterns
A substantial transformation can be noted in the Carpathian Basin from the later seventh century, the implications
of which can be only interpreted within the context of the period’s cultural changes. The settlement network
became denser and newly-settled areas appeared too (Fig. 8). In addition to the expansion of the settled
territory, we witness the gradual northward shift of the hubs of the settlement and communications network,96
in
which one main tendency points towards the emerging settlement centres in Moravia that grew into regional centres
during the ninth century.97
The numerous Avar-type finds in the Morava Valley in the north-west, and the new cemeteries
in the Hernád Valley and the Košice Basin98
in the north-east indicate the increasing importance of the northern
communication lines from the early eighth century onwards.
The population growth leading to the appearance of the extensive system of early rural villages with a
dispersed layout99
and the associated row-grave cemeteries can no doubt be linked to the more favourable climatic
conditions after the end of the Late Antique Little Ice Age. Nevertheless, the population growth could also have
been boosted from external sources. As mentioned before, communication between the Carpathian Basin and Eastern
Europe, which was most probably followed by migrations of unknown scale, intensified after the mid-seventh
century. Nevertheless, most of the archaeological evidence on communication – predominantly intra-regional (?)
migrations of small population groups – comes from the Carpathian Basin.100
86
 The term was first used by Bierbrauer 1997. For figural
representations, see Fancsalszky 2007.
87
 Bollók 2014, 217.
88
 The actual iconographic scheme is parallelled only by
late Scythian animal combat scenes; moreover, its last attested occurrence
(Tyllia Tepe, first century AD, Afghanistan 2010, 199) predates
the Avar period by several centuries: for a discussion, see Daim 2001;
Szenthe 2013.
89
 Daim 2000, 130–136; Szőke 2001.
90
 Szenthe 2013, 310–313.
91
  This is an obvious implication of the interpretation of
style as an expression of cultural traits and of social display and as a
medium of expressing group identity, see Gell 1998, 155–168.
92
 Daim 2003b, 501.
93
 The Blütenzier is interpreted as a motif of CentralAsiatic
character: Daim 2000, 132–136; Szőke 2001.
94
 Daim 1990.
95
 Szenthe 2013, 143–146.
96
 Daim 1990.
97
 For the Avar influence, see the numerous Avar cast copper-alloy
objects – belt and horse gear adornments – from ‘Moravian’
settlements: Profantová 1992. For the early dating of the settlements
into the late seventh–early eighth-century, see Klanica 1995 (Klanica’s
dating, which essentially adopted the chronology of the securely
datable Avar artefacts for settlement layers, was rejected by Zábojník
2005, however, Zábojník’s arguments were based on a dubious historical
theory). Another Avar-type cemetery is known at Dolní Dunajovice
in the Dunajovce Valley in Moravia: Klanica 1972.
98
 Košice-Šebastovce (Budinský-Krička–Točik 1991),
Valaliky-Všechsvätých (Zábojník–Béreš 2016); Hranícná pri
Hornáde (Pástor 1971).
99
 Unfortunately, there is a lack of settlement publications
from the Avar territory: for the problem, see e.g. Vida 2016.
100
 Partly immigrant groups that began to use the cemeteries
of existing local groups: see above, note 10. For the problem of newly
populated areas, see Lőrinczy–Rácz 2015, 169–171, 187–189.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
THE LATE AVAR REFORM AND THE LONG EIGHTH CENTURY 229
The newly occupied regions are often characterised by soils with a high clay content,101
which indicates
changes in agrarian technology or, more probably, the growing importance of small-scale, ‘backyard’animal breeding,
as these environmental niches are not suitable for large-scale stockbreeding. In fact, the importance of breeding
domestic fowl and pig grew on Late Avar-period settlements.102
At the same time, changes in the composition of pottery suggest a transformation of culinary habits.103
New
cooking vessel types such as clay cauldrons and baking lids characterise the eighth-century Avars, members of a
dietary community that spread from Eastern Europe to the Balkans and the Carpathian Basin. The vessel types as
well as the scarce archaeometric data104
suggest that human diet was mostly based on cereals in the LateAvar period.
Choices for nomadic lifeways in the eighth-century Carpathian Basin
Although nomadism as a fundamental economic structure could hardly have persisted for long after the
breakdown of the Avar power in the 630s, its social basis – the nomadic elites and warrior communities – remained
present later on in the Carpathian Basin. The rural settlement network became more dense, suggesting that the
majority of these mobile communities settled down and were integrated into the sedentary population sometime
after the mid-seventh century.105
They may have been the mediums transmitting nomadic cultural elements to the
newly emerging ‘late avar’ culture. The warrior (elite) groups of steppe origin most probably strove to maintain
their life ways and culture.106
However, it is unclear to what extent the original lifeways and economic model of
these mobile pastoralist groups had perhaps been maintained in certain environmental niches, or whether local
variations developed, transmitting cultural and economic elements of nomadic lifestyles. There are indeed some
indications in the archaeological record that nomadic structures survived the collapse of the Early Avar prestige
economy. As Erwin Gáll has argued, the burial ground excavated at Noşlac (south-eastern Carpathian Basin) had
perhaps been used by mobile (nomadic) communities that visited the area periodically and buried their dead in scattered
clusters.107
A clear pattern can be discerned in the spatial distribution of small cemeteries and burial places/
solitary burials, all dominated by graves containing horse burials and weaponry: these characteristic burial places
can be found in small, but geographically coherent zones in certain – mostly marginal – micro-regions of the Carpathian
Basin (Fig. 9).
Various burial places108
and small cemeteries containing burials furnished with relatively or considerably
rich grave goods, horses and weaponry form a line from the middle reaches of the Tisza, across the river’s floodplain,
to the modern town of Debrecen (i.e. across the Hortobágy region), which is flanked by the poor graves of
small communities in the north and south (Fig. 10). As the greater part of the area was temporarily covered by water
without runoff,109
its population was most probably engaged in seasonal pastoralism as the dominant economic
activity. The line of cemeteries possibly corresponds to a west–east route determined by the area’s hydrogeology;
however, the line of similar cemeteries does not continue on the higher and dryer ground east- and westwards: larger
‘village cemeteries’110
are typical on the high buffs along the Tisza. Therefore, the pattern emerging from the burials
in the Hortobágy region in all likelihood reflects small high-status communities surrounded by the settlement
area of more or less mobile groups of ‘servants’.
Theoretically, the burial places at Gyula and Socodor, and around Čelarevo and Bogojevo (Bačka Palanka
and Sremská Mitrovica, and Ada on the opposite Danube bank, see Fig. 9)111
can probably be interpreted along the
same lines.
101
 No systematic research has yet been conducted on this
issue.
102
 Vida 2016, 264.
103
 For Late Avar-period pottery, see Szőke 1980, Vida
2011. Summarised in Vida 2016, 262–265.
104
 Vidal-Ronchas et al. 2018.
105
 For archaeological traces of this process in the settlement
structures, see Vida 2016, 259–262.
106
 For nomadic social and economic structures, see
Scholz 1995; Humprey–Sneath 1999, 218ff.
107
 Gáll 2018, 156–157.
108
 Egyek, Hortobágy-Árkus (52 graves); BalmazújvárosSóshát,
Debrecen-Tócóskert, Debrecen-Bellegelő, Debrecen-Haláp
(for details, see the entries in ADAM).
109
 Mesterházy 2005.
110
 Tiszafüred (Garam 1995); Tiszaderzs (Kovrig 1975);
Újszentmargita (ADAM, 395); Görbeháza (unpublished excavation,
the material is housed in the Déri Museum, Debrecen).
111
 Generally, a larger cemetery with 50–70 graves is accompanied
by other burial places (solitary burials or small grave
groups, sometimes indicated by stray finds), characterised by horse
burials with richly decorated horse gear.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
GERGELY SZENTHE230
Fig. 7. Chronological and stylistic groups of Late Avar-period decorative art. 1: Tiszafüred-Majoros, grave 539; 2: Kecel-Harárdűlő, grave 32;
3: Mártély, grave B; 4: Tiszafüred-Majoros, grave 330; 5: Unprovenanced; 6: Szentes-Nagyhegy; 7: Visznek-Kecskehegy, grave 6;
8. Horvát-Szárfalva; 9. Tiszafüred-Majoros, grave 496; 10: Tiszafüred-Majoros, grave 1149; 11: Tiszafüred-Majoros, grave 33;
12: Hőgyész, grave 12; 13: Keszthely-Dobogó; 14: Tab, stray find; 15: Üllő I-Disznójárás, grave 168; 16: Bajna;
17: Kiskőrös-Városalatt, grave 156; 18: Szebény I, grave 100; 19: Tiszafüred-Majoros, grave 113; 20: Szebény I, grave 128; 21: Regöly;
22: Unprovenanced; 23: Kiskőrös-Városalatt, grave 156; 24: Tolna, Váralja; 25: Regöly, grave 62; 26: Bajna; 27: Hortobágy-Árkus;
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
THE LATE AVAR REFORM AND THE LONG EIGHTH CENTURY 231
28: Gátér-Vasútállomás, grave 141; 29: Kiskundorozsma-Kettőshatár út, grave 434; 30: Dunapataj; 31: Pusztahegy; 32: Szentes-Lapistó;
33: Alattyán-Tulát, grave 369; 34: Szeged-Fiumei vasútvonal; 35: Hortobágy-Árkus; 36: Szárazd, stray find; 37–38: Unprovenanced;
39: Szárazd, stray find; 40: Regöly; 41–42: Hortobágy-Árkus; 43: Mátészalka, stray find; 44: Keszthely-Dobogó; 45: Hortobágy-Árkus;
46: Kiskőrös-Városalatt, grave 156; 47: Kiskőrös-Városalatt, grave 155; 48: Hortobágy-Árkus. (with the exception of nos 27, 35, 41–42, 47 /
DJM Debrecen/ and 28 /KJM Kecskemét/, all other pieces are from the collection of the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest)
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
GERGELY SZENTHE232
Fig. 8. Distribution of Early and Late Avar sites in the Carpathian Basin (after ADAM, Karte 3–4)
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
THE LATE AVAR REFORM AND THE LONG EIGHTH CENTURY 233
Fig. 9. Spatial patterns in the regional distributions of special traits in the archaeological record of the Late Avar period, reflecting
the presence of a central power. 1: Representative horse burials with harness ornaments and/or weaponry; 2: High-quality gold metalwork;
3: Silver coins of the Avar period minted in the Carpathian Basin (1. Devínská nova Ves /Eisner 1952/, 2. Gajary /Garam 1981, Fig. 10/,
3. Komárno-Lodeníce /Trugly 1987, Trugly 1993/, 4. Komárno-Gombaiho/Františkánov /ADAM 206–207/, 5. Komárno-Váradiho
/Čilinská 1982/, 6. Komárno-Hadovce /Čilinská 1982/, 7. Radvan nad Dunajom, Žitavska Ton /Budinsky-Krička 1956/, 8. Vörs-Papkert
/ADAM 417–418/, 9. Kaposvár-Toponár, Fészerlakpuszta /Bárdos 1978; Szimonova 1997/, 10. Kővágószőlős-Kece-völgy /Nagy 1982, 125–
126/, 11. Kővágószőlős-Tüskési-dűlő /Kiss 1977:66–67/, 12. Ada /Bálint–Garam 2016/, 13. Bogojevo /ADAM 62/, 14. Bačka Palanka
/Garam 1981, Fig. 12/, 15. Čelarevo /Bunardžić 1985/, 16. Zagreb-Kruge /Vinski 1960, Sl. 27–35, Sokol 1996, T. II–III/,
17. Sremská Mitrovica /Sirmium/ site 29 /Trbuhović 1982/, 18. Košice-Šebastovce /Budinský-Krička–Točik 1991/,
19. Valaliky-Všechsvätých /Zábojník–Béreš 2016/, 20. Hranícna pri Hornáde /Pástor 1971/, 21. Edelény /Végh 1968, 51, Taf. V, 1–3/,
22. Sajószentpéter /Végh 1964/, 23. Bőcs /Garam 1981/, 24. Sajópetri /Makoldi 2011/, 25. Egyek /ADAM 126/,
26. Balmazújváros, Hortobágy-Árkus /ADAM 42/, 27. Balmazújváros, Hortobágy-Sóshát /ADAM 42/, 28. Debrecen-Tócóskert /ADAM
108/, 29. Debrecen-Bellegelő /ADAM 106/, 30. Debrecen-Haláp /ADAM 106/, 31. Gyula-Lencsési út /Fettich 1928; Gáll 2018, Kat.nr. 19/,
32. Socodor /Popescu 1956, 4/44, 38/81, Fig. 2, Fig. 39–40; Gáll 2018, Kat.nr. 56/, 33. Câmpia Turzii /Cosma 2017, Pl. 11–12/,
34. Geoagriu de Sus /Cosma 2017, Pl.22/, 35. Heria /Cosma 2017, Pl. 23/, 36. Lopadea Nouá /Cosma 2017, Pl. 24/,
37. Măgina /Cosma 2017, Pl. 25/, 38. Aiudul de Sus /Cosma 2017, Pl. 3/,
39. Brestovac /Daim 2000, 162–165; Bühler 2014/, 40. Budapest-Rákos /Nagy 1998, Taf. 57–59/, 41. Dunapataj /Daim–Bühler 2010/,
42. Hajdúnánás /Dani 2015, fig. 21/, 43. Kiskundorozsma /Szalontai et al. 2014/,
44. Mártély /Garam 1993, Taf. 70, 1–8/, 45. Mátészalka /Garam 1993, Taf. 69, 8/, 46. Osztopán /Garam 1993, 96/, 47. Tab /Garam 1993, 106/,
48. Tápiószele /Garam 2001, 138, Taf. 101/, 49. Weiden am See /Daim 2000, 166–167/,
50. Nagyszentmiklós /Sânnicolau Mare/ /Daim et al. 2018/, 51. Szeged, stray find, 52. Kiskőrös-Pohibuj, Mackó-dűlő,
53. Szegvár-Sápoldal, 54. Endrőd-Öregszőlő /for 51–54, see Somogyi 1997/, 55. Brodski Drenovac /Vinski-Gasparini–Ercegović 1958/
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
GERGELY SZENTHE234
There is some evidence that animal husbandry was practiced in permanent structures also in regions that
would have been suited to nomadism112
– at least theoretically. The huge corrals/cattle pens uncovered at Kiskun-
félegyháza113
(Fig. 11) in the extensive plainland of the Danube–Tisza Interfluve are dated to the Late Avar period
on the testimony of the ceramic material.114
The corrals are enclosed by relatively deep ditches and most probably
served for holding cattle (50 percent of the animal bones) and horses (30 percent of the animal bones). Interestingly
enough, the analysis of the horse bones revealed that the horse stock was quite heterogeneous,115
which is seemingly
atypical of (modern?) nomadic herds.116
Quite intriguingly, contemporaneous burials were found inside the ditches
of the corrals in two cases; one directly in the north-eastern corner of the rectangular corral, aligned to the ditch,
112
 Relatively large zones that, at least theoretically, would
have been suited to pastoral nomadism can be found in the Carpathian
Basin: the central and southern part of the Danube–Tisza interfluve,
east of the Tisza, and several micro-regions in Transdanubia: the
Mezőföld region (east-central Transdanubia), the plainland from the
Zsámbék Valley to the south-east of Lake Balaton, and the Moson
Plain in the north-west. These areas were settled by small groups of
nomadic character in the Hunnic and Avar period. Their burials are
typically represented by scattered grave groups or solitary graves:
Tomka 2008.
113
 Unpublished excavation, whose assessment by József
Zsolt Gallina and the present author is currently in progress. The excavated
area seems to be the marginal part of a settlement, consisting
of pens/corrals, many shallow wells and only two or three other settlement
features (some kind of buildings) of the Late Avar period.
114
 Cauldron fragments and sherds from vessels turned on
a slow wheel are generally dated to the eighth–ninth centuries. The
ceramic material of the settlement is housed in the Katona József Museum,
Kecskemét.
115
 Unpublished manuscript by Annamária Bárány, Hungarian
National Museum.
116
 For a discussion of horse breeding strategies, see
Scholz 1995, 67–81.
Fig. 10. The northern half of the trans-Tisza region in the Late Avar period: horse-weapon burials (burial locations and cemeteries)
in the context of the period’s burials
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
THE LATE AVAR REFORM AND THE LONG EIGHTH CENTURY 235
suggesting that the burial location was selected with a view to the ditch – or the corral itself. The plundered grave
contained the remains of a male burial with an ornate belt decorated with silver gilt cast mounts (Fig. 12). The use
of precious metals for belt mounts and for grave goods in general is utterly atypical in the Late Avar period (see
below). Moreover, a mount of unknown function, possibly a strap slide or scabbard fitting, has a direct analogy in
the Brestovac assemblage,117
which suggests the long-distance (perhaps elite) contacts of the Kiskunfélegyháza
community.
All in all, nomadism could have existed in the eighth-century Carpathian Basin as an economic model,
even if not as the single model guaranteeing success. However, in the lack of extensive micro-regional surveys, the
possible presence of nomadic groups in the Carpathian Basin remains unresolved. Nevertheless, the majority of the
population lived on rural settlements. Cultural elements of nomadism were integrated into the identity of the entire
population inhabiting the Carpathian Basin, and LateAvar-period militant and elite communities became a culturally
117
 Bühler 2014.
Fig. 11. Kiskunfélegyháza-Logisztikai központ, Trench D, Avar settlement features and burials
(Zsolt Gallina’s excavation; drawing by András Füzesi)
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
GERGELY SZENTHE236
relatively homogeneous stratum in this sense, as they defined themselves by Avar-type horse burials, weaponry and
ornate belts.
The archaeological evidence for the changes in social power
The most important element in the transformation of the nomadic prestige economy of the culturally heterogeneous
Early Avar period was probably the transition to an extensive settlement system based on rural settlements
after the ebb of internal migrations118
and the formation of an intensive internal communications network.119
There are several indications that the Avar ruling elite strove to initiate reforms for creating a well-functioning
khaganate on these solid economic and social bases. One intriguing question is what instruments were at its disposal
for organising people and resources.
Social power was quite certainly less centralised in the Late Avar period than in the Early Avar period, at
least judging from the information contained in the written sources.120
Another striking difference is that with a few
notable exceptions, weapons practically disappeared from burials from the late seventh century onward, reflecting
a significant change in the social values of Avar society. After the decline of the Kunbábony–Kunágota–Ozora
horizon, high-status groups living at the turn of the seventh and eighth centuries no longer buried their members in
solitary graves or separate burial places (Sondergräberfelder), but in relatively large burial grounds.121
Most interestingly,
the new elite appears to have emerged in the Great Plain region – as far as we can tell, the furnace of social
changes in the khaganate was stoked east of the Danube, in the central area of the macro-region. Another striking
difference compared to the Early Avar period is that truly magnificent gold- and silverwork reflecting the presence
of elites disappeared from burials; with a few exceptions, the known pieces are stray finds with a relatively homogeneous
distribution in the Carpathian Basin.
The geographical distribution of the high-quality metalwork demonstrates that the small cemeteries and
burial places discussed above, concentrated on the fringes of the Avar settlement territory, and had little to do with
the highest élite. The Late Avar elite was hierarchic, consisting of several groups with different cultural identities.
A translatio of the mediums of social display…
In contrast to the grave goods made from cheap materials using simple techniques, high-quality pieces in
gold or silver shedding light on the upper echelons of the social hierarchy of the eighth-century Avars are few and
far between. The problems concerning the dating and interpretation of the precious metal articles found on settlements,
in hoards or as stray finds were relegated to the realm of Mediterranean/Byzantine archaeology in the period
preceding the eighth century.122
By the late seventh century, there is a profound change in Avar funerary practices,
118
 In the ‘Middle Avar period’; the overwhelming majority
of Late Avar period cemeteries were established in the later seventh
century, without local antecedents: see the data in ADAM.
119
 See above.
120
 While in the Early Avar period, the khagan was the supreme
leader, at the end of the Avar era we know of the khagan, the
tudun, the iugurrus and the tarkhan, all of whom acted independently.
Although this situation is generally interpreted as proof of the changes
in the khaganate’s administrative system (Pohl 2002, 292–306), this
claim can be challenged: it could equally well have been sparked by
the diminution of the khagan’s power and a political crisis.
121
 Such as the cemeteries at Kiskőrös-Vágóhíd (László
1955), Budapest-Tihany-tér (Nagy 1998, 112–122), Kisköre-Halastó
(Garam 1979) and, slightly later, Budapest-Rákos (Nagy 1998, 69–
77), Mártély (Hampel 1905/II, 105–113) and Kiskundorozsma
(Szalontai et al. 2014).
122
 See, e.g. Yeroulanou 1999, 11–12.
Fig. 12. Kiskunfélegyháza-Logiszikai központ, Trench D, cast silver gilt belt mounts from an Avar burial
(Katona József Museum, Kecskemét)
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
THE LATE AVAR REFORM AND THE LONG EIGHTH CENTURY 237
one element of which is the almost complete lack of superbly crafted objects and of precious metal articles in funerary
contexts in general. Unlike in the seventh century, the little metalwork of excellent quality, similarly as in the
Mediterranean, is almost exclusively made up of stray finds in the Carpathian Basin from the eighth century.123
Traditionally, the lack of precious metal artefacts in funerary contexts was interpreted as one of the symptoms
of crisis in Late Avar-period culture, similarly to the overall spread of huge quantities of low-quality costume
accessories and jewellery.124
Nevertheless, we know from the written sources that Avar nobles suffered no lack of
riches. Although the accounts accentuating the victory of the Franks are probably somewhat exaggerated, the information
on the magnitude of the treasure seems acceptable. According to Einhard’s narrative, the Franks found immense
riches which had reached the Khagan’s treasury as booty from many battles. Indeed, it is most unlikely that
this wealth had all been amassed in the eighth century, when, according to the same source, the Avars ‘had passed
for a poor people’.125
Obviously, the Avars did not withdraw their valuables from circulation by depositing them in graves. The
lack of precious metal artefacts in the grave inventories can be taken as an indication of consolidation and stability,
and as an important token of the social and economic system of the Late Avar Khaganate flourishing under the
changed conditions. On the other hand, it could perhaps be interpreted as a special reflection of a wider socio-cultural
trend, which led to the transfer of social display from costume accessories (and perhaps personal utilitarian
objects as well) to a wider range of mediums. According to recent archaeological research, spatial structures such
as fortified places and linear earthworks (dykes or ditch and rampart systems) such as the Kakasbarázda (‘Rooster’s
furrow’) Dyke in Transylvania126
may have played a role among them.127
The appearance of built structures among
the mediums of social display suggests that Avar culture had most likely become integrated into the surrounding
world and thus transcended the prestige economy of the Early Avar era.
At the same time, the almost egalitarian system coupled with a reluctance to part with valuables for mortuary
display, as is apparent from Avar burials, may also reflect the rigidity of social structures in addition to stability.
Inheritance is a major liminal situation in community life, of which the funeral is a prominent element, offering the
potential to re-negotiate power relations within the community. In a strongly competitive milieu, the goods ­deposited
in the burial (sacrificed, destroyed or consumed) could embody considerable wealth. In the case of the eighthcentury
Avars, this wealth appears to have been minimal, suggesting an uncompetitive society.
… and an attempt to launch an Avar silver-based coinage?
Coins – mostly Byzantine gold – originate mostly from grave contexts in theAvar-period Carpathian Basin.
The practice of providing the dead with oboli was quite common until the late seventh century. Following the drastic
decrease in the number of Byzantine coins reaching the Carpathian Basin, the Avars replaced Byzantine gold
coins with various substitutes, one group of which cannot be interpreted as oboli made specifically for funerary
purposes.128
This small group comprises minted silver coins,129
of which only seven pieces have been found to date
(Fig. 13). In contrast to the imitations cut out from delicate sheet gold or hammered onto coins, these coins attest
123
 Szenthe 2015b, 297–303, 309.
124
 Most recently Bálint 2010.
125
 “[the Avars] (...) usque in id temporis poene paupers
viderentur, tantum auri et argenti in regia repertum, tot spolia pretiosa
in proeliis sublata (...)” (Vita Karoli Magni, cap. 13–15). For the ransacking
of the hring of the Avars and the treasury of the khagan, see
Hardt 2004, 42–44.
126
 For the dyke at Zamárdi (central Transdanubia), see
Szentpéteri 2013, for Biňa (Slovakia), radiocarbon dated to the period
between 750 and 850, see Pomfyová–Samuel–Žažová 2014, 24,
and Mordovin 2016, 98. For the ‘Kakasbarázda’ Dyke, see Sófalvi
2017, 151–152. For an even more impressive, still unpublished archaeological
feature, see the preliminary report on the excavations at
Kecskemét where a very imposing structure indicating extensive ramparts,
ditches and the post-holes of a large palisade wall along the
ditches were documented: www.muemlekvedelem.hu/magazin/mer-
cedes_bovites_feltaras_kecskemet_2017.
127
 Vida manuscript.
128
 According to the traditional interpretation, these coins
were expressly made for use as oboli (Bóna 1993, 535–536, Somogyi
1997, Somogyi 2014), for an overview of the custom of placing oboli
in the grave; for the imitations, see also Balogh 2016, 319–326.
129
 For a detailed morphological analysis, although with a
different historical interpretation, see Somogyi 1997, 122ff.
1. Endrőd-Öregszőlő, County Békés: silver, 3.75 g, based
on a miliarensis of Constans II (minted between 651–654) (Somogyi
1997, No. 22).
2. Kiskőrös-Pohibuj, Grave 53: silver, diameter 20 mm,
3.17 g, obverse Heraclius solidus (minted between 648–651), reverse
Heraclius miliarenses (Somogyi 1997, No. 35). Obverse and reverse
minted using a coin die identical to an exemplar from Szeged
(­Somogyi 1997, No. 69).
3. Kiskőrös-Pohibuj, Grave 53: silver (possibly on copper
basis), diameter 20 mm, 2.72 g, obverse based on a solidus of Constantine
IV (minted between 669–674), reverse after a solidus of Heracleius
and Heraclius Constantinus (Somogyi 1997, No. 35). Obverse
minted with the same coin die as Somogyi 1997, No. 98.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
GERGELY SZENTHE238
to experimentation with launching coinage and mass production. The use of the same dies among a very small
number of coins is evidence for an extremely small-scale production, while the regional distribution pattern underlines
the aspect of prestige in the initiative that perhaps also had some economic rationale. The silver base could be
an argument for the latter, as the only coinage which reached the Carpathian Basin and circulated among members
of the Avar elite was Byzantine gold on the testimony of the pieces found in grave assemblages,130
and very few
other coins of silver or copper have been found in the Carpathian Basin. In the seventh and early eighth centuries,
the use of silver as raw material for minting coins points towards the north-west, where late Merovingian silver
coinage was introduced in Neustria in the 670s, whence it spread across all territories under Frankish rule by the
end of the century, as well to Frisia and the British Isles.131
Apparently, the beginnings of Merovingian silver coinage
coincide with the Avar one,132
an indication that the Avars’ political and probably economic rationale was in all
likelihood identical with the Merovingian one. The period’s orientation towards the north-west was not unprecedented:
the distribution of Byzantine gold coins during the early Avar period133
is a clear indication that there were
intensive contacts between the khaganate and the Merovingian lands.
Nevertheless, the iconography of the coins is modelled on Byzantine coins of the later seventh century. Although
there is no indication of the existence of a standard weight system among them – similarly as in early Merovingian
coinage134
–, three pairs were minted using the same coin dies, which points towards the intention of large-scale
production. Control over the metal was in all likelihood exercised by the high elite, which could also muster the
necessary skilled craftsmen. The regional distribution of the coins (Fig. 9) in the late seventh century, a period when
other artefact types had a wide overall distribution across the entireAvar settlement territory – suggests that production
and distribution were of regional significance. It is highly uncertain whether the idea of a mint was conceived by the
khagan who had possibly resided in the Danube–Tisza interfluve, or by one or another local aristocrat.
As the custom of placing coins in burials ceased by the end of the seventh century, practically before the
heyday of Late Avar structures, we know little about the chronological boundaries and the scale of production, or
whether it was also continued in the eighth century.
A regional division of labour?
The last question is what exactly formed the economic basis of this silver coinage: would the wealth accumulated
from the Early Avar-period booty have been sufficient,135
or was there possibly a regular supply of metals?
This issue is all the more important because copper-alloy artefacts abound in Late Avar-period grave
assemblages, and there is a significant improvement in the quality of iron artefacts too, which indicates a profound
change in iron technology and/or resources. In the case of copper alloys, metal compositions136
seem to contradict
the assumption that LateAvar-period production was based on the recycling of Roman-period metal alone.Although
we have virtually no evidence for the production and processing of non-ferrous metals during this period, the growth
or, more precisely, the onset of metal production in the Late Avar period has already been convincingly demonstrated
in the case of the much better studied iron smelting.137
If we compare this to the reconstructed metal produc-
4. From the Szeged area (south-eastern Hungary): silver,
diameter 18 mm, obverse Heraclius solidus (minted between 648–
651), reverse Heraclius miliarenses (Somogyi 1997, No. 69). Minted
using a coin die identical with Somogyi 1997, No. 35/1.
5. Szegvár-Sápoldal, Grave 3: silver, diameter 19–19.5 mm,
2.22 g, after a miliarensis of Constans II (minted between 648–651)
(Somogyi 1997, No. 76, Lőrinczy 2018, 55, Fig. 4). Obverse minted
with the same die as the piece inventoried under MNM R.I.6831.
6. Unprovenanced, MNM R.I.6831: silver, after a miliarensis
of Constans II (minted between 648–651) (Somogyi 1997, 86).
Obverse minted with the same die as Somogyi 1997, No. 76.
7. Unprovenanced: silver, diameter approximately 20 mm,
1.86 g, after the coins of Constantinus IV (minted between 669–674)
(Somogyi 1997, No. 98).
130
 See the catalogue in Somogyi 1997.
131
 Grierson–Blackburn 1986, 3–4, 97–98; For the British
Isles, see Naylor 2012. However, the latter study reflects the effects
of the ‘metal-detector revolution’ and the ‘portable antiquities’
system. It shows that coin circulation was complex and geographically
variable, which indicates its economic determination. Unfortunately, in
case of the Carpathian Basin, research is still before this ‘breakthrough’.
132
 See the minting dates of the Byzantine originals in
note 129.
133
 Somogyi 2014, 119–131, esp. 130–131, see map on p. 259.
134
 Grierson–Blackburn 1986, 97–98.
135
 Theoretically, it could have sufficed: see Hardt 2004,
42–44. For the analogous problem of early Merovingian coinage, see
Grierson–Blackburn 1986, 96.
136
 Költő 1982, 30.
137
 Gömöri 2000, 221–239; Török et al. 2018.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
THE LATE AVAR REFORM AND THE LONG EIGHTH CENTURY 239
Fig. 13. Silver coins of the Avar period minted in the Carpathian Basin.
1–2: Kiskőrös-Pohibuj-Mackó-dűlő, Grave 53 (Hungarian National Museum);
3–4: Unprovenanced (Hungarian National Museum, Numismatic Collection)
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
GERGELY SZENTHE240
tion in Europe and the Mediterranean,138
there is a striking correlation between the roughly simultaneous onset of
the assumed Avar and European metal production after the recuperation from the low ebb of the Migration period.
Regarding the production of non-ferrous metals, some indications of production can be found in the Avar
archaeological record. (As the extraction of metal ores destroys its own traces, the situation is highly analogous to
the problem of the production of salt, another resource of strategic importance, whose volume can hardly be estimated
by archaeological methods.) The settlement patterns seem to outline a regional division of labour, implying
the exploitation of strategic raw material resources.
Communities whose members were buried with their horses and weapons as well as with a rich array of
other grave goods, an otherwise atypical custom in the Late Avar period, occupied only certain zones in the Carpathian
Basin, which, as mentioned in the above, roughly coincided with communication lines and hubs.139
(They
probably represented a special category within the Avar population owing to their mobile pastoralist lifestyle, which
was more suited to military service than of other groups.) The regional distribution of these cemeteries suggests that
these communities had been tasked with controlling the communication system of the Late Avar-period khaganate,
particularly in the ‘border regions’, the contact zones with the outside world. Given that these communities probably
controlled the distribution of the resources, rather than the extraction itself, their strategic position at certain
points in the communication network of the Carpathian Basin had most likely been of an overall monitoring nature.
The importance of controlling incoming and outgoing traffic seems more pronounced in the case of the Košice Basin
and the Hernád Valley, as the Carpathian Mountains are easily penetrable in the north140
and in the north-west, at
the Devín Gate north of the Danube, along a route that retained its strategic significance during the Middle Ages.
In some cases, similar communities accentuating their military and mobile identity through their funerary
customs show a concentration in regions which, although insignificant as contact zones, have important raw material
deposits. Specialised settlements for iron smelting have been found in different micro-regions with bog iron in
the Carpathian Basin. The iron smelting settlements south of Lake Balaton141
had no doubt been of outstanding
importance (Fig. 14). The nearby cemetery at Kaposvár142
seems to indicate the presence of a group controlling this
resource, while the northern end of the area is marked by the huge cemetery of Zamárdi with numerous well-furnished
graves with horse burials and weaponry – although it is of a different type, which is hardly surprising given
the 6000 graves143
of this burial ground.
The same situation can be observed in north-eastern Hungary (Fig. 15) and, although based mostly on stray
finds, burial places of warrior and mobile groups abound in the Transylvanian Basin (Fig 9). Raw material deposits
can be found in both micro-regions: copper and iron outcrops in the north-east, in the Rudabánya area, and salt
deposits in Transylvania. The patterns in the location of settlements suggest that only the Transylvanian salt deposits
had been exploited in the Early Avar period. Notably, the Transylvanian Basin is the only region where the settled
area is smaller in the Late Avar than in the Early Avar period. The eighth-century settlements are located around the
salt outcrops along the Maros/Mureş and the Arieş rivers, which again strongly suggest their probable exploitation.
Another area with a remarkably dense settlement network first occupied during the Late Avar period was
noted in the southern foothills of the Mecsek Mountains (Fig. 14) where native copper occurs as surface outcrops
or close to the surface even today. In this case, small grave groups with weaponry and horse burials appear only on
the south-western fringes of the area.
138
 Baumeister 2004, Abb. 83.
139
 Weaponry is atypical in the average Late Avar cemetery,
and horse burials can at the most only be found in a single grave of each
generation of local leaders (that is, one or, at the most, two horse burials
in every chronological phase, usually in male burials deposited in a
central location). The first graves in the earliest grave groups of the Late
Avar-period cemeteries dating from the later seventh century, which are
characterised by weapons and horse burials, add another dimension to
this issue. These early graves can be linked to the general problem of
founder’s graves (for the problem of population groups settling in an
unfamiliar environment, see Theuws 2009, 286–291). However, as
there is evidence that these groups represented the burials of communities
in their formative phase (for single cemeteries, see, e.g., Szenthe
2011, Szenthe 2014), the internal competition between members and
families could also result in an extraordinarily lavish funerary display,
highlighting the power of the community’s departed members – as well
as of their descendants (for a good summary, see Innes 2000, 34ff).
140
 For proof of the north to south traffic, see the Avar- and
Saltovo-type stirrups found at Kraków, Nowa Huta (dated to the
eighth century by Bálint–Garam 2016, 434).
141
 See note 137.
142
 Bárdos 1978; Szimonova 1997.
143
 Vida 2016, 262.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
THE LATE AVAR REFORM AND THE LONG EIGHTH CENTURY 241
Fig. 14. Late Avar-period sites in southern Transdanubia, with the location of iron ore processing sites, copper ore deposits
(the exploitation of the latter is not attested) and horse-weapon burials (burial places and larger cemeteries)
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
GERGELY SZENTHE242
CONCLUSION
The narrative proposed here is one of structural transformation, with a focus on the correlations between the
cultural and other trajectories in the Carpathian Basin and the neighbouring world instead of the previous narrative
of a political crisis. The shrivelling of the Avar Khaganate’s diplomatic connections and its transformation into a regional
power is paralleled by the simultaneous regionalisation in the surrounding Mediterranean and European world.
Following the intermezzo of the EarlyAvar nomadic state and the unsustainability of the nomadic economy,
the patterns of change in settlement structures, social values and material culture, in particular regarding the use of
metal artefacts, seem to reflect a rapprochement between the Avar system and the neighbouring European world.
While there are some indications of efforts to exploit various strategic resources and of a – probably failed –
initiative by the Avar elite for launching a silver-based coinage, the balanced regional distribution of various artefact
types reflects the existence of a well-functioning internal communication system, which underlines the importance
of studying the modes of distribution expressing networks of power.
The regional presence of small communities expressing a special military identity through their funerary
rites complements this overall picture. They possibly represent a specialised social group within the Late Avar
Khaganate tasked with controlling areas of strategic importance. Their small cemeteries and separate burial places
suggest communities that apparently pursued mobile pastoralist lifeways, or, at least, retained some elements of
nomadism. Their geographical distribution around the Avar settlement territory suggests a conscious arrangement
and the presence of a central power that operated the ‘system’.
One intriguing issue is whether elements of Avar cultural and social identity too followed this tendency,
and if so, to what extent?
The widespread motifs of the emerging Late Avar art style imply that the Avars had responded creatively
and had succeeded in reforming or reaffirming a common mythology through its visualisation. We do not know
whether ‘Avar identity’ had an ethnic aspect to it,144
but it was in all likelihood based on the cultural layer that is
best defined by a nomadic tradition.
Nevertheless, it would appear that the persistent nomadic tradition, which dominated elite attitudes and was
embodied by mount-decorated belts and the funerary rite calling for the burial of a horse beside the deceased – although
in most cemeteries only local leaders earned this distinction145
– and which no doubt played a prominent role in the
cultural cohesion of the Avar Khaganate, was apparently out of tune with the social and economic realities, or was
unable to create an efficient centralising identity and to support a central power at a time when flexible, well-organised
and successful systems were also served by religious ideologies proclaiming exclusivity and ecclesiastic hierarchies.
Even though the basic economic structure of the Avar Khaganate, a regional power, shifted towards the
medieval system more or less simultaneously with its broader neighbourhood, this was not accompanied by a culture
expressing social prestige and power, which ultimately led to the downfall of the Avar political and social model.
The events of this downfall – namely military weakness, lack of coordination, infighting between the nobles – are
evidence of the weakness of the centralised hierarchies. When Charlemagne’s formidable military machine turned
against the Avars, the khaganate collapsed without putting up any serious resistance.
***
This study was written as part of a research project funded by a Bolyai János Research Fellowship. I am
grateful to Ádám Bollók, Bence Gulyás, Péter Somogyi and Tivadar Vida for their insightful comments on the draft
versions of this study.
144
 For Avar ‘ethnogenesis’, see Vida 2016, 255. 145
 See note 143.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
THE LATE AVAR REFORM AND THE LONG EIGHTH CENTURY 243
PRIMARY SOURCES
Historiae Francorum	=	Liber Historiae Francorum. Fredegari Gesta Dagoberti I Regis Francorum. In: Fredegari et aliorum
chronica. Vita Sactorum. ed. B. Krusch. MGH SS rer. Merov. 2, Hannoveriae 1888.
Nikephoros, Breviarium	=	Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople: Short History. Text, translation and commentary by Cyril
Mango. CFHB Vol. XIII, Washington 1990.
Vita Caroli Magni	 =	Einhard, Vita Caroli Magni. MGH SS Rer. Germ. Hannover 1911.
Fig. 15. Late Avar-period sites in the north-easterly region of the Carpathian Basin, with the location of horse-weapon burials
(burial places and larger cemeteries) and of iron and copper deposits (exploitation not attested)
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
GERGELY SZENTHE244
REFERENCES
ADAM	 =	J. Szentpéteri (Hrsg.): Archäologische Denkmäler der Awarenzeit im Mitteldonaubecken : in memoriam
Professoris Stephani Bóna (1930–2001). VAH 13. Budapest 2002.
Afghanistan 2010	 =	P. Cambon–V. Schiltz (Hrsg.): Gerettete Schätze. Afghanistan. Die Sammlung des Nationalmuseums
in Kabul. Bonn 2010.
Bálint 1993	 =	Cs. Bálint: Probleme der archäologischen Forschung zur awarischen Landnahme. In: Ausgewählte
Probleme europäischer Landnahmen des Früh- und Hochmittelalters. Hrsg.: M. Müller-Wille,
R. Schneider. Sigmaringen 1993, 195–273.
Bálint 2004a	=	Cs. Bálint: A közép avar kor kezdete és Kuber bevándorlása (Der Beginn der Mittelawarenzeit und
die Einwanderung Kubers). ArchÉrt 129 (2004) 35–65.
Bálint 2004b	 =	Cs. Bálint: A nagyszentmiklósi kincs: régészeti tanulmányok (Der Schatz von Nagyszentmiklós.
Archäologische Studien). VAH 16a. Budapest 2004.
Bálint 2006	 =	Cs. Bálint: Der Reichtum der Awaren. “Fürstengräber“ – Prunkgräber – Schatzfunde. In: Herrschaft –
Tod – Bestattung. Zu den frühgeschichtlichen Prunkgräbern als archäologisch-historische Quelle.
Hrsg.: C. von Carnap-Bornheim, D. Krausse, A. Wesse. UPA 139. Bonn 2006, 147–160.
Bálint 2008	 =	Cs. Bálint: Antwortschreiben an Péter Somogyi. Antaeus 29–30 (2008) 395–401.
Bálint 2010	 =	Cs. Bálint: Avar goldsmiths’work from the perspective of cultural history. In: ‘Intelligible Beauty’.
Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery. Eds: Chr. Entwistle, N. Adams. London 2010, 146–160.
Bálint–Garam 2016	=	Cs. Bálint–É. Garam: Der Fund von Ada. ActaArchHung 67 (2016) 423–448.
Balogh 2016	 =	Cs. Balogh: Régészeti adatok a Duna–Tisza közi avarok történetéhez (The History of the Avars in
the Danube–Tisza Interfluve as Reflected in the Archaeological Record). Studia ad archaeologiam
Pazmaniensia 6. Budapest 2016.
Bárdos 1978	 =	E. Bárdos: Avar temető Kaposvár határában (Rescue excavation on the findspot Nr. 33. at Kaposvár).
SMK 3 (1978) 13–65.
Barfield 2001	 =	Th. J. Barfield: The shadow empires: imperial state formation along the Chinese–Nomad frontier.
In: Empires. Perspectives from Archaeology and History. Eds: S. E. Alcock, T. N. D’Altroy,
K. D. Morrison, C. M. Sinopoli. Cambridge 2001, 10–41.
Baumeister 2004	 =	M. Baumeister: Metallrecycling in der Frühgeschichte. Untersuchungen zur technischen,
wirtschaftlichen und gesellschaftlichen Rolle sekundärer Metallverwertung im 1. Jahrtausend n.
Chr. Würzburger Arbeiten zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 3. Rahden 2004.
Bierbrauer 1997	 =	V. Bierbrauer: Tierornamentik. In: Lexikon des Mittelalters. 8. München 1997, 783–784.
Bollók 2014	 =	Á. Bollók: Kép- és képnélküliség a Kárpát-medencében a 6.–10. században (Bild- und Bildlosigkeit
im 6.–10. Jahrhundert im Karpatenbecken). ArchÉrt 138 (2014) 213–237.
Bollók 2019	=	Á. Bollók: A bizánci diplomácia és az avar elit a 6–7. században. Értelmezési kísérlet (Byzantine
diplomacy and the Avar elite in the sixth–seventh centuries. An essay in interpretation). In: Hatalmi
központok az avar kaganátusban. Ed.: E. Wicker. Kecskemét 2019, 211–248.
Bóna 1971	 =	I. Bóna: A népvándorlás kora [The Migration Period]. In: Fejér megye története az őskortól a honfoglalásig
I/5. Székesfehérvár 1971, 221–314.
Bóna 1988	 =	I. Bóna: Die Geschichte der Awaren im Lichte der archäologischen Quellen. In: Popoli delle steppi:
Unni, Avari, Ungari, 23–29 aprile 1987. Settimene di studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto
Medioevo 35. Spoleto 1988, 437–481.
Bóna 1993	=	I. Bóna: „Barbarische“ Nachahmungen von byzantinischen Goldmünzen im Awarenreich. RIN 95
(1993) 529–538.
Budinsky-Krička 1956	=	V. Budinský-Krička: Pohrebisko z neskorej doby avarskej v Źitavskej Tôni na Slovensku [Burial
ground of late-period avar in Žitavskej Toni]. SlA 4 (1956) 5–131.
Budinský-Krička–Točik 1991	 =	V. Budinský-Krička–A. Točik: Šebastovce. Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Reiches. Nitra
1991.
Bunardžić 1985	=	R. Bunardžić: Čelarevo. Risulti delle ricerche nelle necropoli del’alto medioevo. Roma 1985.
Bühler 1999	 =	B. Bühler: Untersuchungen zu Guss, Oberflächenbearbeitung und Vergoldung an frühmitteralterlichen
Bunt- und Edelmetallgegenständen. ArchA 82–83 (1998–1999) 429–492.
Bühler 2014	 =	B. Bühler: Der „Schatz” von Brestovac, Kroatien. Seine kulturellen Beziehungen und technologischen
Aspekte. RGZM Monographien 85. Mainz 2014.
Büntgen et al. 2016	=	U. Büntgen–V. S. Myglan–F. Charpentier Ljungqvist–M. McCormick–N. Di Cosmo–M. Sigl–
J. Jungclaus–S. Wagner–P. J. Krusic–J. Esper–J. O. Kaplan–M.A. C. de Vaan–J.  Luterbacher–
L. Wacker–W. Tegel–A. V. Kirdyanov: Cooling and societal change during the LateAntique ­Little
Ice Age from 536 to around 660 AD. Nature Geoscience 9 (2016) 231–236.
Canepa 2010	 =	M. P. Canepa: Distant displays of power. Understanding cross-cultural interactions among the elites
of Rome, Sasanian Iran and Sui – Tang China. Ars Orientalis 38 (2010) 121–154.
Čilinská 1982	 =	Z. Čilinská: Dve pohrebíská z 8.–9. storočia v Komárne (Zwei Gräberfeld aus dem 8.–9. Jh. in
Komarno). SlA 30 (1982) 347–393.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
THE LATE AVAR REFORM AND THE LONG EIGHTH CENTURY 245
Clarke 1978	 =	D. L. Clarke, Analytical Archaeology. London 1978.
Cosma 2017	 =	C. Cosma: Războinici avari în Transilvania – Avar Warriors in Transylvania. Cluj-Napoca 2017.
Curta 2008	=	F. Curta: The north-western region of the Black Sea during the 6th
and early 7th
century AD. Ancient
East and West 7 (2008) 149–185.
Curta 2016	 =	F. Curta: Avar Blitzkrieg, Slavic and Bulgar raiders, and Roman special ops: mobile warriors in the
6th
century Balkans. In: Central Eurasia in the Middle Ages: Studies in Honour of Peter B. Golden.
Eds: I. Zimonyi, O. Karatay. Wiesbaden 2016, 69–89.
Csallány 1939	=	D. Csallány: Kora-avarkori sírleletek – Grabfunde der Frühawarenzeit. A Szegedi Városi Múzeum
kiadványai Ser 2/1. Szeged 1939.
Csallány 1962	 =	D. Csallány: Der awarische Gürtel. ActaArchHung 14 (1962) 444–480.
Csiky 2015	 =	G. Csiky: Avar-Age Polearms and Edged Weapons. Classification, Typology, Chronology and Technology.
East-Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 : 32. Leiden–Boston 2015.
Daim 1990	 =	F. Daim: Der awarische Greif und die byzantinische Antike. In: Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Bayern. II.: Berichte des Symposions der Kommission für Frühmittelalterforschung,
27. bis 30. Oktober 1986, Stift Zwettl, Niederösterreich. Hrsg.: H. Friesinger,
F. Daim. DAWW 204, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Frühmittelalterforschung 13. Wien
1990, 273–303.
Daim 2000	 =	F. Daim: „Byzantinische” Gürtelgarnituren des 8. Jahrhunderts. In: Die Awaren am Rand der byzantinischen
Welt. Studien zu Diplomatie, Handel und Technologietransfer im Frühmittelalter. Hrsg.:
F. Daim. Monographien zur Frühgeschichte und Mittelalterarchäologie 7. Innsbruck 2000, 77–204.
Daim 2001	 =	F. Daim: Byzantine belts and Avar birds. Diplomacy, trade and cultural transfer in the eighth century.
In: The Transformation of Frontiers. From LateAntiquity to the Carolingians. Eds: W. Pohl, I. Wood,
H. Reimitz. The Transformation of the Roman world 10. Leiden–Boston–Köln 2001, 143–188.
Daim 2003a	 =	F. Daim: Vom Umgang mit toten Awaren. Bestattungsgebräuche im historischen Kontext. In: Erinnerungskultur
im Bestattungsritual.Archäologisch-historisches Forum. Hrsg.: J. Jarnut, M. ­Wemhof.
München 2003, 41–60.
Daim 2003b	 =	F. Daim: Avars and Avar archaeology. An introduction. In: Regna and Gentes. The Relationship
between Late Antique and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the
Roman World. Eds: H.-W. Goetz, J. Jarnut, W. Pohl. Transformation of the Roman world 13. Leiden–Boston
2003, 463–570.
Daim 2010	 =	F. Daim: Byzantine belt ornaments of the 7th and 8th centuries in Avar contexts. In: ʻIntelligible
Beauty’. Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery. Eds: Ch. Entwistle, N. Adams. London 2010,
61–71.
Daim–Rácz 2001	 =	F. Daim–Zs. Rácz: Kunágota. In: RGA 17. Berlin–New York 2000, 486–490.
Dani 2015	 =	J. Dani: Kincsek Hajdúsámson határából [Treasures from the Surroundings of Hajdúsámson].
Hajdúsámson 2015.
Ecsedy 1979	=	I. Ecsedy: Nomádok és kereskedők Kína határán [Nomads and Merchants at the Chinese Border].
Budapest 1979.
Eisner 1952	 =	J. Eisner: Devínská Nová Veś. Bratislava 1952.
Fancsalszky 2007	 =	G. Fancsalszky: Állat- és emberábrázolások késő avar kori öntött bronz övvereteken (Tier- und
Menschendarstellunen auf den spätawarenzeitlichen gegossenen Gürtelbeschlägen). OpitzArchaeologica
1. Budapest 2007.
Fettich 1928	 =	N. Fettich: Öntött phalerák a lovasnomádok magyarországi régészeti hagyatékában (Gegossene
Bronzephalerae im archäologischen Nachlass der Reiternomaden in Ungarn). ArchÉrt 42 (1928)
114–127, 317–321.
Fettich 1930	 =	N. Fettich: Über die ungarländischen Beziehungen der Funde von Ksp. Perniö, Südwestfinnland.
ESA 5 (1930) 52–65.
Gáll 2018	 =	E. Gáll: At the Periphery of the Avar Core Region. 6th
–8th
Century Burial Sites near Nădlac (The
Pecica–Nădlac Motorway Rescue Excavations). Paris–Budapest 2017.
Garam 1979	 =	É. Garam: Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Kisköre. FontArchHung. Budapest 1979.
Garam 1981	 =	É. Garam: A bőcsi későavarkori lelet és köre (Der spätawarenzeitliche Fund von Bőcs und sein
Kreis). ArchÉrt 108 (1981) 34–51.
Garam 1995	 =	É. Garam: Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Tiszafüred. Cemeteries of theAvar Period (567–829)
in Hungary 3. Budapest 1995.
Garam 2000	 =	É. Garam: Über die Beziehung der byzantinischen Goldschnallen und die awarenzeitlichen Pseudoschnallen.
In: Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe im 6.–7. Jahrhundert. Hrsg.:
Cs. Bálint. VAH 10. Budapest–Napoli–Roma 2000, 219–228.
Garam 2001	 =	É. Garam: Funde byzantinischer Herkunft in der Awarenzeit vom Ende des 6. bis zum Ende des 7.
Jahrhunderts. MonAvarArch 5. Budapest 2001.
Garam 2002	 =	É. Garam: The connection of Avar Period princely and common grave goods with the Nagyszentmiklós
treasure. In: The Gold of the Avars. The Nagyszentmiklós Treasure. Catalogue of an exhibiUnauthenticated
| Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
GERGELY SZENTHE246
tion held in the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 22 March tos 30 June 2002. Eds: T. Kovács,
É. Garam. Budapest 2002, 81–112.
Garam 2005	 =	É. Garam: Avar kori nemzetségfő sírja Maglódon (Das awarenzeitliche Sippenhäuptlingsgrab von
Maglód). ComArchHung 2005, 407–436.
Gell 1998	 =	A. Gell: Art and Agency. An Anthropological Theory. Oxford 1998.
Gömöri 2000	 =	J. Gömöri: Az avar kori és Árpád-kori vaskohászat régészeti emlékei Pannoniában [Archaeological
Remains of Avar and Árpádian-Age Iron Smelting in Pannonia]. Magyarország iparrégészeti
lelőhelykatasztere. 1: Vasművesség. Sopron 2000.
Grierson – Blackburn 1986	 =	Ph. Grierson – M. Blackburn: Medieval European Coinage. I.: The Early Middle Ages (5th
–10th
Centuries). Cambridge 1986.
Gschwantler 2002	 =	K. Gschwantler: The Nagyszentmiklós treasure. Kat.-Nr. 1–23. In: The Gold of the Avars. The
Nagyszentmiklós Treasure. Catalogue of an exhibition held in the Hungarian National Museum,
Budapest, 22 March to 30 June 2002. Eds.: T. Kovács, É. Garam. Budapest 2002, 15–44.
Gulyás 2018	=	B. Gulyás: A szegvár-sápoldali 1. sír keleti kapcsolatai az újabb orosz és ukrán kutatás fényében
(The cultural contacts of the grave nr. 1 of Szegvár-Sápoldal in the light of the Russian and Ukranian
research). ArchÉrt 143 (2018) 105–115.
Haldon 2012	 =	J. Haldon: Commerce and exchange in the seventh and eighth centuries. Regional trade and the
movement of goods. In: Trade and Markets in Byzantium. Ed.: C. Morrison. Washington 2012,
99–124.
Hampel 1905	 =	J. Hampel: Alterthümer des frühen Mittelalters in Ungarn. I–III. Braunschweig 1905.
Hansen–Wickham 2000	 =	I. L. Hansen–Ch. Wickham (eds): The Long Eighth Century. Production, Distribution and Demand.
The Transformation of the Roman world 11. Leiden–Boston–Köln 2000.
Hardt 2004	 =	M. Hardt: Gold und Herrschaft. Die Schätze europäischer Könige und Fürsten im ersten Jahrtausend.
Europa im Mittelalter 6. Berlin 2004.
Haseloff 1975	 =	G. Haseloff: Zu den Goldblattkreuzen aus dem Raum nördlich den Alpen. In: Die Goldblattkreuze
des frühen Mittelalters. Hrsg.: W. Hübener. Veröffentlichungen des Alamannischen Instituts
Freiburg i. Br. 37. Bühl–Baden 1975, 37–70.
Haseloff 1984	 =	G. Haseloff: Das Warnebertus-Reliquiar im Stiftsschatz von Beromünster. HelvA 15 (1984) 195–218.
Heinrich-Tamáska 2008	 =	O. Heinrich-Tamáska:Avar-Age metalworking technologies in the Carpatian Basin (sixth to eighth
century). In: The Other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans. Ed.:
F. Curta. Leiden–Boston 2008, 237–261.
Horden–Purcell 2000	=	P. Horden–N. Purcell: The Corrupting Sea. A Study of Mediterranean History. Oxford 2000.
Humprey–Sneath 1999	 =	C. Humprey–D. Sneath: The End of Nomadism? Society, State and the Environment in Inner Asia.
Durham 1999.
Innes 2000	 =	M. Innes: State and Society in the Early Middle Ages. The Middle Rhine Valley, 400–1000. Cambridge
2000.
Juhász 2004	 =	I. Juhász: Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld in Szarvas–Grexa-téglagyár, FO 68. MonAvarArch 7.
Budapest 2004.
Khazanov 1994	 =	A. M. Khazanov: Nomads and the Outside World. Cambridge–New York 1994.2
Kiss 1977	 =	A. Kiss: Avar Cemeteries in County Baranya. Cemeteries of the Avar Period (568–829) in Hungary
2. Budapest 1977.
Kiss 1991	 =	A. Kiss: Zur Zeitstellung des „münzdatierten” awarischen Fürstengrabes von Kunágota. JPMÉ 36
(1991) 67–84.
Kiss 2015	 =	A. P. Kiss: “…ut strenui viri…” A gepidák Kárpát-medencei története – The History of the Gepids
in the Carpathian Basin. Szeged 2015.
Klanica 1972	 =	Z. Klanica: Predvelkomoravské pohřebiště v Dolních Dunajovicích. Příspěvek k otázce vzájemných
vztahů Slovanů a Avarů v Podunají [The Pre-Great Moravian Burial Ground in Dolni Dunajovice.
A contribution on mutual Slav-Avar relations in Danubia]. SAB I/1. Praha 1972.
Klanica 1995	 =	Z. Klanica: Zur Periodisierung vorgrossmährischer Funde aus Mikulčice. In: Studien zum Burgwall
von Mikulčice 1. Hrsg.: F. Daim, L. Poláček. Spisy AV ČR Brno 2. Brno 1995, 379–469.
Koncz 2015	 =	I. Koncz: 568 – A historical date and its archaeological consequences. ActaArchHung 66 (2015)
315–340.
Kossack 1974	 =	G. Kossack: Prunkgräber. Bemerkungen zu Eigenschaften und Aussagewert. In: Studien zur Vorund
Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie. Festschrift für Joachim Werner zum 65. Geburtstag. Hrsg.:
G. Kossack, G. Ulbert. München 1974, 3–34.
Kovrig 1963	 =	I. Kovrig: Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Alattyán. ArchHung 40. Budapest 1963.
Kovrig 1975	 =	I. Kovrig: The Tiszaderzs cemetery. In: Avar Finds in the Hungarian National Museum. Ed.:
I. ­Kovrig. Cemeteries of the Avar period (568–829) in Hungary 1. Budapest 1975, 209–239.
Költő 1982	 =	L. Költő: Avar kori bronztárgyak röntgenemissziós analízise (X-ray emission analysis of bronze
objects from the Avar age). SMK 5/1 (1982) 5–68.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
THE LATE AVAR REFORM AND THE LONG EIGHTH CENTURY 247
Kristiansen 2004	 =	K. Kristiansen: An essay on material culture – Some concluding reflections. In: Material Culture
and Other Things – Post-disciplinary Studies in the 21st
Century. Eds: F. Fahlander, T. Oestigaard.
Gotarc, Ser. C 61. Vällingby 2004, 259–278.
László 1955	 =	Gy. László: Études archéologiques sur l’histoire de la société des Avars. ArchHung 34. Budapest
1955.
Lavan 2006	 =	L. Lavan: Explaining technological change: Innovation, stagnation, recession and replacement. In:
Technology in Transition A. D. 300–650. Eds: L. Lavan, E. Zanini, A. Sarantis. Late antique
archaeo­logy 4. Leiden–Boston 2007, xv–xl.
Lőrinczy 2018	=	G. Lőrinczy: A szegvár-sápoldali 7. századi sírcsoport (Eine Gräbergruppe des 7. Jahrhunderts von
Szegvár-Sápoldal). ArchÉrt 143 (2018) 51–84.
Lőrinczy–Rácz 2015	=	G. Lőrinczy–Zs. Rácz: Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg megye avar sírleletei. II.: Tiszavasvári-Kashalomdűlő
kora avar kori temetkezései; (Avar finds from Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County. II.: Early Avar
graves from Tiszavasvári-Kashalom-dűlő). JAMÉ 56 (2014) 141–217.
Makoldi 2011	 =	M. Makoldi: Sajópetri határában feltárt avar temető, különös tekintettel a lovassírokra [The Avar
cemetery unearthed at Sajópetri, with a particular focus on the horse burials]. In: Sötét idők falvai.
8–11. századi települések a Kárpát-medencében. Eds: B. Kolozsi, K. A. Szilágyi. Tempora obscura
1. Debrecen 2011, 33–92.
Maldonado–Russell 2016	 =	A. Maldonado–A. Russell: Introduction. In: Creating Material Worlds. The Uses of Identity in
Archaeology. Eds: E. Pierce, A. Russell, A. Maldonado, L. Campbell. Oxford 2016, 1–16.
Martin 1990	 =	M. Martin: Awarische und germanische Funde in Männergräbern von Linz-Zizlau und Környe. Ein
Beitrag zur Chronologie der Awarenzeit. In: International Conference on Early Middle Ages,
Tengelic 1989 – Internationale Konferenz über das Frühmittelalter. Ed.: F. Vadas. WMMÉ 15 (1990)
65–90.
McCormick 2001	 =	M. McCormick: The Origins of the European Economy. Communications and Commerce
AD 300–900. Cambridge 2001.
Mesterházy 2005	 =	K. Mesterházy: The Hortobágy in the Hungarian Conquest Period. In: EnvironmentalArchaeology
in North-Eastern Hungary. Eds: E. Gál, I. Juhász, P. Sümegi. VAH 19. Budapest 2005, 387–393.
Mordovin 2016	 =	M. Mordovin: A várszervezet kialakulása a középkori Magyarországon, Csehországban és Lengyelországban
(The Emergence of the Castle Organisation in Medieval Hungary, Bohemia and Poland
in the 10th–12th Centuries). Studia ad archaeologiam Pazmaniensia 5. Budapest 2016.
Nagy 1982	 =	E. Nagy: Újabb késő avar kori temetők Baranya megyében (New cemeteries from the late Avar
period in County Baranya). JPMÉ 27 (1982) 125–141.
Nagy 1998	 =	M. Nagy: Awarenzeitliche Gräberfelder im Stadtgebiet von Budapest. I–II. MonAvarArch 2. Budapest
1998.
Naylor 2012	=	J. Naylor: Coinage, trade, and the origins of the English emporia, ca. AD 650–750. In: From one
Sea to Another. Trading Places in the European and Mediterranean Early Middle Ages. Proceedings
of the International Conference, Comacchio, 27th–29th March 2009. Eds: S. Gelichi, R. Hodges.
Turnhout 2012, 237–266.
Nicolay 2014	 =	J. A. W. Nicolay: The Splendour of Power. Early medieval kingship and the use of gold and silver
in the southern North Sea area (5th to 7th century AD). Groningen archaeological studies 28. Groningen
2014.
Pástor 1971	 =	J. Pástor: Kostrové pohrebisko v Hraničnej pri Hornáde [Inhumation cemetery at Hranična pri
Hornáde]. VyP 2 (1971) 89–179.
Pohl 2002	 =	W. Pohl: Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa 567–822. n. Chr. München 20022
.
Pomfyová–Samuel–Žažová 2014	 =	B. Pomfyová–M. Samuel–H. Žažová: Stredoveká Biňa. Archeológia – história – arhitektúra [Medieval
Biňa. Archaeology – History – Architecture]. Bratislava 2014.
Popescu 1956	 =	D. Popescu: Cercetări arheologice în Transilvania. I.: Sondajele de la Socodor [Archaeological
excavations in Transylvania. 1.: Rescue excavations from Socodor]. MCA 2 (1956) 43–88.
Preiser-Kapeller 2018	=	J. Preiser-Kapeller: The climate of the khagan. Observations on palaeoenvironmental factors in
the history of the Avars (6th–9th century). In: Lebenswelten zwischen Archäologie und Geschichte.
Festschrift für Falko Daim zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Hrsg.: J. Drauschke, E. Kislinger,
K. ­Kühtreiber, Th. Kühtreiber, G. Scharrer-Liška, T. Vida. RGZM Monographien 150/1. Mainz
2018, 311–324.
Profantová 1992	 =	N. Profantová: Awarische Funde aus den Gebieten nördlich der awarischen Siedlungsgrenzen. In:
Awarenforschungen. II. Hrsg.: F. Daim. Archaeologia Austriaca Monographien 2. Studien zur
Archäologie der Awaren 4. Wien 1992, 605–801.
Quast 2012	 =	D. Quast: Das merowingerzeitliche Reliquienkästchen aus Ennabeuren. Eine Studie zu den frühmittelalterlichen
Reliquarien und Chrismalia. Kataloge Vor- und Frühgeschichtlicher Altertümer 43.
Mainz 2012.
Rašev 2008	 =	R. Rašev: Bălgarskata ezičeska kultura VII–IX. vek [The Bulgarian Pagan Culture 7th
–9th
Century].
Sofia 2008.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
GERGELY SZENTHE248
Scholz 1995	 =	F. Scholz: Nomadismus. Theorie und Wandel einer sozio-ökologischen Kulturweise. Erdkundliches
Wissen 118. Stuttgart 1995.
Schulze-Dörrlamm 2009	 =	M. Schulze-Dörlamm: Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen und Gürtelbeschläge im Römisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseum. 2.: Die Schnallen mit Scharnierbeschläg und die Schnallen mit angegossenenm
Riemendurchzug des 7. bis 10. Jahrhunderts. Kataloge Vor- und Frühgeschichtlicher
Altertümer 30/1. Mainz 2009.
Schwab 2006	 =	H. Schwab: Nouvelle chronologie de certaines garnitures de ceinture des types A et C/Berne Soleure,
plaquées d’argent. In: De l’Âge du fer au haut Moyen Âge. Archéologie funéraire, princes et
élites guerrières. Actes des tables rondes Longroy 1998 et 1999. Red.: X. Delestre, M. Kazanski,
P. Périn. Mémoires publiés par l’Association française d’archéologie mérovingienne 15. SaintGermain-en-Laye
2006, 174–179.
Shalem 2005	 =	A. Shalem: Objects as carriers of real and contrived memories in a cross-cultural context. Mitteilungen
zur Spätantiken Archäologie und Byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte 4 (2005) 101–117.
Sneath 2007	 =	D. Sneath: The Headless State. Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society and Misrepresentations of
Nomadic Inner Asia. New York 2007.
Sófalvi 2017	 =	A. Sófalvi: Hadakozás és önvédelem a középkori és fejedelemség kori Udvarhelyszéken [Warfare
and Self-Defence in Udvarhelyszék from the Medieval Age till the Age of Principality]. Kolozsvár
2017.
Sokol 1996	=	V. Sokol: Sjeverozapadna Hrvatska u ranom srednjem vijeku (North-West Croatia during the Early
Middle Ages). In: Ljudje ob Muri – Népek a Mura mentén – Völker an der Mur – Ljudi zu Muru.
Ed.: J. Balažic, L. Vándor. Murska Sbota–Zalaegerszeg 1996, 83–100.
Somogyi 1997	 =	P. Somogyi: Byzantinische Fundmünzen der Awarenzeit. Monographien zur Frühgeschichte und
Mittelalterarchäologie 5. Innsbruck 1997.
Somogyi 2005	=	P. Somogyi, Újabb gondolatok a bizánci érmek avarföldi elterjedéséről. Numizmatikai megjegyzések
Bálint Csanád közép avar kor kezdetére vonatkozó vizsgálataihoz (Neue Überlegungen über
den Zustrom byzantinischer Münzen ins Awarenland. Numismatischer Kommentar zu Csanád
Bálints Betrachtungen zum Beginn der Mittelawarenzeit). MFMÉ – StudArch 11 (2005) 189–228.
Somogyi 2008	 =	P. Somogyi: Neue Überlegungen über den Zustrom byzantinischer Münzen ins Awarenland (Numismatischer
Kommentar zu Csanád Bálints Betrachtungen zum Beginn der Mittelawarenzeit). In:
Antaeus 29–30 (2008) 347–393.
Somogyi 2014	=	P. Somogyi: Byzantinische Fundmünzen der Awarenzeit in ihrem europäischen Umfeld. DissPann
IV/2. Budapest 2014.
Stark 2009	 =	S. Stark: Central and Inner Asian parallels to a find from Kunszentmiklós-Bábony (Kunbábony):
Some thoughts on the early Avar headdress. Ancient Civilisations from Scythia to Siberia 15 (2009)
287–305.
Szabó–Bollók 2018	=	J. B. Szabó–Á. Bollók: A “szavart–türk dosszié”. A 9. századi kelet-európai steppei vándorlások
16–17. századi párhuzamok tükrében (The “Savart–Turk dossier”. 9th
century migrations in the
eastern European steppe region in the light of 16th
–17th
century parallel phenomena). Századok
152/3 (2018) 479–542.
Szádeczky-Kardoss 1998	 =	S. Szádeczky-Kardoss: Az avar történelem forrásai 557-től 806-ig (Die Quellen de Awarengeschichte
von 557 bis 806). Magyar őstörténeti könyvtár 12. Budapest 1998.
Szalontai et al. 2014	=	Cs. Szalontai–A. Benedek–L. Károly: A Kiskundorozsma Kettőshatár úti II. avar temető 434.
sírja (Grave Nr. 434 of the Avar cemetery II in Kiskundorozsma, Kettőshatár Street). MFMÉ Ú.F 1
(2014) 161–228.
Szenthe 2011	 =	G. Szenthe: 7. századi ezüstlemezes övgarnitúrák (Gürtelgarnituren des 7. Jahrhunderts aus Silberblech).
In: Thesaurus Avarorum. Régészeti tanulmányok Garam Éva tiszteletére – Archaeological
Studies in Honour of Éva Garam. Ed.: T. Vida. Budapest 2011, 521–550.
Szenthe 2012	 =	G. Szenthe: A késő avar kori növényi ornamentika [Late Avar Period Vegetal Ornaments. unpubl.
Diss. Univ. ELTE, Budapest 2012].
Szenthe 2013	 =	G. Szenthe: Antique meaning – Avar significance. Complex iconographic schemes on early medieval
small objects. ActaArchHung 64 (2013) 139–172.
Szenthe 2014	 =	G. Szenthe: Kulturális összeolvadás a „középavar“ korban. A vác-kavicsbányai avar temető (Kulturelle
Verschmelzung in der Mittelawarenzeit. Das Gräberfeld von Vác-Kavicsbánya). ArchÉrt 139
(2014) 99–125.
Szenthe 2015a	 =	G. Szenthe: Ein osteuropäischer Schnallentyp aus dem 7. Jahrhundert im Karpatenbecken. Peripheriale
Verbindungen zur Zeit der byzantinischen Dominanz. ActaArchHung 66 (2015) 341–377.
Szenthe 2015b	 =	G. Szenthe: Über die Aussagekraft der Hinterlassenschaft einer Heidenelite: Spätawarenzeitlich
Funde auf dem Prüfstand. In: „Castellum, Civitas, Urbs”. Zentren und Eliten im frühmittelalterlichen
Ostmitteleuropa – Centres and Elites in Early Medieval East-Central Europe. Hrsg.: O. HeinrichTamáska,
H. Herold, P. Straub, T. Vida. CPP 6. Budapest–Leipzig–Keszthely–Rahden/Westf 2015,
293–312.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
THE LATE AVAR REFORM AND THE LONG EIGHTH CENTURY 249
Szenthe 2015c	 =	G. Szenthe: Vegetal ornaments in the Late Avar decorative art. DissArch Ser. 3/1 (2013) 303–320.
Szenthe 2015d	 =	G. Szenthe: Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur. Awarische Männerrepräsentation und mediterraner
Einfluss in Randgebieten des Karpatenbeckens (erste Hälfte 8. J.h. N. Chr.). In: Warriors,
Weapons, and Harness from the 5th–10th Centuries in the Carpathian Basin. Ed.: C. Cosma. ClujNapoca
2015, 215–250.
Szenthe 2016	 =	G. Szenthe: Crisis or innovation? A technology-inspired narrative of social dynamics in the Carpathian
Basin during the eighth century. In: Zwischen Byzanz und der Steppe. Archäologische und
Historische Studien für Csanád Bálint zum 70. Geburtstag – Between Byzantium and the Steppe.
Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honour of Csanád Bálint on the Occasion of His 70th
Birthday. Hrsg.: Á. Bollók, G. Csiky, T. Vida. Budapest 2016, 351–370.
Szentpéteri 2013	 =	J. Szentpéteri: Az Avar Kaganátus hatalmi központjai – a hringek (The hrings – political centres
of the Avar Khaganate). Tisicum 22 (2013) 169–177.
Szimonova 1997	 =	E. Szimonova: A toponári avar temető [The Avar cemetery at Toponár]. In: Avarok és honfoglaló
magyarok Somogyban. Ed.: G. Karancz. Marcali 1997, 25–52.
Szőke 1980	=	B. M. Szőke: Zur awarenzeitlichen Siedlungsgeschichte des Körös-Gebietes in Südost-Ungarn.
ActaArchHung 32 (1980) 182–203.
Szőke 2001	 =	B. M. Szőke: Egy avar kori indavirág. Késő avar kori övgarnitúra Zalaegerszeg-Ola, Új kaszárnya
területéről (Eine awarenzeitliche Rankenblume. Spätawarenzeitliche Gürtelgarnitur aus Zalaegerszeg-Ola,
auf dem Gebiet der neuen Kaserne). ZalaiMúz 10 (2001) 103–140.
Temple 1990	 =	R. Temple (ed.): Early Christian and Byzantine Art. Textiles, metalwork, frescoes, manuscripts,
jewellery, steatites, stone sculptures, tiles, pottery, bronzes, amulets, coins and other items from the
fourth to the fourteenth centuries. Exhibition, The Temple Gallery (London, England). London
1990.
Theuws 2009	 =	F. Theuws: Grave goods, ethnicity, and the rhetoric of burial rites in Late Antique Northern Gaul.
In: Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity. The Role of Power and Tradition. Eds: T. Derks, N. Roymans.
Amsterdam archaeological studies 13. Amsterdam 2009, 283–320.
Tomka 2008	 =	P. Tomka: Innere Migranten in einer Strassenkreuzung – Regionsfremde in der Kleinen Tiefebene.
In: Kulturwandel in Mitteleuropa. Langobarden – Awaren – Slawen. Hrsg.: I. Bemmann,
M. Schmauder. Kolloquien zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte 11. Bonn 2008, 601–618.
Török et al. 2018	=	B. Török–Zs. Gallina–Á. Kovács–F. Kristály: Early medieval iron bloomery centre at Zamárdi
(Hungary). Complex archaeometrical examination of the slags. AR 70 (2018) 404–420.
Trbuhović 1982	 =	L. Trbuhović: Avar finds from Sirmium and the surrounding region. In: Sirmium. Recherches archéologique
en Sirmien 4. Éd.: N. Duval, E. L. Ochsenschlager, V. Popović. Belgrade 1982, 61–83.
Trugly 1987	 =	A. Trugly: Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Reiches bei der Schiffswerft in Komárno. I. SlA
35 (1987) 251–344.
Trugly 1993	 =	A. Trugly: Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Reiches bei der Schiffswerft in Komárno. II.
SlA 41 (1993) 191–307.
Vásáry 1983	 =	I. Vásáry: Nép és ország a türköknél [Ethnos and state of the old Turks]. In: Nomád társadalmak és
államalakulatok [Nomadic Societies and State Formations]. Ed.: F. Tőkei. Budapest 1983, 189–213.
Végh 1964	 =	K. K. Végh: A sajószentpéteri avarkori leletek (Funde aus dem Awarenzeit in der Umgebung von
Sajószentpéter). HOMK 5 (1964) 15–23.
Végh 1968	 =	K. K. Végh: Avarkori leletek a Miskolci Múzeumban (Awarenzeitliche Funde im Museum von
Miskolc). HOMÉ 7 (1968) 47–90.
Vida 1999	 =	T. Vida: Die awarenzeitliche Keramik. I. VAH 8. Budapest 1999.
Vida 2008	 =	T. Vida: Conflict and coexistence. The local population of the Carpathian Basin under Avar rule
(sixth to seventh century). In: The Other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and
Cumans. Eds: F. Curta, R. Kovalev. East-Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–
1450 : 2. Leiden–Boston 2008, 13–46.
Vida 2009	 =	T. Vida: Local or foreign Romans? The problem of the late antique population of the 6th
–7th
centuries
in Pannonia. In: Foreigners in Early Medieval Europe. Thirteen International Studies on Early
Medieval Mobility. Ed.: D. Quast. RGZM Monographien 78. Mainz 2009, 233–259.
Vida 2011	=	T. Vida: Sütőharangok és sütőfedők – régészeti adatok Dél- és Közép-Európa étkezési kultúrájához
(Backglocken, Backdeckel und Backhauben. Archäologische Angaben zur Ernährungskultur Südund
Mitteleuropas). In: Sötét idők falvai. 8–11. századi települések a Kárpátmedencében. Tempora
obscura. Eds.: B. Kolozsi, K. A. Szilágyi. Debrecen 2011, 701–817.
Vida 2016	=	T. Vida: “They asked to be settled in Pannonia…” A study on integration and acculturation – the
case of the Avars. In: Zwischen Byzanz und der Steppe. Archäologische und Historische Studien für
Csanád Bálint zum 70. Geburtstag – Between Byzantium and the Steppe. Archaeological and Historical
Studies in Honour of Csanád Bálint on the Occasion of His 70th
Birthday. Ed.: Á. Bollók,
G. Csiky, T. Vida. Budapest 2016, 251–270.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70, 2019
GERGELY SZENTHE250
Vida manuscript	=	T. Vida: The settlement of the Carpathian Basin by mounted warriors in the Avar Period and their
configuration of power. In: From the Huns to the Turks – Mounted Warriors in Europe and Central
Asia. Eds: F. Daim, H. Meller, W. Pohl. (In press).
Vidal-Ronchas et al. 2018	 =	R. Vidal-Ronchas–P. R. Šikanjić–Z. Premužić–A. Rapan-Papeša–E. Lightfoot: Diet, sex and
social status in the Late Avar period: stable isotope investigations at Nuštar cemetery, Croatia.
­Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-018-0628-4.
Vinski 1960	 =	Z. Vinski: Ranosrednjovjekovni arheološki nalazi na užem i širem području Zagreba [Early medieval
archaeologica finds in the narnower and boarder surroundings of Zagreb]. Zbornik iz Starog i
Novog Zagreba 2 (1960) 47–65.
Vinski-Gasparini–Ercegović 1958	=	K. Vinski-Gasparini–S. Ercegović: Ranosrednjovjekovno groblje u Brodskom Drenovcu (Das
frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld von Brodski Drenovac). VAMZ 1 (1958) 129–161.
Wengrow 2001	=	D. Wengrow: The evolution of simplicity: aesthetic labour and social change in the Neolithic Near
East. WA 33/2 (2001) 168–188.
Werner 1974	 =	J. Werner: Nomadische Gürtel bei Persern, Byzantinern und Langobarden. In: Atti del Convegno
internazionale sul tema: La civiltà del Longobardi in Europa (Roma, 24–26 maggio 1971) (Civi­
dale del Friuli, 27–28 maggio 1971). Problemi attuali di scienza e di cultura 189. Roma 1974,
109–139.
Werner 1984	 =	J. Werner: Der Grabfund von Malaja Pereščepina und Kuvrat, Kagan der Bulgaren. ABAW N.F.
91. München 1984.
Werner 1988	 =	J. Werner: Eine goldene byzantinische Gürtelschnalle in der Prähistorischen Staatssammlung
München. Motive des Physiologus auf byzantinischen Schnallen des 6–7. Jahrhunderts. BVbl 53
(1988) 301–312.
Wickham 2005	 =	Ch. Wickham: Framing the Early Middle Ages. Europe and the Mediterranean 400–800. New York
2005.
Yeroulanou 1999	 =	E. Yeroulanou: Diatrita. Athens 1999.
Zábojník 1991	 =	J. Zábojník: Seriation von Gürtelbeschlaggarnituren aus dem Gebiet der Slowakei und Österreichs
(Beitrag zur Chronologie der Zeit des Awarischen Kaganats). In: K problematike osídlenia stredodunajskej
oblasti vo včasnom stredoveku. Red.: Z. Čilinská. Nitra 1991, 219–321.
Zábojník 2005	 =	J. Zábojník: Mikulčice – Awarische Stadt? In: Die frühittelalterliche Elite bei den Völkern des
östlichen Mitteleuropas. Hrsg.: P. Kouřil. Spisy AV ČR Brno 25 (2005) 101–114.
Zábojník–Béreš 2016	=	J. Zábojník–J. Béreš: Pohrebisko z odobia avarského kaganáu vo Valalikoch-Všechsvätých [Cemetery
from the Period of the Avar Kaganat at Valaliky-Všechsvätých]. AS monographiae, Studia 26.
Nitra 2016.
Open Access. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited, a link to the CC License is
provided, and changes – if any – are indicated. (SID_1)
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 03/18/21 09:53 AM UTC