Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Forschungsinstitut für Archäologie SONDERDRUCK AUS: RGZM – TAGUNGEN Band 17 Bendeguz Tobias (Hrsg.) DIE ARCHÄOLOGIE DER FRÜHEN UNGARN CHRONOLOGIE, TECHNOLOGIE UND METHODIK Internationaler Workshop des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz in Budapest am 4. und 5. Dezember 2009 Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 2012 Redaktion: Evelyn Garvey (New York); Reinhard Köster, Bendeguz Tobias (RGZM) Satz: Hans Jung (RGZM) Umschlaggestaltung: Reinhard Köster (RGZM) Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. ISBN 978-3-88467-205-1 ISSN 1862-4812 © 2012 Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Das Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte, insbesondere die der Übersetzung, des Nachdrucks, der Entnahme von Abbildungen, der Funk- und Fernsehsendung, der Wiedergabe auf photomechanischem (Photokopie, Mikrokopie) oder ähnlichem Wege und der Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen, Ton- und Bildträgern bleiben, auch bei nur auszugsweiser Verwertung, vorbehalten. Die Vergütungsansprüche des § 54, Abs. 2, UrhG. werden durch die Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort wahrgenommen. Herstellung: Strauss GmbH, Mörlenbach Printed in Germany. INHALT Falko Daim Vorwort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX Vor der Landnahme Attila Türk Zu den osteuropäischen und byzantinischen Beziehungen der Funde des 10.-11. Jahrhunderts im Karpatenbecken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Charlotte Hedenstierna-Jonson Traces of contacts: Magyar material culture in the Swedish Viking Age context of Birka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Chronologische Fragen zum Fundmaterial des Karpatenbeckens Péter Langó Notes on the dating of Byzantine coin finds from 10th century context in the Carpathian Basin . . . . . . . . 49 Péter Prohászka Bemerkungen zum byzantinischen Münzverkehr der ungarischen Landnahmezeit und der Staatsgründung im Karpatenbecken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Gabriel Fusek Chronologische Fragen der Nitraer Gräberfelder des 10.-11. Jahrhunderts: das Fallbeispiel Nitra-Šindolka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Gabriel Nevizánsky · Jiří Košta Die Ausgrabung eines frühungarischen Reitergräberfeldes in Streda nad Bodrogom (okr. Trebišov/SK) in den Jahren 1926 und 1937 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Miklós Takács Die Chronologie der Siedlungen und besonders der Siedlungskeramik des Karpatenbeckens des 8.-11. Jahrhunderts im Spannungsfeld zwischen den verschieden Datierungsmöglichkeiten und ihren Einwänden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Zwischen Ost und West? »Fremde« Schwerter in »lokalem« Kontext Naďa Profantová Examples of the most important results of technological analyses of swords in the Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 III Ádám Bíró Dating (with) weapon burials and the »Waffenwechsel«. A preliminary report on new investigations of the so-called Viking-Age swords in the Carpathian Basin from a chronological point of view . . . . . . . 191 Valeri Yotov The Kunágota sword guard and the dating of two bronze matrices for hilt manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Beiträge technologischer und naturwissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen zu archäologischen Fragestellungen Adam Bollók Chronological questions of the Hungarian Conquest Period: a technological perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Susanne Greiff Silver grave goods from early Hungarian contexts: technological implications of debased alloy compositions with zinc, tin and lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Nataša V. Eniosova Tracing the routes of silver procurement to the early urban centre Gnëzdovo in the 10th/early 11th centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Mariela Inkova A contribution to the problem of producing the Old Bulgarian belt-fittings from the 10th century . . . . . 277 Naďa Profantová Ein tauschierter Steigbügel aus der Umgebung von Dobruška (okr. Rychnov nad Kněžnou/CZ) . . . . . . . . 295 Verzeichnis der Autorinnen und Autoren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 Hinweis für den Leser: Kyrillische Buchstaben wurden wissenschaftlich transliteriert. In Ausnahmefällen wurde bei Eigennamen auf eine wissenschaftliche Transliteration verzichtet. Bei den Fundortangaben in den Gebieten der ehemaligen Sowjetunion werden die heutigen Ortsnamen angegeben. Bei Kulturen bezeichnenden Fundorten wurde von einer Änderung abgesehen. IV ÁDÁM BÍRÓ DATING (WITH) WEAPON BURIALS AND THE »WAFFENWECHSEL« A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON NEW INVESTIGATIONS OF THE SO-CALLED VIKING-AGE SWORDS IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN FROM A CHRONOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW Superamur, scio, multitudine, sed non virtute, sed non armis 1. PREFACE Due to its abundance in graves, military equipment plays a special and important role in the chronological system of the archaeological material of the 10th century A. D. in the Carpathian Basin. Hungarian archaeologists tend to determine precise and exclusive chronological positions of certain weapons or weapon types within the relatively short archaeological period of the so-called Hungarian Conquest, although there has not yet been a comprehensive and thorough archaeological research concerning weapon burials. The dating of weapon types is mainly based on marginal notes, or – which is worse – created to support unproved historical hypotheses. The implicit acceptance of these »datings« without control or supervision resulted in the canonisation of a unified, but first of all simplified chronological system. In my opinion, this system is not only in need of a serious revision, but a new, strictly archaeological chronology should be established instead, since the former was neither based upon proper classification analyses, nor on relative chronological studies. An attempt aiming at the historical interpretation of the archaeological material would be reasonable only if such research would be accomplished. Therefore this topic claims a complex, modern, thorough future research, to which of course also archaeometrical and experimental studies belong. However, it is not my duty here to cover all aspects of dating the weapons or other artefacts with them. On the other hand, it seems necessary to sketch at least the three main keystones on which the present chronological system rests: 1. According to the first thesis, men whose burials contained coins and weapons at the same time must be seen as warriors who took part in the military campaigns and raids which the Magyars led to Europe in the first half of the 10th century. 2. The second thesis declares that straight double-edged swords replaced sabres from the middle or last quarter of the century on, due to the state formation process and/or the realisation of inadequate armament being the main reason for the defeats suffered from the Saxon heavy cavalry. On this basis, the year 955 and the battle at the river Lech or the beginning of the state formation process are given an extraordinary importance – which on the one hand serves as a terminus post quem for the straight double-edged swords and other military equipment thought to be connected with the so-called heavy cavalry, while on the other hand it indicates a terminus ante quem for the majority of the sabres which are considered typical nomadic light cavalry weapons. Die Archäologie der frühen Ungarn 191 3. The third thesis claims that the rite of pagan (weapon) burials continued at least during the first quarter of the 11th century in some territories of the Carpathian Basin 2. Bearing in mind the significance of the weapon dating in 10th-century Carpathian Basin, a part of the project »Reiterkrieger, Burgenbauer: die frühen Ungarn und das ›Deutsche Reich‹ vom 9. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert« (RGZM) aims at the revision and reconsideration of sword and sabre data along with coin-dated graves in order to present a precise chronology for the Conquest Period material. From the above-mentioned three theses, all worthy of a full-scale reconsideration, only the second forms part of the project, although the first one is also inherent in the interpretation of the coin-dated graves. The main reason behind the conception and the research topics of the project was the fact that whilst the numerous Muslim dirhams and West European denarii found in graves represent a chance, at least for the first half of the century, to create absolute dated assemblages, the sword and sabre question may shed light on relative chronological relations of the material. Therefore, I shall discuss the second thesis in this paper, presenting a preliminary historical and archaeological critique of the state of research. MILITARY REVOLUTION (REFORM) AND WEAPON CHANGE IN THE 10TH CENTURY Historiography of the thesis Albeit it would make sense to present here a comprehensive overview of the history of research on 10thcentury double-edged swords in the Carpathian Basin 3, a short summary of the main statements of primary importance concerning this topic and their evolution should be sufficient to get a clear picture of the theory in question. Although the origin of the thesis may be traced back to the late 19th- and early 20th-century studies 4, especially in the works of Zoltán Tóth 5, the full concept blossomed out in a never quoted short study written by János Kalmár in 1936 6. Kalmár offered a coherent but simplistic and idealistic view of the relations of sabre and sword by placing them in the general evolution of medieval armour and assuming that they belong to different cultural spheres and thus different warfare and tactics. He demonstrated the distinction of sabre and sword on »ethno-psychological grounds« with the so-called Vienna sabre and the sword of Saint Stephen I in Prague 7: »Der ›Attila-Säbel‹ und das Sankt Stefans-Schwert, diese beiden wichtigsten Zimelien der frühmagyarischen Kriegsgeschichte, stehen im schärfsten Kontrast zueinander. Sie symbolisieren gewissermaßen die beiden Einflußsphären von Ost und West. Der Säbel erinnert an das einstige Steppenvolk, das frank und frei in den endlosen sarmatischen Niederungen irrlichterte; das schwere Pallasch-Schwert dagegen ist die Waffe eines bereits seßhaft gewordenen, ortsverbundenen Volkes. Der Säbel ist die Waffe der persönlichen Tapferkeit und Behendigkeit, der Pallasch die der technischen Überlegenheit. Der Säbel ist ein Produkt der türkischen, der Pallasch jenes der indogermanischen Kultur. Der Säbel ist die Waffe der plötzlich emporlodernden, taktischen Ideen, der Pallasch das Symbol der planmäßig arbeitenden, vorausblickenden Strategie« 8. Although Kalmár’s paper unfortunately escaped the notice of the Hungarian research, three years later his ideas found their way into a short review by Gyula László 9 on Nándor Fettich’s article which deals with the Prague sword 10. What was presented in this marginal note remained until now the most influential approach to the question of the interpretation and chronology of the straight double-edged swords in the Carpathian Basin. It seems that at least the following two major conceptions of Kalmár were integrated into László’s thesis: 192 Á. Bíró · Dating (with) weapon burials and the »Waffenwechsel« 1. that the sabre was inferior and proved unsuccessful against the heavy armour of West European armies, which resulted in the end of the Magyar incursions, and 2. that, with the beginning of the state reform of Saint Stephen I, the sword and new tactics became dominant in the Carpathian Basin. In the end, Kalmár’s original idea, however indirectly, presented the basis which was accepted and repeated later by following scholars who reiterated László’s reasoning, or worse, used it as axiom for further theories and/or chronological statements. Thus, it is necessary to recapitulate László’s main arguments here in order to point out various inherent methodological problems 11: 1. According to László’s thesis, straight double-edged swords were only used by heavy cavalry (so their presence in the archaeological record unambiguously indicates the existence of a western-type heavy cavalry in 10th-century Carpathian Basin), while sabres were instruments exclusively used in the »ancient nomadic« close combat. 2. Thus, László created two artificial archaeological assemblages without any precise definition, labelling them with a simplifying term, such as »Christian« and »pagan«, to deepen the supposed difference with which he degraded the multi-layered, complex past to a rigid, simplified historical narration. 3. In his view, the »ancestral nomadic« equipment and fighting method ensured the successes of the Magyars in the first half of the 10th century, while the superior armament and tactics of their enemies were responsible for the later defeats. It is therefore obvious, as László concludes, that the Magyars had to adopt the military achievements of Christian Europe (i. e. the Ottonian Empire), which is of course the heavy cavalry armed with straight double-edged swords. This newly organised, modern Christian army, which became later the core of the regular army of the Hungarian kingdom, was put to use for suppressing pagan tribes who rebelled against the rule of Géza and his successor Saint Stephen I at the end of the 10th century. As I already mentioned, serious methodological problems can be identified in this train of thought. Not only the unconditional linking of certain weapons with certain combat tactics seems to be doubtful 12, but also the main characteristic of László’s concept is misleading: a historical theory is used as a rigid, restricted interpretation of the archaeological material which in turn determines the date of swords exclusively to the late 10th century. Since the theory was easily explainable within Marxist historical materialism, the idea had a deep effect on the Hungarian historical research as well, authorising it thus to spread the belief of a private, western-style (feudalistic) heavy cavalry in the service of Géza and Saint Stephen I 13. At the same time, the lively and rapidly developing historical military debate (starting in the late 1870s) on the possible reconstruction of the Magyar tactics, which otherwise had strong connections to the triumphant, noble historical view of the zeitgeist, came to a halt after World War II. As a result, László’s rough sketch became, due to his determinant role in research, a solid base for later investigations 14. Moreover, his artistic representations of the supposed essential difference between the Ottonian and the Hungarian warfare made his approach very popular, also outside academic circles (fig. 1). Neither could the following scholars escape the convincing simplicity of László’s idea 15, while they developed the concept to a universal historical hypothesis, using more or less detailed archaeological analyses 16. Kornél Bakay, one of László’s students, was the first to manage an exhaustive archaeological analysis of straight double-edged swords from the Carpathian Basin 17, but his conclusions and results were guided by his professor’s view on the early state formation process of the Hungarian kingdom. Thus, as the main concept remained basically historical, the arguments and reasons applied often lacked archaeological evidence or, which is worse, the archaeological evidence was intentionally treated inferior. Bakay himself clearly chose this approach by stressing that the importance of the supposed social and economical transformation (i. e. the state formation process) at the end of the 10th century determines the chronology of the Die Archäologie der frühen Ungarn 193 Fig. 1 The nature of the Magyar-Ottonian battle. – (After László 1982, 29). swords in question, which aspect is superior to their typological and relative chronological relations. In his own words: »Bereits hier möchte ich betonen, dass die Chronologie der zweischneidigen Schwerter in erster Linie eigentlich durch die oben geschilderte wirtschaftlich-gesellschaftliche Umwandlung bestimmt ist. Der typologische Vergleich dient demnach bloß als Ergänzung« 18. Furthermore, the pioneering thought to compare the efficiency of the sword and the sabre with the aid of modeling was invented only to prove László’s (and originally Kalmár’s) premise, i. e. that the sword was a more »successful weapon« than the sabre. However, Bakay’s detailed calculations of the superiority of the straight double-edged sword when compared to the sabre led to the mystification of the sword as a wonder weapon (»Wunderwaffe«) in the Hungarian archaeological research. Although a more detailed archaeological explanation was now presented, from those historians who slowly became the most influential historians of the 10th-11th centuries only György Györffy accepted and integrated the idea of the »regular elite army« consisting of heavy cavalry units organised by Géza and Saint Stephen I into his comprehensive work on the state formation process 19. Others, like József Gerics, simply evaded the discussion of the topic 20, while Gyula Kristó, instead of acknowledging the military revolution as a historical fact, treated the end of the military campaigns in Europe and the battle at the Lech only as an important internal and foreign policy affair – nothing more 21. Kristó alone had proposed a short critique from the historian’s viewpoint: are archaeology and archaeological material competent to discuss and determine historical theories concerning politico-historical questions 22? However, Bakay’s work proved to be so overwhelmingly convincing that not only the leading Hungarian archaeologists 23, but even Slovakian 24 and Romanian scholars acknowledged his main conclusions 25. Radu Robert Heitel even treated the Transylvanian double-edged swords and sword chapes as evidence that would draw the march route of the army of Saint Stephen I which conquered the regnum regis Iulii/Prokui in the year 1003 according to the Annales Hildesheimenses 26. 194 Á. Bíró · Dating (with) weapon burials and the »Waffenwechsel« In turn, the archaeologist László Kovács took up the challenge to give a more proper archaeological explanation of the historical thesis. Although he assembled a whole catalogue on the subject of source-critical problems of the double-edged swords 27, filtering out many ill-dated artefacts, his whole evaluation, regrettably, was never published in its entirety. Nevertheless, his conception of an all-embracing simplified military revolution, dating from 955, rapidly became fundamental. With his theory, in contrast to Bakay, Kovács returned to the original notion of László (and Kalmár), i. e. the necessary weapon change (»Waffenwechsel«) as a logical result of the »military shock« generated by the defeats in the European theatre of war 28. However, Kovács failed to give a convincing demonstration, since his exclusive and at times subjective conclusions were drawn on the basis of a limited amount of numismatic material available 29. A rather new phenomenon of the late 1990s is the appearance of some historical military papers 30 which mark a new dawn of interest in the theme after the long silence from the potential third party of the debate. Unfortunately, this research did not continue the traditions of the former historical military discussion but, apart from its useful practical viewpoint, endeavoured only to describe and realise the above-mentioned hypothesis from the viewpoint of the modern military terminology. There has been only one archaeological approach to the double-edged swords in the 10th-century Carpathian Basin which did not originate from László’s school. Mechthild Schulze-Dörrlamm attempted to analyse their chronological position apart from the historical approach of the Hungarian research and to fit them into her absolute chronological system. This was based on the chronological diversities and different origins of the dirham and denar material of the first half of the 10th century. Schulze-Dörrlamm’s phase I (896-925) and phase II (926-950/70) comprised the so-called »altmagyarischer Formenkreis« group in the former chronology of Jochen Giesler. The two phases were differentiated in their geographical distribution as well. Since the topography of the double-edged swords seemed to resemble that of phase II, as SchulzeDörrlamm concludes, the swords belong to the second quarter of the century 31. Although these phases appear to be overly artificial and, moreover, their projection or application to the whole of the material is at least problematic 32, her critical note on Bakay’s conception is more than appropriate: »Die Übernahme dieser neuen Hiebwaffe und damit zugleich auch einer anderen Kampftechnik durch die Ungarn hat demnach nichts mit dem ›Fürstenheer‹ des Fürsten Geza (972-997) zu tun, wie es Bakay vermutete, sondern dürfte eine Reaktion auf die Erfahrungen bei den Kämpfen in Deutschland und Italien gewesen sein« 33. However, we must be aware that Schulze-Dörrlamm did not query the »Waffenwechsel« itself, but only presented a third option for the historical explanation of the presence of such swords thought to be alien in the archaeological material of the Magyars. As a conclusion of my preliminary thoughts on the historiography concerning the chronological problems and interpretation of 10th-century straight double-edged swords found in the Carpathian Basin, I find the following thoughts of Bernard Sebastian Bachrach astonishingly sound, also in light of the situation of the Hungarian research: »In what has amounted to a highly romanticized search for the origins of chivalry, scholars have for too long ignored the balance of the evidence, focused upon bits and pieces of inconclusive data, and magnified the importance of these to help create a flawed picture of warfare in the early Middle Ages« 34. Methodological problems of the thesis – reconsidering swords While sketching the main points of the former research, three major approaches took shape, each based on the idea that the straight double-edged swords are new phenomena in the otherwise homogeneous »nomadic« material culture of the 10th-century Carpathian Basin. This was clarified by a change in warfare and military equipment taking place in the second quarter, in the middle or in the third quarter of the cen- Die Archäologie der frühen Ungarn 195 tury, either due to the experience of the campaigns in Europe or to the politico-military shock of the battle at the Lech, or thanks to the state formation process. These theories all emphasise a crucial difference between the sabre and the straight double-edged sword which significantly affected or altered the warfare and tactics of the Magyars during the 10th century. Thus, we have seen a far-reaching theory changing over time, set off by Kalmár as early as 1936, which explains the origin of the so-called Viking swords, the politico-social and military status they were thought to indicate and the historical context they created or in which they acted. When we take a closer look at the main arguments of this chain of thought, many will arouse our interest and hence induce a profound examination, since they indicate serious methodological problems. I shall discuss these in the following, separated on the basis of the character of their reasoning, be it principally (military) historical or archaeological. Historical arguments and notes First of all, it is worth noting that the concept of the supposed military reform and the creation or presence of a heavy cavalry in 10th-century Hungary is completely without any written evidence or proof. Not a single historical information, not any contemporary literary account shows any trace of either the establishment or organisation of a new army or of the central distribution of swords or other military equipment to Hungarian soldiers. We do not even have a text that would at least indirectly refer to the army or retinue of dux Géza and Saint Stephen I, such as e. g. the account of Thietmar of Merseburg on the 300 armoured, but not by all means mounted warriors (trecentis militibus loricatis) possibly serving as part of the personal retinue or guard of dux Bolesław I Chrobry (Chronicon Thietmari IV.46) before they were given as a present to Otto II 35. Our only contemporary source that mentions military affairs is the founding document of the monastery at Pannonhalma 36. Although the diploma’s account on the war between the Germans and Hungarians and the civil war known in more detail from later sources is almost meaningless and highly ambiguous 37, it was associated with the supposed German origin of the duces »Poznano«, »Cuntio« and »Orzio«. This proved to be well enough for a theory of a strong Ottonian or German (military) influence in the court of the late Géza and young »Waic«/Stephen, and to attribute these duces a decisive role on the battlefield during the suppression of the revolt of Koppány 38. In the later traditions of medieval Hungarian chronicles, they became the personal bodyguards of Saint Stephen I and generals of his army 39, and – as a consequence in modern historical research – the possible disseminators of heavy cavalry, the organisers of the new Christian regular army 40. Apart from the problematic interpretation of this diploma, from the total range of contemporary sources only five articles in the codes of Saint Stephen I provide useful information by dealing, to some extent, with military affairs and by mentioning the sword. The first article judges those who draw a sword (»de evaginatione gladii«) with the aim of injury to be killed by the same sword (I/16). The second one rules the same sentence for the case of murder with a sword (II/12), the third declares the »an eye for an eye« principle for maiming with a sword (II/13), while the fourth determines the fee that should be paid to a victim that recovers from a wound by a sword (II/16). The last article deals with the case of drawing a sword in rage without wounding (II/17) 41. Each article uses the word gladius, but does not go into details about the weapon like e. g. the famous »Waltharius« poem 42; hence it is not possible to correlate the archaeological material with the written evidence. What is interesting, however, is that Stephen’s laws do not mention the famous missile of the Magyars, the bow and arrow – although their dominating presence in the burial material would indicate a high importance 43. In contrast: the many articles dealing with the crimes committed specifically with the sword, especially in the second book of Saint Stephen I where they make up 196 Á. Bíró · Dating (with) weapon burials and the »Waffenwechsel« almost one fifth of the total number of articles, may refer to a very common phenomenon in the society. Personal violence must have been a widespread practice for reducing social tensions in a changing society. It is of great importance that this symptom of solving social problems with fighting, and after all with violence and murder, became manifest in close combat fought with gladii, swords or sabres. This, as a final result, indirectly but unambiguously speaks of a tradition and preference of experiencing fight and combat from up close – provided that these articles are not artificial adoptions of West European laws. In that way or another, none of the quoted written sources serves as a firm base for a theory of a (new) regular army whose core consists of heavy cavalry. Furthermore, the theory constructed upon these dubious sources cannot apply to the dating of archaeological assemblages as a determining fact. What we know for sure is that one of the different strata of the society called milites – witnessed in the laws of Saint Stephen I – may be connected with somewhat regular, perhaps professional military services 44. Thus I do not reject the possibility of a more or less regular army at the time of the first Hungarian rex, since it is obvious that a determined political will with a strong military base, an army or at least a large retinue is the precondition of state formation 45. I only suggest that, in the case of the early Hungarian state formation, neither written sources nor archaeological data, as will be seen later, provide us with any useful and unambiguous information on how that army could have looked like. But we must not rely solely on the argumentum ex silentio, since this false reasoning was frequently done by the former research. Other contradictions emerge when we take into account the possible existence of a military reform or revolution within the framework of early medieval Europe. The concept may have its roots in the 19th- and early 20th-century European idea that describes and explains military affairs being highly dependent on the quality of the military equipment. However, this was a legitimate phenomenon in the world of mass armies and an unbelievably quick progress in military techniques like artillery. Thus the creators of this concept simply projected the military idea of the time of Delbrück and von Clausewitz back to early medieval times. Therefore, the idea of a military revolution is mostly anachronistic in 10th-century Europe. Nevertheless, this approach was not only prevalent in the Hungarian scholarship of the 20th century – the symptom appeared in the German historical tradition as well. One may find Karl Leyser’s thoughts on the Saxon military revolution at the time of Henry I (919-936) and Otto I (936-973) closely related to the Hungarian example. Leyser stated that the creation of a heavily armoured cavalry (armati, loricati) was the key to the military and political success of the Ottonian dynasty. According to him, after 933, the Ottonian heavy cavalry dominated the battles in the field 46. When Leyser published his theory in its entirety first in 1968, he had already exploited, three years earlier, the assumed fundamental differences in the armament of the Magyar and Ottonian troops in his interpretation of the battle at the Lech in 955. Leyser’s main point was to emphasise the effectiveness of the Ottonian armament, in particular of the »heavier sword«, over their Magyar counterparts: »In close quarter fighting with spears and especially swords the great majority of the Hungarians had no chance against the heavier arms and the much better protective equipment of their opponents« 47. Leyser’s belief that the outcome of the battle is to be explained by the differences in arms and armour, and thus in tactics, was so firm that he treated the locus »Superamur, scio, multitudine, sed non virtute, sed non armis. Maxima enim ex parte nudos illos armis omnibus penitus cognovimus« of Widukind in his »Res Gestae Saxonicae« (III, XLVI) as proof for the decisive disparity 48. According to him, the text should be interpreted in the following way: »In Widukind it was virtus and, as shall be seen, better weapons which overcame superior numbers [at the battle of Lechfeld]«. The latter half of the quotation should be understood as the Magyars having a shortage of »offensive but also defensive weapons« including »shields, iron helmets and above all hauberks« 49. However, we may try to specify the meaning and context of the locus more precisely. Contrary to Leyser’s opinion, Widukind stated in the former sentence that the Ottonian Die Archäologie der frühen Ungarn 197 army is inferior to the Magyars – not in arms or virtue, but in numbers. Since the factors and circumstances that do determine the process and final result of a battle in the field are obviously more than just the pure number, the armament and the virtus of the opposing forces, we may see Widukind’s first statement of the comparison rather as a comment that proves the value of the Ottonian army. While the latter, highly ambiguous sentence – which can be used to determine the Magyar army as light cavalry, wearing no armour – may also indicate that the percentage of Magyar warriors equipped with defensive armament was lower than that of the Ottonian soldiers in general. On the other hand, a serious methodological problem occurs when we take a closer look at the whole text. First of all, it must be noted that the comparison of the two armies, i. e. the quoted text of Widukind, is only a short part of the perhaps fictional encouraging speech of rex Otto I who addressed his fellow soldiers right before the battle 50. The whole speech consists of typical phrases concerning general topics that aim at reassuring the soldiers of their strength and of their hope that they could win the battle. These phrases are so simplified that we may suppose without exaggeration that this speech could have been delivered in every battlefield during the pre-modern period. In the context of such a pre-battle speech, every statement gains an additional sense of encouragement: heroism, past victories, danger, fictitious or real advantages etc. are mentioned in order to strengthen the dubious and those filled with fear 51 – fear of a punishment that will surely follow in the case of flight or desertation, and fear of death in the battle itself 52. Addressing the enemy’s armour in a battle speech, either in a positive or a negative way, is so trivial and self-evident that it even appears in the famous movie with Kevin Costner: »Robin Hood – Prince of Thieves« 53. But let us return to Widukind himself and do not reject his opinion when he clearly states in the continuation of the above-quoted text that »et quod maximi est nobis solatii, auxilio Dei« 54: thus the main difference between the two armies was the faith in Christ. Whether such a speech could have been given by Otto I or not (due to natural physical communication difficulties), whether it is an original battle speech or only a fiction of the author 55 – it should be concluded that Widukind does not allow us to draw such exact conclusions as Leyser did on the armament of the entire opposing forces. Consequently, it seems that, in parallel with the theory of László and Bakay, the German research also developed the idea of superiority of the double-edged straight sword – in connection with (what is more important) the supposed dominance of the heavy cavalry on the battlefields. Leyser’s main thesis was actually only the application of a former historical notion to the cases of Charles Martel, Pippin and Charlemagne. However, Bachrach’s in-depth studies convincingly proved that neither the thesis of a Carolingian nor of an Ottonian military revolution is true; instead they should rather be treated as myths 56. He established in many articles that early medieval wars were aimed at the conquest of the enemy’s territory by besieging and controlling fortifications. This resulted in the fact that the nature of early medieval warfare was dominated by sieges and hence infantry fight, while »mounted shock combat was a minor aspect even in the rare battles in the field that were fought throughout the pre-crusading Europe« 57. Instead of performing frontal attacks that usually failed and caused disastrous disorganisation and loss of battle, the early medieval European cavalry in the 9th-11th centuries were to perform multifunctional tasks with their mostly light weaponry. The tactically reasonable use of cavalry consisted of feigned retreats, flanking attacks and leaving them as a (hidden) reverse against a probable encirclement by the enemy. They were often even ordered to dismount and engage in the battle on foot 58. A similar picture is emerging from the battle and duel descriptions of the »Waltharius« poem whose author shows a remarkable interest in weaponry and realistic fighting 59. It seems that the »Waltharius« is the only early medieval narrative source that deals with military affairs to an extent that allows us to draw conclusions regarding battlefield tactics and duel techniques – if we take the poem as a more or less authentic account on European warfare of the late 9th and 10th centuries. What is important here is that the battle description (lines 180-207, especially 182-195) 60 does not mention the presence of heavy cavalry, but 198 Á. Bíró · Dating (with) weapon burials and the »Waffenwechsel« instead gives a carefully detailed picture of opposing troops standing very close, a long-lasting missile fight of throwing spears and some archery, and then the clash of the battle lines in the chaos of close combat. It should be made clear that in this description the course of the battle consists of two equal parts, the skirmish and the close combat. Since the opposing troops are only at a »throwing spear« distance of approx. 30 m, max. 50 m apart from one another, the possibility of a heavy cavalry charge is excluded. Though the author mentions cavalry fight as well, it is ambiguous if they were heavily armoured 61; only shields (umbo) are mentioned. The same process is visible in every duel in the »Waltharius«: the fights start with throwing spears (archery is only involved in one case) and end up with a close combat using spear-shield or swordshield combinations on foot. Even if we are wrong in taking the written sources at face value, the main question that lies in the heart of the investigation proves to be the toughest to answer: What kind of cavalry may one call heavy? And what are its major distinctive features? It is clear that the term was first invented for and applied to the mounted knights of the High Middle Ages, whose armour slowly developed into sophisticated and specialised full plate constructions. But isn’t it wrong to desperately seek and suppose a similar case in the Early Middle Ages? In an attempt to understand early medieval cavalry in its own past reality, a more flexible approach is needed. In my opinion, the terms »light« and »heavy« are highly relative and work well only in standard comparisons regarding equipment. On the other hand, contrary to the armament, the assigned or unintentionally performed operations against certain enemy units during a battle should be seen as the most important factor that may determine the (momentary) battlefield role, i. e. the tactical classification of the cavalry unit in question. Thus »light« and »heavy« should only be used in clear cases when written sources permit the scholar to give a detailed picture of the battle. In such ideal conditions, different cavalry »units« may be compared to each other or to infantry, for reasons of differences in their armament, their assigned tasks and fulfilled operations on the basis of their momentum and results, to finally address them with attributes like »light« and »heavy«. Bearing in mind the complicated nature and multi-layered process of battles in general and the commonly laconic conditions of contemporary written sources, one may assume that only probable, but no exact definitions are to be expected. However, it is not my duty to give an analysis of early medieval European cavalry here; I only point out the problem; detailed studies will hopefully follow for the 10th-11th centuries as well 62. When looking for a contemporary military unit that might be rightly titled as heavy cavalry, one has to turn to Byzantium. According to the »Sylloge Tacticorum« (c. 950) and the »Praecepta Militaria« (c. 965), as well as to later sources, the task of the middle Byzantine kataphraktoi was to crush the middle of the enemy battle lines with a single, decisive charge 63. Their position within the general Byzantine battle order denotes their remarkable importance: the offensive part of a full middle Byzantine army was organised around the kataphraktoi 64 forming a wedge in the Byzantine centre 65. The Byzantines were to achieve victory by this main charge that began immediately after the skirmish of the prokoursatores 66. The detailed description of their armament in the »Sylloge Tacticorum« and the »Praecepta Militaria« 67 clearly indicates that not only the kataphraktos but also his horse was protected by armour (klibanion, kremasmata, epilorikion etc. for the mounted and the various carapaces for the horse) of the best quality 68. Thus the kataphraktoi fulfil the major requirements that would make a unit of mounted soldiers heavy cavalry in theory: first of all the specialised battlefield task that was officially attributed to them, and secondly their centrally organised supply with the appropriate armament to successfully perform their duty. Drawing conclusions is at least highly risky in the absence of a complete survey of all relevant texts and former research concerning the problem of 10th century heavy cavalry. In spite of the fact that the rigid efforts of describing cavalry with abstract definitions of tactical classifications seem to be outdated, I have to deal with the term »heavy cavalry« in this paper in order to ascertain the probability of the thesis of the Hun- Die Archäologie der frühen Ungarn 199 garian military reform. In this sense, it may not be exaggerated and is reasonable to conclude that heavy cavalry with a shock-delivering, decisive role did not really exist on the battlefields of Western and Central Europe in the 10th century – considering Bachrach’s negative opinion on Leyser’s Saxon military reform and heavy cavalry. According to this conception, the supposed Hungarian military reform of establishing a heavy cavalry that served as basis for the state formation should also be considered, at least preliminary, a myth. Archaeological arguments, methods and sources Much should and could be said concerning the absolute chronology of swords and the supposed weapon change from the archaeologist’s point of view. In this paper, I will only concentrate on the main methodological problems of the thesis (fig. 2). Much ink has been spilt over the question of understanding burials in general and the foremost interest: the question of warrior or soldier graves presents similar difficulties in evaluating weapon burials. Since the early 1990s, a new approach claims that the interpretation of weapon burials is not independent from intentional factors that changed and created the burial, while paleoanthropological and paleopathological data are to be reckoned with in particular 69. Gender studies concerning this topic have reached a notable success in Anglo-Saxon archaeology 70. A clear distinction must be made between weapon burials (»Waffengräber«) and warrior graves (»Kriegergräber«) identified by anthropological means. In the light of recent research, the primary objective is to determine if the men buried with weapons, primarily with straight double-edged swords in the 10th-century Carpathian Basin, were participants in military affairs or not. Hopefully, the planned anthropological research within the ongoing project will result in appropriate information that can be compared with the archaeological data. However, now we are forced to only make use of the archaeological evidence – which may prove or negate the thesis we are dealing with. The archaeological identification of pure military matters, like tactics, army or military organisation, is more problematic, in particular when only grave material is at disposal. Hence, numerous methodological objections should be made in the case of linking specific fighting methods or tactics with certain weapons. In theory, it is obvious that throughout human history, on every technical level exists an assembly of armour and weapons, which fits best a specific battlefield role. However, equipping an army with different assemblies of armaments requires an enormous financial investment, a well-balanced economy and armourer industry, and – last but not least – a sophisticated military science. None of that was at the disposal of the 10th-century European states and pre-states, with the exception of Byzantium. On the other hand, the concept of armies divided into troops with unified armaments and different battlefield duties is the idea of the early modern and modern period and of 19th-century military scholarship. Such uniformity in armament and fighting ability may have been dominant in Byzantium, and at least tendentious in Europe in the small number of elite troops, namely within the small circle of bodyguards and those who possessed a high social and/or military status. Treating the straight double-edged swords as exclusive markers of heavy cavalry is extremely challenging, especially when one takes into account that battlefield roles may be accomFig. 2 Main arguments determining the hypothesis. – (Drawing and digital processing Á. Bíró). plished with different armaments and are 200 Á. Bíró · Dating (with) weapon burials and the »Waffenwechsel« therefore only indirectly and idealistically linked to a certain armament type. Since the so-called »stirrup thesis«, which otherwise had a much greater effect on medieval military historiography than the »sword thesis«, at last proved to be untenable 71, it seems more and more obvious that, as far as one can judge from the archaeological evidence and historical records with the aid of physics and simple logic, the pure connection of tactics and military technology in a continental European early medieval context is a paradox. The best contemporary argument for this is the case of the above-mentioned Byzantine kataphraktos who was armed with two or more close combat weapons: a spathion on a baldric, a paramerion and several siderorabdia (iron maces) fastened to the saddle (according to the »Sylloge Tacticorum«) 72. The spathion is identified as a double-edged straight sword, while the explanation of the paramerion is more complicated. The term paramerion appeared in general use in the late 9th and early 10th century and means literally »(something held) by the thigh« 73. John Haldon assumed that the main difference between the ordinary sword and the paramerion is the way they were worn: the former being carried on a baldric, while the latter hung from a waist-belt 74. However, the difference in form is more remarkable; the paramerion is usually regarded as a straight single-edged sword according to the description in Leo VI’s »Tactica« and in the »Sylloge Tacticorum« 75. Albeit the recent translation of the »Tactica« is consistent in understanding it as a dagger 76, a closer look at Leo VI’s text helps to specify what kind of weapon one shall understand by the term. The locus »παραμήρια, μαχαίρας μεγάλας μονοστόμους« (»Tactica« 5 §2.17) could be a simple enumeration without any further logical connection between the parameria and the single-edged great daggers, as the mention of »παραμήρια ήτοι μαχαίρας« (6 §2.19). In contrast, two other loci (6 §26.167; 6 §30.198) clearly indicate that the word was used as an adverb and adjective as well. Therefore it is quite probable that the author attempted to explain the term paramerion when it first appeared in the text (5 §2.17) and that the locus should be translated as »parameria, i. e. large single-edged daggers«. Since the author of the »Sylloge Tacticorum« repeatedly uses the term paramerion as well, but most importantly confirms twice that single-edged swords (monostomon and heterestomon xiphos) were called parameria (»παραμήρια ξίφη δηλαδὴ ἑτερόστομα« [38 §5.18] and »μονόστομα ξίφη … ἃ δή ϰαί παραμήρια λέγονται« [39 §2.12-13]) 77 and at the same time states in the latter locus that the length of a paramerion and a spathion are equal 78, one is surely not facing a dagger here; the expression »great dagger« in the »Tactica« may rather mean that the paramerion is a dagger-like weapon in its form, but bigger. From this one might infer a straight blade, contrary to the opinion of Haldon who proposed that the paramerion is the slightly curved single-edged sabre 79. Piotr Ł. Grotowski most recently summarised the state of research and defined the paramerion as a single-edged broadsword 80. According to him, the paramerion would be, with the fancy word of the Slavic research, the palash – a predecessor of the sabre. Although it does not seem proper to name a weapon by an anachronistic term of unknown origin and etymology, and the characterisation of obviously contemporaneous types of weaponry by their hypothetical relative typological relation is also not an indisputable method, Grotowski correctly concludes that »one must be careful seeing the paramerion as a sabre« 81. A similar view was expressed by Maria G. Parani who was the first to draw attention to the fact that neither Leo VI’s »Tactica« nor the »Sylloge Tacticorum« or the »Praecepta Militaria« mention the curve of the blade 82. Parani also emphasised that no middle Byzantine depiction of a sword with a curved blade exists 83. Although there are some uncertainties concerning the modern definition of the sabre, one may consider the curve of the blade as a major attribute that distinguishes the sabre from other single- and double-edged swords. The division of swords into three main types according to the form and construction of the blades is supported by the archaeological material unearthed in the periphery of the Byzantine Empire; not only straight double-edged and curved single-edged, but also straight single-edged weapons are present in the Carpathian Basin (fig. 3) and in Bulgaria as well 84. With the exception of József Hampel’s early remarks 85, such swords were regarded as sabres by the Hungarian research Die Archäologie der frühen Ungarn 201 Fig. 3 Some of the straight singleedged swords in the Carpathian Basin: 1 Biharkeresztes, Vasútállomás (Hajdú-Bihar county/H) grave 1. – 2 Zemianska Olča (Hung. Nemesócsa; Komárno dist./SK) grave 7. – 3 CsongrádVendelhalom (Csongrád county/H) grave 4/1955. – 4 Szob-Vendelin (Pest county/H) grave 51. – (Drawings L. Kovács; digital processing Á. Bíró). without recognising their disparity, although other hybrid forms were noticed but not studied thoroughly (fig. 4) 86. It seems that no certain archaeological, pictorial or written evidence testifies the use of the sabre, i. e. the curved single-(false)edged sword, in 10th-century Byzantium – there is only evidence of the other two of the three basic blade types shortly defined above. The importance of the differentiation between straight single-edged and straight double-edged swords is also further attested by pictorial sources. For instance, one may recognise the sword that the third foot soldier in the procession of the Forty Martyrs of Sebastea holds in his hand on the fresco in the Güvercinlik (dovecote) church in Çavuşin (Cappadocia) in Turkey dated to 963-969 as straight and single-edged, in contrast to the double-edged swords of the first two soldiers on foot 87. The fresco is so detailed that even the fuller or rhombic section of the double-edged blades is clearly visible. The two types of blades differ not only in their points (that determine the number of their edges) but also in their width; the single-edged one is almost half as wide as the double-edged. It seems reasonable to assume that the painter of the scene was well aware of the variations and main characteristics of the different swords and endeavoured to give highly detailed, realistic depictions of them. If we are right in identifying the paramerion as a straight single-edged sword, it should be noted that it is closer in its construction and weight and thus in its possible original function to the sabre than to the 202 Á. Bíró · Dating (with) weapon burials and the »Waffenwechsel« Fig. 4 The Szentbékkálla hybrid sword. – (Photo and digital processing Á. Bíró). straight double-edged sword. Since the former is usually interpreted as a special light cavalry weapon and the latter as a heavy cavalry or heavy infantry weapon, one may ask why the Byzantine super-heavy cavalry was equipped with a »light« sword akin to the sabre. The answer is simple: neither is the sabre an exclusively light cavalry weapon, nor is the straight double-edged sword a typical heavy cavalry weapon. Both arms can be used in other tactical formations as well. To sum up: an armament type does not solely determine the tactics and thus the success or defeat of a soldier or an army. Even if we bona fide prescind from the above-mentioned methodological problems inherent in the interpretation of graves and weapon burials in general, the archaeological material should show features that would unambiguously refer to heavily armed mounted fighters. Therefore we may expect these Magyar burials with double-edged swords to be furnished with objects that relate to riding, mounted fight and »heavy« armament, first of all including armour. On the other hand, we may not overestimate the fact that no sign of any armour has been recovered from Magyar graves 88, since the appearance of armour, chain mail and helmet is extremely rare not only in 10th-century burials 89 but throughout the Early Middle Ages. The total absence of shield bosses in the 10th- and 11th-century Carpathian Basin is more remarkable 90, compared to the Carolingian and Ottonian case. Although they are neither frequent in contemporary West European archaeological material 91, pictorial evidence and written sources indicate that the shield was a most basic element in the equipment of Carolingian and Ottonian soldiers 92. Consequently, further research should concentrate on the types and small diversities in the buried riding gear with the intention of differentiating between various riding techniques 93. This might serve as a basis for distinguishing »heavy cavalry burials«, even though I particularly doubt the existence of 10th-century heavy cavalry and even more its archaeological markers. Let us now turn towards the superiority and mystification of the straight double-edged sword. Due to Bakay’s physical analysis 94, which without exception fully persuaded Hungarian scholars, the myth of the sword being a weapon twice as powerful and effective than the sabre spread and became an axiom. However, Bakay’s calculations concerning the torque (»Drehkraft«) of the sabre and the sword are overly simplified and hardly prove more than the fact that if a smaller and a bigger apple is thrown at you, the bigger one hurts more. Actually, his point was already lost when he chose the torque and not the mechanic or kinetic energy as the aim of his calculations. Not only his physical model (let the weapon fall to the ground with its point first) fails to model the handling of these weapons in combat, but he also simplified Die Archäologie der frühen Ungarn 203 204 Á. Bíró · Dating (with) weapon burials and the »Waffenwechsel« Fig. 5 Bakay’s vectorial depiction of the model and the corrected versions, using the same simplifications: 1-2 The original vectorial depiction (for abbreviations see Bakay 1967, 143). – 3 General depiction of the vector product of the force vector (F) and the lever arm vector (r); equal to the torque (T). – 4-5 Corrected vectorial depiction of the Bakay-model for the sabre (4) and the sword (5); according to Fig. 5/3; when »h« is the hilt, »r« is the blade, »P« is the point of the blade reaching the »ground« at »S« due to the force »F« i. e. gravity in the Bakay-model (the vectors of the torque are not illustrated, since they are perpendicular to both of the vectors). – (1-2 after Bakay 1967, 143 fig. 16, 1-2; 3-5 drawing and digital processing B. Bíró). the characteristics of the two weapons to the highest degree and used false data, like the weight of the sabre, etc. Furthermore, besides applying a simplified physical formula and making smaller algebraic mistakes, Bakay’s vectorial depiction of the physical model 95 is as deficient and confused as his calculations are inaccurate (fig. 5) 96. The fact that yet no attempt has been made to recalculate his calculations and that his results and the concept of a miraculous weapon of the 10th century were easily accepted clearly shows the isolation of Magyar studies and the deficiency of the Hungarian research in archaeological theory and methodology 97. It is interesting that the superiority of the double-edged sword to the sabre also occurred in the international research: in a short description of a picture, Nicolle stated that the Magyar sabre was »essentially a light cavalry weapon, unlike the heavier armour-breaking swords of western Europe 98«. However, it is obvious that neither the sabre nor the double-edged sword is a »better« or »more powerful« and »effective« weapon or more capable of breaking armour than the other. What kind of armour, penetration, etc. are we talking about anyway? Such questions of efficiency and possible function of certain weapon types are not to be answered without a thorough experimental archaeological research, and even then, we would still only be dealing with idealistic, clear, measurable situations, not corresponding to real combat situations 99. On the other hand, one main difference between the two weapons might be declared: one may suppose that the sword is as good as an infantry weapon as for cavalry purposes, while the sabre is in all probability especially designed for cavalry combat, due to its slightly curved blade and to the so-called elman (double-edged point or false edge) which allows an easier stabbing 100. Of course this does not mean that it is an inferior weapon to the sword in any combat situation or when facing an opponent with »heavier« armour in the heat and chaos of a battle. The entirety of the military equipment is only one of the many factors that together form the course of the battle. Using only one piece of the armament for calculations and treating the »result« as an absolute determinant reason is highly misleading. It is conceivable that duels and small-scale fights were quite another matter 101, where personal abilities, skills and differences in weaponry and armour of the opposers could have decided between life and death. In such a context, various types of arms might be seen as inferior or superior – but only for the moment and in a relative sense. We actually do not even know what a duel was like in the 10th century. There are only faint traces of a highly sophisticated fencing that was present in Byzantium 102, but it is not clear whether it was used in real combat situations or only in simple duels. Otherwise this knowledge must have been restricted to Byzantium (and perhaps to the Muslim world) in the 10th century, while its spread to Europe may have only started with the first crusades. The last argument of the Hungarian hypothesis on the military reform is the supposed exclusive western origin of straight double-edged swords. Taking a quick look at the distribution maps of »Viking swords« in the 10th-11th centuries, we find that they are, not surprisingly, spread all over Europe. Such swords are present on the British Isles, in Scandinavia, the Baltic, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Austria, Bohemia, Slovakia, Romania, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and eventually on the North Balkan Peninsula 103. It has been recently established that »Viking type« scabbard chapes and straight double-edged swords were current in contemporary Bulgaria as well 104. Due to the long-lasting absence of middle Byzantine archaeological evidence concerning military equipment in the territory of Byzantium, the question of the presence of swords of the so-called Viking, Norman, Carolingian, Ottonian etc. type in Byzantium, before the organisation of the Varangian Guard, could be only linked to the involvement of the Rus’ in Byzantine military operations and service 105. The argument behind this idea is that such swords are usually considered ethnical markers of warriors of Scandinavian origin or from the Rus’, and thus vice versa the presence of such mercenaries should indicate the usage of Viking swords 106. On the other hand, the thesis of a 9th- and 10thcentury trade with swords (»Schwerthandel«) founded at the beginning of the past century points towards another explanation 107. Contemporary Muslim written sources confirm that the Muslim world was well Die Archäologie der frühen Ungarn 205 aware of the European swords and their quality and point to an extremely extended trade – across the Rus’ and Volga Bulgaria, the appreciated western swords also reached the Arab world 108. Ada Bruhn Hoffmeyer even assumed that Constantinople and Byzantium must have played an important mediator role in this trade, providing both production and a consumer market 109. As opposed to the written evidence, the archaeological testimony of the early medieval weapon trade is rather doubtful, and modern studies concentrate on local products, inscriptions and pattern-welded blades 110 instead of on the former tradition of mainly evaluating distribution maps 111, since comparative metallurgical research is still scarce 112. In short, commerce cannot be excluded as a possible reason for the wide distribution of »Viking swords«. Either way, an unusually realistic and detailed depiction sheds some light on the popularity of »Viking swords« in Byzantium. On the wing panels of the late 10th-/early 11th-century Forty Martyrs triptych in the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, among others, eight saints are represented 113. Three saints carry swords in their hands, one of whom, St. Theodore Stratelates on the right wing panel, holds a sheathed, straight doubleedged sword. The hilt of the sword is precisely identical with type Petersen H 114; even the circumvolution of the tang with wires, a characteristic of »Viking swords«, is clearly visible. In addition, the recent discovery of a type Petersen M straight double-edged sword 115 found in an early 11th-century Byzantine house in Yumuktepe (Cilicia/TR) 116 does not only denote the first solid archaeological evidence indicating »Viking swords« in Byzantium 117, but the location of the site clearly shows how far such weapons could have travelled by trade – provided that it is not a late 11th-century crusader sword. The wide-spread occurrence and the possibility of a weapon trade thus makes it possible to show the origin of 10th-11th-century straight double-edged (Viking) swords found in the Carpathian Basin from each points of the compass: from the West (Christian Europe); the North (Poland, Scandinavia); the East (Kievan Rus’) and from the South (Bulgaria and Byzantium) 118. CLOSING REMARKS Fortunately we have the opportunity to compare the archaeological part of the Hungarian thesis with other European arguments concerning the material evidence of military affairs. Among the many state formation processes that took place in the 9th-11th centuries in North, Central and East Europe on the periphery of the Carolingian and Ottonian Empire, the Polish and Danish issues show similarities with the Hungarian idea. In 10th-century Denmark, a new burial rite emerged, marked by the presence of riding gear and weapons in the graves. On the basis of their special geographical distribution and chronological limitation, Klaus Randsborg proposed that these »heavy cavalry graves«, situated within a semicircle with a radius of ca. 100-120 km around the royal centre of Jelling (Vejle/DK), relate to the state formation process. The men buried according to this rite must have been vassals, representing the early establishment of »feudalism«: »The weapons of the deceased in the traditional society were simply passed to the next generation and our 10th century cavalerist must therefore have owed his position, not to the local society, but to the king and State« 119. Therefore the »heavy cavalry graves« fit well into the picture drawn by the Trelleborg type fortresses, large magnate farms, carriage burials of women of high status, urban development and new types of succession known from rune stones 120. In contrast to this plain and overall explanation, Anne Pedersen emphasised that the nature of the Danish burial rite is more complicated than to settle its interpretation so easily. Her detailed analysis of the graves containing riding equipment and/or weapons resulted in the recognition of chronological and regional variations in the burial custom, and that the small range of types occurring in these burials indicates intentional selection. Pedersen proposed that this selection of grave goods might 206 Á. Bíró · Dating (with) weapon burials and the »Waffenwechsel« have represented the politico-social status of the deceased (as symbols of power, rank and wealth) and moreover the military organisation, but also practical or religious considerations at the funeral and different ways of using and access to riding equipment. Variations in the burial custom suggest, however, the possibility of many different intentions and meanings behind the display and means of visual communication at the funeral 121. Now turning to Poland, it is to be noted in the first place that the systematic research on medieval and early medieval weaponry has a long Polish tradition, with a strong interest in pure archaeological issues like chronology, chorology and typology 122. Although this approach proved to be fruitful in many cases, some fundamental interpretational questions and problems of Viking Age swords remained unanswered 123. However, the controversy concerning the nature of the early Piasts’ retinue seems to be settled for the moment; graves containing luxurious military equipment are usually attributed to Scandinavian warriors 124, contrary to the former negating opinion of Jan Żak 125. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the majority of these graves and the cemeteries had been destroyed before any adequate archaeological excavation could have taken place. Due to the incomplete and uncertain nature of this material, the presence of Scandinavian military personnel in Poland is supported mainly by the Nordic origin of objects (their type and decoration) that were rescued after the sites had been encountered and damaged (Żydowo, Łubowo, Luboń etc). In addition to this argument, the unique collection of weapons and armour discovered in lake Lednica (Wielkopolska/PL) was connected to the Scandinavian retinue on the basis of the site’s geographical position 126: the castle Ostrów Lednicki is located between two ducal residences and in the proximity of the supposedly Scandinavian (military) cemetery at Łubowo 127. An obligatory identification of ethnicity is nevertheless the most difficult task of archaeology, especially since a conclusive survey of the Polish military retinue is still lacking 128. It is not surprising that even the better documented entourage (»Gefolgschaft«) in Scandinavia poses fundamental problems when it comes to the identification of their archaeological remains 129. The idea that some of the graves in the Carpathian Basin containing straight double-edged swords should be understood as burials of Scandinavian or probably Rus’/Rhos warriors is also present in the Hungarian research 130, but due to the overwhelming dominance of the theory of weapon change, it had no chance to develop entirely. However, it is sure that Scandinavian mercenaries and merchants traveling all over Europe often became retainers of foreign lords, but the interpretation of archaeological material of Scandinavian or supposed Scandinavian origin cannot be solely based on assumed ethnical markers. To conclude, the Danish and Polish interpretations of 10th-11th-century weapon burials (»Waffengräber«) have provided important analogies to the Hungarian hypothesis in question. The basic idea behind both conceptions and the Hungarian thesis is the treatment of weapon burials as warrior burials (»Kriegergräber«), which makes up the retinue or army of the state formation policy. Without adequate demonstration, Randsborg linked these with heavy cavalry tactics and a military unit that formed the basis of the early Danish king’s power – which is exactly the same train of thought that has dominated the interpretation of the Hungarian material. On the other hand, such burials in Poland were not explicitly connected to heavy cavalry but interpreted ethnically, assuming that these graves hold the remains of the Piasts’ military retinue. By means of these three examples, we have seen the major possibilities of interpreting the archaeological material: professional army Fig. 6 Possible interpretations of weapon burials concerning 10th-cenor retinue, heavy cavalry or Scandinavian mer- tury retinue. – (Drawing and digital processing Á. Bíró). Die Archäologie der frühen Ungarn 207 cenaries (fig. 6). All explanations implicate serious methodological problems that must be dealt with before any conclusions can be drawn. The sudden appearance of burials furnished with riding equipment and (sometimes luxurious) weapons thought to be of foreign origin is observable throughout Europe, where Christian burials are not exclusively dominant. Are these objects and phenomena truly alien, or do they represent a common material (and possibly mental) culture of the 10th-century elite, irrespective of military matters and state formation? Thus the so-called »Viking swords« might have been part of an international style, a rather wealthy way of living that had strong connections to the warrior image and was expressed, inter alia, by the possession of luxurious weapons 131. Notes 1) Widukind, Res Gestae Saxonicae III, XLVI (see Bauer / Rau 1992, 156 f.). archaeological education, see Fodor 2001a, 268 f.; Langó 2005, 218 f. 2) For a comprehensive summary on the state of research in English see Révész / Nepper 1996, 43-47 esp. 46 f. 15) Dienes 1972, 55 f.; although Béla Szőke rejected to date the swords to the late 10th century, he agreed with László that the swords are infallible indicators of the heavy cavalry (Szőke 1962, 83). 3) I shall not deal with the various aspects of the earlier reception of double-edged swords and sabres (the works of Ferenc Salamon, Géza Nagy, József Hampel, Arnold Marosi, Nándor Fettich and Peter Paulsen respectively) because they did not contribute to the later prevailing theory discussed here. 4) The archaeological dating of swords and sabres are in close connection with the problem of the continuity or discontinuity of light cavalry and its tactics and equipment during the 11th-15th centuries, which was intensively debated by many scholars in the 1920s-40s. The issue was recently reopened and discussed in detail by János B. Szabó (Szabó 2010). 5) Tóth 1934, 133 f.: »the reconstructing initiative of Saint Stephen was revolutionary in a military respect as well, while he overthrew those Magyars who represented the ancestral tactics. The face of the Hungarian military class by all means had been changed. All of a sudden, the sabre, which had been the typical light cavalry weapon of the conquering Hungarians, disappeared from the [archaeological] material and was replaced with the double-edged and definitely western-type sword« (translated by the author). 6) Kalmár 1935-1936, esp. 151. 153. 7) For the Vienna sabre see Fodor 1996; for the Prague sword see Wieczorek / Hinz 2000, 535. 8) Kalmár 1935-1936, 153. 9) László 1939; a bit later, László reasserted his conception in his analysis of the commercial routes of the 10th century (László 1942, 806 f.). 10) Fettich 1938. 11) I shall omit here the further discussion of Kalmár’s study because it influenced the Hungarian research only indirectly – through the transcription of László. 12) This belief had already been a topic in historical and archaeological military research, well before Kalmár’s and László’s articles; see e. g. Tóth 1934, 133 f.; Hampel 1897/2, 44 f.; 1900, 754; Fettich 1933, 394 esp. 396 f.; 1937, 52; 1938, 506. 13) Molnár 1943, 5-10; 1945, 5-9. 14) For the impact of László and the so-called László school on the archaeological and historical research of the Hungarian Conquest Period, generated by his long lasting leading role in the 208 16) See e. g. Fodor 2000; 2001b. 17) Bakay 1967. 18) Ibidem 164. 19) Györffy 1977, 105-108. 119. 313 f. (with a short remark about the pre-state knowledge and usage of swords due to the campaigns in Europe at 108); in German see Györffy 1988, 91; 99101. 20) See e. g. Gerics 2000 and the paper »The state founder and legislator St. Stephen« in Gerics 1995, 51-61. 21) Kristó 1985, 103-111; 1986, 44-58; he also wisely avoided to interpret the military role of the possibly German dignitaries at Stephen’s court, e. g. in Kristó 1993, 60 f. 22) Kristó 1995, 171-173; in spite of this, he could not disregard the idea of the heavy cavalry (Kristó 1995, 325). 23) e. g. Bóna 2000, 230. 24) See the review by Alexander Ruttkay (Ruttkay 1970) and his work on medieval weapons in the territory of present-day Slovakia (Ruttkay 1976, 245-252. 264-272) without any critique of the theory. 25) Kurt Horedt approached the question from another point by considering these swords as ethnical markers, but he also agreed with the overall late 10th-century dating of the swords; see Horedt 1968, 427 f. The same idea appeared in the already cited review of Ruttkay as well (Ruttkay 1970, 484). For the most recent revival of the interpretation of Slav warriors as bearers of Viking Age swords in the Carpathian Basin see Gáll 2007, 430-433. 26) Heitel 1994-1995, 429. 437. 27) Kovács 1994-1995. 28) Kovács 1993. 29) Ibidem 45-48. 30) See e. g. Négyesi 1996; 2000. In the period between the end of World War II and the late 1990s, the rarely published historical military papers usually agreed with the thesis of the heavy cavalry; see Borosy 1962, 139 f.; Veszprémy 1996, 75-78. Á. Bíró · Dating (with) weapon burials and the »Waffenwechsel« 31) Schulze-Dörrlamm 1984, 504 f.; 478 fig. 5; 504 fig. 32. 32) Kovács 1988, 168-172 esp. 169 f. 33) Schulze-Dörrlamm 1984, 505 note 129. 34) Bachrach 1983, 10 ff. (reprinted with the same pagination in Bachrach 1993 as paper XIV and in France / DeVries 2008, 221-247). 35) Trillmich 1992, 162 f.; in English see Warner 2001, 184; the Polish research usually refers to them as mounted and armoured warriors (»Panzerreiter«), e. g. see Górecki 2001, 44; it is tempting to recognise Ibrahim Ibn Ya’qub At-Turtushi’s detailed description of the army of Mieszko I as a reasonable model for 10th-century military retinues, though it seems that the author himself never paid a visit to Poland and got his information in this respect from secondary sources (Mishin 1996, 199; for an English translation of the account see ibidem 187). 36) Györffy 1992, 39-41; unfortunately, the diploma had been subject to alterations and interpolations in the 12th and 13th centuries, thus comprising different texts, but it is highly probable that the excerpts, which tell the tale using singular and plural verbs, like a narrator or the king himself, go back to early 11th or late 10th century sources (Érszegi 1996). 37) For the two opposing interpretations of the loci: »Ingruente namque bellorum tempestate, qua inter Theotonicos et Ungaros seditio maxima excreverat, precipueque cum civilis bella ruina urgerer« see e. g. Györffy 1971, 184 f.; Engel 2001, 39; Érszegi 1996, 51. 38) Most influentially Györffy 1971, 182; 1977, 116-119; 1988, 91. 39) László Veszprémy has proved that the later medieval chronicles and modern historians (e. g. Györffy 1971, 192 f.) are both mistaken in crediting them with the adorning of Stephen with a sword (»Schwertleite« or »adoubement«; see Veszprémy 2008). 40) Borosy 1962, 139; Bakay 1967, 154. 41) Bak / Bónis / Sweeney 1989, 5. 10 f. 42) Lines 336-338 of the poem describe Walther’s two different »swords«, one which is double-edged and another that wounds with only one edge (»et laevum femur ancipiti praecinxerat ense / atque alio dextrum pro ritu Pannoniarum; / is tamen ex una tantum dat vulnera parte«; for a German translation see Strecker 1987, 42 f.). Since it has not been reassuringly clarified whether the author of the poem describes contemporary or much earlier weaponry, this account may refer to earlier traditions of weapon kits (e. g. spatha and sax) and therefore should not be used in a reasoning concerning 10th-century circumstances (see Haug / Vollmann 1991, 1196 commentary). I would rather argue for a practical explanation of the account (i. e. preparing for all emergencies), which is also obvious in the case of the Byzantine kataphraktos who was prepared for the possible loss of his main weapon. On this »arming of the warrior«-type scene in the »Waltharius« see Ziolkowski 2008, 195-197. 43) Note deleted. 44) For the most detailed discussions see Kristó 1986, 186-189; 1995, 294 f.; a more thorough examination of the milites of the early Hungarian state should take place in the future in order to answer basic questions, like: what kind of military obligations did they have to meet? etc.; cf. Bachrach’s study on the milites of Flandria Occidentalis at the millennium (Bachrach 1995; reprinted with the same pagination in Bachrach 2002 as paper X). 45) See Urbańczyk 2005, esp. 149f. for a reasonable approach of the main factors and characteristics of early state formations in East and Central Europe. The relationship of war, army and the early state is rather a theoretical question in pre- and protohistorical societies (for a general discussion see most recently Claessen 2006), like in various early medieval contexts, where precise and concrete evidence usually lacks for a proper definition of these concepts. 46) Leyser 1968, 3-6. 47) Leyser 1965, 19. 48) Bauer / Rau 1992, 156 f. 49) Leyser 1965, 16. 19. 50) On the speech see Bowlus 2006, 119 f. with further literature on the possible biblical and antique inspirations for the text. 51) On pre-battle speeches in general see Miller 2008, 187-230. 52) For a realistic model of battle narrative see Keegan 1978, 3577; for a proper critique on the exaggerations of the »Face of Battle« school see E. L. Wheeler 2001, esp. 169-174. 53) »They’ve got armour, so? Even this boy can be taught to find the chinks in every suit of armour«. 54) Bauer / Rau 1992, 156 (Widukind, Res Gestae Saxonicae III, XLVI). 55) Cf. Miller 2008, 12-20. 56) Bachrach 1970 (reprinted with the same pagination in Bachrach 1993 as paper XII); 1983 (reprinted with the same pagination in Bachrach 1993 as paper XIV and in France / DeVries 2008, 221-247); Bachrach / Bachrach 2007; Bachrach’s conceptions generated a fruitful, ongoing controversy between leading scholars; Jan Frans Verbruggen attempted to defend the dominance of medieval (heavy) cavalry in the debate (Verbruggen 2005, 63 f.); for Bachrach’s reply see Bachrach 2006. 57) Bachrach / Bachrach 2007, 190. 58) Bachrach 1988, 186-192. 197 (reprinted with the same pagination in Bachrach 2002 as paper II); on the javelin hurling Breton cavalry see Bachrach 1969 (reprinted with the same pagination in Bachrach 1993 as paper V); on the feigned retreat see in detail Bachrach 2001, 125-130. 59) His highly intensive narrations of extremely short duels which include only a limited number of fighting »moves« and usually a brutal finish suggest that he was familiar with sword fight and might have had personal fighting/training experience (sword fight and training was not unfamiliar among monks in the Middle Ages; the earliest known Fechtbuch [Ms. I.33] dated to the late 13th century depicts monks exercising; see Forgeng 2003). Since these »moves« are all executable – apart from the heroic exaggerations that originate in the supernatural strength and toughness of Walther –, I would argue, contrary to the opinion of Jan M. Ziolkowksi (Ziolkowski 2001), that these accounts are realistic descriptions of early medieval duels, where play and fun gain ground only in the wordplay and the bombastic ending, but not in the actual course of the fights themselves. 60) Strecker 1987, 32-35. 61) According to Haug / Vollmann 1991, 1193 commentary, the »pectoribus... equorum« (line 194) would indicate armoured horses. 62) A reasonable example of a thorough battle survey from this point of view is the analysis by Russel Mitchell of the battle of Adrianople (Mitchell 2008). Die Archäologie der frühen Ungarn 209 63) McGeer 1995, 280. 288 f. 301-312. 85) Hampel 1900, 750-751; 1905/1, 197-205; 1907, 29-34. 64) For the reconstruction of the middle Byzantine battle array see McGeer 1995, 282 fig. 19; Haldon 1999, 221 fig. 6, 3. 86) The most exciting hybrid sword is from Szentbékkálla (Veszprém county/H): it has a straight single-edged blade construction with an isosceles section and a fuller at the back of the blade. At the length of 33 cm, measured from the crossguard, the blade changes into a slightly curved double-edged construction up to the lacking point, with the same fuller which is now positioned in the middle of the blade (Hungarian National Museum, inv. no. 11/1905). 65) For the formation of the kataphraktoi see McGeer 1995, 286; 287 fig. 20. 66) »Praecepta Militaria« IV/10-13 and »Taktica« (by Nikephoros Ouranos) 61/10-13; see McGeer 1995, 44-47. 124-129. 67) On the armour of the kataphraktoi »Sylloge Tacticorum« 39/1 (Dain 1938, 61); »Praecepta Militaria« III/4 (McGeer 1995, 3437); on the carapaces »Sylloge Tacticorum« 39/6 (Dain 1938, 62); »Praecepta Militaria« III/5 (McGeer 1995, 36 f.). 68) McGeer 1995, 214-216; Dawson 1998; 2002, 84 f. (reprinted in Haldon 2007, 379-388); 2009a, 37-42. 69) First of all, the works of Heinrich Härke, the pioneer of this approach, are to be noticed (Härke 1989; esp. 1990; 1992a; 1992b, 179-224; 1997a-b). See Kjellström 2009 with further literature for a current synthesis on paleopathological indicators of participants of combat. 70) See e. g. Stoodley 1999. 71) Morillo 1999 with further references. 72) »Sylloge Tacticorum« 39/2 (see Dain 1938, 61); the »Praecepta Militaria« III/7 (McGeer 1995, 36 f.), on the other hand, considers siderorabdion and spathion as main arms and paramerion as a secondary, optional weapon (see McGeer 1995, 216 f.). 73) The term with the meaning »sword« was already known in 6th-century Byzantium (see Kolias 1988, 41 note 34). 74) Haldon 1975, 31. 75) Parani 2003, 131; Taxiarchis G. Kolias likes to think that »mit παραμήριον keine konkrete Blankwaffe gemeint sind, die sich von den Spathai/Spathia unterschieden«, although he proposed earlier in his text that the paramerion is an »einschneidiges Streitmesser« (Kolias 1988, 137 f.). 76) Dennis 2010, 77. 83. 77) Dain 1938, 59. 61. 78) The issue of middle Byzantine military equipment sizes is discussed in Dawson 2007a (for the length of swords see page 6). 79) Haldon 1975, 31; 2002, 73 (reprinted in Haldon 2007, 363377); McGeer 1995, 71. 217; Dawson 2007b, 25. 59. 80) Grotowski 2010, 344. 357-360; he is wrong by stating that the »Sylloge Tacticorum« (38/5) would mention »a doubleedged variant with a smooth blade« (ibidem 357 f.); see the translation of the locus above. 81) Ibidem 359. 82) In contrast, Parani thinks that the undoubtedly curved akouphion, described at the murder of Nikephoros Phokas in the late 10th-century »History« of Leo the Deacon, might have been the Byzantine term applied to the sabre (Parani 2003, 131). The word akouphion occurs only in this text (Leonis diaconi Caloënsis Historia V.8), therefore the identification with a certain weapon is highly problematic; Kolias thought of a special axe, a »schnabelförmige[r] Hakenhammer« (see Kolias 1988, 172 with a German translation of Leo’s account; for an English translation of the text see Talbot/Sullivan 2005, 139). 83) Parani 2003, 131f. 84) For Bulgarian straight single-edged swords see Jotov 2004, 61-65 where they are also referred to as sabres. 210 87) Restle 1967/3, fig. 325; the Çavuşin wall paintings were already utilised by David Nicolle working on middle Byzantine military equipment (Nicolle 1995a, 230-233; reprinted with the same pagination in Nicolle 2002 as paper III). 88) Kovács 2002; the only piece of armour from the 10th-11th centuries in the Carpatian Basin is a stray find, a conical helmet (Wieczorek / Hinz 2000, 340 f.; Kalmár 1942). 89) Gjermundbu in Norway is the only 10th-century weapon burial in North, West and Central Europe that contained a more or less complete chain mail, damaged but preserved in a relatively good condition, along with fragments of a helmet and several shield bosses (Grieg 1947; for its construction see Puhle 2001, 259 photo). Another complete 10th-century chain mail, attributed to Saint Wenceslaus I, is known from Prague (Wieczorek / Hinz 2000, 528); for complete chain mails and fragments from the territory of the Kievan Rus’ see Kirpičnikov 1971, 9; 81f. tables. 90) According to a short remark in the early 11th-century Chronicon Eberspergense, after the battle at the Lech, Magyar chiefs, notably Sur rex and Leli dux, were captured, and »Eberhardus primitias tollens […] crucemque argenteam, quae in scuto regis infixa fuit, et aliud argentum ad ecclesiastica ornamenta dedit« (MGH 1868, Suppl. VII, 12). As a result, shields are to be expected in the Magyar armament as well, at least concerning the elite. 91) Apart from the boat grave at Île de Groix (Müller-Wille 1978), 10th-century metal shield bosses are almost exclusively known from Scandinavia, the Baltic and the Kievan Rus’ (Beatson 1995 in general; for Birka and Haithabu Arwidsson 1986; Müller-Wille 1976, 50-52. 78-80; for the Baltic region Urtan 1961; for the Rus’ Kirpičnikov 1971, 86 f. table), while the few metal umbos found in West Slavic territories might be Scandinavian or German imports (Kempke 1991, 40); however, the wooden shield from Groß Raden (Schuldt 1978, 236-239) indicates that shields made completely of organic material could have played an important role in Slavic warfare – see especially the recent overview by Paweł M. Rudziński on the shields of the Slavic world with further reasoning (Rudziński 2009). 92) Here I only quote the illuminated manuscript of the Liber I Machabaeorum dated to ca. 925 (Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden, Codex PER F 17; for the codex see Kahsnitz 2001), where shields are depicted in large numbers. The famous 11th-century Bayeux Tapestry also points to the importance and common use of shields (Lewis 2005, 48. 54 f.); for a survey of the Carolingian written sources see Last 1972; Coupland 1990, 35-38 (reprinted in France/DeVries 2008, 249-270). 93) Though the overall picture of the distribution of the archaeological record marks a clear difference between Ottonian and Magyar riding equipment of the 10th century, with the major disparity of the usage of spurs (Kind 2002), we may expect more specific variations in the Magyar material as well, like the gradual extension of the shank of spurs which was associated with changes in the positioning of the legs of the heavy cavalryman (ibidem 292). Á. Bíró · Dating (with) weapon burials and the »Waffenwechsel« 94) Bakay 1967, 141-144. 111) See e. g. Müller-Wille 1982, 149 f.; Steuer 1987, 151-156. 95) Ibidem 143 fig. 16, 1-2. 112) For the first thematic study Williams 2009. 96) Most importantly, gravitation does not act at the points of the blades but in the centre of mass. Apart from this, when applying the same simplifications and the (otherwise false) data given by Bakay (i. e. the length of the blades 0.8 m and 0.9 m, the weight 0.5 kg and 1kg, and a 20° angle that the lines of the hilt and blade of the sabre share) to the formula τ = r × m × g × sinθ (with θ = 70°; see fig. 5, 4), the results are 3,68 Nm for the sabre and 8,83 Nm for the sword – contrary to Bakay’s false results (2,69 Nm and 6,39 Nm respectively). 113) Piatnitsky et al. 2000, 74-76; Connor 1998, pl. 12. 97) Laszlovszky / Siklódi 1991. 98) Nicolle 1995b, 83; a similar approach, though recently reconsidered with good reason, was dominant in the artificial interpretation of the comparison of the efficiency of the »crannog« type, pre-Viking and Viking swords of Ireland (Halpin 2010, 124 f.). 99) Cf. general calculations in Lazarov 2003, 40-48. 100) Hampel 1907, 28; Szőllősy 2001. 101) By duel I understand every situation where only two fighters are engaged, which of course also could happen during a battle. 102) Dawson 2009b. 103) Wheeler 1927, 33 fig. 14; Wilson 1965; Żabiński 2007; Walsh 1998; Petersen 1919; Leppäaho 1964; Peirce 2002; Arbmann / Nilsson 1969; Müller-Wille 1973, 79-85; 72 fig. 20; 1978, 75-79; 72 fig. 11; 73 fig. 12; Ypey 1984, 221f.; 220 fig. 4; Volkmann 2008, 437 map 1; Herfert 1978, 257 fig. 5; von zur Mühlen 1975, 100-103; Geibig 1991, 159-179; 160 fig. 42; Marek 2005, 116-149; 152-157 maps; Szameit 1992, 220 note 1; Košta 2005; Kliský 1964, 114-116; 113 fig. 2; Pinter 1999, 89-157; Liwoch 2008; Plavinskij 2009, 67 f.; 66 fig. 9; Kirpičnikov 1966, 74-91; 23 fig. 2; Vinski 1983. 104) Gomolka 1968, 237-239; Popa 1984; Jotov 2003; 2006; Raffaele D’Amato has recently published several photographs of Bulgarian Viking swords, inter alia newly discovered finds (D’Amato 2010, 19. 21. 37 f.). 105) On such events in the 10th century see Blöndal / Benedikz 1978, 32-46; recently D’Amato 2010, 4. 6 f. 106) Kolias 1988, 136. 107) First comprehensively by Arbman 1937, 215-235 esp. 230232. 235 (with further references). 108) Validi 1936; Davidson 1994, 114-118; Polgár 2004. 109) Hoffmeyer 1966, 93 f. 101; most recently Grotowski 2010, 349. 110) Martens 2004; Stalsberg 2008a; 2008b; 2010, 458 f.; on possible criteria indicating a weapon export see Solberg 1991, 241f.; a detailed analysis of the classification and chorology (like Geibig 1991, 159-177) might contribute to such efforts; the unique sword from Foščevataja (Ukraine) provides an exceptional example for the most probable establishment of provenience on the basis of a stylistic analysis (Androshchuk 2003). 114) On the type Petersen 1919, 89-101; recently Beloševič 2007. 115) On the type Petersen 1919, 117-121; the Yumuktepe hilt might be related to types Petersen Q or P as well, since the top of the hilt is lacking in the published picture. 116) Köruğlu 2010, 84 fig. 126. 117) The fuller of the blade visible on the photo provides evidence that we are not facing a Mediterranean type of sword here; in comparison see the sword without fuller from a private collection from Al-Andalus (García 2001); on Mediterranean swords see Á. Bíró, Middle Byzantine Swords: an Archaeological Investigation [unpubl. manuscript, 2009]. 118) Prior to the hypothesis of military reform and weapon change, Viking swords were thought to have reached the Carpathian Basin from Polish territories (Paulsen 1933, 44 f.), from East Europe (Fettich 1933, 258; 1937, 52-54; Marosi 1938, 50 f.) and from West Europe and Byzantium at the same time (Hampel 1900, 756). 119) Randsborg 1981a, 269. 120) Randsborg 1981a-b. 121) Pedersen 1997a-b; 2002. 122) See e. g. Kotowicz / Michalak 2007-2008. 123) The main concerns of the newest comprehensive monograph on early medieval swords in Poland were the classification and the inscriptions (Marek 2005). 124) Shepard 2005, 270; Buko 2008, 404-411; Cattaneo 2009; for a critical historiography of the hypothesis with further literature Rohrer 2009. 125) Żak 1957. 126) Wilke 1999, 50-56. 127) Górecki 2001, 65 f. 128) Helena Zoll-Adamikova presents a careful method for identifying Scandinavian populace in the archaeological material of the South Baltic region that might be a useful starting point (Zoll-Adamikova 1997). 129) See e. g. on the problems of gold rings Wendt 2007-2008 and recently Androushchuk 2009 on the swords. 130) Kovács 1995, 304; Fodor 1981, 86; on the differentiation of the Hungarian dux Ruizorum and the dux exercitus regis attested in the written sources of the early 11th century Kristó 1980. 131) I would like to express my deepest gratitude to András PatayHorváth PhD for the enormous help he provided concerning the translation and interpretation of Greek and Latin texts, to Prof. Csanád Bálint who read an early draft of this paper and finally to my father, Bálint Bíró, who drew figure 5 and helped me in understanding the physical modeling of the torque of the sabre and the sword. Die Archäologie der frühen Ungarn 211 References Androshchuk 2003: F. Androshchuk, The »Ljudota Sword«? (An Episode of Contacts Between Britain and Scandinavia in the Late Viking Age). Ruthenica 2, 2003, 15-25. Blöndal / Benedikz 1978: S. Blöndal / B. S. Benedikz, The Varangians of Byzantium. An Aspect of Byzantine Military History (Cambridge 1978). Androushchuk 2009: F. Androushchuk, Vikings and Farmers. Some Remarks on the Social Interpretation of Swords and LongDistance Contacts during the Viking Age. In: Holmquist Olausson / Olausson 2009, 93-104. Bóna 2000: I. Bóna, Die ungarische Kampftechnik in den Feldzügen gegen Europa. In: Wieczorek / Hinz 2000, 225-230. Arbman 1937: H. Arbman, Schweden und das Karolingische Reich. Studien zu den Handelsverbindungen des 9. Jahrhunderts. Kgl. Vitterhets Hist. Akad. Handlingar 43 (Stockholm 1937). Arbman / Nilsson 1969: H. Arbman / N.-O. Nilsson, Armes scandinaves de l’époque Viking en France. Meddel. Lund Univ. Hist. Mus. 1966-1968 (1969), 163-202. Arwidsson 1986: G. Arwidsson, Schilde. In: idem (ed.), Birka II/2. Systematische Analysen der Gräberfunde (Stockholm 1986) 38-44. Bachrach 1969: B. S. Bachrach, The Origin of Armorican Chivalry. Technology and Culture 10, 1969, 166-171. 1970: B. S. Bachrach, Charles Martel, Mounted Shock Combat, the Stirrup and Feudalism. Stud. Medieval and Renaissance Hist. 7, 1970, 49-75. 1983: B. S. Bachrach, Charlemagne’s Cavalry: Myth and Reality. Military Affairs 47/4, 1983, 181-187. Borosy 1962: A. Borosy, A XI-XIV. századi magyar lovasságról (On the Hungarian Cavalry in the 11-14th Centuries). Hadtört. Közl. 9/2, 1962, 119-174. Bowlus 2006: C. R. Bowlus, The Battle of Lechfeld and its Aftermath, August 955. The End of the Age of Migrations in the Latin West (Aldershot, Burlington 2006). Buko 2008: A. Buko, The Archaeology of Early Medieval Poland. Discoveries – Hypotheses – Interpretations. East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450 1 (Boston, Leiden 2008). Cattaneo 2009: G. Cattaneo, The Scandinavians in Poland: a ReEvolution of Perceptions of the Vikings. Brathair 9/2, 2009, 214. Claessen 2006: H. J. M. Claessen, War and State Formation: What is the Connection? In: T. Otto / H. Thrane / H. Vandkilde (eds), Warfare and Society. Archaeological and Social Anthropological Perspectives (Aarhus 2006) 217-226. 1988: B. S. Bachrach, Caballus et Caballarius in Medieval Warfare. In: H. Chickering / T. H. Seiler (eds), The Study of Chivalry: Resources and Approaches (Kalamazoo 1988) 173-211. Connor 1998: C. L. Connor, The Color of Ivory. Polychromy on Byzantine Ivories (Princeton 1998). 1993: B. S. Bachrach, Armies and Politics in the Early Medieval West (Aldershot, Brookfield 1993). Coupland 1990: S. Coupland, Carolingian Arms and Armor in the Ninth Century. VIATOR. Journal Medieval and Renaissance Stud. 21, 1990, 29-50. 1995: B. S. Bachrach, The Milites and the Millennium. Haskins Soc. Journal. Stud. Medieval Hist. 3, 1992, 85-95. 2001: B. S. Bachrach, Early Carolingian Warfare: Prelude to Empire (Philadelphia 2001). 2002: B. S. Bachrach, Warfare and Military Organization in PreCrusading Europe (Aldershot, Burlington, Suffolk 2002). 2006: B. S. Bachrach, Verbruggen’s »Cavalry« and the Lyon-Thesis. Journal Medieval Military Hist. 4, 2006, 137-141. Bachrach / Bachrach 2007: B. S. Bachrach / D. Bachrach, Saxon Military Revolution, 912-973? Myth and Reality. Early Medieval Europe 15/2, 2007, 186-222. Bak / Bónis / Sweeney 1989: The Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary 1. 1000-1301. Translated and edited by J. M. Bak, Gy. Bónis and J. R. Sweeney (Bakersfield 1989). Bakay 1967: K. Bakay, Archäologische Studien zur Frage der ungarischen Staatsgründung. Angaben zur Organisierung des fürstlichen Heeres. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 19, 1967, 105-173. Bauer / Rau 1992: Fontes ad historiam aevi Saxonici illustrandam. Widukindi Res Gestae Saxonicae, Adalberti Continuatio Reginonis, Liudprandi Opera. Neu bearbeitet von A. Bauer und R. Rau. Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters 8 (Darmstadt 41992). Beatson 1995: P. Beatson, The »Viking Shield« from Archaeology. Varangian Voice 35, 1995, 25-35. Beloševič 2007: J. Beloševič, Osvrt na karolinške mačeve tipa H sa šireg područja Dalmatinske Hrvatske (Rückschau auf karolingische Schwerter des Typus H aus dem Großraum des dalmatischen Kroatiens). Prilozi 24, 2007, 405-418. 212 Curta 2005: F. Curta (ed.), East Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages (Ann Arbor 2005). D’Amato 2010: R. D’Amato, The Varangian Guard 988-1453. Osprey Military/Men-at-Arms Ser. 459 (New York, Oxford 2010). Dain 1938: Sylloge Tacticorum quae olim »Inedita Leonis Tactica« dicebatur in lucem prolata curis Alphonsi Dain (Paris 1938). Davidson 1994: H. E. Davidson, The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England. Its Archaeology and Literature (Woodbrigde 21994). Dawson 1998: T. Dawson, Kremasmata, Kabadion, Klibanion: Some Aspects of Middle Byzantine Military Equipment Reconsidered. Byzantine and Modern Greek Stud. (Birmingham) 22, 1998, 3850. 2002: T. Dawson, Suntagma Hoplôn: the Equipment of Regular Byzantine Troops, c. 950 to c. 1204. In: D. Nicolle (ed.), A Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour (Woodbridge 2002) 8190. 2007a: T. Dawson, »Fit for the Task«: Equipment Sizes and the Transmission of Military Lore, Sixth to Tenth Centuries. Byzantine and Modern Greek Stud. (Birmingham) 31, 2007, 1-12. 2007b: T. Dawson, Byzantine Infantryman, Eastern Roman Empire c. 900-1204. Osprey Military/Warrior Ser. 118 (New York, Oxford 2007). 2009a: T. Dawson, Byzantine Cavalryman c. 900-1204. Osprey Military/Warrior Ser. 139 (New York, Oxford 2009). 2009b: T. Dawson, The Walpurgis Fechtbuch: an Inheritance of Constantinople? Arms and Armour. Journal of the Royal Armouries 6/1, 2009, 79-92. Á. Bíró · Dating (with) weapon burials and the »Waffenwechsel« Dennis 2010: The Taktika of Leo VI. Text, translation and commentary by G. Dennis. Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 49 (Washington D.C. 2010). Dienes 1972: I. Dienes, Die Ungarn um die Zeit der Landnahme (Budapest 1972). 2000: J. Gerics, Herrschaftszentren und Herrschaftsorganisation. In: Wieczorek / Hinz 2000, 570-573. Gomolka 1968: G. Gomolka, Die Kleinfunde vom Limeskastell Iatrus in Moesia inferior. Klio 50, 1968, 171-249. Engel 2001: P. Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary 895-1526 (London, New York 2001). Górecki 2001: J. Górecki, Waffen und Reiterausrüstungen von Ostrów Lednicki. Zur Geschichte des frühen polnischen Staates und seines Heeres. Zeitschr. Arch. Mittelalter 29, 2001, 41-86. Érszegi 1996: G. Érszegi, Szent István pannonhalmi oklevele (Oklevéltani-filológiai kommentár). In: I. Takács (ed.), Mons Sacer 9961996. Pannonhalma ezer éve 1 (Pannonhalma 1996) 47-89. Grieg 1947: S. Grieg, Gjermundbufunnet. En høvdingegrav fra 900-årene fra Ringerike. Norske Oldfunn 8 (Oslo 1947). Fettich 1933: N. Fettich, A levediai magyarság a régészet megvilágításában. Századok. A Magyar Történelmi Társulat Évk. 67/710, 1933, 251-276. 369-399. Grotowski 2010: P. Ł. Grotowski, Arms and Armour of the Warrior Saints. Tradition and Innovation in Byzantine Iconography (8431261). The Medieval Mediterranean: Peoples, Economies and Cultures, 400-1500 87 (Boston, Leiden 2010). 1937: N. Fettich, A honfoglaló magyarság fémművessége (Die Metallkunst der landnehmenden Ungarn). Archaeologia Hungarica. Acta Archaeologica Musei Nationalis Hungarici 21 (Budapest 1937). Györffy 1971: Gy. Györffy, Der Aufstand von Koppány. In: L. Ligeti (ed.), Studia Turcica. Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 17 (Budapest 1971) 175-211. 1938: N. Fettich, A prágai Szent István-kard régészeti megvilágításban. In: J. Serédi (ed.), Emlékkönyv Szent István király halálának kilencszázadik évfordulóján 1 (Budapest 1938) 475-516. Fodor 1981: I. Fodor, A magyarság baltikumi és skandináviai kapcsolatai a IX-XI. században a régészeti leletek alapján (Verbindungen der Ungarn mit dem Baltikum und Skandinavien zwischen dem 9. und 11. Jahrhundert aufgrund der Bodenfunde). Szolnok Megyei Múz. Évk. 1981, 85-89. 1996: I. Fodor, Vienna sabre. In: Fodor et al. 1996, 67-71. 2000: I. Fodor, A haderő és a fegyverzet átalakulása az államalapítás korában. In: Á. Rácz (ed.), Nagy képes millenniumi hadtörténet. 1000 év a hadak útján (Budapest 2000) 20 f. 2001a: I. Fodor, László Gyula, a régész. In: I. Balassa / E. László (eds), László Gyula 1910-1998. Emlékkönyv (Budapest 2001) 147-270. 1977: Gy. Györffy, István király és műve (Budapest 1977). 1988: Gy. Györffy, König Stephan der Heilige (Budapest 1988). 1992: Diplomata Hungariae antiquissima I. Edendo operi praefuit Georgius Györffy (Budapest 1992). Haldon 1975: J. Haldon, Some Aspects of Byzantine Military Technology from the Sixth to the Tenth Centuries. Byzantine and Modern Greek Stud. 1, 1975, 11-47. 1999: J. Haldon, Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565-1204. Warfare and History (London 1999). 2002: J. Haldon, Some Aspects of Early Byzantine Arms and Armour. In: D. Nicolle (ed.), A Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour (Woodbridge 2002) 65-79. 2007: J. Haldon (ed.), Byzantine Warfare (Aldershot, Burlington 2007). 2001b: I. Fodor, Az államalapítás korának hadserege. In: P. Halmágyi (ed.), Az államalapítókról 2000-ben. A VII. Honvéd Emléknap és a Levéltári Napok makói előadásai. A Makói Múzeum Füzetei 98 (Makó 2001) 17-39. Halpin 2010: A. Halpin, Weapons and Warfare in Viking-Age Ireland. In: J. Sheehan / D. Ó Corráin (eds), The Viking Age: Ireland and the West (Dublin 2010) 124-135. Fodor et al. 1996: I. Fodor / L. Révész / M. Wolf / I. M. Nepper (eds), The Ancient Hungarians [exhibition cat.] (Budapest 1996). Hampel 1897: J. Hampel, A régibb középkor (IV-X. század) emlékei Magyarhonban (Budapest 1897). Forgeng 2003: J. L. Forgeng, The Medieval Art of Swordsmanship. A Facsimile and Translation of Europe’s Oldest Personal Combat Treatise. Royal Armouries MS I.33 (Leeds 2003). 1900: J. Hampel, A honfoglalási kor hazai emlékei. In: Gy. Pauler / S. Szilágyi (eds), A magyar honfoglalás kútfői. A honfoglalás ezredéves emlékére (Budapest 1900) 507-830. France / DeVries 2008: J. France / K. DeVries (eds), Warfare in the Dark Ages. The International Library of Essays on Military History (Aldershot, Burlington 2008). 1905: J. Hampel, Alterthümer des frühen Mittelalters in Ungarn (Braunschweig 1905). Gáll 2007: E. Gáll, Az Erdélyi-medence, a Partium és a Bánság X-XI. századi sír- és szórvány-fegyverleleteinek elemzése (An Analysis of the Grave and Stray Weapon Finds of the Transsylvanian Basin, the Partium and the Banat from the 10th-11th Centuries). Hadtört. Közl. 120/2, 2007, 395-474. García 2001: A. C. García, Una espada de época Omeya del siglo IX d.c. Gladius 21, 2001, 183-192. Geibig 1991: A. Geibig, Beiträge zur morphologischen Entwicklung des Schwertes im Mittelalter. Eine Analyse des Fundmaterials vom ausgehenden 8. bis zum 12. Jahrhundert aus Sammlungen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Offa Bücher 71 (Neumünster 1991). Gerics 1995: J. Gerics, Egyház, állam és gondolkodás a Magyarországon a középkorban. Magyar Egyháztörténeti Enciklopédia Munkaközösség könyvek 9 (Budapest 1995). 1907: J. Hampel, Ujabb tanulmányok a honfoglalási kor emlékeiről (Budapest 1907). Härke 1989: H. Härke, Early Saxon Weapon Burials: Frequencies, Distributions and Weapon Combinations. In: S. C. Hawkes (ed.), Weapons and Warfare in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford 1989) 49-61. 1990: H. Härke, »Warrior Graves«? The Background of the Anglo-Saxon Weapon Burial Rite. Past & Present 126, 1990, 2243. 1992a: H. Härke, Changing Symbols in a Changing Society: the Anglo-Saxon Weapon Burial Rite in the Seventh Century. In: M. O. H. Carver (ed.), The Age of Sutton Hoo: the Seventh Century in North-Western Europe (Woodbrigde 1992) 149-165. 1992b: H. Härke, Angelsächsische Waffengräber des 5.-7. Jahrhunderts. Zeitschr. Arch. Mittelalter Beih. 6 (Bonn, Köln 1992). Die Archäologie der frühen Ungarn 213 1997a: H. Härke, Material Culture as Myth: Weapons in AngloSaxon Graves. In: Jensen / Nielsen 1997, 119-127. 1997b: H. Härke, Early Anglo-Saxon Military Organisation: an Archaeological Perspective. In: Jørgensen / Clausen 1997, 93101. Haug / Vollmann 1991: W. Haug / B. K. Vollmann (eds), Frühe deutsche Literatur und lateinische Literatur in Deutschland 800-1150 (Frankfurt 1991). Heitel 1994-1995: R. R. Heitel, Die Archäologie der ersten und zweiten Phase des Eindringens der Ungarn in das innenkarpatische Transsilvanien. Dacia 38-39, 1994-1995, 389-439. Henning 2002: J. Henning (ed.), Europa im 10. Jahrhundert. Archäologie einer Aufbruchszeit (Mainz 2002). Herfert 1978: P. Herfert, Frühmittelalterliche Schwerter aus dem Strelasund und dem Einzugsgebiet der Peene. Jahrb. Bodendenkmalpfl. Mecklenburg 1977 (1978), 247-261. Hoffmeyer 1966: A. B. Hoffmeyer, Military Equipment in the Byzantine Manuscript of Scylitzes in the Bibliotheca Nacional in Madrid. Gladius 5, 1966, 1-160. Holmquist Olausson / Olausson 2009: L. Holmquist Olausson / M. Olausson (eds), The Martial Society. Aspects of Warriors, Fortifications and Social Change in Scandinavia. Theses and Papers in Archaeology B11 (Stockholm 2009). Horedt 1968: K. Horedt, Interpretări arheologice (Archäologische Deutungen). Acta Mus. Napocensis 5, 1968, 419-428. Kirpičnikov 1966: А. Н. Кирпичников, Древнерусское оручжие. Быпыск первый. Мечи и сабли IX-XIII вв. Археология СССР Е1-36 (Leningrad, Moskva 1966). 1971: А. Н. Кирпичников, Древнерусское оручжие. Быпыск третий. Доспех, комплекс боевых средств. Археология СССР Е1-36 (Leningrad 1971). Kjellström 2009: A. Kjellström, Type Specific Features and Identification of War Graves: the Physical Remains as Source Material after Battle. In: Holmquist Olausson / Olausson 2009, 179-190. Kliský 1964: M. Kliský, Územné rozšírenie a chronológia karolínskych mečov (Territoriale Verbreitung und Chronologie der karolingischen Schwerter). Štud. Zvesti Arch. Ústavu 14, 1964, 105122. Kolias 1988: T. G. Kolias, Byzantinische Waffen. Ein Beitrag zur byzantinischen Waffenkunde von den Anfängen bis zur lateinischen Eroberung. Byzantina Vindobonensia 17 (Wien 1988). Köruğlu 2010: G. Köruğlu, Yumuktepe in the Middle Ages. In: I. Caneva / G. Köruğlu (eds), Yumuktepe. A Journey Through Nine Tousand Years (İstanbul 2010) 79-104. Košta 2005: J. Košta, Kollektion frühmittelalterlicher Schwerter aus dem großmährischen Zentrum in Mikulčice. In: P. Kouřil (ed.), Die frühmittelalterliche Elite bei den Völkern des östlichen Mitteleuropas mit einem speziellen Blick auf die großmährische Problematik. Spisy Arch. Ústavu AV ČR Brno 25 (Brno 2005) 157-191. Jensen / Nielsen 1997: C. K. Jensen / K. H. Nielsen (eds), Burial and Society. The Chronological and Social Analysis of Archaeological Burial Data (Aarhus 1997). Kotowicz / Michalak 2007-2008: P. N. Kotowicz / A. Michalak, Status of Research on Early Medieval Armament in Małopolska. Remarks Regarding the Monograph Study by Piotr Strzyż. Acta Arch. Carpathica 42-43, 2007-2008, 371-417. Jørgensen / Clausen 1997: A. N. Jørgensen / B. L. Clausen (eds), Military Aspects of Scandinavian Society in a European Perspective, AD 1-1300. Publications Nat. Mus. Stud. Arch. and Hist. 2 (Copenhagen 1997). Kovács 1988: L. Kovács, A magyar honfoglalás kori pénzleletek keltező értékéről (Über den datierenden Wert der ungarischen landnahmezeitlichen Münzfunde). Herman Ottó Múz. Évk. 2526, 1988, 161-175. Jotov 2003: В. Йотов, Викингите на Балканите (The Vikings on the Balkans) (Varna 2003). 1993: L. Kovács, Waffenwechsel vom Säbel zum Schwert. Zur Datierung der ungarischen Gräber des 10.-11. Jahrhunderts mit zweischneidigem Schwert. Fasciculi Arch. Hist. 7, 1993, 45-60. 2004: В. Йотов, Въопъжениетто и снапяжението от българското средновековие (VII-XI век) (Varna 2004). 2006: V. Jotov, Les Vikings dans la Péninsule Balkanique. In: M. Cullin-Mingaud / M. Doncheva / C. Landes / C. Huguenot (eds), Des Thraces aux Ottomans. La Bulgarie à travers les collections des musées de Varna (Lattes, Saint Germain-en-Laye 2006) 209212. Kahsnitz 2001: R. Kahsnitz, Erstes Buch der Makkabäer. In: Puhle 2001, 218-221. Kalmár 1935-1936: J. Kalmár, Säbel und Schwert in Ungarn. Zeitschr. Hist. Waffen u. Kostümkde (Berlin) XIV, N.F. 5, 1936, 150155. 1942: J. Kalmár, Pécsi sisak a honfoglalás körüli időből. In: Pécs szabad királyi város Majorossy Imre Múzeumának Értesítője 1942, 22-29. Keegan 1978: J. Keegan, The Face of Battle (London 1978). Kempke 1991: T. Kempke, Starigard / Oldenburg, Hauptburg der Slawen in Wagrien III. Die Waffen des 8.-13. Jahrhunderts. Offa Bücher 73 (Neumünster 1991). Kind 2002: Th. Kind, Archäologische Funde von Teilen der Reiterausrüstung aus Europa und ihr Beitrag zur Kultur- und Sozialgeschichte der Ottonenzeit. In: Henning 2002, 283-299. 214 1994-1995: L. Kovács, A Kárpát-medence kétélű kardjai a 10. század 2. feléből. (Adattár). Commun. Arch. Hungariae 19941995, 153-189. 1995: L. Kovács, Előkelő rusz vitéz egy székesfehérvári sírban. A rádiótelepi honfoglalás kori A. sír és kardja (A Noble Knight from Russ Buried in Székesfehérvár). In: L. Koszta (ed.), Kelet és nyugat között. Történeti tanulmányok Kristó Gyula tiszteletére (Szeged 1995). 2002: L. Kovács, A honfoglaló magyarok bőrpáncéljáról (About the Leather Armour of the Conquering Hungarians). Hadtört. Közl. 115/2, 2002, 311-334. Kristó 1980: Gy. Kristó, Oroszok az Árpád-kori Magyaroroszágon (Russes en Hongrie à l’époque des Árpáds). Acta Univ. Szegedinensis 67, 1980, 57-66. 1985: Gy. Kristó, Az augsburgi csata. Sorsdöntő Történelmi Napok 8 (Budapest 1985). 1986: Gy. Kristó, Az Árpád-kor háborúi (Budapest 1986). 1993: Gy. Kristó, Die Arpaden-Dynastie. Die Geschichte Ungarns von 895 bis 1301 (Szekszárd 1993). 1995: Gy. Kristó, A magyar állam megszületése. Szegedi Középkortörténeti Könyvtár 8 (Szeged 1995). Á. Bíró · Dating (with) weapon burials and the »Waffenwechsel« Langó 2005: P. Langó, Archaeological Research on the Conquering Hungarians: a Review. In: B. G. Mende (ed.), Research on the Prehistory of the Hungarians: a Review. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 18 (Budapest 2005) 175-340. Last 1972: M. Last, Die Bewaffnung der Karolingerzeit. Nachr. Niedersachsen Urgesch. 41, 1972, 77-93. László 1939: Gy. László, Fettich Nándor, A prágai Szent István kard régészeti megvilágításban (Nándor Fettich, L’epée de Saint Etienne du point de vue archéologique). Folia Arch. 1-2, 1939, 231-235. 1942: Gy. László, Budapest a népvándorlás korában. In: K. Szendy (ed.), Budapest története I. Budapest az ókorban, második rész (Budapest 1942) 781-818. 1982: Gy. László, 50 rajz a honfoglalókról (50 Drawings on the Ancient Hungarians) (Budapest 1982). Laszlovszky / Siklódi 1991: J. Laszlovszky / Cs. Siklódi, Archaeological Theory in Hungary since 1960: Theories without Theoretical Archaeology. In: I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeological Theory in Europe. The Last Three Decades (London, New York 1991) 272298. Lazarov 2003: И. Лазаров, Мечи и сабя. Оръжия на панните номади (V-VII в.) (Veliko Tărnovo 2003). Leppäaho 1964: J. Leppäaho, Späteisenzeitliche Waffen aus Finnland. Schwertinschriften und Waffenverzierungen des 9.-12. Jahrhunderts. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 61 (Helsinki 1964). Lewis 2005: M. J. Lewis, The Archaeological Authority of the Bayeux Tapestry. BAR British Ser. 404 (Oxford 2005). Leyser 1965: K. Leyser, The Battle at the Lech, 955. A Study in Tenth-Century Warfare. History: Journal Hist. Assoc. 50, 1965, 1-25 (reprinted in Leyser 1982, 43-67; France / DeVries 2008, 393-417). 1968: K. Leyser, Henry I and the Beginnings of the Saxon Empire. English Hist. Review 83/326, 1968, 1-32 (reprinted in Leyser 1982, 11-42). 1982: K. Leyser, Medieval Germany and its Neighbours 9001250. Hist. Ser. 12 (London 1982). Liwoch 2008: R. Liwoch, Zachodioukraińske miecze i trzewiki pochew mieczowych od X do połowy XIII w (Western Ukrainian Swords and Sword’s Chapes from the 10th to Mid 13th Centuries). Acta Militaria Mediaevalia 4, 2008, 39-59. Marek 2005: L. Marek, Early Medieval Swords from Central and East Europe. Dilemmas of an Archaeologist and a Student of Arms. Acta Univ. Wratislaviensis 2713 (Wrocław 2005). Marosi 1938: A. Marosi, Levediai vonatkozások a székesfehérvári múzeum anyagában és a rádiótelepi kard. Székesfehérvári Szemle 3-4, 1938, 49-55. Martens 2004: I. Martens, Indigenous and Imported Viking Age Weapons in Norway – a Problem with European Implications. Journal Nordic Arch. Scien. 14, 2004, 125-137. McGeer 1995: E. McGeer, Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century. Dumbarton Oaks Stud. 33 (Washington D.C. 1995). MGH 1868: G. H. Pertz (ed.), Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptorum XX (Hannover 1868). Miller 2008: R. F. Miller, In Words and Deeds: Battle Speeches in History (Hanover u. a. 2008). Mishin 1996: D. Mishin, Ibrahim Ibn-Ya’qub At-Turtushi’s Account of the Slavs from the Middle of the Tenth Century. Annu. Medieval Stud. CEU 1994-1995 (1996), 184-199. Mitchell 2008: R. Mitchell, Light Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry, Horse Archers, Oh My! What Abstract Definitions Don’t Tell Us about 1205 Adrianople. Journal Medieval Military Hist. 6, 2008, 95-118. Molnár 1943: E. Molnár [L. Szentmiklósy], Az Árpádkori társadalom. A felépítmény (Budapest 1943). 1945: E. Molnár, Szent István (Budapest 1945). Morillo 1999: S. Morillo, The »Age of Cavalry« Revisited. In: D. J. Kagay / L. J. A. Villalon (eds), The Circle of War in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge 1999) 45-58. von zur Mühlen 1975: B. von zur Mühlen, Die Kultur der Wikinger in Ostpreussen. Bonner H. Vorgesch. 9 (Bonn 1975). Müller-Wille 1973: M. Müller-Wille, Zwei wikingerzeitliche Prachtschwerter aus der Umgebung von Haithabu In: K. Schietzel (ed.), Das archäologische Fundmaterial der Ausgrabung Haithabu II. Berichte über die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu 6 (Neumünster 1973) 47-89. 1976: M. Müller-Wille, Das Bootkammergrab von Haithabu. Berichte über die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu 8 (Neumünster 1976). 1978: M. Müller-Wille, Das Schiffsgrab von der Ile de Groix (Bretagne). Ein Exkurs zum »Bootkammergrab von Haithabu«. In: K. Schietzel (ed.), Das archäologische Fundmaterial der Ausgrabung Haithabu III. Berichte über die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu 12 (Neumünster 1978) 48-84. 1982: M. Müller-Wille, Zwei karolingische Schwerter aus Mittelnorwegen. Stud. Sachsenforsch. 3, 1982, 101-154. Négyesi 1996: L. Négyesi, Haderőreform a 10.-11. században (Heeresreform im 10.-11. Jahrhundert). Savaria 22/3, 1992-1995 (1996), 219-222. 2000: L. Négyesi, Gondolatok a lovasság csapatnemeiről: a könnyű- és nehézlovasság problematikája (Gedanken über die Truppengattungen der Reiterei: die Problematik der leichten und schweren Reiterei). In: L. Bende / G. Lőrinczy / Cs. Szalontai (eds), Hadak útján. A népvándorlás kor fiatal kutatóinak 10. konferenciája (Szeged 2000) 375-378. Nicolle 1995a: D. Nicolle, No Way Overland? Evidence for Byzantine Arms and Armour on the 10th-11th Century Taurus Frontier. Graeco-Arabica 6, 1995, 226-245. 1995b: D. Nicolle, Medieval Warfare Source Book 1. Warfare in Western Christendom (London 1995). 2002: D. Nicolle, Warriors and their Weapons around the Time of the Crusades. Relationships between Byzantium, the West and the Islamic World (Aldershot, Burlington 2002). Parani 2003: M. G. Parani, Reconstructing the Reality of Images. Byzantine Material Culture and Religious Iconography (11th-15th Centuries). The Medieval Mediterranean – Peoples, Economies and Cultures, 400-1453 41 (Boston, Leiden 2003). Paulsen 1933: P. Paulsen, Magyarországi viking leletek az észak- és nyugateurópai kultúrtörténe megvilágításában (Wikingerfunde aus Ungarn im Lichte der nord- und westeuropäischen Frühgeschichte). Archaeologia Hungarica. Acta Archaeologica Musei Nationalis Hungarici 12 (Budapest 1933). Pedersen 1997a: A. Pedersen, Similar Finds – Different Meanings? Some Preliminary Thoughts on the Viking-Age Burials with Riding Equipment in Scandinavia. In: Jensen / Nielsen 1997, 171183. Die Archäologie der frühen Ungarn 215 1997b: A. Pedersen, Weapons and Riding Gear in Burials: Evidence of Military and Social Rank in 10th Century Denmark? In: Jørgensen / Clausen 1997, 123-135. 2002: A. Pedersen, Prachtgräber des 10. Jahrhunderts in Südskandinavien: Tradition und Erneuerung. In: Henning 2002, 8194. Peirce 2002: I. Peirce, Swords of the Viking Age (Woodbridge 2002). Petersen 1919: J. Petersen, De norske vikingesverd. En typologiskkronologiske studie over vikingatidens vaaben. Videnskapsselskapets Skr. 2, Hist.-fil. Kl. 1919/2 (Kristiania 1919). Piatnitsky et al. 2000: Y. Piatnitsky / O. Baddeley / Ea. Brunner / M. Mundell Mango (eds), Sinai, Byzantium, Russia. Orthodox Art from the Sixth to the Twentieth Century (London 2000). Pinter 1999: Z.-K. Pinter, Spada şi sabia medieval în Transilvania şi Banat (secolele IX-XIV) (Reşiţa 1999). Plavinskij 2009: Н. А. Плавинский, Мечи эпохи бикингов с территории Беларуси (The Swords of the Viking Age on the Territory of Belarus). Stratum Plus 5, 2005-2009 (2009), 58-70. Polgár 2004: Sz. Polgár, Kora középkori (9-12. századi) kelet-európai fegyverkereskedelemre utaló feljegyzések az írott forrásokban. In: L. Balogh / L. Keller (eds), Fegyveres nomádok, nomád fegyveresek. Magyar Őstörténeti Könyvtár 21 (Budapest 2004) 92-100. Popa 1984: R. Popa, Knaufkrone eines wikingerzeitlichen Prachtschwertes von Păcuilul lui Soare. Germania 62/2, 1984, 425431. Puhle 2001: M. Puhle (ed.), Otto der Grosse, Magdeburg und Europa [exhibition cat.] (Mainz 2001). Randsborg 1981a: K. Randsborg, The Viking Age State Formation in Denmark. Offa 38, 1981, 259-276. 1981b: K. Randsborg, Burial, Succession and Early State Formation in Denmark. In: R. Chapman / I. Kinnes / K. Randsborg (eds), The Archaeology of Death. New Directions in Archaeology (Cambridge 1981) 105-121. Restle 1967: M. Restle, Die byzantinische Wandmalerei in Kleinasien (Recklinghausen 1967). Révész / Nepper 1996: L. Révész / I. M. Nepper, The Archaeological Heritage of the Ancient Hungarians. In: Fodor et al. 1996, 3756. Rohrer 2009: W. Rohrer, Wikinger oder Slawen? Die Interpretationsgeschichte frühpiastischer Bestattungen mit Waffenbeigabe. In: A. Klammt / S. Rossignol (eds), Mittelalterliche Eliten und Kulturtransfer östlich der Elbe (Göttingen 2009) 27-41. Rudziński 2009: P. M. Rudziński, tarcta we wczesnośredniowiecznej Polsce na tle europejskim. Od plemienia do państwa (Shield in Early Medieval Poland on the Background of the European Warfare. From Tribal Times to Early State). Acta Militaria Mediaevalia 5, 2009, 21-78. Ruttkay 1970: A. Ruttkay, Kornél Bakay, Archäologische Studien zur Frage der ungarischen Staatsgründung. Slovenská Arch. 18/2, 1970, 482-484. 1976: A. Ruttkay, Waffen und Reiterausrüstung des 9. bis zur ersten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts in der Slowakei (II). Slovenská Arch. 24/2, 1976, 245-395. Schuldt 1978: E. Schuldt, Einige bemerkenswerte Einzelfunde aus dem Burgwallgelände von Groß Raden, Kreis Sternberg. Jahrb. Bodendenkmalpfl. Mecklenburg 1977 (1978), 225-245. 216 Schulze-Dörrlamm 1984: M. Schulze-Dörrlamm, Das ungarische Kriegergrab von Aspers-lès-Corps. Untersuchungen zu den Ungarneinfällen nach Mittel-, West- und Südeuropa (899-955 n. Chr.) mit einem Exkurs zur Münzchronologie altungarischer Gräber. Jahrb. RGZM 31, 1984, 473-514. Shepard 2005: J. Shepard, Conversions and Regimes Compared: the Rus’ and the Poles, ca. 1000. In: Curta 2005, 254-282. Solberg 1991: B. Solberg, Weapon Export from the Continent to the Nordic Countries in the Carolingian Period. Stud. Sachsenforsch. 7, 1991, 241-259. Stalsberg 2008a: A. Stalsberg, Herstellung und Verbreitung der Vlfberht-Schwertklingen. Eine Neubewertung. Zeitschr. Arch. Mittelalter 36, 2008, 89-118. 2008b: A. Stalsberg, The Vlfberht Sword Blades Reevaluated (http://jenny-rita.org/annestalsberg.html; 15.4.2012). 2010: A. Stalsberg, Ulfberht Revisited: a Classification. In: J. Sheehan / D. Ó Corráin (eds), The Viking Age: Ireland and the West (Dublin 2010) 450-464. Steuer 1987: H. Steuer, Der Handel in der Wikingerzeit zwischen Nord- und Westeuropa aufgrund archäologischer Zeugnisse. In: K. Düwel / H. Jankuhn / H. Siems / D. Timpe (eds), Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mittel- und Nordeuropa 4. Der Handel der Karolinger- und Wikingerzeit. Abhandl. Akad. Wiss. Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Kl. 3/156 (Göttingen 1987) 113-197. Stoodley 1999: N. Stoodley, The Spindle and the Spear: a Critical Enquiry into the Construction and Meaning of Gender in the Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Rite. BAR British Ser. 288 (Oxford 1999). Strecker 1987: K. Strecker (ed.), Waltharius. Deutsche Übersetzung von P. Vossen (Hildesheim 21987). Szabó 2010: J. B. Szabó, A honfoglalóktól a huszárokig. A középkori magyar könnyűlovasságról (From the Hungarian Conquerors to the Hussars. Light Cavalry in Medieval Hungary) (Budapest 2010). Szameit 1992: E. Szameit, Ein VLFBERHT-Schwert aus der Donau bei Aggsbach, Niederösterreich. Arch. Austriaca 76, 1992, 215221. Szőke 1962: B. Szőke, A honfoglaló és kora Árpád-kori magyarság régészeti emlékei. Régészeti tanulmányok 1 (Budapest 1962). Szőllősy 2001: G. Szőllősy, Mi célt szolgál a szablya fokéle? Kísérleti megközelítések. Wosinsky Mór Múz. Évk. 23, 2001, 275-293. Talbot / Sullivan 2005: The History of Leo the Deacon. Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century. Introduction, Translation, and Annotations by A.-M. Talbot and D. F. Sullivan. Dumbarton Oaks Stud. 41 (Washington D.C. 2005). Tóth 1934: Z. Tóth, A huszárok eredetéről. Hadtört. Közl. 3-4, 1934, 129-196. Trillmich 1992: Thietmari Merseburgensis Episcopi Chronicon. Neu übertragen und erläutert von W. Trillmich. Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters 9 (Darmstadt 71992). Urbańczyk 2005: P. Urbańczyk, Early State Formation in East Central Europe. In: Curta 2005, 139-151. Urtan 1961: В. А. Уртан, Древние щиты на территории Латвийской ССР. Sovetskaja Arch. 1961/1, 216-224. Validi 1936: A. Z. Validi, Die Schwerter der Germanen nach arabischen Berichten des 9.-11. Jahrhunderts. Zeitschr. Dt. Morgenländ. Ges. 90, 1936, 19-37. Á. Bíró · Dating (with) weapon burials and the »Waffenwechsel« Verbruggen 2005: J. F. Verbruggen, The Role of the Cavalry in Medieval Warfare. Journal Medieval Military Hist. 3, 2005, 4671. Veszprémy 1996: L. Veszprémy, A nyugat-európai és bizánci hadviselés a honfoglalás és kalandozások idején. In: L. Veszprémy (ed.), Honfoglaló őseink (Budapest 1996) 66-80. 2008: L. Veszprémy, Szent István felövezéséről. In: Veszprémy, Lovagvilág Magyarországon (Budapest 2008) 66-77. Vinski 1983: Z. Vinski, Razmatranja o poslijekarolinškim mačevima 10. i 11. stolječa u Jugoslaviji (Betrachtung zu postkarolingischen Schwertern des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts in Jugoslawien). Starohrvatska Prosvjeta 3/13, 1983, 7-64. Volkmann 2008: A. Volkmann, Die Schwertfunde des unteren Oder- und Warthe-Gebiets: Insignien einer spätslawischen Elite. Ethnogr.-Arch. Zeitschr. 49/4, 2008, 431-478. Walsh 1998: A. Walsh, A Summary Classification of Viking Age Swords in Ireland. In: H. B. Clarke / M. N. Mhaonaigh / R. Ó Floinn (eds), Ireland and Scandinavia in the Early Viking Age (Dublin 1998) 222-235. Warner 2001: Ottonian Germany: the Chronicon of Thietmar of Merseburg. Translated and annotated by D. A. Warner (Manchester, New York 2001). Wendt 2007-2008: A. Wendt, Viking Age Gold Rings and the Question of »Gefolgschaft«. Lund Arch. Review 13-14, 20072008, 75-89. Wheeler 1927: R. E. M. Wheeler, London and the Vikings. London Mus. Cat. 1 (London 1927). E. L. Wheeler 2001: E. L. Wheeler, Firepower: Missile Weapons and the »Face of Battle«. In: E. Dąbrowa (ed.), Roman Military Studies. Electrum: Studies in Ancient History 5 (Kraków 2001) 169184. Wieczorek / Hinz 2000: A. Wieczorek / H.-M. Hinz (eds), Europas Mitte um 1000. Handbuch zur Ausstellung (Stuttgart 2000). Wilke 1999: G. Wilke, Unterwasserarchäologie in polnischen Flüssen und Seen 2. Brücken. SKYLLIS 2/1, 1999, 46-57. Williams 2009: A. Williams, A Metallurgical Study of Some Viking Swords. Gladius 29, 2009, 121-184. Wilson 1965: D. M. Wilson, Some Neglected Late Anglo-Saxon Swords. Medieval Arch. 9, 1965, 32-54. Ypey 1984: J. Ypey, Einige wikingerzeitliche Schwerter aus den Niederlanden. Offa 41, 1984, 213-225. Żabiński 2007: G. Żabiński, Viking Age Swords from Scotland. Acta Militaria Mediaevalia 3, 2007, 29-84. Żak 1957: J. Żak, Czy grób uzbrojonego jeźdźca z Ciepłego, pow. tczewski, jest grobem skandynawskim? (Is the Tomb of an Armed Horseman from Ciepłe, Distr. Tczew, a Scandinavian Tomb?). Arch. Polski 1, 1957, 164-180. Ziolkowski 2001: J. M. Ziolkowski, Fighting Words: Wordplay and Swordplay in the Waltharius. In: K. E. Olsen / A. Harbus / T. Hofstra (eds), Germanic Texts and Latin Models: Medieval Reconstructions. Mediaevalia Groningana 2. Germania Latina 4 (Leuven 2001) 29-51. 2008: J. M. Ziolkowski, Of Arms and the (Ger)man: Literary and Material Culture in the Waltharius. In: J. R. Davis / M. McCormick (eds), The Long Morning of Medieval Europe. New Directions in Early Medieval Studies (Aldershot, Burlington, 2008) 193-208. Zoll-Adamikova 1997: H. Zoll-Adamikova, Gräberfelder des 8./9.10./11. Jhs. mit skandinavischen Komponenten im slawischen Ostseeraum. Spraw. Arch. 49, 1997, 9-19. Abstract / Zusammenfassung / Rezümé Dating (with) weapon burials and the »Waffenwechsel«. A preliminary report on new investigations of the so-called Viking-Age swords in the Carpathian Basin from a chronological point of view Within the chronological system of the 10th-century Carpathian Basin, the Hungarian research attributes an important role to the straight double-edged »Viking swords«. According to Gy. László, K. Bakay and L. Kovács, these swords appeared in the archaeological material of the Magyars in the second half or last quarter of the century. The chronological position of the swords is based on the hypothesis of a military reform, a »weapon change« and the organisation of a new army by dux Géza and rex Saint Stephen I, since they recognised that the nomadic Magyar tactics and weaponry are inferior to the contemporary West European armoured heavy cavalry. In this paper, a historical and archaeological critique of the hypothesis is attempted, discussing topics like the possibility of an early medieval European military reform, the unconditional linking of certain weapon types to certain tactics, the archaeological identification of military matters like tactics and retinue, the comparison of the efficiency of sabre and sword, and finally the assumed certain West European origin of these swords. Datierung von/mit Waffengräbern und der Waffenwechsel. Ein Vorbericht über neue Forschungen zu chronologischen Aspekten der sog. wikingerzeitlichen Schwerter im Karpatenbecken Zweischneidige »Wikinger-Schwerter« des 10. Jahrhunderts im Karpatenbecken spielen eine große Rolle in der Chronologie des archäologischen Fundmaterials der Magyaren. Nach Meinung von Gy. László, K. Bakay und L. Kovács tauchen solche Schwerter aufgrund des angenommenen Waffenwechsels vom Säbel zum Schwert in der zweiten Hälfte oder im letzten Viertel des 10. Jahrhunderts auf. Darüber hinaus formulierten sie die Hypothese einer neu orga- Die Archäologie der frühen Ungarn 217 nisierten Armee schwer gepanzerter Reiter im Dienst von Fürst Géza und König Stephan. In ihren Augen waren die traditionelle magyarische Taktik und Bewaffnung gegenüber den ottonischen Gegnern minderwertig. Dieser Artikel durchleuchtet diese Hypothese kritisch, sowohl von historischer als auch von archäologischer Seite. Diskutiert werden in diesem Zusammenhang folgende Themen: die Möglichkeit einer frühmittelalterlichen militärischen Reform, die unbedingte Verbindung von militärischen Taktiken mit bestimmten Waffentypen, die archäologischen Identifikationsmöglichkeiten von Taktik und Gefolgschaft, der Vergleich der Effizienz von Säbel und Schwert und schließlich die vorausgesetzte sichere westeuropäische Herkunft der Schwerter. A honfoglalás kori fegyveres sírok datálása és az ún. fegyverváltás. Előzetes jelentés a 10. századi Kárpátmedencei kétélű kardok kutatásáról A 10. századi Kárpát-medence régészeti leletanyagának kronológiai rendszerében az egyenes, kétélű, ún. viking kardoknak a magyar kutatás jelentős szerepet tulajdonít. László Gy., Bakay K. és Kovács L. elképzelései szerint e kardok a század második felében, utolsó harmadában jelennek csak meg a honfoglaló magyarság hagyatékában, feltűnésüket pedig Géza, illetve Szent István hadsereg szervezéséhez kapcsolták. Véleményük szerint e kardok a nehézlovas harcmodor elterjedését és magyarországi meghonosítását jelzik, mivel a kalandozások lezárultával, különösen pedig a 955. évi Lech mezei vereség következtében nyilvánvalóvá vált, hogy sem a »nomád« magyar könnyűlovas taktika, sem pedig az ahhoz tartozó fegyverzet nem eléggé hatékony az egykorú nyugat-európai páncélos nehézlovassággal szemben. A nehézlovas harcmodor és fegyverzet átvétele tehát történeti szükségszerűség, amely a régészeti leletanyagban előforduló kétélű kardok keltezését is alapvetően befolyásolta. Jelen tanulmányban a szerző arra tesz kísérletet, hogy a szóban forgó történeti és régészeti hipotézis módszertani hiányosságaira rámutasson, és egyúttal a feltételezett hadsereg reform és fegyverváltás történeti lehetőségéről, bizonyos fegyverek kizárólagos taktikai szerepéről, katonai fogalmak régészeti lenyomatáról, a kétélű kard és a szablya fizikai összehasonlításáról és e kardok eredetkérdéséről értekezzen. 218 Á. Bíró · Dating (with) weapon burials and the »Waffenwechsel« AUS DEM VERLAGSPROGRAMM Falko Daim · Ernst Lauermann (Hrsg.) Das frühungarische Reitergrab von Gnadendorf (Niederösterreich) Monographien des RGZM Band 64 (2. Auflage 2006) 315 S. mit 197 Abb., 12 Farbtaf. ISBN 3-88467-094-8 48,– € Das Reitergrab von Gnadendorf ist aus verschiedenen Gründen außergewöhnlich. Zunächst wurde es außerhalb des damaligen ungarischen Siedlungsgebietes angelegt, weiters handelt es sich bei dem Bestatteten um einen 14-jährigen, kampferfahrenen Jungen, und drittens verfügt das Grab über eine vorzügliche Ausstattung. Das Grab wirft einige grundlegende Fragen auf, denn sämtliche Fundgegenstände scheinen lange in Gebrauch gewesen zu sein. Außerdem haben zwei 14C-Datierungen einen Bestattungszeitpunkt erst um das Jahr 1000 ergeben. Treffen die naturwissenschaftlichen Datierungen zu, stellt sich die Frage, warum man den Knaben weit weg von den ungarischen Siedlungen mit wertvollen, aber teils sehr alten Sachen bestattet hat. Bedenkt man, dass der ungarische Stämmebund um die Jahrtausendwende die Umstrukturierung zu einem »modernen« mittelalterlichen Staat auf christlichen Grundlagen erlebte, könnte es sein, dass die Bestattung von Gnadendorf als Demonstration gegen diese Veränderung gedacht war. Das vorliegende Buch enthält neben einer detaillierten Fundvorlage zahlreiche Studien, die »den Fall Gnadendorf« aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven beleuchten. Falko Daim (Hrsg.) Heldengrab im Niemandsland Ein frühungarischer Reiter aus Niederösterreich »Heldengrab im Niemandsland« erscheint anlässlich der gleichnamigen Kabinettausstellung des RGZM im Kurfürstlichen Schloß Mainz (14. September bis 19. November 2006). Das aufwändig ausgestattete Werk fasst in mehreren Beiträgen die Forschungsergebnisse zum Grab von Gnadendorf sowie zum historisch-archäologischen Umfeld zusammen. Ein umfassender Artikel von Mechthild Schulze-Dörrlamm thematisiert darüber hinausgehend die archäologischen Belege für die frühungarischen Raubzüge in der ersten Hälfte des 10. Jahrhunderts. Die lange Zeit fast unbesiegbaren Reiter gelangten bis nach Oberitalien, an die Atlantikküste und die heutige dänische Grenze, bis sie 955 vom Heeresaufgebot König Ottos I. bei Augsburg vernichtend geschlagen werden konnten. Mosaiksteine. Forschungen am RGZM Band 2 (2., verbesserte Auflage 2007) 68 S. mit 49 Farb- u. 29 sw-Abb. ISBN 3-88467-101-4 16,50 € Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz Ernst-Ludwig-Platz 2 · 55116 Mainz · Tel.: 0 61 31 / 91 24-0 · Fax: 0 61 31 / 91 24-199 E-Mail: verlag@rgzm.de · Internet: www.rgzm.de · www.shop.rgzm.de AUS DEM VERLAGSPROGRAMM Lutz Grunwald · Heidi Pantermehl · Rainer Schreg (Hrsg.) Hochmittelalterliche Keramik am Rhein Eine Quelle für Produktion und Alltag des 9. bis 12. Jahrhunderts RGZM – Tagungen, Band 13 1. Auflage 2012, 262 S. mit 127 z. T. farb. Abb. ISBN 978-3-88467-191-7 37,– € Durch die Tagung »Hochmittelalterliche Keramik am Rhein« gelang es, für das 9. bis 12. Jahrhundert eine Bilanz des derzeitigen Forschungsstands zu diesem »Leitfossil« der archäologischen Wissenschaft zu ziehen. Der vorliegende Band bietet mit seinen 21 Beiträgen nicht nur einen wichtigen Überblick über den aktuellen Forschungsstand zur entlang des Rheins anzutreffenden hochmittelalterlichen Keramik. Ausgehend von den unterschiedlichsten, in der Schweiz, Frankreich, Deutschland und den Niederlanden angesiedelten Forschungsvorhaben erweitert er darüber hinaus den Blick von einzelnen Fundstellen und Töpferregionen auf überregionale Betrachtungen und Zusammenhänge hinsichtlich der Warenarten, ihrer Produktion und des Handels mit keramischen Gütern. Einige Beiträge liefern für bestimmte Regionen am Rhein zudem erstmals eine Beschreibung der dort in dieser Zeit vorhandenen Tonwaren. In der Zusammenschau der Einzeldarstellungen ergeben sich neue Einblicke sowohl in die regionale Wirtschaftsgeschichte als auch in die großräumigen Entwicklungstendenzen, die in dieser Epoche das Leben und den Alltag der Menschen entlang des Rheins prägten. Hajanalka Herold Zillingtal (Burgenland) Die Awarenzeitliche Siedlung und die Keramikfunde des Gräberfeldes Monographien des RGZM, Band 80,1-2 2 Bände, zus. 438 S., 120 Abb., 240 Farbtaf., 4 Beil. ISBN 978-3-88467-133-7 272,– € Die Bearbeitung der frühmittelalterlichen Siedlung (7.-8. Jahrhundert n. Chr.) sowie der Keramikfunde des zugehörigen Gräberfeldes konzentriert sich auf drei Schwerpunkte: awarenzeitliche Siedlungsbefunde und Siedlungsstrukturen im Karpatenbecken, Keramikproduktion und Keramikgebrauch in der Awarenzeit sowie awarenzeitliche Traditionen in Zillingtal bei der Beigabe von Keramikgefäßen ins Grab. Bei den Siedlungsbefunden interessiert vor allem die frühmittelalterliche Wiederverwendung der römischen Ruinen. Die Auswertung des Fundmaterials konzentriert sich auf die Keramikfunde, mit denen zusammen auch die Keramikgefäße des awarenzeitlichen Gräberfeldes untersucht werden. Dazu dienen archäologische und archäometrische Analysen sowie Methoden der experimentellen Archäologie. Die gewonnene Chronologie der Grabgefäße und die anthropologischen Daten der Bestatteten bilden die Basis für die Analyse der awarenzeitlichen Traditionen bei der Beigabe von Keramikgefäßen in die Gräber. Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz Ernst-Ludwig-Platz 2 · 55116 Mainz · Tel.: 0 61 31 / 91 24-0 · Fax: 0 61 31 / 91 24-199 E-Mail: verlag@rgzm.de · Internet: www.rgzm.de · www.shop.rgzm.de AUS DEM VERLAGSPROGRAMM Ljudmila Pekarska Jewellery of Princely Kiev The Kiev Hoards in the British Museum and The Metropolitan Museum of Art and Related Material Monographien des RGZM, Band 92 268 S. mit 270 meist farbigen Abb. ISBN 978-3-88467-172-6 (RGZM) 76,– € In the capital of Kievan Rus’, princely Kiev, almost 70 medieval hoards have been discovered to date. The hoards contained gold and silver jewellery of the ruling dynasty, nobility and the Christian Church. They were unique to Kiev and their quantity and magnificence of style cannot be matched by anything found either in any other former city of Rus’, or in Byzantium. Most of the objects never had been published outside the former Soviet Union. During the 17th-20th centuries, many medieval hoards were gradually unearthed; some disappeared soon after they were found. This book provides a complete picture of the three largest medieval hoards discovered in Kiev: in 1906, 1842 and 1824, and traces the history and whereabouts of other lost treasures. Other treasures took pride of place in some of the world’s top museums. This publication highlights the splendid heritage of medieval Kievan jewellery. It illustrates not only the high level of art and jewellery craftsmanship in the capital, but also the extraordinary religious, political, cultural and social development of Kievan Rus’, the largest and most powerful East Slavic state in medieval Europe. Aleksandr I. Ajbabin Archäologie und Geschichte der Krim im Frühmittelalter Obwohl die Archäologie und Geschichte der byzantinischen Krim ein gut untersuchtes Thema ist, wurden die Forschungsergebnisse jenseits des russischen Sprachraums nur schwach rezipiert. Die hier vorgelegte Monographie des international renommierten Archäologen Aleksandr I. Ajbabin, die aus einem gemeinsamen Projekt des RGZM und der Ukrainischen Akademie der Wissenschaften hervorgegangen ist, soll dabei helfen, diesen wesentlich vom Spannungsverhältnis von Steppenvölkern und Byzantinischem Reich geprägten Raum neu und verstärkt wahrzunehmen. Die gründlich überarbeitete und erweiterte Übersetzung des erstmals 1999 in russischer Sprache erschienenen Werkes präsentiert dem deutschen Publikum eine umfassende Übersicht über das teilweise schwer zugänglich publizierte Fundmaterial und seine Chronologie. Monographien des RGZM, Band 98 288 S. mit 89 Abb., 32 Taf. ISBN 978-3-88467-188-7 (RGZM) 72,– € Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz Ernst-Ludwig-Platz 2 · 55116 Mainz · Tel.: 0 61 31 / 91 24-0 · Fax: 0 61 31 / 91 24-199 E-Mail: verlag@rgzm.de · Internet: www.rgzm.de · www.shop.rgzm.de