1
Florin Curta and Robert Lierse
At the beginning of a list of kings compiled at the court of King Perctarit (672–688), which became known as the Origins of the Lombard People, there is a short account of how the Lombards came into being. The anonymous author introduces them first as Winnili, a small group of warriors ruled by a woman named Gambara and her two sons, Ibor and Aio. When confronted by the Vandals, who asked them to pay tribute, the Winnili chose to go to war. They turned to the goddess Frea and asked her to intercede with her husband, Woden, in order to grant them a victory over the Vandals. Frea advised the Winnili to bring their women with them, “with their hair let down around the face in the likeness of a beard.”1 Woden was impressed and asked Frea about the identity of the long-bearded people. In her reply, Frea asked him to grant them victory, because he had now given them a new name. The Winnili thus became Longobards (Lombards). This story received a great deal of scholarly attention in the 20th century. Some believed they could detect in it nuggets of authentically Germanic oral traditions; others believed that it was in fact the product of the political circumstances in the Lombard kingdom, more specifically serving to legitimize Perctarit’s claims to power against the “House of Grimoald and the Friulan kings.”2 Few have noticed that the point of the anecdote is that women won the battle on behalf of their husbands by means of appearance, not weapons. For the subterfuge to work with Woden (and, presumably, with the Vandals), it was sufficient for those women to turn their long hair into fake beards. Frea’s stratagem was therefore not just to bring to Woden’s eyes women looking like men; they also had to appear as warriors. This strongly suggests that, to the audience of the Origins, long beards were commonly associated with warriors. According to Paul the Deacon, who knew the story of “hair-into-beards,” a long beard was indeed something worth mentioning in the epitaph of a Lombard warrior.3
It is not at all clear why that was the case. That warriors had (long) beards is something that is often taken for granted, but not explained. It has long been recognized that humans are experts in perceiving information from faces. Faces, in other words, communicate quickly about gender, ethnicity, emotion, attractiveness, symmetry, averageness, and mate quality.4 Studies in behavioral science and social psychology confirm that beardedness affects judgments of male social and sexual attributes. Beards augment perceptions of maturity and masculinity.5 Bearded men are ascribed positive attributes such as self-confidence, courage, sincerity, generosity, and industriousness.6 In short, perceived masculinity rises linearly with facial hair.7 Some have noted that there are more men with beards when there are more men of marriageable age in the mating market.8 Others believe that a preference for masculine facial shape is greater among women living in countries with the lowest standards of healthcare or with the highest income inequality.9
Given that perceptions are culturally constructed and contingent upon historical context, it remains unclear whether the results of such studies may be extrapolated to the early Middle Ages. Nonetheless, a few scholars have recently focused instead on the manner in which facial traits are positively associated with men’s dominance and competitive ability in the eyes of men.10 In adulthood, men’s acquisition of status and mating success within male-male hierarchies is associated with facial masculinity, dominance, and height – all of which may have been criteria operating in a medieval society as well.11 Some have gone as far as to suggest that such traits as beards and low-pitched voices emerged as male features predominantly through male-male competition.12 Others believe that beards work like manes for male lions, in that they cover the vital parts of the face and neck from costly strikes. In other words, beards may have evolved as a form of protection against blows to the lower face.13 In reality (especially that of medieval combat), beards were most likely a handicap, because they could enable the opponent to pull’s one neck and head closer to the blow. Only high-quality warriors could adorn with full beards. They may have done so in order to signal confidence in their ability to overcome the handicapping effects of the beard to any opponents.14 A long, full beard was therefore not an honest signal of a warrior’s fighting ability. Beards are, in fact, dishonest signals of formidability that could curtail the costs of engaging in fighting given the exaggerating effects that beards could have on judgments of masculinity, dominance, and aggressiveness.15
Historians have not yet explored the implications of these conclusions.16 To be sure, there is a surge of interest in the “language of hair” throughout history, but not in the ability of beards to mask one’s martial and social abilities.17 The same is true for historians of medieval hair: “the hair makes the man.”18 Some have noted that to be a godfather often meant to supervise the cutting of a boy’s first beard.19 Others believe that Einhard’s description of the last Merovingian king as sitting on the throne with hair long and beard uncut is a “deprecatory expression of enfeeblement.”20 Primarily on the basis of Gregory of Tours and images on Merovingian coins, Paul Dutton has advanced the idea that a major change in beard fashion happened with the ascension of the Carolingians in the mid-8th century. Unlike Merovingian kings with their long, full beards, the Carolingians sported stubbled beards. Frankish aristocrats quickly imitated them in order to set themselves apart from their cleanly shaved subjects.21
However, neither historians nor archaeologists studying the Middle Ages have so far explored the meanings of beards associated with warriors. While the lack of sufficient evidence from written sources may explain the inability of historians to deal with this matter, archaeologists are in a radically different position. Their lack of interest is surprising given that prehistorians have by now accepted the idea that grooming tools (“toilet articles”) were a key component of burial assemblages associated with “warrior graves” of the late Bronze Age.22 While not discarding the possibility that such artifacts were deposited in the graves of warriors as tools for grooming the corpse before burial, most archaeologists now accept the idea that those instruments were part of “a unique life style of an emergent warrior aristocracy,” implying a new notion of self and personhood.23 This conclusion becomes even more interesting when one takes into account that razors, shears, and tweezers are commonly found in late Iron Age assemblages as well, particularly in the Carpathian Basin. However, at that later time, most of the toiletries were found in graves without weapons, an indication of a dramatic change in the social meaning of facial hair.24 Such observations have not inspired similar studies in the archaeology of the Middle Ages. To be sure, it has long been noted that combs may be found in Anglo-Saxon graves, together both with tweezers (often in male burials) and with brooches (in exclusively female burials). In Anglo-Saxon England, combs are relatively rare in inhumations, but quite common in cremation graves. Some at least seem to have been deliberately broken before deposition.25 While the combination of scissors (shears) and combs was interpreted in reference to the cutting of hair, combs, scissors, and tweezers appear in early medieval cemeteries in Bavaria with males from iuvenis and older, but they are more common, especially when found together, in the graves of old men.26 Moreover, toiletries appear in such graves together with weapons – swords, lance heads, seax, and arrowheads.27 All of those observations, however, are tied to particular locales (regions of the European continent) and specific chronological spans. There has been no attempt so far to explore changes from a long-term perspective (several centuries) even within a restricted, well-defined region.
In this chapter, we have attempted to do just that – looking at changes in the deposition of toiletries (or single instruments of grooming) in graves dated between the 6th and the 9th centuries within a relatively large area of East Central Europe including the Carpathian Basin and the neighboring regions to the northwest (the valley of the Morava River) and to the southwest (continental Croatia and Dalmatia). During the earlier period considered in this chapter, this region was on the eastern periphery of the archaeological phenomenon known in Europe as the Reihengräberzivilisation.28 Similarly, Moravia, the western parts of the Carpathian Basin (now in western Hungary), and western Croatia were areas of the easternmost Frankish encroachment during the 9th century.29 The significance of peripheries (or borderlands) for the understanding of changes taking place at the center has been long recognized. However, in the case of the region discussed in this chapter, the eastern reverberations of the transformations inside the Frankish realm are less at stake. Much more important is the question of continuity at the local level: did practices linked to the self-representation of warriors survive in any shape or form from the 6th to the 9th century? Were 9th-century beards the same symbolically as before the Avar conquest of the Carpathian Basin? How can differences be explained, and what can they tell us about the social symbolism of facial hair?
Because of the ambiguity involved in the function of combs and scissors (shears), which may have been used for the hair on the top of the head as well as for beards, we will focus on two specific toilet articles – razors and tweezers – directly associated, in almost all ages, with facial hair. We will first examine the archaeological evidence of razors and tweezers for the 6th and 7th as well as the 9th centuries, before turning to the significance of the grooming kit (toilet articles commonly found together) in relation to the deposition of weapons and the representation of masculinity. We will then turn to the visual sources for “bearded men” in East Central Europe between the 6th and the 9th centuries. Several strings of evidence will be brought together in the conclusion, where we will advance a new model of interpretation for the deposition of toiletries in early medieval graves with, as well as without, weapons.
Razors
With one notable exception, no razors have been in East Central Europe that could be dated to the 6th century. The exception was found with a male skeleton placed inside a coffin in grave 34 of the cemetery excavated in Tamási (Tolna County, Hungary; Figure 1.1). Although the grave had been robbed, much like most of the other 52 burials in that cemetery, the position of most of the artifacts in relation to the skeleton (which was found intact and undisturbed) could be determined with a great degree of precision. The razor was found in the region of the abdomen in a pile of artifacts that included a flint steel, an awl, and two small knives, one of which was a fragment. This context suggests that the razor was inside a purse made of leather or textile fabric.30 The 6-cm-long instrument has a wide blade and a relatively short and narrow handle, but in all other respects it is not very different from a regular knife. Under the right forearm of the skeleton was a seax, and next to it, on the right leg, was a bundle of nine arrowheads that were probably in a quiver attached to the belt by means of a suspension strap, as suggested by the associated iron buckle.31 Both the seax and arrowheads are clearly weapons, but grave 34 was by no means the most important burial with weapons in the cemetery excavated in Tamási. The most impressive in terms of military equipment is grave 24 on the opposite, southern side of the site, which was complete with a double-edged sword with damascened decoration on the blade, a shield, and a lance head.32 Moreover, the pit for grave 34 was dug on the northern edge of the cemetery, in a relatively isolated position. Out of six graves surrounding it, four are of women (graves 30, 32, 33, and 35) and another is the burial of a child (grave 25). This arrangement suggests a family plot, and it is quite possible that the man buried with the razor in the purse was the head of that family.33
FIGURE 1.1 Tamási (Hungary), grave 34 – plan and selected grave goods: razor, bronze ring, arrowheads, and flint steel.
Source: After Bóna and Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder.
The contents of the purse in which the razor was found are not unlike those of the men buried in graves 20, 28, 39, and 48 of the same cemetery – knives, flint steels, and awls.34 This suggests that, instead of a personal “survival kit,” the purse deposited on the abdomen of each one of the men contained a standard collection of artifacts meant to represent symbolically a set of activities, such as fire-making, that was regarded as representative for men buried with weapons. If so, and despite its unique character in the entire Carpathian Basin, the razor found in grave 34 must also be linked to one such activity – shaving. In other words, this was not an instrument for personal grooming but the tool of a barber. Regardless of whether the man with whom the razor was deposited truly was a barber in his lifetime, the symbolism attached to the razor and its metaphorical use in the burial assemblage are quite evident. They point to the special character of both the instrument and the activity. Although not of the highest social status in the community, the man in grave 34 was regarded as special by the members of that community who had orchestrated his burial.
A very different kind of razor made its appearance after 700. Its construction is completely different from that of earlier razors: it was in fact a true jack-knife.35 To judge from the existing evidence, such jack-knife razors first appear in the southern and southeastern areas of the Merovingian and early Carolingian realms. They were relatively common in 8th-century burial assemblages in eastern Bavaria.36 Despite evidence of contact with those areas throughout the 8th century, no razors of any kind are known from the Carpathian Basin at that time.37 The earliest razors in East Central Europe cannot be dated before ca. 800. Cemeteries associated with 9th-century strongholds have produced most of the finds known from Moravia.38 No fewer than 31 have been found in the cemetery excavated at the Na Valách site in Staré Město (near Uherské Hradiště, Czech Republic), and 19 more are known from the graveyard around the basilica in Mikulčice (near Hodonín, Czech Republic).39 Slightly fewer razors (15) have been discovered in Pohansko (near Břeclav, Czech Republic) on three different sites both inside and outside the stronghold.40 Two other cemetery sites in Moravia have produced as many as 14 razors each, while ten more razors are known from another, third graveyard.41 Six more specimens have been discovered in the cemetery excavated in Velké Bílovice (near Břeclav, Czech Republic).42 By contrast, four cemeteries in Moravia – Morkůvky (halfway between Hodonín and Brno), Mutěnice (near Hodonín), Rajhradice (on the southern outskirts of Brno), and Velatice (on the eastern outskirts of Brno) – have produced only one razor each.43 A few razors have also been found in three separate settlement features in the southern bailey at Pohansko.44
Across the Morava River from Hodonín, the barrow cemetery excavated in Skalica so far has produced the largest number of razors from (southwestern) Slovakia – 6.45 Four specimens are known from Devín – at the confluence of the Morava and the Danube – three at the Za kostolach site, and another from a grave discovered inside the stronghold.46 Another group of four razors is known from the large cemetery excavated in Čakajovce, on the northern outskirts of Nitra.47 Two specimens are known from two different sites in Nitra, two more are from a cemetery excavated in Bajč near Komárno on the Slovak-Hungarian border on the Danube, and another two are from the nearby site at Svätý Peter.48 The cemetery excavated in Závada (near Topoľčany) has also produced two razors.49 However, in sharp contrast to Moravia, no fewer than 12 sites in Slovakia are known for just one razor each.50 Like in Moravia, razors have been found in settlement features.51 While finds in Austria are rare, razors appear in cemeteries excavated in the hinter-land of the power center at Mosapurc (Zalavár), at the western end of Lake Balaton, in Hungary.52 Again, they have also been found on contemporaneous settlement sites in that region.53 Razors are completely absent from the central and eastern parts of the Carpathian Basin, but they appear in the northwestern Balkans. Four specimens have been found in the cemetery excavated at the Ždrijac site in Nin (western Croatia), and another two are from a single grave in the cemetery excavated at the Stranče-Gorica site near Crikvenica (northwestern Croatia).54 Single specimens are known from four other sites, three in Croatia and one in western Bosnia.55
All of those razors have a trapezoidal shape and are about 10 cm long. Traces of either leather or fabric are found on the sheet-metal housings of several finds, which suggests they were either wrapped in the material or kept in pouches.56 Almost half of all known razors (49.7 percent of all specimens recorded in Appendix 3) have been found along with weapons (swords, seaxes, axes, lance heads, and arrowheads) and spurs (with accompanying mounts, strap ends, and buckles for the attaching straps).57 In only a few instances were razors found alone and not along with artifacts signaling martial skills.58 Some of the most common artifacts found along with razors are buckles, strap ends, and belt mounts. Those objects were part of military equipment, as they served to strap the sword or the seax to the waist and to tie spurs to the boots. They were therefore part of a warrior’s dress. In some instances, they have the same kind of decoration, and they clearly formed an ensemble of war gear. Out of 171 graves with razors considered for analysis in this chapter, 33 (19.3 percent) contained at least one such object, with the majority of graves containing several. In Pohansko, buckles and fittings were found with razors in 57 percent of the graves, while 54 percent of the graves from Staré Město contained both. In Croatia, only 38 percent of all graves had a combination of razor, buckles, and fittings. In many graves, buckles, fittings, and strap ends have been found with pairs of spurs. Fifty-one graves (29.8 percent of all graves considered in this chapter) produced both spurs and razors, with the largest number coming from Mikulčice.59
Fire steels are also frequently found with razors.60 They appear in 26.9 percent of all graves considered for analysis. In most instances, both the razor and the fire steel were placed next to each other in the grave. In many cases, they were accompanied by flint stones, as well as by various other small objects – keys, awls, whet-stones, chunks of resin, bronze or iron bits, or Roman bronze coins – surrounded by traces of leather or textile fabric, both indications of pouches. Because many of those items were typically found next to the hip (more often on the left than on the right side), the pouch must have been attached to a belt and hung from the waist. In some cases, such objects were deposited separately, each in a different part of the grave, perhaps in a ritual gesture of emptying the pouch over the body laid down in the pit.
By far more common is the association of razors with knives. Some of those knives were found in fragments, and it is possible that at least some were weapons (seaxes or daggers), not tools. In a few cases, several knives have been found in one and the same grave, some with highly decorated handles.61 Knives are present in 65 percent of all graves from Pohansko and more than 83 percent of the graves from Staré Město. Among the graves from Croatia, only that in Razbojine lacked a knife. Of all the graves, only a few have produced no knives, and of those only one-quarter lacked weapons or war gear. Grave 375 from Pohansko contained a razor, an axe, spurs, buckles and fittings, an arrowhead, but no knife (Figure 1.2).62 Similarly, there was no knife in grave 120 from that same site, which otherwise produced a razor and a pair of large spurs with associated buckles and fittings (Figure 1.3).63
FIGURE 1.2 Pohansko (Czech Republic), grave 375 in the cemetery by the Magnate Court – plan and selected grave goods: razor, battle axe, and spurs.
Source: After Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I.
FIGURE 1.3 Pohansko (Czech Republic), grave 120 in the cemetery by the Magnate Court – plan and selected grave goods: razor and spurs.
Source: After Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I.
Of all weapons, axes were most commonly deposited in graves together with razors (32.75 percent of all graves taken into consideration; Figure 1.4). All cases of association of razors with axes are from Moravia and Slovakia, with only one case recorded for western Hungary, and no such combination is known so far from Croatia. Out of 56 cases of that combination in Moravia, 14 are from Staré Město (46.7 percent of all graves with razors from that site) and six are from Pohansko (nearly half of all graves with razors from that site).64
FIGURE 1.4 Mikulčice (Czech Republic), grave 553 in the cemetery by the three-aisled basilica – plan and selected grave goods: battle axe, spur, and razor.
Source: After Klanica et al., Mikulčice.
The exceptional character of sword deposition in 9th-century graves explains why only 15 graves (8.77 percent of all graves considered for this chapter) produced both swords and razors. Individuals buried with swords also received some other weapon. For example, in grave 174 from Pohansko, there was a 97-cm-long sword of Petersen’s type X on the left side of the body, a long battle knife on top of it, and a battle axe by the right knee. Judging by the pair of spurs at the ankles, the 50-year-old man was buried in his riding boots. There were actually two razors in grave 174, both found at the right hip and probably in a leather pouch, together with a fire steel, two flint stones, a needle, and a key (Figure 1.5).65 Similarly, the men buried in grave 375 of the cemetery near the basilica in Mikulčice, grave 36 of the cemetery excavated in Nechvalín, and grave 190 of the cemetery excavated in Staré Město were given swords, battle axes, and a pair of spurs, complete with buckles, strap ends, and fittings.66 In Morkůvky as well as Nechvalín, some men were buried together with swords, lance heads, and battle axes.67 By contrast, no spurs and no other weapons have been found in grave 65 of the cemetery excavated in Pohansko at the Magnate Court site. Nonetheless, there was a sword (possibly of Petersen’s type B2) under the right arm of the skeleton and – immediately next to its tip – the razor (Figure 1.6).68 The association of razors with swords and no other weapons is also documented archaeologically in Slovakia and Austria.69 It is important to note that, with the exception of grave 4 of the cemetery excavated in Podhum at the Rešetarica site, the association of razors with swords is not attested in the Balkans. In Croatia, the only case of a razor found together with a weapon is that of grave 47 of the cemetery excavated in Kašić at the Maklinovo brdo site, which produced a seax (Figure 1.7).70
FIGURE 1.5 Pohansko (Czech Republic), grave 174 in the cemetery by the Magnate Court – plan and selected grave goods: sword, flint steel, battle axe, spurs, flint stones, awl, and razors.
Source: After Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I.
FIGURE 1.6 Pohansko (Czech Republic), grave 65 in the cemetery by the Magnate Court – plan and selected grave goods: razor and sword.
Source: After Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I.
FIGURE 1.7 Kašić (Croatia), grave 47 – plan and grave goods: razor and seax.
Source: After Belošević, La nécropole.
Tweezers
Tweezers are almost completely absent from 9th-century cemetery sites in East Central Europe. The only possible exceptions are the tweezers discovered during the excavation of the Na valách site in Staré Město, as well as those in grave 214 of the cemetery in Prušánky, near Hodonín.71 The latter belongs to the earliest burials on the site, and the excavator does not exclude a date before ca. 800.72 In Staré Město, the tweezers were found in a mound together with other items, but the exact date of those materials cannot be ascertained. Given the absence of tweezers from 9th-century graves, it is likely that the specimen in Staré Město belonged to an earlier grave that was displaced by the digging for the foundations of the 9th-century church at Na valách.73 What exactly the date of that grave may be can be determined from a simple examination of the evidence of tweezers from the earlier period. More than 100 specimens are known from assemblages dated to the 6th century, some of which are found not far from Staré Město. For example, out of 120 graves discovered in the 1980s in Lužice near Hodonín, less than 30 miles to the southwest from Staré Město, ten (8.33 percent) produced tweezers; all were found in male burials.74 Seven of them are of bronze, which is typically associated with weapons (sword, spearheads, arrowheads, shield).75 Besides weapons, tweezers are also associated three times with combs, and in one of those cases with scissors (or shears) as well.76 As most graves in the cemetery excavated in Lužice were robbed in the early Middle Ages (most likely shortly after burial), it is not possible to establish with any degree of certainty the position of the tweezers in relation to the body. In only one case can that position be ascertained (Figure 1.8): in grave 66, the iron tweezers were in the region of the chest, next to fragments of bronze and iron artifacts as well as of flint stone, perhaps all belonging to the contents of a pouch deposited on top of the human body.77 With two exceptions, all tweezers from Lužice were found in graves on the northern, eastern, and southern fringes of the cemetery (Figure 1.9). In the latter case, that is where two out of three graves with swords from Lužice were also found (graves 9 and 12), in both cases in association with tweezers. The southern fringe of the cemetery stands out as a “male” section, for most graves in this region contain men.78 On the eastern fringe, the two graves with tweezers (104 and 105) were not only adjacent but also weapon graves – a spearhead and a shield in one case and three arrowheads in the other. In fact, throughout the cemetery, the graves nearest to those with tweezers are also of men buried with weapons.79 In two cases, however, male graves with tweezers belong to clusters that include both female and child burials, possibly indicating small family plots.80
FIGURE 1.8 Lužice (Czech Republic), grave 66 – plan and selected grave goods: arrowheads, flint steel and small fragments of iron artifacts, and tweezers.
Source: After Tejral et al., Langobardische Gräberfelder.
FIGURE 1.9 Lužice – cemetery plan with the distribution of tweezers.
Source: After Tejral et al., Langobardische Gräberfelder.
Tweezers have also been found in association with weapons in cemeteries excavated in Bohemia that are of either the same date as Lužice or slightly earlier.81
The same is true for contemporaneous cemeteries in the Carpathian Basin.82 Out of 90 graves excavated in Szentendre, just north of Budapest, nine (10 percent) produced tweezers.83 In eight of them were buried men who had died at various ages, some young and others quite old. Six of them were buried with weapons, often in a combination of a sword with a seax, a spear, and a shield.84 When not accompanied by weapons, tweezers are associated with combs.85 It is important to note that, in Szentendre, tweezers have been found in male graves in association with (fragments of) mirrors.86 Although most graves in Szentendre were robbed in the early Middle Ages, in a few cases in which the skeleton was not disturbed, the exact position of the tweezers may be established in relation to the body. In graves 25 and 81, a pile of artifacts, including tweezers, was found in the region of the abdomen, forming the contents of a pouch (Figure 1.10).87 The tweezers found on the left forearm of the skeleton in grave 16 must have been placed there after the body was laid down in the pit, for nothing else was found in that part of the grave.88 Much like in Lužice, graves with tweezers were located on the fringes of the cemetery in Szentendre (Figure 1.11). There is a cluster of graves with weapons and tweezers on the northern fringe, with three out of all seven swords and three out of all six shields known from Szentendre. That this was an elite section of the cemetery can be determined from examination of the grave goods in grave 85, in which a female was buried with two pairs of gilded fibulae and a chalcedony pendant.89 Another cluster of three male graves with weapons and tweezers appears on the eastern fringe. The cluster also includes an elite female grave (29), which produced two pairs of gilded fibulae (one of them with a runic inscription) and a girdle strap decorated with silver mounts.90
FIGURE 1.10 Szentendre (Hungary), grave 25 – plan and selected grave goods: tweezers, flint stones and flint steel, sword, fragment of a silver mirror, and spearhead.
Source: After Bóna and Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder.
FIGURE 1.11 Szentendre – cemetery plan with the distribution of tweezers.
Source: After Bóna and Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder.
Combinations of tweezers and various weapons are also documented archaeo-logically in Transdanubia (the lands in present-day Hungary to the west of the Middle Danube). Out of 53 graves excavated in Tamási, seven (13.2 percent) produced tweezers – the largest proportion of all 6th-century cemeteries known so far. All are graves of men, and six of them were buried with weapons (sword, spear-and arrowheads, shield).91 In five of the seven cases, the tweezers belong to piles of artifacts found in the region of the abdomen. Those were most likely objects kept in pouches, as indicated by the bronze buckle found next to the pile in grave 39; the buckle was for attaching the pouch to the belt (Figure 1.12).92 All six graves with tweezers belong to clusters of male graves with weapons (Figure 1.13). The cluster on the southern fringe of the cemetery, where graves 24, 28, 39, and 40 are located, produced all swords known from Tamási, while in the cluster on the western fringe, mostly arrowheads were deposited in male graves. The association of tweezers with weapons is also documented archaeologically in Várpalota and Rácalmás, some 40 miles from Tamási to the north and northeast, respectively.93
FIGURE 1.12 Tamási (Hungary), grave 39 – plan and selected grave goods: spearhead, belt buckle, flint steel and awl, comb, and tweezers.
Source: After Bóna and Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder.
FIGURE 1.13 Tamási – cemetery plan with the distribution of tweezers.
Source: After Bóna and Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder.
The situation in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin is somewhat different. At a quick glance, there is a greater concentration of finds in the region of southeastern Hungary around the confluence of the rivers Tisza and Maros (Mureş) (Figure 1.14). However, in that region, as well as in Transylvania, tweezers are found alone or in the company of combs.94 In large cemeteries, tweezers are nonetheless associated with weapons. Only three out of 223 graves excavated in Szolnok, at the Szanda site, have produced tweezers.95 In one of them, the tweezers were found on the ilium of a man, buried together with a sword. The tweezers were also on the ilium in another male grave, which produced 13 arrowheads. An equally large number of arrowheads have been found in Hajdúszoboszló together with iron tweezers, a sword, two spears, and a shield in the grave of a 35- to 45-year-old man (Figure 1.15).96 The tweezers were on the left side of the man’s chest, together with a few other artifacts; all most likely were in a pouch thrown on the body after it had been lowered into the pit. Out of 65 graves excavated in Hódmezővásárhely, at the Gorzsa site, only three (4.6 percent) had tweezers.97 All are graves of men, but only one of them was buried with weapons (a sword, a spear, and a shield).98 Unfortunately, the position of the tweezers is not known, but in one of the other two graves the tweezers were found on the ilium with no other artifacts. In Szentes, at the Kökényzug site, five out of 74 graves dated to the 6th century have produced tweezers.99 Four of them are the graves of men, two of whom were buried with swords.100 In two graves, the tweezers were on the abdomen, in another they were under the ilium, and in the fourth grave they were next to the right forearm. In all of those cases, the tweezers were not associated with artifacts that would suggest the existence of a pouch. The number of graves with tweezers is proportionally far smaller in the nearby cemetery site at Berekhát, on the southern outskirts of Szentes. Out of 306 excavated graves, only 10 (3.27 percent) produced tweezers.101 None of the skeletons in that cemetery has been properly sexed and aged. However, there is a clear association of tweezers with weapons – a spearhead in grave 132, as well as arrowheads in graves 3, 40, 88, 132, and 150.102
FIGURE 1.14 The distribution of tweezers in the Carpathian Basin and the surrounding regions during the 6th century. The smallest circles mark individual specimens; larger circles indicate between 2 and 5, between 6 and 9, and more than 10 specimens, respectively. Numbers refer to Appendix 1.
FIGURE 1.15 Hajdúszoboszló (Hungary), male grave – plan and selected grave goods: spearheads, tweezers (with two rusted rings attached), sword, and shield boss.
Source: After Cseh et al., Gepidische Gräberfelder.
The association of tweezers with scissors (shears) and combs is just as frequent. A higher proportion of graves with tweezers is documented in Kiszombor (5.56 percent of all 144 graves excavated and dated to the 5th and 6th centuries).103 In only three graves were tweezers associated with spearheads. Much more frequent is the association of tweezers with double-sided combs and with scissors (shears). Again, the tweezers were often found on the ilium or in the region of the abdomen, with no other artifacts that could possibly indicate the contents of a pouch.104
At Stari Kostolac (Serbia), at the Više grobalja site (cemetery 2), five out of 98 graves (5.1 percent) have tweezers.105 Just as in the Tisza region, tweezers are typically found by themseves with no other artifacts, sometimes in unusual positions (such as on the right shoulder). However, in two cases (graves 113 and 129), there were weapons among the grave goods – spear- and arrowheads. Grave 113, located on the northwestern side of the cemetery with the largest cluster of weapon graves, is flanked by elite female graves with exquisite dress accessories – a gilded, square-headed fibula in grave 133 and amber beads in grave 112.106 Tweezers are also known from 6th-century cemeteries in Slovenia. Neither of the two graves with iron tweezers from Rifnik has produced weapons.107 However, in Kranj, where only 11 out of 647 graves (1.7 percent) contain tweezers, they are associated in two graves with a combination of weapons (sword, spear, shield, arrows) and with a spear, respectively.108 In four other cases, the tweezers appear together with combs. In grave 6, the tweezers were by the right shinbone, together with other artifacts(such as scissors) that may have been in a leather pouch, as indicated by remains stuck to the accompanying buckle. Scissors and tweezers were also in the pouch deposited on the ilium of the adult in grave 79. The tweezers in grave 34 may also have been in a pouch deposited by the left knee. By contrast, the specimen in grave 202 is said to have been found “above the feet,” possibly during the filling of the pit.
Only eight out of 113 assemblages with tweezers that dated to the 6th century (see Appendix 1) are from female graves (about 7 percent). In such graves, the position of the tweezers in relation to the body is very unusual – under the chin (Holubice, grave 33), on the left arm (Szentendre, grave 79), on the left thighbone (Szentes, grave 81; Stari Kostolac, grave 133), or between the ankles (Szőreg, grave 5). Such variation strongly suggests that the tweezers were placed on the body after it was lowered into the grave or they were simply thrown into the pit during the burial ceremony.109 It is also important to note that not a single set of tweezers has been found in a child burial. The overwhelming majority of graves with tweezers are of men, and, in several cases, the tweezers belonged to piles of artifacts, indicating the presence of pouches that were either attached at the belt during the dressing of the body or placed on top of it (or next to it) during the burial ceremony. In such pouches, tweezers were consistently found together with flint steels and flint stones, an association that suggests a standardized kit most likely based on two main ideas – grooming and making fire.
It has recently been suggested that 6th- to 7th-century tweezers may have been, at least in some cases, tools employed by jewelers “to handle small, hot objects or to fasten together small parts of the ornament.”110 However, tweezers are rarely found in settlement sites in East Central Europe, and even then they are not associated with jewelers’ tools or any other signs of craft activities.111 It is unlikely, therefore, that tweezers served any other purpose than grooming. That tweezers must have been a toilet article is demonstrated by the frequent association with combs – almost half of all graves with tweezers contained combs as well (49.5 percent). In most cases, the tweezers and the combs were found in different parts of the grave and in association with different parts of the body. For example, in grave 25 of the cemetery excavated in Dravlje, the comb was under the chin and the tweezers were on the ilium.112 Similarly, in grave 82 of the cemetery excavated in Hódmezővásárhely (Gorzsa site), the comb was by the skull and the tweezers were by the ilium, most likely in a pouch, as indicated by their association with such things as a knife, a fragment of bronze sheet, a lead applique, a flint steel, and six flint stones.113 In Kápolnásnyék, the comb was on the left shinbone, but the tweezers were still found on the right side of the abdomen, together with a knife and a ring, possibly the contents of a pouch.114 In grave 278 of the cemetery excavated in Kiszombor, the comb was on the left side of the skull, while the tweezers were found on the right side, just above the shoulder, together with two other iron artifacts that may have also belonged to a pouch.115 Sometimes, however, both comb(s) and tweezers are found together in the same pile of artifacts that may have been in a pouch.116 Scissors (shears) may also be found inside the pouch, as in grave 55 of the cemetery excavated at the Kökényzug site in Szentes.117 In fact, out of 13 instances in which scissors (shears) and tweezers were found together, eight included combs as well. These may well have been grooming kits, but tweezers were undoubtedly the most important of all toiletries, even when not associated either with scissors or with combs.
The deposition of tweezers in graves continued throughout the following two centuries.118 Much like in the 6th century, Avar-age tweezers were occasionally found in piles of artifacts that belonged to pouches.119 They were also associated with weapons – swords, spears, lances, and arrowheads, but also battle axes, bows, and sabers.120 However, tweezers are never found together with scissors and very rarely with combs.121 More than half of all graves with tweezers that dated to the Avar age did not produce any other artifacts. A comparatively larger proportion of graves with tweezers are those of women (20 out of 101 graves, 19.8 percent; see Appendix 2).122 Moreover, tweezers have been found in child and even horse burials.123 In addition to inhumation graves, during the Avar age, particularly during the second half of the 7th and in the 8th century, tweezers were also deposited in cremation burials.124 It remains unclear whether in such cases they were still toiletries. With inhumations, tweezers have been found in a great variety of positions – not only on the ilium125 but also next to the skull,126 on the chest,127 near the elbows,128 in or near the hands,129 next to the thighbone,130 between the legs,131 and at the feet.132 This variety strongly suggests that, far from being toiletries that once belonged to the individual being buried, tweezers were placed or thrown in the grave pit during the burial ceremonial. Although they appear in weapon graves until the end of the Avar age, tweezers were therefore neither beautification items nor necessarily (or exclusively) markers of male or warrior identity.
Grooming tools as metaphors
Fifteen tweezers (12.7 percent of all specimens in Appendix 1), most of them of iron, have been found in fragments. It remains unclear whether they had been deposited in that state in the first place. Regardless of their functionality, the interpretation of those grooming tools in a mortuary context depends upon two factors – their association with weapons and their inclusion among items carried in a pouch. Out of 23 cases in which the existence of a pouch may be ascertained on the basis of the precise location of items in relation to the body, 15 are weapon graves. That pouches very similar in context (including the presence of tweezers) appear in graves both with and without weapons strongly suggests that, although their significance must be considered separately, the two factors were symbolically correlated.133 The pouch in grave 14 in Rácalmás was placed next to a lance on the ilium of the male body, while that in grave 82 from the cemetery excavated in Szentendre was found next to a dagger. In 24 cases for which sufficient information exists, the pouch contained a relatively standard selection of artifacts, the most common of which were knives, followed by flint stones (Table 1.1). Despite the occasional inclusion of such exotica as found in Tamási – a piece of amber, fragments of glass (in grave 28), and an axe-shaped pendant (in grave 48) – the contents of the pouch seem to be less a function of practical needs than the result of a selection probably made by those organizing the burial ceremony. If so, then the tweezers, much like the accompanying fire steels and flint stones, must be interpreted as metaphors, especially when found in fragments. The symbolism of the tweezers is occasionally reinforced by the addition of (fragments of) mirrors, as in grave 25 of the Szentendre cemetery. Both artifacts point to grooming, although whether the metaphor is self-referential remains unclear. Given that the presence of the tweezers in the pouch (or in the grave pit in general) is the result of decisions made and actions taken at the time of the burial, the idea may have been to point to special skills that the men buried with the tweezers had and not necessarily to their preoccupation with grooming and appearance. Fire steels and flint stones were deposited in pouches to signal the ability of the men whom they accompanied in death to produce fire not only for themselves but for others, for example, while on campaign. Similarly, the whetstones occasionally found in pouches marked those men as capable of sharpening knives, not just their own but others’ as well. Scrap metal in the form of fragments of bronze sheet or bits of iron and bronze may have alluded to the crafting skills of those men.134 That pouches found in different graves from different cemeteries are so similar in contents further suggests the existence of equally similar ideas about male capabilities, if not ideals of masculinity. This conclusion is further substantiated by two observations. First, not all graves within a cemetery have pouches. Most men were buried without tweezers. In some cemeteries, only a single grave contains tweezers, as in Hegykő (with 82 graves), Moreşti (81 graves), Noşlac (80 graves), Várpalota (73 graves), Dravlje (49 graves), Vörs (37 graves), Ménfőcsanak (23 graves), and Rácalmás (20 graves). They were not the most prominent men in their respective communities, nor were their burials in any way special. Second, when associated with weapons, tweezers appear in burials of prominent men who are buried in separate sections of the cemetery or are flanked by rich burials of women and children. Some of them may have been heads of families. Nonetheless, tweezers also appear in the graves of men with no weapons, often in the company of combs.135 If our interpretation is correct, those may then be “simplified” versions of the metaphors applying to warriors.
|
TABLE 1.1 6th-century pouches with tweezers |
|||||||||||||
|
Grave /Artifact |
a |
b |
c |
d |
e |
f |
g |
h |
i |
j |
k |
l |
m |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Lužice 66 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||
|
Lužice, grave 81 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||
|
Szentendre, grave 79 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Kápolnásnyék |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Tamási, grave 36 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||
|
Szentendre, grave 81 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||
|
Szentendre, grave 44 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||
|
Hódmezővásárhely, grave 82 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||
|
Szentendre, grave 25 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||
|
Hódmezővásárhely, grave 51 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||
|
Hajdúszöboszló |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Szolnok, grave 6 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Tamási, grave 15 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||
|
Szentes, grave 57 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||
|
Kranj, grave 79 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||
|
Rácalmás, grave 14 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||
|
Tamási, grave 40 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||
|
Tamási, grave 28 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||
|
Tamási, grave 39 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||
|
Rákoczifalva, grave 176 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||
|
Szentendre, grave 82 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Kranj, grave 6 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||
|
Tamási, grave 48 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||
|
Szolnok, grave 191 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||
|
Column contents: a – bronze bits; b – whetstones; c – iron bits; d – rings; e – flint stones; f – flint steels; g – knives; h – scissors; i – appliques; j – bone objects; k – awls; l – bronze sheet; m – rivets. Shaded rows indicate weapon graves. |
|||||||||||||
Similar conclusions may be drawn from the study of razor deposition in 9th-century graves. Much like tweezers, razors are sometimes found in the graves of women or children.136 They may be found in various positions in relation to the body: next to the skull,137 by the elbow,138 in or by the hand,139 on the abdomen or on the ilium,140 at the hip,141 between the thighbones or the knees,142 or at the feet.143 However, in 84 out of 171 cases (49.1 percent of all recorded graves with razors), the razor was within a pile of objects that most likely had been inside a leather or textile pouch. Moreover, the association of razors with weapons suggests that the former not only were male-related artifacts but also conveyed the idea of warrior. Indeed, out of 65 skeletons found together with razors that have been properly sexed, half are adult men in their 40s and 50s.144 Moreover, the paleo-pathological analysis of the skeletal remains of the men buried in graves 65 and 174 of the cemetery excavated at the Magnate Court site in Pohansko revealed fractures of the nasal bone, which are most often diagnosed as the result of a direct blow to the face. In fact, 12.4 percent of all 145 male skeletons identified in that cemetery have fractures of the nasal bone.145 While this situation is undoubtedly the result of interpersonal violence, the presence of weapons suggests that the violence in question was associated with combat. Moreover, the swords and martial accoutrements deposited in the graves of such men are a clear indication that those who buried them were making a strong statement about a masculine, warrior identity. Razors were apparently part of that statement, and their position in relation to the body, often in association with other small objects, indicates a warrior kit (Table 1.2).146 In other words, judging by 9th-century burial practices in Moravia, Slovakia, western Hungary, and the northwestern Balkans, razors were more than tools for grooming; they had become symbolic representations and reflections of the masculine qualities attributed to the deceased. In that respect, the deposition of two razors within one grave (grave 1409 in Staré Město, grave 1210 in Mikulčice, grave 174 in Pohansko, and grave 4 in Crikvenica) may be interpreted as an effort to exaggerate those masculine qualities: the individual buried with those objects had been so manly in life that one razor just was not enough!147 By contrast, not all men were buried with razors. The distribution of razors within the cemetery excavated at the Horní Kotvice site in Sady (a residential quarter of Uherské Hradiště) is quite even, with no apparent clusters (Figure 1.16). A closer look, however, reveals that men were buried with razors in relative proximity to each other, separated either by female graves or by burials with no grave goods at all (e.g., the pair of graves 131 and 134 or 180 and 190).148 Spurs were associated with razors in two out of six graves found in Sady. By contrast, out of 10 graves with weapons (axes), half contained razors as well. However, there is no “male” section in the cemetery, and no particular cluster of weapon graves. Similarly, no “male” section existed in the church graveyard at the Magnate Court site in Pohansko. However, four out of 10 graves with razors cluster on the north(west)ern side of the church, right next to its foundations (Figure 1.17). This was also the area with the largest number of male graves with axes.149 The only grave in which a battle axe was associated with a sword is that of the “super-man” buried with two razors next to the western corner of the narthex (grave 174), which is dated to the second building phase of the church.150 The grave was flanked by two child burials and one female burial. The association with child and female burials also occurs for two other graves with razors (65 and 280), while the flanking by two child burials also appears on the opposite side of the cemetery, away from the church, in the case of grave 377. Three men were buried with razors in that part of the cemetery immediately next to female burials. In two out of three cases, the women received pairs of silver earrings and silver buttons (gombíky).151 This strongly suggests that those were wives of warriors who had the same social position in relation to each other and to that of their husbands. It is important to note that the latter position was marked as special in some cemeteries, but not in others. For example, there is a large number of razors in the church graveyard by the three-aisled basilica in Mikulčice, but none has been found in any of the other church graveyards excavated on that site.152 Much like with tweezers, in large cemeteries only single graves contain razors, as in Trnovec and Váhom (528 graves), Rajhradice (239 graves), Thunau am Kamp (215 graves), Pottenbrunn (188 graves), Sopronkőhida (145 graves), Nitra-Zobor (Lupka site, 91 graves), Svätý Peter (68 graves), and Pobedim (52 graves). Some of those graves (e.g., grave 130 in Thunau am Kamp) stand out among others within their respective cemeteries in terms of the number or quality of grave goods. Others, however, are comparatively poorer than graves without razors. Nonetheless, even in such cases, the razor is typically found together with weapons (especially axes), but right next to a fire steel and flint stones, which suggest the existence of a pouch. The fact that razors are found only in a select group of graves containing warrior gear further suggests that they signified some level of status that set the individual apart from other fighting men. Given that razors are most commonly found in the graves of older men, the inclusion of a razor may be an indication of a man’s status as a seasoned veteran – a man who had survived numerous conflicts and had a lifetime of experience in the rigors of going on campaigns. Furthermore, it is also possible that the inclusion of a razor may have been a marker of a man’s trustworthiness and dependability; after all, there is an implicit level of trust in allowing another to place a sharpened blade to one’s neck and cheek.
FIGURE 1.16 Sady–cemetery plan with the distribution of razors.
Source: After Marešová, Uherské Hradiště-Sady.
FIGURE 1.17 Pohansko (Czech Republic), Magnate Court – cemetery plan with the distribution of razors.
Source: After MEDCEM: https://medcem.aiscr.cz/map/50497.
|
TABLE 1.2 9th-century pouches with razors |
||||||||||||||
|
Grave /Artifact |
a |
b |
c |
d |
e |
f |
g |
h |
i |
j |
k |
l |
m |
n |
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Keszthely, grave 1 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Sady, grave 190 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Pěnčín |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Staré Město, grave 961 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Alsórajk, grave 19 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||
|
Čakajovce, grave 291 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Sady, grave 107 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||
|
Garabonc, grave 49 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Staré Město, grave 1304 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Garabonc, grave 81 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||
|
Čakajovce, grave 553 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Sady, grave 180 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Sady, grave 79 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||
|
Nechvalín, grave 15 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Staré Město, grave 1572 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Garabonc, grave 36 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||
|
Garabonc, grave 55 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||
|
Alsórajk, grave 5 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||
|
Velké Bílovice, grave 49 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Staré Město, grave 1271 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Staré Město, grave 1409 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Velké Bílovice, grave 49 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Mikulčice, grave 566 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Pohansko, grave 280 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Pottenbrunn, grave 155 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Staré Město, grave 739 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Staré Město, grave 1412 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Staré Město, grave 1472 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Esztergályhorváti, grave 28 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Sady, grave 201 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Devín, grave 87 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Sady, grave 134 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||
|
Staré Město, grave 1184 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Staré Město, grave 1220 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Sady, grave 131 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Sady, grave 211 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Prušánky, grave 561 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||
|
Velké Bílovice, grave 31 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||
|
Sady, grave 167 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Sady, grave 118 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Prušánky, grave 644 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Staré Město, grave 1180 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Prušánky, grave 75 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Prušánky, grave 538 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||
|
Prušánky, grave 659 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||
|
Staré Město, grave 1524 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Nechvalín, grave 116 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||
|
Mikulčice, grave 1210 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Ladice, grave 2 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Mikulčice, grave 580 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Pohansko, grave 19 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Pohansko, grave 174 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||
|
Staré Město, grave 1232 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Staré Město, grave 1375 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Prušánky, grave 613 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||
|
Svätý Peter, grave 27 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Prušánky, grave 579 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||
|
Prušánky, grave 189 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||
|
Mikulčice, grave 553 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Čakajovce, grave 587 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Prušánky, grave 369 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Galanta, grave 3 |
⋆ |
|||||||||||||
|
Staré Město, grave 1031 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Staré Město, grave 1476 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Prušánky, grave 321 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Mikulčice, grave 443 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Morkůvky, grave 2 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Prušánky, grave 89 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Prušánky, grave 234 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
⋆ |
|||||||||||
|
Nechvalín, grave 125 |
⋆ |
⋆ |
||||||||||||
|
Column contents: a – awl; b – iron rivets; c – Roman coin; d – iron or bronze ring; e – glass fragment; f – whetstone; g – needle; h – flint steel; i – flint stone; j – hook; k – arrowhead; l – bronze or iron bits; m – knife; n – scissors. Shaded rows represent weapon graves. |
||||||||||||||
What, then, is the meaning behind the deposition of razors in the graves of children? It is important to note that, in most cases, child burials with razors also contain one or more other objects of the “masculine kit.” For example, there was a razor in grave 280 from the cemetery excavated in Pohansko at the Magnate Court site. The tool was found next to the right shinbone, together with a fire steel and flint stones. A medium-sized knife in a wooden sheath was also found by the right knee and, next to it, a pair of intricately decorated spurs with accompanying buckles and fittings (Figure 1.18). A large battle axe was found together with a razor next to the remains of a child buried in grave 207 from the cemetery excavated at the Na Válach site in Staré Město.153 The existing evidence suggests that those who buried the children attributed masculine qualities to them, which, perhaps, they wished those children would have had they lived to reach maturity. That razors were used for that transfer of masculine qualities along with weapons is a strong indication that to be a man, in this particular case, was to be a warrior. At any rate, it is beyond doubt that razors deposited in child burials must be interpreted as metaphors, given that in some cases they were found with skeletons of infants.154 If so, then the same applies to the occasional deposition of razors in graves of women, often without any other gender-specific artifacts.155
FIGURE 1.18 Pohansko (Czech Republic), grave 280 in the cemetery by the Magnate Court – plan and selected grave goods: razor, flint steel, spurs, and flint stone.
Source: After Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I.
In Bavaria, razors occasionally appear together with tweezers in burial assemblages dated to the last quarter of the 7th and the first decades of the 8th centuries.156 Such an association is nowhere to be found in the Carpathian Basin or the neighboring regions to the northwest and southwest. By the time razors became popular, tweezers were completely out of (any) use. It is, of course, very difficult to establish the absolute chronology of the latest Avar-age assemblage with tweezers and the earliest assemblage in Moravia, Hungary, or Croatia that contains a razor, but it is probably safe to assume that they were separated by a few decades on either side of ad 800. The distributions of finds for tweezers and razors are also very different. While tweezers appear throughout the Carpathian Basin (except Transylvania) during the Avar age (Figure 1.19), razor finds cluster in three areas: between the confluence of the Dyje and Morava, on one hand, and between the confluence of the Hron and Danube, on the other hand; around the western end of Lake Balaton; and in western Croatia (Figure 1.20). While the former two regions are known for 6th-century and Avar-age finds of tweezers, no such finds are known from Croatia. In that region of the Balkan Peninsula, razors are associated with the appearance of a new form of elite identity, which was “also expressed in burial ceremonies in which Carolingian warrior equipment was placed into a grave, an act by which the heirs and descendants created a certain image of the deceased, also legitimizing their own social position.”157 A new elite identity was also created, at about the same time, in Moravia out of the same material of Frankish (Carolingian) origin, but with different results.158 Though no razors are known so far from that region (as well as the whole Carpathian Basin) that could be dated before ca. 800, in 9th-century assemblages, razors often appear in pouches together with such typical artifacts as fire steels, flint stones, awls, and knives (Table 1.2). There has been no systematic study of those collections of artifacts consistently found in East Central Europe in male burials from the 6th through the 9th centuries.159 However, it is remarkable that their contents remained essentially the same from the age of the row graves to that of the first church graveyards. Despite the occasional inclusion of such “exotic” artifacts as raw amber in the 6th century and Roman coins in 9th century, pouches of the earlier era would have easily been recognized in the later period, and vice versa. The only difference is that, by 800, the tweezers had been replaced with razors. The symbolic value of tweezers in relation to facial hair was thus easily translated into the symbolic value of the razor. The fact that, from the 6th through the 9th centuries, pouches with grooming tools for beards are consistently associated in burial assemblages with weapons speaks volumes about the continuity of the mode of representing warrior status in death. Whether they plucked or shaved their cheeks and chins, warriors were imagined as bearded men. Were beards the same in the 6th and in the 9th centuries?
FIGURE 1.19 The distribution of tweezers in the Carpathian Basin and the surrounding regions during the Avar age (late 6th to late 8th centuries). The smallest circles mark individual specimens; larger circles indicate between 2 and 3, between 4 and 5, and more than 6 specimens, respectively. Numbers refer to Appendix 2.
FIGURE 1.20 The distribution of razors in the Carpathian Basin and the surrounding regions during the 9th century. The smallest circles mark individual specimens; larger circles indicate between 2 and 5, between 6 and 10, and between 10 and 20, respectively. The star indicates more than 20 specimens. Numbers refer to Appendix 3.
Images of men with and without beards
Regardless of whether he sported a beard during his lifetime, every time he unsheathed his sword, the 30- to 40-year-old man buried in grave 34 of the cemetery excavated in Szentendre caught a glimpse of the two male, bearded heads on the silver mount of his sword belt.160 The highly schematic portraits, with their enlarged and highlighted eyes, and the conventional representation of a long mustache and a beard by means of a few parallel lines can hardly be interpreted as representing 6th-century Longobards. In fact, as Margit Nagy has demonstrated, the decoration of the belt mount from Szentendre is a variation of the motif of the human face (or mask) between two animals, which appears in late antiquity art and is definitely of Mediterranean origin.161 Two men with short mustaches and stubbled beards appear on a die found in Keszthely and dated to the early 7th century on the basis of Merovingian analogies.162 The two men have been interpreted as Waffentänzer on the basis of their horned, head ornaments and the two lances that each holds in his hands.163 Given the absence of any analogies inside the Carpathian Basin, the die from Keszthely is probably not of local production and may not have been used too much for the production of metal sheet mounts with au repoussé decoration. The two warriors with lances could hardly be interpreted as illustrating Lombard or any other kind of 6th-century beards in East Central Europe. The same is true for the beardless portrait of Wodan on contemporary bracteates, all of which are of Scandinavian origin.164 Stylized beards appear on the bronze mounts of a wooden pail recently discovered in Keszthely. Their best analogies are in 6th-century assemblages in the Rhineland, and it is likely that the Keszthely specimens were produced there as well.165 Regardless of whether the belt buckle from grave 85 in Kölked is of the same origin, the figure depicted on its tongue shield has been interpreted as the Norse god Tyr.166 Others, on the basis of Scandinavian analogies, see a portrait of Christ.167 Be that as it may, it is important to note that the image of the man with a snake wrapped around his neck and hands, in which he brandishes two short swords, has a short, trimmed mustache, but no beard.
Bearded male heads derived from the same motif as that depicted on the scabbard mount from Szentendre also appear on Avar-age artifacts, such as the silver strap end from a grave found in 1885 in Keszthely or the belt mount from grave 560 of the cemetery excavated in Budakalász, in the northern outskirts of Budapest.168 A somewhat different portrait of a bearded male may be seen on the gilded silver buckle from a grave found accidentally in 1955 in Hajdúdorog near Nyíregyháza, in eastern Hungary.169 The assemblage is dated to the early Avar age, most likely to the first third of the 7th century, and, given its crude manufacture, the buckle is likely a local product. If so, it may have been the source of inspiration of certain locally produced jingle bells decorated with bearded faces, such as those found in grave 107 of an 8th-century cemetery excavated in Komárno (on the Slovak-Hungarian border on the Danube).170 Neither the Hajdúdorog nor the Komárno portraits of bearded men can be taken as realistic depictions of contemporary Avars. This is further substantiated by images of animals (lions and griffins) with bearded human faces.171 In fact, the men that appear in genuinely lifelike representations of Avar-age scenes, such as those carved on bone and antler artifacts, are all beardless,172 as is the archer depicted on the mantle clasp from grave 144 of the cemetery excavated in Mödling, on the southern outskirts of Vienna. Falko Daim was convinced that that was how Avar warriors really looked in the second half of the 8th century.173 By that time, even male images most certainly originating outside the Carpathian Basin were beardless. For example, all human faces on the golden clasp from Dunapataj (on the left bank of the Danube, in central-southern Hungary), which is dated ca. 700, are beardless.174 Roman emperors who appear on belt ornaments, such as those found in grave 434 of the cemetery excavated in Kiskundorozsma, in the northwestern outskirts of Szeged, and in Zemun, are cleanly shaved.175 Imitations of the portraits of the “victorious emperor,” such as that depicted on the belt buckle from Brodzany (in the Trenčin region of Slovakia), are also beardless.176
To judge from the existing evidence, therefore, during the late Avar period (ca. 680–820), the only bearded portraits were of mythical or legendary characters, while ideal portraits of rulers, as well as images of warriors, lacked beards. A similar pattern exists for the 9th century. All human figures represented on belt ornaments from Mikulčice are beardless.177 The same is true for the figures on the gilded copper alloy plaques recently found in Bojná, near Topoľčany (northwestern Slovakia).178 While mythological figures on artifacts originating outside East Central Europe lack beards, so do supposedly realistic representations of figures from daily life, such as the falconer on the applique from Staré Město.179 In fact, at closer examination, the only image of a bearded man known from 9th-century Moravia is that of Christ on a silver, cross-shaped pendant found in grave 375 in Mikulčice.180 Thus, both before and after the introduction of the razor, ca. 800, most images of men were beardless. However, those images cannot be taken as direct evidence for contemporary practices. The late Avar-age imitation of 4th-century Roman coins with their imperial portraits, on one hand, and the religious meaning of the 9th-century images of (arch)angels on the Bojná plaques, on the other hand, must be taken into consideration for any attempt to explain the dominant character of beardless images during the 8th and 9th centuries. However, casual engravings on everyday artifacts, such as the tools from Nosa and Manđelos, clearly show Avar warriors without beards. Even if one assumes a certain degree of idealization, it is unlikely that the same iconographic norms applied to the imagery both on antler artifacts and on metalwork. The archaeological evidence indicates that facial hair was under razor control in 9th-century Moravia, but clean shave was already the fashion in the Avar age, even without any razors.
Conclusion
In the early Middle Ages, beards may have well been dishonest signals of formidability. Nor was the deposition of toiletries in graves, especially tweezers and razors, an honest signal of a man’s self-image and status. To judge by the archaeological evidence of East Central Europe, a clean shave was not for commoners. No evidence exists that aristocrats in the region sported stubbled beards in the late 8th and the 9th centuries, supposedly in imitation of Frankish fashions. On the contrary, Avar-age men bearing weapons are depicted in visual sources as beardless, and the deposition of razors in graves strongly suggests that a clean shave remained the fashion for such men in the 9th century. However, there are substantial differences between the toiletries of the earlier and the later periods considered in this chapter. With no razors, exactly how shaving was done between the 6th and the 8th centuries remains unknown. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that the large number of tweezers deposited in graves can be interpreted as an indication of anything but self-grooming. Unlike razors, tweezers were not tools for barbers, and unlike the neighboring regions to the west (Bavaria), no assemblage in the Carpathian Basin is known so far in which tweezers and razors appear together. This is an additional argument to support the idea that those grooming instruments had radically different meanings. The distribution of razor finds shown in Figure 1.20 confirms the idea that, in Moravia, toiletries were assigned a special meaning. Given the cluster in Moravia and the rarity of finds in the neighboring regions to the south and southwest, one must draw the conclusion that in Moravia razors meant something that was (socially) different from what they were and from what they symbolized in the eastern marches of the Frankish realm. In other words, although without any doubt they were adopted from the west, razors were reinterpreted in Moravia and the neighboring regions in the western parts of the Carpathian Basin according to local customs and practices. Two-thirds of all razors have been found along with weapons and spurs, while during the earlier period, tweezers were deposited in the graves of men buried with weapons. Were toiletries part of a new lifestyle of the emerging warrior aristocracy? Did they imply a new notion of self and personhood?
To be sure, tweezers appear in elite “male” sections of 6th-century cemeteries, such as Lužice. They are commonly found in pouches attached to the belt at the waist or are placed on the body. In such pouches, tweezers are commonly associated with knives, fire steels, and flint stones. The latter were meant to signal symbolically the ability of men in arms to make fire. This, in turn, may not have been a self-referential metaphor: those men could make fire for others, not just for themselves. In several 6th-century cemeteries, tweezers appear in graves surrounded by female and child burials. The men buried in the middle of those grave groups may well have been heads of families. In that case, their ability to make fire was probably in reference to the family hearth. Tweezers, however, could hardly be interpreted in the same way. In other words, 6th-century tweezers were most likely associated with a new notion of self and personhood, which characterized a small group of elite warriors. During the Avar age, that association disappeared, as tweezers appear in more female graves than before, as well as in the burials of children and even horses. Moreover, the number of tweezers deposited in pouches diminished considerably. Neither tweezers nor pouches disappeared, however, and some of the latest graves in which they appear may be dated to the late Avar period, shortly before ad 800.
Much like tweezers in the Avar age, razors appear in the 9th century in both female and child burials, but with a completely different meaning. Unlike tweezers, razors are found in pouches, along with fire steels and flint stones. Such pouches were deposited in male graves along with weapons – more axes than swords – and spurs. Much like in 6th-century cemeteries, in the 9th century, male graves with toiletries were found next to female graves, which often produced very similar, rich dress accessories. Those may well have been the wives of the men buried with razors. However, unlike 6th-century tweezers, razors were not self-referential. The degree of propinquity was far greater for the graves of men with razors than for the graves of men with tweezers. Men were buried with razors in proximity to each other, sometimes in privileged positions of the graveyard, such as along the northern side of the church at the Magnate Court site in Pohansko. Many of those men were relatively old when they died and must have been seasoned veterans. If so, the deposition of razors in their graves was not meant to show that they had shaved regularly during their lifetime. Instead, a razor placed in a pouch deposited in the grave of one of those men was most likely supposed to signal that, during his lifetime, that man had inspired sufficient trust to be allowed (or even asked) to shave the faces of his brothers-in-arms. If there was indeed a symbolic association between trust and razors, then the men buried with such toiletries were likely members of retinues of warriors.181 So far, historians have discussed retinues only in relation to state formation and to the nature of the armies that early medieval rulers put in the field.182 An earlier generation of scholars pointed to the special, “Germanic fidelity” that linked retinue members to their leader.183 However, loyalty (Treue) is simply a way to represent the relations between the retinue, as a whole, and the ruler; the notion does not explain the internal cohesion of the retinue or even the way in which it came into being in the first place. More recently, some have called for scholarly attention to the “informality of ties between the members of the retinue and its leader.”184 Nonetheless, the most conspicuously neglected aspect is the study of the informal ties between retinue members. The archaeology of facial hair offers an unexpectedly novel way to readdress the issue of retinues of warriors in the early Middle Ages. In Carolingian times, to supervise the cutting of a teenager’s (first) beard was the equivalent of being a godfather to him. In contemporary Moravia, to shave the face of a battle buddy was one way to build an esprit de corps.
Appendices can be found in the: https://independent.academia.edu/ContinuationorChangeBordersandFrontiersinLateAntiquityandMedievalEurope
Acknowledgments
We are particularly grateful to Šimon Ungerman, who has read earlier versions of this chapter and has made many valuable observations and corrections. We are entirely responsible for any errors that may have been left in the text.
Notes
· 1 “Origo Gentis Langobardorum,” ed. Georg Waitz, in Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. VI–IX, vol. 1 (Hannover: Hahn, 1878), 2: “mulieres eorum crines solutae circa faciem in similitudinem barbae et cum viris suis venirent.” English translation from Paul the Deacon, History of the Lombards, trans. William Dudley Foulke (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974), 316.
· 2 Otto Gschwantler, “Formen langobardischer mündlicher Überlieferung,” Jahrbuch für internationale Germanistik 11 (1979): 58–85, here 58–59; Annalisa Bracciotti, “La saga di Gambara e dei suoi figli nella Origo gentis Langobardorum,” Romanobarbarica 12 (1992–1993): 81–86; Alheydis Plassmann, Origo gentis. Identitäts- und Legitimitätsstiftung in frühund hochmittelalterlichen Herkunftserzählungen (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2006), 113–28; Walter Pohl, “Origo gentis Langobardorum,” in I Longobardi e la storia. Un percorso attraverso le fonti, eds. Francesco Lo Monaco and Francesco Mores (Rome: Viella, 2012), 105–21. For a good survey of the literature, see Francesco Borri, “Romans Growing Beards: Identity and Historiography in Seventh-Century Italy,” Viator 45, no. 1 (2014): 39–72, here 49–54.
· 3 Paul the Deacon, History of the Lombards III 19, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH Ss 48 (Hannover: Hahn, 1878), 125. As Ian Wood, “Hair and Beards in the Medieval West,” Al-Masāq 30, no. 1 (2018): 107–16, here 111; note that long beards remained the norm among Lombards long into the late 8th century.
· 4 Alexander B. Todorov, Face Value. The Irresistible Influence of First Impressions (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017).
· 5 William E. Addison, “Beardedness as a Factor in Perceived Masculinity,” Perceptual and Motor Skills 68 (1989): 921–22; Nick Neave and Kerry Shields, “The Effects of Facial Hair Manipulation on Female Perceptions of Attractiveness, Masculinity, and Dominance in Male Faces,” Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008): 373–77; Barnaby J. W. Dixson and Robert C. Brooks, “The Role of Facial Hair in Women’s Perceptions of Men’s Attractiveness, Health, and Parenting Abilities,” Evolution and Human Behavior 34, no. 3 (2013): 236–41; note that an intermediate level of beardedness (i.e., a beard that is stubbled) is most attractive, while full-bearded men are perceived as better fathers who could protect and invest in offspring.
· 6 Charles T. Kenny and D. Fletcher, “Effects of Beardedness on Person Perception,” Perceptual and Motor Skills 37 (1973): 413–14; Robert J. Pellegrini, “Impressions of the Male Personality as a Function of Beardedness,” Psychology 10 (1973): 29–33; Åke Hellström and Joseph Tekle, “Person Perception Through Facial Photographs: Effects of Glasses, Hair and Beard on Judgments of Occupation and Personal Qualities,” European Journal of Social Psychology 24 (1994): 693–705. Children as young as two associate beardedness with dominance traits, linking bearded faces with masculinity, strength, and age. Beardedness is actually linked to dominance and mate choice well before the onset of puberty. See Nicole N. Nelson, Siobhan Kennedy-Constantini, Anthony J. Lee, and Barnaby J. W. Dixson, “Children’s Judgments of Facial Hair Are Influenced by Biological Development and Experience,” Evolution and Human Behavior 40 (2019): 551–56.
· 7 Dixson and Brooks, “The Role of Facial Hair in Women’s Perceptions of Men’s Attractiveness, Health, and Parenting Abilities,” 240.
· 8 Nigel Barber, “Mustache Fashion Covaries with a Good Marriage Market for Women,” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 25 (2001): 261–72.
· 9 Lisa M. DeBruine, Benedict C. Jones, John R. Crawford, Lisa L. M. Welling, and Anthony C. Little, “The Health of a Nation Predicts Their Mate Preferences: Cross-Cultural Variation in Women’s Preferences for Masculinized Male Faces,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 277 (2010): 2405–10, accessed February 14, 2021, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2009.2184; Robert C. Brooks, Isabel M. Scott, Alexei A. Maklakov, Michael M. Kasumovic, Andrew P. Clark, and Ian S. Penton-Voak, “National Income Inequality Predicts Women’s Preferences for Masculinized Faces Better Than Health Does,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 278 (2011): 810–12, accessed February 14, 2021, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2010.0964.
· 10 John Archer, “Does Sexual Selection Explain Human Sex Differences in Aggression?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (2009): 249–66.
· 11 Ulrich Muller and Allan Mazur, “Facial Dominance in Homo Sapiens as Honest Signaling of Male Quality,” Behavioral Ecology 8 (1997): 569–79.
· 12 Tamsin K. Saxton, Lauren L. Mackey, Kristofor McCarty, and Nick Neave, “A Lover or a Fighter? Opposing Sexual Selection Pressures on Men’s Vocal Pitch and Facial Hair,” Behavioral Ecology 27 (2016): 512–19, accessed February 14, 2021, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797380/.
· 13 Dixie Caroline Blanchard, “Of Lion Manes and Human Beards: Some Unusual Effects of the Interaction Between Aggression and Sociality,” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 3 (2009): 1–7, accessed February 14, 2021, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2814555/.
· 14 Barnaby J. W. Dixson, James M. Sherlock, William K. Cornwell, and Michael M. Kasumovic, “Contest Competition and Men’s Facial Hair: Beards May Not Provide Advantages in Combat,” Evolution and Human Behavior 39 (2018): 147–53, here 148 and 151. Any advantage that a warrior may have derived from sporting a long beard was relevant at lower skill levels or among fighters without any professional training.
· 15 Dixson et al., “Contest Competition,” 152. According to Douglas R. Wood, “Self-Perceived Masculinity Between Bearded and Non-Bearded Males,” Perceptual and Motor Skills 62 (1986): 769–70, to wear a false beard is a way for a man to augment feelings of masculinity and confidence.
· 16 A notable exception is Eleanor Rycroft, Facial Hair and the Performance of Early Modern Masculinity (London: Routledge, 2020), who deals with beards as dishonest signs of formidability and passports of cultural prerogatives.
· 17 Christopher Oldstone-Moore, Of Beards and Men. The Revealing History of Facial Hair (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2015); Douglas Biow, On the Importance of Being an Individual in Renaissance Italy (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015), 181–224; New Perspectives on the History of Facial Hair. Framing the Face, edited by Jennifer Evans and Alum Whitey (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018). For the “language of hair,” see Robert Bartlett, “Symbolic Meanings of Hair in the Middle Ages,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 4 (1994): 43–60, here 60; see also Simon Coates, “Scissors or Swords? The Symbolism of Medieval Haircut,” History Today 49, no. 5 (1999): 7–13.
· 18 Paul Edward Dutton, Charlemagne’s Mustache and Other Cultural Clusters of the Dark Ages (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 4.
· 19 Wood, “Hair and Beards,” 110–11.
· 20 Dutton, Charlemagne’s Mustache and Other Cultural Clusters of the Dark Ages, 17. See Ein-hard, Vita Karoli 1, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH Ss 25 (Hannover and Leipzig: Hahn, 1911), 3.
· 21 Dutton, Charlemagne’s Mustache and Other Cultural Clusters of the Dark Ages, 30, however, notes that, “[I]n an age when shaving must have been a scabrous experience, perhaps only the well-off could command a decent shave.” However, there is evidence of stubbled beards of kings that long predates the Carolingian beard fashions. According to Sidonius Apollinaris, Theoderic II, King of the Goths (453–466), had a barber working assiduously most likely on a regular basis to “eradicate the rich growth on the lower part of the face,” even though “the razor has not yet come upon his cheek.” See Sidonius Apollinaris, ep. 1.2, ed. Paul Mohr (Leipzig: Teubner, 1895), 3; trans. Ormonde M. Dalton (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1915), 3.
· 22 Paul Treherne, “The Warrior’s Beauty: The Masculine Body and Self-Identity in Bronze-Age Europe,” Journal of European Archaeology 3, no. 1 (1995): 105–44, here 105.
· 23 Treherne, “The Warrior’s Beauty,” 125. Another possible interpretation is that the deposited tools were instruments that relatives and friends had used to shave or pluck their beards or locks, as a symbol of mourning.
· 24 Andrei Georgescu, “A Warrior’s Beauty? Variations of a Burial Custom in the Carpathian Basin,” in Iron Age Connectivity in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş, 13–15 October 2017, eds. Sándor Berecki, Aurel Rustoiu and Mariana Egri (Cluj-Napoca: Mega, 2018), 165–74, here 169; toiletries deposited in late Iron-Age graves were probably linked to the preparation of the body for burial.
· 25 Howard Williams, “Material Culture as Memory: Combs in Cremation in Early Medieval Britain,” Early Medieval Europe 12, no. 2 (2003): 89–128, here 111. In the archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England, the deposition of toilet artifacts has usually been interpreted as a metaphor for the remaking of the deceased “new body” by mourners, in other words, in reference to the preparation of the corpse for burial.
· 26 Doris Gutsmiedl-Schümann, “Alters- und geschlechtsspezifische Zuweisung von Hand- und Hauswerk im frühen Mittelalter nach Aussage von Werkzeug und Gerät aus Gräbern der Münchner Schotterebene,” in Von wirtschaftlicher Macht und militärischer Stärke. Beiträge zur archäologischen Geschlechterforschung. Bericht des 4. Sitzung der AG Geschlechterforschung auf der 79. Jahrestagung des Nordwestdeutschen Verbandes des Altertumforschung e. V. in Detmold 2009, eds. Jana Esther Fries and Ulrike Raumbuscheck (Münster and New York: Waxmann, 2011), 37–74, here 52. By contrast, scissors never appear together with combs and tweezers in female burials. For tweezers found in male graves as used for trimming beards, see Christian Pescheck, Das fränkische Reihengräberfeld von Kleinlangheim, Lkr. Kitzingen/Nordbayern (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1996), 69.
· 27 Barbara Wührer, “Zur Kammbeigabe im frühmittelalterlichen Bayern,” Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 76 (2011): 251–73, here 262, Table 3. Both archaeologists and historians have often pointed to the 7th-century stele found in 1901 in Niederdollendorf (now in Königswinter, near Bonn), on which a man is shown holding a sword in his left hand and combing his hair with a single-sided comb in his right hand. See Spätantike und frühes Mittelalter. Ausgewählte Denkmäler im Rheinischen Landesmuseum Bonn, eds. Josef Engemann and Christoph B. Rüger (Cologne and Bonn: Rheinland-Verlag/R. Habelt, 1991), 140–49.
· 28 Guy Halsall, “The Origin of the Reihengräberzivilisation: Forty Years on,” in Gaul: A Crisis of Identity? eds. J. F. Drinkwater and Hugh Elton (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 196–207; Alpár Dobos, “On the Edge of the Merovingian Culture. Row-Grave Cemeteries in the Transylvanian Basin in the 5th–7th Centuries,” in Kollaps, Neuordnung, Kontinuität. Gepiden nach dem Untergang des Hunnenreiches. Tagungsakten der Internationalen Konferenz an der Eötvös Loránd Universität, Budapest, 14.–15. Dezember 2015, eds. Tivadar Vida, Dieter Quast, Zsófia Rácz, and István Koncz (Budapest: Institut für Archäologiewissenschaften, Eötvös Loránd Universität, 2019), 111–42.
· 29 Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250 (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 134–47; Florin Curta, “He (Megale) Morabia,” in Mesaionikos slabikos kosmos, eds. Panos Sophoulis and Andreas Papageorgiou (Athens: Irodotos, 2014), 105–24; Florin Curta, Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages (500–1300) (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2019), 101–27. For an archaeological perspective, see Jörg Kleemann, “Karolingisches Fundgut im Südosten und das Verhältnis lokaler Eliten zum Karolingerreich,” Antaeus 31–32 (2010): 81–62.
· 30 István Bóna and Jolán B. Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder in West-Ungarn (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, 2009), 156; 157, fig. 114; 304, pl. 69/10.
· 31 Bóna and Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder in West-Ungarn, 304, pl. 69/4, 17, 18. For the bundle of arrowheads signaling the presence of a quiver, see Noémi Ninetta Keresztes, “Fegyveres langobardok és fegyvereik Magyarországon II (Kísérőleletek, temetkezési szokások, temetőszerkezetek, antropológia),” in Hadak útján XXII. A népvándorláskor fiatal kutatóinak XXII. Konferenciája Visegrád, 2012. október 2–4., ed. Merva Szabina (Visegrád: Mátyás Király Múzeum, 2017), 129–52, here 130. Keresztes suggests that both seax and quiver were suspended on the belt.
· 32 Bóna and Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder in West-Ungarn, 150; 151, fig. 109; 301, pl. 66/1–3, 9. A similar combination of weapons was found in grave 42 in the southwestern corner of the site; see Ibid., 159 and 162; 161, fig. 118; 309, pl. 74/1, 4–8. A third sword was found in grave 28, to the north from grave 24; Ibid., 152–53; 152, fig. 110; 308, pl. 68/5.
· 33 Ibid., 138, fig. 98.
· 34 Ibid., 147–48, 152–53, 158, and 163; 148, fig. 107; 152, fig. 110; 159, fig. 116; 163, fig. 119; 299, pl. 64/7, 11–13; 303, pl. 68/8–10, 12; 308, pl. 73/5, 8, 9; 311, pl. 76/6, 7, 9, 16. Like the man in grave 34, the one in grave 20 was buried with a bundle of 10 arrowheads, most likely in a quiver, placed on the right side of the skull.
· 35 Jürg Erwin Schneider, “Rasiermesser des 7./8. Jahrhunderts,” Helvetia Archaeologica 55–56 (1983): 235–40, here 238–39. According to Pescheck, Das fränkische Reihengräberfeld, 70, some specimens can be dated even before ad 700.
· 36 Frauke Stein, Adelsgräber des achten Jahrhunderts in Deutschland (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1967), 217, 223, 237, 238–39, and 246; pl. 1/14; pl. 8/24; pl. 11/8; pl. 14/10; pl. 15/11; pl. 16/8; pl. 18/31.
· 37 For Frankish weapons in late Avar-age assemblages, see Jozef Zábojník, “Zur Frage der Kontakte der nördlichen Peripherie des awarischen Khaganats mit den westlichen Gebieten,” A Wosinsky Mór Múzeum Evkönyve 15 (1990): 103–12; Anton Distelberger, “Import in die awarischen Westgebiete im 8. Jahrhundert,” (German) in Reitervölker aus dem Osten. Hunnen + Awaren. Burgenländische Landesausstellung 1996. Schloß Halbturn, 26. April-31. Oktober 1996, eds. Falko Daim, Karl Kaus, and Péter Tomka (Eisenstadt: Amt der Burgenländischen Landesregierung, 1996), 287–308; Gergely Csiky, “Saxe im awarenzeitlichen Karpatenbecken,” in Thesaurus Avarorum. Régészeti tánulmanyok Garam Éva tiszteletére, ed. Tivadar Vida (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, 2012), 371–94; Jozef Zábojník, “Saxe und andere Waffen westlichen Ursprungs auf dem Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Khaganat Všechvätých,” in Warriors, Weapons, and Harness from the 5th–10th Centuries in the Carpathian Basin, ed. Călin Cosma (Cluj-Napoca: Mega, 2015), 147–76.
· 38 The northernmost specimen known to us was not included in our analysis because it is outside the geographical limits set for this chapter. See Pavel Kouřil, “Raně středověký bojovnický hrob z Hradce nad Moravicí,” Slovenská Archeológia 52, no. 1 (2004): 55–76, here 58, and 68, fig. 8/3a.
· 39 Vilém Hrubý, Staré Město. Velkomoravské pohřěbiště “Na Valách” (Prague: Nakladelství Československe Akademie Věd, 1955), 396, 410, 437, 461, 465, 472, 478, 482, 492, 493, 497, 498, 502, 507, 513, 517, 522, 524–26, 529, 530, 531, 534, and 535; 123, fig. 16/1, 2; 614, pl. 70/13; 638, pl. 81/8; 640, fig. 83/7; Věra Hochmanová-Vávrová, “Velkomoravské pohřebiště ve Starém Městě ‘Na valách.’ Výzkum v letech 1957–1959,” Časopis moravského muzea 47 (1962): 201–70, here 204 and 206; 243, pl. IX/1; 245, pl. XI/1. Hrubý, Staré Město, 89, mentions a razor in grave 1317 (132/51), but according to the description of the assemblage in Hrubý, Staré Město, 509, only two knives have been found in that grave, and no razor. For Mikulčice, see Zdeněk Klanica, Blanka Kavánová, Pavel Kouřil, and Šimon Ungerman, Mikulčice – die Nekropole an der dreischiffigen Basilika (Brno: Archeologický ústav AV ČR, 2019), 39, 54, 73, 78, 92, 109, 112, 114, 119, 123, 127, 131, 132, 137, 156, and 161; 282, fig. 121/12; 288, fig. 127/1; 311, fig. 150/3.
· 40 František Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I. Velkomoravské pohřebiště u kostela (Brno: Universita J. E. Purkyně, 1971), 55, 82, 100, 111, 144, 163, 183, 186, 202, and 204; 56, fig. 65/3; 82, fig. 120/1; 101, fig. 154/1; 112, fig. 174/4–5; 145, fig. 246/7; 162, fig. 280/8; 185, fig. 337/1; 186, fig. 341/1; 203, fig. 375/1; 204, fig. 377/1; Bořivoj Dostál, “Drobná pohřebiště a rozptýlené hroby z Břeclavi-Pohanska,” Sborník prací filosofické Fakulty Brněnské Univerzity. Řada archeologicko-klasická 27 (1982): 135–201, here 138 and 163; 142, fig. 3/5; 168, fig. 14/1; Renata Přichystalová, Kateřina Kalová, and Kateřina Boberová, Břeclav-Pohansko IX. Pohřební areály z Jižního předhradí (archeologicko-antropologická studie) (Brno: Masarykova Univerzita, 2019), 135, 138–39, 320, and 364–65; 136, fig. 73; 451, pl. XI/4; 474, pl. XXXIV/2. For the many excavation sites in Pohansko, see Jiří Macháček, The Rise of Medieval Towns and States in East Central Europe. Early Medieval Centres as Social and Economic Systems (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 35–36 and 37, fig. 2.
· 41 Kristina Marešová, Uherské Hradiště-Sady. Staroslovanské pohřebiště na Horních Kotvicích (Brno and Uherské Hradiště: Moravské Muzeum/Okresní národní výbor, 1983), 83 and 125–28; pl. 10; Zdeněk Klanica, Nechvalín, Prušánky. Čtyři slovanská pohřebiště (Brno: Archeologický ústav Akademie věd České republiky, 2006), vol. 1, 150, pl. 1/3; 153, pl. 4/11; 154, pl. 5/12; 159, pl. 10/2, 15; 163, pl. 14/5; 164, pl. 15/30; 165, pl. 16/16; 166, pl. 17/14; 179, pl. 30/23, 24; 180, pl. 31/25; 181, pl. 32/15; 187, pl. 38/16; 199, pl. 50/7; 204, pl. 55/13; 205, pl. 56/23; 208, pl. 59/11; 227, pl. 78/6; 223, pl. 74/5; 231, pl. 82/25; 238, pl. 89/19; 240, pl. 91/12; vol. 2, 10, 13, 21, 35, 39, 43, 45, 46, 48, 87, 93, 96, 143, 183, 193, 198, 206, 249, 259, 271, 284, and 286.
· 42 Zdeněk Meřínský, Velkomoravské kostrové pohřebiště ve Velkých Bílovicích (K problematice venkovských pohřebišť 9.–10. stol. na Moravě) (Prague: Academia, 1985), 91, 100–1, 104, 105, 109, and 111; 92, fig. 14.H3/1; 101, fig. 22.H26/2; 102, fig. 23.H28/7; 104, fig. 25.H31/2; 110, fig. 29.H42/2; 115, fig. 34.H49/1.
· 43 Zdeněk Měřínský and Josef Unger, “Velkomoravské kostrové pohřebiště u Morkůvek (okr. Břeclav),” in Pravěké a slovanské osídlení Moravy. Sborník k 80. narozeninám Josefa Poulíka, ed. Vladimír Nekuda (Brno: Muzejní a vlastivedná společnost v Brne/Archeologický ústav Československé Akademie Věd v Brne, 1990), 360–401, here 395, and 365, fig. 6/9; Blanka Kavánová, “Slovanské pohřebiště v Mutěnicích, okr. Hodonín,” Archeologické rozhledy 34 (1982): 504–20, here 516, and 511, fig. 4/8; Tomáš Berkovec and Petra Wiesnerová, “Středohradištní pohřebiště ve Velaticích, okr. Brno-venkov,” Pravěk 12 (2003): 319–43, here 324, and 323, fig. 3.5/2; Soňa Hendrychová, “Velkomoravské pohřebiště v Rajhradicích,” Praehistorica 34, no. 1 (2018): 7–31, here 22. Two razors are mentioned among grave goods from two separate burial assemblages of the cemetery excavated in the hinterland of Mikulčice, at Josefov; see Hana Hanáková and Milan Stloukal, Staroslovanské pohřebiště v Josefově. Antropologický rozbor (Prague: Academia, 1966), 9.
· 44 Jana Vignatiová, Břeclav-Pohansko II. Slovanské osídlení jižního předhradi (Brno: Masaryková Univerzita, 1992), 68.
· 45 Vojtech Budinský-Krička, Slovanské mohyly v Skalici (Bratislava: Vydavatel’stvo Slovenskej Akadémie Vied, 1959), 79, 92, 94, 96, 97, and 103; 192, pl. XXIII/15; 202, pl. XXXIII/3, 3a; 203, pl. XXXIV/17; 205, pl. XXXVI/3; 206, pl. XXXVII/1; and 207, pl. XXXVIII/12.
· 46 Veronika Plachá, Jana Hlavicová, and Igor Keller, Slovanský Devín (Bratislava: Obzor, 1990), 46, 56, 60, and 115; 47, pl. 9.35/1; 55, pl. 13.74/2; 59, pl. 15.87/2; 114, pl. 40/2; pl. F78.
· 47 Mária Rejholcová, Pohrebisko v Čakajovciach (9.–12. storočie). Katálog (Nitra: Archeologický ústav Slovenskej Akadémie vied, 1995), 17, 32, 59, and 64; 122, pl. XXXII.151/2; 141, pl. LI.291/18; 174, pl. LXXXIV.553/3; 184, pl. XCIV.587/5.
· 48 Bohuslav Chropovský, “Slovanské pohrebiske v Nitre na Lupke,” Slovenská Archeológia 10 (1962): 175–240, here 177, and pl. VII/2; Július Béreš, “Slovanské pohrebisko v Dolnom Petre IV (teraz Sväty Peter),” Slovenská Archeológia 43, no. 1 (1995): 111–60, 116, and 123; 132, pl. 19/9; 140, pl. 27/3; Mattej Ruttkay, “Mittelalterliche Siedlung und Gräberfeld in Bajč-Medzi kanálmi (Vorbericht),” Slovenská Archeológia 50, no. 2 (2002): 245–322, here 291; 292, fig. 40/4; 293, fig. 41/3. See also Milan Hanuliak, Veľkomoravské pohrebiská. Pochovavánie v 9.–10. na území Slovenska (Nitra: Archeologický ústav SAV, 2004), 269.
· 49 Darina Bialeková, “Slovanské pohrebisko v Závade,” Slovenská Archeológia 30, no. 1 (1982): 123–64, here 125 and 129; 128, fig. 6/12; 131, fig. 8/21, 22.
· 50 Viera Vendtová, “Slovanské pohrebisko v Ladiciach, okres Nitra,” Archeologické rozhledy 14 (1962): 397–404, here 398, and 401, fig. 138/15; Anton Točík, “Flachgräberfelder aus dem IX. und X. Jahrhundert in der Südwestslowakei,” Slovenská Archeológia 19 (1971): 135–276, here 165, and 250, pl. XXXVI/11; Július Béreš, “Veľkomoravské hroby v Mojzešove,” in Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 1976, ed. Bohuslav Chropovský (Nitra: Archeologicky ustav Slovenskej akadémie vied, 1977), 59–63, here and fig. 14/3; Alexander T. Ruttkay and Eva Ruttkayová, “Záchranné výskumy vo Veľkom Cetíne,” in Archeologicke výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 1996, ed. Ivan Chebeň (Nitra: Archeologický ústav SAV, 1998), 142; Ivan Kuzma, “Pokračovanie výskumu vo Veľkom Kýre,” in Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 1998, ed. Ivan Chebeň (Nitra: Archeologický ustav Slovenskej akadémie vied, 2000), 117–19, here 118; Milan Hanuliak and Jozef Izóf, “Veľkomoravské pohrebisko v Galante (K možnostiam rekonstrukcie poznatkov z fragmentov veľkomoravskych pohrebísk),” Slovenská Archeológia 50, no. 2 (2002): 323–52, here 325, and 326, fig. 2/2; Hanuliak, Veľkomoravské pohrebiská, 267, 268, 274, and 277; 337, pl. LV/12; 338, p. LVI/1; 339, pl. LVII/10; 375, pl. XCIII/13; Milan Hanuliak and Ondrej Ožďáni, “Veľkomoravské hroby zo sídliskového areálu v Čataji a Igrame,” Študijné zvesti 36 (2004): 35–49, here 36, and 41, fig. 5/3. See also Milan Hanuliak, “Hroby vo veľkomoravských sídliskových areáloch z územia Slovenska,” Slovenská Archeológia 52, no. 2 (2004): 301–46, here 326.
· 51 Viera Vendtová, “Slovanské osídlenie Pobedima a okolia,” Slovenská Archeológia 17 (1969): 119–232, here 126, and 127, fig. 5/24.
· 52 Edit H. Kerecsényi, “IX. századi sírok Letenyén,” Folia Archaeologica 24 (1973): 133–51, here 137, and 143, fig. 4/2; Béla Miklós Szőke and László Vándor, “Katalog der Gräber von Garabonc-Ófalu I-II,” Antaeus 21 (1992): 205–61, 485–522, here 222, 229, 232, 244, 245, and 251; 495, pl. 11/4; 499, pl. 15/1; 502, pl. 18/3; 513, pl. 29/4; 514, pl. 30/2; 517, pl. 33/1; 550, pl. 66/2, 3; Béla Miklós Szőke, “Das birituelle Gräberfeld aus der Karolingerzeit von Alsórajk-Határi tábla,” Antaeus 23 (1996): 61–146, here 126 and 135; pl. 18/1; pl. 27/2; Robert Müller, Die Gräberfelder vor der Südmauer der Befestigung von Keszthely-Fenékpuszta (Budapest and Leipzig: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Régészeti Intézet/Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur, 2010), 43 and 109; 271, pl. 24/11; 321, pl. 74/9. For rare finds in Austria, see Vlasta Tovornik, “Die frühmittelalterlichen Gräberfelder von Gusen und Auhof bei Perg in Oberösterreich. Teil 2: Auhof bei Perg,” Archaeologia Austriaca 70 (1986): 413–84, here 422, and 474, pl. XIV.92/2; Irene Maria Petschko, “Das karolingerzeitlichen Gräberfeld von Pottenbrunn, Niederösterreich,” M. A. thesis, University of Vienna (Vienna, 2013), 214 and pl. 34/3; Elisabeth Nowotny, “Repräsentation zwischen Karolingerreich und Großmähren. Das Beispiel des Gräberfeldes von Thunau am Kamp, Obere Holzwiese,” in Macht des Goldes, Gold der Macht. Herrschafts- und Jenseitsrepräsentation zwischen Antike und Frühmittelalter im mittleren Donauraum. Akten des 23. internationalen Symposiums der Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im mittleren Donauraum, Tengelic, 16.–19. 11. 2011, eds. Matthias Hardt and Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska (Weinstadt: Bernhard Albert Greiner, 2013), 439–60, here 440. To the few finds from Austria, one can add the single razor from a 9th-century cemetery excavated in northwestern Hungary, for which see Gyula Török, Sopronkőhida IX. századi temetője (Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó, 1973), 21 and pl. 16/10.
· 53 Szőke, “Karolingerzeitliche Gräberfelder,” 107.
· 54 Janko Belošević, Materijalna kultura Hrvata od VII do IX stoljeća (Zagreb: Sveučilišna naklada Liber, 1980), 34, 38, and 40; pls. XXXVIII/12 and XXXIII/12; Maja Petrinec, Gräberfelder aus dem 8. bis 11. Jahrhundert im Gebiet des frühmittelalterlichen kroatischen Staates (Split: Museum der kroatischen archäologischen Denkmäler, 2009), 52 and 462, pl. 138/3, 4. For the cemetery in Crikvenica, see also Željka Cetinić, Stranče-Gorica, starohrvatsko groblje (Rijeka: Pomorski i povijesni muzej Hrvatskog primorja Rijeka, 1998).
· 55 Dušan Jelovina and Dasen Vrsalović, “Srednjevjekovno groblje na ‘Begovaci’ u selu Biljanima Donjim kod Zadra,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 11 (1981): 55–136, here 103 and pl. XLVIII/71; Janko Belošević, La nécropole paléocroate Kašić-Maklinovo brdo (Bonn: Habelt, 1982), T 47; Bono Mato Vrdoljak, “Starokrščanska bazilika i ranosredjovjekovna nekropola na Rešetarici kod Livna,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 18 (1988): 119–94, here 154, and 146 pl. XVII/4; Radomir Jurić, “Ranosrednjovjekovno groblje u Velimu kod Benkovca,” Diadora 22 (2007): 217–34, here 221.
· 56 In most cases, the fabric stuck to the razors is of linen plan weave, most likely of local production. See Marie Kostelníková, “Rozbor textilií z pohřebiště u kostela v Břeclavi-Pohansku,” in Sborník referátů ze sympozia “Slované 6.–10. Století”, Břeclav-Pohansko, 1978, eds. Bořivoj Dostál and Jana Vignatiová (Brno: Univerzita J. E. Purkyně, Fakulta filozofická, 1980), 143–47, here 143; Zdeněk Klanica, Nechvalín, Prušánky. Čtyři slovanská pohřebiště, vol. 1 (Brno: Archeologický ústav Akademie věd České republiky, 2006), 287, 289, and 290–91; Helena Březinová and Renáta Přichystalová, “Úvahy o textilní výrobě na Pohansku na základě analizy nálezů textilních fragmentů a předmětů souvisejících se spřádáním a tkaním,” Památky Archeologické 105 (2014): 105–214, here 159–61 and 164; 161, fig. 4/1, 3, 4; 165, fig. 6/20. Both wood and fabric were stuck to one of the razors found in grave 38 in the southern bailey at Pohansko, which suggests a box with textile wrapping inside (Přichystalová, Kalová, and Boberová, Břeclav-Pohansko IX, 138).
· 57 Swords: Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I, 56, fig. 65/1; 112, fig. 174/1; Hrubý, Staré Město, 491 and 618, pl. 72/14; Vrdoljak, “Starokrščanska bazilika,” 146, pl. XVII/1; Měřínský and Unger, “Velkomoravské kostrové pohřebiště,” 364, fig. 5/2; Szőke and Vándor, “Katalog der Gräber,” 504, pl. 20; Ruttkay, “Mittelalterliche Siedlung,” 292, fig. 40/6; Klanica, Nechvalín, vol. 1, 153, pl. 4/3; 165, pl. 16/2; 166, pl. 17/2. Axes: Hrubý, Staré Město, 396, 522; 545, pl. 35/1; 460; 491 and 618, pl. 72/10; 525 and 638, pl. 81/8; Budinský-Krička, Slovanské mohyly v Skalici, 202, pl. XXIII/1; 205, pl. XXXVI/1; 206, pl. XXXVII/3; 207, pl. XXXVIII/2; Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I, 101, fig. 154/1; 113, fig. 174/21; 145, fig. 246/11; 186, fig. 341/2; 203, fig. 375/3; Bialeková, “Slovanské pohrebisko v Závade,” 128, fig. 6/4; Plachá et al., Slovanský Devín, 55, pl. 13/3; Szőke and Vándor, “Katalog der Gräber,” 500, pl. 16/1; Béreš, “Veľkomoravské hroby v Mojzešove,” 132, fig. 19/11 and 140, pl. 27/4; Hanuliak and Ožďáni, “Veľkomoravské hroby zo sídliskového areálu v Čataji a Igrame,” 41, fig. 5/5; Klanica, Nechvalín, vol. 1, 150, pl. 1/3; 154, pl. 5/3; 153, pl. 4/5; 163, pl. 14/2; 165, pl. 16/8; 179, pl. 30/3; 205, pl. 56/4; 238, pl. 89/6; Klanica et al., Mikulčice, 282, fig. 121/11; Přichystalová et al., Břeclav-Pohansko IX, 451, pl. XI/1. Lance heads: Měřínský and Unger, “Velkomoravské kostrové pohřebiště,” 364, fig. 5/1; Klanica, Nechvalín, vol. 1, 154, pl. 5/7; 165, pl. 16/2; 199, pl. 50/3. Spurs: Hrubý, Staré Město, 396, 410, 460, and 491; 585, pl. 8/9; 513, pl. 72/11; Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I, 82, fig. 120/2, 3; 101, fig. 154/6,7; 113, fig.; 145, fig. 246/1, 2; 162, fig. 280/2, 3; 203, fig. 375/5, 6; Vrdoljak, “Starokrščanska bazilika,” pl. XVII/2, 3; Szőke, “Das birituelle Gräberfeld,” pl. 19/1, 2; Ruttkay, “Mittelalterliche Siedlung,” 292, fig. 40/2, 3 and 293, pl. 41/6, 7; Klanica et al., Mikulčice, 282, fig. 121/23 and 288, fig. 127/2, 12. All appendices may be consulted online, at […]
· 58 Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I, 183 (grave 337 in Břeclav-Pohansko, Magnate Court site); Belošević, Materijalna kultura, 118–19 (grave 16 in Kašić, Razbojine site). The razor from grave 337 in Pohansko has a slim, elongated rectangular shape that is very different from the trapezoidal shape so typical of jack-knife razors found in 9th-century assemblages. Besides the razor, there was only a knife in grave 108 in Pohansko, southern bailey site (Přichystalová, Kalová, and Boberová, Břeclav-Pohansko IX, 364–65). The razor in grave 4 of the cemetery excavated in Pohansko at the cremation cemetery site was found together with a knife, an iron buckle, and the fragment of a bone tube (Dostál, “Drobná pohřebiště,” 138).
· 59 Klanica et al., Mikulčice, 39, 54, 73, 78, 92, 109, 114, 119, 127, 131, 132, 137, and 161; 288, fig. 127/2a–c, 12; 311, fig. 150/1, 2. In Pohansko, there is a similar ratio of graves containing both spurs and razors: Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I, 82, 101, 113, 145, 162, and 203; 82, fig. 120/2, 3; 101, fig. 154/6, 7; 113, fig. 174/11, 12; 145, fig. 245/1, 2; 162, fig. 280/2, 3; 203, fig. 375/5, 6. By contrast, in Slovakia and in Croatia, razors are rarely found along with spurs: Budinský-Krička, Slovanské mohyly v Skalici, 197 and 206, pl. XXXVII/4, 5; Belošević, Materijalna kultura, pl. XXVIII/1, 2, 12; Mattej Ruttkay, “Mittelalterliche Siedlung,” 245–322, here 291, and 292, fig. 40/2, 3.
· 60 The two razors in grave C5 in Crikvenica were associated with a knife, flint fragments, and a flint steel. The same is true for the razor found in grave 146 of the cemetery excavated in Nin at the Ždrijac site. The razor in grave 222 of that same cemetery was also found together with a flint steel, in addition to a knife. See Maja Petrinec, Gräberfelder aus dem 8. bis 11. Jahrhundert im Gebiet des frühmittelalterlichen kroatischen Staates (Split: Museum der kroatischen archäologischen Denkmäler, 2009), 28, 29, and 52; 370, pl. 46; 382, pl. 58; 462, pl. 138.
· 61 Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I, 111 and 113, fig. 174/15.
· 62 Ibid., 202 and 203, fig. 375/1, 6.
· 63 Ibid., 82 and fig. 120/1, 2.
· 64 A battle axe was found by the right knee of the man buried in grave 38 of the southern bailey in Pohansko, together with a razor and a pair of spurs (Přichystalová, Kalová, and Boberová, Břeclav-Pohansko IX, 320; 451, pl. XI; 352, pl. XII).
· 65 Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I, 111; 112, fig. 174; 113, fig. 175. The razors are of roughly the same size and shape. Their sheet metal casings have traces of fabric glued to them, suggesting that they were padded (perhaps for comfort or for ornamentation?). For the sword (dated to the second half of the 9th century), see Jiří Košta, Jiří Hošek, Petr Dresler, Jiří Macháček, and Renáta Přichystalová, “Velkomoravské meče z Pohanska u Břeclavi a okolí – nová revize,” Archeologické rozhledy 110 (2019): 237–306, here 201–03. Of all the graves with swords from the cemetery excavated at the Magnate Court site in Pohansko, grave 174 was the closest to the church, immediately next to its northwestern corner. Judging by 9th-century burial practices in church graveyards, this was definitely a privileged position (Košta et al., “Velkomoravské meče,” 176–77).
· 66 Hrubý, Staré Město, 618, figs. 9, 10, 11, and 14; Klanica, Nechvalín, vol. 2, 21; Klan-ica et al., Mikulčice, 54. The same is true for grave 4 in the cemetery excavated at the Rešetarica site in Podgradina (near Livno, Bosnia and Herzegovina); see Petrinec, Gräberfelder, 32 and 393, pl. 69.
· 67 Měřínský and Unger, “Velkomoravské kostrové pohřebiště,” 395; Klanica, Nechvalín, vol. 2, 46.
· 68 Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I, 55 and 56, fig. 65. For the sword, see see Košta et al., “Velkomoravské meče,” 197–201. The sword in grave 65 is older than that in grave 174 by at least 50 years.
· 69 Vendtová, “Slovanské osídlenie Pobedima a okolia,” 398; Nowotny, “Repräsentation zwischen Karolingerreich und Großmähren,” 440.
· 70 Belošević, La nécropole, T 47. No fewer than 17 graves in the cemetery excavated in Nin at the Ždrijac site have produced seaxes, and only one (the double grave 322) contained a sword.
· 71 Hanuliak, Veľkomoravské pohrebiská, 135; 338, pl. LVI/10; 346, pl. LXIV/10; the wire artifacts found in Moravský Svätý Ján (near the present-day Slovak-Czech-Austrian border) and Nitra cannot be interpreted as tweezers.
· 72 Klanica, Nechvalín, Prušánky, vol. 1, 76 and 191, pl. 42/25; vol. 2, 152.
· 73 Hrubý, Staré Město, 124; 618, pl. 56/2, 3. It is important to note that tweezers are also rare during the subsequent period. A few specimens known from 10th-century assemblages in the Carpathian Basin have all been found in the graves of children (infans I), and in all cases they were attached to bead necklaces, which implies that they were worn as pendants. See Aurel Dragotă, “Un accesoriu cosmetic din jurul anului 1000 în necropola de la Alba Iulia-Izvorul Împăratului,” Apulum 53 (2016): 255–61, here 255 and 257.
· 74 Jaroslav Tejral, Stanislav Stuchlík, Miloš Čižmář, Zdeněk Klanica, and Soňa Klanicová, Langobardische Gräberfelder in Mähren I (Brno: Archäologisches Institut der Akademie der Wissenschaften der Tschechischen Republik Brno, 2011), 230, 233–34, 265, 266–67, 278–79, 285, 294–96, and 300; 364, pl. 31/1; 366, pl. 33/22; 369, pl. 36/9; 380, pl. 47/5; 391, pl. 58/11; 392, pl. 59/10; 404, pl. 71/92; 410, pl. 77/13, 14; 411, pl. 78/2; 414, pl. 81/9. The anthropological analysis of the skeletal remains indicates that some of those men died in their late 20s or in their 30s, and that others died at 50 years of age or even older. Graves 104 and 111 were double burials, in which a male was buried together with a female and a child, respectively. In both cases, the tweezers (two specimens in grave 104, one of bronze and the other of iron) were most likely associated with the male skeleton, despite the fact that both graves were robbed (Tejral et al., Langobardische Gräberfelder, 294–95 and 300).
· 75 Swords: Tejral et al., Langobardische Gräberfelder, 233 and 234; 366, pl. 33/1; 369, pl. 36/3. Arrowheads: Ibid., 267 and 296; 392, pl. 59/1–7; 411, pl. 78/15–17. Spearheads: Ibid., 234, 295, and 300; 369, pl. 36/2, 12; 410, pl. 77/11; 414, pl. 81/13. Shields: Ibid., 295 and 410, pl. 77/6, 8.
· 76 Combs: Ibid., 230, 234, and 265; 364, pl. 31/8; 369, pl. 36/1; 392, pl. 59/31. Scissors (shears): Ibid., 265 and 391, pl. 58/19. In Moravia, the association of tweezers with combs is also documented archaeologically at Borotice, near Znojmo; see Ibid., 102–3 and 124–25; 336, pl. 3/6; 339, pl. 6/9.
· 77 Ibid., 266–67. The remains of organic matter, perhaps textile, on the bronze tweezers found in grave 81 may indicate a pouch as well (Ibid., 278–79).
· 78 For the cluster of weapons on the southern fringe, see Daniel Winger and Uta von Freeden, “Funde und Befunde. Untrennbare Einheit? Beobachtungen zu den langobardenzeitlichen Nekropolen Holubice und Lužice,” in Na hranicích impéria. Jaroslavu Tejralovi k 80. narozeninám, ed. Irena Loskotová (Brno: Archeologický ústav Akademie Věd ČR, 2017), 417–38, here 428, fig. 11; Daniel Winger and Uta von Freeden, “Simila ma diverse: osservazioni sullorganizzazione spaziale nelle necropoli di età longobarda di Holubice e Lužice (Rep. Ceca),” in Migrazioni, clan, culture: archeologia, genetica e isotopi stabili. III Incontro per l’Archeologia barbarica, Milano, 18 maggio 2018, ed. Caterina Giostra (Mantova: SAP Società Archeologica, 2019), 103–19, here 111 and 113; 106, fig. 3.
· 79 Grave 10, next to grave 9 (with a sword), produced arrowheads (Tejral et al., Langobardische Gräberfelder, 233); graves 13 and 25, next to grave 12 (with a sword), produced spearheads (Ibid., 234–35 and 239); grave 113, next to grave 111 (with a spearhead), produced a spearhead (Ibid., 301 and 303). Out of the two male graves in the middle of the cemetery (63 and 66), one produced seven arrowheads (Ibid., 266–67). There was a spearhead in grave 112, located next to grave 92 (with tweezers); see Ibid., 301.
· 80 Grave 81 is flanked by grave 70 (child) and grave 82 (female); grave 12 is flanked by graves 11 (female) and 40 (child). The same may be true for grave 100 of the cemetery excavated in Holubice, which was flanked by two other child burials (graves 101 and 104). For the northern part of that cemetery as the “elite section,” see Winger, “Simila ma diverse,” 113.
· 81 Jiří Zeman, “Pohřebiště z doby stěhování národů v Mochově,” Památky Archeologické 49, no. 2 (1958): 423–71, here 438–39; 438, fig. 17/1; Bedřich Svoboda, Čechy v době stěhování národů (Prague: Academia, 1965), 243–44 and 294; pl. LV/4; Rastislav Korený and Jaroslav Kudrnač, “Pohřebiště z doby stěhování národů v Klučově. Nové zhodnocení a jeho místo v rámci Českobrodska v období stěhování národů a počátků raného středověku,” Archeologie ve střednich Čechách 7 (2003): 417–59, here 423 and 424, fig. 5/2.
· 82 Bóna and Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder in West-Ungarn, 70–71 and 72–73; 260, pl. 25/1; 261, pl. 26/8 (besides a spearhead, a shield, and a seax); Bóna and Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder in West-Ungarn, 85 and 265, pl. 30/3; Margit Nagy, “Langobard sírok Budapest-Óbuda/Aquincumból,” in Thesaurus Avarorum. Régészeti tánulmanyok Garam Éva tiszteletére, ed. Tivadar Vida (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, 2012), 141–74, here 148 and 151, fig. 8/2; Andrea Vaday, “The Langobard Cemetery from Ménfőcsanak,” Antaeus 33 (2015): 168, 170, and 172; 171, fig. 3/5.
· 83 Bóna and Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder in West-Ungarn, 96–97, 100–2, 115, 130–33; 272, pl. 37/3; 274, pl. 39/2; 275, pl. 40/4; 210, pl. 46/4; 289, pl. 54/4; 290, pl. 55/3, 6; 293, pl. 58/6.
· 84 Spears were typically planted into the wall or the corner of the grave pit, as in graves 25, 44, 81, and 83 (Bóna and Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder in West-Ungarn, 101–2, 113, 115, 130, and 132–33; 103, fig. 70; 114, fig. 78; 131, pl. 92; 132, pl. 93; 210, pl. 46/12; 274, pl. 40/1; 289, pl. 54/13; 290, pl. 55/10).
· 85 In one case (grave 79), the associated skeleton was of a woman. Tweezers in female graves: Dezső Csallány, Archäologische Denkmäler der Gepiden im Mitteldonaubecken (Budapest: Akademiai kiadó, 1961), 37–38 and 173; pl. XVIII/15; pl. CXI/29; János Cseh, Eszter Istvánovits, Emese Lovász, Károly Mesterházy, Margit Nagy, Ibolya M. Nepper, and Erika Simonyi, Gepidische Gräberfelder im Theissgebiet II (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, 2005), 124 and 278, pl. 48/5; Bóna and Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder in West-Ungarn, 71; Robert Müller, Die Gräberfelder vor der Südmauer der Befestigung von Keszthely-Fenékpuszta (Budapest and Leipzig: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Régészeti Intézet/Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur, 2010), 90; Tejral et al., Langobardische Gräberfelder, 174. Tweezers also appear in female burials in the northern Balkans: Vujadin Ivanišević, Michel Kazanski, and Anna V. Mastykova, Les nécropoles de Viminacium à l’époque des Grandes Migrations (Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2006), 182 and 181, pl. 21/3.
· 86 Bóna and Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder in West-Ungarn, 96–97 and 101–2; 272, pl. 37/4; 274, pl. 40/8.
· 87 Ibid., 101–2 and 130; 103, fig. 70; 131, pl. 92; 274, pl. 40/5. The same may be true for the tweezers from graves 44, 79, and 82, although the former had been partially robbed.
· 88 Ibid., 101–2 and 99, fig. 67. The same may be true for the tweezers found next to the left arm of the female skeleton in grave 79.
· 89 Ibid., 134; 133, fig. 94; 291, pl. 56/85; 345, pl. 110/1, 2; 387, pl. 152; 397, pl. 162/2; 422, pl. 187/1–5.
· 90 Ibid., 103 and 106; 105, fig. 70; 276, pl. 41; 301, pl. 66/18; 341, pl. 106/6, 7; 381, pl. 146; 390, pl. 155/8; 396, pl. 161/4; 421, pl. 186.
· 91 Ibid., 144, 150, 152–53, 157–59, and 163; 297, pl. 62/2; 303, pl. 68/13; 305, pl. 70/7d; 306, pl. 71/5; 308, pl. 73/6; 311, pl. 76/4.
· 92 Ibid., 158; 159, fig. 116; 308, pl. 73/2.
· 93 István Bóna, “Die Langobarden in Ungarn. Die Gräberfelder von Várpalota und Bezenye,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 7 (1956): 183–242, here 188; Bóna and Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder in West-Ungarn, 89 and 9; 269, pl. 34/5. No weapons have been found with the tweezers from Vörs, for which see Károly Sági, “Das langobardische Gräberfeld von Vörs,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 16 (1964): 359–408, here 359 and pl. XXI/3.
· 94 Csallány, Archäologische Denkmäler, 168 and pl. CLVIII/7; Mircea Rusu, “The pre-feudal cemetery of Noşlac (VI–VIIth centuries),” Dacia 6 (1962): 269–92, here 279 and 276, fig. 4/15; Kurt Horedt, Moreşti. Grabungen in einer vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Siedlung in Siebenbürgen (Bucharest: Kriterion, 1979), 195 and 174, pl. 89/5; János Cseh, Eszter Istvánovits, Emese Lovász, Károly Mesterházy, Margit Nagy, Ibolya M. Nepper, and Erika Simonyi, Gepidische Gräberfelder im Theissgebiet II (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, 2005), 14–15, 101, 130–31; 254, pl. 24/2; 272, pl. 42/7; 286, pl. 56/2; 287, pl. 57/1; Coriolan Opreanu, Valentin Voişian, and Emilian Bota, “Mormântul unui războinic din epoca migraţiilor descoperit la Cluj-Napoca – ‘Polus’,” in Dacia felix. Studia Michaeli Bărbulescu oblata, ed. Sorin Nemeti (Cluj-Napoca: Editura Tribuna, 2007), 510–19, here 510–11 and 518, pl. 3; Vlad-Andrei Lăzărescu, Claudia Radu, and Adrian Ursuţiu, “Preliminary Data Regarding the Newly Discovered 6th-Century Necropolis at Nădlac, Arad County,” Analele Banatului 24 (2016): 301–24, here 306 and 320, pl. 2/1.
· 95 István Bóna and Margit Nagy, Gepidische Gräberfelder am Theissgebiet I (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, 2002), 203, 228, and 235; 305, pl. 31/4; 324, pl. 50/4; 325, pl. 51/8.
· 96 Cseh et al., Gepidische Gräberfelder im Theissgebiet II, 46–47 and 244, pl. 14/3.
· 97 Csallány, Archäologische Denkmäler, 128 and pl. CCXXIX/12; Bóna and Nagy, Gepidische Gräberfelder, 43–44 and 67–69; 283, pl. 9/23; 296, pl. 23/4.
· 98 In addition, grave 7 produced a double-sided comb and scissors (or shears).
· 99 Csallány, Archäologische Denkmäler, 32–38; pl. X/5; pl. XII/5; pl. XV/6; pl. XVII/17; pl. XVIII/15.
· 100 In addition to a sword, grave 57 also produced a spearhead and 11 arrowheads.
· 101 Ibid., 70, 75, 80, 82–85, 87, 88, and 93; pl. LIII/15; pl. LIX/1; pl. LX/6; pl. LXIII/2; pl. LXIV/12; pl. LXXVI/9; pl. LXXXVI/1; pl. XCII/9.
· 102 There is even the fragment of a helmet in grave 40, most likely of the Baldenheim type, for which see Mahand Vogt, Spangenhelme. Baldenheim und verwandte Typen (Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2006).
· 103 Csallány, Archäologische Denkmäler, 173, 177, 178, 180, 181, 184, 187, and 189–90; pl. CXI/29; pl. CXX/12; pl. CXXIII/1; pl. CXXI/4; pl. CXXVIII/4; pl. CXXXVI/33; pl. CXXXIX/14; pl. CXL/4.
· 104 Moreover, in grave 99, the tweezers were found under the skull, a very unusual position in relation to the body. Equally unusual is the position of the tweezers in grave 229 (next to the right shinbone).
· 105 Vujadin Ivanišević, Michel Kazanski, and Anna V. Mastykova, Les nécropoles de Viminacium à l’époque des Grandes Migrations (Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2006), 162, 164, 177, and 182; 163, pl. 11/4; 165, pl. 12/1; 182, pl. 22/1; 181, pl. 21/3; 197, pl. 30/5.
· 106 Ivanišević, Kazanski, and Mastykova, Les nécropoles, 162, 164, 180, and 182; 163, pl. 11/3; 181, pl. 21/2. For the distribution of weapon graves within the cemetery, see Ivan Bugarski and Vujadin Ivanišević, “Sixth-century foederati from the Upper Moe-sian limes: weapons in a social context,” in Vivere Militare Est. From Populus to Emperors – Living on the Frontier, ed. Miomir Korać, vol. 1 (Belgrade: Institute of Archaeology, 2018), 291–332, here p. 301, fig. 5.
· 107 Lojze Bolta, Rifnik pri Šentjurju. Poznoantična naselbina in grobišče (Ljubljana: Narodni muzej, 1981), 32–34; pl. 7/2; pl. 10/1, 2.
· 108 Vida Stare, Kranj. Nekropola iz časa pereseljevanja liudstev (Ljubljana: Narodni muzej, 1980), 106–8, 111, 113, 114, 118, and 120; pl. 5/6; pl. 12/6; pl. 17/10; pl. 31/5; pl. 48/3; pl. 66/4; pl. 68/2; pl. 70/7; pl. 93/4; pl. 96/5, 6; pl. 108/11, 12.
· 109 They may, therefore, not have been toiletries used during their lifetime by the women with whom they were buried. Instead, they may have been grooming instruments employed for the preparation of the body for burial or may have belonged to relatives or friends. In both cases, their presence in the burial assemblage must therefore be interpreted as part of a ritual.
· 110 Daniela Tănase, Craftsmen and Jewelers in the Middle and Lower Danube Region (6th to 7th Centuries) (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2020), 174.
· 111 For 5th- to 6th-century settlement finds, see Jelena Đorđević, “Naselja 5–7. veka u Vojvodini,” in Balkan, Podunavlje i Istochna Evropa u rimsko doba i u ranom srednjem veku. Materijali I srpsko-ruske arkheoloshke konferencja “Sudbine naroda Istochna i Juzhne Evrope – pogled kroz vekove” (20–26. maja 2014 g., Novi Sad, Beograd), eds. Igor O. Gavritukhin and Stanko Trifunović (Novi Sad: Muzej Vojvodine, 2019), 319–47, here 330 and 333; 332, fig. 9/14; 334, fig. 10/8. For 7th- to 8th-century finds, see Michal Bureš and Naďa Profantová, “Raně středověké sídliště v Praze-Liboci,” in Archeologie doby hradištní v Čechách. Sborník příspěvků z pracovního setkáni badatelů zaměřených ne výzkum doby hradištní v Čechách, konaného v Plzni 19.–21. 5. 2004, ed. Milan Metlička (Plzeň: Západočeské muzeum v Plzni, 2005), 44–73, here 45–46 and 73; 54, fig. 7/6.
· 112 Marijan Slabe, Dravlje. Grobišče iz časov preseljevanja ljudstev (Ljubljana: Narodni muzej, 1975), 102.
· 113 Bóna and Nagy, Gepidische Gräberfelder, 67 and 69; 68, fig. 33/82. The same is true for grave 51 in the same cemetery; see János Banner, “Asatások a hódmezővásárhelyi határ batidai és gorzsai részében,” Dolgozatok a Ferenc József-Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetéből 9–10 (1933–1934): 251–71, here 259. See also Gyula Török, A kiszombori germán temető helye népvándorláskori emlékeink között (Szeged: Somogyi-Könyvtár és Városi Múzeum, 1936), 10; Bóna and Nagy, Gepidische Gräberfelder, 203; Ibid., 152–53 and 158.
· 114 Ibid., 84–85 and 84, fig. 55.
· 115 Török, A kiszombori germán temető, 18. See also Cseh et al., Gepidische Gräberfelder im Theissgebiet II, 14–15. For the position(ing) of combs in relation to the skull, see Bóna and Nagy, Gepidische Gräberfelder, 95 and 97–98; 96, fig. 44.
· 116 For example, Stare, Kranj, 106 (with two combs, one single- and the other double-sided); Lăzărescu, Radu, and Ursuţiu, “Preliminary Data,” 306. This may also be the case of Csallány, Archäologische Denkmäler, 33.
· 117 Ibid., 32.
· 118 Ivan Bugarski and Vujadin Ivanišević, “On the Group of Graves from Aradac (Aradka) and Germanic Finds from the South of the Avar Khaganate,” in Beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam. Ünnepi kötet Tomka Péter 75. születésnapjára, eds. Teréz Csécs and Miklós Takács (Győr: Lekri Group Kft., 2016), 151–68, here 155.
· 119 Gábor Lőrinczy, “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Freilegung des Gräberfeldes aus dem 6.–7. Jahrhundert in Szegvár- Oromdülő,” Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae (1992): 81–124, here 96, and 100, fig. 16/3; Gyula Török, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Solymár (Debrecen and Budapest: Kapitalis, 1994), 15 and 77, pl. XVI/15; Csilla Balogh, “Kora avar sírok Felgyő-Kettőshalmi dűlőben,” in Avarok pusztái. Régészeti tanulmányok Lőrinczy Gábor 60. születésnapjára, eds. Alexandra Anders, Csilla Balogh, and Attila Türk (Budapest: Martin Opitz Kiadó, 2014), 243–78, here 243; 254, fig. 2/1; 269, fig. 5/3.
· 120 Ján Eisner, Devínska Nová Ves. Slovanské pohřebiště (Bratislava: Nákladem Slovanskej Akadémie Vied a Umení, 1952), 62; Agnés Cs. Sós, A keceli avarkori temetők (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum/Történeti Múzeum, 1958), 8; Ľudmila Kraskovská, “Pohrebisko v Bernolákove,” Slovenská Archeológia 10 (1962): 425–76, here 430; László Papp, “A bólyi avarkori temető I. Első közlemény,” Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 8 (1962): 163–94, here 175; Gertrud Moßler, “Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Wien Liesing,” Mitteilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 105 (1975): 79–95, here 86; Milan Hanuliak and Jozef Zábojník, “Pohrebisko zo 7.–8. stor. v Čataji, okr. Bratislava-videk,” Archeologické rozhledy 34 (1982): 492–503, here 496; Éva Garam, “Die münzdatierten Gräber der Awarenzeit,” in Awarenforschungen, ed. Falko Daim (Vienna: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Wien, 1992), 135–250, here 142–44; Lőrinczy, “Vorläufiger Bericht,” 96; Anton Točík, “Materiály k dejinám južného Slovenska v 7.–14. storoči,” Študijné zvesti 28 (1992): 5–250, here 29; László Madaras, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Jászapáti (Debrecen and Budapest: Kapitalis, 1994), 30; Gyula Török, “The Csengele-Feketehalom Cemetery,” in Das awarische Korpus. Avar Corpus Füzetek, ed. László Madaras (Debrecen and Budapest: Kossuth Lajos Tudományegyetem Néprajzi Tanszék Ethnica Alapítványa, 1995), 208–74, here 214; Branislava Mikić-Antonić, Nekropola iz perioda avarske dominacije, lokalitet Pionirska ulica u Bečeju (Bečej: Gradski muzej, 2012), 15–16.
· 121 Gábor Lőrinczy, “A Szegvár-Oromdűllői kora avarkori temetö 1. sírja,” Móra Ferenc Múzeum Evkönyve, no. 2 (1984–1985): 127–53, here 127–29; 149, fig. 4/8.
· 122 Anton Distelberger, Das awarische Gräberfeld von Mistelbach (Niederösterreich) (Innsbruck: Universitätsverlag Wagner, 1996), 94–95, notes that there are more female graves with tweezers during the late Avar (680–820) than during the middle Avar period (630–680). Tweezers appear in male graves primarily during the first part of the late Avar period.
· 123 Children with tweezers: László Költő, “VII–VIII. századi avar temető Balatonkiliti határában,” Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei 10 (1994): 37–72, here 53, and 64, pl. VII/21; Gábor Lőrinczy and Zsófia Rácz, “Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg megye avar sírleletei II. Tiszavasvári-Kashalom dűlő kora avar kori temetkezései,” A Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 56 (2014): 141–217, here 150, and 209, pl. V/5. Horses with tweezers: Eisner, Devínska Nová Ves, 103 and fig. 50/2.
· 124 Vojtech Budavarý, “Výskum staroslovanských mohýl v Brezolupach a v Jerichove (obec Vysočany) (okr. Bánovce n. Bebr.),” Sborník Matice slovenskej pre jaszkoypyt, národopis a literárnu historiu 13 (1935): 355–64, here 360; Bořivoj Dostál, Břeclav-Pohansko. Časně slovanské osídlení (Brno: Univerzita J. E. Purkyně, 1985), 118 and 162, pl. 23/2; Marie Fridrichová and Naďa Profantová, “Časně slovanské žárové hroby z Prahy-Bohnic,” Archaeologica Pragensia 13 (1997): 49–73, here 50, and 57, fig. 2/34.
· 125 Papp, “A bólyi avarkori temető,” 175; Ilona Kovrig, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Alattyán (Budapest: Akademiai kiadó, 1963), 59; Ágnes Salamon and István Erdélyi, Das völkerwanderungszeitliche Gräberfeld von Környe (Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó, 1971), 23; Lőrinczy, “Vorläufiger Bericht,” 96; Török, “The Csengele-Feketehalom Cemetery,” 214.
· 126 Török, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld, 9; Lőrinczy and Rácz, “Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg megye avar sírleletei,” 150.
· 127 Dezső Csallány, “Kora-avarkori sírleletek,” Folia archaeologica 1–2 (1939): 121–80, here 126; Zlata Čilinská, Slawisch-awarisches Gräberfeld von Nové Zámky (Bratislava: Vydavatel’stvo Slovenskej Akademie vied, 1966), 78; Točík, “Materiály,” 29; Sándor Mithay, “Bronz-, avar és középkori leletek Bakonytamási-Hathalom-Pusztáról (Anyagközlés),” Pápai Múzeumi Értesitő 5 (1995): 169–84, here 174.
· 128 Moßler, “Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld,” 86; Török, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld, 15; Ágnés Salamon and Károly Cs. Sebestyén, “The Szeged-Kundomb Cemetery,” in Das awarische Korpus. Avar Corpus Füzetek, ed. László Madaras (Debrecen and Budapest: Kossuth Lajos Tudományegyetem Néprajzi Tanszék Ethnica Alapítványa, 1995), 8–108, here 37; Csilla Balogh and Klára P. Fischl, A Felgyő Ürmös-tanya. Bronzkori és avar kori leletek László Gyula felgyői ásatásának anyagából (Szeged: Móra Ferenc Múzeum, 2010), 188.
· 129 Kovrig, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld, 40 and 49.
· 130 Zlata Čilinská, Frühmittelalterliches Gräberfeld in Želovce (Bratislava: Vydateľstvo Slovenskiej Akademie vied, 1973), 114 and 170; Balogh, “Kora avar sírok,” 243.
· 131 Čilinská, Slawisch-awarisches Gräberfeld, 49; Madaras, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld, 30.
· 132 Čilinská, Frühmittelalterliches Gräberfeld, 126.
· 133 We use “symbol(ism)” here in a different way from Nina Crummy, “Toilet Instruments: Symbols of Dissent?” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2010): 285–93.
· 134 A standard pouch including flint stones and bronze tweezers has been found in the so-called craftsman’s grave in Poysdorf, for which see Falko Daim, Mathias Mehofer, and Bendegúz Tóbiás, “Die langobardischen Schmiedegräber aus Poysdorf und Brno. Fragen, Methoden, erste Ergebnisse,” in Die Langobarden. Herrschaft und Identität, eds. Walter Pohl and Peter Erhard (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2005), 201–24, here 205, and 216, fig. 2.
· 135 The same is true for scissors, which are associated with combs, when not found together with weapons: Csallány, Archäologische Denkmäler, 81, 177, and 189; pl. LXIII/11, 15; pl. CXIX/5; pl. CXLIX/6; Svoboda, Čechy, 242 and pl. LXI/14; Dorin Popescu, “Das gepidische Gräberfeld von Moreşti,” Dacia 18 (1974): 189–238; here 223, and 225, pl. 9/6; Stare, Kranj, 111, 113, 117, and 118; pl. 53/6; pl. 65/6; pl. 89/3; pl. 98/3, 4; Jiří Zeman, “Pohřebiště z doby stěhování národů,” in Lochenice. Z archeologických výzkumů na katastru obce, eds. Miroslav Buchwaldek and Jiří Zeman (Prague: Univerzita Karlova, 1990), 69–101, here 86–87; 87, fig. 36/25; Bóna and Nagy, Gepidische Gräber-felder, 206–07; 308, pl. 34/4; Uta von Freeden and Tivadar Vida, “Ausgrabung des langobardenzeitlichen Gräberfeldes von Szólád, Komitat Somogy, Ungarn. Vorbericht und Überblick über langobardenzeitlichen Besiedlung am Plattensee,” Germania 85 (2005): 359–84, here 373–75; Tejral et al., Langobardische Gräberfelder, 259–60; 388, pl. 55/2. The combination of scissors and combs most likely refers to a haircut.
· 136 Women: Klanica, Nechvalín, vol. 2, 87 and 183; Hendrychová, “Velkomoravské pohřebiště,” 22; Přichystalová et al., Břeclav-Pohansko IX, 364. Children: Hrubý, Staré Město, 437 and 498; Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I, 162; Klanica, Nechvalín, vol. 2, 249.
· 137 Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I, 5 and 186; Rejholcová, Pohrebisko, 17.
· 138 Budinský-Krička, Slovanské mohyly v Skalici, 92; Chropovský, “Slovanské pohrebiske,” 177; Tovornik, “Die frühmittelalterlichen,” 422; Szőke and Vándor, “Katalog der Gräber,” 245; Klanica et al., Mikulčice, 92.
· 139 Hrubý, Staré Město, 461, 478, and 524; Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I, 138; Plachá et al., Slovanský Devín, 115; Béreš, “Slovanské pohrebisko,” 123; Rejholcová, Pohrebisko, 32; Kuzma, “Pokračovanie výskumu vo Veľkom Kýre,” 119; Klanica et al., Mikulčice, 123.
· 140 Hrubý, Staré Město, 482 and 530; Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I, 202; Kerecsényi, “IX. századi sírok Letenyén,” 137; Belošević, La nécropole, T47; Marešová, Uherské Hradiště-Sady, 83; Plachá et al., Slovanský Devín, 56.
· 141 Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I, 144, 183, 320, 513, and 531; Török, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld, 21; Marešová, Uherské Hradiště-Sady, 83; Szőke and Vándor, “Katalog der Gräber,” 251; Rejholcová, Pohrebisko, 59 and 64; Klanica, Nechvalín, vol. 2, 35 and 43; Klanica et al., Mikulčice, 78, 92, 127, and 137; Přichystalová et al., Břeclav-Pohansko IX, 364.
· 142 Plachá et al., Slovanský Devín, 46; Ruttkay, “Mittelalterliche Siedlung,” 291; Klanica, Nechvalín, vol. 2, 143; Klanica et al., Mikulčice, 112 and 114.
· 143 Hrubý, Staré Město, 410; Klanica et al., Mikulčice, 131 and 132.
· 144 Eight more skeletons have been aged between 60 and 70 and another three rather vaguely between 40 and 60. By contrast, there are only 17 skeletons of males under 40 (ten for the age category 30–40 and seven for the age category 20–30). The remaining five skeletons are of children and teenagers.
· 145 Eva Drozdová, Břeclav-Pohansko VI. Slovanští obyvatelé velkomoravského hradiska Pohansko u Břeclavi (demografická a antropometrická studie) (Brno: Masarykova Univerzita, 2005), 27.
· 146 Bořivoj Dostál, Slovanská pohřebiště ze střední doby hradištní na Moravě (Prague: Academia, 1966), 87, believed that those were not tools for grooming but special working knives.
· 147 The ability to produce fire may have also been part of the statement about masculinity: razors are often associated with flint stones and fire steels. The redundancy of the two razors in grave 174 in Pohansko reminds one of the situation in grave 44 of the cemetery excavated near church no. 2 in Mikulčice. That was the grave of a 25- to 30-year-old man buried together with two pairs of spurs. See Josef Poulík, “Výsledky výzkumu na velkomoravském hradišti ‘Valy’ u Mikulčic,” Památky Archeologické 48 (1957): 241–388, here 366–67.
· 148 Most other burials next to those with razors are poorly furnished. The presence of bronze earrings suggests that some women in Sady were buried next to men with razors.
· 149 Mechthild Schulze-Dörrlamm, “Bestattungen in den Kirchen Grossmährens und Böh-mens während des 9. und 10. Jahrhunderts,” Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentral-museums 40 (1993): 557–620, here 600, fig. 45.
· 150 Ibid., 597.
· 151 Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I, 183 and 187.
· 152 There are no razors in the cemeteries excavated next to churches 6 and 12, for which see Naďa Profantová, “Mikulčice, pohřebiště u 6. kostela: pokus o chronologické a sociální zhodnocení,” in Mikulčice – pohřebiště u 6. a 12. kostela, eds. Naďa Profantová and Blanka Kavánová (Brno: Archeologický ústav Akademie Věd České Republiky, 2003), 7–209; Blanka Kavánová, “Mikulčice – pohřebiště v okolí 12. kostela,” in Mikulčice – pohřebiště u 6. a 12. kostela, eds. Naďa Profantová and Blanka Kavánová (Brno: Archeologický ústav Akademie Věd České Republiky, 2003), 211–413. One of the two churches is located outside the stronghold, across the arm of the Morava River to the east. This was a rotunda, and it is interesting to note that a similar rotunda located to the (north)east of the stronghold in Pohansko had a cemetery that produced no razor. See Jiří Macháček, Petr Dresler, Renáta Přichystalová, and Vladimír Sládek, Břeclav-Pohansko VII. Kostelní pohřebiště na Severovýchodním předhradí (Brno: Filozofická fakulta, Masarykova Univerzita, 2016).
· 153 Hrubý, Staré Město, 522.
· 154 Ibid., 498. For child burials in Pohansko, see Renáta Přichystalová, “Detské hroby z južného predhradia velkomorávského hradiska na Pohansku při Břeclavi,” Študijné zvesti 42 (2007): 163–84. For child burials in 9th-century cemeteries excavated in southwestern Slovakia, see Milan Hanuliak, “Detskí jedinci vo veľkomoravskom pros-tredí na základe pohrebiskových prameňov z územia Slovenska,” Slovenská Archeológia 54, no. 2 (2006): 259–84. For the symbolism of weapons and spurs deposited in child burials, see Šimon Ungerman, “Reich ausgestattete Gräber auf dem großmährischen Gräberfeld in Dolní Věstonice,” in Die frühmittelalterliche Elite bei den Völkern des östlichen Mitteleuropas (mit speziellen Blick auf die großmährische Problematik). Materialien der internationalen Fachkonferenz, Mikulčice, 25.–26. 5. 2004, ed. Pavel Kouřil (Brno: Archäologisches Institut der Akademie der Wissenschaften der Tschechischen Republik, 2005), 209–24, here 218–19; Jan Klápště, The Czech Lands in Medieval Transformation (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012), 18–19.
· 155 Přichystalová, Kalová, and Boberová, Břeclav-Pohansko IX, 139 (the few skeletal remains in grave 108 have been sexed by means of DNA analysis); Hendrychová, “Velkomoravské pohřebiště,” 22.
· 156 Stein, Adelsgräber, 231 and pl. 11/8, 10; Pescheck, Das fränkische Gräberfeld, 225 and 232; pl. 16.57/3, 5, 6; pl. 25.108/4, 6.
· 157 Goran Bilogrivić, “Carolingian Weapons and the Problem of Croat Migration and Ethnogenesis,” in Migration, Integration, and Connectivity on the Southeastern Frontier of the Carolingian Empire, eds. Danijel Dzino, Ante Milošević, and Trpimir Vedriš (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2018), 86–99, here 97–98.
· 158 Šimon Ungerman, “Carolingian Imports in Great Moravia,” in Great Moravian Elites from Mikulčice, ed. Lumír Poláček (Brno: Institute of Archaeology, 2020), 51–57.
· 159 Scholars have instead focused on various parts of the pouch, particularly the clasp. See Attila Lakatos, “Închizătoare de geantă din bronz în mediul avar (sec. VI–VII p. Chr.),” Ephemeris Napocensis 11 (2001): 145–64; Péter Straub, “Eiserne Taschenbügel in Gräbern des 5. Jahrhunderts von Keszthely-Fenékpuszta,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 52 (2001): 303–18; Bendegúz Tóbiás, “Avar kori tarsolyzárók a Kárpátmedencében,” Móra Ferenc Múzeum Evkönyve. Studia Archaeologica 12 (2011): 277–312.
· 160 Bóna and Horváth, Langobardische Gräberfelder in West-Ungarn, 110–11; 279, pl. 44.34/3; 422, pl. 187/6. For a good, enlarged drawing of the mount, showing the two opposing heads, see Margit Nagy, “Ornamenta Avarica II. A fonatornamentika,” Móra Ferenc Múzeum Evkönyve. Studia Archaeologica 5 (1999): 279–316, here 310, fig. 4/1a. For the dating of the belt mount, see István Koncz, “568 – A Historical Date and Its Archaeological Consequences,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 66 (2015): 315–40, here 320–21.
· 161 Margit Nagy, “Synkretische Elemente in der frühawarenzeitlichen Ornamentik. Zur Frage der awarenzeitlichen Variante des Motivs ‘Maske bzw. Menschengesicht zwis-chen zwei Tieren’,” Zalai Múzeum 11 (2002): 153–78, here 153; Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska, “Tier- und Zahnschnittornamentik im awarenzeitlichen Karpatenbecken,” Bericht der römisch-germanischen Kommission 87 (2006): 506–627, here 515–21. The bearded male portrait is interpreted as Okeanos/Neptune or Sol Invictus.
· 162 Róbert Müller, “Neue germanische Funde aus der Festung Keszthely-Fenékpuszta,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 59, no. 2 (2008): 231–45, here 236–37, and 235, fig. 2/2.
· 163 Attila P. Kiss, “Between Wotan and Christ? Deconstruction of the Gepidic Belief System Based on the Written and Archaeological Sources,” in Kollaps, Neuordnung, Kontinuität. Gepiden nach dem Untergang des Hunnenreiches. Tagungsakten der internationalen Konferenz and der Eötvös Loránd Universität, Budapest, 14.–15. Dezember 2015, eds. Tivadar Vida, Dieter Quast, Zsófia Rácz, and István Koncz (Budapest: Institut für Archäologiewissenschaften, Eötvös Loránd Universität, 2019), 369–408, here 387. For the motif of the Waffentänzer in the Merovingian metalwork, see Dieter Quast, “Kriegsdarstellungen der Merowingerzeit aus de Alamannia,” Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 32 (2002): 267–80.
· 164 Ernst Petersen, “Nordische Goldbrakteaten aus dem Donaugebiet und ihre Bedeutung für die Herulerfrage,” in Laureae Aquincenses, memoriae Valentini Kuzsinszky dicatae, vol. 2 (Budapest: Institut für Münzkunde und Archäologie der P. Pázmany-Universität, 1941), 72–76; Morten Axboe, “Ein C-Brakteat aus Ungarn,” Acta Archaeologica 49 (1978): 198–202. See also Alexandra Pesch, “Shared Divine Imagery: Gold Bracteates,” in The Migration Period Between the Oder and the Vistula, eds. Aleksander Bursche, John Hines, and Anna Zapolska, vol. 1 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2020), 411–33. Perhaps under the impression that the bracteates display the only images of males known from the 6th-century Carpathian Basin, Tivadar Vida, “Herkunft und Funktion von Privatreliquiarien und Amulettkapseln im frühgeschichtlichen Europa,” in Glaube, Kult und Herrschaft. Phänomene des Religiösen im 1. Jahrtausend n. Chr. in Mittel- und Nordeuropa. Akten des 59. internationalen Sachsensymposions und der Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im Mitteldonauraum, eds. Uta von Freeden, Herwig Friesinger, and Egon Wamers (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 2009), 261–80, here 275, wrongly assumes that most portraits of men dated to the 6th century are without beards.
· 165 Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska and Roland Prien, “Frühmittelalterliche Pressblechbeschläge mit En-face-Darstellung aus Keszthely-Fenékpuszta,” in Von Hammaburg nach Herimundesheim. Festschrift für Ursula Koch, eds. Alfried Wieczorek and Klaus Wirth (Heidelberg and Basel: Ubstadt-Weiher/Regionalkultur, 2018), 129–40, here 132 and 131, fig. 3.
· 166 Attila Kiss, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld in Kölked-Feketekapu B (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum/Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Régészeti Intézete, 2001), 298–303.
· 167 Heinrich-Tamáska, “Tier- und Zahnschnittornamentik,” 520; Vida, “Herkunft,” 274, sees in it a “Germanized form of the Roman imperial portrait.” However, there is no portrait of a Roman emperor sporting a mustache but not a beard.
· 168 Róbert Müller, Die Gräberfelder vor der Südmauer der Befestigung von Keszthely-Fenékpuszta (Budapest and Leipzig: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Régészeti Intézet/Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur, 2010), 13 and 15; 248, pl. 1/8; Nagy, “Synkretische Elemente,” 157, 171, fig. 8, and 172, fig. 9/1.
· 169 Alan Kralovánszky, “A hajdúdorogi VII. századi avar temető (elözetes ismertetés),” A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 68 (1989–1990): 117–39, here 136, and 131, pl. 3.
· 170 Alexander Trugly, “Gräberfeld aus der Zeit des awarischen Reiches bei der Schiffswert in Komárno II (1987–1989),” Slovenská Archeológia 41, no. 2 (1993): 191–307, here 249, pl. XII/15–18.
· 171 Karl Gschwantler, “The Nagyszentmiklós Treasure: Catalogue 1–23,” in The Gold of the Avars. The Nagyszentmiklós Treasure. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest, 24 March–30 June, 2002, eds. Tibor Kovács and Éva Garam (Budapest: Helikon Kiadó, 2002), 15–44, here 1; Dániel Pópity, Zsófia Eszter Kovács, and László Paja, “Egyedi díszítésű késő avar kori csont tűtartó Maroslele határából (Csongrád megye),” in Évkönyv és jelentés a Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Szakszogálat 2009. évi feltárásairól, ed. Judit Kvassay (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Nemzeti Örökségvédelmi Központ, 2012), 389–419, here pl. 414, fig. 5/2.
· 172 Such as the two Avar men with braided hair depicted on the antler tool accidentally found in Nosa, near Subotica (on the Serbian-Hungarian border), for which see László Szekeres, “Jedan interesantan nalaz iz ranog srednieg veka iz Nose,” Rad Vojvodanskih Muzeja 6 (1957): 231–36, here 231, and 232, fig. 2. The archer on horseback that appears on the antler tool from an early 7th-century weapon burial discovered in Manđelos, near Sremska Mitrovica (Serbia), is equally beardless; see Slavenka Ercegović-Pavlović, “An Avarian equestrian grave from Mandjelos,” in Sirmium. Recherches archéologiques en Syrmie, eds. Noël Duval, Edward L. Ochsenschlager, and Vladislav Popović, vol. 4 (Belgrade: Institut Archéologique de Belgrade/Ecole Française de Rome/Research Foundation of the City University of New York, 1982), 49–56, here 50, and pl. II/1. For those tools, see also Ivan Bugarski, “Carved Antler Tools from Nosa and Manđelos Reassessed: A Glimpse into the Avar Pictorial Evidence,” in Close to the Bone. Current Studies in Bone Technologies, ed. Selena Vitezović (Belgrade: Institute of Archaeology, 2016), 86–97.
· 173 Falko Daim, “Des Kaisers ungeliebte Söhne. Die Awaren und das Byzantinische Reich,” Eurasia Antiqua 17 (2011): 1–20, here 11, and 12, fig. 10. Daim’s remark may be seen as an attempt to reject the ill-thought preoccupation with the supposedly Avar origin of the golden jug from the Sânnicolau Mare (Nagyszentmiklós), which is also dated to the late 8th or early 9th century. The jug is decorated with four figurative medallions, one of which shows a warrior on horseback holding a lance over his right shoulder and a prisoner by the hair with his left hand. The warrior sports a stubbled beard and a prominent mustache. See Gschwantler, “The Nagyszentmiklós treasure,” 17. For the hoard, its date, and the non-Avar origin of the jug, see also Csanád Bálint, Der Schatz von Nagyszentmiklós (Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2010).
· 174 Éva Garam, “Über das awarenzeitliche goldene Agraffenpaar von Dunapataj,” Folia Archaeologica 40 (1989): 137–53, here 142, fig. 4. For the Byzantine origin of this artifact, see Falko Daim and Birgit Bühler, “Awaren oder Byzanz? Interpretation-sprobleme am Beispiel der goldenen Mantelschliese von Dunapataj,” in Thesaurus Avarorum. Régészeti tánulmanyok Garam Éva tiszteletére, ed. Tivadar Vida (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, 2012), 207–24. Equally beardless are all figures on the certainly early, bronze Byzantine jug found in Budakalász in grave 740; see Adrien Pásztor and Tivadar Vida, “Eine frühbyzantinische Bronzekanne aus dem awarenzeitlichen Gräberfeld von Budakalász,” in Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe im 6.-7. Jahrhundert, ed. Csanád Bálint (Budapest: Institut für Archäologie der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000), 303–12.
· 175 Patricía Mészáros, Tibor Paluch, and Csaba Szalontai, “Avar kori temetök Kiskundorozsma határában. Előzetes beszámoló az M6 autópályán feltárt lelőhelyekről,” Múzeumi kutatások Csongrád megyében (2004): 145–62, here 162, fig. 12/6; Ádám Bollók, “Byzantium on the Theiss. Of Byzantine Diplomacy, the Emperor’s Image and the Avars,” in Many Romes. Studies in Honor of Hans Belting, eds. Ivan Foletti and Herbert L. Kessler (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), 166–81, 171, figs. 3–4; 177. Those imperial portraits imitate the images of Roman emperors on 4th-century coins. For human figures on late Avar belt fittings, see Ján Dekan, “Antropomorfné motívy na liatych bronzovýchkovaniach predveľkomoravského typu,” Študijné zvesti 14 (1964): 61–94.
· 176 Jozef Vladár, “Slovanská bronzová pracka s l’udskou postávou z Brodzian,” in Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 1977, ed. Bohuslav Chropovský (Nitra: Archeologický ustav Slovenskej akadémie vied, 1978), 277–79, here 394, figs. 163–64.
· 177 Klement Benda, “Mikulčický orans,” Památky Archeologické 64, no. 1 (1973): 86–104; Július Vavák, “Koniec morávského démona? Príspevok k identifikácii výjavu na včasnostredovekom honosnom opasku z Břeclavi-Pohanska,” Zborník Slovenského Národného Múzea 109 (2015): 239–56, here 245, fig. 3/2–4.
· 178 Mechthild Schulze-Dörrlamm, “Ein singuläres Relief der Himmelfahrt Christi aus dem grossmährischen Burgwall Bojná I (okr. Topoľčany/SK). Zur Rekonstruktion und Deutung eines Bildes aus vergoldeten Kupferblechen des späten 9. Jahrhunderts,” Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 61 (2014): 235–65; Jozef Csütörtöky, “Nové poznatky k ikonografii a ikonológii pozlátených medených plakiet z Bojnej a hypotetická rekonštrukcia ich aplikácie,” in Bojná 2. Nové výsledky výskumov včasnostredovekých hradísk, eds. Karol Pieta and Zbigniew Robak (Nitra: Archeologický ústav Slovenskej akadémie vied, 2015), 115–38.
· 179 Klement Benda, “Stříbrný terč se sokolníkem ze St. Města u Uherského Hradiště,” Památky Archeologické 54, no. 1 (1963): 41–66; Magdalena Beranová, “Sokolnictví v 8.–10. století,” Sborník Západočeského muzea v Plzni. Historie 8 (1992): 137–41, here 139, fig. 1B; Csanád Bálint, “A tárgy- és képtípusok hasonlóságairól,” Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu 24, no. 1 (2007): 327–404, here 343, fig. 3. For artifacts originating outside East Central Europe, see Marie Pardyova, “La pyxide de Čierne Kľačiany (la signification de son décor figuré),” Byzantinoslavica 49, no. 2 (1988): 222–32.
· 180 Klanica et al., Mikulčice, 54 and 219, fig. 58/1.
· 181 For retinues of warriors in 9th-century Moravia, see Ján Steinhübel, The Nitrian Principality: The Beginnings of Medieval Slovakia (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2021), 237–38.
· 182 Václav Vaněček, “Les ‘drużiny’ (gardes) princières dans les débuts de l’Etat tchèque,” Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne 2 (1949): 427–47; František Graus, “Raněstředověké družiny a jejich význam při vzniku státu ve střední Evropě,” Československý časopis historický 13 (1965): 1–18, here 6, believes that the graves of men with swords are the tombs of leaders of retinues, while those with spurs represent burials of retinue members. According to Graus, typical for 9th-century Moravia were retinues of his third type – the so-called “state retinues,” which besides their military functions had an organizational and administrative role as well. For a critique of Graus’s ideas, see David Kalhous, Anatomy of a Duchy. The Political and Ecclesiastical Structures of Early Přemyslid Bohemia (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012), 19–21.
· 183 Paul Roth, Geschichte des Beneficialwesens von den ältesten Zeiten bis ins zehnte Jahrhundert (Erlangen: Verlag von Palm & Enke, 1850; reprint Aalen: Scientia, 1967); Walter Schlesinger, “Herrschaft und Gefolgschaft in der germanischen-deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte,” Historische Zeitschrift 176 (1953): 225–75.
· 184 Kalhous, Anatomy, 19.