Zalai Múzeum 14. Müller Róbert 60 éves (Zalaegerszeg, 2005)

Lőrinczy Gábor–Straub Péter: Alpi típusú övgarnitúra a Szegvár–oromdűlői 81. sírból

Alpi típusú övgarnitúra a szegvár-oromdűlői 81. sírból 157 Those which were facing down were on the back of the body. In the case of pierced mountings, the function of the loops as suspendors is questionable and in the publications they are only represented with their narrow end upwards. Information about the arrangement of the mountings in the grave was provided by three unusually positioned (reversed) objects: buckle, mounting — which is identical with the one on the buckle, giving an impression of adverse mounting — and large strap end. Secure excavations of hundreds of undisturbed Avar and Germanic graves from the 7-8

th centuries indicate that belts with many auxiliary straps were tightened from left to right, the buckle pin pointed towards the right hand and the large strap end in most cases found at the side of the skeleton at or just below waist height. In Alpine-type belt sets, when the buckle and its adverse mounting are not positioned in front of each other, the corpse was placed in the grave with belt untied. Recently, many such examples have been recovered from the cemetery of Weingarten but this practice can also be assumed within the Carpathian Basin. In graves 216 from Sommerein, 399 from Kölked-Feketekapu and 787 from TiszafüredMajoros the positioning of incomplete Alpine-type belt sets could be observed (Fig. 7). In all three graves the belts were tightened from left to right. In the cases of Kölked-Feketekapu and Sommerein the mountings were positioned with their pierced loop downwards and in the case of Tiszafüred-Majoros the mountings were also facing with their narrower end downwards. The large strap ends were all found close to the left pelvis. In the burial at Szegvár the arrangement of the mountings is the opposite to the usual findings and the positioning of the large strap end between right radial and ribs is also unusual (Fig. 8, 2-3). The positioning of trapezoid mountings, together with the buckle and its adverse mounting, suggest that for some reason, at burial the belt was attached around the waist of the corpse in inversed position. For this reason, for the reconstruction, the mountings need to be turned back to the way in which they originally may have been (Fig. 8, 1). In the grave from Szegvár, the positioning of the only mounting which did not have a loop is also secure and it was found at the inside of the left elbow in a similar direction to three pierced mountings. The positioning of the auxiliary belt was determined by means of the biggest bronze mounting rather than the smaller trapezoid mountings (Fig. 3, 2). This type of mounting has an indentation and for this reason it is often considered as a hole protector, since the buckle pin would sit in the indentation covering a hole on the belt. This assumption, however, is misleading since the object was found with its indented end upwards. Moreover, it was found between two pierced trapezoid mountings on its front, in the back part of the belt in alignment with vertebrae. Indeed, below this mounting hung the auxiliary belt. Above the mounting towards the skull a fig.-eight shaped mounting (Fig. 3, 6) was found and also a belt fitting (Fig. 3, 7). A similar fig.eight shaped mounting from grave 38 at ElőszállásBajcsihegy was also positioned in the back of the belt (in the back of the body) (MAROSI-FETTICH 1936, 30). At Kehida in grave 2 the smallest — square shaped — mounting was also part of the side belt. The dating of the early Avar Alpine-type belt set is problematic and open to debate. Part of the excavated materials are from old excavations (KeszthelyDobogó) or there were no accompanying finds that could be dated (Előszállás, Vác) or from cemeteries whose publication and internal chronology are still awaited (Kehida, Mezőfalva, Szegvár, Zamárdi). The best analogy to the discussed belt set was found in grave 10 at Zamárdi (BAKAY 1973, Fig. 4). Even though grave 10 from Zamárdi was robbed, it yielded a belt set albeit of a different type. This set had many side belts and the mountings were denticulated (BAKAY 1973, Fig. 3). Similar belt sets have also been found since (BÁRDOS 2000, Cat. 64, 65) although the chronological position of this type is not clear and cannot be used to refine the chronology of Alpine-type sets. It is however, quite intriguing that for different reasons, similar, incomplete belt sets from Tiszafüred and Fenékpuszta are dated to the middle of 7

th century (GARAM 1995, 382; MÜLLER 1999, 167). From the size of belt fittings and large strap ends of Alpine-type belt sets, a relative chronology can be established. This is because it has long been recognised that, during the 7

th century, the length of end mountings of Germanic belts that have many side belts increased, regardless of whether these mountings were stamp moulded, cast or iron fittings with silver wire inlay (CSAR 2002, 266). Assessment of the length of belt end mountings indicates that the early mountings are the longest (Tabl. 1). The early sets always exhibit cast duck-beak shaped belt end mountings with two or three decorated bolts. In the belt sets from Fenékpuszta and Vác these were replaced and the new ones have different sizes. According to their size, the chronology can be placed between the early and late belt sets, approximately to the end of the early Avar period. The fact that the Slovakian and Austrian mountings are shorter, sometimes by two or three centimetres implies that they belong to a younger phase of the Avar period, possibly to the middle and late Avar periods. The appearance of Alpine-type belt sets north from the Alps and in the Carpathian Basin is usually