Horváth Attila – H. Tóth Elvira szerk.: Cumania 1. Archeologia (Bács-Kiskun Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei, Kecskemét, 1972)
E. H. Tóth: Előzetes beszámoló a kunbábonyi avar fejedelmi leletről
not find any analogous piece in the finds of griffinornamentation. It can be concluded as a result that the points of contact of the find of Kunbábony correspond by and large to the constituents of the Bócsa-circle, at the same time differ from them in minor details which, however, should not be ignored. These differences, as well as the disproportionate distribution of domestic Avarian princely finds, the scarcity of early Avarian princely finds and the increasing number of those belonging to a later part of the Avarian period, side by side with obvious similarities, substantial differences from the closely related find of Malaia — Pereshcepina in the composition of the find and in its elaboration technique, the later date of origin of the granulated ornaments —all these make it difficult to date the find of Kunbábony from the 670' s or the preceeding years without further consideration. Beyond these, there is another cogent reason, disregarded sofar, which supports our assumption. In some of the domestic, early Avarian princely finds there are Byzantine gold coins, which exactly point to the date of suspension of gold tax. Dezső Csallány's survey of sparsely occuring Byzantine coins clearly proves that the effect of Byzantine gold tax can be traced on the territory of this country up to the year of 670. The date of princely finds with gold-fake buckles of Southern Russia is established similarly, on the basis of coins. The 69 coins of the find of Malaia —• Pereshcepina refers to a period of more than fifty years. The coins of the find of Kelege are more modest in number and relate to a shorter time-span. The latest pieces are also those issued by Constans the Second. In connection with the domestic finds with fakebuckles, however, inspite ot the fact that — apart from sporadic pieces — we know of three groups of finds with gold fake buckles, each consisting of several pieces, and stemming from places validated and identified by witnesses, no mention has been made about coins. It is fairly sure that in the find of Bocsa and in that of Kunbábony no coin has been found even in otherwise frequently occuring, secondary, perforated form or with a hook. This latter points to the fact that the dating of our domestic finds with fakebuckles to the years after 670 should be correct, though a number of problems — immeasurable at the outset — have to be faced. It should be noted, however, that this consideration, side by side with difficult problems raised by it, may provide a better answer to a number of questions, which could have been so far solved with difficulty, with the help of hypotheses. A detailed study of this find, the investigation of its inherent chronological landmarks, the best possible control of the date of its analogies will hopefully provide answer to some of the questions raised here, and will help to clarify the history of this critical — and by the sources hardly outlined — period of Avarian era. 158
