Philip,
Thanks for pointing out Arendt's article to me - I have not read it but I will try to find it. My primary interest in this age lies not with the Magyars, but with the Bulgars (Danube and Volga) and the Avars (as far as these mixed with the Bulgars), and so it is Avar and especially Bulgar weapons that I have studied. This is why I found it necessary to point out that unless there are new archaeological discoveries, these two peoples do not seem to have known know the sabre, or at least to have used it as extensively as the Magyars did later. I am sorry if I created any confusion.
As for the attributions, I am sure we agree that auction houses should not be trusted completely. The sword pictured in Hermann-Historica's catalogue is interesting, but I would not call it a sabre, since it is not curved (and Hermann-Historica do not call it a sabre either). As for the dating, I hope one day there will be a realiable study which would be able to separate sabres into periods and cultures according to style (Bulgar sabres, once they were adopted were different from the Magyar ones, but this is a different topic). For now, I think that a dating needs to be attributed according to finds surrounding the sabre, such as pottery, jewelry, etc. One thing is certain - it is not Avar - the blade is too narrow and too long. Furthermore, the term Avarisch-Chasarisch is way too broad, just as the term Eurasian, and seems to be applied to any Steppe Peoples' weapon from the sixth century Avars to the 13th century Cumans.
This is a fascinating topic, which has not been studied enough. My knowledge is extremely limited, and I would love to learn as much as I can.
Regards,
Teodor
|