Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis. – Alba Regia. Az István Király Múzeum Évkönyve. 20. 1980 – Szent István Király Múzeum közleményei: C sorozat (1983)
Tanulmányok – Abhandlungen - Éry Kinga, K.: Comparative statistical studies on the physical anthropology of the Carpathian basin population between the 6–12th centuries A. D. p. 89–141.
Fig. 54: Dendrogram showing the analogies of the Andronovo sample from Kazakhstan Great generalized distances between the conquering groups and the Late Bronze Age samples need to be interpreted however rather carefully. One of the possible explanations is that craniological differences between the 10th century A. D. samples and the Late Bronze Age populations which existed 2000—2500 years earlier is probably caused by the gracilisation of the cranial structure. This hypothesis may be studied by analyzing only shape distances. If values of generalized distances are resulted by great size and little shape distances one may assume that gracilisation took place in the case under discussion. The figures of Table 10 show that one should count on this possibility only for group С since the shape distance between this group and the Kazakhstan Andronovo culture is below the 5 percent level of significance. In other words, this means that it is only group С which might have had Late Bronze Age predecessors in more or less the same East European territory where the group's Iron Age possible forebearers lived. The available evidence suggests that the Late Bronze Age predecessors of groups А, В and D did not live in the same territory as that in which the Iron Age ancestors were discovered. Due to lack of sufficient craniological material it is impossible to tell currently where these groups came from before they moved into the territories they inhabited in the Iron Age. Some indirect evidence points to the likely fact that the area inhabited by the ancient Hungarians in the earlier, the Ugric period was not located in the western, European side of the Ural Mountains. In one respect there is a considerable difference between these groups and the population of the Kama-Byelaya region. On the other hand a significant influence from the Timber grave and Andronovo culture populations may be observed in the samples from this latter territory such as none occured in groups А, В and D. Negative evidence therefore suggests that the earlier, Ugor Period place of origin ("ancestral home") may have been on the eastern side of the Ural Mountains or even further to the east. Physical anthropology however, can not offer positive evidence to support this hypothesis on the basis of the limited data available to date. 3. Ethnic questions Previous parts of this study identified groups within the conquering population. It also became apparent that the Iron Age ancestors of these populations came from different areas. These facts raise the issue of ethnic considerations, even if such questions (as has been emphasized several times previously) may not be dealt with extensively on the basis of the data used and results provided by physical anthropology exclusively. Craniological differences observed in the case of this investigation may be explained in two possible ways. 1 Fig. 55: Dendrogram showing the analogies of the Timber gravean sample from the Lower Volga river region The basic assumption behind the first hypothesis is that representatives of all four groups are descendants of the Ugric population complex. This means that ancient Hungarians abandoned the Ugric community and gradually developed nomadic subsistence patterns. As a result of migrations stemming from the nomadic way of life, various parts of the initial population were exposed to racial influences of different groups and this intermingling resulted in a variety of morphometric characteristics within the Hungarian population. If this hypothesis holds true one should accept that ancestors of group A, who inhabited the easternmost section of the discussed area were primarily mixed with Middle and Central' Asian populations. The dominance of Mongoloid elements may easily be explained by such an interaction with neighboring populations. According to Soviet antropological research representatives of the Mongoloid major race showed up in Middle Asia around the beginning of our era (Alekseev 1977). No detailed information is available on the Mongoloid population which potentially was mixed with the ancestors of group A. The only "Usune" analogy of group A is not enough to answer this question( 14 ). In addition to the morphometric influence of Mongoloid peoples from Central Asia, ancestors of group A were also probably exposed to a massive Iranian cultural effect in the Middle Asian area. The role of the Sakas is worthy of mention in this regard. On the basis of geographical predestination and observed analogies one may assume that the physical characteristics of the ancestors of group В were primarily derived from the intermingling with Iranian but Sarmatian peoples of predominantly Europoid racial character. One must also reckon with a subsequent Central Asian Turkic connection. This is particularly so because the Western Turkic (Khazarian) Empire was organized near the area inhabited by group В in the 6th century A. D. In addition to this, an Onoguric (Bulgarian Turkic) population also inhabited the same territory from the 7th century A. D. Proof of such connections is provided by a later analogy. Similarities to the 8—9th centuries A. D. Bolshie Tarkhany population offers another lesson. This latter group which is qualified as "proto-Bulgarian" is dominated by Europoid elements. The facts clearly demonstrate that Turkic origin does not necessarily mean that a population should be of Mongoloid taxonomic character. (14) According to the kind information provided by К. С z e g 1 é d y, Chinese written sources describe the Usune people as blond i. e. of Europoid type. Soviet anthropologists however, have published cranial material labeled "Usune" which do not support this theory about the "blond, Europoid type".
