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.

As far as group С is concerned, its single early analogy and assumed locus of origin offer the following conclusions : the predecessors of this group were also modified by Iranian as well as Scythian ethnic and cultural influences. In addition to these, subsequent Turkic and eastern Slavic ethnic and cultural contribution added to the special character of group C. The above-mentioned first hypothesis involves the following possibilities. Due to the isolated craniological characteristics of group С from groups A and В (and D), one must either speculate that the population was split up very early, during the Ugric period, or that the ancestors of group А, В and D respectively have never been identical with that of group С and come from a different basis population. The question raised by this assumption is whether one may reasonably suppose that representatives of both groups A, B, D, and group С were of (Ugric) Hungarian origin? According to the second hypothesis it is possible that only some of the groups concerned were Hungarian while the remainder of these groups were made up by an entirely different population which joined the Hungarians prior to the actual conquest. It has already been mentioned that certain basic craniological characteristics separate the populations of groups A, B, and D from that of group C. The first three groups formed a part of subcluster 2/a, had more or less Euromongoloid components, and were distant from the populations of the Late Bronze Age cultures. Group С on the other hand belonged to subcluster 1/b, proved to be of entirely Europoid character, and showed a shorter shape distance relative to the region's Late Bronze Age populations which formed the Lower Volga region Timber grave and Kazakhstan Andronovo cultures. The logical alternative is that either the representatives of groups A, B, and D or the members of group С should be considered Hungarian. Although no craniological evidence is available for answering this question historical and archaeological data at this point seem to suggest that the Hungarians i. e. the people of the seven Hungarian tribes were represented by groups A, B, and D. Group С probably corresponds to those populations which joined the conquering Hungarians. The "Kabars" may have been the major component of this group. This hypothesis is supported by the following: a) the peoples of groups А, В and D arrived from the east and may have met the peoples of group С somewhere in the Dnepr region. This is the area mentioned by written sources as the spot where the "Kabars" joined the Hungarians; b) the relatively homogeneous craniological character of group С suggests that the majority was probably provided by one population. This also may direct attention to the "Kabars" whose people included three tribes. This indicates a population of respectable size; c)in these samples the larger number of the localities which belonged to group А, В and D (the assumed seven tribes of the conquering Hungarians) is shown by their larger distribution area within the Carpathian Basin relative to that of group C; d) it is known that burials from the Period of the Hungarian Conquest from the Great Plain (groups А, В and D) are characterized by richer grave furniture and different burial rites when compared to those found in Transdanubian areas and the northern hilly region (group C). This phenomenon should chiefly be explained by ethnic differences. It is historical and archaeological research after all which should decide, whether it is reasonable to assume that the population of group С was in fact dominated by "Kabars" and also included other (chiefly "eastern Slavic") peoples. Investigations carried out using the methods of physical anthropology however, did not negate this hypothesis because no written sources mention the physical characteristics of "Kabars". The fact that these people were allied with the Turkic Khazarian Empire of Central Asian origin prior to the conquest offers no basis for any kind of presupposition concerning their taxonomic character. One more question must be touched upon during the discussion of peoples which may have joined the conquering Hungarians. The simple idea that group С was made up different peoples does not exclude the possibility that the basically Hungarian population of groups А, В and D contained fragmentary elements of other ethnic groups. Elaboration on such fine details on an osteological basis however, would barely be possible even if much more craniological material becomes available. 4. Questions of the taxonomic composition of social strata One more question is worth considering during the discussion of the craniological material representing the conquering groups. L i p t á к (1967, 1969, 1970, 1975, 1977, 1978) interprets taxonomic differences observed in the cranial data as the projection of social differences. According to his reasoning the "ruling stata" of the conquering groups displayed mostly Turanoid, Uraloid, Pamir oid and other br achy cran racial elements, while the "middle stata" was characterized mostly by Mediterranoid, Nordoid and Cromagnoid elements. The "common folk" were made up of tall, long headed types, Mediterranoid, Cromagnoid and to some extent various brachycran Europoid forms. In the process of dividing the material according to social strata he used the following guidelines: single graves or small cemeteries, both with rich grave goods were considered as ruling stata burials. The criterion for middle strata cemeteries was the presence of numerous burials with sometimes poorer grave goods, while the 10— 12th centuries A. D. mass burials represented the cemeteries of the common folk (for further details see Lipták 1975, 133—134). The above mentioned patterns are questionable for the following reasons: First argument: in general, the number of burials and character of grave goods in an excavated cemetery may not be considered diagnostic. Very often the total number of graves is not known unless a cemetery is completely excavated. In addition to the otherwise also questionable richness or poorness of grave goods may be explained by ethnic differences just as much as by social stratification. In the case of Szomód and Öttevény for example, although 111