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. 80: Dendrogram showing the analogies of Jura sample populations may be explained first of all by common past in the Eastern European area, and also by the continuity of the population. B) Based on the data previously presented here, information where the 18 series from the Árpád Period originated may be summarized as follows: a) the Besenov population may have come from the eastern part of Middle Asia; b) populations from the excavations at Devin, Székesfehérvár-Bikasziget and Székesfehérvár-Szárazrét probably originated in the steppe belt east of the Dnepr river; c) the parkland region and decidious forest belt west of the Dnepr river seems to have been the place of origin of the Rusovce and Zala vár populations; d) the area between the Northern Pontic territory and Western Europe was the area of origin for the Ábrahám, Békés, Cegléd, Csatalja, Dolny Jatov, Felgyő, Jászdózsa, Kardoskút, Kérpuszta, Orosháza, Ptuj and Szatymaz populations. C) From a chronological point of view it is interesting that no analogy with these series from the Árpád Period dates to earlier than the Iron Age. Not even the samples coming from the steppe could be traced back to the Late Bronze Age strata in this eastern area. D) The results of these investigations offer valuable information only in a few cases on ethnicity. As has been mentioned the Besenov population seems to be closely related to groups A and В of the conquering population. It is difficult to tell however, whether the Besenov people were the descendants of the conquering population or whether they belong to an additional, fifth group of conquerors who occupied the Northwestern region of the Carpathian Basin. It is also possible that they were members of a different population which developed in a similar geographical environment (this version seems to be likely in the case of Bolshie Tarkhany). In addition, if one considers the name of this site one must inevitably suspect that it may be related with the Pechenegs which settled this area around the end of the 10th century A. D. and which may have been ancestral to the present local population under discussion. This question however, may be clarified only by understanding the cranial characteristics of conquering groups in the Northwestern region. In the case of Rusovce, it is partly the name of the site and partly the reconstructed place of origin of this group which suggest that eastern Slavs i. e. Russians were present in this population. It is impossible to tell precisely however, whether such a population arrived with the conquering groups or settled later in the Carpathian Basin during the 10th century A. D. Not even this kind of ethnic approach can be used in detecting the origin of the population at the site of Zala vár. The analogies for this sample suggest that it was composed of eastern Slavs. One should not forget however, that no southern Slavic comparative craniological material is available to date. At the same time the historical background of the Zalavár question, in addition to the anthropological conclusions drawn on the basis of the Nitra

—Lupka series, poses a new question. Both of these make it very difficult to say whether this population had an entirely eastern Slavic origin. On the other hand, no craniometric proof is available from Zalavár to support the hypothesis (based on historical assumptions) that western Slavic elements were present in the population. 3. Regional characteristics A) Dealing with series from the Avar Period and the Period of the Hungarian Conquest it may be seen that populations which arrived from the eastern section of the steppe belt usually settled down on the Great Plain in the Carpathian Basin. This phenomenon may be interpreted in terms of geographical preference. Studying the four series from the Árpád Period which may have come from the Dnepr river no such preferential pattern emerges. None of these four series were found on the Great Plain. In addition, it may be assumed that no population from the eastern steppe belt were present in the Great Plain during the period under discussion. The choice of habitation areas was probably influenced by military or political objectives, rather than economic considerations during the Árpád Period. This observation seems to confirm the anthropological evidence supporting the hypothesis that the inhabitants of the Carpathian Basin were resettled at the end of the 10th century A. D. In addition, this phenomenon may also be indicative of major changes in contemporary lifeways of that time. B) In the light of resettling policies practiced around the end of the 10th century A. D. another question arises. Is it reasonable at all to look for regional characteristics in the case of the populations representing the Árpád Period? Fortunately however, when the set of 18 samples was extended by 9 further small samples some regional differences could actually be observed (Table 11, Figure 81). Area between the Kőrös and Maros rivers This region is represented only by three samples (No. 105, 112, 114). All of these are almost of entirely Europoid. The brain case is long, narrow and of medium height (dolichocran, orthocran, acrocran, eurymetop). The facial skeleton is medium wide and of medium height (mesen), the orbita is narrow and medium high (hypsiconch) and the nose is of medium width. The most distinctive characteristics of this population (relative to other groups from the Árpád Period) are the narrower brain case, the shorther and higher facial skeleton and the well expressed longheadedness. 117