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.

ical distance. Alternatively, sites providing similar craniological series but located at a more considerable distance from each other may have been the territories of populations which were of common eastern origin. The first supposition however, is disturbed by the possibility that populations belonging to the same ethnic group or perhaps language community may have arrived in the Carpathian Basin at different times. This involves a chance that populations which migrated into the territory later developed a preference toward settlement in proximity to related groups. In light of the previously mentioned patterned geographical preferences similar environments may have contributed to the attraction of such areas. The second supposition also has a weak point. Resettling policies related to the formation of the state could have disrupted the continuity of certain communities which were spread over large distances. Considering all the above-mentioned arguments the following conclusions may be drawn on the basis of mutual and primary similarities observed between series: a) in the case of Avar Period Nővé Zámky similarity with the Árpád Period Ábrahám and Dolny Jatov populations may be the result of membership within the same chraniological group (which is represented here by subcluster 1/a to which all three samples belong). At the same time, the proximity of these sites to each other indicates the possible effect of continuing populations from the Avar Period; b) it is similarly difficult to evaluate the position of Avar Period Szekszárd and Árpád Period Kérpuszta within the same subclusfer. The special reason why one may suppose that these series represent the continuity of Avar population is that both of them are to be found on the periphery of subcluster 1/a in slight isolation; c) is is hard to decide whether the similarity between the Avar Period sample from Virt and the one from Rusovce representing the Árpád Period has its roots in a common East European origin or is caused by the influence of continuous local groups. The two samples belong to the same subcluster and the sites are relatively near to each other. These facts may equally support both hypotheses ; d) when the relationship between the Avar Period Tiszaderzs population and the Jászdózsa people from the Árpád Period is studied one is faced with a different explanation. The two series belong to separate subclusters and they come from sites which are not located far from each other. This may indicate that the Avar population maintained its continuity into the later period. e) the next similarity to be discussed occurred between the 9th century A. D. Nitra-Lupka sample and the Zalavár material which belongs to the Árpád Period. In spite of the considerable geographical distance between the two sites, similarity may partly be explained by the continuity of the local population of Nitra-Lupka. Using multidisciplinary approach it was possible to complete this explanation. According to written sources and historical research the same population may have been resettled around Zalavár; f) all the previous examples are associated with the question of continuity of the 6—9th century A. D. population. In addition to these however, it is worth mentioning that the 4—5th century A. D. sample from Eastern Transdanubia representing a Late Roman Period population was similar to the Devin series from the Árpád Period. The great geographical distance between the sites may also be the result of the previously mentioned resettling policies. B) As far as continuity between the populations of the 10th and 10—12th centuries A. D. samples is concerned close similarities were found only in 6.9 percent of the theoretically possible cases. On addition, none of the five analogies (Besenov in the case of group A, Besenov and Székesfehérvár-Szárazrét in the case of group B, Rusovce and Zalavár in the case of group C) proved to be mutually primary. Various explanations for this phenomenon may exist. In the first place, there were only four samples from the Period of Hungarian Conquest. These were compared to 18 others representing the Period of the Árpád Dynasty. This proportion did not favor the discovery of similarities between the two chronological part. It must also be kept in mind that the groups from the Period of the Hungarian Conquest are made up of 45 small samples which represent a considerable range of sites. Individual comparisons probably would have reduced the heterogeneity of this group and more analogies could have been found from the Árpád Period. It is also possible that the majority of the 10th century A. D. resettling involved the conquering population. The presence of individual conquering families settled among the local populations (or at least earlier settlers) is however, blurred when only the mean values of large samples are studied. Finally, another potential reason should be mentioned. The local population intermingled probably only gradually with the conquering groups. It is for this reason that this process can not be clearly detected in the craniological material from the first two centuries of the Árpád Period. 2. Conclusions drawn from the study of regional groups A) In this section the problem of continuity was approached by comparison of groups from various time periods from the different geographical regions. Incomplete data however, raise a difficulty here. Consistent analyses cannot be carried out due to the lack of material from some of the four periods in the regions under discussion. On the basis of Tables 8, 9, 11 and 12 and Figures 40, 45 and 81 patterns of population continuity may be recognized in various regions. Area between the Körös and Maros rivers Continuity in this region is hard to study because of the small number of available finds. Considering that the Avar Period population of this area is represented by only one sample, craniological characteristics of the 6—8th century A. D. population are unknown. A bit of information comes from group D of the conquering peoples, namely that they probably came from an area east of the 120