Szekessy Vilmos (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 59. (Budapest 1967)
Bottyán, O.: Data to the anthropology of the Hun Period population in Hungary
2. Measurement 17 of the skull, found in the locality Kurai III, from the V —IV c. B.C., in the Altai Range, is considerably lower (7.5%). The measurements of the nose are also different; the apertúra piriformis is narrower and higher, and the nasal projection angle also has a higher value. 3. Measurement 1 of the skull from the Hun Period of the Upper Lena is longer (4.4%), its measurement 17 lower (4.8%), the basion-nasion distance also differs by 4.8 per cent. The zygomaxillary arch is also wider than that of the Hun Period in Budapest. 4. The skull from the Hungarian Conquest found in Nagykőrös (Grave 1), further the skull from the locality Mozdok in the Northern Caucasus (Scythian— Sarmatian Period), as well as the skull from the same Scythian-Sarmatian Period found near Herson at the Black Sea, show an almost agreeing total of the difference per cent, but this does not even mean that these skulls are similar between each other. Examining from an anthropometrical point of view the skull of Grave 1 in Nagykőrös, the strongly different features are as follows: measurement 1 = 7.1%, index 17:1 = 6.6%. The two skulls from the Hungarian Conquest had been evaluated also morphologically. The fact can be established that, concerning the facial portion, the two skulls are quite different from that of the Hun Period of Budapest. Both skulls are better profiled, the fossa canina deeper, their nasospinale —prosthion distance shorter, the lower face is not prognathous but orthognathous. By the taxonomical evaluation according to LIPTÁK, the skull of Grave 3, Homokmégyhalom, is Turanide, whereas the skull of Grave 1, Nagykőrös, is Armenoide—Turanide (LIPTÁK, 1953a). The two skulls are therefore similar to that of the Hun Period, Budapest, only with respect to the measurements and indices submitted in the Table, the faces are quite different. These facts all imply that one would need the comparison of considerably more measurements, indices, and other characteristics to a more real establishment of relationships. And it is quite certain that without the detailed description of the skull and the comparison of the measurements of facial angles and chords, one should draw conclusions only with the greatest care from comparisons based on merely eight or ten measurements and indices. As far as the skulls from the Hun Period included in the Table are concerned, the one mentioned above and itemized as the third one is followed, in order of sequence, by the findings No. 8, Oglahtii, in the ninth place, and Nahnaa tolgoi I/A, in the eleventh. The other five skulls from the Hun Period are placed at the end of the Table. It is to be noted yet that the Hun Period skull (Budapest) has a very high calotte, and there was only one similarly high skull in the comparative material (from the Herson district, Scythian-Sarmatian Period). The skulls of the Turks from Tomsk-Chulimsk are of generally this height. Table 1/b contains the grading of the groups, based on the similarities of skull data. 1. The Altai Turks (VII—X c.) stand in the first place, their absolute measurements generally differing by 0—2.8 per cent, but their measurement 17 is essentially lower (6%). 2. The Lugovo cemetery (Ananyino culture, near the Volga—Kama), shows nearly the same difference. Measurement 17 is lower also here (6.8%), and the orbitals also display a lower value (5.3%) than these of the Hun Period data discussed herein.
