Dr. T. Tóth szerk.: Etudes d'anthropologie historique concernant le bassin du Danube moyen (Anthropologia Hungarica 7/1-2. Budapest, 1966)

In the course of analysing the facial profile, I also made comparisons with the facial profile data of the Mosonszent

jános, Szellő, Szebény, öskü, Csákberény materials, which had been analysed ba TÓTH /1962,

b/. A characteristioal picture of our group emerges, and the preponderantly Europoide and Mongoloidé series will be seen clearly in the comparative Table /Table VIII/

. With respect to the male means, our combined material deviates entirely from the material of Mosonszent

jános, rather approaching the Europoide Szellő and Szebény series. Only the mean of the nasal projection angle is smaller than that of the two preceding localities; this value might be influenced by the male skull Nr. 6288 of Rákoskeresztúr. The female series shows a different picture. Here we have values nearing those of MoBonszent

jános, and öskü, groups of openly Mongoloidé in character. This is especially striking in the case of some six or seven characteristics /nasomalar angle, zygomaxillary angle - therefore features demonstrating the facial flatness - and the values of the nasal projection/

. Our small female group is rather removed from the Szebény and Szellő data /the deviation of the nasal projection 1B especially great; cf. Table VIII/. It should also be noted that the Mongoloidé features of the Mosonszent

jános skulls are even better expressed than in our material. It should again be remembered that for comparison purposes the series cited above are also low in individual numbers /Table VIII/. Comparative analysis Secondary taxonomic characteristics should now be compared. In the comparison of the groups, it was deemed important that, on the one hand, localities from the Avar Period of notoriously Europoide and dominantly Mongoloidé types should be examined, and, on the other, that small series be compared /of numbers similar to the Budapest material/, but simultaneously also with those of the more reliable cemeteries fo greater individual numbers. The picture derived from the secondary taxonomic characters is not aB clear ae that received from the analysis of the facial profile. In this instance, the absolute cranial values and the index values come to mind. The similarity of merely a few of the respective data can be shown between the Mosonszetnjános and our female series. This also substantiates our assumption that the Mosonszent

jános individuals are of a different cranial shape and Mongoloidé type than the Mongoloidé individuals of our material

. There are more agreeing data with the öskü material, possibly implying a similarity in type. We shall have recourse later to this problem, in the groupcomparisons of the female series. With reference also to chronological and regional aspects in the course of oomparieons, it was felt essential with regard to the type-mosaic that homogeneous groups also be sought for as a basis of comparison. This stipulation was not quite suooessful, since, of the relevant materials, only those of HomokmégyHalom, Áporka-Ürbőpuszta, and Ártánd might be defined as homogeneous /according to the secondary taxonomic characters I

/, with a lesser validity for the Kecel I and Üllő II series /LIPTÁK, 1954, 1955/. In a chronological order, comparisons were made with the following materials: Mosonszentjános /BARTUCZ, 1927/, öskü /MALÁN-BARTUCZ, 1931/, Győr /NEMES-