Dr. T. Tóth szerk.: Paleoanthropological studies (Anthropologia Hungarica 8/1-2. Budapest, 1968)

and the late Middle Ages, respectively, and drawn them into comparison with our material (cf. Table 6). 1. The Great Plains; Orosháza, X-XII c. (LIPTÁK, 1962); Zenta-Paphalom, X c, (BAPvTUCZ-PARKAS

, 1957). 2. Transdanubia: Sárbogárd, X c. (ERY, 1967); Veszprém, X-XI c. (ACSÁDI-NEMESKÉRI, 1957); Kérpuszta, XI c. (LIPTÍK, 1953); Fonyód, XI-XV c. (DEZSŐ et al); Mohács-Csele, XIV-XV c. (NEMESEÉRI-DEÁK). 3. The Small Plains: Mlynarce, X XI c. (MALA, I960); Devin, XI-XII c. (FRANKENBERGER, 1935); Dolny-Jatov, XI-XII . (FRANKENBERGER, 1935). 4. Germany, Switzerland: Middle a i Late Medieval group, X-XV c. (BUG, 1940). In order"to evaluate similarities on the basis of exact numerical data,I have calculated the absolute Martin measurements 1,8,9,17,45,48, the indices 8:1, 17*1, 17:8, 9:8, 48:45, 52:51, 54:55, thus the per cent deviations referring to the mean values of a total of thirteen anthropo- and biometrical data. Unfortunately, owing to the small number of the published absolute measurements and Indices of the materials deriving from the Small Plains and Germany-Switzerland, I could draw in but few such anthropometric data into the comparison. Even so, some data are still missing, mainly with respect to the German-Swiss material; in such cases, I have substituted the mean deviation for the per cent deviation of the lacking measurement or index mean value. In Table 7, the second column shows the absolute sum of these percental deviations, the third column their squared sum. Columne four and five contain the order of sequence of similarity inferable from the size of these sums. Sequence was calculated also by the mean value of these sums, and also by a comparative calculating method discussed in detail in a previous paper (BOTTYÁN, 1967). The sequence of these two latter processes fell between the two sequences given in the table. Since the order of sequences given in the Table differ but slightly from one another, I deem it unnecessary to discuss the problem any further. The correctness of the applied method, disputable from mathematical and anthropological points of view, was discussed in detail In my paper cited above. As regards similarity, our material- stands nearest to that from Kérpuszta. In the second place, Zenta-Paphalom and HUG'

s published German and Swiss materials show similarities. The series from Fonyód and Veszprém are the most removed ones from our material. The similarity with Kérpuszta on a taxonomio"

n basis (the conformity as to homogeneity was given at and of the preceding chapter) is understandable because there, too, the gracile Mediterranean and the Cro-Magnoide A and B types predominate (LIPTÁK, 1953), just as in the Sopronbánfalva series treated here. The greatest length and width of the skull, the smallest breadth of the forehead, the basion-bregma height, the height of the upper face, the measurements of the orbita and the nose,and their respective indices stand near the mean values of Kérpuszta. The facial width differs strongly, since the male skulls of our material have narrower faces. The similarity is somewhat less with the anthropological material of ZentaPaphalom. They also have wider faces and their orbita are lower. The majority of this material is East Baltic, Mediterranean, Nordoide, and Dinarian (BARTUCZ-FARKAS, 1957). The comparison with HUG

'3 published skulls is not entirely factual, since, as