HUNGARY-Anthropological conclusions of the study of Roman and Migration periods

Volume 44(1-4):87-94, 2000
Acta Biologica Szegediensis
http://www.sci.u-szeged.hu/ABS
SYMPOSIUM
Department of Anthropology, Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest, Hungary
Anthropological conclusions of the study of Roman and Migration periods

ABSTRACT This paper outlines the history and results of the anthropological analysis of the
population of the Central Danubian Basin ranging from Roman Period to the 9th century in
time. It is very important to emphasize that publications with anthropological description are
of vital importance. However, for lack of space, this summary concentrated only on those works
that set out to summarize and to compare, or to produce an analysis according to some
innovative approach. Acta Biol Szeged 44(1-4):87-94 (2000)

This paper outlines the history and results of the anthropological
analysis of the Migration Period population in the
Central Danubian Basin. The time envelope concerned was
the first 900 years after Christ. The Roman Period traditionally
was and is not classified to be a part of the Great Migration’s
timespan, but our previous paper stopped sometime
around the birth of Christ, therefore we provided an outline
of Roman Period and Barbaricum studies as well. Hundreds
of publications were dedicated to the anthropological description
of the population of these times. It is very important
to emphasize that these types of studies are of vital importance.
However, for lack of space, this summary concentrated
only on those works that set out to summarize and to compare
or to produce an analysis according to some innovative
approach. We accepted one exception: supplementary papers
filling blind spots were included in our selection.
The Romans conquered what is today called Transdanubia
(Dun‡ntœl) and organized the province Pannonia on its
territory in the first decades of the 1st century A.C. Their
fortified border, the limes, ran on the western bank of the
Danube. Roman rule did not spread beyond the river, to the
Danube-Tisza region and to territories east of the Tisza. In
the early centuries after Christ these parts were first inhabited
by Sarmatian tribes (Jazygs and Roxolans) of Iranian origin,
then Germanic tribes partially took over the place of Sarmatians.
Some Germanic tribes (Langobards, Goths) migrated
to Transdanubia, too. The appearance of the Huns added
another element to the already complicated ethnic structure.
The Avars came in the 6th century, and they built an empire
that might be seen as the forebear of the later established
Hungarian state in its territorial and structural features (B—na
1984).
We based the review of the anthropological analysis of
our period on this historical summary.
Roman Period
A large number of cemetery-publications dealt with the
Roman Period population but no comprehensive analysis was
produced up to the present. The large populations of this
period made a number of comparative studies possible.
ƒry (1968) treated the Roman Period inhabitants of the
location of Majs. She concluded that the group of women
presented a significantly more homogenous character than
the men from the same site. While the Mediterranean type
proved almost exclusively dominant among females, the
male group, though also presenting a preponderance of the
Mediterranean type, contained Nordo-Mediterranean, Nordoid,
Dinaroid and Alpine forms as well. ƒry separated a
rather gracile and a more robust subform within the Mediterraneans
of this cemetery, and she considered them of different
origin. She found the population of Majs similar not to
the contemporary population of Pannonia, but to those of
Varna and the region of the present Switzerland and Southern-
Germany.
The late Roman Period (5th century) population of Tokod
was also studied by ƒry (1975). By taxonomical analysis she
found two thirds of this population dolichocran and she
judged them to be representatives of the romanized people
inhabiting Pannonia. The remaining one third proved to be
mesocran and brachycran, and the author forwarded the
hypothesis that they had to come from the Barbaricum. Her
comparative analysis not only established the survival of late
Roman population elements in Transdanubian Germanic
cemeteries but, what is more, she found their presence in a
few 6th-8th centuries cemeteries, too.
The study of the anthropological material of the cemeteries
from the Late Roman Period in the SE Transdanubia F—thi
(Wenger 1968) led to the establishment of the following
taxonomical groups:
- Nordoid-Protoeuropoid type, characterized by a long to
medium long skull, wide forehead, narrow to medium narrow
total and upper face and a great medium to medium stature.
- Gracile, Mediterranoid group, characterized by medium
long skull, wide forehead, narrow total and upper face,
a gracile and fine relief and low to medium stature.
- Cromagnoid-B type, in which a medium long and
brachycranial skull, wide forehead, wide to medium wide
face and upper face characters predominate.
The total picture of the cemeteries reflects Europoid
characteristics. Comparison of the male and female findings
from SE Transdanubia with series of the same age showed
the greatest similarities with the Bog‡d and the Sarmatian
H—males and the C-- females.
All in all, we may state that the early Roman population
of the Central Danubian Basin was quite homogenous, at
least the data published to date points towards this conclusion.
Taxonomical characteristics indicated the presence
of a long-headed component and the proportion of Mediterraneans
was dominant within this group. Roman Period
populations sporadically contained some Nordoid, Cromagnoid
and Brachycran individuals.
When comparing the available data of Transdanubia’s
Roman and Avar Period populations we may establish how
far and in what ratio did the romanized Pannon population
survive among the peoples inhabiting the Avar Empire.
F—thi (1998) drew into comparison Avar and Roman
Period samples. She established by systematic cluster
analysis that the pannonized autochton inhabitants of Transdanubia
made up a significant fraction within the ethnical
structure of the Avar Empire.
Barbaricum - The Sarmatians
The real blank spot in the history of the Central Danubian
Basin has been the anthropological composition of the
Sarmatian Period population. The bone material of Sarmatian
cemeteries was the worst preserved from all, though the true
reasons of this sad state of affairs is still not known. In fact,
no anthropological sample of significant size is known from
this period. These circumstances restricted our possibilities,
so we could draw conclusions only from the data of the two
larger written up Sarmatian cemeteries, and therefore any
conclusions had to stay on the thoroughly cautious side of
thinking.
Bartucz (1961) published the analysis of the Sarmatian-
Jazyg burial sites H—dmez™v‡s‡rhely-FehŽrt—part and Szentes-
Kist™ke. He found a common feature in the two series,
what he called their bipolar nature: both were made up of two
different populations. One of these was dolichocran, hypsicran,
eurymetop, leptoprosop, meso-hypsikonch, leptomesorrhin
and had medium stature (H—dmez™v‡s‡rhely-
FehŽrt—part: 45%, Szentes-Kist™ke: 80%). The author did not
treat the problem of different origin as there was no comparative
material available.
Wenger (1968) noticed the similarity between the dolichocran
elements of the late Roman Transdanubian population
and the Sarmatian inhabitants of the southern region
of the Hungarian Plain.
F—thi (1998) saw a very close similarity between the
Sarmatians of Szentes-Kist™ke and the Avar Period population
of Szentes-Kaj‡n. She considered the brachycran
section within the Avar Period population of the Hungarian
Plain of partially Sarmatian origin.
Hun - Germanic Period
Two Germanic peoples appeared in considerable numbers in
the Central Danubian Basin: the Langobards and the Gepids.
The Langobards arrived from their Elbe-region homeland
into the Central Danubian Basin in 526 (other sources set this
date for 547). They settled in the former Pannonia (B—na
1974). For a long time only three of their cemeteries were
analysed and published: V‡rpalota (Mal‡n 1952), Hegyk™
(T—th 1964) and Szentendre (Kiszely 1966). The image of the
Langobard deriving from these three series looked like this:
their majority were dolichocran, with large absolute measurements,
they had high and narrow faces with marked
relieves. They were tall with a good physique. Nordic was the
most frequently found type among them, but Mediterranean
and Cromagnoid elements were also present in their cemeteries.
Kiszely (1979) produced a monography on the Langobards.
He gave a comprehensive picture of the historical,
archeological and anthropological literature and the trends of
research on the Langobards. The main virtue of his monography
was that it provided a lot of new anthropological data
from a good number of sites in Hungary and abroad. Kiszely
also published a large and far reaching bibliography and a
mass of photographs on characteristic types. The most
characteristic anthropological types of the various Langobard
populations were described. He based this description on the
analysis of the skeletal material of cemeteries uncovered in
Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia
and Italy. Kiszely went on to execute comparative studies by
Penrose-analysis. He added Anglo-Saxon, Saxon, ThŸringian,
Frankish, Burgundian, Alamannic, Bavarian and
Western Gothic samples to the Langobard-Lombard material.
The Gepids from the Eastern Germanic group of peoples
came from the Vistula region and reached the Upper Tisza in
269. As the Sarmatians were pushed out they gradually
moved their living preserves southwards. Gepidia spread to
both sides of the Tisza and to the area of the K™ršs Rivers
as well, when the Huns arrived. The Gepid first responded
to the Hun invasion with a move farther to the South, then
after some hard fighting they yielded to the conqueror. Gepid
Study of Roman and migration periods
bands made up the best infantry of the Hun Empire’s army,
and they fought in Attila’s campaigns as well. When Attila
died the Gepids under king Ardarik took over the primary
tribal territorries of the Huns, Dacia and later the former
Roman province Pannonia Secunda. Gepid rule was broken
by an Avar-Longobard alliance in 567 (B—na 1974).
The case is that while we possess a wealth of historical
knowledge on the Gepids, their anthropological analysis
produced suprisingly few results so far. Only the results of
the study of two cemeteries were published to the present
day.
G‡sp‡r (1931) presented the skulls found at the site
H—dmez™v‡s‡rhely-Gorzsa in the first publication. He
declared 5th-6th century Gepids Nordoid in the majority, but
a minority of Ural-Altai individuals was also uncovered in
this cemetery, that he classified to belong to some Mongoloid
people, perhaps to the Huns. He also identified a mixed type,
that came into being from the intermingling of a Nordoid and
a Mongoloid people. This mixed type was very similar to the
Eastern-Baltic one. He also described an artificially deformed
Mongoloid female skull.
Bartucz (1936) published a paper with the title “The
Gepid Craniae from the Cemetery of Kiszombor”. This was
a most valuable article from two aspects. On one hand this
was – and still is – the only detailed description of a numerous
Gepid population, on the other it was this article in which
Bartucz provided the details of artificial skull deformation,
a wide-spread practice among the Gepids. He drew his
general conclusions on the population from the extremely
thorough examination of 54 well preserved skulls. Bartucz
stated that the Gepids of Kiszombor formed a special race
conglomerate that was made up of elements of the Nordic,
Mediterranean, East-European, Turanoid, Mongolid and
Palaeo-Asiatic races. The tall stature, long-skulled, high and
narrow faced Nordic type was the dominant component.
Bartucz considered individuals with these characteristics the
true Gepids. He suspected the Mongolid and Mongoloid
elements of the population of Kiszombor as Hun. According
to his opinion the Gepids inhabiting the territory of later day
Hungary were not only in close contact with the Huns on the
political and trade level, but these peoples lived in a state of
strong racial amalgamation, too.
Skull deformation was a widespread custom among the
Gepids (21 of the 54 skulls examined were deformed), that
they took over from the Huns living with them. It was present
in all six groups identified within this population, but its ratio
was the highest among the Mongoloids. Bartucz gave a
detailed, analytic description of the technique of deformation.
All deformed skulls in this cemetery came under the so called
occipito-frontal type of skull deformation. Deformation was
achieved by applying two bandages. The wider bandage ran
down from the forehead via the temple to the occiput and it
surrounded the head ringwise. The narrower bandage ran
from the dome of the cranium down and under the chin. The
result of this process depended on the original type of race
and on the tightness of the bandages. Bartucz declared the
anthropological material of Gepid cemeteries essentially
important for two reasons: it was an important factor in the
study of the Hun-Avar circle of problems, and it could help
to determine the racial composition of Arpadian Age Hungarians.
It is most unfortunate that neither Bartucz, nor later
authors did go along this most promising path of scientific
research.
Skull deformation became a topic studied by a good
number of scholars beyond and after Bartucz. We did not
undertake to present case-studies, we considered only papers
that set out to execute some sort of comparative analysis.
Lipt‡k (1983) described some more recently discovered
cases, then went on to forward some ideas on the ethnic
aspect of the custom of skull deformation. Lipt‡k accepted
Altheim’s thesis – that this peculiar custom was spread by the
Alan in Europe – and opposed to G‡sp‡r and Bartucz he
established no Hun correlation on this basis. Lipt‡k thought
that artificial deformation had nothing more to do with the
Huns but the simple fact that the Alan reached the Central
Danubian Basin with the Huns. At the same time he did not
give plausible explanation for the widespread occurrence of
this very same custom in the Eastern Hun Empire in the first
centuries after Christ, first of all among Mongolid and
Europo-Mongoloid population groups. There was an other
problematic fact, namely the Gepid cemeteries of the Hungarian
Plain contained Mongolid deformed skulls as well as
Nordic ones.
Pap (1983, 1984, 1985) described 21 circularly deformed
skulls from the 5th century location of Keszthely-FenŽkpuszta.
This site was classified Gothic-Alan on the basis of
the grave-goods uncovered there. The cemetery contained 10
non-deformed skulls as well. By the comparison of the
mandibulae of deformed and non-deformed skulls Pap
proved that deformation was carried out with two bandages.
The narrower bandage started on the dome of the skull and
ended under the chin, so by this positioning mandibula was
also deformed, it got a lower shape. According to Pap’s
analysis the population buried in Keszthely-FenŽkpuszta
resembled the East-European Sarmatian population the most.
She firmly stated that the phenomenon of skull deformation
was not an ethnic marker.
Kiszely (1978) mentioned in his monography a large
number of published and unpublished cases not just from
Hungary but also from all over Europe and from the former
Soviet Union . The wide database and the presentation of the
related literature gave value to Kiszely’s work. This author
did not venture to produce some sort of summary, or to draw
historical conclusions.
It is a fact of history that the collapse of the Western
Roman Empire was brought about by the movements of
90
F—thi
peoples initiated by the Huns. The greatest trouble for us is
the state of the archeology and anthropology of the Hun
period. We have very few Hun finds, archeological and
anthropological as well. The Huns spent only a brief period
in the Central Danubian Basin, therefore no Hun cemeteries
of any size worth mentioning were uncovered. Only the
skeletal material of a limited number of Hun graves became
known (Botty‡n l967). Under these circumstances anthropology
can provide no useful contribution to the study of the
Central Danubian Basin’s history in the Hun Period.
Avar Period
Detailed anthropological examination of Avar Period skeletal
material is very important when analysing the emergence of
the peoples of the Central Danubian Basin, among them the
ethnogenesis of the Hungarians too. Though the Franks
annihilated the Avar nobility of Transdanubia, and they might
have decimated the common population as well, while the
Avars of the Danube-Tisza region were thinned out by the
Bulgars, the majority of the commons certainly survived the
storms of history and their descendants probably lived to see
the Hungarian Conquest. This “decapitated” people lost its
leaders when it lost its nobility, it was cut off from its old
trade links and its craftsmanship also declined, and anyway,
the Avar Empire was made up of so many varied tribes that
it is hard to define it as one unified Avar people. For these
reasons they could easily and rapidly be absorbed by the
Hungarians (Lipt‡k 1983).
Bartucz (1934) was the first scholar to go one step further
beyond the analysis of individual cemeteries and to attempt
the formation of a general anthropological image of the
Avars. He declared that the Avars were characterized by a
heavily mixed racial composition. When studying the available
series Bartucz found that the Avar had tribes with typical
stature, from short to tall. He established 3 groups among the
cemeteries according to their skeletal material.
The first group was made up of those series which
contained a majority of Mongoloid elements: Mosonszentj‡nos,
Nemesvšlgy, Csorna, G‡tŽr, Cebe, Ond—d. Tungid,
Palaeomongoloid and Sibirid elements featured in these
series. The series of the second group could be characterized
by the intermingling of characteristics. The Turanid type was
the most frequent one at these burial sites. †ll™, Kecel,
Bakonykopp‡ny, Kisk™ršs-V‡ros alatt, …skŸ and Gy™r came
under this heading. The third group of Bartucz was composed
from the series that bore a dominance of the Europid element.
Its members were: Jutas, Keszthely, Szob, Tiszaderzs. Nordic
and Mediterranean elements featured the most frequently
within the individual cemeteries.
Bartucz meant to find the ancient core of the Avars in
Asiatic, mainly in Northeastern-Asiatic or in Siberian
Mongol elements. These got in contact with Ugor, then with
Turanid, and later with Caucasian and Germanic elements.
In his view the Mongoloid elements detectable in the Hungarians
of our times originated with the Avars.
Lipt‡k (1955) went into the details of Avar Period’s
anthropology in his candidate degree thesis. He stated his
opinion that archeological chronology system was simply
wrong. According to Lipt‡k, too much cemeteries were dated
for the 8th century and too few for the 7th and the 9th centuries.
He pointed out as an obvious contradiction the fact, that 7th
century, early Avar anthropological material was almost
exclusively Europid, while grave-goods indicated Middleand
Central Asian parallels. On the other hand there were
cemeteries dated for the 8th century that contained Mongoloid
elements among others. The attire and armament introduced
by the Avars was rapidly adapted by other ethnic groups, it
became the general fashion of the region in the 7th century.
Therefore the separation of autochton elements was (and is)
simply impossible by archeological means. That is why
Lipt‡k strongly emphasized that to talk of Avar Period
population makes much more sense than to stick with the
phrases of “the Avars” and of “Avar population”.
Lipt‡k outlined his view that the gracile Mediterranean
type was autochton, while the brachycran Europid types were
partly typical of the local inhabitants, partly they migrated
to the Central Danubian Basin with the Avars. He found the
origin of Cromagnoids, Nordoids and large stature Mediterraneans
uncertain, and he indicated migration as the
probable reason of their emergence. Lipt‡k mentioned the
Asiatic origin of Mongolid and Mongoloid population
elements, but he did not go into the details of any closer
relationship or parallel.
Lipt‡k analysed the Avar Period population of the Danube
-Tisza midland region and stated that 80% of them was of
Europid character. He separated narrow-faced dolichomorph
types (Nordoid, Mediterranean) in 38%, broad-faced Cromagnoid
types (A and B) in 22.6%, and brachycran forms
(Pamirian, Dinarian, Near Eastern and short-headed individuals
of undefined origin) in 17.1%.
The extraordinary significance of Lipt‡k’s thesis stemmed
from the fact that it laid the foundation of the taxonomical
system hall-marked with the author’s name by the
extremely detailed description of the occuring anthropological
types. He outlined exhaustive portraits of the representatives
of the Europid race.
He found the tall stature, dolichomorph, narrow-faced
variation (its frequency was 22%) non-homogenous. Lipt‡k
put the northern (Nordic) and tall Mediterraneans under this
heading. He separated two regional varieties, a western
(Atlanto-) Mediterranean one and an eastern or Indo-Iranian
one. He traced back this combination of characters to the
Upper-Palaeolithic BrŸnn-Predmost type. It was stated that
this type had less significance in the Avar Period and at the
time of Hungarian Conquest than during the Arpadian Age.
Lipt‡k considered the gracile Mediterranean (Ibero91
Study of Roman and migration periods
Insular) type the most significant component of the Avar
Period population. The Cromagnoid types that were classified
the descendants of the Upper-Palaeolithic Cromagnon
race were rated important components of the Avar Period
population by Lipt‡k. He added that these types kept their
significance in the Arpadian Age as well. The author put
Pamirian (Pamiro-Ferganian), Dinarian, Alpine and Near
Eastern (Armenoid) types under the heading of brachycran
elements. Their presence was insignificant in the Avar Period.
Lipt‡k paid the most attention to the Turanid (South-Siberian)
and to the Ural types from the Europo-Mongoloids. None
of the two had much significance in the Avar Period, but they
were dominant among the conquering Hungarians. Lipt‡k
identified and described in detail three kinds among the
Mongoloids of the Avar Period: the Northern-Chinese
(Chinid), the Central Asian Mongol and the palaeo-Siberian
types. He considered the two later types the key components
of Avar Period Mongolids.
Lipt‡k reached the conclusion that the majority of Avar
Period population components were present in the population
of the Arpadian Age as well, but their proportions were most
expressedly different. He found the presence of the Northern
and Mediterranean types continuous, and he pointed out that
the characteristic types of the conquering Hungarians were
evidently there in the population of the Arpadian Age, too.
However, the dominant element of the Arpadian Age population,
a tall stature, narrow-faced, dolichomorph combination
of features, could not be deduced from any of the earlier
populations. This contradiction came straight from the
circumstance that Lipt‡k drew his conclusions exclusively
from the analysis of material originating in the region
between the Danube and the Tisza. He left the possibilities
of migration within the Central Danubian Basin out of his
considerations.
As a result of his taxonomical analysis (Lipt‡k 1959) he
concluded that the ratio of Mongolid and Mongoloid types
alternated between 30-50% among Avar Period skulls.
Lipt‡k’s estimation coincided with the stated views of
Bartucz and NemeskŽri.
Lipt‡k went on refining his taxonomical system and he
establihed five types of Avar Period Mongoloids in the
Carpathian Basin. These were: Chinid (Far Eastern Mongoloid),
Baykal (Palaeosiberian), Tungid (Broad-faced
Mongoloid), Jenysej (Americanoid) and Central Asiatic
(Northern Mongoloid) types.
Lipt‡k voted for the dual origin theory when studying the
ethnogenesis of the Avars. He called true-born (pure blooded)
Avar (Varchonite) those small series which were characterized
by Mongolid and Mongoloid features. According to
Lipt‡k’s opinion the progenitors of the Vachonite originated
from beyond Lake Baykal, and they migrated into Southern-
Central Asia only sometime later. From there they were
forced out by the Turkish peoples, and so they escaped into
the Central Danubian Basin. There were series with a comparatively
high ratio of the Iranian type (Kisk™ršs-V‡ros
alatt, Alatty‡n). Lipt‡k named them ones with Hephtalite
origin because he considered the Indo-Iranian Mediterranean
type a significant ethnical component of the Hephtalites. This
type could be traced back as far as Central Asia (Lipt‡k
1983).
Acs‡dy and NemeskŽri (1970) compiled one of the most
frequently quoted anthropological textbooks under the title
“History of human life span and mortality”. The demographical
data of Great Migration Period populations published in
this volume still serve as models for present researchers. The
age determination process produced by the two authors
became outdated and it is only sporadically used, but it was
the method for any more detailed age scoring, not only in
Hungary but abroad, too. The original method was based on
the degenerative lesions of the medullar cavity cones of
humerus and femur, and of the surface of facies symphysialis,
plus on the ossification of cranial sutures.
Certainly, there were Slavs among the peoples inhabiting
the Central Danubian Basin during Avar times. There are
several obstacles that block the way of an anthropological
approach to this problem. The most significant has been the
lack of skeletal finds from that period. In the 6th-8th centuries
Slavic peoples still cremated their dead. They might have
lived in regions neighbouring those inhabited by the Avars,
but they left no burial sites with skeletal material and this
made them once and for all “invisible” for anthropological
research. Our only remaining choice is to proceed with
indirect methods. Anthropology produced few results in the
analysis of the Slav lineage of Hungarian ethnogenesis yet
(Botty‡n 1975).
ƒry (1970) analysed the metric averages of 26 series by
the Penrose-distance method. She took Avar Period and
combined, Hungarian Conquest and Arpadian Period samples
under examination. She concluded that males had less
spread within the samples than females did. The Avar Period
sample differed more from the Arpadian Age one than it did
from the Hungarian Conquest Period sample. Close proximities
were established between Avar and Arpadian Period
series in some cases, but even so, she put much more emphasis
on the differences of the two periods’ populations.
ƒry (1983) examined 120, mostly 6th-12th centuries male
series by cluster analysis in her other comprehensive work.
Penrose-distance as well as the “dual sequential” process
were utilized. The Avar Period of the Central Danubian Basin
was represented by 22 samples. ƒry recognized the regional
differences of Avar Period series. She formed the opinion that
there were separate Danube-Tisza midland, Eastern Transdanubian,
Western-Transdanubian and Northern Transdanubian
groups, and these bore marked anthropological
differences. She saw correlations between the Central Danubian
Basin and previous Eastern abodes of Avar population F—thi
groups. The author outlined that those populations which had
their analogies in the steppe region to the east of the River
Dnepr mostly tended to settle in the Great Hungarian Plain,
while communities originating in the East-European and
broad-leaved forest zones, or in the territories to the west of
the Dnepr moved – with a single exception – to Transdanubia
and to the northwestern region of the Carpathian
Basin. ƒry presumed that these peoples attempted to locate
abode territories with living conditions resembling the
previous ones, so that they could keep up their ways of lives
and production.
ƒry (1994) published a brief summary of the conclusions
of her earlier research activities. She dedicated this paper first
of all to anthropological scene of the Hungarian Conquest
Period, but she naturally could not leave the previous inhabitants
of the Carpathian Basin out of consideration. The
author mentioned that narrow, long-skulled and broad, shortskulled
individuals made up about 50-50% of the Avar
Period’s population. The first type seemed to live mostly in
the western part of Transdanubia and in the territory of
present Southern-Slovakia, the second one mostly in the
eastern part of Transdanubia and between the Danube and
Tisza Rivers. When discussing the long term survival of Avar
Period populations ƒry declared, that they evidently lived up
to the Hungarian Conquest and then they were absorbed into
the people of the Arpadian Age in Transdanubia, in the
Southern-Slovakia of our times and beyond the Tisza River.
However, there were no traces of the survival of the characteristically
low brain-cased, Europo-Mongoloid inhabitants
of the Danube-Tisza midland in their original territories. She
supported the hypothesis that they were deported and resettled
after the collapse of the Avar Empire, because the Frank
and the Bulgarian Empires wanted to create a neutral zone
between their respective spheres of interest.
ƒry (1998) recently published a vacuum-filling work
based on an enormous collection of data, with postcranial
measurements and estimated statures.
The measurements of four long bones (humerus, radius,
femur and tibia) representing both the right and left sides of
the body were collected on the skeletons of 4,305 men and
3,735 women from 330 burial sites of the Carpatian Basin.
The data represented the population from the Neolithic (c.a.
4000 BC) to the end of the Middle Ages (c.a. AD 1700)
within the area of the Central Danubian Basin. The stature
of individuals were calculated by Sjovold’s method. In order
to save space and facilitate future use, the individual length
measurements and stature data are attached to that volume
in the form of a diskette. Her main results are as follows:
The right humerus and radius, as well as the left femur
and tibia, are significantly longer than their counterparts in
the opposite limb. Differences between women and men are
most pronounced in radius length, and least apparent in the
length of tibia. Sex-related differences between bones in the
same limb are always greater in the left side. Stature estimates
fell within the tall category in the majority of chronological/
ethnic units. The relative overrepresentation of
women in the very tall categories may be attributed to bias
caused by the method applied. During the periods within the
6th to 15th century interval, the mean statures of populations
living west of the Danube were usually the tallest, while the
smallest estimates were obtained for the Danube-Tisza
Interfluvium. Moreover, within the Great Hungarian Plain,
the mean stature of populations in this latter region was
smaller than east of the Tisza River in all studied periods. The
arrival of new peoples during the 5th to 6th, 9th and 16th to 17th
centuries are indicated by their taller statures, while populations
of smaller statures occuring in the 3rd to 4th and 11th
to 12th century suggest the possible continuity of a basic
population with prehistoric roots in the Central Danubian
Basin. With the advancement of time, the changes of stature
show a positive secular trend.
T—th examined the variable values of taxonomical characteristics
when classifying mixed populations (T—th 1970). He
carried out detailed analysis of the facial profile on Avar
Period anthropological material from 55 excavated sites. He
established a much lower proportion of elements coming
under the Mongoloid greater race than Bartucz and Lipt‡k
did before. T—th took 1,141 skulls under examination and he
found a Mongoloid preponderance only on 19 of them
(1.66%). He set the the ratio of pure Mongolid and Mongoloid
elements at 7.7% .
T—th arrived at similar conclusions when he applied the
faciocerebral index and facial flatness index methods on the
anthropological material of 33 Avar sites (T—th 1973, 1974).
His analysis led him to declare that Europoid features
dominated within the general mass of inhabitants of the Avar
Empire. T—th found only three expressly Mongoloid series,
those of Kisk™ršs-V‡g—h’d, Mosonszentj‡nos and Budapest-
NŽpstadion. By scoring the degree of facial flatness T—th
established a rather diluted form of presence of Mongoloid
elements in the composition of the series of Mosonszentj‡nos.
He found this series as an entity similar not to Baykaltype
– as described by Bartucz earlier – but to the Late Iron
Age material of the Altai-Sayan mountain range. At the same
time he declared that the Early Avar Period series excavated
at the site Kisk™ršs-V‡g—hidi džl™ bore more marked Mongolid
characteristics than the Buriat and Tuvaian of the Trans-
Baykal region. He pointed out that some Avar Period series
had their morphological analogies in the Nort-Caspian zone
(T—th 1974).
Lengyel (1975) adapted a palaeoserological method
worked out for recent skeletal material for the examination
of fossile finds from historical ages. He executed AB0 bloodgroup
analysis on the samples of 5,000 individuals (from
Neolithic times to the Middle Ages). Lengyel calculated
blood-group frequency values and gene frequencies for all
Study of Roman and migration periods
populations he analysed. On the basis of these data he
attempted to draw historical conclusions by comparing the
values belonging to various historical periods. His study of
Roman Period and Langobard material was exhaustive, but
the Avar Period featured with very few representatives in
Lengyel’s work. The most important social strata of the
Avars, the Mongolids were completely missing from this
scientific process. He provided trustworthy evidences for the
survival of romanized population groups on more than one
occasion. Marcsik (1983) carried out the palaepathological
examination of the Avar Period inhabitants of the Danube-
Tisza region. She scored the various forms and frequency of
anomalous dental enamel formations, Stafne’s idiopathic
mandibular cavity, malformations, traumatic lesions, bone
inflammations, tuberculosis, certain haematological disorders
and articular diseases on 1,960 skeletal finds from 42
archeological sites.
Farkas and Hunya (1984) determined the weighted mean
and standard deviation of 14 measurements from 28 Avar
Period series dug up in Hungary. Their comparison with the
Howells mean sigmas manifested significant differences in
13 male and 8 female characters. The authors applied the
Penrose-distance and closest and farthest neighbour methods
for 28 series, mainly from the Danube-Tisza interfluvial
region. They found a quite close similarity among the Avar
Period series of this territories, with the exception of Kunsz‡ll‡s,
R‡k—czifalva and the B‡cska cemeteries in general.
F—thi (1998) carried out examinations by systematic
cluster analysis. She placed the Avar Period population of the
Central Danubian Basin in the focus of her analysis. She took
224 series under consideration. Anything resembling a
permanent Mongolid population appeared with the arrival of
the Avar in the Central Danubian Basin, and the author
classified this group as the “true” Avar. This people probably
evolved from two tribes, as the differing similarity circles of
its two main components, the Sajanian and Baykal elements,
indicated it. She stated that the survival of pre-Avar Period
population should be taken into account first of all in Transdanubia.
The majority of Avar Period Transdanubian individuals
were long-skulled and tall in stature. This group has a
common feature: they all had analogies in the Pannon
autochton peoples and Germanic Periods of the Central
Danubian Basin, and among the Slavic peoples. The Avar
Period groups who populated the regions to the east of the
Danube were mostly new elements in the history of the
Central Danubian Basin. The 8th century inhabitants of the
Danube-Tisza interfluvial were one of the most markedly
characteristic groups of the whole Avar Period. They simply
had no analogy whatsoever in the Central Danubian Basin,
but also no parallel in the Eurasian steppe populations. F—thi
proposed the view that most probably this characteristic type
came into being as a result of local evolution. The Danube-
Tisza region already had a Europid population and they
intermingled with a low-skulled, mongolid (possibly Tungid)
group. The process took something like 200 years. The 6th-
8th centuries populations were extremely heterogenous.
F—thi’s classification did not concur with the traditional
grouping based on the archeological heritage. It was impossible
to state that the cranial typology of the period’s people
fell in line with the triage of Early, Middle and Late Avar
Period. What is more, there were cemeteries coming under
the same archeological age, but it did not keep them from
presenting enormous anthropological differences when the
skeletal finds were analysed. In brief, the Avar Period
population seemed to be divided not by its material culture,
but by the two very different anthropological types of the 6th-
8th centuries. This system also did not coincide with the
metallurgy-based traditional one.
9th Century
At the end a few words about the special problems of the 9th
century. For decades, it was a deep-rooted opinion in the
archeological literature that the 9th century was “simply
missing” from the findings material of the Central Danubian
Basin. This view seemed to end in the 1980s, first of all in
the research of the Lower-Zala valley sites and in that of
Bulgarian finds from the southern part of the Hungarian
Plain.
ƒry (1992) was among those working on the first mentioned
project. She analysed 3 Lower-Zala valley cemeteries
dated for the 9th century and concluded that a dolichocran,
large stature new population element must be taken into
consideration here, as the population of the cemetery Garabonc
I presented close similarities with western Slavic and
western Germanic samples.
Personal comments
In this paper we set out to recount, and we had to exclude the
confrontation of opinions as well as our own critical remarks
for lack of space. However, at the end we sketch up some
subjective ideas, that seem to us well worth considering in
the close future research of the Migration Period. Various
periods have been studied with varied intensities in palaeoanthropology.
The Avar, Hungarian Conquest and Arpadian
Periods were deeply and well researched, but there were and
still are enormous gaps in the study of the pre-Avar centuries.
It may sound paradox, but the main obstacle blocking the
development of really profound knowledge on the history of
the Avar Period has been our scanty knowledge of the anthropological
images of the Sarmatians and Gepids. As long as
this link remains missing it is impossible to follow and to restore
the chain along which the survival of pre-Avar populations
could be proved. To a lesser extent the same is true for
the Roman Period population of the Central Danubian Basin.
Each period has been studied in isolation, and it pushes F—thi
the results towards as a strange jig-saw character. Any sort
of continuity is very hard to identify in this environment. We
often seem to find new population elements, though their
lineage could be traced back to a known group in a known
period. We feel that we should connect the research results
of the various historical periods (from Neolithic times to the
Late Middle Ages) because the continuity of a good number
of anthropological types could be established, of course with
the modifications brought along by time. At the same time
any new elements would be easier to recognise, and so we
could date the appearance of new populations much more
accurately.
The Great Migration Period populations were very
heterogenous almost without exception. They were formed
from a lot of sub-populations of varied origin, and their
internal proportions were often accidental. That is why we
can expect only extremely rough estimations when utilizing
the metric averages of a population. We may arrive at much
more refined results if we analysed each and every population
on the basis of its sub-populations