ANNALES HISTORICO-NATURALES MUSEI NATION ALIS HUNGARICI Tomus 77. Budapest, 1985 p. 281-289..

Data to the problem of artificial cranial deformation, Part 3.

by I . P A P , Budapest

Abstract—A comparative investigation of 21 artificially deformed skulls originating from the 5th century Gothic-Alan cemetery section of Keszthely-Fenékpuszta (Hungary) is presented^ With 2 tables.

In the preceding two parts of my study (PAP 1983, 1984), I examined 21 individuals excavated in 1976-1980.

Material and method

In the process of this comparative analysis I was looking for answers to two questions. The first of these was how the series of Keszthely-Fenékpuszta fitted into the pattern of anthropological findings in the Carpathian Basin. When answering this question, I took into consideration 33 arti­ficially deformed skulls of 18 series excavated in the territory of the Carpathian Basin. Of course a number of subadults (8 individuals) could not be included in the comparison with the adults. There were 3 other skulls with very few measurements that I also had to neglect. As a result I could compare the characteristics of 10 male and 12 female skulls with the 3 measurable male and 5 female skulls of the cemetery of Keszthely-Fenékpuszta. I carried out the analysis by comparing maximum cranial length (Martin 1), maximum cranial width (M 8), cranial height (M 17), porion-bregma height (M 20), forehead angle (M 32), basion-antibasion distance and glabella-inion distance (M 2). In addition I employed the index skull height/length (17/1), the 20/1 cranial index and the index of deformation (basion-antibasion distance/glabella-inion distance).

The other goal of my analysis was to determine whether our series was similar in any way to the deformed skulls uncovered outside the Carpathian Basin. Therefore I compared the data of our cemetery to those of 18 male and 15 female series. I considered the problem of its relationship with the series of the Sarmatian Period the most important. For this reason I examined the findings specified as ones from the Sarmatian Period from the following regions east of the Carpathian Basin : Crimea, the territory between the Don and the Volga, the lower reaches of the Volga, southern Turkmenia and Kirghizea. In addition I compared our material to that of the cemetery of Byblos dated for the 4th century B.C. and to some Migration Period skulls found in Switzerland, and to the 8th-9th century skulls which have come to light in Bulgaria. In addition to the characteristics men­tioned above, I took into account the frontal, parietal and occipital arcs and chordes (Martin 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31) and the convexity indices (29/26, 30/27, 31/28) calculated from these.

Comparative investigations

The cranial height values of the males are the most markedly similar to those of the male skulls of Letkés (Grave No. 2) and Mohács, while cranial height values of females present the same to those of female skulls of Szabadka, Kiszombor (Grave No. 389) and Szekszárd-Palánk (Grave No. 208). According to porion-bregma height, glabella-inion distance and basion-antibasion distance, the males are similar to the male skulls No. 54 and 57 of the Kiszombor cemetery and to those of Letkés (Grave No. 2) and Mohács, while the females resemble female skull No. 208 of Szekszárd-Palánk. The values of the 20/1 cranial index and the deformation index come nearest to those of males No. 54 and 57 Kiszombor and to those of females No. 389 and No. 208 of Szekszárd-Palánk. As a conse­quence of these, the male series of Keszthely-Fenékpuszta is similar to male skulls No. 54 and 57 of the Gepid cemetery of Kiszombor, to the 5th century skull of Mohács and to the Early Migration Period skulls from Letkés. Our female series is most markedly similar to skull No. 208 of the 5th century cemetery of Szekszárd-Palánk and to skull No. 389 of Kiszombor.

As far as materials from outside the Carpathian Basin are concerned, I arrived at the following •conclusions:

M a l e s e r i e s : On the basis of maximum cranial length (M 1), cranial width (M 8), the height/length index (17/1) and forehead angle ( M 32), the males of Keszthely-Fenékpuszta are most similar to the Middle and Late Sarmatian Period males originating from the northern part of the Saratov and Volgograd regions, and to the contemporary male group of Volgograd-Astrakhan. They also closely resemble the combined 4th-5th century series of Kanga-Kala and Kunya-Yaz and the 1st century findings of Kenkol, as well as the findings from Talaskaya-Chuskaya dolina. Unfortunately we have only a very limited series of data on basion-antibasion distances of the various series, though these provide some very important piece of imformation on the deformed skulls. We know the deformation indices of a somewhat larger number of cases which can supply some indirect information concerning basion-antibasion distances too. In this aspect the men of Keszthely-Fenékpuszta are similar to the series of Kanga-Kala, Kunya-Yaz and Alayskaya dolina.

The frontal, parietal and occipital arcs and chords and the convexity indices can fulfil a very significant role when one characterizes and compares the deformed skulls. The more deformed a skull has the larger frontal and occipital convexity indices and the lesser parietal bone index. However, it is to be kept in mind, that the frontal convexity index of considerably deformed skulls can also have a low value because large size and marked eminentia prebregmatica can significantly increase the value of the frontal arc, this way decreasing the index. When comparing these characteristics it was found that our series is especially similar to the combined series of Kanga-Kala and Kunya-Yaz and to the Volgograd-Astrakhan group. The similarity to the series of Byblos also cannot be left out of consideration.

F e m a l e s e r i e s : when comparing characteristics 1, 8, 32 and 17/1, the females of Keszt­hely-Fenékpuszta were most similar to the series of Volgograd-Astrakhan, Kenkol and Byblos. I found myself in a very unfavourable situation as far as the comparison of basion-antibasion distances and deformation indices was concerned. From the very few data available the values of the Volgograd-Astrakhan group came the nearest to those of our series. I found the highest degree of similarity to the female groups of Byblos, the Late Sarmatians of Saratov and the findings of Sézegnin when comparing frontal, parietal and occipital arcs and chords.

As a summary it can be stated that the male series of Keszthely-Fenékpuszta are the most markedly similar to the Middle (1st century B.C.—beginning of the 2nd century A.D.) and Late (2nd-4th century) Sarmatian period series of the Lower Volga region, Saratov and Volgograd-Astrakhan as well as to the 4-5th century A.D. findings of Southern-Turkmenia. The female group shows a larger degree of similarity to the series of Byblos (4th millenium B.C.) and that of Kenkol (1st century A.D.) in Kirghizea and to the Lower Volga region series of Saratov and Volgograd-Astrakhan.

Discussion

The question arises whether intentional head deformation can always be linked to a given ethnic group. Can we consider the existence of this custom as a marker of a certain ethnic unit even when we can discover it only wi th a part of the population? Is it possible that a certain social stratum was characterized by i t or was it only some fashion? I f it was some sort of fashion, was i t special for a given ethnic group or was it a general custom of the whole population? Does it reflect an ethnic group as some artifacts do reflect some peoples? Does the distribution of cranial deformation according to sexes have any sig­nificance in the sense that its presence wi th one or both sexes could characterize different ethnic groups? Can we detect the gradual spreading of the custom from this? Can we reach any conclusions about the permanent coexistence of various peoples on this basis? What differences do the various types of distortion represent?

The skulls dug up and published from the territory of Hungary can be dated to the period between the 4th and the 7th centuries. There have been some attempts to find con­nections between these and some ethnic groups on the basis of the archaeological findings but it is not possible to l ink this skulls to certain layers.

We cannot arrive at any special conclusions concerning sexual distribution even on the basis of the deformed skulls originating from cemeteries wi th large numbers of graves,

as there were only one or very few such skulls in each of them. As far as the anthropological material of Keszthely-Fenékpuszta—which contains a relatively very high percentage of deformed skulls—is concerned, we can ascertain only the fact that cranial distortion was applied on the skulls of both sexes, and nothing more.

The other problem is the type of head deformation. A l l skulls from the territory of Hungary published up t i l l now belong to the same, so-called circular type o f destortion. The different type determination which sometimes occurs results from the differences of classification.

As far as the practical execution of deformation is concerned, all the authors agree that the circular type of deformation was done by applying one or two deforming bandages. The first bandage started from the forehead and ran across the temporal region to the nape of the neck. The authors also agree on the point that i f two bandages were used then the second one started from the crown of the head and its pressure caused the impressio post-bregmaticum behind the sutura coronalis on the parietal bone. According to the opinion of a number of authors this bandage was also directed towards the nape of the neck or this was applied crosswise over the first one. L I P T Á K (1983) expressed his view that this bandage could by no means reach under the chin as it would have prevented mandibular movement. However, the results of the analysis carried out on the skulls of Keszthely-Fenékpuszta are contrary to this theory. Not only the direction o f the impression made by the second bandage but the deformations observed on the mandible (the extremely small size of cap-i tu lum mandibulae and its very pronounced flattened form) also seem to indicate that the bandage in question ran under the chin wi th all certainty. When comparing the mandibles of individuals wi th deformed skulls to those of undeformed ones, we can see striking de­creases of gonion length, condylus length, ramus mandibulae height and symphysis height. The considerable decrease found in males as well as females can probably be attributed to the underchin deforming bandage. The fitting of this bandage in this direction was noted by Ö Z B E K (1974) when examining the skulls from Byblos (4th millenium B.C.). He carried out a detailed analysis of mandibula symphysis and corpus mandibulae heights. When he compared undeformed male mandibles to deformed female mandibles he pointed out a decrease in measurements. Of course the second bandage was not tied so tightly that it would have prevented the intake of food. At the same time opening the mouth auto­matically made the bandage tighter, this way contributing to deformation and making it more effective. The existence of a deformation subtype wi th the use of a bandage reaching down under the chin can in no way be precluded on the basis of the analysis of mandibles.

Though the material from Hungary is relatively rich, it does not make it possible to set clear-cut conclusions on ethnic groups. Objective obstacles such as the limited number of cases, the sometimes uncertain dating and primarily the incomplete uncovering would prevent us from using distortion as an indicator of ethnic units i f otherwise the presence of a given ethnic group could be proven by historical evidence and by archaeological findings too. The Ostrogoths starting from Eastern-Ukraine arrived at the territory o f Transdanubia as part of the Great Migration already in 380. I n 456 they settled down in Pannónia as the allies of the East Roman Empire for a short period, after crossing the Carpathian Basin several times before. Later they entered this region on more than one occasion without staying here for longer periods. There are some historical sources verifying the settling down of Gothic-Alan ethnic groups in the Transdanubian region. The archaeological findings and the custom of intentional head formation confirm this. On the other hand, ethnic groups cannot be separated purely on the basis o f anthropological data without suf­ficient historical and archaeological information.

Table 1. Comparison some male series

Series i 2 8 17 20 26 27 28 29 30

Byblos, Chalcolithic 185.9 137.4 134.0 116.5 129.3 133.4 123.7 113.1 117.3 (ÖZBEK 1974) (11) (12) (4) (9) (11) (10) (7) (11) (10) Manuech, Middle Bronze 183.3 — 131.3 — — — — — — — (GINSBURG 1949) (3) (3) Talaskaya and Chuskaya dolina, 178.0 — 144.0 134.0 — — — — — — 3rd c. B. C — 1st c. A. D . (1) (1) (1) ( M l K L A S H E V S K A Y A 1964)

Kenkol, 1st c. A. D. 179.3 171.0 140.2 137.7 — —. — — — — (GINSBURG & Z I R O V 1949) (11) (11) ( I D (11) Sarmatian (Middle) 185.3 — 138.8 140.0 117.2 129.5« 132.3» 113.8» 118.2» 114.3» (FIRSHTEIN 1970) (6) (6) (2) (5) (6) (6) (5) (6) (6) Sarmatian (Late), 2-4th c. A. D. 184.9 — 139.7 142.8 120.5 132.7» 128.5» 117.2» 120.1» 111.4» (FIRSHTEIN 1970) (17) (16) (10) (16) (19) (18) (15) (19) (18) Volgograd—Astrakhan group 185.0 — 138.9 139.8 — — — — —- — (GINSBURG, FIRSHTEIN 1970) (16) (15) (13) Alayskaya dolina, l-4th c. A. D. 176.3 — 142.8 134.4 — — — — — — ( M l K L A S H E V S K A Y A 1964) (9) (8) (8) Kenkol, l -5th c. A. D . 179.8 — 139.7 134.6 — — —. —. — — ( M l K L A S H E V S K A Y A 1964) (11) (9) ( I D Kenkol (summarized) 176.1 — 140.4 136.2 — — — — — — (GINSBURG, ZIROV, MIKLASHEVSKAYA, (22) (20) (22) FIRSHTEIN 1970)

Talaskaya and Chuskaya dolina, 174.0 — 139.5 136.5 — — — — — l -5th c. A. D. ( M l K L A S H E V S K A Y A 1964) (2) (2) (2) Kerch, Crimea 181.0» —, 130.0» 145.3« — — — — (ANUCHIN, FIRSHTEIN 1970) (3) (3) (3) Kalalue—Guer 1, 2-3rd c. A. D. 182.0 — 144.7 138.6 118.3 — — — — — (TROFIMOVA 1959) ( 3 D (33) (22) (29) Kanga-Kala, 4-5th c. A. D. 179.0 174.0 140.0 144.0 120.7 129.0 120.0 — 118.5 104.0 (TROFIMOVA 1959) (2) (2) (2) (1) (4) (2) (4) (2) (4)

Kanga Kala and Kunya-Yaz (summ.), 177.3« 172.3« 138.3« 140.0« 120.3 129.2 122.9 113.3 119.0 105.9 4-5th c. A. D. (4) (4) (6) (3) (6) (4) (7) (3) (4) (7) (TROFIMOVA 1959)

Bayram-Ali, 4-6th c. A. D. 187.4 — 142.0 138.5 118.4 127.8 131.5 114.5 113.1 118.1 (TROFIMOVA 1959) (56) (57) (54) (53) (55) (54) (50) (55) (54) Nyon (Vand) 183.0 — 140.0 135.0 127.0 138.0 134.0 110.0 131.0 108.0 (SIMON 1978) d ) (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D Kyulevcha, 8-9th c. A. D . 173.0 — 146.0 — 126.0 132.0 118.0 — 122.0 118.0 (KONDOVA & al. 1979) (D (D (D (D (D d) (D Keszthely—Fenékpuszta, 5th c. A. D. 179.3 171.7 143.0 136.7 120.7 134.0 121.7 121.0 122.0 130.7 Keszthely—Fenékpuszta, 5th c. A. D.

(3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (2) (3) (3) (2) (3)

Table i . continuation

Series 31 32 gl-met b-ab 17/1 20/1 29/26 30/27 31/28 Def. ind.

Byblos, Chalcolithic 104.8 48.5 — 71.7 63.7 87.5+ 87.9+ 84.7+ (ÖZBEK 1974) (7) (8) (4) (9) Manuech, Middle Bronze — — — — (GINSBURG 1949) Talaskaya and Chuskaya dolina — 82.0 76.0 — — 80.3 3rd c. B.C.—1st c. A .D. (1) (1) d ) ( M l K L A S H E V S K A Y A 1964)

(1) (1) d )

Kenkol, 1st c. A.D. — 75.7 — 144.0 76.0 85.0 (GINSBURG & ZIROV 1949) (11) (11) (9) (11) Sarmatian (Middle) 97.2» 74.0 — 76.9 63.8» 91.3» 84.8» 85.6»

(11)

(FIRSHTEIN 1970) (5) (5) (2) (5) (6) (6) (5) Sarmatian (Late), 2-4th c. A .D. 101.8« 75.4 — — 76.8 65.4» 90.5» 86.7» 87.0» . (FIRSHTEIN 1970) (15) (14) (10) (17) (19) (18) (15) Volgograd-Astrakhan group — 75.0 — — 75.6+ (GINSBURG, FIRSHTEIN 1970) (14) — Alayskaya dolina, l-4th c. A.D. — 75.4 74.1 — — 83.3 ( M l K L A S H E V S K A Y A 1964) (8) (8) (8) Kenkol, l -5th c. A.D. — 80.9 74.7 — — 79.4 ( M l K L A S H E V S K A Y A 1964) (9) (9) ( H ) Kenkol (summarized) — 78.8 — 77.3+ (GINSBURG, ZIROV, MIKLASHEVSKAYA, (20) —

FIRSHTEIN 1970) (20)

Talaskaya and Chuskaya dolina, 1—5th c. — 75.0 68.0 — — 85.6 A.D. ( M l K L A S H E V S K A Y A 1964) (2) (2) (2)

Kerch, Crimea — — 80.6» (ANUCHIN, FIRSHTEIN 1970) (3) Kalaue—Guer 1, 2-3rd c. A.D. — 85.8 79.1 — 76.4 65.5 (TROFIMOVA 1959) (21) (21) (22) (28) Kanga-Kala, 4-5th c. A .D . — 73.5 63.5 151.0 77.7 71.0 91.9 86.2 84.3 (TROFIMOVA 1959) (2) (2) (1) (1) (2) (2) (4) (D Kanga-Kala and Kunya Yaz (summ.), 103.0 72.3* 64.3« 147.0» 77.0» 69.9» 92.1 85.9 90.9 84.5 4-5th c. A .D . (3) (4) (4) (3) (3) (4) (4) (7) (3) (3) (TROFIMOVA 1959)

(4) (7) (3) (3)

Bayram-Ali, 4-6th c. A . D . 94.2 82.7 76.3 — 74.1 63.2 88.6 89.9 82.1 (TROFIMOVA 1959) (51) (53) (53) (54) (53) (54) (54) (51) Nyon (Vand) 100.0 — — — 73.8 69.4 94.9 80.6 80.9 (SIMON 1978) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Kyulevcha, 8-9th c. A .D . — 76.0 72.0 — — 72.8 92.4» 100.0» (KONDOVA & al. 1979) (1) (D (1) (1) (1) Keszthely—Fenékpuszta, 5th c. A.D. 102.0 70.0 61.5 144.0 76.3 67.3 91.1 85.4 84.4 83.9

(3) (2) (2) (3) (3) (3) (2) (3) (3) (3) gl-met = forehead angle, b-ab = basion—antibasion distance

Table 2. Comparison some female series

Series i 2 8 17 20 26 27 28 29 30

Byblos, Chalcolithic 183.5 126.5 129.5 107.8 124.0 121.8 118.2 112.1 109.6 (ÖZBEK 1974) (6) (6) (2) (7) (6) (7) (4) (6) (7) Manuech, Middle Bronze 176.0 — 135.0 — — — — — — (GINSBURG 1949) (1) (1) Talaskaya and Chuskaya dolina, 178.0 — 132.0 —. — — — — — 3rd c. B.C.—1st c. A .D . (1) (1) ( M l K L A S H E V S K A Y A 1964) Kenkol, 1st c. A .D . 170.9 160.9 131.9 131.4 — — — — — — (GINSBURG & ZIROV 1949) (8) (8) (7) (8) Sarmatian (Late), 2-4th c. A .D . 174.0 — 132.2 131.8 113.8 121.9» 121.1» 113.9» 110.1» 104.8» (FIRSHTEIN 1970) (14) (14) (9) (13) (13) (13) (10) (13) (13) Volgograd-Astrakhan group 174.3 — 136.5 136.0 117.8 — — — — (GINSBURG, FIRSHTEIN 1970) (14) (14) (9) (8) Alayskaya dolina, 1—4th c. A .D . 170.2 — 135.7 128.7 — — — — — — ( M l K L A S H E V S K A Y A 1964) (6) (6) (6) Kenkol, l-5th c. A .D . 171.0 — 137.7 129.3 — — — — — — ( M l K L A S H E V S K A Y A 1964) (10) (9) (8) Kenkol (summarized) 169.7 — 133.4 131.9 — — — —. — — (GINSBURG, ZIROV, MIKLASHEVSKAYA, (23) (21) (21)

FIRSHTEIN 1970) Kerch, Crimea 177.5* — 132.0» 139.0» — — — — — — (ANUCHIN, FIRSHTEIN 1970) (2) (2) (2) Kalalue-Guer 1, 2-3rd c. A .D. 175.8 — 141.0 130.7 114.0 — — — — — (TROFIMOVA 1959) (25) (25) (16) (24) Kanga-Kala and Kunya Yaz (summ.) — — — — — 134.0 126.3 — 122.0 112.3 4-5th c. A .D . (2) (3) (2) (3) (TROFIMOVA 1959)

(3)

Bayram-Ali, 4-6th c. A .D . 177.4 — 135.6 131.3 112.3 122.9 123.4 122.9 107.6 115.5 (TROFIMOVA 1959) (50) (50) (47) (48) (50) (49) (50) (50) (49) Sézegnin, 6th or 7th c. A .D. 165.0» — 138.0» 130.0 115.7» 116.7» 123.3» 106.0» 107.3» 107.0» (SIMON 1978) (3) (3) (1) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) Kyulevcha, 8-9th c. A .D. — — 132.0 127.0 114.0 — 110.0 116.0 — 110.0 (KONDOVA & al. 1979) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Keszthely—Fenékpuszta, 5th c. A .D. 165.0 155.6 128.4 139.0 125.3 120.4 124.4 120.0 113.0 106.0

(5) (5) (5) (2) (4) (5) (5) (2) (5) (5)

Table 2, continuation

Series 31 32 gl-met b-ab 17/1 20/1 29/26 30/27 31/28 Def. ind.

Byblos, Chalcolithic 103.2 45.5 71.1 59.0 90.4+ 90.0+ 87.3+ (ÖZBEK 1974) (4) (4) (2) (6) — — — Manuech, Middle Bronze — — — (GINSBURG 1949) Talaskaya and Chuskaya dolina, — 88.0 77.0 — — — — 3rd c. B.C.—1st c. A .D . (1) (1) ( M l K L A S H E V S K A Y A 1964) Kenkol, 1st c. A .D. — 74.8 — 138.6 76.5 — — —. — 86.3 (GINSBURG & ZIROV 1949) (8) (8) (6) (8) Sarmatian (Late), 2-4th c. A.D. 99.6» — — 65.5« 91.2» 86.6» 87.6» (FIRSHTEIN 1970) (10) (12) (13) (13) (10) Volgograd-Astrakhan group — 81.3 — — 78.0+ 67.6+ — (GINSBURG, FIRSHTEIN 1970) (6) — — Alayskaya dolina, l-4th c. A.D. — 75.5 72.7 — — — — —- — 86.7 ( M l K L A S H E V S K A Y A 1964) (6) (6) (6) Kenkol, l -5th c. A .D . — 82.0 77.0 — — — — — — 85.7 ( M l K L A S H E V S K A Y A 1964) (6) (6) (9) Kenkol (summarized) — 76.3 — — 77.7+ — — — — (GINSBURG, ZIROV, MIKLASHEVSKAYA, (19) — FIRSHTEIN 1970)

(19)

Kerch, Crimea — — — — 78.5* — — — — (ANUCHIN, FIRSHTEIN 1970) (2) Kalalue-Guer 1, 2-3rd c. A .D . — 86.6 81.9 — 75.5 64.9 — — — (TROFIMOVA 1959) (14) (14) (16) (23) Kanga-Kala and Kunya Yaz (summ.) — — — — — — 91.0 89.0 — —, 4-5th c. A .D. (2) (3) (TROFIMOVA 1959) Bayram-Ali, 4-6th c. A.D. 91.5 84.5 79.3 — 74.2 63.4 87.7 90.4 82.7 — (TROFIMOVA 1959) (49) (50) (50) (47) (49) (50) (49) (49) Sézegnin, 6th or 7th c. A .D. 94.7# — — — 76.5 70.1» 92.4* 87.1« 89.3» — (SIMON 1978) (3) (1) (3) (3) (3) (3) Kyulevcha, 8-9th c. A .D . 98.0 — — — — 100.0« 84.5* — (KONDOVA & al. 1979) (1) (1) (1) Keszthely-Fenékpuszta, 5th c. A .D. 102.0 72.3 66.3 147.5 82.9 74.6 93.2 85.3 88.2 95.6

(2) (3) (3) (2) (3) (3) (5) (5) (2) (3)

At the end I feel I must emphasize again that the custom of cranial deformation is not to be overvalued because its relative frequency is usually insignificantly low in the various craniological contingents. The custom of head formation could be characteristic for certain areas but i t w a s n o t s p e c i f i c e t h n i c a l l y o r t r i b a l l y for the Migra­tion Period ethnic groups of the Carpathian Basin. However, this habit can be an indicator of migration as general.

References*

GINSBURG, V . V . (1949): Antropologicheskie materialue iz raskopok na r. Manuech. — Sbornik AN 10: 285-292. (in Russian).

LIPTÁK , P. (1983): Avars and ancient Hungarians.—Academic Press, Budapest: 208 pp. MIKLASHEVSKAYA, N . N . (1964) : Istoria rasprostranenia mongoloidnogo tipa na territorii Kirghizii. —

Nauchnue trudue (Tashkent) 235: 67-85 (in Russian). PAP, I . (1983): Data to the problem of artificial cranial deformation, Part 1.—Annls hist.-nat. Mus.

natn. hung. 75: 339-350. PAP , I . (1984): Data to the problem of artificial cranial deformation, Part 2.-—Annls hist.-nat. Mus.

natn. hung. 76: 335-350. * Only the references not cited in the previous parts are listed here.

Author's address: D R . I L D I K Ó PAP Anthropological Department Hungarian Natural History Museum Budapest, Bajza utca 39 H-1062

19 Természettudományi Múzeum Évkönyve 1985