Makkay János: A magyarság keltezése – A Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok közleményei 48. (1994)
(i.e. Árpád and his seven tribes, called also Hétmagyar or Hetumoger = 'the seven Hungarian tribes') including their ruling class or leading tribes , were speakers of Proto —Hungarian from their cradles. From the 1940's on the most eminent representative of the orthodox or traditional model has been Gy. Györffy. Under the heavy pressure from the Turkic school, he sometimes apparently gave credence to other (Turkic-favouring) theories but only in minor matters. The reader who wants to familiarize himself with his theories can turn to his curious g short summary in English. The peculiarity of this little book is best shown by his verdict on the value of archaeological sources for resolving ethnic problems. He wrote that "archaeological grave-goods of the later Avar cemeteries ... are not decisive, since one cannot determine on the basis of skeletons and relics of a material culture the language and the proper ethnic affiliation". In the next sentence he continues, while " ...just about a hundred times as many Avar graves were known as Hungarian ones, I myself presumed that the missing masses of the Hungarians must be [my Italics] concealed in cemeteries which are said to be late Avar ones." Archaeology, then, cannot determine ethnic categories on the basis of finds and human bones, only Gy. Györffy can do this, and he did it without much knowledge of archaeological methods and facts. After early attempts to find better explanations of obvious contradictions within the orthodox model (as for example the brilliant analyses of A. Vámbéry and of G. Nagy), an important milestone was the declaration in 1920—1921 by the world famous Turkic scholar, Z. Gombocz that he had broken with dogmatic doctrines of the Hunfalvy school (which regarded the role of linguistic arguments as decisive), and that he now supported the theory that the Finno-Ugric components of the Hungarian language were intermixed, penetrated, influenced and enriched by Bolgaro-Turkic [linguistic and other?] elements. The result according to Gombocz was that the Hungarian people [and language] were an amalgamation of Finno-Ugric and Turkic elements (see point 5.2.!). Actually Gombocz was still uncertain as to the precise location and dating of the amalgamating processes of the Turkic and Finno-Ugric elements of the Hungarian language and people. His compensating school dated them within the period from the death of Attila the Hun to the accession of Kuvrat, the Onogur —Bolgár khagan, 205
