Makkay János: A magyarság keltezése – A Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok közleményei 48. (1994)

can also be applied to speakers of Proto-Hungarian for example, who like the ancient Slavs were swept westwards by early Turks, i.e. by the Huns, early Avarians or the Kuvratian Onogurs (who are also called Middle or Late Avarians). As a separate ethnic group the Proto-Hungarian speakers would have been subject to the Avars, but they are not mentioned in the sources as the Slavs occasionally were. Since the historical tradition contained in the orthodox theory on the Conquest and the coming of the Hungarians in 895-896 was very strong and seemed to be incontrovertible, the hypothetical intrusion or intrusions of Hungarians some time before 895 were termed by its proponents the first landtaking, and the 895—896 arrival as the second landtaking. Therefore this model is called the theory of dual landtaking or double conquest. Since 1944 its most eminent representative has been Gyula László who formulated his earliest doubts on the validity of the orthodox model in his famous book. Later he gradually developed his theory of the dual landtaking. A curious interlude is represented by the 1958 paper of Gy. Györffy who — as if he were in competition with Gy. László to find a formula for a more suitable theory — hastily drafted a model that can be termed the model of the other or previous landtaking or conquest. He built his unconsidered draft on the mistaken conclusions of D. Csallány, and suggested that the archaeological and anthropological material of the landtaking Hungarians (who were called Turks in the Byzantine sources) was that of the Late Avarian cemeteries (i.e. with types in the so-called griffin and tendril style: bronze belt ornaments adorned with the vine-scroll motif ). The theory is extremely absurd also from the point of view of chronology, since the Late Avarian griffin and tendril style cannot be dated to later than the first quarter of the 9th century AD., while the Turks mentioned in the Byzantine sources played their role from the last third of the 9th Century AD. on. As a result of this chronological misconception, Györffy's abortive effort did not contribute very much to a better understanding of the early history of the Hungarians. Now, a full century after the millenary festivities and the establishment of the orthodox theory, this theory triumphantly dominates the scientific and public forums in this country. It seems to me that even the most rational and well-attested arguments fail to have 207