Makkay János: A magyarság keltezése – A Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok közleményei 48. (1994)
AD., which is a precondition for such borrowings, depends entirely on whether the Proto-Hungarians actually settled there for a substantial period. Recent research, however, shows that Proto-Hungarian speaking groups never settled in the Kuban or elsewhere NW of the Caucasus. This revision of old views eliminates the theory of a North-Caucasian (or Meotic) sojourn of Proto-Hungarian speakers, as already anticipated by Denis Sinor in 1958. Most recently E. Korenchy has correctly emphasized that language relations between Proto-Hungarians and Old-Ossetic Alanians in these areas are no more than feeble hypotheses. Moreover the reconstructed Alanian/Old Ossetian language is only represented by a few toponyms and personal names, instead of this missing Alanian vocabulary the possibility emerges that [middle or late] Iranian loan-words into Proto-Hungarian came from the stock of surviving Sarmatian/Alanian tribes on the Great Hungarian Plain where they lived under early Avarian domination until the arrival of Proto —Hungarians around the end ot the 7th century AD. Chapter 6. sums up the history of what may be called the Onogur — Hungarian model, essentially the question of when and where the amalgamations of Turkic and Finno-Ugric elements actually took place. The early Mediaeval Hungarian culture was a well constructed product of hybrid origin, and the main question is the role played by each of the clear and definite ethnic and language groups, Turkic and Finno-Ugric, in the formation of the Hungarian language. Since this language certainly belongs to the Finno-Ugric language family, the role of the two elements cannot have been equal. On the other hand the political supremacy of the Turkic rulers (the Onogurs' and Árpád's people) enabled a stronger participation of Turkic elements in material culture, behaviour, customs, and leadership in the 8 th —12th centuries. This chapter also gives an account of the formation of the dual landtaking model of Gy. László, and the shifting opinions of a number of authors regarding the place and time of the first, or second, or the single amalgamation of the Turkic and Finno-Ugric components. Chapter 7. formulates a new interpretation of the Onogur= Hungarian — Magyar modell. It is a slightly modified version of the model of Z. Gombocz and states that the amalgamation of superstratic Turkic and basic Finno-Ugric elements took place not in the areas east of the Carpathians, but proceeded in the Carpathian Basin itself. This 222
