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

make the understanding of these complicated questions easy, especially not in the framework of his confusing interpretations. 9 See his dissertation, written in 1970 (!!!): Gentilism; the belief of barbarians in their independent ethnicity, — which was only published in 1992: A magyar nemzeti tudat kialakulása (The formation process of the belief of the Hungarians in their independent ethnicity). Szeged, 1992. 10 A honfoglal magyar nép élete. The life of the conquering Hungarians. Budapest, 1944, and reprint, Budapest, 1988. 11 See our note 802.! 12 A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana, I. A korai magyar kor és előzményei. (The historic grammar of the Hungarian language, vol. I. The early stage of the Old-Hungarian and its preliminaries.) Ed. by L. Benkó. Budapest, 1991, pp. 41, 47, 60-64,8183, 104-116, 122-139, and so on. 13 See note 8, p. 6! 14 Gy. Györffy, op. cit. p. 7. 15 Történelmi hipotézis a magyar nyelv történetében. (Historic hypothesis in the history of Hungarian.) In A magyar nyelv története és rendszere, ed. by S. Imre and I. Szathmári. Budapest, 1967, pp. 195—200. 16 The most recent estimates of Z. Kováts (1 — 1,5 million inhabitants in the Carpathian Basin around 900 AD.) fall outside the reasonable limits I am prepared to consider solid: in Korai magyar történeti lexikon, ed. by Gy. Kristó. Budapest, 1994, pp. 684—685. 17 Gy. Györffy, 1975, op. cit., p. 25. 18 H. Birnbaum: Was there a Slavic landtaking of the Balkans...? In Migrations in Balkan history, Belgrade, 1989, pp. 50-51, and also by him in Int. Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 35-36, 1987, pp. 304-308. 19 PB. Golden op. cit. p. 240. 20 S. Szádeczky—Kardoss in The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, ed. by D. Sinor, 1990, p. 223. 21 For a similar argumentation see the short note of A. Róna-Tas concerning the case of the introduction of Greek characters (a,e,o/, and probably also h and 1) into the runic script of the Székelys: the application of this writing system to the Hungarian language was not possible before the end of the 9th century that is before the Conquest in 895. In Korai magyar történeti lexikon, op.cit. p. 625. 22 See our notes 724—727! 23 For more details see J. Makkay: Horses, nomads and invasions from the steppe from an Indo-European perspective. In Archaeologia delle steppe. Metodi e stratégie di lavoro, Napoli, 1992, a cura di B. Genito, in press. 24 J. Makkay: New aspects of the PIE and PU/PFU homelands: contacts and frontiers between the Baltic and the Ural in the Neolithic. Congressus Septimus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum, Debrecen, 1990, Sessiones Plenares Dissertationes, pp. 55-83. — J. Makkay: Az uráli—finnugor őstörténet néhány kérdése az indoeurpai őstörténet szemszögéből. Századok 125, 1991, pp. 3-32. — J. Makkay: A Neolithic model of Indo-European prehistory. JIES 20, 1992, pp. 220-222. 25 S. Szádeczky-Kardoss in CHEIA (see note 20), pp. 224—225. 26 C. Renfrew: Archaeology & language. London, 1987, pp. 132-133. * I owe a great debt to Dr. David Liversage who enthusiastically corrected the English draft of this overview. 228