Abstract
Gyula László’s theory, published in 1970, was virtually ignored and received with tacit dismissal by the Hungarian archaeological scholarship and international archaeological community was largely unaware of it. This paper aims to provide clarity for the latter research. Not a single element of the theory was accepted or was acceptable even at the time of its birth: distribution of the late Avar and the Conquest-era sites do not complement each other; István Kniezsa's map is highly discussed and is not suitable for proving that the eighth century Avars were Hungarians; Byzantine sources record the immigration of a military group and not of a people, who later moved on; the “Ugri Bjelii” mentioned in the Russian Primary Chronicle cannot be applicable to this immigration; the so-called of “griffin-tendril” population is about 30 years later as the supposed immigration; there was not a migration from the Káma region in the seventh century) connecting the “Uuangariorum marcha” with the “Onogurs” is highly uncertain; there is no trace of any immigration in the anthropological material of the Avar period.
Errare humanum est.
Revisited in this study is a theory proposed some half a century ago.1 Although seemingly no longer of any relevance, not merely because of the many decades that have elapsed since, but rather because Gyula László’s theory was, with a few exceptions, virtually ignored and received with tacit dismissal in Hungarian archaeological scholarship at the time, while the international archaeological community was largely unaware of it owing to the language of the publications. Yet, this national-romantic theory continues to resonate in Hungary, even though its historical, archaeological, linguistic and physical anthropological assertions were neither accepted, nor acceptable at the time. The relevant literature on this theory is predominantly in Hungarian; at the same time, several elements of the theory do have a relevance for the period's broader Central European research. Discussed below will be the research of the Avar period between 1950 and 1980, Gyula László’s long-lasting impact on the archaeology of the early medieval period in Hungary, alongside a look at the sources on which his theory rested.2
The main elements of the theory are as follows:
- –the distribution of late Avar and Conquest-period sites complement each other;
- –the distribution of late Avar sites corresponds to the eleventh–twelfth-century Hungarian settlement territory as reconstructed by István Kniezsa, a scholar of Slavic studies;
- –Byzantine sources record the arrival and settlement of the Onogurs around 670/680;
- –tendril-ornamented belt fittings resembling the ones of the late Avar period are known from the Kama region;
- –the twelfth-century Russian Primary Chronicle speaks of “white Ugrians” who marched under Kiev during the reign of the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641);
- –two dialects can be distinguished in the early Hungarian linguistic relics;
- –the anthropological traits of late Avar and early Árpádian Age skull types resemble each other, but differ from the ones of the Conquest period;
- –a ninth-century charter features an “Onogur” toponym in Lower Austria.
Based on the above, Gyula László concluded that the ancient Hungarians had actually conquered the Carpathian Basin twice: the first Hungarian-speaking population groups arrived to the Carpathian Basin around 670/680, while the second conquest was the arrival of the tribal alliance led by Árpád in 895.
The path to the theory
Gyula László first noted that the settlement territories outlined by the (late) Avar- and Conquest-period cemetery sites complement each other in 1944.3 In 1955, striving to demonstrate the early arrival of the Finno-Ugrian-speaking Magyars to the Carpathian Basin, he added his theory of migration from the Kama region around 670–680,4 which József Deér, the first to react to the idea, designated as a Katastrophentheorie.5 Yet, both the idea of a migration around 670/680 and the focus on the Kama region in relation to this population movement were to some extent grounded in previous Avar scholarship. Gyula László solely cited Géza Nagy, who pursued both archaeological and historical studies at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. However, regarding the story of Kuber and the mid-seventh-century disintegration of Magna Bolgaria, a polity variously located to the Kuban, Don or Dnieper region, Géza Nagy merely noted that “it seems unlikely that there would not have been Magyars among these Bulgars”, to which he later added that “the Magyar element had settled in Hungary already during the Avar period”.6 Nándor Fettich was the first to suggest, in 1935, the possible links between the Avar finds and an archaeological culture in the Kama region, although he only cited a single burial of the Nevolino cemetery, whose grave goods seemed good parallels to the Avar material. At the same time, there was nothing to underpin his belief that a larger Avar population had once moved to the Kama region.7 Gyula László interpreted this as the return of the Avar population,8 since he was well aware that any movement of the Avars was only conceivable on the Eastern European steppe. As a matter of fact, the arrival and settlement of Kuber and his people was first linked to the mid-seventh century Avar finds by Dezső Csallány, specifically to the Szeged-Átokháza burials representing one of the period's key assemblages, in a study devoted to the burial's chronological position9 – which, however, Gyula László never quoted.
Gyula László first presented his ideas in a preprint distributed during the Fourth Slavic Archaeological Seminary in 1963, which he did not personally attend;10 by 1965, he described his idea as a “certainty”,11 and by 1970, he had expanded it into a broad theory.12 The first academic debate took place in 1969, during which historian Péter Váczy, orientalist Károly Czeglédy and archaeologist István Bóna, as keynote speakers, voiced their detailed critique and rejected Gyula László’s ideas with varying degrees of vehemence.13 Gyula László’s response to the criticism was evasive and he insistently maintained that a Hungarian-speaking population had arrived and settled in the Carpathian Basin around 670/680 and that the traditional date of 895 in fact marked a second Hungarian Conquest. In a small booklet published in 1978, he politely responded to the objections that had been raised,14 but did not revise the main elements of his theory either then, or in his later studies, in which he merely changed the rhetoric.
During the 1950s and the 1960s, both Hungarian, and Central and Eastern European archaeological scholarship was largely oblivious of the issues that preoccupied modern research: the problems of reconciling the archaeological and the historical record, the pitfalls of invoking migrations for explaining changes and other phenomena in the archaeological record, and there was a blissful unawareness of the fact that the interpretation of early medieval archaeological assemblages could be – and were – strongly coloured by national sentiments. For long decades, Gyula László remained the authoritative voice in early medieval archaeology he was impervious to both the criticism levelled at him during the academic debate preceding the publication of his book,15 which according to its title covered aspects of Avar society,16 and the critique of his dual conquest theory, which brought him widespread acclaim across the Hungarian-speaking world. The period's other specialists were forced onto the sidelines: stripped of his membership in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences for political reasons in 1949, Nándor Fettich17 struggled to make ends meet for a decade,18 while Dezső Csallány, who had taken his degree at Vienna university, had been similarly dismissed for political reasons, and was in 1962 eventually given a job in the Nyíregyháza museum, whose library lacked even a complete series of Archaeologiai Értesítő,19 while Ilona Kovrig, a curator in the Hungarian National Museum, was kept busy by her museum duties. Although István Bóna's MA thesis focused on the assessment of an Avar cemetery and he subsequently published a series of smaller studies on the Avar period that have lost none of their relevance,20 his main field of interest in the 1960s was the Bronze Age and the early Migration period. István Bóna became an authoritative voice in Avar studies through his seminal assessment of the Iváncsa burial,21 published exactly at the same time as Gyula László’s work on the dual conquest, and his general critical analysis of early medieval archaeology in Hungary. At first, István Bóna restrained his critique of the theory, voicing merely his doubts regarding the Avars' survival and the claim that the Avar- and the Conquest-period settlement territories complemented each other;22 he penned his first, more scathing critique in relation to the entry “Awaren” written by Gyula László published in the Hoops Reallexikon.23 Gyula László’s former students regarded their professor as an untouchable24 and were unwilling to challenge his theory, simply keeping their silence,25 which “in most cases was more of a covert rejection of it all”; for them, “István Bóna's outspoken rebuttal was by far the most formidable”, but they shied away from coming out with their own detailed critique of Gyula László views.26 It is therefore not mere chance that the first critical comments in this general cautious climate came from István Fodor, who had studied in Moscow, and László Madaras, who had graduated in Szeged as Fodor's student.27 Among Gyula László’s students, the first to point out the archaeological flaws of the theory was Kornél Bakay,28 while I reviewed the theory's main elements and its key problems in an archaeology handbook.29 Today's younger generation of archaeologists tends to view it as a “national-romantic theory”30 and they have no qualms about pointing out that Gyula László barely kept abreast of the archaeological literature of the post-war decades.31
His theory did gain some acceptance among historians. Some of these are wholly unacceptable in terms of archaeological chronology: for example, György Györffy argued at length that the eighth-century griffin- and tendril-ornamented find material actually represented the legacy of the tenth-century Magyar commoners; Antal Bartha assigned the same finds to the ninth century.32 Imre Boba, who is known for his singular theories, posited a “political continuity” between the “Onogurs of the 680s” and the population group led by Álmos (!) in 895 from his reading of Hungarian medieval sources and Constantine Porphyrogenitus's De administrando imperio (DAI).33 However, when constructing his theory, he simply chose to neglect the detailed research on the historical reliability of the medieval chronicles of Hungary, ranging from the twelfth-century Anonymous to Simon de Keza and Bonfini as well as the innumerable studies on the relevant chapters of DAI.34 Historian Pál Engel's comments on the dual conquest theory came as a surprise because he had never before shown any particular interest in archaeology or in this period. He began one of his articles with an admission of sorts: “to historians engaged in the study of the late Middle Ages […] the problems of the early history of the Magyars are like a plague that we do our best to avoid”, but, given Gyula László’s authority, he nevertheless set down his ideas.35 In his view, the Magyar tribes had reached the eastern slopes of the Carpathians around 700 and therefore the migration and settlement of a larger Magyar population group was not wholly inconceivable.36 True enough, we know next to nothing about possible migrations on the steppe around 700 – and even more importantly, nobody had previously even suggested that the Magyars had advanced to the Carpathian foreland by that time. Archaeologist Gábor Vékony, who often came up with rather startling views on various archaeological and historical issues, one of these being his take on Gyula László’s theory, suggested that certain western South Slavic loanwords in the Hungarian language could have or had been adopted before the ninth century.37 This claim had never been voiced previously and can be wholly rejected according to specialists of Slavic studies.38
When constructing his theory, Gyula László’s springboard was the classification of the early medieval archaeological finds of the Carpathian Basin elaborated in the late nineteenth century. This classification represented a significant milestone at the time. József Hampel assigned Germanic-type finds to his Group I, finds that are currently dated to the late Avar period to his Group II, early Avar finds to his Group III and Conquest-period finds to his Group IV.39 The dating and ethnic attribution of the latter were widely accepted since the publication of the first Conquest-period burial in 1835.40 In 1907, József Hampel introduced an additional group that was roughly contemporaneous, but in his view represented an ethnically different population: Group A comprised the Magyars of the Conquest period, while Group B the finds of the Slavic population of the Carpathian Basin.41 Taking this research situation as his starting point in 1970, Gyula László’s thought was ultimately coloured by two considerations: the first, the undeniably steppean nature of Group A – and the knowledge that the Finno-Ugrian peoples quite certainly lived farther to the north! – the second, the proportion of the burials of Group A and B.42 Citing the case of the Onogur Bulgars who were assimilated by the Balkanic Slavs, most Hungarian archaeologists tend to subscribe to the mistaken notion that the survival of a language can only be ensured through a numerical superiority,43 a view which I, too, accepted in 1976.44 However, socio-historic linguistic studies have shown that this is not necessarily the case,45 one good example being the still living language of another Onogur Bulgar group that had similarly departed from Magna Bulgaria just like the one led by Asparuch, namely the Chuvash, who have preserved their ancestral language to this very day in an essentially foreign-language environment.
These are the main reasons that Gyula László pursued an entirely different train of thought both historically and geographically for demonstrating the presence of the assumed Hungarian-speaking population. He simply took no notice of the first major finding in the post-war study of the tenth-century archaeology of Hungary, namely that in 1962, Béla Szőke conclusively demonstrated that Group B, previously regarded as Slavic following the lead of József Hampel, actually represented the archaeological heritage of the tenth- and eleventh-century ethnically mixed commoners of the Carpathian Basin.46
Gyula László’s main arguments were as follows:
- I.The spatial distribution of late Avar and Conquest-period sites complement each other
- 1.The research coverage of Avar and Conquest-period sites
The maps published by Gyula László in 1970 were based on various publications of Avar- and Conquest-period sites that were since long outdated by that time. In any case, it is rarely practical to base one's work on a much earlier state of research,47 in this case, on a gazetteer of Avar-period sites assembled 17 years earlier48 and a Conquest-period one that was compiled 11 years before.49 The 1960s brought an upswing in archaeological research: many museums across Hungary now employed archaeologists, as a result of which blank spots gradually disappeared and, additionally, a catalogue of the Conquest-period finds from Slovakia was published shortly before the final elaboration of the dual conquest theory.50 Although Gyula László insisted that “more recent sites did not essentially bring novel findings”,51 István Fodor and László Madaras challenged this claim, as did Kornél Bakay somewhat later (see below). A closer look at the new distribution maps of the late Avar-period and the tenth–eleventh-century sites clearly revealed that the distribution of the sites of the two periods did not complement each other in any way.52
- 2.The chronological relevance of the distribution maps
- a)The sites treated as late Avar-period sites by Gyula László ultimately comprised all the cemeteries used during the late Avar period, whose use-life lasted up to the early ninth century. This was misleading insofar as the purported complementing distribution with the Conquest-period sites would imply that only the cemeteries dating from the terminal phase of the late Avar period (corresponding to the SPA IV period in the current periodisation) should have been considered and not all of the eighth-century burial grounds. Only after the identification of the former can the issue of the possible survival of the Avars into the ninth century be addressed53 – which should have been Gyula László’s starting point. This would have called for a detailed typo-chronological assessment and comprehensive study of the late Avar material, which had not been undertaken at the time and is still a task ahead of us today. István Fodor and István Bóna were correct in pointing out that there was nothing to confirm that a substantial portion of the “griffin-tendril” population had lived to see the arrival of the Magyars (and the same still holds true today). Responding to their critique, Gyula László acknowledged that “they were both right”, adding that “at the same time, the presence of no other population can be demonstrated either, and it seems more plausible that the previous population had continued its life”,54 which is hardly a compelling argument.
- b)As its title clearly indicates, one of the gazetteers used by Gyula László also listed the eleventh- and twelfth-century sites in addition to the tenth-century ones. In other words, when studying a possible complementing distribution, only the sites of the first few decades after the Hungarian Conquest should have been considered, and among those, solely the ones that could demonstrably be linked to the Magyars, while disregarding the sites used by the local population – however, the separation of the two either in terms of relative chronology or in terms of ethnic attribution is virtually impossible even today. Moreover, there were several regional migrations and re-settlements after the Hungarian conquest proper,55 and while we know that the occupation of Transdanubia occurred some ten years after the conquest, after the Battle of Pozsony in 907,56 this cannot be demonstrated archaeologically. Neither can we identify the settlement territory of the Avars possibly surviving into the ninth century,57 and even less so of the assumed “tenth-century Avars” (?!) for demonstrating a possible complementing distribution.
- c)The complementing distribution could be chronological in nature (see above); however, as Géza Fehér pointed out shortly after the debate on Gyula László’s book published in 1955, it could just as well be explained by the different subsistence strategies of the respective population groups,58 in which case a complementing distribution is simply irrelevant.
- d)Some methodological reservations can also be raised: “I have neglected those adjacent areas where the two settlements not only overlap, but the cemetery itself was used jointly by the ‘late Avars’ and ‘Árpád's Magyars'.”59 We know that the incidence of finds from different periods on the same site does not necessarily imply a continuity in occupation,60 which has to be conclusively demonstrated in each case.
In sum, a comparison of the distribution of the sites of the two periods, the eighth century and the tenth–eleventh centuries, is ultimately a pointless exercise.
- II.István Kniezsa's map and the ethnic conditions in eleventh–twelfth-century Hungary
Following a brief overview of previous archaeological and historical research, Gyula László’s springboard was that “virtually no linguistic relics of the Avars have survived” [my italics].61 However, this cannot be regarded as a realistic starting point: true enough, the linguistic affiliation of the Avars is one of the thorniest and currently irresolvable problems of Turkic studies owing to the scanty linguistic record and its nature (solely personal names and dignitary titles are known) and the absolute lack of words of Avar origin. Aside from the assumption that the settlement territories of the two peoples complement each other, Gyula László’s other main argument was based on István Kniezsa's map of the assumed ethnic conditions in eleventh–twelfth-century Hungary based on toponyms that can be derived from the names of the Conquest-period tribes and various other toponyms, personal names and hydronyms of the Árpádian Age.62 The textual evidence was principally drawn from twelfth-century charters, which is certainly permissible for the reconstruction of eleventh-century conditions, but hardly so for earlier periods lacking documents of this type. Gyula László simply transcribed the distribution of the eighth-century “griffin-tendril” sites in the Avar site gazetteer onto this map. Although he was aware of the fact that “few of these sites survived up to the tenth century”, he asserted that “in terms of place-naming, it is practically indifferent whether a cemetery dates from the eighth or the tenth century”,63 a wholly untenable stance in terms of toponymy. To objections that the 200 years between the tenth century and the regular issue of charters poses an unbridgeable gap,64 he retorted that “these place-names are still alive today, after 800 hundred years!”,65 which can hardly be construed as a historical argument. Linguist László Benkő made this clear in relation to ethnonyms, population groups and tribal names: “these do not provide sufficient information for establishing the origins, the language and the ethnic affiliation of their bearers.”66 Regarding the onomastic conclusions drawn by István Kniezsa, Turkologist András Róna-Tas raised serious objections, pointing out that the map only seems to show homogeneous settlement areas at a very low resolution and that in fact there is a much higher degree of mixing in the toponymic record.67 The issues with István Kniezsa's map were also addressed by historians Gyula Kristó, Ferenc Makk and László Szegfű,68 to which Gyula László responded somewhat evasively: “a most interesting attitude seems to be emerging in the departments of historic and Altaic studies of Szeged University. […] Their objections are certainly worthy of consideration.”69 The linguistic objections to the map were clearly worded: the eleventh-century date of the toponyms that can be derived from the names of the Conquest-period tribes cannot be conclusively proven70 and their use as evidence in resolving problems of ethnicity is controversial.71 Personal names72 and hydronyms73 are in themselves unsuitable for determining the ethnic composition of the Carpathian Basin, while the early eleventh-century written sources can only be used for reconstructing demographic condition with certain limitations74 and virtually nothing is known about the language of the Slavs who had been assimilated by the Magyars.75 Although these studies were published later, Gyula László was probably familiar with their main points because he had amicable personal relations with all Hungarian linguists and Turkologists, whom he regularly met in the university building. The bottom line of the critique levelled at his map can be summed up as follows: “István Kniezsa's […] methodology and the conclusions he drew thereof are largely untenable according to our current knowledge.”76
In sum, István Kniezsa's map of eleventh–twelfth-century Hungary is wholly unsuitable for a comparison with the micro-regions of the eighth-century “griffin-tendril” sites and for proving that the latter had been settled by a Hungarian-speaking population.
- III.Settlement around 670/680
Gyula László’s starting point was as follows: “József Hampel and András Alföldi were quite explicit when speaking of two different peoples, leading me to draw the obvious conclusion from the late appearance of this group: we must reckon with the settlement of a new people in the second half of the Avar period.”77 (It must here be noted that neither József Hampel, nor András Alföldi spoke of “two different peoples”: they simply identified different types of find assemblages.) Gyula László linked the arrival and settlement of this population to the story of Kuber as narrated in two Byzantine sources and since the designation of the Magyars in other languages (hungarus, venger, etc.) can be derived from the ethnonym of the Onogurs,78 Kuber's migration became the second pillar of Gyula László’s argumentation, even though he knew full well that not all “Onogurs” could be regarded as Magyars.79
The migration in the written sources
“The fourth and fifth went over the river Istros, that is the Danube, the former became subject of the Chagan of the Avars in Avar Pannonia” (AM 6171)80
“the fourth went over the river Istros and settled in Pannonia, which is now under the Avars, becoming an ally of the local nation.” (Brev. 35)81
The narratives82 clearly follow well-established topoi and are chronologically somewhat confusing:83 Alciocus (Alti-oq, “Six Arrows”), one of Kuvrat's sons, appears in the Avar Khaganate at the time of the Bulgar revolt in 631, well before the generally accepted date of ca. 650 for the separation,84 while Kuber's settlement is generally dated later, to between 668–669, 664–670 or 674–678.85 The sources leave no doubt as to the important role of Kuber in seventh-century Avar history:
- a)Instead of the more general λαός (“people”), which included also women, children and the elderly, Theophanes Confessor expressly uses the word δύναμις in relation to Kuber. The latter is invariably rendered as “army” in the English, “Heeresmacht” in the German and “had” in the Hungarian translation.86
- b)Two other sources, both from the early eighth century and independent of Theophanes and Nicephorus, agree that Kuber moved to the Balkans from the Avar Khaganate:
After the victory, Kouver, together with all his people, crossed the river Danube, came to our regions and occupied the Keramesion plain (Miracles of Saint Demetrius, Book V).87
“My uncles at Thessaloniki did not trust the emperor with the cut-off nose” (Inscriptio Protobulgarica 1c)88
There can be no doubt that Kuber had been accompanied by his warriors to the Carpathian Basin, where according to both the sources and modern scholarship, he lived for about a decade and then made his way to the Balkans.89 Similar armed forces appeared regularly on the Asian steppe: these are designated as retinues, druzhina or comitatus made up of men who had severed all ties with their tribe or were foreign mercenaries in historical studies.90
Although the cited passage of the Miracula was known to Gyula László, he maintained that “the fact that a few years later he [Kuber] was already living in Thessaloniki does by no means imply that he had moved there with his people.”91 György Szabados argued that Kuber had not departed with the same people he had arrived with,92 even though there is nothing to substantiate this claim, not even indirect evidence.93 As far as the origins of Kuber and his armed retinue are concerned, there can be no doubt as to their Onogur background or that they had come from Magna Bolgaria, located on the northern littoral of the Black Sea (perhaps in the Sea of Azov region, the Kuban region or the Middle Dnieper region94). The archaeological legacy of Asparuch, another of Kuvrat's sons, and his people who settled in Bulgaria can provide useful insights when searching for traces of Kuber in the archaeological record.95 (At the time, Gyula László could only know of a single cemetery whose finds were linked to the immigrant Proto-Bolgar population.96).
The possibility that groups from the Kama region had perhaps joined Kuber and his retinue was never seriously considered in Hungarian scholarship (see below).
Teréz Olajos's expectations turned out to be far too optimistic:97 the discovery of new Avar runic inscriptions will hardly contribute to resolving the controversies of the dual conquest theory. Attempts at deciphering the few short Avar runic inscriptions are fraught with controversy98 and the discovery of a text that would provide an answer to historical questions cannot be expected: none of the longer Eastern European runic texts narrate historical events.99
- 2.The immigration and the internal chronology of the find material
Relative chronology played an important role in research on the Avar period, which began in 1874.100 The find material was divided into two main groups by András Alföldi and Paul Reinecke,101 which was by and large accepted by Gyula László:102 in his 1955 book he wrote about the people of the early pressed sheet metal belt sets and the late griffin-tendril belt sets.103 It must here be emphasised that well before his formulation of the dual conquest theory in the 1970s, the appearance of assemblages with griffin- and tendril ornamented belt sets was dated to the late seventh or early eighth century in Avar studies,104 to a period after Kuber's arrival and settlement. Ilona Kovrig's chronological framework was well known even before the publication of her monographs in 1955 and 1963.105 As a matter of fact, Dezső Csallány had already pointed out during the debate over Gyula László’s study, which can be regarded as the first draft of his theory, that the griffin- and tendril-ornamented belt sets could hardly have been brought by the immigrant population arriving around 670 because they simply did not exist at the time.106 To which Gyula László’s answer was that “Csallány's ideas regarding the emergence of the griffin-tendril belt sets as the result of an internal development is unacceptable because this would leave the high number of griffin-tendril-type belt fittings of the Volga-Kama region without an explanation.”107 However, there are no griffin-ornamented fittings in that region, only pieces adorned with tendril designs!108 Given the further variations on the dual conquest theory, István Bóna felt the need to clearly set down: his middle Avar group, linked to the population arriving around 670/680,109 cannot be equated with the griffin-tendril population of the late Avar period,110 which post-dated Kuber's settlement by a decade.111 Had Gyula László heeded the critique levelled at him at an early date, he might not have formulated his theory at all.
- 3.The immigration and historical demography
Although none of the countless physical anthropological studies covering the period include a comparison of the populations of the early, middle and late Avar period, one point that nevertheless emerges clearly is that there are no substantial differences between the early and the late Avar period.112 Harbouring national romantic sentiments, most physical anthropologists followed Lajos Bartucz's lead and had a predilection for Mongolids,113 who were tacitly regarded as the “real” Avars (with some modern projects involving archaeogenetic sampling too reflecting this bias). In contrast to the 16% noted by Pál Lipták, Tibor Tóth found 7.7% among the samples from 23 sites.114 Among the period's specialist, László Szathmáry expressed his surprise over the “relatively low number of immigrants”.115 In a personal conversation in the early 1970s, Antónia Marcsik plainly stated that there is nothing in the physical anthropological record to support an immigration (see also below).
- IV.Migration from the Kama region?
It must be borne in mind that when Gyula László first came out with his theory, he was only aware of the tendril-ornamented belt fittings of the Kama region, but did not consider the similar ornaments from the Caucasus and the Crimea known at the time.116 (Since then, metalwork adorned with the distinctive round-lobed scrolls [Kreislappenranken] has been published from several sites,117 belying the notion that this motif was typically “Avar”.) His answer to the question of “Whence did they come and who were they?”118 was that the commingling of the “griffin” and the “tendril” people occurred along the Kama, whence they migrated to the Carpathian Basin119 – however, he sidestepped the issue of the possible background to this population blend as well as its exact date. (Later, he suggested that this commingling took place “along the Volga”,120 again bypassing the question of location, whether it lay closer to the Kama or the Kuban region). This idea can be traced to a laconic remark made by Arnold Marosi and Nándor Fettich on one of the burials of the Nevolino cemetery: “Cette description correspond à celle de nos tombes avares de Hongrie.”121 Their claim, “Sans aucune doute, ce sont les traces dˈune grande colonie avare quˈon a retrouvés au pays de Kama”,122 was adopted by Gyula László, according to whom the Avars had probably passed through the Kama region.123 As Arnold Marosi and Nándor Fettich noted, “La chronologie des antiquités du pays de Kama correspond à ce que nous avons écrit sur la crise [what crisis? Cs. B.] du règne des Avares vers 680.”124 It must be noted that they believed that the metalwork known from Hungary and the Kama region drew its inspiration from the same source – however, Falko Daim has convincingly demonstrated that scrolling tendrils were a widespread decorative motif in the eighth century.125 There is no direct connection between the tendril decoration of the Kama region and the ornamentation of Avar metalwork.
The possibility that a population group had migrated to the Kama region in the sixth century and that one of its group had thence moved south-westward has never even been suggested in studies on the Eastern European steppe.126 The written sources on the steppe are quite clear on this point: the Avar embassy travelled to Constantinople through the northern Caucasus; the Avars resided on the eastern European steppe between 558 and 568; they negotiated with the Langobard envoys in the Lower Danube region;127 they could hardly have been joined by Finno-Ugrian-speaking groups because the latter resided much farther to the north.
On the testimony of the archaeological record, there was a continuity in the cultures of the Kama-Ural region up to the period when Finno-Ugrian speaking peoples can be conclusively identified,128 it was quite obvious to Gyula László that the Magyars who spoke a Finno-Ugrian tongue had to be sought in that region and not on the steppe, a point on which there is a general consensus in modern scholarship.129 Gyula László asserted that the tendril-ornamented belt fittings of the Kama region would suggest that “following the great catastrophe of the 670s” – what catastrophe, we may well ask – compelled large population groups to leave the region, who then migrated directly to the Carpathian Basin.130 (This idea perhaps led Pál Engel to surmise that the Magyars had skirted the eastern side of the Carpathians around 700.131) Gyula László believed that the Nevolino culture of the Kama region, whose main decorative motif was the tendril scroll, disappeared at roughly the same time from region along the Volga as the “griffin-tendril” people arrived in the Carpathian Basin;132 this assertion was made despite the fact that the monograph of the Nevolino cemetery had been published in Budapest at the time he was elaborating his theory,133 a volume that would have contributed much to a more lucid view. We know that the Nevolino culture appeared sometime in the late fourth or early fifth century, that it developed on a local substrate, and that its decline can be dated to the earlier ninth century,134 not to the time when griffin- and tendril-decorated belt sets began to be widely used in the Carpathian Basin. Gyula László’s other contention was that the “griffin-tendril culture evolved somewhere near the Nevolino population” [my italics]135 – however, there is nothing to substantiate this assertion. Irrespective of any theoretical objections that could be raised,136 his belief that the tendril was the main symbol of the Nevolino culture cannot be confirmed. It must also be borne in mind that some large strap-ends of the Avar period often have a griffin on the obverse and scrollwork on the reverse, meaning that an ethnic distinction between the two is pointless.
This element of the dual conquest theory is solely based on the occurrence of tendril-decorated cast bronze belt fittings in the broader Kama region. However, the number of such belt fittings is not particularly high and they rarely form a complete belt set because fittings decorated in a different style used in conjunction with small strap-ends in a different arrangement were far more popular. Antal Bartha and István Erdélyi had demonstrated already in 1961 that “there is not one single belt fitting that can be cited as a good parallel to the Avar-period griffin-decorated mounts, while the tendril-ornamented mounts differ even more strongly if one may say so.”137
The early medieval period of the Kama-Ural region has an exceptionally intense archaeological coverage: the journal Voprosy Archeologii Urala, published since 1961 and also available in Hungary, focuses on the region's early medieval cultures and their many aspects. The belt fittings in question are known from the distribution of three archaeological cultures: the Lomatovo culture in the Upper Kama region, the Nevolino culture in the Sylva basin and the Polom culture along the Cheptsa.138 Aside from the tendril-decorated belt fittings, the material record of the Kama region has little in common with the Avar material. It was already known at the time the dual conquest theory was formulated that these cultures in part had local roots and in part roots beyond the Urals,139 there were no discernible traces of any “great catastrophe”, they did not disappear around 670/680, and neither are there any indications that their population migrated elsewhere.140 Responding to this critique, Gyula László noted that according to István Fodor and István Bóna “there is no evidence that the ‘late Avars’ arrived to the Carpathian Basin from the Kama region or some other Finno-Ugrian territory and we may therefore harbour strong doubts that they had spoken Hungarian.”141 Moreover, István Fodor underlined that the ethnogenesis of the “Avars of the 670s” did not occur in the region where the Finno-Ugrian peoples lived142 – and Gyula László did concede that this point was the perhaps “most serious argument”, “a wholly warranted doubt”, adding that “all suppositions are uncertain”.143 In his response to this critique, Gyula László cited Károly Mesterházy, who in his interpretation144 contended that the Turkic nobles and the middle layer of the Conquest-period Magyars came from the Kama region. However, Mesterházy was referring to the Volga and Onogur Bulgar groups who had joined the Magyar tribes and not to any “griffin-tendril” groups migrating thence in the seventh century.145 In the 1970s, the Tankeyevka and Bolshie Tigany burial grounds, both lying much farther away, stirred quite a sensation among scholars studying the early history of the Magyars, but these sites had little relevance for Avar studies since they lay far from the distribution of the Nevolino culture, they post-dated the seventh century by some two hundred years and they represented an entirely different archaeological culture.
Gyula László’s association of the belt fittings of the Kama region with the late Avar period is a textbook example of equating artefacts with peoples, a typical approach in Hungarian and Eastern European archaeology during the mid- and later twentieth century. The same approach is reflected in the assertion that “the belts with pseudo-buckle fittings appearing among the early Avar belt sets can also be found in the Kama region.”146 In this particular instance, Gyula László accepted Dezső Simonyi's far-fetched reasoning that “the fifth-century Bulgars had perhaps been joined by Magyar population groups”.147 However, the pseudo-buckles of the Kama region were in use more than fifty years after the Avars passing through the region could have been joined by any Magyar groups from there, at least according to Gyula László’s hypothesis. The pseudo-buckles of the early Avar period date from the earlier seventh century,148 meaning that they are in part contemporaneous with the pieces in the Kama region; in any case, comparable belt fittings are also known from Eastern Europe and western Siberia, and therefore they can hardly be invoked as signalling ethnic affiliation.149
Regarding the origins of the “griffin” population, Gyula László merely noted that the Ozora, Igar and Dunapentele assemblages,150 which he associated with his assumed immigrant population, represented the legacy of the elite of a population that had arrived from the Caucasus [specifically from its northern part – Cs. B.].151 However, since these assemblages are known to predate the late Avar material by several decades, a Caucasian origin has never been posited for them, and neither has the migration of a population from the Caucasus to the Carpathian Basin ever been suggested. Gyula László later argued that the “griffin” people were of Inner Asian stock among the Avars, remarking that “the cultural affiliations of these belt fitting can be traced as far as Korea”,152 which seems rather irrelevant given the long ancestry of the griffin in Western Asia.153 Finally, a rather trivial point: none of the belt fittings from Ozora, Igar and Dunapentele bear a griffin depiction.
In sum, there is nothing to support the supposition that Kuber's warriors arriving to the Carpathian Basin around 670/680 had included groups of Finno-Ugrian speaking Magyars, or that “the mass […] of Prince Kuber's people […] had been Magyars” [my italics]. There is no evidence that the warriors had been Onogurs and the mass of commoners had been Magyars, and therefore “the homeland of the ‘griffin-tendril’ population is largely irrelevant because” – and here comes a baffling claim by Gyula László – “it was exactly this group that was absorbed by the commoners.”154 Neither is there the slightest proof that “the Avars arriving in 568 and newer population groups in the sixth century had brought with them Magyar groups”155 – who and where were the Magyars in the sixth century?
- V.“Black and white Magyars”
Scholarship on the early history of the Magyars and the Hungarian Conquest period has quite understandably lavished much attention on the “white Ugrians” (ugri bjelii) and the “black Ugrians” (ugri černii) mentioned in the Russian Primary Chronicle (Povest' Vremennych Let) compiled in the 1110s. The chronicle draws a clear chronological distinction between them (Heraclius's reign on the one hand, and the time of the Pechenegs on the other). Nevertheless, the passages mentioning these Ugrians were accorded a prominent role in the dual conquest theory. On the one hand, ugri were invariably interpreted as designating the Magyars, on the other, the reference to the Avars of Heraclius's age more or less coincided with the date of Kuber's migration. However, the chronicle's Laurentian text translates belye ugry as Khazars and čërnye ugry as Magyars.156 Gyula László had consulted neither the Russian, nor the English translation, nor Antal Hodinka's translation (which has “white” and “black” Ugrians157), but instead used István Kniezsa's translation, which has “white” and “black” Magyars.158 (Later, Slavist Péter Király similarly cited this translation, likewise neglecting the available Russian and American critical editions.159) As far as István Kniezsa's translation is concerned, the Russian translation, Josef Marquart and Gyula Moravcsik's studies (which would have been available to him),160 as well as János Harmatta's personal words of caution161 should have been important caveats to Gyula László before finalising his theory. The identification of ugrii with the Magyars is not as straightforward as it might seem from a Turkological point of view because ugrii is the singular of the ugur tribe of the On ugur/ogur tribal alliance,162 meaning that it has nothing to do with Ugrians! More recent Hungarian scholarship unanimously agrees on this point.163
The Kievan chronicler in part drew from Georgius Monachus's tenth–eleventh-century Slavic translation164 and in part from Nicephorus's Breviary, the latter being the source of the distinction drawn between the two ugrii and of the affair between the Avars and Heraclius.165 There was never any doubt about the exact identity of the “black Ugrians” mentioned in the Kievan chronicle; one intriguing possibility suggested more recently is that this piece of information had perhaps been imparted by Bruno of Querfurt, who had visited the Grand Duke Vladimir in Kiev in 1008.166
Other important sources on the period which saw the emergence of the medieval Hungarian state are the early eleventh-century Chronicle of Adémar of Chabannes, a Benedictine monk living in central France, and the Five Martyred Brothers written by Bruno of Querfurt, who had been active in Magdeburg and Rome, and had a good personal knowledge of Eastern Europe. The problems surrounding White and Black Hungary, Alba Ungria and Ungria Nigra,167 mentioned in Adémar's chronicle remains a debated issue in Hungarian scholarship. Several inaccuracies in his work have already been pointed out and it has been repeatedly noted that, unlike Bruno of Querfurt, Adémar had never actually visited Hungary.168 According to recent monographs on his life and work, the tone of the passage in question recalls Tacitus and it seems likely that Adémar drew his descriptions of Central and Eastern Europe from a Carolingian geographical treatise.169 The passage in which he compares the skin colour of the inhabitants of Ungria Nigra to that of the Ethiopians (populus est colore fusco velut Etiopes, “its inhabitants are of the same dark colour as the Ethiopians), has been often discussed. It is more than telling that Bruno of Querfurt, who had visited Hungary twice and had been engaged in missionary activity for five years, only knew about the Nigri Ungri from hearsay (audivi)170 and makes no mention of what would have been a rather striking physical trait.171 Adémar could only have learnt about the “black Hungarians”172 from Bruno of Querfurt's work.173 Similarly, there has been much speculation on the exact location of “Black Hungary” in Hungarian scholarship.174
Most scholars tend to link these two sources, despite the geographic and cultural differences between them, and they invariably cite the black/white symbolism of the steppe peoples in their discussions.175 However, it seems a futile exercise to link the latter to the problems of Christian missionary activity; in this case, “black” simply denotes “pagan”.176 In any case, the “white” ugrii of the Primary Chronicle can hardly be identified with the Magyars and thus whoever the “black” and “white” Magyars were at the turn of the millennium is basically irrelevant for the dual conquest theory.
- VI.Possible dialects?
Gyula László posited that “at least two, strikingly different dialects can be distinguished in the early Hungarian linguistic relics”, which in his view again supported his dual conquest theory.177 However, Hungarian linguistic studies have not detected a duality of this type in the earliest Hungarian language relic: there is no indication either of two languages178 or of two dialects179 in the foundation charter of Tihany Abbey from 1055, a fact that had been established at the time Gyula László proposed his theory,180 in which he claimed that “what we have are two kindred peoples, two languages, of which one was assimilated by the other”.181 (What kinship, we may well ask: linguistic, anthropological or cultural?) Dialect and language are not identical, and neither can one or the other be equated with a particular “people”. In his review of one of Gyula László’s other books, Finno-Ugrian linguist László Honti noted that his linguistic assertions are unacceptable in linguistic scholarship.182
- VII.Physical anthropology183
Pál Lipták, the doyen of physical anthropology in Hungary in the 1960s and 1970s, was only familiar with Hampel's Groups A and B as far as Conquest period archaeology was concerned. He subscribed to the general research direction still followed today in the countries of the former Soviet Union, which focuses on anthropological types and taxons184 that are then directly interpreted in terms of ethnic history by several archaeologists. Gyula László adopted Pál Lipták's assertions based on the physical anthropological record available at the time,185 as well as his arguments, which reflected an alarming unfamiliarity with steppe history. Gyula László compared the “Turanid” (i.e. Europo-Mongolid) and the “Pamirid” (corresponding to sredneaziatskij, “Central Asian”, in the Russian literature) with the personal names regarded as dating from the Conquest period (assigned to western Old Turkic in Turkic studies186). He was aware of the glaring contradiction between the Finno-Ugrian language and the Turkic anthropological type, but nevertheless drew – methodologically fully unacceptable – a spate of historical conclusions.187 This was the lens through which he looked at Pál Lipták studies and the physical anthropological record of the Avar and the Conquest period, and claimed to have identified the mass of a Hungarian-speaking population. Pál Lipták identified the late Avar and Árpádian Age population as being predominantly Europids, while he assigned the majority of the Conquest-period skulls to the Europo-Mongolid and Pamirid types,188 and assumed the mass survival of the Avars.189 In this respect, he followed Gyula László’s lead, who only considered Hampel's Group A – the elite and middle layer of the tenth century – as representing the legacy of the Conquest period and had little interest in the period's commoners (Hampel's Group B). He believed that the lack of the Cromagnoid A type among the latter and its presence in the Avar- and Conquest-period material confirmed this. (Later, doubtless influenced by the dual conquest theory, Pál Lipták spoke of “Ugrian Magyars” and “Turkic Magyars”.190) It must be borne in mind that the mass presence of the Europid anthropological type in the Carpathian Basin hardly comes as a surprise since the Bronze Age and Pál Lipták knew full well that the Europid type comprised several sub-types, with the Cromagnoid A type representing the Proto-European population.191 The immensely simplistic “correlation” between the Europid-type Avar and the Árpádian Age physical anthropological record is historically irrelevant.
When István Fodor challenged the equation of the late Avars with the Magyars citing Kinga Éry's research findings,192 Gyula László responded by noting that Lajos Bartucz had identified a significant Avar-period component in the medieval and post-medieval Hungarian population,193 adding that “denying the continuity of ‘large masses of the late Avar population’ would be tantamount to denying biological laws”.194 In contrast to this curious line of reasoning, the craniological traits of the first-to sixth-century population of the Hungarian Plain can be discerned more often in the tenth century than those of the seventh-to ninth centuries,195 the general physical anthropology of the late Avar period differs from that of the tenth century in Transdanubia,196 and we also know that the Magyars of the Conquest period found a predominantly Europid-type population in the Carpathian Basin upon their arrival.197 One compelling piece of evidence is that a genuine similarity between the Avar- and Conquest-period skeletal material could only be demonstrated in 4.5% of the theoretically potential cases.198 As in those years and decades, so today, Hungarian physical anthropological studies focus on the assessment of the human remains from particular cemeteries and regions, as well as on the comparison of the anthropological remains and clusters from various periods.199 They still heed Lajos Bartucz's recommendation from 1957: “caution should be exercised in the immediate assignation to anthropological types and in drawing ethnogenetic conclusions thereof”.200 Modern physical anthropology is not concerned with taxonomic determination or with linking these to peoples or archaeological cultures201 because biological traits are not ethnospecific and are therefore unsuitable for drawing direct historical conclusions.
A breakthrough in biological studies can be expected from the currently ongoing archaeogenetic analyses on large series of samples collected from the key cemeteries of the Carpathian Basin.202 The assessment of genetic profiles can shed light on the kinship relations in various cemeteries and the dynamics of a particular cemetery's use-life.
- VIII.Uuangariorum marcha
Samu Szádeczky-Kardoss and his wife Teréz Olajos, both renowned specialists of Byzantine studies, had supported the dual conquest theory from the very beginning, although somewhat cautiously. Taking his cue from Gyula László’s book published in 1955, Samu Szádeczky-Kardoss wrote a rather inaccurate assessment of the late Avar archaeological record and the Vrap Treasure (which he believed could be associated with Kuber).203 A few months after the debate over the dual conquest theory in the Kossuth Club, he held a lecture together with Pál Lipták at Szeged University, in which he essentially voiced his endorsement of the theory.204 Soon afterwards, Teréz Olajos published a paper in which she argued that the phrase Uungariorum marcha (“the boundary of the Wangars”) in one of the charters of Louis the German (r. 843–876) was a Slavic form of the ethnonym of the Onogurs; she associated it with hungarus, i.e. the Magyars.205 Slightly later, Samu Szádeczky-Kardoss presented her supposition as “an argument supporting the late Avar migration assumed by Gyula László” [my italics]”.206 Gábor Vékony and Péter Király both commented on this toponym, the former suggesting that it was the name of an Avar ethnic group207 (although there is no evidence for ethnic groups of this type), the latter set this toponym and several other similar-sounding ones known from the broader area in a similar context, although with certain reservations, suggesting that similar toponyms and personal names perhaps preserved the memory of Avar monks who had converted to Christianity, while conceding that further studies would be needed to clarify this issue.208 Irrespective of the above interpretations, it stands to reason that there could well have been Onogurs other than the ones in Kuber's retinue in the Avar Khaganate (and we specifically know about the presence of Bulgars).209 Additionally, there is evidence that steppean ethnonyms were often “inherited” by one people from another, as there is for the indiscriminate use of some of these ethnonyms in the written sources, as well as for their inconsistent use for denoting ethnic groups and constantly shifting nature.
The charter in question is dated May 9, 860, and records that the king donated twenty plots of land to the Mattsee monastery in Zobern and in the area between Spratzbach and Zobernbach. The passage in question reads as follows: [u]sque in summitatem ill[ius] montis qui dicitur Uuangariorum m[archa].210 Hungarian research has not really kept abreast of the historical research on the Carolingian period, which established that the mons in question is a solitary mountain in whose broader area there were twenty mansiones in the interior of the duchy of Odalrich, making it unlikely that it had been a marchland (Mark);211 the toponym in question can be derived from Bavarian wang meaning Wiesenhang (“meadow slope”),212 and thus it has no relevance for the possible survival of the Avars.
Epilogue
In the foregoing, I surveyed the main points of Gyula László’s dual conquest theory and their reception. Not one single element is tenable. Owing to the fateful turn of history, it became impossible to publish a translation of one of Gyula László’s main works on the Magyars of the Conquest period written in 1944, even though its overall approach and perspective would doubtless have been a guiding light in the archaeological assessment of the tenth-century Magyars in Central and Eastern European scholarship. His analyses213 and reconstructions of various artefacts,214 his meticulous examination of the period's gold and silver metalwork,215 and his ethnographic approach to the past216 are still relevant and must-read studies today. His perspective and thought were immensely influenced by the personal contacts during his early years with the best minds of the period's Hungarian ethnographic research.217 Around 1940, he had ties to the covertly anti-German intellectuals,218 which he continued to maintain even as late as the 1970s. As he was fond of saying, he aspired to be “the poor man's archaeologist”, one of the reasons that he sought to identify the Magyar-speaking commoners, whom he believed to have found in the Avar period.
A critical assessment of the current evidence available to scholarship on the origins and early history of the Magyars is indeed an immense task:
- –on the testimony of the linguistic record, the early Magyars separated from the Finno-Ugrian language family in the ninth–eighth century BC and from their closest linguistic cognates in the fifth century BC;
- –in the Bronze Age, they lived in a steppean cultural milieu;
- –they are designated as tourkoi in the ninth-to twelfth-century Byzantine sources and on seals;
- –around the time of the Conquest, the Hungarian language was enriched with a high number of culturally significant Chuvash-type Turkic loanwords;
- –solely Turkic-type male personal names have survived of the elite of the ninth-to tenth centuries;
- –the ninth- and tenth-century dignitary names are of Turkic origin;
- –the earliest tunes and dances are rooted in Finno-Ugrian and steppean traditions;
- –the current physical anthropological and genetic record of the ninth-to eleventh centuries indicates the dominance of the Europid type, although this might also be a reflection of sampling bias.
A fresh look at the above points will doubtless contribute to a better understanding of the social, linguistic and cultural conditions of Hungarian society during the Conquest period.
References
Ademarus (1841). Ademari historiarum Libri III. In: Pertz, H.G. (Ed.), Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores (in Folio), 4: annales, chronica et historiae aevi Carolini et Saxonici. Impensis Bibliopolii Aulici Hahniani, Hannoveriae, pp. 106–148.
Alföldi, A. (1924). Der Untergang der Römerherrschaft in Pannonien. Ungarische Bibliothek, 10. W. de Gruyter, Leipzig and Berlin.
Alföldi, A. (1926). Der Untergang der Römerherrschaft in Pannonien. Ungarische Bibliothek, 12. W. de Gruyter, Leipzig and Berlin.
Atanasov, G.G. (2017). Novyj vladetel’skij centr kagana na Srednem Dnepre (The new ruler’s center of Kagan Kubrat in the region of the Middle Dnieper). In: Kradin, N.N. and Sitdikov, A.G. (Eds.), Meždu vostokom i zapadom: dviženie kul’tur, tehnologii i imperij. III. Meždunarodnyj kongress srednevekovoj archeologii evrazijskich stepej. Dalnauka, Vladivostok, pp. 20–27.
Bakay, K. (1978). Honfoglalás- és államalapításkori temetők az Ipoly mentén (Gräberfelder an der Eipel aus der Zeit der ungarischen Landnahme und Staatsgrundung). Studia Comitatensia, 6. Pest megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága, Szentendre.
Bakay, K. (2004). Őstörténetünk régészeti forrásai, II [Archaeological sources of the ancient history of the Hungarians, 2]. László Gyula Történelmi és Kulturális Egyesület, Budapest.
Bakró-Nagy, M. (2012). The Uralic languages. Revue Belge de Philologie et dˈHistoire, 90(3): 1001–1027.
Bajčorov, S.J. (1985). Drevnetjurkskie runičeskie pamjatniki Evropy [Old Turkic runic inscriptions in Europe]. Izdatelstvo Stavropol’, Stavropol’.
Bálint, Cs. (1975). Délmagyarország a X. században (Südungarn in 10. Jahrhundert). Dissertation. Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest.
Bálint, Cs. (1976). A magyar őstörténet régészetének keleti kapcsolatai és előzményei [Eastern connections and antecedents of the archaeology of the Hungarian ancient history]. In: Hajdú, P., Kristó, Gy., and Róna-Tas, A. (Eds.), Bevezetés a magyar őstörténet kutatásának forrásaiba, I.1. Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest, pp. 87–91.
Bálint, Cs. (1989). Die Archäologie der Steppe. Steppenvölker zwischen Volga und Donau vom 6. bis zum 10. Jahrhundert. Böhlau, Wien and Köln.
Bálint, Cs. (1991). Südungarn im 10. Jahrhundert. Studia archaeologica, 10. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Bálint, Cs. (2008a). Der Beginn der Mittelawarenzeit und die Einwanderung Kubers. Antaeus, 29–30: 29–61.
Bálint, Cs. (2008b). Antwortschreiben an Péter Somogyi. Antaeus ,29–30: 395–401.
Balogh, L. (2005). Megjegyzések a PVL fehér és fekete magyarjaihoz (Some notes on the White Ugrians and Black Ugrians in the PVL). Acta Historica Szegediensis, 121: 31–45.
Balogh, L. (2015). A magyarság a kelet-európai népek sorában [Hungarians among Eastern European peoples]. In: Balogh, L. and Kovács, Sz. (Eds.), Régmúlt idők elbeszélése: a Kijevi Rusz első krónikája. Balassi Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 279–302.
Balogh, L. and Kovács, Sz. (Eds.), (2015). Régmúlt idők elbeszélése. A Kijevi Rusz első krónikája. Transl. I. Ferincz. Balassi Kiadó, Budapest.
Barabás, K., Guba, Zs., Szathmáry, L., and Lőrinczy, G. (1996). Avar kori népesség – honfoglalás kori népesség [Avar Period population – Conquest Period population]. In: Pálfi, Gy., Farkas, L.Gy., and Molnár, E. (Eds.), Honfoglaló magyarság – Árpád-kori magyarság. József Attila Tudományegyetem Embertani Tanszék, Szeged, pp. 79–85.
Bárczi, G. (1947). Régi magyar nyelvjárások [Old Hungarian dialects]. Néptudományi Intézet, Budapest.
Bartha, A. (1979). A honfoglalás [Hungarian Conquest]. Táncsics Könyvkiadó, Budapest.
Bartha, A. and Erdélyi, I. (1961). Népvándorláskori régészetünk módszertani és elméleti kérdéséhez [Methodological and theoretical question of Migration Period archaeology of the Hungarians]. Archaeologiai Értesítő, 88: 68–76.
Bartucz, L. (1946–1947): A magyarországi avarok termete [The stature of the Avars in Hungary]. Az Alföldi Tudományos Intézet Évkönyve, 2: 1–12.
Bartucz, L. (1958). A szentes-kajáni avarkori temető tipológiájához (Beiträge zur Typologie der Begräbnisstätte von Szentes-Kaján aus der Awarenzeit). Anthropológiai Közlemények, 1: 27–41.
Benkő, L. (1957). Magyar nyelvjárástörténet [The history of Hungarian dialects]. Egyetemi magyar nyelvészeti füzetek. Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest.
Benkő, L. (2002). A székely néprésznév ómagyar történetéhez (On the history of the ethnonym Székely in the Old Hungarian period). Magyar Nyelv, 98: 257–265.
Benkő, L. (2003). Beszélnek a múlt nevei. Tanulmányok az Árpád-kori tulajdonnevekről [Names are talking about the past. Studies on proper names from the Árpád Era]. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Beševliev, V. (1963). Die protobulgarischen Inschriften. Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten, 23. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Berlin.
Beševliev, V. (1970). Randbemerkungen über die „Miracula Sancti Demetrii“. Byzantina, 2: 287–300.
Beševliev, V. (1981). Die protobulgarische Periode der bulgarischen Geschichte. Verlag Adolf M. Hakkert, Amsterdam.
Bialeková, D. (1968). Zur Frage der Genesis der gelben Keramik aus der Zeit des zweiten Awarischen Kaganats im Karpatenbecken. Študijné Zvesti Archeologického Ústavu SAV, 16: 21–33.
Biran, M. (2015). Introduction: Nomadic culture. In: Amitai, R. and Biran, M. (Eds.), Nomads as agents of cultural change. The Mongols and their Eurasian predecessors. University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu, pp. 1–9.
Boba, I. (1984). A twofold conquest of Hungary or „Secundus ingressus”. Ungarn-Jahrbuch, 12(1982–1983): 23–41.
Bóna, I. (1957). Az ürbőpusztai avar temető (Le cimetière avar de Ürbőpuszta). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 84: 155–174.
Bóna, I. (1963). Beiträge zu den ethnischen Verhältnissen des 6.–7. Jahrhunderts is Westungarn. Alba Regia. Az István Király Múzeum Évkönyve, 2–3(1961–1962): 49–69.
Bóna, I. (1965). Opponensi vélemény Dr. Cs. Sós Ágnes: A Dunántúl IX. századi szláv népessége c. kandidátusi diszszertációjáról (Gutachten über die Kandidatursarbeit von Dr. Ágnes Sós: Die slawische Bevölkerung Transdanubiens in IX. Jahrhundert). Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex Instituto Archaeologico Universitatis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae – Régészeti Dolgozatok Az Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Régészeti Intézetéből, 7: 32–59.
Bóna, I. (1968). Über einen Beweis des langobardisch-slawisch-awarischen Zusammenlebens. Študijné Zvesti Archeologického Ústavu SAV, 16: 35–46.
Bóna, I. (1970). Avar lovassír Ivancsáról (Grave of an Avar horseman at Iváncsa). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 97: 243–251.
Bóna, I. (1971). Ein Vierteljahrhundert der Völkerwanderungs-zeitforschung in Ungarn (1945-1969). Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 23: 265–336.
Bóna, I. (1973). VII. századi avar települések és Árpád-kori magyar falu Dunaújvárosban (Awarische Siedlungen aus dem 7. Jahrhundert und ein ungarisches Dorf aus der Árpádenzeit [11.–13. Jh.] in Dunaújváros). Fontes archaeologici Hungariae. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Bóna, I. (Rez.) (1976). László, Gy., Awaren. Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, 1. Archaeologiai Értesítő, 103: 336–338.
Bóna, I. (1984). A népvándorlás kor és a korai középkor története Magyarországon [History of the Migration Period and the Early Middle Ages in Hungary]. In: Bartha, A. (Ed.), Magyarország története, I: Előzmények és magyar történet 1242-ig. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 265–373.
Bóna, I. (1985). Ein asiatisches Reitervolk an der mittleren Donau. In: Meier-Arendt (Hrsg.), Awaren in Europa. Schätze eines asiatisches Reitervolkes 6.–8. Jh. Eine Ausstellungskatalog des Ministeriums für Kultur und Bildung der VR Ungarn, Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte Frankfurt am Main, Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg, Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte und Ministerium für Kultur and Bildung der Volksrepublik Ungarn. Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 5–20.
Bóna, I. (1996). Honfoglalás és régészet [Hungarian Conquest and archaeology]. Korunk, 1996(8): 21–40.
Bóna, I. (1997). Die Archäologie in Ungarn und die ungarische Landnahme. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 49: 345–362.
Borbándi, Gy. (1976). Der ungarische Populismus. Aurora Bücher, München.
Breuer, E. (2007). Bemerkungen zur absoluten Chronologie – Frühmittelalter an der mittleren Donauraum. Ungarn-Jahrbuch, 48(2005–2007): 1–16.
Bruno (1884). Brunonis Vita quinque fratrum. In: Waitz, G. and Watterbach, W. (Eds.), Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptores in folio, 15: Supplementa tomorum I–XII, pars III. Supplementum tomi XIII. Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani, Hannoveriae, pp. 709–758.
Crystal, D. (2000): Language death. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cross, S.H. and Sherbovitz-Wetzor, O.P. (Eds.) (1953). The Russian primary chronicle: Laurenitian text. The Medieval Academy of America, Cambridge, Mass.
Csákó, J. (2011). A XI. századi Magyarország a francia kútfők tükrében [11th century Hungary in the light of French sources]. Fons: forráskutatás és segédtudományok, 18(2): 147–208.
Csallány, D. (1939): Kora-avarkori sírleletek – Grabfunde der Frühawarenzeit. Folia Archaeologica, 1–2: 155–180.
Csallány, D. (1948). Szegedi avarkori sírleletek és hún-bolgár ivókürtök régészeti kapcsolatai (Rapports archéologiques entre les trouvailles tombales de lˈépoque avare de Szeged et des cors à boire hunno-bulgares). Archaeologiai Értesítő, Ser. III, 7–9(1946–1948): 359–361.
Csallány, D. (1956). Archäologische Denkmäler der Awarenzeit in Mitteleuropa. Schrifttum und Fundorte. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Csiki, I. (2010). A „kettős honfoglalás” elmélete mai szemmel. Egy nem tudományos dolgozat a 70 éves Bakay Kornél tiszteletére [The theory of the “two-time conquest of the Magyars” as seen today. A non-academic essay in honour of the 70-year-old Kornél Bakay]. In: B. Perjés, J. and Varga, T. (Eds.), Szent László nemese. Bakay Kornél 70 éves. Püski Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 73–82.
Daim, F. (2000). “Byzantinische” Gürtelgarnituren des 8. Jahrhunderts. In: Daim, F. (Ed.), Die Awaren am Rand der byzantinischen Welt. Studien zu Diplomatie, Handel und Technologietransfer im Frühmittelalter. Monographien zur Frühgeschichte und Mittelalterarchäologie, 7. Universitätsverlag Wagner, Innsbruck, pp. 77–204.
Debec, G.F. (1948). Paleoantropologija SSSR [Paleoanthropology SSSR]. Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moskva.
Deér, J. (1965). Karl der Grosse und der Untergang des Awarenreiches. In: Beumann, H. (Hrsg.), Karl der Grosse. Lebenswerk und Nachleben, I: Persönlichkeit und Geschichte. L. Schwann, Düsseldorf, pp. 719–791.
Dienes, I. (1972). The Hungarians cross the Carpathians, Hereditas. Corvina Kiadó, Budapest.
Engel, P. (1990). Beilleszkedés Európába, a kezdetektől 1440-ig. [Integration to Europe, from the beginnings to 1440]. Magyarok Európában, 1. Háttér Lap- és Könyvkiadó, Budapest.
Engel, P. (1997). A kettős honfoglalás [Two-times conquest]. Ómagyar Kultúra, 10: 54–63.
Engel, P. (2001). Szent István birodalma. A középkori Magyarország története ˙[The realm of Saint Stephen. A history of medieval Hungary, 895–1526]. História könyvtár, Monográfiák, 17. História Alapítvány and MTA Történettudományi Intézet, Budapest.
Erdélyi, I. (1973). Nándor Fettich 1900–1971. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 4: 175–178.
Éry, K. (1970). Összehasonlító biometriai vizsgálatok VI–XII. századi Közép-Duna medencei népességek között (Comparative biometrical examinations in 6th–12th century populations of the Middle-Danubian Basin). Anthropológiai Közlemények, 14: 35–118.
Éry, K. (1982). Újabb összehasonlító statisztikai vizsgálatok a Kárpát-medence 6–12. századi népességeinek embertanához (Comparative statistical studies on the physical anthropology of the Carpathian Basin population between the 6–12th centuries AD). Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei, 16: 35–118.
Éry, K. (1994). A Kárpát-medence embertani képe a honfoglalás korában [The physical anthropological picture of the Carpathian Basin in the Conquest Period]. In: Kovács, L. (Ed.), Honfoglalás és régészet. Balassi Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 217–224.
Éry, K. and Marcsik, A. (2015). Kehida-TSz major 7–9. századi csontvázleletei [The 7th–9th-century Kehida-TSz major skeleton finds]. Zalai Múzeum, 22: 39–76.
Farkas, R.Z. (2011). A „kettős honfoglalás” rövid historiográfiája (Short historiography of the “two-times conquest”). Belvedere Meridionale, 23: 15–33.
Fehér, B. (2020). A Kárpát-medencei rovásírásos emlékek gyűjteménye, I: Korai emlékek (1599 előtt) és kései feliratos emlékek [Collection of runic inscriptions in the Carpathian Basin, I: Early (prior to 1599) and late inscriptions]. A Magyarságkutató Intézet kiadványai, 12. Magyarságkutató Intézet, Budapest.
Fehér, G. (1956). A Dunántúl a honfoglalás korában (La population de la Transdanubie à lˈépoque de la conquête hongroise). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 83: 25–38.
Fehér, G., Éry, K., and Kralovánszky, A. (1962). A Közép-Duna-medence magyar honfoglalás és kora Árpád-kori sírleletei. Leletkataszter (Ungarische Grabfunde im mittleren Donaubecken aus der Landnahme- und frühen Arpadenzeit. Fundkataster). Régészeti tanulmányok, 2. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Fodor, I. (1973a). Vázlatok a finnugor őstörténet régészetéből (Skizzen aus der Archäologie der Finnisch-ugrischen Urgeschichte). Régészeti füzetek, II/5. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest.
Fodor, I. (1973b). Új könyv a honfoglaló magyarságról [A new book about the conquering Hungarians]. Szabolcs-Szatmári Szemle, 8(4): 118–123.
Fodor, I. (Ed.) (1996). The Ancient Hungarians. Exhibition catalogue, Hungarian National Museum, March 16 – December 31, 1996 Budapest. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest.
Fodor, I. (2001). László Gyula a régész [Gyula László, the archaeologist]. In: Balassa, I. and László, E. (Eds.), László Gyula 1910-1998. Emlékkönyv. Püski Kiadó, Budapest, 149–270.
Fodor, I. (2011). Az idő mérlegén. László Gyula életműve 1910–1998 [On the scales of time. The biography of Gyula László 1910–1998]. Rubicon, 2011(11): 22–26.
Font, M. (2012). Querfurti Brúnó kijevi útja: kérdések és feltevések a historiográfia tükrében (The journey of Bruno of Querfurt to Kiev: Questions and hypothesis in the mirror of the historiography). Belvedere Meridionale, 24: 67–75.
Fóthi, E. (1995). Egy avar népesség kontinuitásának vizsgálata (Untersuchung der Kontinuität einer awarischen population). Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei, 11: 165–172.
Fóthi, E. (2004). A Kárpát-medence 6–11. századi történetének embertani vonatkozásai [The anthropological aspects of the 6th–11th-century history of the Carpathian Basin]. In: Sudár, B., Szentpéteri, J., Petkes, Zs., Lezsák, G., and Zsidai, Zs. (Eds.) (2004): Magyar őstörténet. Tudomány és hagyományőrzés. MTA BTK MŐT Kiadványok, 1. MTA Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, Budapest, pp. 151–168.
Fóthi, E. (2015). Autochton elemek a Kárpát-medence népességében [Autochtonous elements in the population of the Carpathian Basin]. Annales. Avicenna Közel-Kelet Kutatások Intézete, 1: 39–48.
Garam, É. (1993). Katalog der awarenzeitlichen Goldgegenstände und der Fundstücke aus den Fürstengräbern im Ungarischen Nationalmuseum. Catalogi Musei Nationalis Hungarici, Seria archaeologica, 1. Ungarisches Nationalmuseum, Budapest.
Gavrituchin, I.O. and Oblomskij, A.M. (1996). Gaponovskij klad i ego kul’turno-istoričeskij kontekst (Gaponovo hoard and its cultural and historical context). Ranneslavjanskij Mir, 3. Institut Arheologii RAN, Moskva.
Giesler, J. (1981). Untersuchungen zur Chronologie der Bijelo Brdo-Kultur. Ein Beitrag zur Archäologie des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts im Karpatenbecken. Prähistorische Zeitschrift, 56: 3–167.
Golden, P.B. (1980). Khazar studies – An historico-philological inquiry into the origins of the Khazars, I–II. Bibliotheca orientalis Hungarica, 25. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Golden, P.B. (1990a). The peoples of the South Russian steppes. In: Sinor, D. (Ed.), The Cambridge history of early Inner Asia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 256–284.
Golden, P.B. (1990b). The peoples of the Russian forest belt. In: Sinor, D. (Ed.), The Cambridge history of early Inner Asia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 230–255.
Golden, P.B. (2006). Turks and Iranians: Aspects of Turk and Khazaro-Iranian interaction. In: Johanson, L. and Bulut, Ch. (Eds.), Turkic-Iranian contact areas. Historical and linguistic aspects. Harrasowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 1–27.
Goldina, E.V. (1992). Gürtelteile mit Pflanzenornamenten aus dem Kamagebiet. In: Daim, F. (Hrsg.), Awarenforschungen, I. Archaeologia Austriaca, Monographien, 1. Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Wien, Wien, pp. 497–507.
Goldina, R.D. (2004). Drevnjaja i srednevekovaja istorija udmurtskogo naroda [Ancient and medieval history of the Udmurt people], 2nd edition. Udmurtskij Universitet, Iževsk.
Goldina, R.D. (2012). Nevolinskij mogil’nik VII–IX vv. v Prikamje. VII–IX.vv. n.è. v Permskom Predural’e [The Nevolino cemetery in the Urals near Perm]. Materialy i issledovanija Kamsko-Vjatskoj archeologičeskoj ékspedicii, 21. Udmurtskij Gosudarstvennij Universitet, Iževsk.
Goldina, R.D., Leščinskaja, N.A., Černych, E.M., Bernc, V.A. (2012). Nasledie narodov Prikamja. Drevnosti Prikamja iz sobranij Udmurtskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Heritage of the people of the Kama region. Antiquities of the Kama region in the collection of the Udmurt State University]. Udmurtskij gosudarstvennij universitet, Iževsk.
Gombos, A.F. (1937). Catalogus fontium historiae hungarica, I–III. Academia Litterarum de Stephani, Budapest.
Grier, J. (2012). Ademarus Cabannensis Opera Liturgica et Poetica: Musica cum Textibus. Translated and edited by J. Grier. Corpus Christianorum continuatio mediaevo, 245, 245A. Brepols, Turnhout.
Guérin, V. and Yourupi, P. (2016). Language endangerment. In: Sato, H. and Bradshaw, J. (Eds.), Languages of the Pacific Islands: Introductory readings. CreateSpace, Manoa, pp. 209–219.
Gulyás, B. (2021). Kelet-Európa a hun kor utáni időszakban (5–7. század) (Eastern Europe in the post-Hunnic Period (5th–7th centuries AD). Magyar Tudomány, 182(S1): 64–74.
Györffy, Gy. (1948). Krónikáink és a magyar őstörténet [Our chronicles and the ancient history of the Hungarians]. Néptudományi Intézet, Budapest.
Györffy. Gy., (Ed). (1958). A magyarok elődeiről és a honfoglalásról. Kortársak és krónikások híradásai [About Hungarian ancestors and the Hungarian Conquest. Reports from contemporaries and chroniclers]. Gondolat Könyvkiadó, Budapest.
Györffy, Gy. (1959). Tanulmányok a magyar állam eredetéről [Studies on the origin of the Hungarian state]. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Halmágyi. M. (2012a). Querfurti Brúnó, egy hittérítő Közép-Európában (Bruno of Querfurt, a missionary in Central-Europe (†1009)). Belvedere Meridionale, 24: 6–21.
Halmágyi, M. (2012b). Querfurti Bruno felfogása saját népéről és Európa más népeiről (The ideas of Bruno of Querfurt about his own nation and about the other nations of Europe). Belvedere Meridionale, 24: 89–116.
Hampel, J. (1894). A régibb középkor (IV–X. század) emlékei Magyarhonban, I [The relics of the Early Middle Ages (4th–10th century) in Hungary]. Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Budapest.
Hampel, J. (1897). A régibb középkor (IV–X. század) emlékei Magyarhonban, II [The relics of the Early Middle Ages (4th–10th century) in Hungary]. Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Budapest.
Hampel, J. (1905). Alterthümer des frühen Mittelalters in Ungarn, I–III. Vieweg, Braunschweig.
Hampel J. (1907). Újabb tanulmányok a honfoglalási kor emlékeiről [New studies on the remains of the Conquest Period]. Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Budapest.
Hardt, M. (2019). Querfurt – Rom – Ungarn – Rus’ – Pečenegen – Litauen – Brun von Querfurt auf Reisen. In: Freudenreich, M.G., Fütterer, P., and Swieder, A. (Hrsg.), WegBegleiter. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur Altwege- und Burgenforschung. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas, 89. Beier & Beran, Langenweissbach, pp. 157–167.
Harmatta, J. (1955). Beszámoló László Gyula „Régészeti tanulmányok az avar társadalom történetéhez” c. munkája kéziratának megvitatásáról [Report on the discussion of the manuscript of Gyula László's work “Archaeological studies on the history of Avar society‟]. A MTA Társadalmi-Történeti Tudományos Osztálya Közleményei, 7(1): 91–105.
Hodinka A. (1916). Az orosz évkönyvek magyar vonatkozásai [Hungarian aspects of the Russian yearbooks]. Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Budapest.
Hoffmann, I. and Tóth, V. (2016). Szempontok a 11. századi nyelvi és etnikai rekonstrukció kérdéséhez [Considerations to 11th century linguistic and ethnic reconstructions]. Századok, 150: 257–318.
Honti, L. (1981). Magyar őstörténet – finnugor nyelvtudomány. Széljegyzetek László Gyula könyvéhez [The early history of the Hungarians and the Finno-Ugrian linguistics. Some remarks to Gyula László’s book]. Élet és Irodalom, 25(21): 5.
Jankovich, M. (1835). Egy magyar hősnek, hihetőleg Bene vitéznek, ki még a X század elején Solt fejedelemmel, Berengár császárnak diadalmas védelmében Olaszországban jelen volt, újonnan felfedezett tetemeiről és öltözetének ékességéről [The newly discovered grave and the adornments of the costume of a Hungarian hero – most probably warrior Bene – who, at the very beginning of the tenth century, participated together with prince Solt in the glorious defence of Emperor Berengar I in Italy]. A Magyar Tudós Társaság Évkönyvei, 2: 281–296.
Katzenberg, A.M. and Saunders, S.R. (Eds.). (2000). Biological anthropology of the human skeleton. Wiley, New York, Chichester, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore and Toronto.
Kazhdan, A.P., et al. (1991). Griffin. In: Kazhdan, A.P., Maffry Talbot, A.M., Cutler, A., Gregory, T.E., and Patterson Ševčenko, N. (Eds.), The Oxford dictionary of Byzantium, 2. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 884–885.
Király, P. (1997). A magyarok népneve a történeti forrásokban és a szomszédos népek névhasználatában [The ethnonym of the Hungarians in historical sources and in the naming practices of neighbouring peoples]. Életünk, 35: 94–127.
Király, P. (2006). A honfoglalás vitás eseményei. A kalandozások és a honfoglalás éve [Debated events of the Hungarian Conquest. “Looting raids” and the year of settling down in the Carpathian Basin]. Dimensiones culturales et urbariales Regni Hungariae, 10. Nyíregyházi Főiskola Ukrán és Ruszin Filológiai Tanszéke, Nyíregyháza.
Kiss, A. (1968). A magyar államalapítás telepítéseinek tükröződése dunántúli köznépi temetőkben (Die Widerspiegelung der Ansiedlungen zur Zeit der ungarischen Staatsgründung in transdanubischen Geminvolk-Gräberfeldern). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 95: 243–256.
Kiss, J. (2017). A nyelvjárások [Dialects]. In: Tolcsvai Nagy, G. (Ed.), A magyar nyelv jelene és jövője. Gondolat Könyvkiadó, Budapest, pp. 199–221.
Kniezsa, I. (1938). Magyarország népei a XI. században [Peoples of Hungary in the 11th century]. In: Serédi, J. (Ed.), Emlékkönyv Szent István király halálának 900. évfordulóján. Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Budapest, pp. 365–472.
Komatarova-Balinova, E. (2016). Asparukh Bulgarians and Severians – Archaeological vs. historical evidence. Izvestija na Nacionalnija Arheologičeski Institut, 43: 197–216.
Koszta, L. (2013). Querfurti Brúnó és Azo ostiai püspök. Két külföldi klerikus és a püspökségi szervezet továbbépítése 1009-ben (Bruno of Querfurt and Azo, bishop of Ostia. Two foreign clerics and the process of the organisation of the bishopric system in 1009). Belvedere Meridionale, 24(4): 22–40.
Kramarik, H. (1969). Zur Bezeichnung „Hofmark” in Österreich. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 77: 128–140.
Kristó, Gy. (1972). Kézai Simon és a XIII. század végi köznemesi ideológia néhány vonása (Simon Kézai et quelques traits de lˈidéologie de la petite noblesse a la fin du XIIe siécle). Irodalomtudományi Közlemények, 76(1): 1–22.
Kristó, Gy. (1976). Szempontok korai helyneveink történeti tipológiájához (Contributions à la typologie historique des toponymes hongrois anciens). Acta Universitatis Szegediensis. Acta historica, 55. József Attila Tudományegyetem, Szeged.
Kristó. Gy. (1983a). Törzsek és törzsnévi helynevek [Tribes and tribal toponyms]. In: Kristó, Gy. (Ed.), Tanulmányok az Árpád-korról. Magvető Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 422–442.
Kristó, Gy. (1983b). A „kettős honfoglalás” elméletéről [On the theory of the “two-time conquest of the Magyars”]. Historia, 5: 27.
Kristó, Gy. (1985). A fekete magyarok és a pécsi püspökség alapítása (Les Hongrois noirs et la fondation de lˈévêché de Pécs). Acta Universitatis Szegediensis, Acta historica, 82: 11–17.
Kristó, Gy. (2000). Magyarország népei Szent István korában (The peoples of Hungary in the days of Saint Stephen). Századok, 134: 3–44.
Kristó, Gy., Makk, F., and Szegfű, L. (1973). Adatok „korai” helyneveink ismeretéhez, I (Données à la connaissance des toponymes hongrois “anciens”). Acta Universitatis Szegediensis. Acta historica, 44. József Attila Tudományegyetem, Szeged.
Kristó, Gy., Makk, F., and Szegfű, L. (1974). Adatok „korai” helyneveink ismeretéhez, II (Données à la connaissance des toponymes hongrois “anciens”). Acta Universitatis Szegediensis Acta historica, 48. József Attila Tudományegyetem, Szeged.
Kulcsár P. (1973). Bonfini Magyar Történetének forrásai és keletkezése (Fonti e genesi della storia ungherese di Bonfini). Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Kyzlasov, I.L. (1994). Runičeskie pis’mennosti evrazijskich stepej [Runic scripts of the Eurasian steppe]. Vostočnaja Literatura, Moskva.
Langó, P. (2007). Amit elrejt a föld… A 10. századi magyarság anyagi kultúrájának régészeti kutatása a Kárpát-medencében [What is hidden in the earth… Archaeological research on material culture of the 10th-century Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin]. LˈHarmattan Kiadó, Budapest.
László, Gy. (1935). Adatok az avarkori műipar ó-keresztény kapcsolataihoz [Data on the Old Christian connections of Avar jewellery making]. Pázmány Péter Tudományegyetem, Budapest.
László, Gy. (1938). Die byzantinischen Goldbleche des Fundes von Kunágota. Archaeologiai Értesítő, 51: 55–86.
László, Gy. (1940a). Avarkori pásztorkészségeink (Zu den Beigaben der Gräber von awarischen Hirten). Archaeologiai Értesítő, Ser. III, 1: 91–98.
László, Gy. (1940b). La trouvaille de Tépe. Quelques additions à lˈétude de Géza Supka. Archaeologiai Értesítő, Ser. III, 1: 77–90.
László, Gy. (1941). Adatok az avarság néprajzához, I: Az avarok késviselete (Contributi all'etnografia degli Avari, I: Come portavano gli Avari il coltello). Archaeologiai Értesítő, Ser. III, 2: 175–191.
László, Gy. (1942). Adatok az avarság néprajzához, III (Beiträge zur Volkskunde der Awaren, III). Archaeologiai Értesítő, Ser. III, 3: 334–346.
László, Gy. (1943). A koroncói lelet és a honfoglaló magyarok nyerge – Der Grabfund von Koroncó und der altungarische Sattel. Archaeologica Hungarica, 27. Magyar Történeti Múzeum, Budapest.
László, Gy. (1944). A honfoglaló magyar nép élete [The life of the Conquest Period Hungarian people]. Magyar Élet kiadása, Budapest.
László, Gy. (1950). The gold-mounted sword from the find at Kunágota. Archaeologiai Értesítő ,77: 31–33.
László, Gy. (1955). Études archéologiques sur la société des Avars. Archaeologia Hungarica, 34. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
László, Gy. (1960). Geschichtliche und archӓologische Angaben zu dem Sagenkreis um Petőfis Grab. In: Condurchi, E. and Crişan, I.H. (Eds.), Omagiu lui Constantin Daicoviciu cu prîlejul implinirii a 60 de ani. Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române, Bucureşti, pp. 323–332.
László, Gy. (1965). Les problèmes soulevés par le groupe à la ceinture ornée de griffon et de rinceaux de l'époque avare finissante. Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 17: 73–76.
László, Gy. (1970a). A „kettős honfoglalásról” (Über die „doppelte Landnahme der Ungarn“). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 97: 161–187.
László Gy. (1970b). Kérdések és feltevések a magyar honfoglalásról. Előadásvázlat. [Questions and assumptions about the Hungarian Conquest. An outline]. Valóság, 13(1): 48–64.
László, Gy. (1978). A „kettős honfoglalás” [The “two-time conquest of the Magyars”]. Magvető Kiadó, Budapest.
László, Gy. (1983). Baráti vita Kristó Gyulával [Friendly debate with Gyula Kristó]. História, 5: 27.
Lauterbach, H. (1967). Untersuchungen zur Vorgeschichte der Protobulgaren, nach einem Bericht bei Theophanes. In: Altheim, F. and Stiehl, R. (Hrsg.), Die Araber in der Alten Welt, 4: Neue Funde. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 519–639.
Lemerle, P. (1979). Les plus anciens recuils des Miracles de Saint Démétrius et la pénétration des Slaves dans les Balkans, I : Le texte. Éditions du Cente National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.
M. Lezsák, G. (2021). Régészeti iskola a kincses városban 1940–1944. László Gyula kolozsvári évei [The archaeological school in the ‟Treasury City”, 1940–1944. The years of Gyula László in Cluj-Napoca]. Bölcsészetudományi Kutatóközpont and Kairosz Kiadó, Budapest.
Lipták, P. (1957). Awaren und Magyaren im Donau-Theiss Zwischenstromgebiet. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae ,8: 199–268.
Lipták, P. (1959). The ‟Avar Period” Mongoloids in Hungary. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae ,10: 251–279.
Lipták, P. (1971). Embertan, emberszármazástan [Anthropology, evolutionary biology], 2nd ed. Tankönyvkiadó Vállalat, Budapest.
Lipták, P. (1977). A magyar őstörténet kérdései az antropológiai kutatások alapján [Problems of the prehistory of the Hungarians in the light of physical anthropological research]. In: Bartha, A., Czeglédy, K., and Róna-Tas, A. (Eds.), Magyar őstörténeti tanulmányok. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 231–242.
Lipták, P. (1983). Avars and Ancient Hungarians. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Lőrinczy, G. (Ed.) (1993). Az Alföld a 9. században. 1992. nov. 30 – dec. 1-én elhangzott előadások írott változatai. [The Great Hungarian Plain in the 9th century]. Móra Ferenc Múzeum, Szeged.
Ludat, H. (1953). Farbenbezeichnungen in Völkernamen. Ein Beitrag zur asatisch-osteuropäischen Kulturbeziehumgen. Saeculum, 4: 138–155.
Madaras, L. (1975). A kettős honfoglalás elméletének néhány településtörténeti problémája [Some settlement history problems of the theory of the “two-time conquest of the Magyars”]. Acta Iuvenum, 8: 32–54.
Makkay, J. (2009). Indul a magyar Attila földjére [Hungarians setting off towards Attila’s land], 2nd revised and enlarged edition. Tractata minuscula, 70–71. Budapest.
Mango, C.A. (Ed.) (1990). Nikephoros patriarch of Constantinople. Short history. Edited and translated. Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae, 13. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington D.C.
Mango, C.A., Scott, R., and Greatrex, G. (Eds.) (1997). The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Marosi, A. and Fettich, N. (1936). Dunapentelei avar sírleletek: a székesfehérvári Múzeum fennállásának 25 éves jubileumára – Trouvailles avares de Dunapentele: publication en honneur du 25-e anniversaire de la fondation du Musée de Székesfehérvár. Archaeologia Hungarica, 18. Magyar Történeti Múzeum, Budapest.
Marquart, J. (1903). Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge. Ethnologische und historisch-topographische Studien zur Geschicte des 9. und 10. Jahrhunderts (ca. 840–940). Dietrich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung T. Weicher, Leipzig.
Maticsák, S. (2020). A magyar nyelv eredete és rokonsága [The origin and kinship of the Hungarian language]. Gondolat Könyvkiadó, Budapest.
Melich, J. (1934). Über den Ursprung des Namens Ungar. Archiv für Slawische Philologie, 38: 244–250.
Mesterházy, K. (1980). Nemzetségi szervezet és az osztályviszonyok kialakulása a honfoglaló magyarságnál [Kinship organization and the development of class relations among the conquering Hungarians]. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Mesterházy, K. (2002). Dunántúl a 10. században [Transdanubia in the 10th century]. Századok, 136: 327–340.
MGH (1934). Kehr, P. (Bearb.) (1932–1934). Diplomata regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum, 1: Die Urkunden Ludwigs den Deutschen, Karlmanns und Ludwigs des Jüngeren (Ludowici Germanici, Karlomanni, Ludowici Iunioris Diplomata). Monumenta Germaniae historica, 1. Weidmann, Berlin.
Moravcsik, Gy. (1930). Zur Geschichte der Onoguren. Ungarische Jahrbücher, 10: 53–90.
Moravcsik, Gy. (1983). Byzantinoturcica. Die byzantinischen Quellen der Geschichte der Türkvölker. Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten, 10. De Gruyter, Berlin.
Nagy, G. (1895). Magyarország története a népvándorlás korában. Első közlemény [The history of Hungary in the Migration Period. First account]. In: Szilágyi, S. (Ed.), A magyar nemzet története, I: Magyarország a királyság megalapításáig .Athenaeum Részvénytársaság, Budapest, pp. CCII–CCCLII.
Nagy, G. (1907). A honfoglalók [The Conquerors]. Ethnographia, 18: 257–268.
Nazarenko, A.V. (2002). Ungarn und Rusʼ um das Jahr 1000. Begegnungen: Schriftenreihe des Europa Institutes Budapest, 15: 177–208.
Németh, Gy. (1925). On ogur, hét magyar. Dentumogyer. Kőrösi Csoma-Archívum ,1(1921–1925): 148–155.
Németh, P. (1977). Csallány Dezső 1903–1977. (Dezső Csallány). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 104: 259.
Nyíri, A., Korenchy, É., Róna-Tas, A., H. Tóth, I. and Velcsov, M. (1976). Az ősmagyar kor nyelvtörténeti forrásai [The sources of the linguistic history of the Early Hungarian period]. In: Hajdú, P., Kristó, Gy., and Róna-Tas, A. (Eds.), Bevezetés a magyar őstörténet kutatásának forrásaiba, I/2. Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest, pp. 35–52.
Olajos, T. (1969). Adalék a/H/UNG/A/RI/I népnév és a késői avarkori etnikum történetéhez [Contribution to the history of the ethnonym/H/UNG/A/RI/I and the late Avar Period population]. Antik Tanulmányok, 16: 87–90.
Olajos, T. (2012). Bizánci mozaikok. Avarok, szlávok, bolgárok, magyarok. Válogatott tanulmányok [Byzantine mosaics. Avars, Slavs, Bulgars, and Magyars. Selected papers]. Szegedi Tudományegyetem, Szeged.
Paládi-Kovács, A. (2018). Magyar népkutatás a 20. században [Hungarian ethnology in the 20th century]. Documentatio ethnographica, 32. LˈHarmattan Kiadó, Budapest.
Póczos, R. (2019). A helynevek etnikai forrásértékéhez (On the ethnic source value of toponyms). Helynévtörténeti Tanulmányok, 15: 7–20.
Pohl, W. (1987). Das awarische Khaganat und die anderen Gentes im Karpatenbecken (6.–8. Jh.). In: Hänsel, B. (Hrsg.), Die Völker Südosteuropas im 6. bis 8. Jahrhundert. Südosteuropa-Jahrbuch, 17. Selbstverlag der Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft, München, pp. 41–52.
Pohl, W. (2018). The Avars. A steppe empire in Central Europe, 567–822. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.
Pohl, W., Krause, J., Vida, T., and Geary, P. (2021). Integrating genetic, archaeological, and historical perspectives on Eastern Central Europe, 400– 900 AD: Brief description of the ERC Synergy Grant – HistoGenes 856453. Historical Studies on Central Europe, 1(1): 213–228. https://doi.org/10.47074/HSCE.2021-1.09.
Popović, V. (Rev.) (1990). Joachim Werner: Der Schatzfund von Vrap in Albanien. Prähistorische Zeitschrift, 65: 116–120.
Pritsak, O. (1954). Orientierung und Farbsymbolik. Zu den Farbenbezeichnungen in den altaischen Völkernamen. Saeculum, 5: 376–383.
PVL (1950). Lichačev, D.S. (Ed.), Povest’ Vremennyh Let po Lavrent’evskoj letopisi 1377 g., I–II [Russian Primary Chronicle based on the Laurentian Chronicle from 1377]. Translated by B. Romanov. Akademia nauk SSSR v Leningrade, Moskva and Leningrad.
Rácz, A. (2006). Törzsnévi eredetű helyneveink nyelvi kérdései [Linguistic problems with Hungarian tribal place names]. Helynévtörténeti Tanulmányok, 2: 9–30.
Radnóti, A. (1956). A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia régészeti konferenciája Budapesten (Archäologische Tagung der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften). A MTA Társadalmi-Történeti Tudományok Osztályának Közleményei, 7: 331–350.
Reinecke, P. (1928). Die archäologische Hinterlassenschaft der Awaren. Germania, 12: 87–98.
Révész, L. (1996). A karosi honfoglalás kori temetők. Régészeti adatok a Felső-Tisza-vidék X. századi történetéhez (Die Gräberfelder von Karos aus der Landnahmezeit. Archäologische Angaben zur Geschichte des Oberen Theiβgebietes im 10. Jahrhundert). Magyarország honfoglalás kori és kora Árpád-kori sírleletei, 1. Hermann Ottó Múzeum and Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Miskolc.
Róna-Tas, A. (1980). Kommentar. In: Ortutay, Gy. (Ed.), Congressus quartus internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. Budapestini habitus 9.–15. Septembris 1975, II: Acta sessionum. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 224–226.
Róna-Tas, A. (1996). Ugor, ogur or ugur? Remarks on the name “Finno-Ugrian”. In: Mészáros, E. (Ed.), Ünnepi könyv Mikola Tibor tiszteletére. JATE Finnugor Tanszék, Szeged, pp. 265–269.
Róna-Tas, A. (2000). Where was Khuvrat’s Bulgharia? Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae ,53: 1–22.
Róna-Tas, A. and Berta, Á. (2011). West old Turkic. Old Turkic loanwords in Hungarian, 1–2. Turcologica, 84. Harrasowitz, Wiesbaden.
Rozenfel’dt, R.L. (1987). Prikamskije finny [Kama Finns]. In: Sedov, V.V. (Ed.), Finno-ugry i balty v èpochu srednevekovja. Arheologija SSSR, Nauka, Moskva, pp. 116–162.
Sames, A. (2010). “Weltliches” und “Geistliches” bei Brun von Querfurt: Brun als Missionar. In: Sames, A. (Ed.), Brun von Querfurt. Lebenswelt, Tätigkeit, Wirkung. Fachwissenschaftliche Tagung am 26. und 27. September 2009 auf der Burg Querfurt. Museum Burg Querfurt, Querfurt, pp. 79–96.
Samu, L. and Daim, F. (2018). Die Pseudoschnallen in der Awarenzeit und ihre Transformation. Antaeus, 35–36: 205–241.
Sedov, V.V. (1987). Vvedenie [Introduction]. In: Sedov, V.V. (Ed.), Finno-ugry i balty v èpochu srednevekovja. Arheologija SSSR, Nauka, Moskva, pp. 5–10.
Simonyi, D. (1964). Pannoniai bolgárok és kuturgurbolgárok (Bulgaren und Kuturguren in Pannonien). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 91: 194–200.
Simonyi, D. (1968). Tárkány helységeink és az avarság [The toponym ‘Tárkány’ and the Avars]. Magyar Nyelv, 64: 438–445.
Šmuratko, D.V. (2010). Ètnokul’turnaja situacija v Prikamje v èpochu Velikogo pereselenija narodov (Ethno-cultural situation in the Prikamie in the era of te Great Migration). Izvestija Rossijskogo Pedagogičeskogo Universiteta im. A.I. Gercena, 126: 100–107.
Somogyi, P. (2004). Neue Überlegungen über den Zustrom byzantinischer Münzen ins Awarenland. Numismatischer Kommentar zu Csanád Bálints Betrachtungen zum Beginn der Mittelawarenzeit. Antaeus, 29–30: 347–393.
Stančev, St. (1957). Nekropolăt do Novi Pazar (Die Nekropole bei Novi Pazar). Izdatelstvo na Bǎlgarskata Akademija na Naukite, Sofija.
Stein, F. (1968a). I. Kovrig: Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Alattyán. Germania, 43: 202–205.
Stein, F. (1968b). Awarisch-merowingische Beziehungen: Ein Beitrag zur absoluten Chronologie der awarenzeitlichen Funde. Študijné Zvesti AÚ SAV, 16: 233–244.
Szabados, Gy. (2016). Avarok eltűnőben, avagy a hasonulás három fokozatáról. (Disappearing Avars or the three phases of transformation). In: Csécs, T. and Takács, M. (Eds.), Beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam. Ünnepi kötet Tomka Péter 75. születésnapjára. Lekri Group Kft., Győr, pp. 671–686.
Szabó, B.J. and Bollók, Á. (2018). A „szavárt-türk dosszié”. A 9. századi kelet-európai steppei vándorlások 16–17. századi párhuzamok tükrében (The ‟Savart–Turk dossier”: 9th-century migrations in the Eastern European steppe region in the light of 16th–17th-century parallel phenomena). Századok, 152: 479–542.
Szabó, J.Gy. (1969). Az egri múzeum avar kori leletanyaga, III: Sírleletek Nagyréde-Ragyogóparton (Der awarenzeitliche Fundbestand des Museums von Eger, III: Grabfunde aus Nagyréde-Ragyogópart). Az Egri Múzeum Évkönyve, 6: 29–54.
Szabó, P. (2012). Querfurti Bruno levele II. Henrik német királyhoz [Bruno of Querfurt's letter to King Henry II of Germany]. Belvedere Meridionale, 24(4): 137–142.
Szádeczky-Kardoss, S. (1968). Kuvrat fiának, Kubernek a története és az avar kori régészeti leletanyag [The story of Kuber, son of Kuvrat, and the archaeological material from the Avar Period]. Antik Tanulmányok, 15: 84–87.
Szádeczky-Kardoss, S. (1970). Onoguroi. In: Paulys Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Supplementband, 12: Abdigildus bis Thukydides. A. Druckenmüller, Stuttgart, pp. 902–906.
Szádeczky-Kardoss, S. (1971). A kettős honfoglalás kérdéséhez. Rövid előadásvázlat [To the question of the double conquest. A short lecture sketch]. Az Ókortudományi Társaság Szegedi Csoportjának előadásaiból, 1. Ókortudományi Társaság, Szeged.
Szádeczky-Kardoss, S. (1990). The Avars. In: Sinor, D. (Ed.), The Cambridge history of early Inner Asia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 206–228.
Szádeczky-Kardoss, S. (1998). Az avar történelem forrásai (Die Quellen der Awarengeschichte). Magyar őstörténeti könyvtár, 12. Balassi Kiadó, Budapest.
Szathmáry, L. (1978). Populaciódinamikai szempontok honfoglalás és Árpád-kori etnogenezisünk kérdéséhez (Population-dynamische Untersuchungen der Populationen in Ungarn im 6–12. Jh.). A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve, 1977: 143–165.
Szathmáry, L. and Guba, Zs. (2004). A Tiszántúl késő avar kori (8–9. sz.), magyar honfoglalás kori (10. sz.) és Árpádkori (11–13. sz.) népességeinek összefüggései (Interrelations of the populations from the Late Avar (8th–9th c.) Period, the Age of the Hungarian Conquest (10th c.) and the Arpadian Age (11th–13th c.) in Tiszántúl /Eastern part of the Great Hungarian Plain/). Anthropológiai Közlemények, 45: 193–199.
Szathmáry, L., Marcsik, A., Lenkey, Zs., Kővári, I., Holló, G., Guba, Zs., and Csóri, Zs. (2008). Az Alföld népességének továbbélése az 1. századtól a 11. századig (The survival of the populations of the Hungarian Great Plain from the 1st to the 11th century). In: Szathmáry, L. (Ed.), Árpád előtt, Árpád után. Antropológiai vizsgálatok az Alföld I–XIII. századi csontváz leletein. JATE Press, Szeged, pp. 7–26.
Szathmáry, L., Marcsik, A., Lenkey, Zs., Kővári, I., Guba, Zs., Csóri, Zs., and Holló, G. (2013). Az autochtonitas hatása az Alföld honfoglalás kori (10. századi) népességére (The influence of autochtonity on the population of the time of the Hungarian Conquest (10th century) in the Hungarian Great Plain). In: Révész, L. and Wolf, M. (Eds.), A honfoglalás kor kutatásának legújabb eredményei. Tanulmányok Kovács László 70. születésnapjára. Monográfiák a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régészeti Tanszékéről, 3. Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régészeti Tanszék, Szeged, pp. 711–714.
Szenthe, G. (2020). Növényi ornamentika a késő avar kori díszítőművészetben (Kr. u. 8. század – 9. század eleje) (The plant ornament in the decorative arts of the late Avar period). A Magyarságkutató Intézet Kiadványai, 3. Magyarságkutató Intézet, Budapest.
Szentpéteri, J. (Ed.) (2002). Archäologische Denkmäler der Awarenzeit in Mitteleuropa. Varia archaeologia Hungarica, 13. Archäologische Institut der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Budapest.
Szőke, B. (1959). A bjelobrdoi kulturáról (Sur la civilisation de Bjelobrdo). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 86: 32–47.
Szőke B. (1962). A honfoglaló és kora Árpád-kori magyarság régészeti emlékei [Archaeological remains of the Hungarian Conquest and the early Árpád Period]. Régészeti tanulmányok, 1. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Takács, M. (2006). Három nézőpont a honfoglaló magyarokról (Three opinions regarding the Hungarian conquerors). Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából, Új sorozat, 1: 67–98.
Takács, M. (Ed.) (2017). Az Alföld a 9. században, II: Válogatás „Az Alföld a 9. században II. – Új eredmény” című konferencián 2014. május 21–23. között elhangzott előadások anyagaiból (MTA SZAB Székház, Szeged) [The Great Hungarian Plain in the 9th century]. Monográfiák a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régészeti Tanszékéről, 4. Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régészeti Tanszék, Szeged.
Točík, A. (1968). Altmagyarische Gräberfelder in der Südwestslowakei. Archaeologia Slovaca. Catalogi, 3. Vydavatel'stvo Slovenskej Akadémie Vied, Bratislava.
Tomičić, Ž. (2019). Bjelobrdski kulturni krug. Groblja 9. do 13. stoljeća u Međurečju Mure, Drave, Dunava i Save [The Bjelo Brdo culture. 9th–13th-centurygrave sites in the Region between thr Mura, Drava, Danube and Sava rivers]. Zavod za znanstveni i umjetnički rad HAZU u Požegi, Zagreb and Požega.
Tomka, P. (1971). Le problème de la survivance des Avars dans la littérature archéologique hongroise. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 24: 234–252.
Tomka, P. (1981). Hová tűntek az avarok? [Where have the Avars gone?]. História, 1981(2): 4.
Toru, S. (1974). Some problems of Magyar-East Slavic relations in the ninth century. Uralica, 2: 37–60.
Tot, T.A. and Firštejn, B.V. (1970). Antropologičeskie dannye k voprosu o Velikom pereselenii narodov. Avary i sarmaty [Anthropological considerations on the Migration Period: Avars and Sarmatians]. Nauka, Leningrad.
Tóth, S.L. (2013). Querfurti Brúnó és a fekete magyarok (Bruno of Querfurt and the Black Hungarians). Belvedere Meridionale, 24(4): 41–55.
Vékony, G. (1981). Das nordwestliche Transdanubien und die ‘Uuangariorum marcha’. Savaria. A Vas Megyei Múzeumok Értesítője ,15: 215–229.
Vékony, G. (2002). Magyar őstörténet – magyar honfoglalás [Hungarian prehistory – Hungarian Conquest]. Nap Kiadó, Budapest.
Veszprémy, L. (2003). Adémar de Chabannes krónikájának magyar vonatkozásai. Textus és kontextus (Hungarian aspects of the chronicle of Adémar de Chabannes. Text and context). Századok, 137(2): 459–467.
Vinski, Z. (1958). O nalazima 6. i 7. stoljeća u Jugoslaviji s posebnim obzirom na arheološku ostavštinu iz vremena prvog Avarskoga Kaganata (Zu den Funden des 6. und 7. Jahrhunderts in Jugoslawien mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der archäologischen Hinterlassenschaft aus der ersten awarischen Khaganates). Opuscula Archaeologica, 3: 56–67.
Werner, J. (1972). Nándor Fettich 1900–1971. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen ,29: 149–152.
„Zegernyei“ (2012). [Klima, L., Viharfelhők a koponyahegyek felett. A honfoglalás antropológiája [Storm clouds over the skull mountains. Anthropology of the Hungarian Conquest]. Nyelv és Tudomány. https://bit.ly/3dE69Pi (Accessed: 21 April 2021).
Ziemann, D. (2007). Vom Wandervolk zur Großmacht. Die Entstehung Bulgariens im frühen Mittelalter (7.–9. Jh.). Kölner historische Abhandlungen, 43. Böhlau, Köln, Weimar und Wien.
Zoltán, A. (2004). A magyar–szláv nyelvi kapcsolatok [Hungarian–Slavic language contacts]. In: Sudár, B., Szentpéteri, J., Petkes Zs., Lezsák, G., and Zsidai Zs. (Eds.), Magyar őstörténet. Tudomány és hagyományőrzés. MTA BTK MŐT Kiadványok, 1. MTA Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, Budapest, pp. 205–210.
Zoltán, A. (2013). Slavjanskie dialekty Karpatskogo bassejna vo vremja prichoda vengrov (IX v.) [Slavic dialects in the Carpathian Basin at the time of the Hungarian arrival (9thc.)]. Studia Slavica Hungarica, 58: 209–218.
Zoltán, A. (2015). Szláv–magyar nyelvi kapcsolatok a 11. században [Slavic-Hungarian language relations in the 11th century]. Helynévtörténeti Tanulmányok ,11: 35–44.
Zoltán, A. (2020). Hungarian and Slavic. In: Greenberg, M.L. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Slavic languages and linguistics online. Brill, Leiden. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-6229_ESLO_COM_035986 (Accessed: 3 March 2023).
Zsoldos, A. (1996). Nemzetségek és honfoglalók [The gentes and the conquering Hungarians]. In: Veszprémy, L. (Ed.), Honfoglaló őseink. Zrínyi Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 176–194.
The expression “two-time conquest” is Gyula László designation of his theory, which is how it referred to in the academic literature and in public discourse. (In Hungarian: “kettős honfoglalás”.) However, Imre Boba, a half-Hungarian scholar living in Seattle pointed out that “two-fold” conquest would be more accurate: Boba (1984); his arguments were also accepted by Makkay (2009) 70. For a history of research, cf. Csiki (2010); Farkas (2011).
Fodor (2001); Langó (2007) 117–124; Lezsák (2021).
László (1944) 95–96.
László (1955) 179–180.
Deér (1965) 721–722.
Nagy (1895) CCCLII; Nagy (1907) 268.
Marosi and Fettich (1936) 86, 88–89.
László (1955) 285.
Csallány (1939) 174–176; Csallány (1946–1948) 360–361.
László (1965) 73–75.
Lecture given at the conference of the Association of Hungarian Archaeology and Art History in Nyíregyháza.
I have attended the debate, whose presentations was not published in print.
Instead of a more traditional title, the book's title reflected the period's general political attitude (Gyula László’s personal communication).
Werner (1972) 149–152, Erdélyi (1973).
Nándor Fettich was posthumously rehabilitated by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 1991.
E.g. Bóna (1957, 1963, 1965, 1968).
Bóna (1971) 326; Bóna (1973) 81.
Bóna (1997) 353.
E.g. Dienes (1972); Bálint (1975) two works covering the Conquest Period.
Takács (2006) 80.
Fodor (1973b) 121; Madaras (1975) 45–46.
Bakay (1978) 166–167, 187, note 278. He later changed his views: Bakay (2004) 213–220.
Bálint (1989) 233–235.
Szenthe (2020) 35.
Fodor (2011) 22, 25; Szenthe (2020) 35.
Györffy (1959) 119–126; Bartha (1979) 12.
Engel (1997) 54.
Engel (1990) 105; Engel (2001) 11.
Vékony (2002) 213. For the current state of linguistic research, cf. Zoltán (2015).
Hampel (1894, 1897); an enlarged version was published later: Hampel (1905).
Roughly 1:25 according to István Bóna's estimate: Bóna (1997) 350–352.
E.g. Kniezsa (1938) [365–472] 374.
Bálint (1975)/1991, 186–188.
Crystal (2000); Guérin and Yourupi (2016). I am grateful to Marianne Bakró-Nagy for calling my attention to these studies.
Szőke (1959); Szőke (1962) 100–102. For a typo-chronological assessment, cf. Giesler (1981); for a monographic assessment, cf. Tomičić (2019). For discussion of Béla Szőke's work, cf. Langó (2007) 124–127.
Bakay (1978) 187. note 278.
Csallány (1956) For the current research situation, cf. Szentpéteri (2002).
László (1970a) 174.
Fodor (1996) last unnumbered pages; Szentpéteri (2002) Karte 4.
A critical discussion of the problem had already been published by that time: Tomka (1971).
László (1978) 109.
Kiss (1968); Révész (1996) 204–206; Mesterházy (2002) 333–334.
Zsoldos (1996) 190.
This issue has since been addressed at greater length: Lőrinczy (1993); Takács (2017).
Fehér (1956) 27.
László (1978) 165.
Bóna (1996) 40.
László (1978) 164.
László (1970b) 49.
Róna-Tas (1980) 226; Bóna (1984) 328; Tomka (1981); Kristó (1983) 27.
László (1983) 27.
Benkő (2002) 257.
Róna-Tas (1980) 226.
László (1978) 112, 113.
Hoffmann and Tóth (2016) 278–280.
Rácz (2006) 13.
Benkő (2003) 19; Hoffmann and Tóth (2016) 301.
Póczos (2019) 18, 20.
Hoffmann and Tóth (2016) 290. For a more detailed discussion, cf. Zoltán (2004).
László (1955) 179–180; László (1965).
Németh (1925) 148–150; Melich (1934); Szádeczky-Kardoss (1970) 905. This fact was quite certainly known to Gyula László owing to their personal connection.
László (1978) 173–174: “When asked what makes me think that the Onogurs were in fact Magyars, I usually reply that it calls for a goodly stretch of the imagination.”
Mango (1990) 89.
Moravcsik (1983) 27–28.
Pohl (2018) 319–321.
Who then fled to the Wends: Pohl (2018) 217, 319–321.
Beševliev (1970) 298; Beševliev (1981) 161; Popović (1990) 118; Pohl (2018) 217.
Cf. notes 80 and 81, Szádeczky-Kardoss (1998) 219; Lauterbach (1967) 555.
“Kouber victorieux passe la Danube avec tout son people, arrive dans nos régions, occupe la plaine Kéramésienne”: Lemerle (1979) 223.
“Dem Kaiser mit der abgeschnittenen Nase vertrauten nicht meine Onkel in Thessalonike”: Beševliev (1963) 97.
Beševliev (1970) 298; Szádeczky-Kardoss (1998) 218–219; Takács (2006) 83; Pohl et al. (2021) 326–330.
Golden (2006) 21, note 15, Biran (2015) 4; B. Szabó and Bollók (2018) 515–516.
László (1978) 170.
Szabados (2016) 677.
Samu Szádeczky-Kardoss suggested that Pannonian Slavs had also departed together with Kuber, an assumption based on the fact that Maurus, one of Kuber's commanders, also spoke Slavic in addition to the Greek and Bulgar Szádeczky-Kardoss (1998) 220, Pohl et al. (2021) 272.
Ziemann (2007) 142–160, esp. 142, 146, with the earlier literature. For a convincing localisation to the Middle Dnieper region, cf. Róna-Tas (2000); Atanasov (2017) 20–27.
Komatarova-Balinova (2016) 216. For the Sivašovka group, whose identification with Magna Bolgaria remains a matter of controversy, cf. Gulyás (2021).
Olajos (2012) 208.
Cf. Fehér (2020).
For a recent overview of research history, cf. Szenthe (2020) 22–39.
László (1935) 27.
László (1955) 179–180; László (1970a) 185–186.
Csallány (1948); Vinski (1958) 58; Stein (1968a) 204; Stein (1968b) 233–244; Bialeková (1968) 30; Szabó (1968b) 34. For recent discussions of chronology, cf. Breuer (2007); Szenthe (2020) 55.
Radnóti(1956) 343, Kovrig (196), 123–148, 198–223, 229–230.
For Dezső Csallány's remarks, cf. Harmatta (1955) 102.
Harmatta (1955) 105.
Bóna (1970). – Bálint (2008a) dissociated the onset of the middle Avar period from Kuber's migration to the Carpathian Basin, although this has been challenged on numismatic grounds: Somogyi (2004); Bálint (2008b).
Bóna (1971) 323–324; Bóna (1985) 13.
Bóna (1984) 328.
Éry (1970) 25; Éry and Marcsik (2015) 47. Fig. 1, 48. Table 8, 49; Fóthi (1995) 170; Fóthi (2004) 153–154.
Tot and Firštejn (1970) 29–30. It is noteworthy both from a historical and anthropological perspective that significant similarities were found between certain Avar-period cemeteries and modern Khanty, Buryat and Tunguz skulls regarding the facial flatness index.
For an overview, cf. Daim (2000) 107–109.
Cf. Szenthe (2020) 381, Fig. 140.
László (1978) 39.
László (1955) 285.
László (1978) 53.
László (1955) 179–182.
Cf. Daim (2000).
Cf. Šmuratko (2010) 100–107, for the relevant literature.
Pohl et al. (2021) 60–61.
László (1955) 179.
Cf. Engel (2001) 11.
László (1970a) 163.
Erdélyi et al. (1969).
László (1970a) 168; László (1978) 53.
Obviously, the ancestry of an ornamental motif is wholly independent of the origins of a particular assemblage type and neither can the latter be conclusively correlated with a “people”.
Fodor (1973a); Bálint (1976) 87–91. For modern overviews of these cultures, cf. Rozenfel'dt (1987); Goldina (2004) 386–387, ris. 192; Goldina et al. (2012) 34–44.
Fodor (1973a) 66–69; Bóna (1984) 329.
László (1978) 109–110.
Fodor (1996) 239.
László (1978) 109–110.
László (1978) 110.
Mesterházy (1980) 45, 64, note 38.
László (1978) 109–110.
Gavrituchin and Oblomskij (1996) 227, ris. 48.
Garam (1993) 62–64, 96–103.
László (1955) 284.
László (1978) 25, 163.
László (1978) 171, 177.
László (1970b) 61. – For the sixth-century history of the Eastern European steppe, cf. Golden (1990) 256–284; Pohl et al. (2021) 26–33.
PLV (1950) I, 14, II, 224; Cross and Sherbowitz-Wetzor (1953).
Hodinka (1916) 33–35. The same holds true for more recent translation, such as the one by István Ferincz, which has “black Ugrians” (=Magyars): Balogh (2015) 24.
István Kniezsa's translation in Györffy (1958) 126.
Király (1997) 117.
Marquart (1903) 39; Moravcsik (1930) 86–88.
Cf. László (1962) 21, note 64.
Róna-Tas (1996) 269.
Tóth (2013) 43; for a detailed discussion, cf. Balogh (2005) 31–45; Balogh (2015).
Toru (1974) 52–53.
Balogh (2005) 31–37, 45.
Nazarenko (2002) 161.
Ademarus (1841) 31,2: 129–130, Gombos (1937) 15–16, 430.
MGH (1934) 129, 86, note 89, Györffy (1977) 70; Veszprémy (2003); Font (2012) 72; Halmágyi (2012a) 16.
Cf. Grier (2012).
Szabó (2012) 139.
Halmágyi (2012b) 101, note 89.
Veszprémy (2003) 463.
For recent studies with the earlier literature, cf. Kristó (1985); Sames (2010) 89; Koszta (2013) 26, note 27.
Ludat (1953); Golden (1980) I, 103, 142.
Csákó (2011) 26, with further literature.
László (1978) 38, 56, 107. These claims are erroneous and the citations are inaccurate, cf. Nyíri et al. (1976) 51–52.
Szabados (2016) 676, cites Chapter 39, De administrando imperio, which, however, refers to the two tongues spoken by the Turks and the Kabars.
Maticsák (2020) 460.
Bárczi (1947) 3, 6, 8–9; Benkő (1957) 60–84; for a recent discussion, cf. Kiss (2017) 208.
László (1978) 107.
For an overview of current Hungarian research in this field, cf. „Zegernyei“ (2012).
Cf. Debec (1948).
László (1962) 15, 17.
Lipták (1957) 252–253;
Lipták (1983) 19–31, 49–52.
Lipták (1977) 237.
Lipták (1971) 218–220.
Fodor (1973b) 132.
László (1978) 111 – however, the cited study claims nothing of the kind, cf. Bartucz (1958).
László (1978) 112. – As a matter of fact, not all archaeologists, historians and geneticists believe that the populations of previous periods had survived, even though more recent studies seem to point in this direction: Fóthi (2015).
Barabás et al. (1996) 82–83.
Éry (1994) 217–224.
On April 23 and 29, 1970: Szádeczky-Kardoss (1971). – He expressed his support, although very carefully worded, later, too: Szádeczky-Kardoss (1990) 224–225. Golden (1990b) 243 devotes no more than a single sentence to Gyula László’s theory.
Vékony (1981) 215, 225.
MGH (1934) 145–146, No 101.
Kramarik (1969). I am grateful to Walter Pohl, who wrote a lengthy letter explaining the background to this passage.
Pohl (1987) 50.
E.g. (László) 1950.
E.g. László (1940a,b, 1943, 1955.
E.g. László (1940).
E.g. László (1941, 1960).
For Zsigmond Bátky, István Györffy and Károly Viski, cf. Paládi-Kovács (2018) 15–84.