Egyoldalú nyelvészeti fejtegetés helyett komplex módszer a magyar östörténet és a magyarság közép-ázsiai eredetének kutatásában

The research of the ancient history of the Hungarians and their origin has been dominated by a one-sided linguistic hypothesis referred to as the “Finno-Ugric theory” of the origin of the Hungarians and their language. However, in this article I have demonstrated that the Finno-Ugric linguistic hypothesis displays a number of rather elementary defects. The argumentation within the paradigm suffers from ‘circulus vitiosis’. The problem of an independent reconstruction of the Finno-Ugric vocabulary has not been solved. Furthermore, there is a priori no reason to exclude the Hungarian-Altaic lexical affinities from the ancient vocabulary, or downgrade them to an inferior status. The arguments of Hungarian Turcologist Ármin Vámbéry in the 1870s have been put aside too early and in our view incorrectly. However, not only the reconstruction of the origins of the Hungarians and their language based on linguistic grounds only should be rejected but the one-sided linguistic analysis is not in harmony with results from history and archaeology research either. Research of various texts from the Byzantine, Arab, Chinese, and Syrian tradition point to the Hephtalite Hunnic Empire as the ancient cradle of the Hungarians and archaeological findings refer to the so-called Androno Culture. Integration of the independent results from linguistics, history and archaeology is what I have coined the ‘integrated complex method’ of research. The Hungarian forerunners of this methodology, the Central-Asianists, like Géza Nagy, Károly Fiók and others have concluded that the Hungarians and their ancient language originate from Central-Asia. The oldest form of the Hungarian language has been coined by them the ‘Ugor-Hungarian Ancient Language’ which I will adopt. Genetic research is also part of this complex method. The recent results presented in this domain by outstanding scholars as Neparáczki Endre, Tibor Török and Miklós Kásler unambiguously support the position defended in this paper, namely that the Finno-Ugric theory cannot account for the data provided by the complex research into the origin of the Hungarians and that the same set of complex data point to Central Asia for the origin of the Hungarians and their language.