FOMENKOLOGY: ON THE ERECTIONS OF 2 TEMPLES AND SOME MORE PROBLEMS WITH SCIENTIFIC DATINGS

B. Lukács

Wigner Institute of HAS (earlier RMKI of CRIP)

H-1525 Bp. 114 Pf. 49., Budapes t, Hungary

lukacs@rmki.kfki.hu

ABSTRACT

Two rather strange datums were reported c. 1890 from churches in Terra Siculorum for the erections: 575 & 655. Interpretations are practically nonexistent and not looked for. I discuss possible chronologic systems, orthodox & unorthodox histories & such. At the end I conclude that the lest problematical explanation is that these inscriptions are remnants of a peculiar dating convention.

1. INTRODUCTION

History is not Science but Scholarship; meaning that Scholars make it, according to scholarly methods. Well, it is clearly not experimental science as physics, metallurgy or even psychology; but it is neither an observational science as e.g. Astronomy. Still, it handles ordered knowledge, so different from Literature, Music & such. It can be loosely classified together with e.g. Philosophy & Theology; but except for very politically influenced and in the same time very naïve “historians” it wants to reconstruct THE TRUE history, so our unique Past. The idea of a unique world was challenged in Quantum Mechanics in 1926-1932 when quantum physicists established an inherently Stochastic Quantum Physics. While this worldwiev is continuously challenged (mainly by relativists), it is successful. In it, there is a continuous struggle between Stochasticity & Determinism. In the classic “Copenhagen” QM, applying Neumann's Measurement Theory between Measurements (anything that means exactly), the Wave Function follows the Schrödinger Equation and gets farther and farther from an Eigenfunction. (In the Introduction I do not give references.) But then a Measurement happens, and the Wave Function becomes an Eigenfunction of the operator of the physical quantity measured; the probability at the choice of the actual eigenfunction is unique, and this study is not one about the foundations of Quantum Mechanics. The actual reason to be Measured is a matter of argumentation: it may be interaction with a macroscopic system (this is more or less the classic Copenhagen view), influence of Space/Time Curvature (gravity), or a too broad wave function. If this worldview is correct, then our Future is not absolutely predictable, but our Past is unique.

Another picture widely accepted is the Many-World QM, in which the Measurements do not kill the alternatives: the worldlines are continuously multiply and so the World multiplies. Our Present was formed in the last Measurement when something was Measured to be 4 sg, but the alternative worlds with 3 & 5 also do exist Somewhere where We are not present, but some of our alternatives are. While this contradicts Common Sense, lots of QM contradicts Common Sense and the Many-World QM is still conform with the experiments. But Past is unique even in this theory, meaning our past.

As told, historians generally accept the unique Past. However Time Travel would be needed to observe this Unique Past. General Relativity does not exclude (still?) Time Travel, but other disciplines of Physics do, and serious paradoxes would arise. Anyway, Past is unobservable Now for Us.

This means that we cannot directly check History; and while Occam's Razor and other simplicity arguments can be used, we are far from Checking. Alternate Pasts are reconstructed and the users can choose. Of course they choose generally using non-professional criteria, but even the professional ones are not certain. In addition, lots of Falsifications of History have been proven and in cases when the results are not desirable for the historian, the Nation &c., the reconstruction may always be somehow doubtful. Since History is part of the national ideology, politicians generally choose a picture and prefer that, at least for the main features. In more or less free-thinking or multicultural societies politicians do not like to make historical theories anathema or even punishable; but still they do this. Well, they do it for political goals, and History pays for it, not Physics; but the result is that History's prestige goes down. Here I mention only such an example which maybe does not provoke bitter controversies now on the West: the fate of the Alexandrine Library.

In our Common Sense History the great Alexandrine Library was founded by Ptolemy I of Egypt c. 300 BC, at its flowers hundreds of thousands of scrolls were reported, and now even the ruins are unidentified. Now, who demolished it, and when?

In the Arab World it is a popular idea (coming up in Net forums & so) that the Crusaders demolished it: so then in 11^th-12^th c. AD.

Older Western/Christian historians told that Caliph Omar is responsible, who, at taking Alexandria in 641 AD, told that the scrolls there either contained what was in the Quran and then superfluous, or contradicted it, and then they must perish; and then the public baths were heated for months by the scrolls.

Historians influenced by French Enlightment prefer the explanation that the same Patriarch Cyril organised the demolition whose mob killed Astronomer Hypatia. Then it is c. 395 AD.

Some other Western historians believe that the buildings burned down in an Egyptian civil war including Cleopatra, her brother-husband Ptolemy, Caesar, and surviving officers of Pompeius Magnus, in 46 BC. Surely then there was a fire.

Obviously only one of the stories may be true (at most). True, Strabo (1^st c. AD) do not mention the Library, but Diogenes Laertius (3^rd c. AD) uses its catalogs. Hypatia seems to have been killed by a pro-Cyril mob, but it is one thing to lynch a sole female (what is even more, Neo-Platonistic, so highly spiritual) intellectual and quite another to demolish a substantial building. In the accepted history the Arabs took Alexandria in 641, but the story with Caliph Omar and the many scrolls can be traced back only to an Eastern Christian author of Syria from 13^th century. Finally, the Crusaders were accused as demolishers of the Library only by Muslims not quite well versed in Christian chronology. It seems that different historians hated different people and everybody chose his archenemy for responsibility

An analogy is Galileo's Trial. Copernicus, a dean in Torun, Poland, published a theory that the planets orbit Sun, not Earth, in 1543. The Catholic Church was rather uninterested, the Greek Orthodoxes did not react at all (maybe they did not read the theory), but the Lutherans were furious because the theory contradicted the Sola Scriptura principle of Protestantism, i.e. that the written text of the Bible is true literally for word by word. Obviously, Sola Scriptura and literary truth of the written Bible was the Protestant idea in the theological struggle; they had cheap Church, but with Sola Scriptura everybody could buy a Bible, as later a small red book of Mao Tse-tung, and can go to argue. True, Copernican theory contradicted some written sentences in the Book of Joshua, which was disturbing for Protestants. Later Calvinists also accepted the word by word truth, and Simeon Péchy, main Unitarian organiser, also rejected heliocentricity. It is interesting and will be important, that Anglicans were not interested in the argumentation. (They were, and are interested in refusing Pelagian and semi-Pelagian heresies of which the world outside of England knows almost nothing; but for a time Pelagius worked in Roman Brittany. But he was not interested in the structure of the Solar System.) The total Catholic negligence started to change in 1613, when Galileo started to argue vehemently for the Copernican view. The whole thing was not interesting in Catholic theology, but Galileo was a difficult man in bloody argumentation and accusation of plagiarism with Jesuit astronomers, even if not about Copernicus, but about sunspots, comets and plagiarism. So somebody accused Galileo with heresy, and in 1616 Rome made a hearing where finally Galileo was told to call Copernican theory a hypothesis, until the Church investigates the question and amends what is to be amended. Because of the Thirty Years War of course this investigation did not happen, but a few years later the angry Galileo published a book, the famous Discorsi, not in Latin, but on Tuscan, so Common Italian of non-specialists. It was formally conform with the Roman requirements (and so it got a nihil obstat), but the text was clearly pro-Copernican. This happened in 1632, in the 15^th year of the religious war, and then somebody accused him with heresy, and 19 years after the start of argumentations started Galileo's Trial on the ground that he did not obey the 1616 decision. Obviously the theological importance of the Copernican principle was first not obvious; rather influential circles wanted a reprimand of Galileo. (According some historians the Spanish cardinals hated Galileo and wanted to get papal money for the Spanish army; so Pope Urban started the Galileo Trial but did not give the money. This is at least an explanation of the controversies in the process which I know; I do not know if the true one.) Surely Galileo did not call the Copernican theory Truth in the book, but almost. On the other hand, the committee of inquiry remembered a stricter text of the 1616 order than Galileo, but interestingly neither party produced the written text. The Trial became a farce which, however, made very probable that heliocentricity was a heresy. Catholic astronomers then became cautious for a while, but finally in 1992 Rome annulled the verdict on the ground of irregularities in the process. As told, there were irregularities, but also in 1992 the Pope was from the Polonica Natio, just as Copernicus had been.

I told this story because that was the last case when an astronomical or physical question went to a trial. 50 years later Newton mentioned the heliocentric/geocentric question quite matter-of-factly, then chose the heliocentic one and treated the Solar System accordingly; but in England papal verdicts were not valid and not favoured (because the Pope did not divorce Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon; and Pelagius did not deal with the Solar System). But in history states still do believe now that they know Truth.

Of course (and this we do know on the territories allied to the late Soviet Union), intellectuals of soft disciplines generally like if State is interested in their disciplines, and they try to provoke State to intervene against their colleagues. Examples are so many that I will not go into details. A consequence is that historical falsifications may survive if they are parts of Established History, so anybody challenging them is a madman in best case. Of course, in overwhelming majority of cases heesh (this is a clumsy Ersatz for Indo-European languages instead of Uralic & Altaic gender-independent General Subject) is a madman, but not always and we cannot know who is and who is not, if the sceptics are in danger to be excluded from the scholarly community. E.g. Mathematical Statistics is a forceful tool to detect impossible historical numbers, and for ancient eclipses in codices Astronomy/Celestial Mechanics is something falsifiers did not think at all, when falsifying. Even in 19^th century Freiherr von Oppolzer was an astronomer with serious historical knowledge, but he did not know about tidal deceleration. We do.

When Illig told that Charlemagne had not existed, mainstream historians had an easy task, because the opponent was a scholar of history of art. However their task is not so easy about Fomenko.

Fomenko is an active Differential Geometer which means that he is almost from General Relativity, my topics. He is a Corresponding Academician in Moscow, and Russian Academicians did not vote for the ousting of even Academician Sakharov, he knows better the mathematics than his historian opponents (and probably better than me, although I hope this is not true in my General Relativity, but who knows...). He observed some problems in eclipse datings (and published this in a Celestial Mechanics journal) and observed very improbable similarities between King Lists separated by ages. His conclusion is that Byzantine history is falsified before 1050 AD, Western one before 1300 and Russian one before 1682.

His alternative explanations I do not like, being I Hungarian, between the West and Russia, but in most points when he detects falsification I agree as far as the falsification is detected. Again a single example. At the end of the Russian founder dynasty, the Rurykovichs, at the middle of 16^th century Western & mainstream Russian historians know about one ruler with long ruling period and peculiar record, and call him Ivan (John) IV. (He is Ivan the Terrible, killing the Crown Prince, cooking alive a high official of the state at the Fair (definitely not Red) Square, and so on. Now Fomenko sees here four rulers instead one. I am not a historian, but Fomenko is not either, and we both know the technique of the Soviet Union of falsifying even contemporary history. Now, even I can detect two events during Ivan IV when the ruler's style and even his physical appearance changed; true, Western observers did not report new rulers and even Lithuanians did not detect the change. (But most observers did not see the ruler.) There is some mystery here, but I do not know the solution; true, I am no Academician.

I am going to deal with a few very strange data when in Szekler churches the years of foundations were written but the numbers are strange. Either Early Middle Ages history of the Carpathian Basin was quite different from the statements of mainstream history, or we see falsifications or dating convention was quite different then and there. A situation quite familiar for Academician Fomenko, but he does not know about them (even the name of the nation is unknown outside of Hungary, Slovakia, Rumania & Poland), but the numbers are so strange that a comparison with his theory of dating is worthwhile.

2. FOMENKO ON MEDIEVAL SYSTEMS OF YEAR NUMBERS

As it is well known, Fomenko regards all historical dates before 700 AD as fictitious, nonexistent or in the best case legendary; between 700 & 1300 he considers the situation unclear (some events would be fictitious, some not, and some real but with quite different chronology); a for more recent events, he seems more or less accept/tolerate Orthodox History from 1050 upwards in Byzance, 1300 in Western Europe, and 1682 in Russia. He does not regard Jesus as fictitious, instead he regards him as a reformer of the common Alexandrine belief of civilised humanity (a kind of proto-Greek-Ortodoxy), whose birth he calculates to 1053 AD (and in Antioch, not in Betlehem), so then the startpoint of our chronology would be a highly fictitious date, out of mark by more than a millennium [1].

Now, the situation is rather chaotic. Fomenko is surely right that accepting the data of historic eclipses as given by History very strange values would have been got for Earth's rotation. Tidal deceleration, mainly from Moon and partly from Sun, would give a constant deceleration of Earth's rotation on historical timescales, if the angular inertia were constant. If not, almost anything might happen. However...

Thermal maximum held between 5000 & 3000 BC, at least in Western Europe. Afterwards there was a rather moderate cooling, but surely in 1300 AD the global temperature could not have been too different from that of 1900 AD; as we can see from many data including Italian fashion and the vigorous Viking farms in Southwestern Greenland. (The “Little Ice Age” will start only about 1450.) So sea level must have been similar; while the spin of Earth should have been higher, and we can calculate the difference extrapolating the observations of the Sun-Earth-Moon system from the last 400 years. As for Antiquity the slightly higher temperature would suggest slightly higher sea level (which is not observed in historic documents about the rather involved Greek sea-shore), so a slightly higher angular inertia, so a slightly less angular velocity, so a slightly different value of deceleration.

On the other hand, when Newton calculated the deceleration of angular velocity in 1974 [2] using the historical datings of historical eclipses, he got rather disturbing results. His key quantity was a date of acceleration D, whose convenient measure is given in angular seconds per centuries squared or "/cy²; it is the secular angular acceleration of Moon. In our times D<0, because: i) Earth's spin is decreasing via tidal friction; ii) the dominant part goes to the orbital revolution of Moon; iii) which is bound to Earth, so the higher orbital angular momentum requires recession from Earth; but iv) the angular velocity will be smaller on the farther orbit. Observations of modern astronomy, with telescopes, precision chronometers &c. give more or less

D = -20.44 "/cy² (1)

Now, Newton (R. R., not I.) calculated the century averages of D for previous times (accepting the historical datings of the eclipses), and the result was as follows. D seems indeed more or less constant in the last 400 years, and no serious deviation is seen back to 1300 AD. However the values rather deviate in an unclear manner between 700 (or 600) and 1300 (or 1200); for earlier times D again seems constant, but almost 0 (and, unexpectedly, slightly positive).

This is exactly the other face of Fomenko's phenomenon. No surprise: Fomenko's chronological conclusions in 1981 [3] used Newton heavily. Indeed, either we accept History and then [2] tells that so Earth's rotation was strange; or we believe in Planetology, but then the historical datings must be wrong [3]. (Or we do not accept any of the two, but that is a rather masochistic viewpoint.)

In this study we will discuss two strange church inscriptions/data from a part of Eastern Central Europe which is rather exotic for most readers and is a matter of heavy argumentation for people who know the region. Just now there are political demonstrations which we will not discuss. The history of the region can be traced back from written texts only to c. 1090 AD when the present dominant population was already there, but the datings seem earlier but present paradigms result in serious problems when trying to explain the written datings. Even in Fomenko's New Chronology (true or not) the interpretation would be ambiguous. And now it is better to really start.

3. SOME NOTES ON YEAR COUNTING

Our historians, and definitely our schoolbooks, tell us that

1) the zero point of our present era (called traditionally Anno Domini or AD, but in recent years called by some Americans Common Era, so CE, more PC) is fixed to the retrocalculated timepoint of the birth of Jesus so that He have been born in 1 AD.

2) The retrocalculation was made in the 6^th c. AD by the abbot Dionysius Exiguus, in order to substitute the Diocletian Era, not proper for Christians for ideological reasons.

3) Surely, the retrocalculation may have a several years error because some input data were contradictory: while Herod the Great died already in 4 BC, Quirinius, the governor of Syria could not order a census in Judea until 7 AD. While this slight but clear self-contradiction might trigger hypercriticism, it has not; true, only c. ±7 years uncertainty is generated here, and still the timescale in itself is straightforward; and

4) the new way of year counting substituted the older ones (Diocletian Era, indictios, taxation periods &c.) gradually, but it won well before the end of Middle Ages; indeed, Year 999 AD is told to have been full with expectations about the second advent of Jesus, the transient rule of the Antichrist & such. (Look, it is not accidental that the Kingdom of Hungary was founded just on Christmas of 1000.)

A minority of historians put much later the introduction of our AD counting. I mentioned already Fomenko [1], [3], but there are others as well. E.g. Illig [4] would excise data between AD 614 August and 911 September. Then events dated between 614 & 911 are misdated or even fictitious. His opinion is that the adulteration of chronology happened not much before AD 1000 as a secret agreement between the Western and Eastern Imperial courts, for starting a New Millennium, which might have indeed some propaganda possibilities. But in the paradigm of the Invented 297 Years History would be quite different in the Carpathian Basin than in the usual one. Namely, the end of the founder Avar dynasty (Bayan's one), probably the Croatian Landtaking at the Adriatic (the most probable year is just 614), the second Avar wave in c. 677, the foundation of Danube Bulgaria in 681, the Magyar Landtaking in 896 and the stabilisation of Hungary in the Pressburg Battle in 907 all would be Invented. But this study, while interested in falsified history, looks for the consequences of Fomenkology.

As for Fomenko see [1] & [3]; here I only mention that his thumb rule for interpreting the AD data is: birth of Jesus is 1053; smaller numbers cannot be genuine, bigger ones are suspect except in Byzance where chronology is roughly OK from c. 1050 (Foundation of Byzance by Alexios I Comnenus). (On the West chronology is accepted by him from c. 1300 and in Russia from 1682.

Such recalculations are suggested when a historian is met with a problem serious enough for him. Now, indeed, falsifications of History are not unheard of, even if ways exist to detect them. Fomenko tells that even he cannot yet reconstruct anything before c. 700 AD; in that year the Ptolemaid dynasty rules in Alexandria, but he does not accept the previous existence of Alexander the Great. Aristotle and Ptolemy the Astronomer come sometimes in the next two centuries and the Alexandrian Library never existed as a building, but is allegoric and means the sum of the information in wall paintings & stone carvings in hieroglyphs. Well, this is madness in our paradigm.

One of the methods recognising historical falsifications is checking internal self-consistency. A not self-consistent history cannot be true (a seemingly self-consistent one still may be a lie, but that needs very careful falsification). Now, the recent study is about recorded year numbers, in churches and having only 3 digits, and Fomenko of course elaborated his opinion about such data. He lists lots of problems about doubtful contemporary year numberings (on title pages of books, on paintings &c.) at least indicating that year numbers should not automatically taken in face values [1]. I classify these problems (somewhat arbitrarily) into 3 subclasses:

1) Up to 16^th century there are cases when the first or first two numbers are separated by dots from the latter ones, be the numbers either Arabic or Roman. So then he doubts that the year counting really considered the dating be in the second millennium.

2) Early Arabic numbers in Europe were different from the recent ones. So our reading of some numbers may hesitate between 5 & 7; or 4 & 8. He follows this ambiguity unto the 1500's (in orthodox chronology) and in one exceptional case up to 1744; for Roman numbers even up to 1777 because of the (tricky?) writing of 1500, so MD, as DDD, but the first two with mirror images and intertwined.

3) He shows lots of examples when in Arabic numbers we find indeed a 4-digit number, but the first one is not a regular "1", but I, J, or even i or j. Even for the last, and so most unexpected, anomaly he can show examples up to 1762. His idea is, of course, that it means "762^th year of Jesus", in which case the starting letter I/J or i/j would be explained, and then in our chronology it would be 1814, well in modern age (albeit Scottish & French examples are known to doubt the Napoleonic Wars [5], [6], [7]).

Now, I do not want to take sides. I do not know why Italians in Cinquecento put dots after M's or D's in Roman numbers. This point will not even appear in our discussion after the end of the present Chapter. But I will give a few examples for Points 2 & 3, which examples, I am sure, are completely unknown for people interested (from any sides) in Fomenkology.

There is a border region of Regnum Hungariae (Kingdom of Hungary) which is being now part of Rumania, and whose name is rather unknown outside of Eastern Central Europe. For example, the land has no English name at all because of terminological problems. It is a mountaineous region West of the Eastern Carpathians (up to the divide), and in the official Latin of the Hungarian administration (Latin having been the official language up to 1841) is "Terra Siculorum", i.e. land/country of Szeklers". For the fine details of terminology, if you are interested at all, there is an Appendix A. However, here, in the main text, I must define a problem of identifying the localities for the theoretical possibility of checking the subsequent statements. The overwhelming majority of the population was and is from Early Middle Ages Magyar for language, but not Magyar for ethnicity. Until 1841/1867 the official language was Latin, but the overwhelming majority did not use Latin, so simply did not know the official Latin toponyms (if needed, some haphazard names were written into documents). From 1867 till 1920, and again between 1940 & 1947 the official language was Magyar which the population spoke. Between 1920 & 1947 and from 1947 upwards, the official language is Rumanian, not used by the population and if used, haphazardly. So I will give the Magyar names.

There are similar problems with the names of regions. Hungary uses the county system, in Latin "comitatus". However there were no counties on the Terra Siculorum, but a unit more or less similar for area but different for organisation; such a unit is called "sedes"; it would be “seat” but really there is no English terminology. In 1872 the Kingdom of Hungary arbitrarily and without any right dissolved the Szekler autonomy and organised counties. In 1920 the Rumanian state annexed the Hungarian counties of the Terra Siculorum, but more or less left the intercounty borders unchanged. However in 1950 County Bacau simply annexed one valley of County Ciuc/Csík. Then in the 70's the counties were reorganised so now the valley is in County Bacau, while it should be in County Harghita. So again: which region name should I use?

The documents are 2 books from the second half of the 19^th century, [8] and [9]. The author was a Baron (of Austria, because the title was not hereditary in Hungary), but a Szekler primor, and at the end of the century a Member of Parliament of Hungary (but in the House of Commons); he travelled though and through the Terra Siculorum and wrote down everything.

Now, let us see first examples for the above Point 2. The problem of "strange" Arabic numbers is well known for Hungarian historians, but Orbán gives nice late examples:

The old cathedral of the city Torda (always disputed between Magyars & Szeklers) was built at the old market place and already in 1889 was in bad state with previous barbaric "reconstructions". Orbán recorded some inscriptions which may not be extant now. One stone showed a shield with the date 1465, but minuscule Roman numbers, so "mcccclxv" (and not mcdlxv; I think, for symmetry's sake because "mcc" and "cclxv" were separated by a calyx). Another stone showed the keys of St. Peter, a six-pointed star, and the date "1452". However the "1" is an "I", the "4" is a "half-8", i.e. a "8" without the lower closure, and the "5" is very similar to the modern "7". In the nave Orbán found 3 dates: 1458, 1478 and 1504. The five dates are self-consistent; cathedrals were built then for decades. What is interesting, in the "1458" the "1" is similar to the recent "t", "4" is again the "8 unfinished below", and the "5" is very similar to the modern "7". "8" is as the modern. Then in "1478" "1", "4" and "8" is as in the previous date, while the "7" is similar to a capital "A" but with an interrupted, not continuous, horizontal. However, "1504" contains 2 specialities. First, now the "1" is not our "t", but a downward arrow (interestingly, the same as one of the "k"'s of the Szekler rhunic ABC). Second, all the four digits are separated by tiny symbols (not exactly dots).

There is another number read as "1504" in another temple in Torda built as Catholic but soon taken over by the Calvinists (more or less as Presbyterians in England or the State Church in Scotland); that is a "temple-fortress", quite usual in Transylvania. But there the "1" has a right-upward small addition also at the bottom (so the digit is mirror-symmetric), while the "5" is rather a "Z", so it is central-symmetric.

Now, to Point 3). [9] gives an example when a number (1673) starts with an explicit "J", and that is on the fence of the "of course Catholic" temple in Szentgyörgy in Sedes Csík. (It is difficult to find non- Catholic churches in Csík.) But the remaining 2 examples are stranger.

There is the village Ménaság in Sedes Csík. (In the valley of the creek Tapolca, which is rather a surprising name, being Bulgarian Slav; if Bulgarian river names are found there, they are rather Bulgarian Turk; as it will be discussed in Chap. 6.) Orbán found an inscription above the door of the sacristium: AE. T. H. ANO. 655. Now this is something.

Of course, Arabic numbers would be rather early in 655 AD, but let us continue. AE. is clearly the abbreviation for "built": some inflected form of "aedificat", of course in Latin. He does not resolve T. H., and I have no idea. But ANO. stands surely for "anno", so "in the year". So: "built in Year 655". Now what do we have here?

Orbán tells that the date is impossible. He thinks that there had been an "1" originally before the "655"; Fomenko would think that this is "the true 655", so the 655^th true year of Christ, so our 1707; but neither explanation is viable because the style of the building is "Old Gothic" according to Orbán. Gothic churches would appear from the beginning of 13^th century on the West; however interior Transylvania is somewhat archaic, so Orbán estimates the style to "the end of 14^th century". That is far from 1655. In which chronologic system was this building inscription composed?

One example could be an accident. The second such exotic date is from Gelence, Sedes Orbai. Again a Catholic temple, consecrated to St. Emmerich (Imre), the Heir Apparent of the first King of Hungary, Stephen I. The heir apparent was killed on a boar hunt and since 1031 we are continuously discussing if that was organised by "the German priests", but there are no evidences; for any case a civil war started during which the German emperor Henry tried to annex Hungary. The St. Emmerich temple, according to Orbán's estimations from the style, was built in 14^th century; and, for any case, a bulla of Pope Alexander VI from 1499 mentions it. However there is a date "575" above the door of the sacristium. Again, both 575 and 1575 are impossible, so there is no need to choose between them; but then what is this 575?

You may or may not believe this; Magyars rather would not because they do not like the idea that Szeklers arrived 450 years earlier than the Magyar Landtaking. The National Paradigms will be discussed in due course. However among the Szekler mitochondrial haplogroups you can find some ones unknown in Europe whose nearest occurrence is in Eastern Asia [10].

In our present counting 575 & 655 is Early Middle Ages: Völkerwanderung is over on the West but definitely not in the Carpathian Basin. In Illig's scheme the first date does exist but the second do not: it belongs to Invented History. In Fomenko's New Chronology our 575 & 655 would belong to the still unresolved history when the Ptolemaids rule the civilised world from Alexandria but he knows only this. A contemporary consequent 575 or 655 counted from Jesus' birth in Antiochia, on the other side, would belong to Early Modern Ages, impossible for building styles & such. So even unorthodox histories do not help; now let us see what other year counting systems might help, if at all.

4. SOME DIONYSIAN AND NON-DIONYSIAN ERAS IN EUROPE

Fomenko calls our attention to problems with historic falsifications, oversimplifications and such, independently of our choice to accept or refuse his scheme. In the present case something is obviously strange about the dates in the inscriptions; but we do not yet see all the possible interpretations. This Chapter discusses the question if a Catholic church in Europe must or must not have used the Anno Domini or Dionysian Era at the time of Early Gothic building style. (We will see later that Gelence indeed looks very early Gothic.) Here I call attention last time that in this study we must use more than one paradigms, sometimes even synchronously, and “truth” is not paradigm-independent. Mainly we will use the paradigm of mainstream Middle Ages history (which I personally believe quite good even if not perfect). Fomenko's New Chronology is used when Fomenko's name is explicitly mentioned. Later 4 “national” paradigms will be listed too, and used, but if possible, in separate blocks not to confuse them. I should use different fonts, but 6 or 7 fonts are too many. Anyway, the reader may feel himherself in the age of Galileo & the Religious Wars; but of course there are more national histories than national physics.

Chronological systems in which subsequent years are labelled by subsequent numbers are superior to those where this is not true. E.g. if the years are linearly counted, the temporal distance of any 2 event is obtained by simple subtraction. As for starting point any important enough event might do (real or fictitious) if consensus exists. Such is our present worldwide system independently of your interpreting the era AD or CE; and are also its smaller Near East sibling systems, the Hegira and from Creation.

However such counting systems are relatively new. In Bronze Ages the system generally was: there is the One Ruler, say, the Lord of the Four Corner of the World (in fact, the King sitting on the throne in Babylon, Aššur or Hattušaš), and now we are in his 24^th year of rule. Maybe these years were (retroactively) named also, as "the year of Crushing the Might of the Cedar Mountain" or such; then good and gapless King Lists were necessary to calculate the time between Sulgi's 23^rd and Hamurabbi's 18^th. Lots of such King Lists are extant; unfortunately often not gapless. This older system (still in existence in the highly official Japanese calendar seldom met by outlanders) has the obvious advantage that the chronology of the last generation is independent of historical hypotheses.

In Iron Ages rulers became less holy and many city-states started to sign the years by the head officials of that year. In Athens he was the First Archon called loosely The Archon; in Rome they were the two consuls of the year. The Roman system was in use until the middle of 6^th century AD, when Italy went down in the bloodbath of the Byzantine-Gothic Wars. Thenceforth Imperial chronology went according to the years of the Eastern Emperor; local chronologies in various ways.

However then there already were systems in principle similar to ours, in special uses. Astronomers of Hellenistic East used the Nabunaid Era, from the reigns of that Neo-Babylonian King, Seleucid Kings of Asia used the Seleucid Era, Marcus Terentius Varro computed the date of founding Rome and Titus Livius elaborated the dating Ab Urbe Condita, and the Byzantine Church computed Creation and counted thence. (Let us note that the numbers of the other “from Creation” calendar, the Jewish synagogue one, are quite different.) We know that the Byzantine startpoint was fully fictitious and the Varro-Livius AUC point is wrong by cca. 5 years; but this is not really a problem until everybody uses the same startpoint consequently.

Our Anno Domini system was suggested by Dionysius Exiguus, in Rome, c. 525 AD, as a byproduct of calculating Easter Tables for the future. Originally he was a monk from Tomi, which is now Rumania, and so he is a Saint since 2008 of the autonomous Rumanian Orthodox Church, but then it was Scythia Minor and in Early Middle Ages he was referred as a Scythian. He worked on Latin & Greek, went to Rome in c. 500, and, as far as we know, did not return to Tomi afterwards.

His Easter Tables were accepted by the Western Church immediately, but his suggestion of year counting took some time. The first important book using it was the British Church History of Beda Venerabilis in 8^th c., and the first chronicle about laic history maybe was that of Regino of Prüm just after 908.

From the Gospels it was clear that Jesus was born during the reign of the first Roman Emperor, Augustus, at the end of the reign of Herod the Great in Judea, and during a census ordered by Quirinus, procurator or governor of Syria. Even now we have a few years of uncertainty here because it seems that Herod and Quirinus did not overlap; and they definitely do not overlap in Judea, which was still an independent country during Herod. Of course this is not a problem in the scheme of Fomenko. But it is pointless to demolish our Established History for a few years in a religious text 2 millennia ago. Dionysius averaged the possible years and then the uncertainty is maximally 7 years. Dionysius computed a definite year and that is our AD 1. This was done in AD 525, and the counting system diffused slowly. While the Papal Court used it more and more, even there it became the only system in 1431. In the 15^th century, however, it became widely used everywhere in the West by chroniclers.

But until that century it was not the only widely used counting convention even in the West. The best known local concurrent was the Hispanian Era. Lots of gravestones and church inscriptions are extant shoving data from the 500's to the 1400's of the Hispanian Era; Portugal switched to the Anno Domini system only in 1422 AD.

There are 3 important questions about the Hispanian Era: i) how to convert data to Anno Domini; ii) when was the Era introduced and by whom; and iii) what event is the startpoint.

As for Q. i), well-documented data show that the thumb rule is to subtract 38 to get the AD number. As for Q. ii) there is a story that the Vandal King Geizerich ordered its overall use after raiding Rome in 455 AD; and indeed the oldest extant inscriptions are 500+. As for Q. iii), none quite important seems to have happened in 38 BC; but Iulius Caesar ordered an important calendar reform in 46 BC, so the new calendar system seems to have started in 45 BC; again a 7 year error if the calendar reform was the startpoint of the Era. Anyway, this system, quite independent of the Dionysian one, lived a millennium, in general use, but only regionally.

Other regional Eras might have existed, but are much less documented or not at all. Sometimes there are mentions, e.g., of a Mauritanian Provincial Era, but that region became lost for the West in 8^th century, so Medieval historians did not preserve too much about it. Central ex-provinces, as e.g. Italy, of course did not use Provincial Eras.

And this discussion has demonstrated something. Since Enlightment there is a topos that Western Europe was in panic in 999 AD waiting for Final Judgement. Now: who knew in 999 AD that there was just 999 AD?

Well, readers of Beda Venerabilis and Regino of Prüm may have known. Say, 1000 men in Europe. Maybe some monks discussed the question. Surely, High Churchmen in the court of Otto III, and in Rome after putting down Pope John with Saxon troops. Surely, the courts of Pope Sylvester and Emperor Otto tried to synchronise the official conversion of Hungary and Poland to 1000 AD which date they did know. But the masses of laics did not yet use the Dionysian era!

5. SZEKLER CATHOLICS BEFORE 895?

The inscriptions at Ménaság & Gelence are Latin; the year numbers indicate Early Middle Ages and the churches are Catholic now. Of course, Catholic Churches are built by/for Catholic populations. Can we draw any conclusion from this except that there is some unknown and surely not Humanist tradition of year-counting behind (including, of course, hoaxes)? I do not know; but let us try with orthodox explanations in this Chapter. By orthodox I mean explanations quite unusual but still keeping the points that "575" and "655" mean the years 575 & 655 of our conventions, and that they are not hoaxes. (The second assumption is almost pointless: in Sedes Csík laics would not dare desecrate a church and the local priest would not make a hoax in his temple.) Note that in our 655 “Catholic” did not mean “not Greek Orthodox”, that schism still being in the future, but non-Arian, non-Monophysite & such.

First let us see who may have lived in the later Ss. Csík & Orbai in 575 & 655. Of course the Early Medieval history of Transylvania is not too well known and is vehemently discussed by concurrent state nationalities. So some readers will not believe my statements: let them be.

Now you might ask me to remain with the facts. However facts are gathered by observations: and, as we should know from Quine [11] the ways from observations to facts are paved with hypotheses. In cases when the actual paradigm works smoothly we do not even recognise the hypotheses; but when the paradigm does not work well, we meet problems. They may come from a paradigm used beyond its easy applicability (as in the times from Copernicus till Newton the old Ptolemaic paradigm worked harder and harder or from 1616 till 1666 when Physics had to change paradigms from the Aristotelian to Newtonian) but it may as well come from falsifications, not unheard in History. So let us see first a few (four) competing paradigms. Just now I give only a bird’s eye overview; details come in Sect. 7.

There is the "Daco-Roman continuity". This was the majority opinion of Rumanian historians from 1878; after 1920 when Rumania annexed Transylvania it became almost the official opinion; and it was made strictly official from 1947. Now maybe it is again almost official. The paradigm deals with the history of Provincia Dacia of the Roman Empire. We do know that Emperor Aurelian ordered the evacuation of Old Dacia in AD 271; nevertheless the Daco-Roman Paradigm states the hidden existence of a Neo-Latin group in Transylvania after the evacuation until c 1200, when the group begins to appear in Transylvanian documents. So anything was erected, that may have been erected by proto-Rumanians…

There was never one, quite official Magyar paradigm paradigm about the history of Transylvania, neither a Hungarian one. However with some caution we can speak about an unofficial one. But first note that until 1920 Magyars belonged to a multiethnic Hungary. Afterwards they so much dominate Hungary that she is almost a Magyar state. However after the Second World War both Rumania and Hungary were kept in line by the Soviet Union, so Hungarians should not have told anything against Daco-Roman Continuity. Of course this did not work smoothly, but it was enough to slow down the syntheses about the Medieval history of Transylvania. Until 1983, when a committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences dared write a big book about. It was helped by two facts. First, Rumania was led then by Conducator Nicolae Ceausescu. He was a paranoid & megalomaniac dictator, but that fact was not really important; all countries of the Soviet sphere of influence were led by dictators, although Ceauşescu, the Genius of the Carpathians, was the most megalomaniac (and in the same time, the most popular on the West). However, in his megalomania he sometimes dared to play off China & Yugoslavia against the Soviet Union, so Soviet-Rumanian connections were somewhat strained, which of course gave some possibility to Hungary to discuss Daco-Roman Continuity. And, second, in that time the Minister of Education in Hungary was a Transylvanian Hungarian. He became the Head of the Committee for the Book [12], so the book reflects the Communist version of the Hungarian Paradigm. (Here I give both the English and the Magyar versions; the second is more detailed.) Some years later, not much before the Rumanian military murdering Conducator Ceauşescu, a Hungarian historian (mainly archaeologist) wrote a book discussing Dacians/Rumanians in the Hungarian Paradigm both from historical and from linguistic viewpoints [13].

The Szekler Paradigm is quite different. In its traditional form it goes as follows. The Szeklers entered Transylvania in 454, from the West. Namely, this is the year of the Nedao battle when, in the year after the death of Great King (Tanhu) Attila/Atilla/Etele/Etzel/Atli, somewhere near the Danube the coalition of rebel Germans led by Ardaric/Aladár the Gepid, won. So the core population of the Huns started to evacuate the Carpathian Basin, led by 3 substantial sons of the Tanhu: Ellac, Dengizic & Irnac/Csaba. Until this point this is International/Supranational History. But the Szekler tradition knows an extra detail.

When the withdrawing Hun army of 15,000 warriors (of course, mounted) started to take the route through the later Valachia (so the plains between the Lower Danube and the Southern Carpathians), a subleader of 2,000 called Opour went to Irnac/Csaba, telling: "Leader, we would rather stop in Transylvania and keep the territory. Who knows, maybe you will come back." The leader agreed, and Opour, the 2,000 warriors and dependents took themselves into Transylvania. Maybe they erected the temples.

Finally there is the Saxon Continuity Paradigm. In Late Humanist times some Transylvanian Saxon historians formulated their priority in Transylvania on the grounds that they descend from Gepids (or Goths) arriving at Transylvania in 271. (Anybody else believes that the Saxon settling was organised by Geyza II, King of Hungary c. 1135; of course there was a Gepid immigration c. 271, and the Saxons might have found some Gepids there but there seems to be an at least 400 year archaeologic gap). I give a proper reference as [14], which is, however, rather formal because I cannot believe that you would consult with it; and also a Turkish one from 1740, written by an anonymous expert at the Turkish Service for External Affairs [15] for which I give the reference to the Magyar edition (being the sole other only partial, in Turkish).

Here I close this Chapter. For the average English reader the story is about unknown faraway nations whose claims he cannot check and do not want to believe. However before the Discussion/Conclusions still comes a brief Chapter about the linguistics of the toponyms of the Szekler Lands and neighbourhood. Of course the situation will not clarify up too much.

6. BULGARIAN TOPONYMS IN TRANSYLVANIA

The memory of an Early Medieval population in Ss. Csík & Orbai may be kept by strange toponyms. Of course villages & towns generally do not keep the names given by extinct populations very long; however rivers may survive several populations.

An example is the Danube. In any known language (except for Greek!) it starts with D. The German Donau clearly goes back to the same word as the Latin Danubius; in Magyar & Khazarian it is Duna, in Slavic languages something Dunaj and in Rumanian Dunarea (maybe from the suffixed Magyar form Duna rea → Dunára: to the Danube). And there are lots of D-rivers in Europe as Don, Dnieper, Dvina, Thames &c. Maybe the propagation of the Ur-name DN goes back to the migration of Ancient Celts.

Now, at Terra Siculorum there is an interesting dichotomy. There are rivers/creeks with double names: one is Turkic, so probably Bulgarian Turk (we have seen the Bulgarian presence in 9^th century), the other Slavic, probably Bulgarian Slavic. (Bulgarian Turkish is well separable linguistically from Common Turkish, and Bulgarian Slavic is sometimes separable from other Slavic.) Then generally the Turkic form can be found in Magyar (Szekler is linguistically Magyar too), while the Slavic form is preserved in the non-Magyar languages.

Let us see a few examples. There is a substantial river arising in the Szekler Lands, the Nagy-Küküllő (Nagy is Great; there is a Kis-Küküllő, Little, as well.) The Rumanian name of the river is Tîrnava. Now, there is a substantial city in Slovakia, called Trnava (the Magyar name is Nagyszombat) and trnka is blueberry in Slovakian. So Tîrnava is a Slavic river name, connected to either the blue colour or to the blueberry. Indeed, Küküllő is explained from Turkish, meaning "a field of blueberries". Blue is kök in Common Turkic and kék in Magyar, but in Magyar this is a Chuvash-Turkic loanword, and Chuvas is the only surviving close kin of Bulgarian Turkic.

There is a small river/big creek Brassó. It runs at the big city Brassó/Kronstadt/Braşov (Magyar/Saxon/Rumanian). However see that the Rumanian form is clearly Slavic (surely Bulgarian Slavic) for the -v ending, but Bulgarian Turk for the root. Brassó is clearly Bora Shu = Grey Water. (In Common Turkic it would be Boz Su; this is the way to identify Bulgarian/Onoguric Turkish.) There is a Krassó well to the South (out of the Szekler Lands but near to Bulgaria) and that is clearly Kara Shu = Black Water. One of the Saxon Sedes is Bistriza, with a river Bistrica, which is Bistrica = Bistra Reka = Rapid River/Creek, Slavic. And so on.

In Moldva & Walachia lots of Slavic toponyms are known, when identifiable, Bulgarian Slavic ones. This is conform with the reconstruction that Rumanians came after the Slavs, from the South, but of course do not prove it in itself.

7. DISCUSSION 1: THE PARADIGMS

The Discussion will make 3 Chapters. In the first, I give overviews of the 4 (and half) paradigms, concentrating on settlement dates and anyway on the possibility of building the Gelence & Ménaság churches with their building styles and the Gelence building inscription in years which the building community called 575 & 655. In the second I mention a few problems in each of the paradigms, elaborated, of course, by the followers of the concurrent paradigms. And then in the third I discuss if the strange inscriptions have any interpretation at all in the 4 paradigms + Fomenko's New Chronology.

Although it is generally difficult to recognise, mainly we think within a paradigm. In many cases problems arise when we are already near to the border of parsimony of the paradigm.

The Saxon Continuity Paradigm

This is the older of the 2 Continuity Paradigms (see in due course), even if recently it has practically lost its followers. The idea was suggested by two facts:

1) At the present of the theory (17^th c.) there was a well-established and old German population in Transylvania, with a unique enough German idiom (clearly different from either Hochdeutsch or from Plattdietsch); and

2) Late Ancient sources wrote about "Dacians & Getae" as populations of Dacia; and while the Latest Humanist Saxon historians had no clues about the kinship of Dacians, they interpreted the Getae as Goths (together with innumerable Byzantian &c. historians of Middle Ages). And of course Gothic and Gepid takeover in Dacia Traiana just after 271 was commonplace in Roman texts. I note that even if the Laws of Sound Changes came into use only at the end of 18^th century, Gothic was known in the 17^th one quite well, say from the Bible translation of Bishop Wulfilas of 4^th century; it was distinctly not West Germanic, so one might expect peculiarities in the language of the descendants of Goths.

The classical monographs giving the details of the paradigm are [14] and [16]; of course the authors were Transylvanian Saxons. The only other source known for me is a Turkish document from 1740. It mentions in a quite matter-of-fact way that Germans entered the Carpathian Basin with the Huns in 5^th century, and some descendants have survived. (The source is published so far only in Turkish & in Magyar; I give the latter, which is Macar tarihi in [15].)

Of course in this paradigm Goths and Gepids are in Transylvania in 575 & 655 Dionysian Era, and surely they are Christian then (see the Wulfilas Bible). The details are not so simple, but with that you ought to wait until the endchapter of Discussions.

The Daco-Roman Continuity

This theory started to develop in the time of King of Hungary and Prince of Transylvania Maria Theresa (1740-1780; incidentally Text [15] was written just months before her enthronement). She was crowned King of Hungary, not Queen (from the acclamation at the Hungarian diet in Pressburg: Vitam et sanguinem pro rege nostra, Maria Theresia!); and she did not take the title Empress in any way. Her husband (who was definitely not King of Hungary, although he was the deputy of Maria Theresa, Prince of Transylvania, subject of herself there) was crowned Emperor in 1745, and Maria Theresa would have been crowned as Empress, but she did not appear on the event.

With Maria Theresa's substantial help a substantial part of Transylvanian Rumanian secessionist Greek Orthodoxes revoked the 1054 secession and became reorganised into the Catholic (so Universal) Church as "Greek Catholics". Then young would-be priests got Latin education, and they became curious about the similarity between their mother language and Latin.

They were not the first ones; some Humanists centuries ago mentioned some similarities and tried with some hosts of some Roman generals as explanations. However now the problem was discussed on the descendants' side. The group of the 3 classical Greek Catholic intellectuals, discussing this problem with each other, is the "Transylvanian Triad", Budai-Deleanu, Maior & Şincai. I do not yet give references, since their theory was still the precursor of Daco-Roman Continuity, not the paradigm itself.

Namely, the Triad postulated that the Romans defeated the Dacians, maybe extirpated them, and the recent Rumanians are the direct descendants of (colonial) Romans in Dacia. Later in Rumania (meaning here "not in Transylvania", which is in any sense strictly correct until 1920) the idea was upgraded postulating the hybridisation of Dacians & Romans, the Romanisation of Dacians, the stubborn refusal of evacuating Dacia by the majority in 271, and hidden continuous life in Transylvania for a millennium. That is the Daco-Roman continuity: Dacians and Romans intermingling and secretly surviving.

The main supporting point is the existence of a Neo-Latin language in old Dacia and neighbouring lands. As for references, I give here 2 in English, [17] & [18], but you can use any history book published on territories under Rumanian military supervision between 1948 & 1989, and most between 1878 & present.

Let us now look at Late Antiquity-Early Middle Ages in the Daco-Roman Paradigm. From Roman texts we do know that Emperor Aurelianus evacuated the old Dacia in 271 AD, and organised new Dacia(s) roughly at the present Serbian-Bulgarian border, South of the Danube (as e.g. Dacia Ripensis, previously Moesia Ripensis, around Ratiaria). But Daco-Roman Continuity teaches us that the evacuation was only for the well-to-do; the majority remained in the old Dacia keeping the Roman culture, the Latin language &c. Perhaps they were already Christians (Diocletian comes 14 years after the evacuation and he starts the global persecution of Christians, but of course not in old Dacia, no more in the Empire). The Roman population, of course, must go "underground" because the old Dacia is taken over by Germans (mostly Gepids); this was the reason of the abandonment. Then comes the Völkerwanderung, the Avars, Bulgars and Magyars, but the Rumanians of Transylvania survive, keeping Latin & Christianity. From 1200 they are mentioned in documents.

The Hungarian/Magyar Paradigm

Strictly there are 2 paradigms here: one, the Hungarian, was accepted before c. 1740 every historian of Hungary if not Transylvanian Saxon or Szekler and after 1740 if not the previous ones + Transylvanian Rumanians, the other is the Magyar opinion through 20^th century. But the difference is subtle and hard to distinguish both in English and in Magyar.

During a millennium of the Hungarian State (since 1000) the State accepted some axioms about her origin. Details may have been changing, but the axioms remained constant. Namely that:

The Hungarian State is not a Magyar state;

however the dynasty having organised her came with the Magyars;

before but not too much before 1000;

some others were found here, others came with the Magyars, while a third class immigrated later.

The Paradigm took practically its present form in 19^th century, under a Hungarian Academy of Sciences from 1825 and an independent and state-size Hungarian education system since 1867. In the 19^th century one extra Axiom was added:

The Szeklers are Magyars.

The literature is tremendous, but it is mainly written in Magyar. As for Transylvania, and especially for Gelence & Ménaság, see of course [12], where, as I told, the canonical text is of course Magyar, but English versions do exist, and I give one too. Note that the Chief Editor was the Minister of Education of Hungary at the publication, he was Transylvanian, and back in 1943 he got his Ph.D. for a dissertation about folk arts & such in Rumanian villages of Northern Transylvania.

The answer for any question concerning the Gelence & Ménaság inscriptions can be summarized simply enough in that Paradigm, even if some details remain to the endchapter of Discussions. Namely:

· No respectable Hungarian authority used any time any other chronology than the Dionysian one;

· so 575 & 655 on the walls of Catholic Churches must mean 575 & 655 of the Dionysian Era;

· then no Magyar existed in Transylvania, so no Szekler either;

· Rumanians appeared in Transylvania c. 1200 (and they were Orthodox, not Catholic),

· Saxons appeared under King Geyza II (mid-12^th century) and they were Catholic but that is too late;

· in 575 Transylvania was under Avar hegemony but Avars then were pagans;

· remnants of now extinct peoples or early Slavs may have been at the later Gelence & Ménaság, but then they could not build Early Gothic-style buildings with Latin inscriptions.

Hungarians do not know Orbán's publication, or if they know it, they ignore it. Anyway, he was an eccentric Szekler Primor.

Old Dacia was more or less the historical Transylvania, from Porolissum on the West to the Eastern Carpathians to the East. The Romans defeated Decebal, took his capitol Sarmisegetuza, but in the later years the administration was centered at Apulum (Gyulafehérvár-Alba Iulia). The country East of River Aluta (Olt now) was in a special position during the 165 Roman years, analogous to Wales in Britannia: no cities there.

Aurelianus evacuates Dacia in 271. Gepids come in. Later Eastern Goths appear as well, and from 408 Transylvania is the part of the Hun Empire. However in 454 Ardarik, King of Gepids organizes a mainly German alliance against the Huns, the alliance wins at Nedao (somewhere in Transdanubia, which is a special Hungarian notion signifying the irregular quadrangle of the Alps, Danubius, again Danubius and Dravus), and the Huns leave the Carpathian Basin to the East, under the leadership of 2 substantial sons of the late Great King Attila, Dengizic & Irnac. Gepids are hegemons in Transylvania (and generally East of Tisia) until 567.

In 567 a Langobard-Avar alliance defeats the Gepids, and from 568 the Avars hold the whole Basin. However Gepids are archaeologically well documented in Transylvania until the 700's.

Avars are defeated by the Franks of Charlemagne in 795, and Khan Krum of Danube Bulgaria annexes the Eastern Avar lands including Transylvania in 804. However in far, hilly Transylvania Bulgarian presence (both Turkish and Slavic) is thin, except the salt mines (2 centuries later the salt mines are at Dés, Doboka, Torda & Parajd). At least the Torda salt mine is known from Krum's time.

In 895-6 arrive the Magyars and take over, except maybe the salt mines which may remain under Bulgarian control for a while. Accepting the Magyar Paradigm the locality of Szeklers in 896 is not clear. They may be Late Avars retiring into Eastern Transylvania after 795, or a Bulgarian tribe called Eskils joining the Magyars still East of the Carpathians (the existence of the tribe is documented in Arab/Persian contemporary sources), or border controllers of the Bulgarians at the salt mines or even a conglomerate of Magyar border controllers collected and organised just after 1004.

So in the Hungarian Paradigm in first approximation nobody could write 575 & 655 at Gelence & Ménaság. In second one maybe Christianised Gepids, but who cares?

The Szekler Paradigm

As I told, it exists in a strict form, in which lot of observations are hard to interpret. So different historians make it looser at different key points. Of course, it would be improper to try to review all variants, so first I give the strict Paradigm, and then only two "looser" ones, with different changes at the same point.

As for the strict form of the paradigm, the Szekler publications are rather late; but you can find a few sentences in 2 old Hungarian chronicles, "Anonymus" & Simeon de Kéza [19], [20], also in the first printed Hungarian chronicle of John of Thúrócz [21], in Bonfinius from c. 1506 and simultaneously in the detailed Law Book of Werbőczy. The texts are short but quite synoptic about Szekler origin; surely the authors took the information from the Szeklers. However note that "Anonymus" was the notary of "King Béla" (maybe of the Third), Bonfini was working on the order of Kings Matthias and Wladislaw around 1500, and Simeon de Kéza was the tutor of the child-King of Ladislaus IV (the Kuman). They would have not written down the sentences if opposed by the Kings. So we may conclude that the Strict Szekler Paradigm existed at the end of 13^th century and in that time was accepted by the Hungarian State.

Some details may have changed in the subsequent centuries; however the axioms of the Strict Szekler Paradigm are as follows.

The Szeklers descend from the Huns of Great King Attila. Other groups may descend from the Huns too, but the latters returned to the East under the sons of Attila, while the Szeklers remained in Transylvania.

When the Magyars returned under Prince Árpád, the Szeklers made a bilateral agreement with him, so the Szekler Lands do not come from Magyar Princes or Hungarian Kings; on the Szekler Lands the Szeklers were the first possessors, the lands are allodia, and the Hungarian Kings have nothing to do with them.

All Szeklers are free, except if they gave themselves to bondage or a rightful Szekler court or folkmote ordered them to bondage; with such persons the Law has nothing to do afterwards.

Szeklers are kins of Magyars but not Magyars.

Now, as for the language of the Huns (the term itself is meaningless, having been the Empire multiethnic, but the peoples of Irnac should have been “Eastern”), we know next of nothing, see App. B. We have, however, solid Orthodox chronology. Let us see some numbers. The death of Attila is 453 for our knowledge, and anybody in Europe put it somewhere to the middle of 5^th century in any time (Late Roman texts mention it). As for the Magyar Landtaking in earlier centuries the date varied but the oldest was 677 (we will return to this date) and the youngest was 908. So if the Gelence & Ménaság data are meant in Dionysian Era, then they belong to an age when in the Strict Szekler Paradigm Szeklers are in the Carpathian Basin but Magyars are not.

Since Gelence & Ménaság are within the Szekler Lands, the churches must have been built by Szeklers. Q.E.D.

As I told, extant detailed Szekler texts about the Strict Szekler Paradigm are late. (The Szekler alphabet was Rhunic, written mainly on wood; and many texts may have been perished.) The most detailed extant text is "A csíki székely krónika" (The Szekler Chronicle of Sedes Csík), originally in Latin. The original manuscript allegedly was written in 1533, but we know it only since 1796, when a Csíksomlyó Franciscan reported the manuscript. Its first printed publication is [22], where the Chronicle is an Appendix. The critical scholarly edition is [23].

The most ambitious poem written in this Paradigm is [24], where the author sings the Szekler Landtaking in Transylvania in 454. The Hun leader is Csaba, son of Attila, helped by God Haddur (literally: War Lord). The negative side is led by Kaimbár, Last King of Dacians (who is a sorcerer) and God Nemere. Nemere in our time is the name of a dangerous wind in Transylvania. It is interesting to note that the author, Sándor Székely of Aranyosrákos later became the Bishop of the Unitarian Church (at Claudiopolis, but that is the only bishopry of the Unitarians; no other anywhere on Earth). Well, maybe Haddur is not a false pagan god, being the God of Szeklers; but Nemere is a god too, that is at least two, and that is surprising from the later Bishop of the Unitarians.

A lot of historical data are difficult to be interpreted in the Strict Szekler Paradigm, so after 1867 alternatives of the Paradigm has been elaborated. They, however, keep three key points:

· The Szeklers are kin of the Magyars but different;

· they are earlier in the Carpathian Basin than 896;

· they acquired the present Szekler Lands themselves, not obtained them.

The simplest way of improvement is to postulate the descent not from Attila's Empire but from another Eastern mounted people, but before 896. This is not a problem at all; there were such people even if their names were lost from Medieval Hungarian tradition. Bonfinius knew it, because he used Medieval Italian texts as well; Hungarian historians learnt them from Westerners, and Hungarian archaeology collected lots of their material remnants in 20^th century. The collective name of the peoples is Avar; but there are at least 2, maybe 3 different tribal alliances behind. The Avars dominated the Carpathian Basin between 568 & 795 (Dionysian Era), and they very probably survived until the Magyar Landtaking in 896 when obviously the Magyar (and/or Szekler) society integrated them. The first Avar wave came from the Altai and was led by Khagan Bayan; he reunified the Basin in 568. Slightly after 630 (the defeat against Byzantium) serious but not well known troubles started and the internal peace was not restored until the arrival of a new population c. 680. This new wave seems undetected by any historians outside the Basin (and remember again the Invented 297 Years of Illig, but it is enough for now of paradigms), and we have no records beyond a few undeciphered words from the Avars now; but the archaeologists detect the new wave and the different styles of weapons & ornaments. They very tentatively suggest the feet of the Caucasus as startpoint.

Now, some historians observed that the Medieval Hungarian chronicles do not mention Avars, but in the Hun stories some belong to the Avar era. (See e.g. [25].) Also, in the chronicles, if years appear, the gap is too short between Attila & Árpád, if generations are mentioned, they are too few. Hence it is straightforward to assume that the Huns of the Szekler tradition mean Avars too, and Csaba, son of "Attila" may be Csaba, son of the last Avar Khagan.

However, two different times are possible for the Csaba of the Loosened Szekler Paradigm. The first is the arrival of the "Caucasian Avars" c. 680. They surely took over, and then some offspring of the ruling dynasty of the "Early Avars" might have retreated into Transylvania.

And this is the proper place to note that there is a strange datum about the Magyar Landtaking in a Hungarian chronicle. The Vienna Illustrated Chronicle, manufactured c. 1370, probably under the auspices of the Royal Chancellery, tells the Landtaking according to the Hungarian canon, mentions Prince Árpád, but writes the year 677 [26]. Hungarian historians either completely ignore the peculiarity, or simply refer to a pen error; but the datum appears twice and in words, not in numbers. If we do not believe in miraculously fitting pen errors, then this 677 is too close to the c. 680 of archaeologists not to be the date of the takeover of the "Caucasian" or Late Avars; note that the Landtaking of Bulgars in Danube Bulgaria led by Khan Asparuch is 681.

Archaeologist Gy. László elaborated a theory of "Double Landtaking" [27]. In this, the Magyar language appeared in the Basin with the Late Avars c. 680; the host of Prince Árpád in 896 was not too numerous, spoke a Turkic language and was linguistically assimilated soon enough. However socially the Árpáds won, and they occupied the top of the pyramid.

* Now back to [23]. Then there are two possibilities for an improvement for the Szekler Paradigm. In the first Zandirham, Chief Rhabonban of the Csíki Székely Krónika lives in 677, a stubborn member of the weak ruling dynasty of the Early Avars, making an agreement with the glorious Late Avars and keep the Easternmost part of the old lands of his dynasty amongst the Transylvanian mountains. Note that the title "Rhabonban" is a hapax legomenon, but the second half is "Ban". Now, that is now a high Croatian title, denoting c. the deputy of the Croatian King, but it is almost sure that the Croatian title derives from the name of Bayan, founder of the ruling dynasty of the Early Avars, the dynasty whose end we just are discussing.

The other possibility for occupying Eastern Transylvania is just after 795. Then there was a civil war in Avaria. According to detectably unreliable and lying Frankish texts, the Khagan and the Iugurrus (the first and second men of the Empire) killed each other at the battlefield, and Pippin, son of Charlemagne, restored the peace (meaning: collected the gold of the Khagan). Then Charlemagne accepted the oath of the Tudun, the Lord of Western Marches, and crowned him as Theodoricus in 803 in Aachen.

As I told, the Frankish source lies. However, the civil war seems to be true. It seems that during it the Tudun revolted and made an alliance with Erik, Earl (Markgraf) of Friauli. Also, we have no trace of resistance from the dynasty of the Khagan. The group either vanished or went to the East. True, Khan Krum of Bulgaria occupied the Plains (East from the Danube) soon, and in the second half of the 800's there is some Bulgarian presence at the Transylvanian salt mines, but otherwise we do not know too much about the situation in Transylvania. The survivor of the dynasty of the Late Avars might have the name Csaba and he might grab some lands in Transylvania.

Note that these Loosened Szekler Paradigms do not help us if the dates are meant in Dionysian Era; even at Ménaság 655 is before the arrival of the Late Avars, and in the Loosened Szekler Paradigm Szeklers may not even be yet at Gelence and Ménaság. More discussion will come later.

8. DISCUSSION 2: IF IT WERE TRUE, THEN…

The 4 paradigms, even in their more moderate forms, mutually contradict each other. This is natural, as I am going to demonstrate it on a physical analogy. This is simply a consequence that no existing theory can be perfect and paradigms cannot be linearly combined.

At the very beginning of 20^th century 2 new disciplines started in Physics, from sheer necessity. Relativity was the best answer to the decades-old problem of the unexpected Negative Result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment (Earth should move according to the Luminoferous Ether and the apparatus should have detected it); and Quantum Physics was the first theory able to predict the Black-Body Spectrum; it was necessary not for the details but even for the primitive facts that the total radiating energy is finite and still the Stefan-Boltzmann and Wien Laws are true. Both new theories were great achievements, the physicists were happy, especially when finally Relativity was rigorously formulated in 1908 as Physics in a 4-Dimensional Space-Time, and when Quantum Physics became Quantum Mechanics in 1926, a Theory as axiomatic as Newton’s old Mechanics.

And yet, the full, closed &c. two new Theories contradict each other, as it can be seen in a primitive example. A consequence of Quantum Mechanics is Heisenberg’s Principle of Uncertainty:

ΔpΔx≥ħ/2 (8.1)

So if a particle is confined into a small box, high momenta appear with some probability.

* But in Quantum Mechanics

P = mv (8.2)

So in a small enough box velocities >c would appear with non-negligible probabilities. But Relativity tells us that such motions cannot exist at all!

Obviously a Relativistic Quantum Mechanics would be needed, that theory indeed has been formulated by Dirac, but later it turned out that the Dirac theory is logically not closed and cannot be made closed. Much later Quantum Field Theory was formulated; but even Quantum Field Theory does contradict now to any available Theory of Gravity.

If two Fundamental Theories of General Validity contradict, then at least one of them is not of general validity, or not true. In many cases later it turns out that both must be improved or they must be unified; we return to this in the next Chapter, but it is obvious in our example that if both Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics apply on everything, then they can contradict only if they are not true, otherwise two contradicting statements would have to be true, which indeed seems to be impossible. (Medieval Duplex Veritas is now not fashionable at least in Science.) If Past really did happen (what we assume here), then it happened in a unique way.

Now let us list at least a few explicit contradictions between paradigms relevant to the Gelence & Ménaság temples. The purpose of this demonstration is to prevent the use of linear combinations of mutually contradictory theories; if not earlier, this point will be explicit at the beginning of the next Chapter. We mentioned 4 Paradigms: the Saxon Continuity (α), the Daco-Roman Continuity (β), the Hungarian National Paradigm (γ) and the Szekler National Paradigm (δ). There are 6 pairs of them, and in this Chapter we demonstrate some (not all, for brevity’s sake) serious contradictions of them.

{αβ} Contradictions:

The Saxon Continuity Paradigm is separate from all the others. If you accept it, then the Daco-Roman Continuity cannot be true, because there are no old German loanwords in Rumanian, although in Paradigm α Transylvania was German-dominated for 3 centuries, and German-inhabited for 2 more centuries, while in Paradigm β in the very same time Transylvania is the center of formation of the Rumanian nation & language.

{αγ} Contradictions:

Every researchers working in Paradigm γ cites the decree of King Geyza II starting the settlement of Saxons in Transylvania (XII^th c.), and they agree that it was the first Hungarian-supervised such settlement. As for earlier times, they accept the Gepid settlement partly in 271 partly after the Gepid victory at Nedao in 454. However Hungarian archaeologists tell about the fading away of Gepids in Transylvania during 7^th century, while they know about Gepid founds in the Sirmian region in 9^th century, and based on texts of Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum and Constantine Porphyrogenetus they believe that along River Tisa the Gepids survived into 10^th century. But not in Transylvania: Paradigm γ states 4 centuries of discontinuity instead of the continuity in Paradigm α.

{αδ} Contradictions:

Such contradictions are not famous, and many could be even explained away. Transylvania is a hilly country, so two nations of moderate sizes could exist in two corners. However, think about the situation just after the Gepid victory at Nedao. In Paradigm δ the proto-Szeklers separate themselves from the retreating army of defeated Dengizic & Irnac. If in that time Transylvania has a substantial and strong proto-Saxon (i.e. Eastern Gothic & Gepid) presence, then the proto-Szeklers do not settle there…

{βγ} Contradictions:

The Daco-Roman Continuity Paradigm contradicts everything known outside Rumania. The problem is not its obvious purposeful formation & propagation for obtaining Transylvania, which then reached its completion in 1920 as the Trianon Peace, a peace pact in the Versailles Peaces. Even a purposefully invented theory may work, accidentally. But, while it explains in first approach the Neo-Latin nature of the dominant language in present Transylvania, in finer analysis the Rumanian language looks Balkanian. There are more than hundred word pairs in Rumanian and Albanian where the Albanian is Late Latin loanword; this borrowing is easy to explain if the ancestor of Rumanian (and Arumun, Meglenorumanian & Ciribiri) was spoken in the New Dacias South of the Danube, and it is next to impossible if in Transylvania. Also, there are Albanian-Rumanian word pairs where the Rumanian word is "of unknown, maybe Dacian, origin". Vékony explains the phenomena [13] by assuming that Albanians are descendants of Carpians; c. 300 lots of Carpians were forcedly settled somewhere near to the New Dacias (documented). Also, while Dacian survival is theoretically possible in Transalutania, that territory was practically not Romanised, so you may expect less Latin words and less Christianity than in Wales (Wales was firmly dominated by Romans even if not Romanised until 410 when their Romanised Briton brethren were Christians for at least a century.)

As for explicit {βγ} contradictions, see e.g. the Hungarian opinion about Transylvania in 12^th century. Then Transylvania belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary; as a regional head of administration had a Voevod, and there are extant official texts. Still, Hungarian researchers do not detect any Transylvanian text about either Rumanians or Vlachs; the first such text will come in 1208.

{βδ} Contradictions:

While in this relation argumentations are loud and heated, the coexistence of Szeklers and proto-Rumanians would be possible in a scenario where the two nations occupied separate regions of hilly Transylvania. However, Paradigm β states Rumanian precedence everywhere, and that is incompatible with Paradigm δ.

Let us note that Szekler tradition had nothing against Dacian precedence; indeed, in the epic of the later Unitarian bishop [24] the last Dacian King Kaimbár battles with the incoming Szeklers; but he loses, dies, and there is not even a Dacian continuity.

{γδ} Contradictions:

The Magyar Paradigm also contradicts to any of the other 3, but at least do not contradict to archaeology & linguistics, while it strongly contradicts to the Szekler ethnic notions.

Namely, Szeklers do not regard themselves as Magyars. This is officially documented since 1437. In that year there was a rebellion in Transylvania; partly because of taxation practices partly because of Husitic propaganda. It took the form of peasant disturbances & city rebellions of the poor. The King Sigismund was old and faraway, so the Transylvanian counties & Szekler & Saxon Sedes made a confederation and put down the disturbances without royal support. Now, the Confederation declared that it was a confederation of 3 Nations: Hungarica, Siculica & Saxonica Nationes. (Note that here explicitly & officially Szeklers are not Hungarians.) The agreement held valid until 1848. Now, such a firm notion of separateness cannot be explained well in the Magyar Paradigm, while it is simple in the Szekler one. As for linguistic problems in the Szekler Paradigm the Szekler & Magyar idioms are too similar, even compared to the documented existence of a separate Szekler territory. Reason is unknown.

As for some support, Magyars rather would not believe the Szekler Paradigm because they would not like the idea that Szeklers arrived 450 years earlier than them (and even earlier than the original Hungarians,. The Onogurs, not before 680). However Irnac founded the Bulgarian tribal alliance (he is the Founding Father of Bulgarians), Csaba is a very popular Szekler Christian (!) name, Opour is the (claimed) forefather of the Apor clan, and among the Szekler mitochondrial haplogroups you can find some ones unknown in Europe whose nearest occurrence is in Eastern Asia [10].

9. DISCUSSION 3: ON THE STRANGE INSCRIPTIONS, PARADIGMWISE

It has been demonstrated that there are mutual contradictions between any pair of the 4 paradigms/fundamental theories mentioned. But this means that we should not try with simple combinations of them. We again demonstrate this on Relativity & Quantization.

As we have seen, there are situations when application of Quantum Mechanics (the final pure theory of Quantization) gives results impossible according to Special Relativity (the final pure theory of Relativity) and vice versa. Now, in Physics, which uses Mathematical Logics, this means that simultaneous application of Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity would lead to errors, unpredictable where and how. Namely, a theory formed by any simple combination of the two theories would contain self-contradictions, and a self-contradictory theory is not a theory at all in strict sense. A much simpler example is division by 0 in algebra: after it you either get infinities as results (never observed in reality) or any and arbitrary results (because 0/0 can be anything from 0 to infinity).

Of course, if we cannot do anything better, maybe we try with a combination to get guesses: but then we know that they are only guesses, and the results may be good, may be approximate and may be utterly wrong. The appropriate way in Physics is Unification (of the original pure theories).

Take 1 (one) electron, and describe its motion e.g. in external electric, magnetic &c. fields. We know (from measurements) that the electron does not exhibit any internal structure and does not decay. So in Special Relativity the electron is represented by a point with 9.1*10^-28 g mass and –e (e=4.8*10^-10 franklin) charge. This point moves according to the equations of Relativistic Mechanics, so under the influence of external magnetic & electric fields the path is curved; in many cases these paths can be observed and the description is good.

However inside an atom Point Mechanics (even if relativistic) gives bad enough description. The simplest atom is the hydrogen: it contains a negative electron and a positive proton. (It is easy to disrupt the H atom and then we remain with a proton and an electron; and we can build up a perfect H atom starting with a proton and an electron and nothing else.) Since the proton is much massive than the electron (the mass ratio is 1836) in first approximation we may substitute the proton with a fixed point of charge +e and may calculate the motion of the electron around in the electric field of the proton.

However the result is ways off the experience. Point Mechanics permits circling of any radius (so any energy), but no orbit can be stationary. Namely the circling electron is a periodically changing electric dipole moment, so the atom is radiating, so the electron is spiraling inwards. On the other hand, observations as early as 1910 proved that a H atom may have configurations of different but not arbitrary energies, and in these states it does not radiate at all.

Then in 1926 Quantum Mechanics was ready. In it we may think the proton fixed in first approximation (and afterward we can rid off this approximation easily), and the electron, but the electron is not a point anymore. It is a wave function (or probability distribution). Even if without any internal structure, the electron can be anywhere, although the highest chance is that it will be at medium distances from the proton. The maximum probability is at 5.8*10^-9 cm. And in ground state (minimal energy) the electron does not circle at all; it simply sits statically. Therefore it does not radiate, does not have magnetic moment &c. (well, because of the electron spin there is a magnetic momentum, but that is not orbital motion|).

If you believe that this is impossible or self-contradictory, wait a minute. I will not turn to Full Quantum Mechanics, only to a consequence of it, the Uncertainty Principle.

Place r and Momentum p are canonically conjugate quantities, so there are no such states when both would be “sharp”. (Why? This is explained in Quantum Mechanics Itself.) Now, for canonically conjugate quantities the uncertainties, spreads or such necessarily fulfill

ΔA*ΔB ≥ ħ/2 (9.1)

whose special case was eq. (8.1). But this means that an electron standing near to a proton has an energy minimum. Namely there is an attractive energy -e²/r and a kinetic energy +p²/2m. Now, the electron does not move, which means that the expectation value <p> is 0. But the spread is not 0. If we tell that the electron is standing in a distance r, then that means that Δr ≤ r; so Δp~1/r. But then in the total energy we have a positive 1/r² term in addition to the negative 1/r term, somewhere with a minimum and equilibrium there. If we take Δr = r/2 as a guess, then we get

r_m = ħ²/2me² (9.2)

which is the distance mentioned above and is just the exact result from Full Quantum Physics with the small correction m=m_eM_p/(m_e+M_p) because the proton is not of infinite mass.

These results are conform with observations and the energy levels of different possible configurations are successfully predicted to several digits.

However not exactly. Soon it was clear that the error somehow comes from the ignoration of Relativity. And then some two decades of work started to Unify Relativity & Quantization. The result became Quantum Field Theory, a self-consistent theory giving back Quantum Mechanics in the formal limit c→∞, and Special Relativity in ħ→0.

But the unified theory is not even similar to its 2 precursors. E.g. both in Special Relativity and in Quantum Mechanics the statement that there was a single electron in the system was meaningful. But not in Quantum Field Theory. There the most similar situation is that there is one electron with some probability; 2 electrons and 1 positron with a smaller probability, 3 electrons and 2 positrons with even a smaller probability and so on. And there are electron-creating and –annihilating operators and such new things. Quantum Field Theory is not a Quantum Mechanics somewhat improved by Relativity, but a brand new theory with a formalism unique for it.

Well, of course it might be possible to Unify Daco-Roman Continuity and Rhabonban Zandirham somehow; maybe with a work of several decades a genius could unify some theories of pure Paradigms β & δ; but that will be then, not now. Also, historical theories are social products. A research based on Paradigm β is urged/supported by the Rumanian State, Rumanian Academy of Sciences, majority of the Rumanian society &c; research based on Paradigm δ is urged/supported maybe on the Szekler Lands; but it is rather absurd to imagine just now the society supporting the Unifications of Paradigms β & δ. (Of course, in principle you can imagine a future Entente of Rumanians & Szeklers against Magyars; but so far attempts failed.) To demonstrate this point I note that the only attempt to unify is for Paradigms γ & δ, but even that is rather not fanatic, made mainly by Szekler historians under Hungarian dominance; and the Hungarians are tolerant in best case.

So, simple combinations would be self-contradictory. Then let us see at least the interpretations in the pure Paradigms. First I draw a conclusion from the Gelence inscription "575" and the Ménaság one "655" in the each of the 4 pure Paradigms, and then I try to decide if the conclusion is probable or not within that particular Paradigm. And then I repeat this in Fomenko's New Chronology.

The Inscriptions in the Saxon Continuity Paradigm

575 & 655 in the Era of Dionysius Exiguus is, in Paradigm α, is the time when Transylvania is dominated by Gepids & Eastern Goths. Now, we do not know too much about the religion of Gepids. However, some Eastern Goths (majority?) were Christians, as we see from the Bible translation of Bishop Wulfilas. So clearly, the inscriptions were made by proto-Saxons (i.e. Gepids and/or Goths).

Problem

From almost contemporary Eastern Goth documents from Italy show that the Goths were Arian; probably the Gepids too. The Wulfilas Bible is Goth, and the linguistic influence is rather Greek, not Latin. So the Latin abbreviations at Ménaság are hard to explain. It is hard to explain any connection of Gelence in 575 and Ménaság in 655 with Rome, or even with Late-Latin Dalmatia. It is even very doubtful (albeit not impossible) if any in Eastern Transylvania has heard about the chronological innovation of Abbot Dionysius Exiguus in 575 (or even in 655).

The Inscriptions in the Daco-Roman Paradigm

Some problems do not appear in this Paradigm. The dominant population of Eastern Transylvania is a Very Late Latin-speaking population, so Latin abbreviations are natural. So the inscriptions were made by proto-Rumanians.

Problem

Surely this proto-Rumanian population is completely isolated from both Rome & Constantinople. Namely, the Gepid overlordship of Transylvania ceases in 567; from that time the region belongs to the (Early) Avars, who were Pagans (maybe followers of the Eternal Blue Sky). While this may or may not hinder the survival & language (they are general problems of Paradigm β, so only if the Paradigm is judged viable then we may proceed), the dating at Gelence in the new-fangled Dionysian Era and at Ménaság after 88 years of complete isolation are rather surprising.

The Inscriptions in the Hungarian Paradigm

There are no problems of self-consistency in this Paradigm. 575 & 655 are well before the Magyar Conquest, 896. So, if the inscriptions are genuine, then they were made by people extinct & uninteresting. For any case they could not be proto-Saxons, proto-Rumanians or Szeklers, because in that time these peoples were not there.

Problem

But still: what are the inscriptions?

The Inscriptions in the Szekler Paradigm (Strict or Loose)

The inscriptions are at the Szekler Lands, after the Nedao Battle. So they were made by (proto-?)Szeklers.

Problem

How these Szeklers became Christian for 575? More definitely whence they got priests using Latin? It is highly improbable that the host of Csaba & Opour had Christian priests from Latin Pannonia with them; the Huns occupied Pannonia a mere 21 years before the Nedao Battle, and Roman texts (both Western & Eastern) several times call the Huns Pagan.

The Inscriptions in Fomenko's New Chronology

In New Chronology the present count of years was invented by Humanists c. 1300, while Jesus was born in 1053, in Antiochia, and was crucified by the Byzantians c. 1086, at the Asian side of Constantinople. So an inscription "575" cannot mean our 575 AD, that counting not yet invented then. Then the Gelence inscription should be interpreted as 1628 AD, and the Ménaság one as 1708 AD.

Problem

The time points seem too late. The temple styles do not match. In addition the Gelence church is mentioned in a bulla of Pope Alexander VI, as told earlier. The traditional date of the bulla is 1499 AD; that is Humanist age even in Fomenko's New Chronology, and in Italy New Chronology generally accept dates from that time.

Conclusion in the Pure Paradigms

I think, none of the listed pure Paradigms can interpret the Gelence & Ménaság inscriptions easily. Of course, it is possible interpreting anything in any paradigm if you are fanatic, as told and demonstrated in [11]; but if it is too difficult, you should either give up the Paradigm, or ignore the disturbing observations (or at least put away for a time).

To be sure, this is done even in Physics & Astronomy sometimes. The negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was unexplained for 24 years and most physicists were not too interested. Poincaré, Lorentz & Einstein were, and finally became famous, but Einstein brought forth a new Paradigm. The anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury was known about 1850; the routine explanation was an intra-Mercurian planet, but the observations were unsuccessful and after some time the new planet as idea was abandoned. Jaumann could interpret it in his Field Theoretical Gravity [28], but that theory did not become popular. And then Einstein explained it, but for that a new Paradigm was again needed, with the Unification of Special Relativity and Newton's Gravity. (In the resulted General Relativity the geometry of Space-Time is no more a priori given and Gravity is no more a force, but a consequence of the nontrivial geometry; a serious change compared to the worldviews of Einstein 1905 and Newton 1687.) In present years everybody is speaking or shouting about Global Warming; but an astronomical observation about anomalous brightening of Neptune [29] is rather ignored. True, Sun's brightening (Neptune's light is reflected light) would be astrophysically uninterpretable, but on the other hand it would be nice to explain Warming. And so on.

The explanation of such neglect of disturbing data is partly laziness, partly experience that in lots of cases the explanation was found later without new paradigm; and partly the experience that in some cases later the disturbing observations turned out erroneous. A nice example was Cold Fusion in end-80's; there had been vague precursor observations back to the '30's, the phenomenon was published, even confirmed, it would have been very useful, but any theoretical calculations gave incomparably slower rates than shown by the experiments. Then the experiments has been proven erroneous. So one isolated observation is generally not enough to give up even a Theory, much less a whole Paradigm.

And then: what to do with the Gelence & Ménaság inscriptions?

I think, the majority of the historians would ask back: "Which inscriptions?" But the overwhelming majority of the minority who knows about the inscriptions would answer: "Nothing to be done at all". You see, Orbán was an eccentric Szekler Primor.

I think, the full explanation will be a natural consequence when a Unified Theory of two of Paradigms will be elaborated, but in this moment that Unified Theory is unavailable yet. And look: Ref. [30] is the work of a Rumanian group, where the authors see a genetic borderline along the Eastern & Southern watershed in the Carpathian. Such a departure from Strict Daco-Rumanian Paradigm was unimaginable in 20^th century. Maybe something started towards a Unified Theory, even if now even the direction cannot be guessed. But Chap. 10 shows glimpses of the nonexistent unified theory relevant for the Gelence & Ménaság inscriptions.

10. THE NAME OF HUNGARY AND RELATED THINGS

There is a state, member of UNO, NATO & European Union, in Central Europe, whose capital is now Budapest, 47.5° N, 19° E. Before 1873 the capital was Buda, between 1541 & 1686 Buda was occupied by Turks who called it Budun, and the acting capital was Pressburg. Buda was capital back to 1250; between 972 & 1250 it was Esztergom (Gran, Ostrihom &c.), before 972 maybe the Isle of Csepel. The name of the state is Hungary/Hungaria definitely from 1000, the coronation of the first King, Stephen I (Saint from 1083). Between 1000 & 1844 the state language was Latin, but the State switched to the Magyar language (originally Western Siberian) in 1844, and on that language the name is "Magyarország", literally "the country of Magyars". Now, what is the connection between the two names of the country?

This question is very hard to answer for everybody, except Slovakians of sound national feeling. It is exceedingly difficult to discuss it (for linguistic reasons) for Magyars. In Paradigm γ this is an internal mine if we work in English or Magyar, so Paradigm γ can avoid some problems only if the discussions are made in Slovakian, which generally does not happen. I will not do this here; but discussing the origin & usage of the 2 Names will clarify at least the problem.

Let us start step by step. The only language of the world consequent in this point is Slovakian. Slovakia calls the post-World War I country around Budapest Mad'arsko, while the pre-World War I one Uhorsko. Other neighbours take one of the roots and use that. Westerners start from Hungaria (Hungary, Ungarn, Hongrie &c.). This is so at the North (Polish Węgria, Russian Vengrija; henceforth I transliterate the non-Latin alphabets) as well, even if for English readers the common root is not obvious; wait a minute.

However on the Southeast the Hungaria-root is not unique. In 17^th century Ottoman Turkish usage both roots were used. Occupied Hungary (c. the central part around Budun) was called the Üngürüs Vilayet; but the country (occupied and unoccupied) was rather called Macaristan (or Macaristan ve Erdel). If you look at the whole book of Blaskovics cited in [15], it contains the Magyar translations of two Turkish books: Tarih-i-Üngürüs and Macar tarihi (History of Hungary vs. Hungarian history).

When I am just writing this Chapter, general elections are going in the Republic of Macedonia (of Skopje, not to confuse with the Greek province Macedonia around Thessalonike; well before finishing the text the elections were held, but that is immaterial here).

The Electoral Council published an official announcement in Hungarian journals, because voting was made possible at the Consulate of Macedonia in Hungary. The announcement was published in Hungarian, really Magyar, and in the 7 (seven) languages in official use in Macedonia.

Now, let us take the words from Hungary in use of Macedonia hence:

Language	Name	Note
(Hungarian	Magyarország	-)
Macedonian	Ungariya	@
Serbian	Mađarsko	*,$
Bosnian	Mađarsko	*,$
Turkish	Macaristan	$
Albanian	Ungarija	$
Arumun	Ungaria	%
Gipsy	Ungarija	+

@ Regarded generally by Bulgarians as a West Bulgarian dialect, defined as language by Generalissimus Tito, re-organiser of Yugoslavia, the same who ordered that there is a common language which must however be called Serbo-Croatian in Serbia but Croato-Serbian in Croatia; and who canonised a third, Moslim nation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This nation now called Bosnjak, not the same as Bosnian. While Bulgarians are right that the Macedonian language was suggested by Generalissimus Tito, the language may even exist.

* Bosnian and Serbian are both shto-dialects of something which was earlier considered as one language, Serbo-Croatian; however Croatian has 3 dialects, the shto, kay & cha ones, and kaj-Croiatian is nearer to Slovenian than to even shto-Croatian, and even farther from (automatically shto)-Serbian. Since Generalissimus Tito was born in a mixed Croatian-Slovenian family, he surely was not raised in shto dialect. Still he strongly suppressed kaj-Croatian, for some purpose of his own.

$ Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian and Turkish as defined in neighbour nation-states. But note that there are two Serbian Republics: one is the member of UNO, while the other is a Member State of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

% Arumun is a near relative of the Rumanian of Rumania, but a separate language. As for the split time, Paradigm β gives end-3^rd century, while Paradigm γ gives 11^th century. Impartial linguists generally do not know this language.

+ A dialect (?) of a language of a wandering population, from the Indic subbranch of the Indo-Iranians. Lots of names are used (depending now even on Political Correctness) as Gipsy, Roma, Sinti, Zigeuner &c. A related minority with official status does exist in Hungary, they call themselves officially Roma, but their majority speak Magyar and speakers of this Indic language in Hungary use a quite different orthography.

So, of the 7 Macedonian languages 3 use the Magyar-root (Serb, Bosnjak & Turkish), 4 the Hungary-root (Macedon, Albanian, Arumun & Gipsy). There is some nontriviality here.

Of course, Slovakian historians know the difference because of their language. Uhorsko, from the Hungaria-root, was the state of the Carpathian Basin, in which Mad'arsko & Slovensko were the respective regions dominantly populated by Maďars & Slováks, respectively. The inter-ethnic strifes do not question this (in Slovakia), but rather go about the boundaries of the respective regions and the behaviour of Magyar in Uhorsko. Uhorsko obviously comes from the Hungaria-root. The 10^th century form may have surely been some Õgursko, where "Õ" is the nasal "o"-sound. This form is hypothetical, even the 10^th century precursors of Slovakians are a matter of argumentation; but Polish keeps until now the nasal vowel (even if it is a nasal "e" now; this is a regular sound change in Polish); and the pre-(proto-?)Slovak → Slovak Õ > U and g > h evolutions are very well attested. An interesting example is "mushroom", "huba" in recent Slovakian and "gomba" in recent Magyar. The precursor is obviously a Slavic word, more or less *gõba, for mushroom, borrowed by Magyars soon after 896; this root indeed is absent in any relative of Magyar.

Now, clearly at the borrowing the first vowel was still "Õ", and the first consonant "g". Magyar, not having either the g>h evolution, nor the change of nasal "õ" into "u", keeps "g" and "o" even now. But Magyar had and has no nasal vowel at all, so they heard an "-om-" at "õ-". The word is quite regularly "huba" in Modern Slovakian.

Now compare English "Hungary", French "Hongrie" and German "Ungarn". This shows that the initial "H" is not stable even in the West, So we cannot be sure about the initial "h". Then comes an ong/ung cluster, surely another vowel and a closing -r. Do we detect something such in or around the Carpathian Basin a millennium ago?

The Hebrew "Hagar" is clearly a Rabbinic formula [31], and finally goes back to the "Hungaria"-root, and we do not know what name the new neighbours use after the Magyar Landtaking, even if the Church Slavic literacy goes back a few decades before 896. There are some Byzantian chronicles both just before and just after 896. They use quite different names, mostly from the "Turk" root; once some "Ouggar", which is, by Greek peculiarity, the image of "Ungar", and never the Magyar-root. Western chroniclers not long after 896 start with the Hungaria-root.

In Hungary it is a linguistic commonplace that at 896 the self-name of Magyars was Magyar, roughly pronounced then as "Majar", with a soft version of recent English "j". And it is indeed demonstrated amply that recent "gy" goes back to such a sound in Middle Ages.

Indeed, the recent Magyar orthography suggest not a soft "d", as it is the present pronunciation (exactly as in the Slovakian "d'" in "Mad'arsko"), but a soft "g". The orthography of the Royal Hungarian Chancellery is older than the g'>d' sound change in Magyar.

Now, the original "Mag'" root seems to be the same as the Man'shi "Man'ch", and meant maybe the usual "man" (the similarity to English is then not accidental, but a consequence of the Andronovo Cultural Community where the Iranian Sauromats used "manush"="man", but let us restrict ourselves to the original topic). So the formula is much older than 896, therefore the population arriving in 896 may have used it as self-name.

May have; and it is then the Magyar-root (used in the Republic of Macedonia by Serbs, Bosnians & Turks). And surely one tribe, as reported by Constantine Porphyrogenitus informed by a Magyar embassy, was something "Megyer", and lots of recent localities are called by "Sg-Megyer" indicating members of the Megyer tribe. Only, we do not have any date from 1^st millennium that Megyer would have been the leading tribe of the alliance of the 7+3 tribes. Still, we may assume it. Let us go further.

Our oldest extant documents are Latin (and the oldest one is even Greek). The Magyar-root is absent. Our first document formulated in Magyar is a funerary text from 1192, but does not contain the name of the country or language. An early king from 11^th century does not use the Hungaria-root, but neither the Magyar one, but in Latin calls himself "the King of Pannonia". So we cannot be sure that originally "Hungaria" was "Magyarország"="Mad'arsko" in Magyar. We do not know the opposite either.

However, the Hungaria-root does appear in Central Europe before 896! Details are coming; but this thread has demonstrated the difficulties of working in Paradigm γ in Magyar language. And since Paradigm γ is used dominantly in Magyar, the Paradigm is generally not quite properly applied. Some finish would still be needed.

And now the mention of the Hungaria-root from 860. It is an Imperial document, in which Louis I, Eastern Frank Emperor, donates some lands to the Mattsee Abbey [32]. The Eastern boundary of the donated land is the "Marcha wangariorum", so cca. the "borderland of the Wangarii/Uuangarii".

Well, of course, we cannot be sure, whom the Emperor calls "Wangarius". However, it is rather similar to the reconstructed "proto-Northern Slavic" "Õgursko", whence now the Slovakian calls the people of the Carpathian Basin "uhorský". But there was at that time an ethnic called similarly in Central Europe.

Bulgar Turks were an important subgroup of Turkish peoples in Early Middle Ages. Now the Turkish languages are grouped as

1) Common or -z Turkish, lots of very similar languages;

2) Bulgar or -r Turkish, only the Chuvash is extant;

3) Yakut.

Bulgars now speak a Slavic language, but about 900 their r-Turkish language was still alive. The foundation of Danube Bulgaria by Turks is 681 AD, the leader was Khagan Asparuch.

Now, in 7^th century sources mention a tribal alliance "On Ogur"="10 Tribes" from the Carpathian Basin and the neighbourhood. These people are called by historians "Onogurs", and the Magyar name of the city Singidunum (=Belgrade) is "Nándorfehérvár", i.e. the "White city of the Nándors".

Royal & ducal castles are often called "White City/Walls" by Turks & Magyars, as Alba Regia"="Székesfehérvár", i.e. the "White Capital Castle", "Alba Iulia"="Gyulafehérvár", the "White Castle of Gyula", Duke of Transylvania (earlier Apulum in Dacia, later Bǎlgrad in Rumanian), "Sarkel"="White Fort" of the Khazarians, "Sarig Sin"="White Walls" in the Kazan Khanate, later "Caricin" in Russian, rechristened as "Stalingrad" by Stalin himself (now Volgograd) and so on. But who were the Nándors whose White Castle is Belgrade?

Linguists are sure that onogundur>nándor in Magyar. So about 896 Onogurs lived in Singidunum, later Belgrade, or at least in its neighbourhood. And "On ogur" is a Bulgar Turk expression, because in Common Turk it is On Oguz.

So the Onogurs were mounted people in or in the neighbourhood of the Carpathian Basin, speaking Bulgar Turk. Surely they had a good reason not calling themselves "Bulgar", maybe only because they had a concurrent Alliance of the Ten Tribes, but they were close kins of the Bulgars. We do not know the exact date of the Onogur Landtaking in Central Europe (which is exactly 681 for the Bulgars along the Lower Danube), but surely it was also 7^th century.

And now let us return to the "uhors" of Slovakian and the "Wangaris" of Louis I. It would be surprising if these names were independent of the Onogurs; and even the date of the Imperial edict fits.

Hungarian archaeologists, as told earlier, do detect an incoming substantial ethnic in the Carpathian Basin about 680 (surely bw. 670 & 700), with a vaguely Caucasian-originated silverwork (e.g. gryphons) and such. They are the "Late Avars", but they are called Avars only by Western chroniclers from c. 770, and they are surely the inheritors of the Avars in the Basin.

Now, what is the rôle of these "Late Avars", so almost surely Onogurs in Paradigm γ?

Almost nothing. OK, they may have been Onogurs, but Onogurs were not Magyars. First, because they did not call themselves Magyars, and second, because Magyar is a Finno-Ugric language while Onogur is Turk. They came in in 680, maybe dominated the Basin for more than a century, faded out after 795.

In Paradigm δ, however, at least in the Loosened Theories, the people of 680 do have important rôles. Either as a first Magyar-speaking people of the Basin [27] (and the 896 wave then spoke Common Turk), or as the proto-Szeklers migrating to the East after 795 or 803 [33]; or both.

But now you can see why sometimes I called Paradigm γ the "Hungarian/Magyar" Paradigm. Magyar is an ethnic with a language. (Szekler is a different ethnic but with the very same language.) But Hungarian is a State, but not a language. Hungary was the state of the Carpathian Basin of various languages. If we argument in Magyar, we have a natural bias to believe that Hungary was Magyar. If I spoke Slovakian, then I could argue in Slovakian while applying Paradigm γ (or δ), and we might not regard Onogurs peripheral simply because they (probably) did not speak Magyar.

Let us stop here with the problems of unifying Paradigms γ & δ. Even those readers who could bear the strange ways of History up to this point would accept simply that neither Paradigm satisfies all expectations, that it will not be easy to unify one theory from one paradigm and another from another, and that I cannot do it just now. But what can I make now, especially about the Gelence & Ménaság inscriptions?

Well, let us repeat a few slogans. There was a Landtaking about 680; probably that of Onogurs; archaeologists dig out the finds of the newcomers. Onogurs are Bulgar Turks. The most Turkish words in Magyar are Bulgar Turk words. Bulgars founded Danube Bulgaria in 681. The Vienna Illustrated Chronicle c. 1370, written under the auspices of the Royal Chancellery of Hungary dates the Hungarian Landtaking to 677. Slovakians now use a word meaning them and us together coming from the same root as Hungaria & Onogur. Emperor Louis I uses a name from the same root for a population in Eastern Austria or Pannonia.

Assume that in 13^th-14^th century there existed a "national" dating system based on the tradition which is written in the Vienna Illustrated Chronicle: Landtaking in 677 and a continuous Hungarian State afterward. (This is an assumption, but see the Hispanian Era as an analogy. As for a startpoint see the Onogur Landtaking.) In this dating system the Gelence inscription means 1252 AD and the Ménaság one 1332. Quite possible dates, conform with art history and written documents!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

None. Nobody wanted to discuss the topic with me.

APPENDIX A: TERRA SICULORUM & HISTORIA SICULORUM

The region called Terra Siculorum became established in Late Medieval law; it existed surely in 12^th century, its earlier existence is paradigm-dependent. It was defined according to the status of the inhabitants: dominantly Szekler territories were not organised into counties. The time of Matthias I (1458-1490) is amply documented; then Terra Siculorum was composed of 9 sedes, 8 of them on contiguous territories: Maros, Gyergyó, Csík, Udvarhely (or Telegd), Kászon, Kézdi, Orbai and Sepsi. The recent substantial cities are there Marosvásárhely/Tîrgu Mureș, Gyergyószentmiklós/Gheorgheni, Csíkszereda/Miercurea Ciuc, Székelyudvarhely/Odorheu Secuiesc, Kászonaltíz/Plăiești de Jos (but no bigger settlements now in S. Kászon), KézdivásárhelyTîrgu Secuiesc, Zabola/Zăbala & Sepsiszentgyörgy/Sfîntu Sîngheorghe. The ninth, noncontiguous, sedes is Aranyos, with its (?) capital Torda. In that time there were Saxon sedes in the neighbourhood, and Cuman sedes mainly bw. Danume & Tisa, also not organised into counties.

As for history, all the four/five paradigms about Transylvania differ until 1090. Afterwards the Szeklers are at the mentioned places (Aranyos may be a later settling), and in 1437, during an unrest, the Three Nations of Transylvania reestablish the order and the confederates makes documents about this. The 3 Nations are: Hungarians, Saxons & Szeklers. On Terra Siculorum there was no suprasedes organisation, but there was a Comes Siculorum, since 1741 Maria Theresa, also Princeps Transylvaviae (in this and only this latter position her deputy being her husband Francis, from 1745 Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire), King (!) of Hungary and Archduke (!) of Austria. Siculia, Saxonia & Cumania were incorporated into a French-style Unitary State bw. 1872 & 1876. The “reform” was neither successful, nor long-living.

APPENDIX B: HUNNISH WORDS

From the language characteristic to Attila's empire we know exactly 3 words, apart from personal names & titles, 2 are preserved by Priscus Rhetor, envoy of the East Romans to Attila, and 1 by Iordanes from the next century. They are as follows:

KAMON (acc.): a drink made from barley

MEDOS: another drink.

STRAVA: A ritual feeding and drinking at the grave.

Now first note that Attila's empire was polyglottic. The language of the ruling dynasty is expected to have been some Old Turkic, or perhaps Mongolian, but Priscus does not specify the ethnicity of the informer.

It is rather difficult to get final answers from 3 words; however different authors tried with different approaches. Here I follow [34].

KAMON seems to be a word appearing in Latin texts since 3^rd c. AD (maybe Celtic or Pannonian) as accusative CAMUM; it is a kind of beer, from barley.

MEDOS is clearly an Indo-European word from honey or mead or both. I have here two notes. First, it clearly comes from the PIE ^*medhu. Second, the root can be found in Magyar and several "Finno-Ugric" languages, meaning honey or drink made from honey. This is an example of very ancient connections (maybe genetic, maybe not) between PIE & PFU. The recent Magyar word for honey is MÉZ.

STRAVA has 3 alternative explanations. Either it is Gothic, meaning something "sow" (German "streuen") from any ritual at the grave. Or Slavic, where "strava" is indeed a ritual feeding and drinking for the spirit of the dead. Or Turkic, because in Karaim (a Kipchak dialect) "astrav" is "the burial procedure". I note here that Slavs probably were not amongst the Hunnish host (they were in the Avar one), and the Karaim word goes back to an earlier "astragh", so the Gothic explanation is the most probable of the 3. The Gothic "straujan" is quite good for "strava", and Iordanes was a Goth. Maybe he used “strava” as a superficially Latinized terminus technicus. Eastern Goths were abundant in Attila's Empire.

So by any chance the 3 recorded words come from IE subjects of Attila.

REFERENCES

[1] A. T. Fomenko: History: Fiction or Science? 1. Delamere Publ., Paris, 2003

[2] R. R. Newton: Two Uses of Ancient Astronomy. Phil. Transact. R. Soc. London 276A, 99 (1974)

[3] A. T. Fomenko: The Jump of the Second Derivative of the Moon's Elongation. Celestial Mechanics, 25, 33 (1981)

[4] H. Illig: Wer hat der Uhr gedreht? Econ, Düsseldorf, 2000

[5] R. Whately: Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte. Longman, Greens & C°, London, 1865 (first, shorter edition is from 1819!)

[6] J-B. Peres: Grand Erratum, ou Comme quoi Napoléon n'a jamais existé. Antwerp, 1972

[7] A. Sonnenfeld: Napoleon As Sun Myth. Yale French Studies, 26, 32 (1960)

[8] B. Orbán: Torda város és környéke. Európa, Budapest, 1986 (the first edition is without date, but c. 1890, and the editor is the author himself)

[9] B. Orbán: A Székelyföld leírása, Vols. 1-6, Pest, 1868 - Budapest, 1873

[10] Gyöngyvér Tömöry, Bernadett Csányi, Erika Bogácsi-Szabó & 8 others: Comparison of Maternal Lineage and Biogeographic Analyses of Ancient and Modern Hungarian Populations. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 134, 354 (2007)

[11] O. W. Van Quine: Methods of Logic. Holt, Rinehart & Wilson, New York, 1963

[12] B. Köpeczi, L. Makkay & A. Mócsy: Erdély története, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1986/ Columbia University Press, New York, 2001

[13] Vékony G.: Dákok, rómaiak, románok. Akadémiai, Budapest, 1989

[14] L. Toppeltinus de Medgyes: Origines et occasus Transsylvanorum seu Erutae nationes Transsylvanae. Boissat & Remeus, Lyon, 1667

[15] Anonymus of 1740: Macar tarihi. The original Turkish text is in manuscript; for data and synopis see C, Orhonlu: Türk-macar kültür münasebetleri, Istanbul, 1976, pp. 160-169. The only printed full version is a Magyar translation in: Blaskovics J.: A magyarok története. Magvetô, Budapest, 1982

[16] J. Tröster: Das alt- and neu-teutsche Dacia: Das ist: Neue Beschreibung des Landes Siebenbürgen. Böhlau, Vienna & Cologne, 1981

[17] C. C. Giurescu (ed.): Chronological History of Romania. Editura Enciclopedică Română, Bucharest, 1974

[18] Şt. Pascu & Şt. Ştefănescu (eds.): The Dangerous Game of Falsifying History. Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, Bucharest, 1987

[19] S. de Kéza: Gesta Hungarorum. In: I. Szentpétery (ed.): Scriptorem rerum Hungaricum, Budapest, 1937, p. 129

[20] P. Magister qui Anonymus dicitur: Gesta Hungarorum. In: I. Szentpétery (ed.): Scriptorem rerum Hungaricum, Budapest, 1937, p. 13

[21] J. De Thurocz: Chronica Hungarorum. Th. Fegher, Augsburg, 1488

[22] Kilyéni Székely M.: A' nemes székely nemzetnek constitúcióji, privilégiumai és a jószág leszállását tárgyazó némelly törvényes ítéletei, több hiteles levelestáróból egybe-szedve. Trattner, Pest, 1818

[23] Nagy G.: A csíki székely krónika. In: Székely Nemzet, 1886, p. 140 (Professional edition, with notes &c.)

[24] Aranyosrákosi Székely S.: A székelyek Erdélyben. Hebe, ed. by S. Igaz, Vienna, 1823

[25] Bóna I.: Nagy Károly nyomdokain. In: Szombathy V. (ed.): Évezredek hétköznapjai, Panoráma, Budapest, 1973, p. 141

[26] F. Toldy (ed.): Bécsi Képes Krónika/Chronica de gestis Hungarorum. Pest, Emich G., 1867

[27] Gy. László: A “kettős honfoglalás” (568-670-860), Magvető, Budapest, 1978

[28] G. Jaumann: Theorie der Gravitation. Sitzungber. d. math.-nw. Kl. d. Kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften 120, 385 (1912)

[29] H. B. Hammel & G. W. Lockwood: Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L08203 (2007)

[30] Michaela Stefan, Gheorghe Stefanescu, Lucian Gavrila & 4 others: Y-Chromosome Analysis Reveals a Sharp Genetic Boundary in the Carpathian Region. Eur. J. Human Genet. 9, 27 (2001)

[31] S. Kohn: Héber kútforrások és adatok Magyarország történetéhez. Akadémiai, Budapest, 1881

[32] P. Kher (ed.): Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Diplomatarium Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum I. Berolini, 1934, p. 143

[33] G. Balás: A székelyek nyomában. Panoráma, Budapest, 1984

[34] Gy. Németh: A hunok nyelve. In: Gy. Németh (ed.): Attila és hunjai. Magyar Szemle Társaság, Budapest, 1940, p. 217