Hol tart jelenleg a magyar őstörténet kutatás? Türk Attila és Török Tibor beszélget

[Dunai]

Maybe they used "mostly" I can't tell through translation. Regardless, it is wrong. The Avar element was tiny - why even mention it while ignoring the most numerically important population in the area. This is autistic as fuck - it's not like they don't know the latest population genetics finds.

Come on, you can't be serious to still blindly follow the Dacian-Roman continuity myth while there is a complete vacuum of a millennium between the Roman withdrawal from the Upper Danube region and the first appearance of Romanian states in this area. I am unaware of any Romanian towns, castles, fortresses, villages in this area (Transylvania, Moldova, Wallachia) in the Early Middle Ages, unlike in Pannonia, where the Keszthely culture (Romanized Pannonians) flourished well until the 700s, even when for hundreds of years they were living around various migratory people.

[ixulescu]

I am unaware of any Romanian towns, castles, fortresses, villages in this area (Transylvania, Moldova, Wallachia) in the Early Middle Ages, unlike in Pannonia, where the Keszthely culture (Romanized Pannonians) flourished well until the 700s, even when for hundreds of years they were living around various migratory people.

Just because you're not aware of it doesn't mean that Romance speakers weren't present there. Romans didn't fully withdrawn from Dacia in 275 AD. In fact, soon after that they built a second bridge across the Danube into Dacia - a major project and expense (a bridge over the Danube in that area is a major project today). Constantine retook most of the land of Roman Dacia (which comprised mostly of Transylvania and Oltenia).

Roman cities in Dacia were inhabited until about 600 AD when they were mysteriously abandoned. This means they survived Huns, Goths, Gepids etc. For some reason they were abandoned during the Avar invasion and Slavic migration. Now, a few were continuously inhabited, like Turda, Alba Iulia etc, because of their proximity to the mines of salt and gold, which were also continuously exploited. Roman fortresses in Dacia also show the signs that they were rebuilt several times between 200 and 600 AD.

[ixulescu]

This is the map of Roman Dacia in the 4th century during the wars with the Goths

[ixulescu]

@ Dunai

and here's a list of Roman fortresses in Dacia:
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_...n_Rom%C3%A2nia

If you think these massive construction works materialized instantly in Dacia instead of being erected over centuries, then I don't think we have much to talk about.

[Ülev]

This is the map of Roman Dacia in 4th century during the wars with Goths

Dacia ends further north!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setidava
or even Konin

A permanent settlement arose along the Amber Road, which led from the Roman Empire to the Baltic Sea, traversing the area of present-day Konin. A map drawn by Ptolemy identified the settlement as Setidava (or Getidava), a probable spot to wade across the Warta and containing an emporium of some importance to merchants travelling along the route.[1] The settlement's primary burial ground, situated on the dunes west of the centre of today's Konin, dates back to the Przeworsk culture (Kultura Przeworska) of the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konin


We, the Dacians!

[ixulescu]

Dacia ends further north!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setidava
or even Konin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konin


We, the Dacians!

Romans didn't conquer all Dacian tribes.

They cared mostly about Transylvania because of the salt and gold mines there.

[Ülev]

[Dunai]

@ Dunai

and here's a list of Roman fortresses in Dacia:
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_...n_Rom%C3%A2nia

If you think these massive construction works materialized instantly in Dacia instead of being erected over centuries, then I don't think we have much to talk about.

This is a list of fortifications built in the Roman occupation of Dacia, and even if I haven't had time to click on all of them, but I clicked on quite a lot of them to read, like when were they founded and abandoned, and most of them had no dates, but those that had dates clearly showed that they were built during the Roman occupation and not after the Roman withdrawal, and the furthest in time that had any inhabitants was the 4th century. Hence, still hundreds of years of hole in the continuity theory.

The map you posted has no source, no explanation what the viewer should interpret, what am I supposed to make with a drawing like that?

[Dunai]

Just because you're not aware of it doesn't mean that Romance speakers weren't present there. Romans didn't fully withdrawn from Dacia in 275 AD. In fact, soon after that they built a second bridge across the Danube into Dacia - a major project and expense (a bridge over the Danube in that area is a major project today). Constantine retook most of the land of Roman Dacia (which comprised mostly of Transylvania and Oltenia).

Roman cities in Dacia were inhabited until about 600 AD when they were mysteriously abandoned. This means they survived Huns, Goths, Gepids etc. For some reason they were abandoned during the Avar invasion and Slavic migration. Now, a few were continuously inhabited, like Turda, Alba Iulia etc, because of their proximity to the mines of salt and gold, which were also continuously exploited. Roman fortresses in Dacia also show the signs that they were rebuilt several times between 200 and 600 AD.

These are merely "what ifs", "for some reason" and such type of suppositions, without any hard archeological evidence of continuous Romanian presence since antiquity (this means century by century by century evidence of continuous habitation of a settlement). I only care about hard evidence, suppositions will never win me over intellectually.

[ixulescu]

This is a list of fortifications built in the Roman occupation of Dacia, and even if I haven't had time to click on all of them, but I clicked on quite a lot of them to read, like when were they founded and abandoned, and most of them had no dates, but those that had dates clearly showed that they were built during the Roman occupation and not after the Roman withdrawal, and the furthest in time that had any inhabitants was the 4th century. Hence, still hundreds of years of hole in the continuity theory.

Roman fortifications built after Roman withdrawal? Wtf are you talking about?

Romans had a clear presence in Dacia until about 600 AD. That's not up to dispute anymore. Even in these fortresses you can tell easily which ones were in use after 4th century by looking after Christian artifacts, which many of them have (like small basilicas behind fortified walls).

Romanians/Vlachs north of Danube are first mentioned by Bulgarians and Byzantines. And so there's basically a 200 years gap with no sources yet, from about 650 to 850 AD. It's not like Magyars have any sources in that time frame. We still don't know who the Magyars were to begin with. At least we know very well who the Vlachs were. By 1000 AD the entire South of Romania was known to foreigners as Wallachia even though an actual state with that name didn't appear in region for another 300 years.