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

[ixulescu]

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.

where is the "what if"?

btw were're not talking about Romanian presence since antiquity. Romanians as a people formed between 6th and 10th centuries. Before that, there used to a be a Romanized population in Dacia, which you can call proto-Romanians. Use the proper terms so that we know what you refer to.

And again, that's not up to dispute. We have more than 3000 grave inscriptions found in Romania for that period, and most of them are Latin names (more than 80% of them, only 2% were Dacian names).

[Dunai]

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.

Yet you haven't proven that Romans had a spread-out presence north of the Danube, especially in Transylvania until the 7th century, you simply presented no scientific proof for this. Btw, Christian artifacts prove nothing about the ethnicity of the people, since they were popular also with the migratory people, who collected them for aesthetic reasons. Don't even know how can you equate Christian artifacts with supposed Romanians, lol. What is the typical Romanian archeological characteristic, typology of the period?

[ixulescu]

Yet you haven't proven that Romans had a spread-out presence north of the Danube, especially in Transylvania until the 7th century, you simply presented no scientific proof for this. Btw, Christian artifacts prove nothing about the ethnicity of the people, since they were popular also with the migratory people, who collected them for aesthetic reasons. Don't even know how can you equate Christian artifacts with supposed Romanians, lol. What is the typical Romanian archeological characteristic, typology of the period?

Dude, migratory people didn't have Latin names. Quit playing games. These mortuary stones were found in Roman Dacia, which comprised mostly of Transylvania.

[Dunai]

Dude, migratory people didn't have Latin names. Quit playing games. These mortuary stones were found in Roman Dacia, which comprised mostly of Transylvania.

I am not denying that it could be plausible that certain Romans did remain in the former territories of Dacia after the Roman withdrawal, but there is still no proof of them continuing to live all over these lands, with active settlements up until the the later phases of the Early Middle Ages and especially the High Middle Ages. Since there is no contemporary mentioning of them, but the migratory populations are clearly talked about in detail, it is more plausible if any Romanized people who lived scarcely in former Dacia have gotten killed or assimilated. None of the Roman established settlements in Dacia show signs of continuous habitation until the Middle Ages or characteristics of a Romanized population. Christianity is no evidence of a Romanized population. This is just another convenient supposition to serve a Romanian nationalist agenda. The Goths who lived throughout the Upper Danube lands in the 4th century were also Christian, hence using Christian artifacts. But what is more striking is the lack of Christian worship places in the Upper Danube region until the later Early Middle Ages. And we know that Christianity couldn't have survived and flourished without churches and an administration of priesthood and their helpers.

[ixulescu]

I am not denying that it could be plausible that certain Romans did remain in the former territories of Dacia after the Roman withdrawal, but there is still no proof of them continuing to live all over these lands, with active settlements up until the the later phases of the Early Middle Ages and especially the High Middle Ages. Since there is no contemporary mentioning of them, but the migratory populations are clearly talked about in detail, it is more plausible if any Romanized people who lived scarcely in former Dacia have gotten killed or assimilated. None of the Roman established settlements in Dacia show signs of continuous habitation until the Middle Ages or characteristics of a Romanized population. Christianity is no evidence of a Romanized population. This is just another convenient supposition to serve a Romanian nationalist agenda. The Goths who lived throughout the Upper Danube lands in the 4th century were also Christian, hence using Christian artifacts. But what is more striking is the lack of Christian worship places in the Upper Danube region until the later Early Middle Ages. And we know that Christianity couldn't have survived and flourished without churches and an administration of priesthood and their helpers.

Wow, muh Hungarian cuckoo-land fantasy in a single paragraph.

I am not denying that it could be plausible that certain Romans did remain in the former territories of Dacia after the Roman withdrawal, but there is still no proof of them continuing to live all over these lands, with active settlements up until the the later phases of the Early Middle Ages and especially the High Middle Ages.

The burden of proof that the Romanized population moved anywhere is on you. Genetic testing has shown conclusively that migratory populations were always the minority in the territories they settled, including in the Carpathian basin. Even the Slavic migration, the most numerous migration of all in this area, was a trickle over centuries. We know that in the region it was first the Scythians that became Slavicised, then the free Dacians (the non-Romanized Dacians that lived outside the Carpathian arc created with Slavs a common culture called the Chernyakhov culture), then Romanians and Bulgarians. This took literally a thousand years.

Again, if we look at the graves, the Roman graves outnumber the migratory people graves by several orders of magnitude, and we have dug only a tiny fraction of the Roman cities in Romania. It's just no comparison. So it's no surprise that the genetic backbone of the population remained paleo-Balkan (Roman Dacians were Romanized paleo-Balkanites). Romanians plot closest to Paleolithic samples from Transylvania, out of all the people in the region. How come Romanians match the Paleolithic sample if they migrated to the place later? the migration theory makes no sense. In addition to the genetic proofs there the cultural arguments. All major river names in use by Romans in 100 AD were still in use in 1000 AD. What population preserved those names?

Since there is no contemporary mentioning of them, but the migratory populations are clearly talked about in detail, it is more plausible if any Romanized people who lived scarcely in former Dacia have gotten killed or assimilated.

This is a typical Hungarian red herring. There are almost no contemporary sources talking about the area to have reached us. This doesn't mean there weren't any, it just means they were not preserved - this was the fate of most material written in the early middle ages. The dissolution of the Roman empire also decreased the likelihood of such reports to be written and survive to this day. The migratory population presented some interest because they were a military threat. Even so, descriptions of the material life of the migratory people are very scarce, brief and contradictory, that we still have trouble identifying them.

None of the Roman established settlements in Dacia show signs of continuous habitation until the Middle Ages or characteristics of a Romanized population.

Most Roman cities in Romania were abandoned by 600 AD. This does not mean Romanized people left the area, because they are mentioned again when Bulgarians extend their domination over the Carpathians, around 800 AD. Again "absence of evidence (for 200 years) is not evidence of absence".

Christianity is no evidence of a Romanized population. This is just another convenient supposition to serve a Romanian nationalist agenda. The Goths who lived throughout the Upper Danube lands in the 4th century were also Christian, hence using Christian artifacts.

In the 4th century here were only a handful of Christianized Goths in the area and most were killed by Goths themselves. Goth were Christianized in significant numbers a few centuries later in the West. By that time Goths have left the Carpathian Basin.

But what is more striking is the lack of Christian worship places in the Upper Danube region until the later Early Middle Ages. And we know that Christianity couldn't have survived and flourished without churches and an administration of priesthood and their helpers.

Are you talking about Upper Danube or Lower Danube? Lower Danube is in Romania. There are many early churches (basilicas) in South of Romania, though not many have been found in Transylvania. Even so there are early churches in Transylvania that were built right next to Roman temples of Jupiter, or even on top of them, showing that it was the Romanized population that used them. Again you are confusing your ignorance with proofs of absence.

Take for instance this Roman temple from Transylvania that was converted to a church in the 6th or 7th century:

Roman inscriptions on the stones of the church:


the church itself (note that the tower was added much later, perhaps in the 12th century)

[Dunai]

Wow, muh Hungarian cuckoo-land fantasy in a single paragraph.




The burden of proof that the Romanized population moved anywhere is on you. Genetic testing has shown conclusively that migratory populations were always the minority in the territories they settled, including in the Carpathian basin. Even the Slavic migration, the most numerous migration of all in this area, was a trickle over centuries. We know that in the region it was first the Scythians that became Slavicised, then the free Dacians (the non-Romanized Dacians that lived outside the Carpathian arc created with Slavs a common culture called the Chernyakhov culture), then Romanians and Bulgarians. This took literally a thousand years.

Again, if we look at the graves, the Roman graves outnumber the migratory people graves by several orders of magnitude, and we have dug only a tiny fraction of the Roman cities in Romania. It's just no comparison. So it's no surprise that the genetic backbone of the population remained paleo-Balkan (Roman Dacians were Romanized paleo-Balkanites). Romanians plot closest to Paleolithic samples from Transylvania, out of all the people in the region. How come Romanians match the Paleolithic sample if they migrated to the place later? the migration theory makes no sense. In addition to the genetic proofs there the cultural arguments. All major river names in use by Romans in 100 AD were still in use in 1000 AD. What population preserved those names?



This is a typical Hungarian red herring. There are almost no contemporary sources talking about the area to have reached us. This doesn't mean there weren't any, it just means they were not preserved - this was the fate of most material written in the early middle ages. The dissolution of the Roman empire also decreased the likelihood of such reports to be written and survive to this day. The migratory population presented some interest because they were a military threat. Even so, descriptions of the material life of the migratory people are very scarce, brief and contradictory, that we still have trouble identifying them.



Most Roman cities in Romania were abandoned by 600 AD. This does not mean Romanized people left the area, because they are mentioned again when Bulgarians extend their domination over the Carpathians, around 800 AD. Again "absence of evidence (for 200 years) is not evidence of absence".



In the 4th century here were only a handful of Christianized Goths in the area and most were killed by Goths themselves. Goth were Christianized in significant numbers a few centuries later in the West. By that time Goths have left the Carpathian Basin.



Are you talking about Upper Danube or Lower Danube? Lower Danube is in Romania. There are many early churches (basilicas) in South of Romania, though not many have been found in Transylvania. Even so there are early churches in Transylvania that were built right next to Roman temples of Jupiter, or even on top of them, showing that it was the Romanized population that used them. Again you are confusing your ignorance with proofs of absence.

Take for instance this Roman temple from Transylvania that was converted to a church in the 6th or 7th century:

Roman inscriptions on the stones of the church:


the church itself (note that the tower was added much later, perhaps in the 12th century)

Yet there is no link to any of what you said. As I stated previously, I only care about hard evidence, scientific quotations, links, so I could analyze the intellectual validity of the continuation theory. During the years I read lots of papers about the so-called continuity theory, and besides some burial sites and Christian artifacts I never seen any hard evidence that a Romanized population did form the majority population of the North Danubian area since Ancient times. Latin inscriptions are not the same with Romanian inscriptions, since these two are separate languages. Show me any Romanian inscriptions in this area. How convenient that all contemporary manuscripts did mention the migratory populations living there but not the supposed "native" Latin population. Seriously, what type of conspiratorial argumentation is that?

[Egyvalaki]

Köszi a videót.