Has there ever been cases of Hungarians/Avars/Mongols/Russians/Germans destroying evidence of prehistory in Romania?
Seems odd there are such big gaps in history.
What like the caveman era? I don't know about that. But if you're referring to the history of the Dacians then I guess some parts were modified. Not sure though, I'm no historian.
>>1344 Probably. History is written by the victors - for much of the middle ages we were the losers, either
vassals or just conquered. If you're talking about prehistory in the "caveman" sense, we actually have a lot of findings, dating many thousands of years ago.
If not, look for the case of Menumorut, Glad and Gelou, the wojwodas that the magyars found here when they arrived, but nobody can truly say if they were romanians or not.
>>1344 Nope. The general agreement in Romania regarding pre-dark ages is that before any romanian kingdom the local population probably lived in a seminomadic way, sheperds moving with their lambs and goats(since those destroy the grass, you need to move constantly in order to feed them).
It´s what led Hungarian colonists to consider Romanians must have migrated to current Romanian territory from some other place(as in South Balkans).
Lately there are considerations made in Romania, based by similarities with the albanian language and large vlach population in greek areas since ages, that probably slavs pushed latins up to Romania(bulgarians, serbs, bosniaks).
There is no Romanian written history in the middle ages and according to the Hungarians, in the 11th century bulgar vassal states to Bulgaria controlled romanian areas, and bulgars generally consider their dark ages empire stretched up to Volga. Before expanding up to Moldova, Hungarians considered our territory to be "Transilvania", the place beyond the woods, with no ethnic considerations at all, or at least "not hungarian".
Most Romanian patronymic and naming system is slavic in origin and it predates the bulgarians in some cases. Theres been a revival since the 19th century for latin and greek names so there are a lot of urban population with such names, rural dominated by bible names.
Despite having a greek-slav church, church slavonic dominating the romanian culture since at least 1300 to 1800, and being the country next to Kiril and Methodius preaching, BASIC CHURCH AND FAITH THINGS HAVE A LATIN ORIGIN WHICH DOESNT MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE TO ANYONE IN THIS COUNTRY. There have been made findings of Cucuteni culture or so, pot painting cultures from -4000 or so.
>>1349 I forgot about the Cumans. A nomadic horde settled into Romanian lands, the cumans. It´s agreed in some circles that the Basarabian kings, Coman surname(common) and Vaslui and Teleorman naming have mongol origins.
Some tried to dna test the graves of our rules but the Church oppposed it. Moreover, it didn´t made it into the press.
Thanks for the responses, and yes I did mean 4th-9th centuries where that gap is, didn't know you would respond so fast on what I consider a slow board.
>>1351 well that´s just fucked up.
the gap is more like 3rd to 11th century.
the bulgarians do have a history in that timeline, in their fight with the byzantines. Asparuh people travelled along the danube delta, in low lands, and some settled it(still living there today, mixed with russian old believers).
inner romania... nope.exe
highly likely the nomad shepperd theory is right, romanian heavy forestation has been claimed as a motive as how the dacians resisted the romans, as well howcome they didn´t conquer a much larger area(they just couldnt advance into the forests).
the "defence" by running into the woods has been claimed also for the later invasions by hordes.
woods and swamps, swamps being the defence against turks.
>>1351 and, since you´re canadian, this is the English view of it(and wikipedia´s one)
>>1344 It was the zionist-reptilian-masonic-dentist mafia!
>>1354 No! It was the halfgorilian-halfreptilian-mason organization [s][/s]from under the North Pole!
>>1344 That's because the jews took all the archives from that time and hid them in a secret cave . Same cave they hid some of the gold in the world , which in turn caused the economic crisis.
>>1366 This man speaks the truth.
>>1344 They didn't destroy but there's plenty of our history from that era (mostly from Gepids) that ended up in Austrian museums and got lost in Russia after WWI.
>>1349 >Nope. The general agreement in Romania regarding pre-dark ages is that before any romanian kingdom the local population probably lived in a seminomadic way, sheperds moving with their lambs and goats(since those destroy the grass, you need to move constantly in order to feed them). Nope. AFAIK there was a depopulation and abandonment of Roman cities, but there are plenty of archeological sites of settlements from that era all over the country, though the ethnicity of those people can't be determined from their material culture alone. The "all Romanians turned into migrating shepherds" shtick (not to mention that transhumance pastoralism is different from wandering around) is just bullshit.
The most common theory I've heard is that Romanians retreated in either the forests (from where names like Vlașca and Codrul Vlăsiei originate) or in the mountains in the Carpathians, which, if you've been there, you'd understand that they really are like a natural fortress.
>>1415 > is just bullshit
i learn it in school like that.
>you'd understand that they really are like a natural fortress.
yes, see >>1352 i recall learning in school the forest thing, somewhere in the 6th or 7th grade, and the shepperd thing is highschool.
>>1419 School where, in Hungary?
>>1420 sunt roman cu scoala facuta-n romania, in pizda ma-tii.
>>1421 Ochei, ba. Citeste atunci Istoria Rominiei volumele I si II in privinta cu acea perioada. Stiu ca e din 1960 si ceva dar are harti bune cu situri arheologice.
>>1422 >carti comuniste