Most of the churches, being built after the enactment of
the law, were made out of wood or other non-durable material, and have long
since disappeared. This explains the low number of the relics from the
10th‑11th centuries. Not only the village churches of lesser importance,
but also several well-known, important buildings were made of perishable
materials. The Benedictine Abbey of Szentjobb (Sîniob), where Saint
Stephen's right hand was protected from 1083 until the 15th Century, was
still a wood building in the 11th century.
At the end of the Árpádian Age, excluding Croatia and
Slavonia, there were 10,000 ‑ 11, 000 villages in Hungary. Two thirds of
them had a church. It is the peculiarity of the era in question, that
sculpture and painting did not yet exist independently from architecture.
That is why the whole spatial art can be discovered by studying the historic
sacred buildings. The border areas of Hungary are very important in the
history of art. Under the Turkish rule, the relics of the Medieval culture
almost totally vanished in Central Hungary, but the remnants of historical
centres can still be found in upper Northern Hungary (presently in
Slovakia), Transylvania, and in the western border zone where the scale of
devastation was much smaller. The territories detached from Hungary happen
to be the richest in ancient buildings, ruins and relics. Since the loss of
the territories in the Trianon Peace Treaty in 1920, Hungarian medieval
research has been struggling with outrageous artificial obstacles.
Hungarian historians are often forced to discover the truth
behind the unscientific phantasmagorias of the neighboring countries'
historians, since they usually do not have the opportunity of local
excavations. The best example was the Jesus Chapel at Székelyudvarhely. M.
Beldie, Rumanian historian, found a coin of Ferdinand I, beside a basement
wall. On the basis of this find, she stated in a paper that the building
originated from the 16th Century. The small chapel was in Gyárosfalva, a
village that no longer exists. In the 16th Century, this settlement0 was
already in its declining period, and the tax list of 1567 found only two(!)
households capable of paying tax. It is unimaginable that such a weak,
disintegrating community would have undertaken church building. Moreover,
such quatrefoil plan chapels are known from the 12th‑13th centuries, – that
in Székely-udvarhely would be the only one from the 16th century.
The author accepted that the places, listed by the tithe
collectors with Roman‑Catholic parishes, had been populated mainly by
Hungarians and Germans. He assumed, however, that only Rumanian Orthodox
population lived in every other village. The basis of this distortion was
that Pascu did not pay attention to the out-parishes, on the lowest level
of the Church organization, which did not have a priest. The
organization on the lowest level of the Church was the same as today. Thus,
almost every parish had one or two out-parishes belonging to it, where, in
many cases, a church also existed. At the end of the Árpádian Age (1301),
approximately 2,000 churches existed on the territories in question.
Since the devastation caused by the Turks in central Hungary were
much more severe than that in Transylvania, the ratio of the surviving and
known relics should be higher in Transylvania than in other parts of the
country – so far it is, however, even lower.
Witnesses of the Hungarian history in Transylvania remain
silent, many of them forever. Academician Pascu's primitive confabulation
can be disproved by simply counting the listed relics in the Appendix.
70% of the early churches in the observed territories are
Hungarian, while 28% are German and 2% are Rumanian.
Several relics of the Hungarian population survived from the conversion
period (for example Csanád.) The German immigration started in the middle of
the 12th century, while Rumanians did not immigrate to Transylvania until
the beginning of the 13th century, as proven also by our documentation.
No Orthodox Rumanian Church built before the 13th
century exists – and none ever existed – on the territory of today's
Rumania.
Daco‑Roman‑Rumanian Continuity, the “two‑thousand ‑year‑old
dream” vanishes in the daylight of undeniable facts.
POSTWORD
By Lajos Fűr
The theory of the Daco-Roman continuity, which has matured
over the past several decades, has become, in Rumanian historiography, more
of a doctrine than a theory. We can state that this doctrine has been
elevated to the highest rank and supported by the power of the state.
Numerous artifacts, which Rumanian archeologists have unearthed, are
presented as irrefutable archeological evidence from the depths of the earth.
Statements, which formerly were doubtful, are now proposed as absolute truth
and researchers build their case on linguistic hypotheses, which are
uncertain. Scholars, journalists and writers publish innumerable books on
the subject of the Daco-Roman continuity. This flood of false information
is fed to the Rumanian people by the mass media and the Ministry of Culture,
which constantly propagates the theory throughout the state. There is a
propaganda organization, which also tries to present it as a scientific
doctrine in every possible language. Whether this propaganda is presented
diplomatically or aggressively, the goal is the same – to make the world
believe in the Daco-Roman continuity.
The Rumanians, who obtained the large territory of
Transylvania at the unjust Treaty of Versailles, in 1920, at Trianon, which
Lenin called: “a peace treaty by robbers”, need this theory of continuity to
justify their presence in this territory. This theory, which was developed
well before 1920 to try to prove that the Rumanians were present in
Transylvania before the Hungarians, was used in 1920 in order for them to
obtain Transylvania. After 1920, this well thought out theory has been used
to retain this territory, even today. This romantic theory of Rumanian
origin, which has become doctrine, no matter how it is presented in order to
bolster the self-image of the Rumanians, cannot hide the fact that they have
a bad conscience about the events that took place at Trianon.
In Hungary, the doctrine of the Daco-Roman continuity has not
been incorporated into Hungarian historiography. It is not mentioned in
their history books or in schoolbooks. For a long period of time, until
quite recently, they did not even pass judgment on it. After World War II.,
the Hungarian people ignored it, closed their eyes to it. Why?
Between the two wars, Hungarian historiography relied on the
actual historical facts and continued to disagree with the unacceptable
theory of continuity. In scientific circles, it was accepted that these
historical facts did not change, not even after the Second World War. In
other words, it is not the historical facts that change radically, but the
political circumstances. It was the political opposition that silenced the
Hungarian criticism of the Rumanian theory of continuity. The Horthy regime
was part of this opposition. It was not possible to openly voice criticism
of the Daco-Roman theory because the unity of the Soviet Socialist republics
prevented criticism which could cause a rift in their organization. These
ostrich politics on the part of the Hungarians were based on the belief that
the Rumanian-Hungarian and Czechoslovak-Hungarian friendship etc. were a
hundred times more valuable than the mention of any kind of minority
problems or the reference to any historical facts. The Hungarian Marxist
historiography constantly emphasized that the Hungarian ruling classes in
the past oppressed the foreign peoples in Hungary. Under such conditions,
it was not possible to voice opposition to the Daco-Roman theory.
This grave-like silence was broken only between 1970 and
1980, first very quietly and later more strongly but always very
subjectively. Historians, studying the history of Historic Hungary, the
history of the Romans in Hungary, the Homecoming, the people migrations and
the history of the Árpád Dynasty could not avoid studying the theory of the
Daco-Roman continuity. The above-named eras were studied by István Bóna,
Lajos Balla, Antal Bartha, István Fodor, György Györffy, Gyula Kristó and
others. The results of their research contradicted those of the Rumanian
historians who were writing about the same eras. Árpád Kosztin belongs
among the above-named historians.
The ethnogenesis of every people has unavoidable basic
pillars. The writers of the early Chronicles and Gesta wrote about this
ethnogenesis. Even more historians were occupied with this subject in the
Renaissance period and the Age of Humanism. At that time, in the 16th
century, a Hungarian work dealt with the first mention of the Roman origin
of the Rumanians in Transylvania. According to this work, the chronicles
of two Rumanian principalities mentioned this subject and offered a new
explanation as a basis for the Daco-Roman theory.
Finally, in the 18th century, Bishop Micu-Klein,
developed the Daco-Roman theory into a wider and well-worked thesis. ()
His work did not receive acclaim until the next century. The Daco-Roman
theory began to spread among smaller groups and slowly gained momentum. It
began to make waves among the priesthood, the intelligentsia and politicians.
Thus it became a characteristic element of the national identity.
It is understandable because, in the 18th century,
the rebirth of nationalism began in Europe and, in the 19th
century, on the wings of romanticism, it rose higher and higher and expanded
to the Rumanian version of nationalism and historical continuity.
The knowledge of one’s origin is one of the bases of modern
national consciousness. The Daco-Roman theory appears to be scientifically
based and has become the Rumanian ethnogenesis. Therefore it is not
unimportant from where a people originates. If people wish to establish a
nation, they search for forefathers that they can look up to and they try to
determine the time from which they can date their origin. In light of this,
we should examine, for example, the centuries-old belief in the Hun-Magyar
origin. We should use the same standards to judge the Daco-Roman continuity,
since this theory is connected with the land of Transylvania and the heroic
Dacians who lived there. The Rumanians state that they are descended from
the Dacians()
and the world conquering Romans. According to this, the Rumanian people
have lived on both sides of the Carpathian Mountains for millennia. In
other words: they have continuously lived in that land in which they must
establish the unified Rumanian state and once it has been established they
must protect and defend it forever.
What does this state sponsored theory advocate, which is
declared to be irrefutable? It simply advocates that the Rumanians are the
direct descendents of the Dacians. The state of Dacia, established in AD.
105-106, under the rule of King Decebal, ()
was later occupied by the legions of Emperor Traianus. (Trajan) ()
Dacia, just like Pannonia, was annexed to the Roman Empire. The Roman rule
came to an end in A.D. 271 and, according to the theory of Daco-Roman
continuity, the conquered Dacians mingled with the victorious Romans and
their language became latinized. The Dacian people, who adopted a new
language, survived centuries of people migrations and opposed the
conquering Magyars and the oppression of the Hungarian aristocratic
landowners. This romanized ethnic group survived more than a millennium
without establishing an independent state and they were able to preserve
their identity without leaving any visible traces or remains to prove this.
Is it possible to imagine that, after the fall of the Roman
Empire, and during the time of the strengthening of Christianity in the
Hungarian Kingdom in the Middle Ages, whose influence spread far and wide,
for a whole millennium there was no written evidence of the romanized Dacian
people, who supposedly lived continuously in Transylvania and died there?
Árpád Kosztin researches this romantic theory of
ethnogenesis and disproves it, page by page. In order to understand
Kosztin’s arguments we need to know that Hungarian historians, up to now,
have tried to refute this theory by studying archeological findings and
contemporary written documents, using comparative linguistics to support
their studies. Unfortunately they failed to research the existence of the
cultic places of the Dacians. Kosztin recognized the lack of this research
and this, in itself, should be acknowledged to be of scientific importance.
Árpád Kosztin, with reason, emphasized that, from the point of view of
continuity, it is very important, even imperative to study the existence or
non-existence of these cultic places. He found plenty of material in the
Rumanian and Hungarian historical written documents to help him in his
research. The question was whether any traces of the Christian Dacians
could be found from the centuries after the Romans withdrew from Dacia,
because the Rumanian historiography states that the Dacian people became
Christian in the 4th and 5th centuries. If it were
true, that the romanized Dacian populace lived there continuously, even in
the time of the people migration, then, when the Magyars arrived in 896,
they should have found Christian cultic places in Transylvania and
Havasalföld.
The author painstakingly researched the actual dates of
foundation of churches, looking for such buildings established by the
romanized Dacians, but he found none.
It is not possible to prove that, in the first few centuries
after the Magyar Homecoming, even the Rumanians, who practiced the Greek
Orthodox Christianity, built churches and cultic places. The first Rumanian
Greek Orthodox cultic places appeared in the 13th and 14th
centuries. It is only from this time that the romanized Vlach people slowly
moved north from the Balkan Peninsula, crossed the Carpathians and arrived
in Transylvania. The objective research of the author can be seen in his
examination of the later centuries of the Middle Ages. He closes his
research by presenting the terrible oppression of the Turkish era.
This work by Árpád Kosztin offers the Transylvanian readers
useful information because at present the fate of the minorities in
Transylvania has become more and more difficult. The author respects the
historical facts, which support the theory of the Hungarian presence in the
Carpathian Basin. This well researched work is based on objective
evidence.
