Talk:Keszthely culture

Hungary Mid‑importance

	Hungary portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Eastern Europe (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe articles

European history Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ethnic groups Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keszthely culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929045729/http://www.huninfo.hu/keszt/2keszth1.htm to http://www.huninfo.hu/keszt/2keszth1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pannonian Romance redirect

Pannonian Romance (language) redirects to this page. There are refs/links to Pannonian Romance within this page (circular now), suggesting there was once a page with some detail about the language. Is this redirect appropriate? Is the information from the original page (I don't know how to conjure old pages up) included in the Language section here? Cellmaker (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cellmaker I don't think so either. The deletion discussion did not really have a majority of users or arguments supporting such a move but was closed as "Move to History of Romanian" (see here it had survived an earlier deletion discussion in 2007 before that) -- although that is not what happened anyways (and I would oppose that happening). I don't particularly want to dig up old bones at the moment, so I simply restored a lot of the RS info that was deleted in the move and figured that's the best solution for now. -- Calthinus (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite the Article

I will continue to rewrite the article, backed up by sources CriticKende (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read another very comprehensive study, which I will include in the article in the coming days. I will continue to expand the article with archaeological/historical sources. CriticKende (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Language change

Thus the language of the culture in the first period was Germanic.

So presumably the language may have changed and become Avar.

Are both of these statements in the sources cited or are they inferences by an editor? Srnec (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, obviously not literally, because that's not allowed on wiki, but it's written that the population was first Germanic, and then predominantly Avar. (According to archeological finds) CriticKende (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I put the source in the article you sent. CriticKende (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "not literally"?

Tivadar Vida, "Conflict and coexistence: the local population of the Carpathian Basin under Avar rule (sixth to seventh century)", The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans (Brill, 2008), writes that There is so far no other better explanation for the rich and sophisticated “Keszthely culture” of the Early Avar age than to assume the continuity of the local Roman population. I don't think this is an obsolete theory. Srnec (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can take it from there if you really want to, but it's not in the museum and in most of the new works on the subject, or in the analysis of the excavations. So there is one historian out of about 10 who have researched the subject recently who thinks so, and the absolute majority do not. I don't think it's worth putting in all the theories that 99% of researchers don't admit anymore, because then you would have to put in the Hungarian, Slavic, Greek, Albanian, Khazar, Szekler, and Normann theories. And I also found a source for the Hungarian theory, but I didn't put it in, because I think the goal is to provide credible information, not to put in every theory that is supported by 1 person.

And I think it's worth emailing the museum, too, to see why the archaeologists and the museum in Keszthely also consider the theory outdated.

Also note that your source is from 2008, mine is from 2020 (partly) so 12 years wentpast during the two research, I think things may change, and your source only partially touches on this, and this is not what Tivadar primarily researched, while several of my sources do, and even participated in the excavations.

I hope together we can write a good article here. :) CriticKende (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Srnec, @CriticKende,

I checked at the moment only the source what Srnec provided. [1] Here I can read about the post-Roman period and re-use of standing Roman buildings OrionNimrod (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed population

Hi @CriticKende

The source cited says:

"A survey of the complete corpus of finds strongly suggests that the population living in and around the Keszthely-Fenékpuszta fort in the Early Avar period was made up of Christian communities with a mixed background, which can be easily distinguished from the other early Avar groups in Transdanubia."

Where does it say Germanic? Aristeus01 (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mixed Germanic population CriticKende (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say? Aristeus01 (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text says that this was a Germanic population. CriticKende (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the text exactly? Aristeus01 (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll send you some examples from the indicated source (Müller, Róbert (2020). A Keszthely-Kultúra Ma [The Keszthely-Culture Today].)

Page 199:

Hungarian: "E természettudományos eredmények legjobb interpretációja a régészeti leletek tükrében az, ha feltételezzük, hogy egyrészt van e temetőknek egy olyan komponense, mely miután leletanyagában egyaránt tartalmaz az 568 előtti pannóniai anyagban teljesen ismeretlen női ékszereket (egyedi kisfibulák- és brossok, kosaras fülbevalók, melltűk. gyűrűk, karperecek), férfi övgarnitúrákat, valamint díszítési technikákat (második germán állatstílus, pont-vonal motívum), az csakis 568 után valamilyen módon a Dunántúlra került langobard közösségként értelmezhető."

English Translation: "The best interpretation of these naturalistic results in the light of the archaeological finds is to assume that, on the one hand, there is a component of these cemeteries which, having contained in its archaeological material both a female cemetery which is completely unknown in pre-568 Pannonian material jewellery (individual small brooches and brooches, basket earrings, brooches, rings, bracelets), male belt sets and decorative techniques (second Germanic animal style, dotted-line motif), can only be interpreted as a Lombard community that was somehow introduced to the Danube region after 568."

Page 202:

Hungarian: "E viseleti szokás a 6. századi Kárpát-medence germán népeinél részben langobard etnikumjelzőnek tekinthető, melynek megléte valamennyi előkelőbb langobard női temetkezés esetében elvárható, amennyiben azt a sírrablók megkímélték"

English: "This costume can be regarded as a partial Langobard ethnic marker among the Germanic peoples of the 6th century Carpathian Basin, and its presence can be expected in all the more prominent Langobard female burials, provided that it was spared by the grave robbers."

Page 202:

Hungarian: "Ráadásul a sasfibula kampós csőrének megfogalmazásában a második germán állatstílus egyik jellegzetes eleme köszön vissza,"

English: "In addition, the hooked beak of the eagle fibula recalls a characteristic element of the second Germanic animal style..."

Page 202:

Hungarian: "A horreumi sírok - és más Keszthely-kultúrás temetők további - kisfibulái tehát nem a helyben talált dunántúli langobard temetők kifosztásával kerültek a Keszthely-kultúra népességének birtokába (MÜLLER 1996a, 99),' hanem azt maguk hozták egy olyan germán - párhuzamaik alapján joggal mondhatjuk, langobard - környezetből, ahol azok ilyetén módon való viselete közvetlenül a korongfibulák feltűnését megélőző, illetve azt átfedő időszak emlékei, mégpedig a 6-7. század fordulójáról. "

English: "The small fibulae of the Horreum graves - and of other Keszthely-culture cemeteries - were not brought into the possession of the Keszthely-culture population by the looting of the local Langobard cemeteries (MÜLLER 1996a, 99), but were brought by the Keszthely-culture population themselves, from a Germanic - and we can rightly say so on the basis of their parallels, langobard - environment, where their wearing in this way is a direct reminder of the period which witnessed the appearance of the disc fibulae and overlapped with it, namely from the turn of the 6th and 7th centuries. "

Page 203:

Hungarian: "Mindezek értelmében már kevésbé meglepő, hogy antropológiai anyaga alapján mindkét vizsgálható horreumi fülbevalós sír az első szerológiai csoportba tartozik. így azok a fenékpusztai kosaras függők, melyeket a hazai szakirodalom Garam Évának a kora avar kori ékszerek bizánci kapcsolatait tárgyaló alapos munkái nyomán előszeretettel tart eredeti bizánci készítményeknek, teljes leletösszefüggéseiket tekintve is inkább mutatnak langobard kapcsolatokat, mintsem bizáncit. "

English: "In view of all this, it is less surprising that the anthropological material of both Horreum earring tombs under examination belongs to the first serological group.Thus, the basket pendants from Fenékpuszta, which the Hungarian literature, following the thorough work of Eva Garam on the Byzantine connections of Early Byzantine jewellery, prefers to consider as original Byzantine products, show more Lombard connections than Byzantine ones, even in their overall context. "

Page 203:

Hungarian: "Csák Árpád a Keszthely-Dobogón 1898-ban feltárt hatvannégy sír egyikében egy olyan kőbetétes. kétségtelenül 7. századi, nyugati germán típusú bronz korongfibulát talált (KUZSINSZKY 1920, 146. ábra), mely példány meroving megfelelői közismertek (THIEME 1978. 418-420), ami így a fenékpusztai ékköves darabok germán kapcsolataihoz újabb támpontot szolgáltat."

English: "Árpád Csák in one of the sixty-four graves excavated on the Keszthely-Dobogo in 1898 has such a stone inlay. undoubtedly found a bronze disc fibula of the 7th century, West Germanic type (KUZSINSZKY 1920, fig. 146), whose Merovingian equivalents are well known (THIEME 1978. 418-420), which thus provides another clue to the Germanic connections of the jeweled pieces from Fenékpuszta."

Page 204:

Hungarian: "Az pedig, hogy a gyermekek veretes övvel való eltemetése nem tűnik általános avar szokásnak (SIMON 1983,58), a 15. sír kapcsán ismét csak a germánok felé irányítja a figyelmet, ahol is a meroving korban e rítus gyakoribbnak tűnik (SCHWAB 1982). Végezetül a sír üvegpoharának (BARKÓCZI 1968, Pl. LXVIII. 6) rendkívül nagyszámú, s szinte kizárólag csak észak- és közép-itáliából ismert analógiái (KISS 1996, Liste 47) szintén azt a hipotézis támasztják alá, hogy nemcsak a kb. ötévesen elhunyt kisfiú lehetett biztosan langobard származású, hanem a sírjába helyezett övgarnitúra is nyugatról származhatott. "

English: "The fact that the burial of children with a beaten belt does not seem to be a general Avar custom (SIMON 1983,58), again directs attention to the Germanic period, where this rite seems to be more common in the Merovingian period (SCHWAB 1982). Finally, the extremely large number of analogues of the glass beaker (BARKÓCZI 1968, Pl. LXVIII. 6), known almost exclusively from northern and central Italy (KISS 1996, Liste 47), also support the hypothesis that not only the boy who died at the age of about five could certainly have been of Lombard origin, but also the belt set placed in his grave could have come from the West. "

Page 204:

Hungarian: "Az eddigiekben elemzett horreumi tárgytípusokon kívül több Keszthely-kultúrás sír is ismert még, melyekben olyan női ékszerek illetve férfi viseleti elemek kerültek elő, melyek biztosan germán eredetűek, s azok legjobb párhuzamainak sorát 6. század végi. de főképp 7. század eleji itáliai langobard sírokban találni meg. "

English: "In addition to the types of Horreum objects analysed so far, several Keszthely-culture graves are also known, in which female jewellery and male costume elements were found that are certainly of Germanic origin, and their best parallels can be found in Italian Lombard graves of the late 6th century, but especially of the early 7th century. "

Page 205:

Hungarian: "Ez egyben azt is jelenti, hogy mivel öntött lábbeli díszek a kora avar kori Kárpát-medencében eddig kizárólag csak olyan lelőhelyekről ismertek, ahol kétségkívül valószínűsíthető germán jelenlét (VIDA 1996, 118-121), ezt kell feltételeznünk a fenékpusztai sír esetében is."

English: "This also means that, since cast footwear ornaments in the Early Avar Carpathian Basin are so far known only from sites where there is no doubt that a Germanic presence is probable (VIDA 1996, 118-121), we must assume the same in the case of the Fenékpuszta tomb."

Page 205:

Hungarian: "Miután pedig a Keszthelykultúra kapcsán, az eddigiek értelmében, germánok mögött Itáliából visszakerült langobardok gyaníthatok, bezárul a kör."

English: "And since, in the context of the Keszthely culture, I suspect that the Germanic people were Lombards who had returned from Italy, the circle is closed."

This is not all, if you still want more examples I will be happy to send them to you. Do you have any other questions? CriticKende (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CriticKende just stop this charade, please!

The source black on white says:

"A survey of the complete corpus of finds strongly suggests that the population living in and around the Keszthely-Fenékpuszta fort in the Early Avar period was made up of Christian communities with a mixed background, which can be easily distinguished from the other early Avar groups in Transdanubia." Aristeus01 (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, a mixed Germanic and Avar population. CriticKende (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"hich can be easily distinguished from the other early Avar groups in Transdanubia" because there was many Lombard too. CriticKende (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why some Hungarians are afraid about Roman culture at Keszthely?

There is no other better explanation for the “Keszthely culture” than to assume the continuity of the local Roman population. 79.118.82.169 (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The "mixed" community was made not only of Avar and Germans but also of original autochthonous Romanized people. At least in the first period (late fifth/early sixth centuries). Why such an emphasis trying to deny this fact?--48f (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content

Hi 48f,

You wrote:

"However some Italian historians don't agree with the rejection of the romanised population theory. They think that the area was always populated by authoctonous romanised population, arguing that a christian basilica (like the one found in Keszthely, rebuilt in the mid fifth century) has never been created in a depopulated area"

Wiki is based by modern academic sources. I found your marked 1923 source which talk only about Aquincum archeology which is far from Keszthely: https://epa.oszk.hu/02000/02007/00010/pdf/EPA2007_bp_regisegei_10_1923_056-073.pdf

You added 3 blurry sources, please show evidence and the exact text in your marked sources, page number, which say exactly the same as you stated "that Italian historians dont agree...."

I assume you added just random sources, and those sources dont support your claim. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nimrod, I am worried about your continuous rejection of something that is obvious: how can suddenly disappear a community (the romanised pannonians) if there are evidences like the one related to the word "Bononia" (historian Ajello -"Pannonia romana" capitulo III, p.24-25. Editorial Sopena. Caracas, 1966- writes that this word is related to "SAINT BONONIA", a christian martir of northern Italy who had a cult in those centuries) and like the fact that there were two churches in the Keszthely remnants (one small created in the third century and another -the basilica- built and rebuilt successively) and the cost for the creation and maintenance of the basilica was NOT justified, if for 150 years the area remained depopulated after the early fifth century, when "all went away" (as wrote some historians who seem a bit too much "nationalistic" against the Romans & neo-Latins in Hungary)? Furthermore, Wiki is based on "ALL" academic sources, not only the "modern" (that you like).....this is a serious encyclopedia and nobody can cancel, for example, the opinions (because "old") of an academic like Theodore Mommsen who wrote in the XIX century (1885!!!) the masterpiece "The Provinces of the Roman Empire"! Sincerely, I am not interested in all these discussions: my sources are clearly written in the bibliography and notes and I know (by experience in Wiki) that it is lost time to argue in these cases, because it will never end (I can additionally ask you page, number, text, etc. of why you say the "mixed population" was made only of german, slav and avars ad no remaining romanised pannonians, for example).....Anyway, I want to salute friendly you (because I am not going to write anything more in wiki for a while, due to my excessive work) and -if you are interested in further reading- allow me to notify that have written an article about Keszthely romance population here: [ https://researchomnia.blogpot.com/2024/08/neolatin-kesthely-history.html ] --48f (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wrote above "blogpot", but it is "blogspot". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 48f (talk • contribs) 15:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me text in academic sources which support your claim, as we can see I dont find your claim in your provided source which is about Aquincum archeology.

Wikipedia:Attribution OrionNimrod (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I am very busy, here it is the two sources you seems to need with pages/chapters:

1) Epifanio Ajello -"Pannonia romana" capitulo III, p.24-25. Editorial Sopena. Caracas, 1966 (in spanish, he is an italo-venezuelan university professor);
2) Carlo Tagliavini, "Le origini delle lingue neolatine", capitolo 2 e 3. Bologna, Patron Ed., 1982 (in italian, he was director of "Studi Rumeni" and a famous linguist).

Most of the info I got about Keszthely's romance population is from prof. Ajello. Regards.--48f (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC) (PS: Info about St. Bonosa [2]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 48f (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the exact text what they are writing about this. I dont see any book like this: "Epifanio Ajello -"Pannonia romana" "

I bet you provided random sources, like the Aquincum one which is nothing about your claim.

You just added some content with your own words, and later after many requests you just randomly added some sources, even non relevant Aquincum one and not existent Ajello one. In Wiki you should use real sources and add content from there. Wiki is not a personal blog.OrionNimrod (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "I dont see any book like this: "Epifanio Ajello -"Pannonia romana" ""...and where you see? on internet not all is registered. Even the Library of Congress in the USA admits that cannot have all the books in the world! Ask to the Venezuela central library in Caracas (I am from there and I know that prof. Ajello works in the Universidad Central Venezuela) the book and probably they will give you what you want.....it is too much what you request. It seems to me that you are starting to create a problem with me.....What if I request you YOUR sources about the negation of the existence of romanised pannonian presence in Keszthely area during the 130/50 years from the roman emperor Avitus to 570/600 AD? You always complain.... but you never show something against the Ajello's declaration that the word Bonosa is related to St Bonosa, for example! And with this I stop these writings that are starting to degenerate in a loss of time, as I have told yesterday. Adieu, adios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 48f (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 48f, I suppose you have book from where do you want add content to Wiki. Or how can you add content without sources? This is also a confirmation just you use random sources what you dont know actually like the previous Aquincum one.

Again Wiki based on reliable modern academic sources not you personal thinking and your blogs. All sentences should be backed by academic works. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

Hi Aristeus01,

could you tell what is your real intention with this article? What does mean exactly "Romance"? To make Lake Balaton too as "ancient Romanian land" as you claimed? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlachs&diff=prev&oldid=1152091631#/media/File:Romanian_settlements,_9th-14th_Century.jpg

Regarding this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keszthely_culture&diff=prev&oldid=1247061484, could you demonstrate in the provided sources where the sources say "romance speakers"?

OrionNimrod (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what caught your eye from the entries? Nothing about how the article so far dismissed contemporary RS and academic theories? You say I want to make Balaton Romanian but what we see is that you helped fabricate and distort the history of the region:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keszthely_culture&diff=prev&oldid=1240692901

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keszthely_culture&diff=prev&oldid=1239752519

and at the same time claimed to follow wiki rules. Naughty, naughty, @OrionNimrod! Aristeus01 (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Keszthely culture#Content just read above, that you defend fantasy sources, or sources what is not about the article... OrionNimrod (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fantasy here is whitewashing the topic and hoping to get away with it. I'm here to say I agree with the other party in the discussion above, and not only that I agree but RS agree as well:

"A Romanized provincial population had surely survived in Pannonia"

https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501729409-006

"The interaction between the local Romanic and Germanic population and the new lords from the East, as well as the strong impulses from Italy and the northern pre-Alpine region can be studied in one of the most fascinating archaeological provinces of the Carpathian Basin, the so-called “Keszthely culture”, located at the western end of Lake Balaton"

https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047404255_019

"Another ethnically-interpreted group are the burials of the “Keszthely Culture”, currently widely viewed as belonging to a residual Roman Christian group living under Avar domination. G. Kiss gives an interesting overview of the various theories suggested for this group of fnds since their frst discovery in the late 19th c. Radiocarbon dating of the anthropological material published by O. Heinrich-Tamáska and M. Schweissing, as well as the analysis of jewelry found in the graves by T. Vida (with contributions by A. Pásztor and E. Fóthi), show that the earliest of these burials may have appeared before the establishment of the Avar Khaganate (A.D. 568), thus confrming the view that these burials represent continuity from the pre-Avar period."

https://www.academia.edu/7956581/Keszthely_Fen%C3%A9kpuszta_and_the_Danube_from_Late_Antiquity_to_the_Middle_Ages_review_of_O_Heinrich_Tam%C3%A1ska_ed_Keszthely_Fen%C3%A9kpuszta_im_Kontext_sp%C3%A4tantiker_Kontinuit%C3%A4tsforschung_zwischen_Noricum_und_Moesia

"The cemetery analyses have conﬁrmed the earlier assumption that Romanised groups had lived not only in the distribution area of the Keszthely group and in the Sopianae area during the 5 th -7 th AD in the Carpathian Basin, but across the entire territory of eastern Pannonia"

https://www.academia.edu/62224561/Pannonia_and_the_Alpine_Adriatic_Region_in_Late_Antiquity_Atti_del_III_Incontro_per_lArcheologia_barbarica_Milano_18_maggio_2018_Archeologia_Barbarica_3_Mantova_2019_125_138

"Diese Bevölkerung bildeten hauptsächlich die örtliche und die zugewanderten romani, denen sich verschiedene germanische Gruppen

angeschlossen haben."

https://doi.org/10.62149/Antaeus.35-36.2018_06

to mention a few.

And against these RS we have a few sources cited in the article that are, most of them, nearly deprecated so the least we could do is present all views on the topic, rather than speak of "fantasies" (you must be an expert on this topic by now). Aristeus01 (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You talk about total different thing than me, I talked about those sources what I removed but you restored, and you showed me that was a bad, I do not talk about other sources, I talked about exactly those sources what I removed. OrionNimrod (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]