Re: Magyars before Hungary (was: Hachmann versus Kossack?)

> ****GK: There are enough traces to confirm the
> documented record. The invaders of ca.895-906 were a
> fairly mixed bunch. That complicates the search for
> the origins of the components, but to claim that
> archaeology= 0 is sheer incompetence. I have no time
> to waste on such "theories".****
>
>> e.g. 'Hungarians and
>> Europe in the Early Middle Ages: An Introduction to
>> Early Hungarian
>> History' by Andras Rona-Tas. I don't think Arnaud
>> is denying that
>> their arrival can be seen in the archaeological
>> record.
>>
>> Richard.
>
> ****GK: Neither am I.****
>>

============
As regards Hungarians,
My point of view is that most of what we know and understand is
linguistic-based.
Archeological data - if existing - are explained by linguistic data, not the
reverse.
Archeological data don't seem to add anything, they fit where we expect them
to go.
But if Mr. G.Knysh has reasons to think otherwise,
maybe he can provide examples where archeology alone improves (or helps
refute) previous knowledges based on linguistics.

Arnaud
===========