This is an accepted version of this page
| Part of a series on the |
| Socialist Republic of Romania |
|---|
.svg) |
Relationship with the USSR |
Relations with other states |
Dacianism is aRomanian term describing the tendency to ascribe, largely relying on questionable data and subjective interpretation, an idealised past to the country as a whole. While particularly prevalent during theregime ofNicolae Ceaușescu, its origin in Romanian scholarship dates back more than a century.
The term refers to perceived aggrandising of Dacian and earlier roots of today'sRomanians. This phenomenon is also pejoratively labelled "Dacomania" or "Dacopathy" or sometimes "Thracomania", while its proponents prefer "Dacology". The termprotochronism (anglicised from theRomanian:protocronism, from theAncient Greek terms for "first in time"), originally coined to refer to the supposed pioneering character of theRomanian culture, is sometimes used as a synonym.
In this context, the term makes reference to the trend (noticed in several versions ofRomanian nationalism) to ascribe a unique quality to theDacians and their civilisation.[1] Dacianists attempt to prove either that Dacians had a major part to play inancient history or even that they had the ascendancy over all cultures (with a particular focus onAncient Rome, which, in a complete reversal of thefounding myth, would have been created by Dacian migrants).[2] Also noted are the exploitation of theTărtăria tablets as certain proof that writing originated on proto-Dacian territory, and the belief that theDacian language survived all the way to theMiddle Ages.[2]
An additional, but not universal, feature is the attempted connection between the supposedmonotheism of theZalmoxis cult andChristianity,[3] in the belief that Dacians easily adopted and subsequently influenced the religion. Also, Christianity is argued to have been preached to the Daco-Romans bySaint Andrew, who is considered doubtfully as the clear origin of modern-dayRomanian Orthodoxy. Despite the lack of supporting evidence, it is the official church stance, being found in history textbooks used in Romanian Orthodox seminaries and theology institutes.[4]
The ideas have been explained as part of aninferiority complex present in Romanian nationalism,[5] one which also manifested itself in works not connected with Dacianism, mainly as a rejection of the ideas that Romanian territories only served as a colony of Rome, voided of initiative, and subject to an influx of Latins which would have completely wiped out a Dacian presence.[6]
Dacianism most likely came about with the views professed in the 1870s byBogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu,[7] one of the main points of the dispute between him and theconservativeJunimea. For example, Hasdeu'sEtymologicum magnum Romaniae not only claimed that Dacians gave Rome many of her emperors (an idea supported in recent times byIosif Constantin Drăgan),[8] but also that the ruling dynasties of early medievalWallachia andMoldavia were descendants of acaste of Dacians established with "King" (chieftain)Burebista.[9] Other advocates of the idea beforeWorld War I included the amateurarchaeologistCezar Bolliac,[10] as well asTeohari Antonescu andNicolae Densușianu. The latter composed an intricate and unsupported theory on Dacia as the center of European prehistory,[11] authoring a complete parallel to Romanian official history, which included among the Dacians such diverse figures as those of theAsen dynasty, andHorea.[11] The main volume of his writings isDacia Preistorică ("Prehistoric Dacia").
AfterWorld War I and throughoutGreater Romania's existence, the ideology increased its appeal. TheIron Guard flirted with the concept, making considerable parallels between its projects and interpretations of what would have been Zalmoxis' message.[12]Mircea Eliade was notably preoccupied with Zalmoxis' cult, arguing in favour of its structural links with Christianity;[13] his theory on Dacian history, viewingRomanisation as a limited phenomenon, is celebrated by contemporary partisans of Dacianism.[14]
In a neutral context, the Romanian archaeology school led byVasile Pârvan investigated scores of previously ignored Dacian sites, which indirectly contributed to the idea's appeal at the time.[15]
In 1974Edgar Papu published in the mainstream cultural monthlySecolul XX an essay titled "The Romanian Protochronism", arguing for Romanian chronological priority for some European achievements.[16] The idea was promptly adopted by the nationalist Ceaușescu regime, which subsequently encouraged and amplified a cultural and historical discourse claiming the prevalence of autochthony over any foreign influence.[17] Ceaușescu's ideologues developed a singular concept after the 1974 11th Congress of theCommunist Party of Romania, when they attached Dacianism to officialMarxism, arguing that the Dacians had produced a permanent and "unorganised state".[18] The Dacians had been favoured by several communist generations as autochthonous insurgents against an "imperialist" Rome (with theStalinist leadership of the 1950s proclaiming them to be closely linked with theSlavic peoples);[19] however, Ceaușescu's was an interpretation with a distinct motivation, making a connection with the opinions of previous Dacianists.[20]
The regime started a partnership withItalian resident, former Iron Guard member and millionaireIosif Constantin Drăgan, who continued championing the Dacian cause even after the fall of Ceaușescu.[21] Critics regard these excesses as the expression of aneconomic nationalist course, amalgamating provincial frustrations and persistent nationalist rhetoric, asautarky and cultural isolation of the late Ceaușescu's regime came along with an increase in Dacianist messages.[22]
Vladimir Tismăneanu wrote:
"Protochronism" was the party-sponsored ideology that claimed Romanian precedence in major scientific and cultural discoveries. It was actually the underpinning of Ceaușescu's nationalist tyranny.[23]
While no longer backed by atotalitarian state structure after the1989 revolution, the interpretation still enjoys popularity in several circles.[24] The main representative of current Protochronism was still Drăgan (now deceased), but theNew York City-based physician Napoleon Săvescu took over after Drăgan's death. Together, they issued the magazineNoi, Dacii ("We, the Dacians") and organised a yearly "International Congress of Dacology".[25] Săvescu still does those.
Săvescu's most famous theory says that the Romanians are not descendants of the Roman colonists and assimilated Dacians, as mainstream historians say, but that they are the descendants of only the Dacians, who spoke a language close toLatin.
Other controversial theories of his include the Dacians (or their ancestors) having developed the first writing system in the world (see theTărtăria tablets), the first set of laws or having conqueredWestern Europe,India,Iraq,Japan and theAmericas.
"If the Harappa culture did not disappear after the Carpatho-Danubian invasion, how come the invaders themselves vanished, leaving no traces behind, or leaving, as Sir Wheeler put it, "nothing but a name?" How could the nomad Carpatho-Danubians, mainly a people of breeders, give birth not only to a new religion, but found splendid cities that outlived them to this day? How could the greatest and most complex literature in the world have come from these Carpatho-Danubian people? Actually, the whole Vedic literature is based on four texts (the oldest being Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda and Sama-Veda, the later Athara-Veda and two poems resembling the Iliad and the Odyssey only two thousand years older; Ramnayana and Mahabharata have preserved a toponymy echoing that of the Aryan Carpatho-Danubians' homeland and share the same main theme – the enmity and rancor between two families fighting over the throne of Bahataral (according to some, today's Banat-Romania).
— The Conquest of India by the Carpatho-Danubian People
His theories are, however, disregarded by historical journals and most historians, e.g. Mircea Babeș,Lucian Boia and Alexandra Tomiță,[26][27][28] who label these theories aspseudoscience and anachronistic and consider that there is not enough scientific evidence to support them.[29]Dacia, journal of theVasile Pârvan Institute of Archaeology, and the history journalSaeculum did not speak highly of him, either.[30][31]
"Dacian alphabet" is a term used in Romanian protochronism and Dacianism forpseudohistorical claims of a supposed alphabet of theDacians prior to the conquest ofDacia and its absorption into theRoman Empire.Its existence was first proposed in the late 19th century byRomanian nationalists, but has been completely rejected by mainstream modern scholarship.
In the opinion ofSorin Olteanu, a modern expert at theVasile Pârvan Institute of Archaeology, Bucharest, "[Dacian script] is pure fabrication [...] purely and simply Dacian writing does not exist", adding that many scholars believe that the use of writing may have been subject to a religious taboo among the Dacians.[32] It is known that the ancientDacians used theGreek andLatin alphabets,[33] though possibly not as early as in neighbouringThrace where theEzerovo ring in Greek script has been dated to the 5th century BC. A vase fragment from theLa Tène period (see illustration above), a probable illiterate imitation of Greek letters, indicates visual knowledge of the Greek alphabet[34] during theLa Tène period prior to the Roman invasion. Some Romanian writers writing at the end of the 19th century and later identified as protochronists, particularly the Romanian poet and journalistCezar Bolliac, an enthusiast amateur archaeologist,[35] claimed to have discovered a Dacian alphabet. They were immediately criticized for archaeological[36] and linguistic[37][38] reasons.Alexandru Odobescu, criticized some of Bolliac's conclusions.[39] In 1871 Odobescu, along withHenric Trenk, inventoried the Fundul Peșterii cave, one of the Ialomiței caves (See theRomanian Wikipedia article) nearBuzău. Odobescu was the first to be fascinated by its writings, which were later dated to the 3rd or 4th century.[40] In 2002, the controversial[41] Romanian historian, Viorica Enăchiuc, stated that theCodex Rohonczi is written in a Dacian alphabet.[42]The equally controversial[43] linguist Aurora Petan (2005) claims that someSinaia lead plates could contain unique Dacian scripts.[44]
The linguistGeorge Pruteanu called protochronism as "the barren and paranoid nationalism", because protochronism claims that the Dacian language was the origin of Latin and all other languages, includingHindi andBabylonian.[45]
Este un bun prilej să demontăm un alt mit drag tracomanilor, anume cel al 'scrierii dacice' si al vechimii ei 'imemorabile'. 'Scrierea dacă' este pură inventie. Nu este nici măcar vorba de incertitudini, de chestiuni de interpretare (din ce punct de vedere privim) s.a.m.d., ci pur si simplu nu există nici o scriere dacă [...] Asa cum cred multi dintre învătati, este foarte posibil ca la daci, întocmai ca si la celti până la un anumit moment, scrierea să fi fost supusă unui tabu religios.
On ne possède malheureusement pas de plus grand fragment pour établir s'il s'agit d'une inscription en langue latine ou grecque, éventullement gète, ou plutôt d'une ornementation grossière en forme d'alphabet, oeuvre probable d'un potier illetré. Ce tesson présente dans tous les cas un grand intérêt au point de vue de l'influence méridionale sur les artisans de notre station de Poiana, à la fin de l'époque Latène, à laquelle il appartient. Même s'il ne s'agit que d'un jeu d'imitation de quelque potier gète, sa connaissance approximative des lettres grecques ou romaines prouve que les relations entre les Gètes de la Moldavie et le monde gréco-romain d'outre Danube étaient devenues extrêmement étroites à la veille de la directe expansion romaine en Dacie.
The Rumanian writer Eajden... fancies he has lighted upon the old Dacian alphabet, in an alphabet surviving till the last century amongst the Szeklers of Transylvania. But he has altogether overlooked the preliminary question, to what group of languages Dacian may belong.
La théorie d'un alphabet dace est une fable; les caractères cyrilliques sont d'origine slave, non roumaine. Ce n'est que depuis le XV^ siècle que le peuple roumain les a admis dans son idiome national.Cf. Moldovan G.А latin, cyrill, (ШК es székely irasjegyek kérdése a. románoknál. (A Bp. Szernle 1887. évi oklób. sz.) Bpest, 1887.
| Tribes (List) | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kings |
| ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Wars with the Roman Empire |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Roman Dacia /Free Dacians |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Research | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
