Christoffer Andersen

Nations and Nationalism

Final Paper, Fall 2004

Nations and Nationalism

Daco-Roman Continuity Theory:

How mythical history writing affected
Romanian national awakening.
Final Paper
Fall 2004
Christoffer Andersen

Mythical History Writing

All origins become mysterious if we search enough into the past. And
almost all peoples, when we look at their earliest origins, turn out to have
come from somewhere else […] we should never forget that all ancestries
are mixed… 1

The Daco-Roman continuity theory evolves around the origins of the Romanians. This has

been of great importance for the Romanian national awakening and as a tool for Ceausescu

to keep a united Romanian people. It has also clashed with Hungarian origin myths.

Therefore, it has been used as a tool to justify Romanians belonging in Transylvania, and

further, why Transylvania should be a part of Romania. However, it is not significant for

Romanians to believe in a national mythical history of origin. Many nations do so, and there

is nothing wrong in doing so. Nevertheless, Transylvania is an unique case: “both

Romanians and Hungarians consider the region a ‘cradle’ essential to their whole image of

national identity and the historiography of both countries was dedicated in modern and

contemporary times primarily to the task of proving the legitimacy of claims to Transylvania

1
Malcolm, Noel (1998) Kosovo, a short story. London: MacMillan, p. 22.

1
Christoffer Andersen
Nations and Nationalism
Final Paper, Fall 2004

or the other way around.”2 Mythical history writing helps nations remember their history,

though flawed, in a national-romantic way. However, it becomes a problem when it is used

in exploiting and superior terms, just as one can perceive degrees of positive and negative

nationalism.

The Communists in Romania after World War II went further than forging an

“organized solidarity”, but also used the origins of Romanians to keep them loyal to the

regime. Ceausescu was probably the one who exploited the Daco-Roman theory to the

fullest, imprinting it in every Romanians’ head. This lead to that Romanian historians and

researchers has used every mean to prove the Romanian ancestry and their Daco-Roman

origin3. Further, this exploded to a war on research between Hungary and Romania on who

was “first” in Transylvania. Therefore, the topic is well documented and explored (but also

subjective and confusing), nevertheless interesting and useful to review. Dragos Petrescu, in

Historical Myths, legitimating discourses, and identity politics in Ceausescu’s Romania, has identified

four different pillars which Romanian writing and teaching of national history was based on

after the Romanian Communist Party (PCR) program imposed in 1974: (1) the ancient roots

of the Romanians; (2) continuity; (3) unity; and (4) independence4. The Daco-Roman

continuity theory evolves around several of these aspects. However, for the Hungarians “not

even communist indoctrination can match the effectiveness of national socialization in a

matter seen essential,”5 such as cross-border Hungarian Radio, circulation of Hungarian

2
Mungiu-Pippidi, Alina (2000) Legacy of Ethnic Conflict: Transylvania. OSI-IPF Policy Papers, p. 5.
Available at: http://www.osi.hu/ipf/pubs.html.
3
One has to keep in mind that under Communist regimes scholars were often restricted to ancient and pre-
war history.
4
Petrescu, Dragos. East European Perspectives: Historical myths, legitimating discourses, and identity
politics in Ceausescu’s Romania (Part 2), 14 April 2004, Volume 6, Number 8. Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty. Available at: http://www.rferl.org/reports/eepreport/2004/04/8-140101.asp
5
Mangiu-Pippidi 2000: 11

2
Christoffer Andersen
Nations and Nationalism
Final Paper, Fall 2004

books and Hungarian national unity. But here I will mainly consider the development of the

theory in itself, how it became known and by who. And one has to keep in mind that all

legends contain a kernel of truth.

The Daco-Roman Continuity Theory

The inhabitants of Transylvania in the 1st and 2nd century A.D. is said to be the Dacians.

During the expansion of the Roman Empire Transylvania was conquered by Emperor

Traian. Transylvania (and surrounding areas) was made a part of the Roman Empire under

the name Dacia. The province of Dacia existed approximately from 101 or 106 and ended in

271-275. During these 165-170 years under the Romans the Dacians became assimilated and

integrated with them. When the Romans had to evacuate in the end of its heights the Daco-

Romans had by that time become so homogenous that they today constitute the Romanians’

ancestors. In other words, this melting pot of Dacian and Latin culture resulted in the birth

of Romanian culture. However, when the Romans retreated the mixed Romanian people

took refugee in the nearby Carpathian Mountains. The official Romanian historiography has

always been that Romania is a continuity of an old Dacian state. Within this interpretation of

history the Romanian ancestors have been in Transylvania long before anyone else.6 The

Romanians stayed in the mountains where they conserved their Latin language and culture.

Since Romanians speak a Latin language, Transylvania became the cradle of civilization for

the Romanian nationality, even after waves of immigrants and conquers – Avars, Germans,

Slavs, Ottomans and Magyars – the mountains, which so geographical describe this area,

6
Gerner, Kristian (1997) Centraleuropas historia. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur, p. 368.

3
Christoffer Andersen
Nations and Nationalism
Final Paper, Fall 2004

surrounded and protected them. It is this story that is called the Daco-Roman continuity

theory.

A lot of the evidence or myths come from old national chronicles, but the first

developments of the Daco-Roman theory was developed by Italian and German scholars

looking through old writings in the Vatican in Rome. The Italian Poggia Bracciolini (1380-

1459) wrote one of the first descriptions of Romanians’ origin. He did not himself travel in

areas populated by Romanians, but probably received information from other Italians that

had traveled there. He wrote about a colony abandoned by Trajan, and indicated the

existence and continuity of Romans (Romanians) in those areas since the fall of the Roman

Empire. However, he did not present any details of this presumed continuity, but only

quoted others. Also scholarly German Transylvanians used their time to prove their

Transylvanian ancestry, as well as the Romanians’. Toppeltinus was probably the most

important of these, and meant that the Dacians were the ancestors to Germans in

Transylvania and that Romanians was descendants from the Roman in Dacia. This theory

inspired several young German scholars in Transylvania: “The Transylvanian German

scholars were anxious to prove that the Romanians were of purely Roman origin and had

nothing to do with the Dacian, in order to affirm that the Dacians were their ancestors”. 7

The work from the German scholars was soon to be known by Moldovian

chroniclers when they researched their historical background. Grigore Ureche (1590-1647)

was the first chronicler of Romanian heritage. He wrote mainly about the Romanian origin

and the history of Moldova. Romanians, as he saw it, shared the same language and was

therefore also the same people. For that reason his works did not only apply to those living

4
Christoffer Andersen
Nations and Nationalism
Final Paper, Fall 2004

in Moldova, but also to those living in neighboring Walachia, Transylvania, and elsewhere. In

his main work Letopiset (Chronicle), written between 1642 and 1647, Ureche presents several

strong claims that Moldovians, Walachians and Transylvanians “are all descended from

Rome”.8 Historians for political gain have later unjustly and selectively used this quote

together with the typical ”we originate from Rome”.9 Ureche, still basic reading for

Romanian historians and students of letters, is viewed as the person who gave Romanian

historiography springboard to further development. Miron Costin (1633-1691) was another

Moldovian chronicler who extended on Ureche’s works. He managed to create a base for

Romanian national consciousness through the Romanian language. He meant that

Romanians were of pure Roman descendant, without any mix with any other nations. He

wrote extensively on the conquering of Dacia and the Roman colonialization. Further,

Costin was the first one ever to use the theory of Roman heritage as a political argument.

Dimitrie Cantemir (1673-1723), a well educated prince of Moldova, enumerated

Ureche and Costin’s ideas in the early 18th century. On the background of his position his

works were widely accessible and was distributed across all the three principalities. He

moved the Romanians into a solid tradition of history writing. Cantemir concluded early that

the reason Romanians had not any great power or influence in Europe was to blame on the

Slavs. Such an unfair view on the Slavs was not relatively new, but it could have had an

effect on the attempt of Latinizing the Romanian language, which was (and still is) heavy

influenced by Slavic words. One can presume that the process of making the language of the

state bureaucracy Romanian, rather than Slavic (which was the case), was inspired by

7
Elemèr Illyès (1988) Ethnic Continuity in the Carpatho-Danubian Area. New York: Colombia University
Press, p. 35.
8
Cited in: Georgescu, Vlad (1984) The Romanians. London: I.B. Tausris & Co. Ltd. Publishers, p. 70.
9
Cited in: Illyès 1988: 53

5
Christoffer Andersen
Nations and Nationalism
Final Paper, Fall 2004

nationalistic feelings. However, Cantemir didn’t present anything new, but adopted those

facts that others had found before him and made it more colorful with new stories and

vigorous ideas inspired by a growing ethnic consciousness. He represented several historical

misinterpretations, but still there are people who consider his work well documented. One

thing one cannot doubt is the value of Cantemir’s work for historians, and for the Romanian

national awakening. However, Elemèr Illyès in Ethnic Continuity in the Carptho-Danubian Area

means that Romanian scholars consider Cantemir today as a promoter of “pure

inventions”.10

Mihai Cantacuzino (1640-1714) contributed to pull history writing in Walachia to the

same heights as in Moldova at the same time as Cantemir worked on his theories in

Moldova. Cantacuzino was also aware of Ureche and Costin’s chronicles, and the idea of a

common heritage and descendant of all Romanian lead him to the idea of a political union of

the Romanian principalities. He came with the earliest proposal of a union of Moldova and

Walachia in 1672. Between 1674 and 1676 he published Istoria Târii Românesti (History of

Walachia), which was published in Greek in 1706. In this work he mentioned that it had

happened a symbiosis of the two peoples and languages. Therefore, Romanian was not a

pure Roman language, but a mix of them both. This has led several scholars to try to depict

Dacian words in Romanian.11

The historical national sentiment became a part of a popular trend, but it did not

have any immediately effect since it was unknown for the ordinary Romanian. It was only

limited to a small percentage of educated scholars in Moldova and Walachia. However, one

of the big differences was that while in the two principalities only the upper aristocracy knew

10
Elemèr Illyès 1988: 35

6
Christoffer Andersen
Nations and Nationalism
Final Paper, Fall 2004

about the theory, in Transylvania this was going to be discovered be a small group of

intellectuals. Since a Romanian upper class was to a high degree absent in Transylvania, it

was to achieve more popular support. But this would take time, since one should expect that

if it had had popular support among the general population, about their Roman in heritage

and continuity since the fall of Dacia, Romanian historians should have recorded this, which

they have not.

On the background of this and other political, as well as historical works several

political leaders and intellectual gained ethnic consciousness that culminated, maybe limited,

in Romanian national awakening.

Scholars have often asked whether the ethnic consciousness of seventeenth-century historians and
political leaders was not accompanied by some degree of national awareness. Did not ethnic unity
suggest political unity? Extent documents do not support such a conclusion, although some passages
suggest a tendency in that direction. For example, in 1642 Vasile Lupu of Moldovia considered the
conquest of Transylvania by Moldovian and Wallachian troops possible, since “in Transylvania more
than a third are Romanian, and once they are freed we will incite them against the Hungarians.”
Brâncoveanu and his high steward Cantacuzino’s correspondence with the Russians also show some
political interest in Transylvania. Their letters include reference to plans for pan-Balkan liberation and
to “the Romanians of Transylvania.” But in general ethnic consciousness was not accompanied by
pressure for political unification, and even as politically active as prince Cantemir did not think of
including it among his policies. 12

However, in the end of the 18th century Romanian ethnic consciousness started to create

roots among Romanians. In 1797 Ienachita Vacarescu’s Gramatica rumânseascâ (Romanian

grammar) was published, and in 1792 the so-called Daco-Roman continuity theory was

propagated in schools and churches. Therefore, the idea of the Romanized Dacians soon

became a permanent view of Romanian history, and was further explored and details were

added. In Dionise Fontino’s Istorie daciei (Dacian history), which was published in 1818,

11
There has been great difficulty and dispute over the claim of any Dacian words in Romanian.
Nevertheless, it seems like a small handful of words have prevailed.

7
Christoffer Andersen
Nations and Nationalism
Final Paper, Fall 2004

concluded that “the Romans and Dacians crossbreeding, [had] created a distinct, mixed

people”.13 Naum Ramniceanu followed up with Despre originea românilor (Romanians origin)

from 1820, where he concluded: “after the Dacians learned the Roman language, not only

did they get along well together, but they also intermarried, Romans marrying the Dacians’

daughters and marrying their own daughters to the Dacians […] the Dacians became

Romanized and the Romans Dacianized”.14

The Roots of Nationalism Produces its Offspring

As already stated, Romanians are a mix between Dacians and Romans who settled there at

the heights of the Roman Empire. In the 19th century the Daco-Roman continuity theory

became widely known and accepted in Moldova and Walachia, and therefore it produced a

mythical relationship between the Romanians there and those in Transylvania. However, in

Transylvania the theory was by the 18th century scarcely known, and did not achieve the

acceptance, or popularity, as in the other Romanian principalities. “All other Transylvanian

men of learning held to Cantemir’s line, asserting that the Romanians were of pure Roman

blood”.15 Therefore, a unified view of national history or a united Romanian awakening was

not immediately achieved across the border of Moldova and Walachia.

Slowly, some Romanians in Transylvania demanded autonomy from the Habsburg

Empire and in 1791 ideas from the Daco-Roman theory were used to justify stronger

Romanians rights. This appeal was named Supplex Libellus Valachorum and was given to

Leopold II in Vienna. The authors of this appeal were a group of intellectuals of Romanian

12
Georgescu 1984: 71
13
Ibid. p. 116
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.

8
Christoffer Andersen
Nations and Nationalism
Final Paper, Fall 2004

clerical heritage. In the memorandum the Romanians were demanding equal rights with

other nations in Transylvania, and that they should have a seat in the legislative body and be

granted official position in accordance with their proportion in Transylvania. It further stated

that the Romanians were the first settlers in Transylvania:

The Rumanian nation is by far the most ancient of all nations of our epoch, since it is certain and
proved by historical evidence, by never interrupted tradition, by the similarity of the language,
traditions and customs, that it originates from the Roman colonists brought here at the beginning of
the 2nd century A.D. by the emperor Trajan… 16

The Romanians in Transylvania found it necessary to justify their claims by referring to their

existence longer than their German and Hungarian counter part. Their historical existence

became a political weapon for social and political equality.

Petru Maior (1756-1812), a Uniate priest of the Transylvanian School, pointed out

that the Romanians had invited the Hungarians to come to Transylvania so they could be

helped to protect their country against foreign invaders. “Maior’s nationalism necessarily led

him to extremes and, like other representatives of the Transylvanian School he was

intolerant of all those in disagreement with the glorious description of the Romanian people

[…] Maior, however, studied several historical records in search of references to Romans or

Romanian. Finding none, he claimed that certain other peoples referred to were actually

Romanian [….] many of his assertions are defended even now, and his Istoria is still

considered by some as an important historical treatise”.17 The Transylvanian School argued

that if the Romanian language can by connected up to the Roman Empire it would then

settle their origin. Thus, it would make them the oldest nation in Transylvania.

16
Supplex 1791; cited in: Lôte, Louis L. (ed.) (1980) Transylvania and the theory of Daco-Roman-
Rumanian continuity. New Work: Carpathian Observer, Committee of Transylvania, Inc (available at:
http://www.net.hu/corvinus/lib/index.htm)

9
Christoffer Andersen
Nations and Nationalism
Final Paper, Fall 2004

Cantacuzino’s idea of a union of Moldova and Walachia was repeatedly revised in the

beginning of the 19th century, and gradually started to include Transylvania as well. It moved

in the direction of modern nationalism, and developed into an emotional and ethical

ideology based on the principles of ‘a united people’ and ‘independence’. Crisan Körösi was

the first one, in 1807, to suggest the name Dacia for a united Romanian state. Meanwhile,

Râmniceanu was the first to suggest the re-establishments of the old Dacian borders, which

would have constituted a bigger Romanian than we see today. Baudia Deleano also flirted

with the idea, in 1804, of a union of these regions, but thought it beneficiary that this should

be done under the Habsburg Empire.

Nevertheless, no rights were to be achieved for the Romanians in Transylvania after

the delivery of the Supplex. “Rumanian nationalism in Transylvania in the nineteenth century

achieved nothing like the political successes of Moldova and Wallachia. It was caught

between Magyar nationalist sentiment and the changeable but generally anti-Romanian

policies of the court in Vienna. Until almost 1848 its program was limited to repeating

demands from the Supplex, which Austria and Hungary had been rejecting since 1791”.18

However, after 1848-1849 secular intellectuals began to play an increasingly larger role in the

Romanian national movement.19

Critique and Conclusion

The Daco-Roman continuity theory has been subject for a lot of critique from its earliest

beginning. Of course, this type of mythical history writing has its flaws, and some of this

17
Illyès 1988: 53
18
Georgescu 1984: 154
19
Treptow, Kurt W., ed. (1996). A history of Romania. Jassy: The Center for Romanian Studies, The
Romanian Cultural Foundation, p. 253.

10
Christoffer Andersen
Nations and Nationalism
Final Paper, Fall 2004

critique has been reasonable. Notable, most of this critique has come from Hungarian

nationalist, which demands the return of Transylvania to Hungary. The continuity theory

further clashes with the established Hungarian theory that the Magyars came to an

abandoned Transylvania. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that some Romanians always

have lived in Transylvania since the fall of Dacia and the Roman retreat. Georgescu points

out that those left behind was assimilated with other people, or that the Daco-Romans

integrated others, and especially Slavs. It is impossible, which some Hungarian nationalist

historians do, that Transylvania was completely abandonded after the Roman retreat. Some

had to be left behind! This is also not impossible since Romanian language has thousands of

integrated Slavic words. This, however, is an aberration from the official mythical

historiography Romanian nationalists stand for. That these so-called Daco-Romans were

settled in Transylvania, and did not escape completely into the mountains is, therefore,

credible. There are also traces of proof that the Daco-Romans then had to mix with

shepherds, which traveled across the Carpathians around year thousand. These shepherds or

traveling people has been recorded as Vlachs or Arumanians, and are still found as south as

Macedonia and Albania today. Their language has similarities to Romanian. A few researches

points out that there are some basic words similar in Romanian and Albanian20. Therefore

one can conclude that a complete continuity of the Daco-Romans never took place,

however, some kind of semi-continuity can be claimed.

The myth is still well alive today in Romania, and was especially used as a

propaganda tool during Ceausescu’s regime. As an example, there was a celebration in 1980

for the 2050th anniversary for the beginning of Romanian national history, a year which has

20
However, this might as well have to do with the contact Albanian has had with Italy, as well as the fact

11
Christoffer Andersen
Nations and Nationalism
Final Paper, Fall 2004

been criticized for to be somehow coincidental and with national-political sentiments. “The

continuity theory can be said to be an excellent example of mythological history writing

through that it projects a Romanian national identity back to the antic and the Great

Migrations. The function of the theory is to crate an argument that Transylvania is an

ancient Romanian area and therefore Romania has historical right to it”.21 Both the

Hungarians and the Romanians in Transylvania are fighting a never-ending battle to prove

who was first there. “As far as both the Romanians and the Hungarians are concerned

Transylvania […] has been invested with a mythical role as having been the region which

ensured the survival of the nation and its separate existence over centuries […] Transylvania

is the ark of the covenant and for national ideologists, the ideal homeland of the nation is

unacceptable without the province being part of the state territory. Thus in practical terms,

neither Romanian nor Hungarian nationalists can accept that Transylvania should be a part

of the other state’s territory and both accept a nationalist imperative that it should belong to

them”22. As Alina Mangiu-Pippidi points out in the paper on Legacy of Ethnic Conflict:

Transylvania that one can’t take away a nations national history in difficult times. “If the

current performance of a nation is god, the past matters less in its self-esteem: the reverse is

true if the nation or national group is experiencing difficult times, as […] Romanians (the

worst economic situation of all Central European countries), or Romanian Hungarians (their

number decreased after 1989.”23 Nevertheless, if the Daco-Roman theory was to be proved

wrong, it will not change the impact it has had on Romanian national awakening and

that the Roman-Empire stretched all around Balkan and has influenced several languages. It is also
therefore, one can still finds traces Vlachs and Arumanians scattered around the Balkan Peninsula.
21
Gerner 1997: 368, my translation.
22
Schopflin, Georg and Hugh Puolton (1990). Romanians Ethnic Hungarians. The Minority Rights Group,
report nr. 37, new ed. from 1978, p. 8
23
Mangui-Pippidi 2000: 20

12
Christoffer Andersen
Nations and Nationalism
Final Paper, Fall 2004

identity. Either way, the Hungarians and Romanians have at least co-existed for 800-1000

years in Transylvania. The continuity theory has had important meaning for Romanians

ethnic and later national identity. Even if the theory never established any greater national

movement itself, it at least started one. And one should not believe the importance of the

theory would fade away anytime soon.

Unquoted Sources/Further Reading:

Cadzow, John F., Andrew Luany, Lois J. Elteto, ed. (1983) Transylvania: the roots of

ethnic conflict. Kent, Ohio: The Kent State University Press. *

Lendvai, Paul (2003) The Hungarians, 1000 Years of Victory in Defeat. London: C. Hurst

& Co.

Stavrianos, L.S. (1958, 2000) The Balkans since 1453. London: C. Hurst & Co.

Sugar, Peter F., Pèter Hanàk, Tibor Frank (1990) A History of Hungary. Indiana

University Press

Svanberg, Ingvar & Ingmar Söhrman, ed. (1996) Balkan, folk och länder i krig och fred

[Balkan, people and countries in war and peace]. Stockholm: Arena

*
Available at: http:www.net.hu/corvinus/lib/index.htm

13