Lajos Kazar: Facts against fiction

FINLAND

Rumania was born in 1859 through the unification of Moldavia and Wallachia at the behest of Alexandru J. Cuza. Recognized by the Berlin Congress of 1878, it became a kingdom in 1881.

The Rumanian language originated from archaic Latin spoken in Dacia. Scientific research today stands for the continuity theory. The Rumanian nation's language is based on the Daco-Roman dialect. It means that in roman times the country already extended up to the borders of Transylvania, taking in the area which is now called Transylvania. - From the 6th century on the Rumanian language was strongly influenced by Slav languages.

N.B The writer of the above article evidently sided with Daco-roman propagandists. How does he/she know whether there was a ,,Daco-roman dialect" when debate is still raging about the existence of a ,,Daco-roman population"? He/she also spreads the notion that because there was a" Daco-roman dialect" spoken in Dacia back in roman times, ,,the country" - by which term one must understand present-day Rumania - extended as far as the present borders of Transylvania between Ukraine, Hungary and Yugoslavia on one hand, and Rumania on the other. What insuperable logic and what impartial scholarship uninfluenced by political considerations! Is it any wonder that Transylvania is merely mentioned in passing, as if it had no historical or other significance? Has the writer of the article asked himself/herself whether the historians, archaeologists and linguists of, say, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences should have been consulted about the Daco-Roman continuity theory? This article is glaringly biased.

The official language of Rumania is Rumanian. It is derived from the Latin language which was in use in ancient Dacia. The same Rumanian language is used in Moldavia, where it is called Moldovan or Daco-Romanian. - A large part of present-day Rumania once constituted the Province of Dacia, a part of the roman Empire. Later on the Goths, Huns, Slavs, Cumans, Bulgars and Hungarians came through Rumania.

N.B. While Rumanian is a Latin-based language, it is not proven at all that it is the continuation of the Daco-roman dialect which is supposed to have been spoken in erstwhile Dacia (cf. the sentence in the 1964 OTAVA ISO TIETOSANAKIRJA's article: the Rumanian nation's language is based on the Daco-roman dialect). As the idea of Daco-roman continuity is less than 200 years old, one wonders just how deep can be the roots of the tradition according to which the Rumanian language used in Moldavia is called ,,Daco-Romanian,,? Has this term been created by any chance to bolster certain political aspirations and to justify territorial aggrandizement, such as taking away Transylvania from Hungary? By the way, Spectrum Tietokeskus 1974 does not seem to have allotted an article to Transylvania. One may suspect that Conducator Ceausescu's propagandists had advised the editors of SpectRum Tietokeskus to heed Bucharest's desire. The effect is quite plain.

The history of Rumania can be traced back to the beginning of our era. The first inhabitants to be considered were the Dacians, whom Trajan conquered at the beginning of the 2nd century. The Romans ruled in Dacia until 271. Following that until the 12th century former Dacia saw turbulent times; invasions by the Goths, Huns, Gepids, Slavs, and Avars. At the end of the 7th century arrived the Bulgars, whose era lasted approx. 200 years. It was in that era that Christianity reached the area in question. At the end of the 9th century the Hungarians arrived there.

N.B. It is odd that according to this description Christianity entered the area of former Dacia after the end of the 7th century, while in various other encyclopedias the claim is made that the Rumanian ancestors became Christianized either while the Romans were still in Dacia or during the 4th or 5th century. This contradiction is conspicuous and quite significant. It should make us doubly cautious to accept claims that the ancestors of the Rumanians inhabited the area of present-day Rumania prior to the 13th century. Archaeologically identifiable Daco-Roman church buildings, even in their ruins, would increase the credibility of the Daco-roman theory. Unfortunately for the adherents of this theory no such building has ever been found. - This encyclopedia has no article on Transylvania. A coincidence?

The area of present-day Rumania was the famous roman province of Dacia between 106 and 271. Subsequently several peoples passed over it, such as the Goths, Huns, Avars, Slavs and Hungarians. In the 1200's arose the Wallachian, in 1360 the Moldavian principality. In 1881 Rumania became a kingdom. Following WW I, Rumania received Transylvania from Austria-Hungary.

N.B. This is a schematic description of Rumanian history. Unfortunately this encyclopedia also allots no article to Transylvania, although its history is considerably older than that of Wallachia or Moldavia, not to speak of Rumania. Again, traditionally Transylvania was much more advanced in culture, economy and social development than Wallachia and Moldavia with which it is usually thrown into one basket by Rumanian historians and those who follow their counseling. It seems that there is a pattern which bids silence regarding Transylvania. Should Finns adhere to such a pattern?

In the third century B.C. the Dacians and Getae moved into the Danube region. The Dacian kingdom arose approx. 2000 years ago on the land where present-day Rumania is. The Romans occupied Dacia in 107. As a result, Roman influence in Dacia was very strong. The name Romania is originally from this period. In 271 the roman legions left because of pressure from the Goths. Other invaders were Huns and eastern Germanic peoples. During the 6th century Slav peoples moved in. In the 9th century Transylvania began to be influenced by Hungarians.

N.B. The above indicated encyclopedia is the Finnish translation of a corresponding Dutch original. The tone of Rumanian history as presented here is very similar to the run-of-the-mill versions of Rumanian history found in numerous modern encyclopedias. Particular emphasis is placed on the claim that Roman influence in Dacia was very strong. This is not proven, nor very likely to have been the case, because roman rule in Dacia lasted barely 165 years. If some 400 years of roman rule in Britain left behind no sizable Latin-speaking ,,Britanno-roman population", the creation of a Latin-speaking ,,Daco-roman population" in Dacia is very hard to believe. Besides, most colonists and legionaries in Dacia had mother-tongues other than Latin. - ROMANIA as the name of the Rumanians' country did not exist in roman times, nor centuries later. What the writer(s) of the above article forgot to consider is the fact that until the second half of the 19th century the ancestors of the present-day Rumanians called themselves Wallachians or Moldavians. The spreading of the name Romania did not occur until the late 1960's, during the reign of Conducator Ceausescu. Again, the name TRANSYLVANIA is used in connection with 9th century events, as if that name had existed earlier as a designation of a part of Dacia.

The name Transylvania is the 12th century Latin translation of Old Hungarian Erdel. Of course, the Latin sounding of the name Transylvania can be used in support of the Daco-Roman continuity theory - but only among uninformed people. - This encyclopedia also has no article for Transylvania. Why? Perhaps due to persuasion from Bucharest?

Rumania's relationship with Hungary was very cool during the Ceausescu era, mainly because of Rumania's attitude to the question of human and ethnic rights. In Rumania there is a 2 million strong Hungarian ethnic minority. Their rights were drastically cut back in the 1980's. In the framework of the so-called agrarian systematization the destruction of some 8,000 villages was planned. Approx. 1/5 of the villages marked for destruction was in areas inhabited by ethnic minorities. The building of so-called agricultural population centres (for the accommodation of the population of the destroyed villages) was only partly successful because of international pressure brought to bear on Rumania. Police terror and difficulties in obtaining basic foodstuffs were the main reasons for the flood of refugees from Rumania during 1988. By November 1989 some 24,000 people fled from Rumania to Hungary. They were mostly Hungarians.

N.B. Surprise, surprise! Otavan Suuri Ensyklopedia has discovered that in Rumania there live some 2 million Hungarians whose individual and collective/ethnic rights had been violated! For the information of this and other encyclopedias the number of Hungarians in Rumania is likely closer to 3 million. Also, the number of refugees from Rumania to Hungary during 1988 and 1989 was much higher than 24,000. Maybe the next edition of Otavan Suuri Ensyklopedia will, at long last, allot a good article to Transylvania, about which area even the 1991 edition has kept silent.

Lajos Kazar: Facts against fiction