Dacia and Modern Politics

[WotWotius]

Roman Dacia: archaeology, history and politics: describe the impact of modern politics on the way Roman Dacia has been presented in the archaeological and historical literature.

In the study of History, the detachment of one’s own cultural values can be hard to achieve. In most examples of historical writing – including the ancient sources (e.g. Tacitus, Annals, 1.1; Livy, 1.1.1.) – the claim of impartiality rarely departs from the text; but, with most examples of historical writing, the execution of full impartiality is a rarity. It is, as it were, hard not to claim that cultural bias is ingrained at a subliminal level (Mattingly, 1997, 14). The mindset of the historian always resonates throughout his prose.

Take, for example, the below quotes:

 

‘[Rome is called] the nurse and parent of all other lands, elected by the gods’ will in order to make heaven itself brighter, to bring scattered peoples into unity, to make manners gentle, to draw together by community of language the jarring and uncouth tongues of nearly countless nations, to give civilization to humankind…’ (Pliny the Elder, NH, 3.39 [c.75 CE] quoted by Champion, 2004, 260).

 

‘Our civilization seems firmly set in many lands; our task is rather to spread it further and develop its good qualities than to defend its life. If war destroys it in one continent, it has other homes. But the Roman Empire was the civilized world; the safety of Rome was the safety of all civilization.’ (Francis Haverfield, 1915, 11).

 

It is evident that both authors are products of an imperial mentality (the former a product of the Roman Empire, while the other a product of the curiously similar British Empire): both have a sense of manifest destiny; both raise the notion that not all races have equal scope to contribute to wider ‘civilisation’ (Woolf, 1998, 5). In reference to the passage by Pliny, one can see that superiority, in every sense, was ingrained within the psyche of the Roman elite; this gave rise to both xenophobia and a sense of jingoism (Rich, 1995, 39), and this subsequently distorts modern perceptions of Rome.

 

Like many other historians of the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries, Haverfield is very much of the opinion that the European imperialism of his time was the heir of the Classical imperialism of Pliny’s (Woolf, 1998, 6). Haverfield’s fully-fledged endorsement of the Roman Empire stems from the notion that the Empire was a model on which British Empire could be based. In his book The Romanization of Britain, Haverfield draws parallels between the ‘…rule of civilized white men over the uncivilized Africans…’ (Harverfield, 1915, 13), and the ‘civilizing’ nature of the Romans. Because a positive assessment of Rome would, in the eyes of Haverfield’s contemporaries, ultimately shine positive light on European imperialism, many ancient sources advocating the civilizing nature of Rome – such as the above quote from Pliny – are taken at face value (Haverfield, 1915, 12); this over-dependence on the ancient sources, as we shall see in the assessment of Roman Dacia (roughly modern-day Romania), will contribute to other forms of politically-influenced History.

 

Haverfield’s example of contemporary events influencing History did not just occur in isolation: Rome, as it were, has always been used a springboard for wider ideologies. Even the academically renowned work of the 19th-century historian Theodore Mommsen tells us just as much about the ideologies of his time as it does Rome. One could even go as far as to say that his most famous work, the Geschichte, was a political pamphlet founded in the light of the events of 1848 (Freeman, 1997, 30) – Mommsen, in many ways, viewed Italy’s unification during the Early Republic as a model of a unified Germany.

 

With the two above examples in mind, it is very easy to see that the study of Roman antiquity, alongside almost every other period of the past, deals not only with a pursuit of the past, but also with fulfilling one’s own political agenda (Freeman, 1997, 30). For the study of History can reinforce both a national and political identity. In the context of studying Roman Dacia, both of these concepts have coloured the subject. Whether we are looking at the province with an 18th-century mindset, or a near contemporary one, nationalism and political ideologies – even when at a subliminal level – dominate the pages of Dacian history (Haynes and Hanson, 2004, 27). Before we proceed, however, it is first necessary to discuss the main Romanian schools of thought that highlight the interplay between they study of the past and identity.

 

In taking a highly generalised viewpoint, there are three main schools of thought on early Romanian History (Haynes & Hanson, 2004, 27): the so-called ‘Latinists’, who were of the view that Rome was a uniting force, and that modern-day Romanians have an ethic connection to Romans – the Romanian language does, after all, derive from Latin (V

Edited December 30, 2007 by WotWotius

[Rameses the Great]

You served a fine platter for Kosmo!

 

He knows a lot and should reply in due time his knowledge about Dacia is immense.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Congratulations, WW; this is a great post. I supposse it will make its way to the front page.

 

With the two above examples in mind, it is very easy to see that the study of Roman antiquity, alongside almost every other period of the past, deals not only with a pursuit of the past, but also with fulfilling one

[WotWotius]

Congratulations, WW; this is a great post. I supposse it will make its way to the front page.

 

With the two above examples in mind, it is very easy to see that the study of Roman antiquity, alongside almost every other period of the past, deals not only with a pursuit of the past, but also with fulfilling one’s own political agenda (Freeman, 1997, 30). For the study of History can reinforce both a national and political identity.

To the question of "why to study History?", this is certainly not one of the right answers.

 

I think we have plenty of evidence that chauvinism and historical manicheism have never been useful, but often dangerous, as you can always use them to support even the most heinous actions (vg, genocide). Besides, they preclude us from an objective analysis of the dynamics of History.

 

Why thank you, squire.

 

I think what is most alarming is that cultural values have percolated into many aspects of historical analysis - in particular, Art History. Take, for example, the study of Upper Palaeolithic cave paintings: upon their discovery in the 19th Century, cave painting were thought be fakes as the new Darwinian thinking on evolution was interpreted as meaning that early humans could not have been sufficiently advanced to create art; during the 1950s-60s, the world's fascination with space travel was reflected in the fact that the study of cave painting was dominated by theories involving the cosmos; in the 1960s-70s feminism was often a key explanation for their existence; even Marxist theory has been applied.

 

Again, this is just one of many example.

Edited November 11, 2007 by WotWotius

[caldrail]

In the study of History, the detachment of one's own cultural values can be hard to achieve.

I agree completely. Hype and mindset are all strong influences on human endeavour. Social behaviour in human beings is designed by nature and modified by those who wish us to conform to their ideas. Strong personalities sometimes do attract followers even for groups spouting some of the wierdest rubbish known to man. There is something buried in human psychology that makes us prone to this, and their are plenty of modern examples. Understandably, we see the same thing happening in the ancient world. Our view of roman times is heavily influenced by fantasy. Film and tv have projected a swords-and-sandals image of Rome (and particularly its christian conversion) that give a version of Rome that sits comfortably with many peoples sensibilities.

 

I think the reality is a little more mundane, and although there was a certain decadence and excess at times, much of roman history actually shows these people with a gritty resilience that sees them through national crises in their early years. This austere regime contrasts with the early principate, the inheritors of roman success, and we see this quote that "The gods have given Rome an empire without end". For those in power at the time, it was inconceivable that Rome would fall. Rome was the center of the universe in many romans minds by that time, and perhaps many barbarian minds too, given how readily they sought citizenship. Of course they usually had practicle reasons for this migration and acceptance of roman culture - because it was a land of milk and honey compared to the hard subsistence life they led at home. In the same way that eastern europeans flock to Britain to profit from its generous economy, so too the barbarians wanted roman wealth and success.

 

The parallel in evolution of empire isn't so easily dismissed. Its easy to simply state that Rome fell because the barbarians invaded, but thats too simplistic. They too, like our modern neighbours, found gaps in roman culture to exploit, and the changing nature of roman economy and law allowed this situation to develop. Like them, we cease to expect that they adopt british ways if they want to live here, and allow them to maintain their culture under the benign protection of our own. This is something the Romans lost, this sense of roman integrity. You could argue it was roman arrogance, and you'd be right, yet that arrogance was born from pride in roman culture and its achievements. You may well scoff at that, considering that much of this was supported by a brutal regime that thought nothing of condemning men to death and indeed did so for public entertainment, but isn't that applying our own ethos on their actions?

 

The ancient world was a harsh enviroment. It was a violent time and cruelty was endemic. We emphasise the roman callousness yet many cultures of this period were equally cruel. For the romans, whose life was likely to be short despite better medecine and urban facilities than some other cultures, there are a different set of values. We think of gladiators fighting to the death, and whilst it appeals on a basic competetive level the thought of dying for another mans pleasure is abhorrent to many of us, yet for the roman perspective this was an expression of roman military and personal virtue besides an exciting demonstration of skill and courage. So too their fondness for animal slaughter. A demonstration of Rome's mastery over nature, of the hunters skill, and lets not forget, an opportunity to profit.

 

Roman success is not just conquest, glory, and blood on the sand. It was also the ability to earn wealth, an important cornerstone of rome society, an opportunity to further your interests and those of your family. For all the roman excess and cruelty, there remains a strong family life that rises to the surface in the tales of power and politics, and thats something in our modern private and often lonely lives we sometimes overlook. They had a sense of community we seem to have lost, and it might be argued that they too lost this communal belonging toward the end of the Western Empire.

 

Objectivity about roman history has to begin with the acceptance that they had their own viewpoint, that the world must have appeared very different to them, that they lived in ways that seem sometimes so similar to us yet with different rules and emphasis. A fiercely competitive society breeds strong men and this underpins the roman sense of power, of its self-confidence as a state that grew from its imperial gains.

[Kosmo]

Great work WW!!!

You touch some points that are never brought to light around here.

 

Latinists and Dacianists are both nationalists that have a political agenda and not a genuine interest in history for the sake of history.

 

Latinists started in late XVIII C in Transilvania. There romanians had a low social status below the three dominating "nations": hungarians, saxons and hungarian speaking szekely. The Habsburg conquest brought some changes and the newly formed greek catholic romanian clergy had acces to education in Rome. They used the latin origins to claim a better place for romanians in Transilvania as the original inhaitants. So started the historical debate about the origins of romanians beetwen them and the hungarians that spoke about a romanian migration from the Balkans.

This was found very usefull by romanians in Moldova and Valachia as they started to promote nationalism fearing russian panorthodox expansion. In early XIX C the group one idenitfied to, started to change from orthodox (like in Middle Ages) to nation (seen as those who spoke the same language). This was a widespread procces in the area.

Latinists influence my have to do with the ethic name - rom

[Kosmo]

Excellent work WW!!!

This is a subject I never see discussed around here (in Romania).

 

Both Latinists and Dacianists are nationalists that used ideology and history to their purpose.

Latinsts started in late XVIII C in Transilvania that was then a Habsburg province. The Habsburgs promoted the greek catholic church in an effort to bring the orthodox romanians closer to the Crown. Romanians had a low status the province being dominated by Hungarians, Saxons and Szekely (a hungarian speaking group).

The greek catholic clergy received education in Rome, being among the first romanians to receive modern high education. They used the latin origins of romanians to prove that romanians were the oldest group in the province in a failed effort to increse the economic and social postion of romanians. This was a refuting of the hungarian theory of romanain migration from the Balkans after the hungarian conquest. The debate still continues

Edited November 14, 2007 by Kosmo

[Viggen]

We made this now into an article, thanks Wotwotius for this nice piece of work...

http://www.unrv.com/provinces/dacia-and-modern-politics.php

 

cheers

viggen

[Northern Neil]

This is amazing - I must have been asleep or on holiday when this gem of Wotwotius' came onto the board, as I totally missed it!

 

I would like to add my 'two pennorth' if I may, although like Kosmo it is an opinion as I do not have the academic equipment ( educationally or intellectually!) to substantiate it.

 

Many cultures use language to confirm their genetic descent from an ancient group, especially when it is politically expedient for them to do so. Whilst in the case of Italians, for example, this may largely apply, it doesnt work so well with other groups. A few examples: AFRICAN AMERICANS, from a non indo european background, but speaking almost exclusively a germanic language. Whilst the reason for this is clear and recent, the case of the ENGLISH isnt - Oppenheimer has demonstrated that only 5% of English genes came over here in the Anglo Saxon invasions. Yet this tiny influx of raiders imposed its language and culture over almost the whole of Britain. The FINNS resemble other Northern Germanics morphologically, yet they speak a language which evolved in central Siberia. They are just as puzzled about this as the rest of us! And wether the TURKS like it or not, their central Asian genetic heritage is all but gone although their language hasn't; genetically and morphologically they are now almost indistinguishable from the Greeks. Most ARABS are only that linguistically - apart from the Arabians themselves, most of them belonged to other cultures before the language was imposed artificially on them by a combination of religion and conquest.* Except perhaps in Argentina, South Americans have a native American heritage that outweighs the Spanish input - yet in Spanish America, one had to speak Spanish (or Portuguese) in order to get anywhere.

 

Oppenheimer states in Origins of the British that languages move over people like waves, whilst people themselves tend to stay put a little more than has been assumed. His general point in his book is that genetic evidence is a more accurate way of determining a people's origins than language, which can be imposed on a majority by a minority.

 

But then, a Romanian could argue that it is the linguistic and cultural element which is most important, not neccessarily the genetic factor, and that placing too much emphasis on genetic evidence ( due no doubt to very recent groundbreaking studies) is yet another example of views on history being coloured by events in contemporary life.

 

*Just as a footnote, 'North African Romance' remained a living language in isolated parts of the Mahgreb until the 18th century. Unfortunately nothing of it, written or spoken, now survives.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Northern Neil