One Version of Romania's History

Romania - Myth - Legend - Cultures - Genealogy - Misfits - And More

Den | Romania | History | Colonization

Colonization Period
900 BC to AD 300

Topics covered in this section:

Introduction

In Romania the Iron Age began about 800 B.C. with the first local production of iron weapons and implements. The technology of iron working most likely reached Romania from the south by way of the Balkans and Illyria.

However, another possible route was from the North Pontic or "Cimmerian" region as is suggested by the discovery of two axes from Bârlad, dated to about 800 B.C. For the most part, however, iron reaching Romania by the latter northern route probably came later and was certainly less important than iron from the southern route.

Habitation sites haven't yet been the subject of systematic excavation, but there is extensive information uncovered at the cemeteries. Some of these burial sites, which are attributed to a native population of Thracians, show the practice of cremation with the urns buried in shaft graves or in simple pit graves.

Between 800 BC and AD 300, Greeks and Romans began to colonize much of the European continent. Feeling the negative effects of increasing population pressure at home, these groups began to spread outward into the hinterland of the European "wilderness."

Many of the accounts of Romanian history begin during this period. However, I have chosen to go much further back in time and present the history up to this point. That's because the Romanian territory was NOT an empty landscape that was suddenly discovered by colonists. Rather, as pointed out in the previous documents in this Burrow's History Department, an indigenous population already existed in Romania's lands.

The colonists were simply the latest in a long string of peoples who came to the region, liked what they saw, and settled in among the indigenous people. Sometimes peacefully; sometimes as conquerors. But always adding to the Romanian gene pool.

The ethnic pattern of Romania in the early Iron Age is fairly complex.

About 800 B.C. groups of Cimmerian tribesmen entered the area, coming from the North Pontic steppes. Traces of their presence have been found at several sites in Transylvania — for example, the Biia gold vase and some ornaments from Boarta. The Cimmerians also inhabited the Banat and portions of Oltenia.

Then, during Hallstatt C, groups of Illyrians began to appear at various places in Oltenia.

Finally after 600 B.C. the Scythians began to penetrate into Transylvania, as discussed later in these web pages devoted to the history of Romania.

Protohistory

This period of history, which is formally part of the Iron Age, has also been termed by historians as the "proto-historic" period. It's a time when we witness the gradual shift from history being viewed almost exclusively by archaeological evidence (pre-historic) to a time when written histories exist (historic).

We need to point out, however, that the existing written histories of this period have generated a great deal of scholarly skepticism and debate.

Of course, archaeology still plays an important part in the history of the region, but the written histories provide information that's generally not available to the archaeologist.

The protohistoric period includes the end of the prehistoric period, which came to a close some time around 500 BC in southeast Europe. And it includes the beginning of the historic period when some, but not all societies produced a written history.

Greek and Roman Historians

Foremost among the European societies who produced written histories in this period are Greece and Rome. Of course, other societies — the Near Eastern cultures, for example — also produced a rich written history. But they are generally outside the scope of Romania's history.

Both Greece and Rome have a rich set of written history, thanks in part to writers such as Herodotus, Thucydides, and Hippocrates. However, there were also a large number of lesser-known Hellenistic and Roman historians who contributed their viewpoints as well.

At the opposite end of the literary scale, unfortunately, there are several Iron Age societies contemporary with the cultures in Romania where there exists little or no written history. Examples of these non-literate societies were the Thracians, Dacians, and Scythians — all of whom are of extreme interest to any Romanian historian.

These protohistoric societies contain some of the earliest known ancestors of the Romanian people, though as we've seen in the previous sections, prehistoric Stone Age and Bronze Age settlers had inhabited the region for millennia. While it's true that the Romanian territory was sparsely populated during the Iron Age, there can be no doubt that people lived there at the time the Greeks and Romans decided to colonize the area.

Barbarians

Fortunately, some information about the Thracians, Dacians, and Scythians — and other societies as well — were included in the classical literature of Greece and Rome. But they were often lumped into a generic group referred to as "barbarians" by the Greeks due to the seeming "babble" of their many and varied languages.

Herodotus

Herodotus of Halicarnassus was a prolific writer and is the most informative of the classical writers. In the 5th century BC, he wrote his famous History, which is of inestimable importance to the subject at hand, that is, the history of Romania. It contains descriptions of some of these non-literate, barbarian societies.

Unfortunately, there's considerable disagreement over the trustworthiness of his accounts.

And equally unfortunate, with the limited availability of historical information about Romania, Romanian historians have had to rely quite heavily on the disputed writings of Herodotus. It does make things difficult when you can't always trust your source.

Thucydides

Many present-day scholars agree with Thucydides, a contemporary of Herodotus, who cast Herodotus as the "Father of Lies." In many cases, it seems, his writings reflect the Greek mind more than objective reality.

Archaeologists vs. Historians

Archaeologists and the classical writers differ in some aspects. And even modern historians sometimes stray from the archaeological evidence. In many cases, unfortunately, archaeologists are not "allowed" to challenge the historians, ancient or current.

Just to point out one example of where the two camps disagree. Many Soviet and southeast European scholars claim that the Thracians existed in the 3rd millennium BC, long before there is any archaeological support for such a claim. Usually these contemporary historians have an ulterior motive in their claims, which has more to do with the banner of nationalism than with scholarly adherence.

It is very important, for example, for some but not all Romanian historians to claim a long-term descent from the Thracians. It's a matter of national pride and ethnic justification, which was expressed in its strongest terms during the communist era (when Romania's last communist dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu modified history to suit his propaganda ideals).

In addition, there's a strong tendency to quote only partial or overly simplistic readings of classical literature in order to justify a particular interpretation.

At other times, contemporary historians tend to link obscure archaeological groups with the names of various cultures that are mentioned only tangentially or perhaps only once or twice by classical writers.

Note

A note of caution is in order. I'm not saying that historians are liars. Rather, they do the best they can with the resources available to them. And who am I to criticize their scholarship? In fact, I've made heavy use of their work in these pages myself.

Historic Mythology

Modern "nationalistic" historians of various countries often attempt to "prove" that their people are descended from a single, ethnically homogenous people.

For example, the prehistory of Bulgaria and Romania have often been written in terms of descent from one such single ethnicity, the Thracians. However, neither nation has today, nor had in the past, a homogenous ethnic makeup.

Often these writings are similar to the historic mythology found in the Bible, which attempts to provide historic justification for the Hebrews to occupy their Holy Land. See my Hebrew Mythology Library for further details.

Thracian Subgroup

The historic mythology of Romania, guided in large part by the hand of its communist leader, Nicolae Ceauşescu, describes the spiritual odyssey of a different group of Thracians, the Geto-Dacians.

The Greeks and Romans identified two ethnic groups inhabiting what is now Romania. Because both may have spoken the same language, they might in reality be a single ethnic group.

Getians (Getae)

The inhabitants of Wallachia, Moldavia, and Dobrogea (south and east of the Carpathians) were called the Getians, or Getae, by the Greeks.

Dacians (Dais)

The inhabitants of Transylvania, Crişana, and the Banat (north and west of the Carpathians) were called Dacians, or Dais, by the Romans.

Many Romanian historians imply that the Romanian people are descended from the Dacians. However, as any historical map will show you, Dacia was pretty much confined to Transylvania and parts of western Wallachia. Dacia did not include Moldavia or eastern Wallachia, where a large number of Romanians live today.

Geto-Dacians

In various histories, you'll often see these two groups combined into a single group, the Geto-Dacians. This phrase entered Romanian histories as a result of a comment by Strabo that the Getae and Dacians spoke different dialects of the same Thracian language. However, it's fairly certain that Strabo, a Greek geographer and historian from the time of Augustus Caesar, was in no way a subject matter expert and could hardly be called upon to comment on the similarity of the two Thracian languages. Neither was his primary source of information, Poseidonius.

And yet, in spite of history being obscured by national mythology, there can be little doubt that the Geto-Dacians were, in fact, ancient ancestors of many of the Romanian people of today. But so were many other ancient groups.

Iron Age

As mentioned earlier, the protohistoric period is a portion of the Iron Age. The beginning date of the Iron Age varies depending on the region being investigated.

Iron Age: Greece

In Greece, for example, it began around 2000-1000 BC, with iron ore being imported from around 1700 BC.

The iron ore arrived in Greece from two primary sources. First were the mines in the northern Carpathians and Tatra mountains of Slovakia. Second were the Caucasus mountains of Russian Georgia.

Iron Age: Southeast Europe

In southeast Europe, the Iron Age began about three centuries later (c.700 BC) when Greeks colonized the coastal regions and traded slaves from southeast Europe for Grecian luxury items.

This corresponds to the so-called Hallstatt B period, which ended c.750 BC. Prior to this date, the use of iron was limited and usually consisted of copies made of bronze items. But after this date, there was a sudden, marked increase in the use of iron.

Slow Acceptance of Iron

There are probably many cultural reasons why certain societies were reluctant to rapidly adopt iron technology. But there are a few possible reasons that can be put forward.

Bronze vs. Iron Technology

Of primary importance is that the switch from bronze to iron required a corresponding switch in technology. Working with bronze requires the use of an alloying and casting technology. Working with iron, on the other hand, requires a forging technology. This meant that iron craftsmen needed a different set of skills and tools than they used with bronze.

Hesitant Tin Exporters

Equally important, perhaps, were the economic ramifications of switching to iron. Powerful elite had for centuries established tight controls on the sources of tin (used in bronze alloying). Control of tin resources was most likely inherited. They obviously wanted to protect their interests.

Iron ore, unlike tin, was readily available all across the continent. Loss of the control of the tin supply, therefore, had another far-reaching economic effect. Anyone could become an iron worker without having to rely on those who controlled the tin supply.

Detribalization

This led to "detribalization," a word invented by archaeologist David Clarke. Once bronze artisans lost control of the manufacturing process, design was no longer a tribal issue.

Whereas bronze artifacts always demonstrated the unique characteristics of a particular ethnic group, objects made of iron tended to be more globally uniform in design.

Polyethnicity

And speaking of ethnic groups: Ever since the Mesolithic and Neolithic Ages, a mixture of different peoples coexisted in Europe. Archaeology shows us that they encountered each other often and on occasion merged together.

During the Iron Age, we see an increase in the variety and intensity of these cultural interactions.

This allows us to speak of the growth of polyethnicity across the entire European continent, including Romania. Greek colonization along the Black Sea coast further complicated the socio-economic picture in Romania and elsewhere in Europe. This was followed by the changes wrought by Roman colonization in western Romania.

Thrace and Scythia Meet

During the Iron Age, interactions between special interest groups became intense and multifaceted. In the urban environment of western Europe, we find, as expected, the emergence of an easy-going cosmopolitan society.

Steppe Transhumance

But in eastern and southeastern Europe, we see a very different picture. The steppes provided the possibility for almost unrestrained movement for some groups, including the Thracians and Scythians, and allowed a measure of transhumance (seasonal movements of herds or livestock).

Farmers vs. Herders

The vast grasslands of the steppes were well-suited for herding societies, but the soil was generally too poor to support agricultural activities. Herding societies tended to be mobile while farming societies tended to be sedentary, at least in the sense that they generally stayed in one location (no one can seriously accuse the farmers of any era of sitting around idle).

Farmers recognized defined land boundaries, herders ignored them. For the mobile herding societies, individual needs outweighed any community needs. For the farmer, the needs of the village markets outweighed individual needs.

Peaceful Co-Existence

Most of the time the two societies co-existed peacefully. Occasionally, however, a farmer decided to locate his farm in the fertile river valleys or lush mountain meadows ... places where the herder moved his herds or flocks based on the seasons. Farm villages in these vulnerable locations sometimes met with conflict from the herders who vied for the same resources.

Ethnic Separation

As the two groups — herders and farmers — polarized, an individual's identity with one or the other group became paramount.

Sedentary societies favored things that were stationary whereas mobile societies favored things that could be worn or carried.

Archaeologists have recovered a great number of steppe artifacts where ethnicity is strongly encoded in objects that were worn or carried rather than in pottery, which was not carried.

Difficulties for Classical Authors

The Greek colonies along the Black Sea coastline were durable and lasting. The classical writers had no difficulty describing them.

The nomadic formations common on the steppes, however, were inherently unstable. The martial elite changed so fast that classical writers couldn't keep them in focus. And ethnic names given to these mobile groups changed as rapidly as individual leaders came and went.

Modern Geopolitical Boundaries

The modern geopolitical boundaries do NOT match the real distributions of peoples. In fact, it would be futile to expect them to.

That's because the political borders were imposed on the nomads, the pastoralists, and the travelers by the sedentary, the urban thinkers, and the literate.

The herders suddenly found themselves in the untenable position of needing permission from various countries to camp, to move their flocks, to gather their firewood, or to hunt their game.

Pronunciation Help

To help American readers, the following pronunciation guide to Romanian words used above is provided. The sounds shown are only approximations, however.

• Banat. Bahn-aht.
• Bârlad. (Barlad) Bihr-lahd.
• Biia. Bee-yah.
• Boarta. Bwahr-tah.
• Ceauşescu. (Ceausescu) Chow-shehs-koo.
• Dacia. Dah-chyah.
• Oltenia. Ohl-tehn-yah.
• Wallachia. Vah-lahk-yah.