Recently, on tumblr, FuckYeahEasternEurope asked me to explain my remark that the name "Romania" is relatively recent. I don't have much time for documentation, so this post will mostly be a braindump. Which, of course, does not mean that corrections and constructive criticism are not welcome.

Though, like I said in Georgeasca, I didn’t like history much when I was little, things are different now and wish I had more time to write this article.

Here’s the map published by fyeaheasterneurope and the comment:

A map from 1601 that intriguingly places Romania in a place I’m pretty sure Romania has never been.

I responded with Actually, Romania was a name adopted only around 1848, to which he replied:

This comment caused me to do some (very brief) research, and this is what our friends at Wikipedia say:

The earliest preserved document written in the Romanian language is a 1521 letter that notifies the mayor of Brasov about an imminent attack by the Turks. This document is also notable for having the first occurrence of “Romanian” in a Romanian text, Wallachia being called here the Romanian Land—Teara Rumâneasca (Teara < Latin Terra = land). As in the case of the ethnonym “român/rumân”, Romanian documents use both forms, Tara Româneasca and Tara Rumâneasca, for the country name.

A common Romanian area embracing Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania is mentioned by the chronicler Miron Costin in the 17th century.

In the first half of the 18th century the erudite prince Dimitrie Cantemir systematically used the name Tara Româneasca for designating all three Principalities inhabited by Romanians.

The name “România” as common homeland of the Romanians is documented in the early 19th century.

Any ideas for what the map could have been referring to? Wikipedia also says that Romania was sometimes used as the name for the Latin Empire of Constantinople which would fit the labeled spot on the map pretty well, but it would be about 400 years out of date.

As I told him, this is making me work and I don’t really have the time..

The origin of Romanians is not so much a matter of history as it is of politics. I suspect that this is a common theme with most Balkanic people (why else is that area called “Europe’s gunpowder barrel?” ), but here I’ll discuss only Romanians. The official Romanian history, as taught in Romanian schools, teaches that the Romanian people formed out of intermarriage of the Roman soldiers (conquerers) and Dacian women (surviving population). We’re not interested here with Ancient Western Civilizations; the linked clip should be sufficiently informative.

When following the formation of the Romanian people, it makes sense to trace the language formation, as language is the cultural repository of a people’s inner soul (see Sapir Whorf). Attempts to follow the “genetic origin” tend to fail rapidly.

Let’s start with facts that are generally accepted: first, Dacia and Zamolxis.

Sources / More info: inbo