The ideas have been explained as part of an
inferiority complex present in Romanian nationalism, one which also manifested itself in works not connected with Dacianism, mainly as a rejection of the ideas that Romanian territories only served as a colony of Rome, voided of initiative, and subject to an influx of Latins which would have completely wiped out a Dacian presence. Dacianism most likely came about with the views professed in the 1870s by
Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu, one of the main points of the dispute between him and the
conservative Junimea. For example, Hasdeu's
Etymologicum magnum Romaniae not only claimed that Dacians gave Rome many of her emperors (an idea supported in recent times by
Iosif Constantin Drăgan), but also that the ruling dynasties of early medieval
Wallachia and
Moldavia were descendants of a
caste of Dacians established with "King" (
chieftain)
Burebista. Other advocates of the idea before
World War I included the amateur
archaeologist Cezar Bolliac, as well as
Teohari Antonescu and
Nicolae Densușianu. The latter composed an intricate and unsupported theory on Dacia as the center of European prehistory, authoring a complete parallel to Romanian official history, which included among the Dacians such diverse figures as those of the
Asen dynasty, and
Horea.
Mircea Eliade was notably preoccupied with Zalmoxis' cult, arguing in favour of its structural links with Christianity; his theory on Dacian history, viewing
Romanisation as a limited phenomenon, is celebrated by contemporary partisans of Dacianism. In a neutral context, the Romanian archaeology school led by
Vasile Pârvan investigated scores of previously ignored Dacian sites, which indirectly contributed to the idea's appeal at the time. In 1974
Edgar Papu published in the mainstream cultural monthly
Secolul XX an essay titled "The Romanian Protochronism", arguing for Romanian chronological priority for some European achievements. The idea was promptly adopted by the nationalist Ceaușescu regime, which subsequently encouraged and amplified a cultural and historical discourse claiming the prevalence of autochthony over any foreign influence. Ceaușescu's ideologues developed a singular concept after the 1974 11th Congress of the
Communist Party of Romania, when they attached Dacianism to official
Marxism, arguing that the Dacians had produced a permanent and "unorganised state". The Dacians had been favoured by several communist generations as autochthonous insurgents against an "
imperialist" Rome (with the
Stalinist leadership of the 1950s proclaiming them to be closely linked with the
Slavic peoples); however, Ceaușescu's was an interpretation with a distinct motivation, making a connection with the opinions of previous Dacianists. The regime started a partnership with
Italian resident, former Iron Guard member and millionaire
Iosif Constantin Drăgan, who continued championing the Dacian cause even after the fall of Ceaușescu. Critics regard these excesses as the expression of an
economic nationalist course, amalgamating provincial frustrations and persistent nationalist rhetoric, as
autarky and cultural isolation of the late Ceaușescu's regime came along with an increase in Dacianist messages.
Vladimir Tismăneanu wrote: "Protochronism" was the party-sponsored ideology that claimed Romanian precedence in major scientific and cultural discoveries. It was actually the underpinning of Ceaușescu's nationalist tyranny. While no longer backed by a
totalitarian state structure after the
1989 revolution, the interpretation still enjoys popularity in several circles. The main representative of current Protochronism was still Drăgan (now deceased), but the
New York City-based physician Napoleon Săvescu took over after Drăgan's death. Together, they issued the magazine
Noi, Dacii ("We, the Dacians") and organised a yearly "International Congress of Dacology". Săvescu still does those. Săvescu's most famous theory says that the Romanians are not descendants of the Roman colonists and assimilated Dacians, as mainstream historians say, but that they are the descendants of only the Dacians, who spoke a language close to
Latin. Other controversial theories of his include the Dacians (or their ancestors) having developed the first writing system in the world (see the
Tărtăria tablets), the first set of laws or having conquered
Western Europe,
India,
Iraq,
Japan and the
Americas. His theories are, however, disregarded by historical journals and most historians, e.g. Mircea Babeș,
Lucian Boia and Alexandra Tomiță, who label these theories as
pseudoscience and anachronistic and consider that there is not enough scientific evidence to support them.
Dacia, journal of the
Vasile Pârvan Institute of Archaeology, and the history journal
Saeculum did not speak highly of him, either. ==Dacian script==