Chronicle of Huru The Chronicle of Huru ( ) was a forged narrative , first published in 1856 - 1857 ; it claimed to be an official chronicle of the medieval Moldavia n court and to shed light on Romanian presence in Moldavia from Roman Dacia and up to the 13th century , thus offering an explanation of problematic issues relating to the origin of the Romanians and Romanian history in the Dark Ages . Publicized and endorsed by the Romantic nationalist intellectual s Gheorghe Asachi ( who edited the published version ) and Ion Heliade Rădulescu , it was argued to have been the work of " Paharnic " Constantin Sion ( or another member of his family ) or that of Gheorghe Săulescu , Asachi ' s friend and lifelong collaborator . Content . The document claimed to be the version of a text from the 13th century , relying on information first written down by a certain " Arbore the Campodux " ( " Campoduxul Arbore " ) and edited in Medieval Latin by Huru , depicted as chancellor for Moldavia ' s founder , Prince Dragoş ( who , the text claimed , had ruled ca . 1270 - 1280 ) ; the final version was claimed to be a transcription of Huru ' s chronicle through the intervention of " Spătar " Clănău , a member of Stephen the Great ' s court ( late 15th century ) . Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu , who believed it was " the oldest Moldavian chronicle " , argued that Stephen the Great had discovered Huru ' s version in Lviv , at the time part of Jagiellon Poland , " while robbing the palace of a Galician magnate " . The chronicle began by stressing continuity between Roman colonists in the region and the inhabitants of Moldavia : according to the text , in 274 , when Emperor Aurelian ordered his troops to retreat from areas north of the Danube , colonists gathered in Iaşi and voted to stand their ground and resist migratory intrusions . Consequently , they decided to organize themselves as a federal republic extending from the Carpathians in the west to the Dniester in the east . Impact and character . The " Chronicle of Huru " was published during the last period of Moldavian statehood , three years before the country ' s union with Wallachia , in the wake of the Crimean War , at a time when the two Danubian Principalities were placed under the common protection of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , the Second French Empire , Prussia , the Kingdom of Piedmont - Sardinia , the Austrian Empire , and the Russian Empire . Following the interest stirred by the apparent breakthrough of the document , Prince Grigore Alexandru Ghica ordered the document to be evaluated by a Commission of experts ( comprising Mihail Kogălniceanu , August Treboniu Laurian and Constantin Negruzzi ) . The latter reported that the chronicle was a forgery , while supporters of the chronicle claimed the original had been lost . According to historiogropher Lucian Boia , the forgery was in clear connection to its historical context . The mention of a Dniester border since 274 was meant to emphasize historical rule over Bessarabia , a region since lost to Russia , while mention of republican customs was assigning Moldavia a democratic tradition . Furthermore , Boia argues , authors and supporters of the forgery had proof of Moldavian specificity as their political goal , and generally opposed projects of a union with Wallachia as they were being proposed by " Partida Naţională " and assessed by the Paris Conference — Asachi criticized the union , while Sion deemed it " a fools ' project " . In addition , the text supposedly written down by Clănău in 1495 made use of Romanian , aiming to transport first records of the language back by a few decades ( " see Neacşu ' s Letter " ) ; the analysis of the language used was a main clue in uncovering the forgery . The chronicle , still argued by many to have been authentic , was notably used as a source by Ion Heliade Rădulescu in his " Elemente de istoria românilor " ( " Elements of Romanian History " , 1860 ) , and ultimately proven spurious by linguist Alexandru Philippide in 1882 .