settlement and toponomy in the ĂtÂrlagele...

Geogaphica Timisiensis, vol. 18, nr.1-2, 2009 (pp. 121-148) ●

SETTLEMENT AND TOPONOMY IN THE PĂTÂRLAGELE DEPRESSION: THE MUSCEL AND VIEI

VALLEYS

David Turnock Geography Department, University of Leicester

+ N.Muică Institute of Geography, Bucarest

ABSTRACT The Subcarpathians are known as a well-settled region since early times, but it is also evident that many settlements are relatively modern and reflect the expansion of subsistence farming from the major valleys on to the hillsides during a period of acute population pressure in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This phase of growth is investigated in the context of the northwestern part of the Pătârlagele Depression – the Muşcel and Viei valleys – with particular reference to the toponomy emerging from large-scale maps, key texts (especially Iorgulescu’s epic works of 1885 and 1892) and very rich oral evidence. The paper pays particular attention to landslide areas that were often attractive to pioneer peasant farmers on account of their soil fertility and moisture context. It is evident that many areas used today for hay, pasture and plum orchards were well cultivated until cereal lands were acquired in the Bărăgan under the 1923 land reform and economic diversification accelerated after 1945. Toponomy is therefore presented as a major source for understanding an important phase of rural settlement. While the placenames contribute much of interest in terms of ecology and environmental potentials in the light of survival by extended families and other small communities there is little reliable information on the origins of settlement. Rezumat. Aşezări şi toponime în Depresiunea Pătârlagele: Văile Muscel şi Viei. Subcarpaţii sunt cunoscuţi drept o regiune bine populate din cele mai vechi timpuri, dar este de asemenea evident că numeroase aşezări sunt de vărstă relative modernă şi reflect expansiunea agriculturii de subzistenţă de la văile principale pe culmile deluroase în timpul unei acute presiuni demografice la sfârşitul secolului XIX şi începutul secolului XX. Această perioadă de creştere este cercetată în contextual părţii de nord vest a depresiunii Pătârlagele – văile Muşcel şi Viei –cu referire specială la toponimele ce provin de pe hărţi la scară mare, texte cheie (cum sunt lucrările lui Iorgulescu din 1885 şi 1892) şi din memoria oralî bogată. Articolul acordă o atenţie specială zonelor afectate de alunecări de teren care au fost atractive pentru ţărani pionieri datorită solurilor fertile şi caracteristicilor lor hidrologice. Numeroase yone folosite azi pentru fâneţe, păşunat şi livezi de pruni au fost bine cultivate până cănd s-au achiziţionat terenuri cerealiere în Bărăgan în timpul reformei agrare din 1923 şi diversificării economice accelerate după 1945. Toponimia este prezentată drept o sursă importantă pentru inţelegerea unei perioade importante din dezvoltarea aşezărilor rurale. Există puţine informaţii legate de originea aşezărilor deşi toponimele lămuresc multe aspecete legate de ecologie şi potenţialul de supravieţuire al mediului pentru familiile numeroase şi alte mici comunităţi. Key words: agriculture, colonisation, historical geography, Pătârlagele, rural settlement, Subcarpathians, toponomy, Valea Muşcelului, Valea Viei

●Settlement and Toponomy in the Pătârlagele Depression: The Muscel and Viei Valleys 122

Cuvinte cheie: agricultură, colonizare, geografie istorică, Pătârlagele, aşezare rurală, Subcarpaţi, toponimie, Valea Muşcelului, Valea Viei.

1. INTRODUCTION One of the projects started in the 1990s under a research agreement between the

Romanian Academy’s Institute of Geography and the Department of Geography at the University of Leicester (UK) concerned the human geography of the Pătârlagele area, having in mind the rural restructuring process (N.Muică & Turnock 1997) and the problematic nature of much of the terrain prone to landslides and mudflows (C.Muică & Bălteanu 1995; N.Muică & Turnock 1994). Historical investigation into this topic was encouraged by the wider studies in Buzăucounty (Nancu & Alexandrescu 1993), gaving rise to case studies of nineteenth century rural strategies of pluriactivity (N.Muică et al. 2000a, 2000b). We have continued our historical research into the problems of village origins and toponomy and this paper discusses our findings against a background of knowledge emphasising the historical continuity of relatively dense settlement in the Buzău Subcarpathians as a whole (Petrescu-Burloiu 1977, pp.139–40) although historically the Pătârlagele Depression was part of Saac county before 1845. We find that the great majority of settlements date back only to the nineteenth century while proof of settlement continuity is extremely sparse for earlier periods (Muică & Turnock in press). The full study area comprises the communes of Pănătău and Pătârlagele, with the latter now an urban area which has always been the centre of the district. It comprises not only the Buzău valley but also adjacent Subcarpathian hill country drained by a number of tributary valleys, including the Pănătău and Sibiciu valleys on the eastern side as well as V.Muşcelului and V.Viei which comprise the study area for the present paper (Figure 1). The main settlements occupy the main Buzău corridor system but are complemented by smaller villages and hamlets in the hills where there are extensive landslide surfaces attractive for small-scale agriculture (though problematic for settlement) and complement the ‘ţarină’ lands on the low ground which offer a much better basis for capital investment.

This paper deals with the settlement history of the Muşcel and Viei valleys – lying immediately west of Pătârlagele – using the local toponomy to supplement the documentary record. The study area is roughly square-shaped: extending some 6.5kms east-west from the Buzău valley to the watershed between the Buzău and Bâsca Chiojdului marked by a line of hills including Vf.Stânei (967m), Vf.Pătârlagelor (833m), Vf.Cătinei (791m) and Vf.Cornetului (827m) and also from north to south: the limits of the Muşcel and Viei valleys involving secondary waterseds (a) from Vf.Pătârlagelor to Vf.Cremenişului (835m) to the lower hills of Dl.Mirodina (611m) and the Mu.Flutur ridge at c.600m overlooking the main Buzău valley; and (b) the southern limit extending from Vf.Cătinei and Vf.Cornetului (827m), with the adjacent Pd.Creţuleasca, Vf.Vătalei and Vf.Haiului. The intervening watershed between the Muşcel and Viei valleys is relatively low and consists of open grazing land between Dl.Viei (which is complemented by Dl.Mânăstirei to create a gorge comprising the intermediate section of the Viei valley) and the hamlet of Orjani. We make extensive use of cartographic evidence. The ‘Harta Topografică’ by Serviciul Geografic al Armatei (1916) – based on 1895-8 data – provides a picture for the end of the nineteenth century while the end of the eighteenth century is covered by Specht’s ‘Militairische Carte’ (1790-1) and von Bauer’s ‘Mémoires

Nicolae MUICĂ, David TURNOK ● 123

Historiques’ (1778). Out of a total of 119 settlements throughout the Pătârlagele Depression (including many that are merely neighbourhoods within larger villages) only 41 can be convincingly dated to the eighteenth century or earlier (Muică & Turnock in press) (Figure 2). Of course some settlements may well be much older, but a key point is the apparent focus on the lower ground (and especially the Buzău terraces) with only temporary/seasonal use of the higher ground, which could of course include an element of monastic settlement in the form of hermitages that provide a possible origin for Cârnu monastery in the southeastern part of the depression. The latter is known from the sixteenth century along with a cluster the three leading settlements beside the Buzăuriver: Pătârlagele, Sibiciu de Jos and Sibiciu de Sus. At the same time a comparison can be made between the two halves of the nineteenth century thanks to the Russian map (‘Harta Rusă/Rusească) of 1853.

Tab. 1 Population 1832-2002.

Populaţia 1832-2002 Main Villages#

1831-2a

1912a 1912b 1941b

1966b 1966c 1992b 2002b Gndr.

Calea Chiojdului

0 89 351 333 245 91.8 103 98 50.8

Crâng 42 108 429 479 567 42.8 613 589 51.1 Fundăturile 40 55 223 280 245 86.0 203 216 51.9 Mânăstirea 0 74 298 327 300 73.5 108 97 49.6 Muşcel 68 107 434 486 691 80.3 566 536 51.2 Orjani 49 45 181 181 265 n.a. n.a. n.a. 49.7 Stroeşti 27 37 154 206 346 78.6

41` 33 50.9

Valea Viei 57 102 421 521 616 49.8 514 506 51.9 Total (i) 283 617 2491 2813 3275 n.a. 2148 2083 50.9 Total (ii) 1167 2536 10994 13162 12911 65.4 11778 11179 n.a.

a households; b total population; c employment in agriculture (percent). For gender the

figures are the female perentages (taking the average for 1912, 1930, 1941, 1956, 1966, 1977, 1992 and 2002 – but 1912, 1930 and 1941 only for Orjani). Mânăstirea now has a female majority while Stroeşti has a clear male majorit .

The totals relate to the Muşcel and Viei valleys (i) and the Păţărlagele Depression (ii). It is evident that the study area maintained a share of about a quarter of the total population of the wider area until 1992 when the concentration on Păţârlagele became particularly striking. For households the figures were 24.2 percent for 1831-2 and 24.3 for 1912. For total population the figures were 22.7 percent in 1912, 21.4 in 1941, 25.4 in 1966, 18.2 in 1992 and 18.6 in 2002

# denotes the villages which have official recognition today as components of communes or towns. Dependent hamlets are listed as follows with differentiation between those with official status in the past (*) and others that are recognised locally as distinct (named) quarters or small detached settlements: Calea Chiojdului: *Brusturişu[16], *Malul Alb[49], *Mihălceşti/Mihăileşti[57]; Crang (Class 3): Cetate/Subcetate [21], Copăcelul[23], *Murăturile[61], *Orjani/Horjani [64]; Mânăstirea: La Mânăstire în Ţigănie/Ţigănia Mânăstirii/Ţigăneşti][39]; Muşcel: Cătunul


Bisericii/Drăgulineşti/Manoleşti[20], Gârlă[32], *Măceşu[46], Pâcle[65], *Poiana[84]; Stroeşti/Valea Viei Ungureni]: Chelăreşti[22], Ivăneşti[36], Murea[62], Podosu[81], Potorăşti[89], 1a, Şoghiorani[103], Vasiloi[117]; Valea Viei/Valea Viei Pământeni: Bărbuleşti[9], Lemnăreşti[41]. These hamlets ate located on Figure 1.

Source: Census returns but Anon (1892) for 1832. a. gospodării;b populaţia totală; cangajaţi în agricultură (procent). Pentru gen figurile

indică procentajul feminine (considerând valoarea medie pentru 1912, 1930, 1941, 1956, 1966, 1977, 1992, şi 2002 – dar pentru 1912, 1930 şi 1941 numai pentru Oriijani). În Mănăstirea populaţia majoritară este feminin dar Stroeşti are o majoritate masculină.

Totalul se referă la văile Muşcel and Viei (i) şi depresiunea Pătârlage (ii).este evident că aria de studiu avut o pondere a populaţiei de aproximativ un sfert din totalul populaţiei ariei mai mari până în 1992 când concentrarea Pătârlagele a devenit evidentă. Cifrele care indică gospodării sunt 24,2 % în 1831-1832 şi 24,3 pentru 1912. Pentru totalul populaţiei cifrele au fost de 22,7% în 1912, 21,4 în 1941, 25,4 în 1966, 18,2 în1992 şi 18,6 în 2002.

# Denotă satele care sunt ayi părţi componente din commune sau oraşe. Cătunele dependente sunt listate după cum urmează cu diferenţe între cele cu statut official ăn trecut (*) şi altele care sunt recunoscute local ca fiind diferite cartiere sau mici aşezări distincte Calea Chiojdului: *Brusturişu[16], *Malul Alb[49], *Mihălceşti/Mihăileşti[57]; Crang (Class 3): Cetate/Subcetate [21], Copăcelul[23], *Murăturile[61], *Orjani/Horjani [64]; Mânăstirea: La Mânăstire în Ţigănie/Ţigănia Mânăstirii/Ţigăneşti][39]; Muşcel: Cătunul Bisericii/Drăgulineşti/Manoleşti[20], Gârlă[32], *Măceşu[46], Pâcle[65], *Poiana[84]; Stroeşti/Valea Viei Ungureni]: Chelăreşti[22], Ivăneşti[36], Murea[62], Podosu[81], Potorăşti[89], 1a, Şoghiorani[103], Vasiloi[117]; Valea Viei/Valea Viei Pământeni: Bărbuleşti[9], Lemnăreşti[41]. Aceste cătune sunt localizate pe harta 1.

2. THE LOCAL TERRAIN As the basis of a countryside of depressions and rolling hills at 300-900m, the

complex geology embraces Miocene and Pliocene rocks that vary greatly in their resistance to erosion: ranging from clays and marls to limestones and sandstones. The landscape is remarkably youthful because of the vertical uplift of about 1,000m during the Quaternary which continues today at the modest rate of 0.5-1.5mm per annum. Rivers have become ever more deeply incised in an area of steeply-inclined (sometimes near vertical) strata. Hills manifest youthful characteristics, while valley deepening also results in a massive and continuing transfer of material from the slopes to the channels. But great instability arises from the geology that throws together a variety of sedimentary rocks: clays, marls, sands and gravels intercalated with more resistant cemented rocks: sandstone (calcareous, silicious or otherwise depending on the binding material), limestone, gypsum and even conglomerate which may be steeply sloping or even vertical. Level ground is to be found on the Buzău alluvial lands comprising well-developed terrace systems appearing as steps beginning just 3.0-4.0m above the floodplain; complemented by fragments of mature relief on the higher ground where mature/fossil soils support pastures and hayfields today with with ample traces of former cropping activity as well. The high terraces of the Buzău and other rivers have cut across geological layers of varied resistance and inclination. On the western side of the Buzău on the hill of Mş.Pătârlagelor, above C.Crivinenilor, terrace fragments at 180-200m carved in vertical geological layers comprise a gently-inclined 3-5deg. surface facing the Buzău valley and provide a striking legacy of the old, developed relief.


There are also fragments of old terraces (limited by steep slopes) on the east-south-eastern part of the Dl.Viei summit, although there is no surface of uniform inclination here but rather some near-horizontal areas of agricultural value separated and dominated by small summits transversally orientated (reflecting the vertical geological layers with varied resistance at the erosion). Another example concerns the eastern part of Dl.Mânăstirii (south of V.Viei) where the remnant of an old surface appears as a slope between two old terraces: although very limited in extent, mature soil that is visible in some ‘precipices’ that form parts of this slope. And in the western part of Dl.Mânăstirii there are also remnants of Villafranchian gravels; some of them in a highly modified form with a reddish or reddish-brown colour. In the context of human settlement ‘the mosaic-like Subcarpathian landscape facilitated a multitude of soil uses’ as forest largely disappeared (C.Muică et al.1993, p.137). The new mosaic pattern reflected the main scarp and dip slope features linked with a succession of cuestas - with woodland and agriculture - further differentiated by scarps and terraces on the dip slope giving rise to small areas of woodland, with former orchards (now poor grazings) and hayfields. There may be an alternation of sandstone and marl outcrops across a sloping surface: introducing a corrugated pattern – with minor cuestas – and contrasting landuses of woodland/scrub and pasture. An exception to the mosaic landscape can be seen on Dl.Viei and the ridge to Orjani. This is an anticlinal structure occurring between the sandstone of Blidişel and the area south of V.Viei. The area is affected by salt and gypsum/sulphate and is not good for crops or trees. Some oak has been found on salty ground (rare enough to warrant consideration for a nature reserve). Some fruit trees survive where there is only a little salt but growth is retarded.

But much emphasis must be given to landslides (‘pornituri’) since mass movement occurs throughout the extensive ‘flysch zone’ of the Carpathians, given the great variety in lithology as well as tectonic and structural fragmentation conducive to a dense river network. But these characteristics apply especially to the Curvature Carpathians where the instability of the hillslopes – comprising most of the agricultural land – has always posed risks for settlement. And these hazards have become more significant today in the context of increasing investment in housing and infrastructure (Bogdan & Bălteanu eds. 1986). However landslide material varies considerably in character. The main ingredients are clay, marl and sandstone, but the proportions vary as does the amount of lubrication (for heavy rain may well provoke sudden changes in the speed of advance), while fragments of hard rock may occasionally predominate. The depth of the landslides varies considerably: most are quite shallow (0.4-0.8m) but some reach as much as 10.0m and occasionally more. The shallower landslides tend to be the more extensive – emanating from amphitheatres (formed by the slumping of part of the hillside) to occupy as much as two-thirds of a hillslope: as material is torn away to form a landslide source area, a quite large steep-sided ‘detachment cup’ may be created to resemble a glacial cirque. Clearly landslides have great significance for settlement because their fertility and moisture content is enhanced by a natural ‘churning’ process. The lack of extensive smooth surfaces with easy access – so important for commercial agriculture – is no great handicap for subsistance farming when people are able to live in close proximity. Since they offer moisture retention (particularly valuable during dry periods) and remove salt from the soil, even the shallowest landslide tongues (‘limbi de pornituri’) are widely used for agriculture (maize, fruit trees and hay) in contrast to the pasture and forest prevailing elsewhere. Many landslides have stabilised and


could have been active as long ago as the prehistoric period (indicated by the level of soil development). Thus it is not surprising that many villages are situated wholly or partially on landslides: Crâng, Fundăturile, Muşcel, Stroeşti and the older part of Valea Viei.

In the Muşcel valley there are many landslides that vary according to form, dimensions, age and stability. In the upper part, with a montainous character, landslide tongues are similar to glaciers, with great contrasts between the hillslopes and the landslide surfaces. Agricultural use is very evident above Brusturişu and in the central section at Fundăturile there are some old suspended landslide fans e.g. in the Maloteasa valley there is also an old suspended tongue, with some young landslides lower down. On the left side of the Muşcel there are traces of old landslide fans such as ’La Arie’, visible from the right side of the valley above Crâng. In the V.Viei basin there is (a) an upper part with relatively gentle slopes and a extensive area of young, clayey and superficial landslides (with some salt, especially on the left side of the V.Viei stream) in addition to an old landslide tongue on which Stroeşti village is situated; while (b) the lower part is narrow and menaced by steep slopes with old landslides, with serious consequences when the 1940 earthquake damaged property including the church: indeed with the recent cutting of a meander below the village the danger is now increased because the river profile has been steepened. Intensive use of landslide surfaces has been a feature of the last few centuries. After major landslide activity, the soil develops relatively quickly (faster on sands and sandstones than on marls) because the water washes out the salt and creates a good agricultural soil. So the moist, young soils of stabilised landslides may be very good for agriculture, although the risk of renewed instability can never be overlooked. The peasant’s eye will select the most suitable of the gentler slopes that may be cleared for grazings and orchards – perhaps even for settlement, for although houses on relatively stable landslides may eventually be undermined (say once each century) they have advantage of access to forests and grazings. Sliding interrupts soil formation, but there is the value of soil mixing through landslides: note orchards at the lower end of landslides (while other trees easily take root in view of humidity e.g. Salix and Alnus). In V.Viei, progressive deepening of the valley has worked landslide material into terraces that are good for agriculture including fruit trees; though the land is not stable, given further deepening. There may also be fans of alluvial material where minor tributaries change course through landsliding and the old course can be used for fruit trees. Five levels of natural potential have been recognised across the Pătârlagele Depression as a whole: very good (7.3 per cent) – comprising the Buzău terraces; good (20.4 per cent); average (50.3 per cent); poor (7.8 per cent); and very poor (14.2 per cent). The poor land includes the brown soils found on sands, sandstone and young rendzinas); while the very poor relates to salt marls – abandoned from the agricultural point of view where the soil layer has largely disappeared – as well as wet areas beside the streams and brooks and the stoney summits and precipices.

3. THE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM

2.1. Primary Settlement: Prehistory to 1800 It is widely believed that many settlements are old; having in mind the historical

record pointing to a relatively dense settlement of the Subcarpathians at least during the invasion period and since; a point emphasised by Petrescu-Burloiu (1977, pp.139-40) in his survey of the Buzău Subcarpathians as a whole. Geto-Dacian evidence is claimed for the


Muşcel area (Ibid, p.141), while Gâlmeanu & Ionescu (2002) refer to Muşcel and Valea Viei. But this evidence does not provide clear indications of settlement, while the theory of a stronghold (‘cetate’) at Crâng – where one of the village neighbourhoods is so named – is undermined by the lack of any structural evidence at the top of a hill that has only the appearance of a Dacian stronghold. We also have in mind the claims made by Burlacu (1979) regarding small monastic establishments (‘schituri rupestre’) emerging during 1100-1500. It is not surprising to find that while there is a tradition of free ‘moşneni’ communities in the hills the northern half of the study area in general, servile ‘clăcaşi’ communities were more prominent in the southern part where the Buzău terraces are relatively extensive. The only settlement in the area shown on the Specht map of 1790-1 was Valea Viei (then known as ‘Wii’) but we also know that the first church was built there in 1760 and this also secures an eighteenth century origin for the quarters of Bărbuleşti (on the right side of V.Viei beside the Iz.Vladii landslides) and also Lemnăreşti. Church history is also a powerful guide at Muşcel where the first church is dated 1799 and in this is remarkable because the relevant wooden beams were twice relocated within Saac county: first in 1775 from Lapoş village in Buda commune to Sibiciu de Sus (close to Pătârlagele but on the eastern side of rthe Buzău) in 1775 and again to Muşcel after a new church was built at Sibiciu. There are no references to either Specht or von Bauer but the church evidence is decisive and also secures an eighteenth century date for the constituent hamlets of Cătunul Bisericii and Gârla. However at Muscel there is a strong likelihood that a cemetery preceded the church while the location ‘La Mânăstire’ northeast of the hamlet of Brusturişu relates to a small depression with a southesterly aspect suggesting the possibility of an early monastic establishment. However there is no firm evidence available and claims of a seventeenth century ‘schitul Muşcel’ now seem to have arisen from a confusion between the Muşcel near Pătârlagele and Muscelu Cărămăneşti in today’s Colţi commune. (Constantinescu 1987, p.81; Stioca & Stoicescu 1983, II p.271). Again, we must discount the name ‘Calugărite La’ – at the nuns – known nearby at Fundăturile; for there is no supporting evidence of a monastery despite an accompanying legend about the closure of a hermitage through malevolent local action (precipitating a curse on the village to which all subsequent local problems may be ironically attributed).

At Crâng, the church (1790) is again our only guide, although local legend again fuel speculation thanks to the tradition of a ‘repaus’ by Mihai Viteazul in 1599 (where the mythical Cetate has already been referred to) and also the ‘tabara’ in the same place by one Petru cel Tănâr on a journey to Transylvania the late Medieval period (Gâlmeanu & Ionescu 2002, pp.68-70). Finally, The case of Mânăstirea also arises at this time although expansion falls essentially to the nineteenth century, probably through the movement of Roma slaves from Benga. For there is clear evidence of a ‘schit’ (sometimes referred to misleadingly as ‘Schitul Mărunţişu’) belonging to Vărbila monastery and legend insists that it was lost by fire in the mid-nineteenth century during Prince Cuza’s reign. It is not known when the chapel was built and while the ‘proscomidia’ for the rebuilt church of Zahareşti (where the monastery of Vărbila in Prahova maintained an apiary) alludes to a ‘schit’ built by the monks on the hill of Mânăstirea as part of their demesne, no date is specified. However, Stoicescu (1970, p.421), as an authority on ecclesiastical matters, claims an eighteenth origin by virtue of a surviving ‘catagrafia’ or inventory. This document is undated but it is written in Cyrillic and Gavrilă Ştrempel, an expert at the State Archives where the document is held, considers that it is definitely older than 1800. Therefore we


credit Mânăstirea with an eighteenth century origin and given the sheltered site of the village in a shallow depression (albeit on a hilltop) it is quite understandable that our principal documentary sources for the late eighteenth century should be silent in this case. Overall therefore we have a ‘primary’ network comprising the four villages of Crâng, Mânăstirea, Muşcel and Valea Viei.

4. SECONDARY SETTLEMENT

4.1 The Nineteenth Century Study of this period reveals an explosion in settlement to take fuller advantage of

the landslides, as well as the fragments of ‘mature landscape’ on the higher ground. The process may be demonstrated from the map evidence already referred to; also by the increase ion the total number of households between 1831-2 and 1912 (Table 1), with the local trends endorsed by a broader picture for the Subcarpathians using the commune data collected in 1899 (Colescu 1905) and researched by Baranovsky & Ştefănescu (1965). Predictably, new settlements in the hills were less nucleated than the primaries already mentioned since the priority was not the growth of central places but the needs of subsistence farmers seeking a niche in the age of capitalism – typically in relatively remote areas on landslides. Indeed we would underline the quite remarkable situation in which the hillslopes – extensively covered with relatively fertile landslide material – offered much support to scattered subsistence communities comprising the core of an alternative socio-economic system to the capitalist estates supported by the rich agriculture of the Buzău terraces. At the same time, a modern infrastructure based on road and rail communications along the main valley contrasted with the crude ‘drumurile accidentate’ (Petrescu-Burloiu 1977, p.146) on the higher ground, with erosion increased by deforestation that restricted woodland to the steepest slopes, as noted by N.A.Constantinescu (1938). This centre-periphery dualism was thus accentuated following the abolition of feudalism, leaving estate owners freer to concentrate on commercial farming on the river terraces while much of the subsistence farming was transferred to the landslides. Although relatively remote and inherently unstable, intensive use of the hillsides was certainly maintained until alternative cereal lands were allocated in the Bărăgăn as part of the 1923 land reform; continuing on a considerable scale until the collectivisation in the 1960s brought a measure of resettlement with expansion at Pătârlagele and Mărunţişu.

Of course we are not suggesting a clear watershed in 1800 between the primary and secondary phases of settlement. Petrescu-Burloiu (1977, p.145) refers to a seventeenth-nineteenth century expansion of agricultural land at the expense of woodland; guided by the potentials for settlement in an age of population growth boosted by Habsburg mercantilism in the imperial borderlands as ‘Ungureni’ immigrants were able to negotiate a stake in ‘moşneni’ landholding and either join existing communities or establish new settlements in the hills as part of the ongoing process of ‘roirile pastorale’ or more appropriately ‘roirile agricole’ given the strong subsistence element. The nineteenth century trend is therefore an acceleration of what has been noted for the eighteenth century but with permanent settlement in landslide areas much more accentuated through fragmented settlement outside the main villages. All over the hills it seems that new land was being broken up as ‘mosaics’ of mixed agricultural activity extended across the landslide tongues that had previously supported only grazing and haymaking on the ‘conac’


model without the subsistence crops, plum trees and permanent settlements of subsistence farmers seeking a niche in the age of capitalism. Any attempt to discriminate between the two halves of the century rests on the accuracy of the cartographic evidence and we cannot make significant distinctions apart from the accelerated development of capitalism in the second half. But it is significant that in V.Viei, with the stimulus of ‘roirile’, there is an emphasis on the early nineteenth century through the cluster of family farms around Stroeşti; while in the upper part of the Muşcel valley the string of settlements extending to Calea Chiojdului (including Brusturişu, Măcesu, Malul Alb and Mihăileşti) become visible only in the later part of the century. This could highlight the difference between the mature landslides of Stroeşti and the younger landslides at the head of V.Muşcelului. As population pressure grew it seems that progressively younger landslides – involving greater risk – were pressed into service. On this basis the settlements listed in Table 1 may be reorganised on the basis on the basis of primary and secondary settlement phases (Table 2).

Tab. 2 Settlement Groups.

Grupuri de aşezări. MUŞCEL. Primary: Cătunel Bisericii (20), Crâng (25); Gârla (32), Muşcel (63).

Secondary A: Fundăturile (31), Măcesu* (46). Secondary B: Brusturişu (16), Calea Chiojdului (19), Malul Alb (49), Mihălceşti (57), Murăturile (61), Poiana (84). Secondary C: Pâcle (65). Total 13 [4-2-6-1]

VALEA VIEI. Primary: Bărbuleşti (9), Lemnăreşti (41), Mânăstirea (50), Valea Viei (116). Secondary A: Chelăreşti (22), Copăcelul* (23), Ivăneşti (36), La Mânăstire în Ţigănie (39), Orjani (64), Podosu (81), Potorăşti (89), Şoghiorani (103), Stroeşti (104). Secondary B: Murea (62). Total 14 [4-9-1-0]

Secondary settlement is divided into three periods: A 1800-1850; B 1850-1900; C 1900-2000. Settlements in italic are those (generally small) settlements that never gained official recognition. Those underlined are the settlements officially recognised today e.g. in census returns. An asterisk denotes a secondary settlement which cannot be confidently allocated to the early or late nineteenth century.

Aşezarea secundară este divizată în trei părţi: A. 1800-1850; B1850-1900; C 1900- 2000. Aşezările scrise cursiv sunt mai ales acele (mici) aşezări care nu au fost niciodată recunoscute oficicial. Cele subliniate sunt cele recunoscute azi, eg. În recensăminte. Un asterisc indică o aşezare care nu poate fi cu certitudine datată începutului sau sfârşitului secolului XIX.

Although we have few details, expanding ‘moşneni’ communities were evidently

complenented by ‘clăcaşi’ elements displaced uphill to free more of the terrace lands for commercial farming. We believe the nineteenth century extensions were unprecedented and forced transfers to some sites that proved to be dangerously unstable. Thus Fundăturile village is associated with a ‘boiar’ Ion Giurgiuveanu based in Pătârlagele which accounts for the traditional links between the two settlements (also reflected in the alternative name of. Vallea Păterlaci in 1864 and Fundăturile’s inclusion in Pătârlagele commune until transfer to Muşcel in 1925 (with a return to Pătârlagele when Muşcel commune was absorbed in 1968). Petrescu-Burloiu (1977, fig.45) confirms that Fundăturile was established in the nineteenth century, while a market in Fundăturile in 1839 was sought by ‘Pătârlagenii’ from Pătârlagele de Sus. This is consistent with the building of the church in


1809 and Penelea’s (1973, p.154) reference to a fair on the day of Sf. Michel sanctioned in 1839 at the request of the free peasants of Pătârlagele de Sus. Tr.Popescu, a native of the area, recalls the involvement of a relative of the founder (Cristof Iliescu) but there was evidently continuing support from the original ‘boiar’ family including help with the refurbishment of the church at Fundăturile in 1913. So the landowner influence was evidently benign, although we do not know for sure if Fundăturile was established to relieve population pressure in Pătârlagele or to remove families in order to free land on the Buzău terraces for agriculture serving a wider market. At the same time the expansion of ‘moşneni’ communities was in some degree contested, for we have interesting oral evidence (from the late Tr.Popescu of Muşcel and Valea Viei) of pressure on the ‘moşneni’ families of Muşcel from their neighbours at Păltineni to the north who ‘ravished their lands’: a point corroborated to an extent by Iorgulescu (1892, p.346) who noted that the Muşcel people were impoverished.

Meanwhile in upper Valea Viei we have some of the best evidence for the settlement of ‘free’ Ungureni settlement by families from Transylavania, then under Habsburg rule. Although there are no documents, it is believed that Stroeşti developed as a string of now-derelict hamlets – geared to pastoral farming – extending from a small core area to Şoghiorani, Chelăreşti, Vasiloiu and Ivăneşti lying in sequence up the valley. But the older settlement of Valea Viei is not without its own history of Transylvanian settlement since the tradition of ‘moşneni’ colonists settling in the narrow valley (menaced by erosion and landslides) is very much alive today – confirmed by Petrescu-Burloiu (1977, Figs.46/47) – while family names like ‘Braşoveanu’ (i.e. coming from Braşov) and Petrache Basta (a Szekler or Hungarian name) are remembered. The settlers brought vines from Transylvania – providing good fruit but not much juice – that were established on Dl.Viei and Dl.Mânăstirii at Mocanca (a specific placename linked with the colonists) according to Zaharescu (1923) and confirmed by local opinion (Tr.Popescu and I.Mihalcea) quoting from an undated document held in the parish church: ‘Ardelenii au adus vie şi au plantat pe versantul sudic al Dl.Viei (Oprea Gavriloiu) dar şi chiar pe versantul nordic al Dl.Mânăstirii, pe Mocanca (nume arătând populaţie din Ardeal) era 2,000sq.m vie un soi de vie cu bobul cărnas (Mihălcescu din Valea Viei)’ It is also recalled that oxen were used to pull a ‘car: mai greoi şi mai lent dar bun pentru greutaţi mari’. However it is curious that the Valea Viei people subsequently tried to project themselves as an authentic local community through the clear distinction made between ‘Valea Viei Pământeni’ – used in documents for the present Valea Viei during 1819-32 and 1876-92 – and‘Valea Viei Ungureneni’ (Stroeşti) which was evidently settled by later wave of Ungureni colonisation showing greater commitment to shepherding as was appropriate for farms at 340-440m in the upper reaches of V.Viei. Meanwhile, Tr.Popescu recalls that the Braşoveanu family changed their name to Gavriloiu to conform with this ‘Pământeni’ identity of Valea Viei: evidently the distinction was seen as important even though there must have been cordial relations between the two villages with the Valea Viei church and school serving both communities.

All this this raises a wider, complex question over the development of community identity from a host of family-based colonisation projects; for there seems to have been a progression from individual farmsteads to wider groupings with names that gradually gained general approval as church and school brought small communities together, not to mention the centralising logic of the state bureaucracy wishing to identify official


settlement units. So we might expect a mixed picture: with some small places trying to maintain a sense of separateness while others were reconciled to membership of a wider grouping. Thus Stroeşti appears to be the only name used after 1876 for Valea Viei Ungureni: originating as a cluster of hamlets with separate family names. In addition to those already quoted, Murea and Podosu are also known (though not the precise locations of these farmsteads of which all trace has now disappeared) while Orjani (Valea Viei Orjani in 1874) – derived from a family name with Hungarian resonance remains on fertile land close to the watershed between V.Muşcelului and V.Viei with its own identity, though it has civil and ecclesiastical links with Crâng and Stroeşti respectively. ‘Struggles’ over names clearly go beyond the arrival of ‘Ungureni’, for Petrescu-Burloiu (1977, Fig.48) mentions Drăgulineşti becoming Valea Muşcelului, while the Szathmary Map of 1856 (Fligely 1864) suggests the simultaneous usage of Fundăturile and Vallea Păterlaci (recalling the old feudal association) as well as Murăturile and Vallea Ghiceanului.

Development of services was restrained since commerce took root in the most accessible places especially Pătârlagele where pre-1914 developments culminated in the railway station and the adjacent road bridge across the Buzău river in 1911. In contrast to Pătârlagele’s expanding its service base, facilities were sparse in the hill settlements. Apart from the churches already mentioned (which included a second boiar church – ‘biserică boierească’ – in Valea Viei in in 1834 ; and the rebuilding of the original church in 1876 after a fire) a schools programme started in 1839 for the main villages in the area including Muşcel and Valea Viei (Angelescu 1998; Damé 1894) and periodic fairs were held in Valea Viei (supplementing those held more frequently in Pătârlagele). Although the hill areas in general were relatively poorly served the commune status for Muşcel ensured a small local development ‘pole’ in the upper part of the district with the local administration and a post office. There was also a tavern (with others at Mihălceşti further up the valley and at Crâng); also a water-powered mill in the upper valley at Brusturişu (Ministerul Agriculturii şi Domeniilor 1914) while Iorgulescu (1892) has previously referred to a blacksmith at Muşcel. But very little documentation is available to expand and illustrate this scenario of settlement advance and retreat over a relatively short period of time. While there is little evidence on pluriactivity scenarios, distillation was certainly an important consideration in fruit growing areas and the production of plum brandy (‘ţuica’) was undertaken for domestic consumption but occasionally for barter transactions in areas as far afield as Covasna (Muică & Turnock 2000). Thrifty farmers with plum trees in their gardens and others in the hills (perhaps in a small sheltered depression or ‘padină’) – making up a hectare of land out of a total holding of some 10ha – might well produce 1,000l of brandy. Owners of stills would usually loan their equipment to poorer families on a daily basis in return for a rent amounting to about a tenth of the production. In this way most families could make enough brandy for their own needs.

4.2 The Twentieth Century Conditions improved with the 1923 reform which made more pasture and arable

available to peasants, while substantial areas of cropland were allocated in lowland areas of Buzău county and further afield. While little is recorded about the developments of the inter-war years, services did improve somewhat. Commune funds were available for church repair at Muşcel and Valea Viei, while education facilities improved with a school to serve Fundăturile – using the teacher’s house in nearby Gârla until a building was made available in the village in 1925 – while Mânăstirea got a school in 1923, although this may not have


been permanent since the school that opened at Stroeşti in 1941 was also used by Mânăstirea children until better arrangements were made after 1945. The net result was a network of villages with both a church and a school: Crâng, Fundăturile, Muşcel and Valea Viei while Mânăstirea and Stroeşti had just a school. Improvements during the 1930s included a telephone line from Pătârlagele to Muşcel. A ‘banca popular’ was reported at Muşcel in 1919; followed by a ‘cooperative de consum’ in 1943 (amalgamating with the Pătârlagele organisation in 1954). In 1957 a new oil-powered mill was opened in the Muşcel valley near the junction with the Fundăturile brook, replacing two water mills that were closed at the time (though the new mill was subsequently abandoned by the 1970s). The village hall (‘cămin’) became an important institution at this time and a new hall was provided in 1959 (after Fundăturile gained its first ‘cămin’ in 1950) while electrification eventually reached all the villages with the exception of Orjani which remains without a supply even today.

The biggest event was probably the collectivisation of agriculture that was driven forward primarily on account of the cereal lands now held in the Bărăgan. By 1956 there were two agricultural associations in the commune of Valea Muşcelului: ‘23 August’ with 62 families and 36.5ha of land and the larger ‘Scînteia’ with 91 families and with 87.75ha. Then in 1962 agriculture was fully collectivised under the ‘GAC Scînteia’ (subsequently becoming a cooperative farm – CAP – organised across the enlarged Pătârlagele commune). Initially the farm involved 327 families and 630ha including 138ha of cereals and sunflowers located mainly in the Bărăgan. Similar changes would have affected the other villages but the details are not recorded and it is thanks the unpublished manuscript by N.Filon (1998) that information for Valea Muşcelului (absorbed by Pătârlagele in 1968) has been preserved. Some land passed out of local control through allocation of the best land on the Buzău terraces – and in the Muşcel valley – to the Cândeşti state farm, but although the CAP farming was administered from Pătârlagele from 1968, there was a branch of the farm was maintained at Muşcel.Thus there was a role for the declining hill communities through concentration on livestock with access for mechanised transport in the form of tractors or light four-wheel drive ARO vehicles. Dl.Viei and the Muşcel-Viei watershed area extending westwards to Orjani was managed as a extensive grazing area diversified by only a few trees and arable enclosures. Even so, collectivisation brought a degree of centralisation with consolidation of the main villages and several new ‘quarters’ emerged with their own names to generate a further phase of secondary settlement. At Muşcel a small new settlement emerged on the southern edge of Poiana, known as Pâcle. There was also some resettlement from Orjani, Mânăstirea and Stroeşti in Valea Viei where the former ‘boiar’ estate was expropriated and the area around lower church became available for housing. But strangely, no particular name emerged – even informally – for this new quarter and even the post-1989 extension further downhill to the edge of Pătârlagele has not produced any new identity. However most of the resettlement after 1968 was focused on Pătârlagele.

Population continued to grow from 2,491 in 1912 to 2,813 in 1941 and 3,275 in 1966 although there was some reduction after 1941 in Calea Chiojdului, Fundăturile and Mânăstirea suggesting that the agricultural potential was most limited in these areas. However, between 1966 and 1992 only Crâng continued to grow and although this made sense in the context of proximity to the growth point of Pătârlagele it is curious that Valea Viei – lying even closer to Pătârlagele – lost population at this time. Evidently the siting


problems in a very narrow valley with potential flood hazards prevented further growth once the former ‘boiar’ domain had been colonised while the 30-35m terrace (Ţ.Luncii) at Gu.Văii Viei was presumably considered too valuable for agriculture and was not made available for housing until after 1989. Valea Viei’s decline is all the more remarkable in view of the collapse of population in Stroeşti: from 206 in 1941 and 346 in 1966 to just 41 in 1992! But the poverty of this area made it a target for resettlement (likwise Calea Chiojdului and Mânăstirea) as apartment blocks were provided in Pătârlagele while all three – with Fundăturile – were scheduled for complete evacuation under Ceauşescu’s’sistematizare’ programme first mooted in the 1970s but relaunched in 1980s and abandond after 1989. As regards local services, Valea Viei was always too close to Pătârlagele to justify a bus service in the communist period but Muşcel was so favoured, albeit through the use of a converted truck. This has now been withdrawn and commuters (who include teachers living in Pătârlagele and Sibiciu who work in Muşcel) now face a five kilometer walk in each direction. While Mânăstirea got improved road access from Mărunţişu immediately after 1989, the condition of the Muşcel road remains an important local issue. Mânăstirea also succeeded in having its primary school reopened (although Fundăturile closed in 1996 following the earlier demise of the school at Stroeşti) while primaries remain at Crâng, Muşcel and Valea Viei and Muşcel also retains secondary education along with a culture house (‘cămin’) – likewise Crâng, Fundăturile and Valea Viei – and a local museum.

The Orthodox churches remain prominent with periodic refurbishment e.g. Valea Viei upper church in 1938, with subsequent repairs to both churches in the village following earthquake damage in 1941 and 1977 (with the old ‘boiar’ church – or lower church – becoming the parish church after 1940) and Fundăturile in 1998. At Muşcel a new church was built beside the old in 1949, but it was lost in a devastating fire in 1964 which eventually gave rise to a further new building completed in 1998. Although only Fundăturile grew between 1992 and 2002 the locality has slightly increased its share as a result of overall decline in the Pătârlagele Depression which might be predicted as a short-term resurgence for subsistence agriculture following land restitution and the collapse of employment in industry. However there is no question of a return to the scale of cropping evident before the First World War and the dry thin soils of the structural surfaces are generally marginalised today. Some maize is still grown on the high ground at Orjani and although today’s varieties do not ripen so readily on the higher ground, sandstone areas that are typically forested may be cultivated given a good aspect. But there is a legacy of soil degradation arising from intensive use under heavy population pressure. Through erosion the soil becomes more compact and clayey; also drier (with less moisture retained) and poorer in nutrients (C.Muică et al. 1993, p.140). Even meadows carved from forest are vulnerable to soil erosion caused by torrents that displace nutrients down the slope. ‘Cătină’ (buckthorn) is very evident in areas of former cultivation where land is eroded (with calcium on the surface and degradation revealing the lower soil horizon). It marks the start of a return to woodland and offers some protection against erosion; also a decline in agriculture with resurgence now virtually impossible since the labour force is much reduced.

4.3. The Place Names 4.3.1 Village Names


The names of the settlements are of considerable interest in themselves. Many relate to individual persons and families: Bărbuleşti (after Barbu); Chelăreşti (Chelaru), Ivăneşti (Ivan), Lemnăresti (Lemnaru), Manoleşti (Manole); Mihălceşti (Mihalcea), Murea (a family name derived from ‘mură’ meaning a blackberry), Orjani (Horjan: of Hungarian origin), Podosu (a family name in itself, derived from ‘pod’ meaning a bridge); Potorăşti (the Hungarian name Pótor), Stroeşti (Stroe) and Vasiloi (Vasiloiu); while Şoghiorani derives from the Hungarian ‘Şoghior‘ meaning a brother in law. There is a clear Roma connection through Ţigănia Mânăstirii – the Roma ‘Ţigănia’ in Mânăstirea, while Mânăstirea indicates a monastic establishment (despite the official use of ‘Mănăstirea’). Cetate means a fortress and the variant Subcetate ‘below the fortress’. Calea Chiojdului clearly points to a settlement on a direct historic routeway from Pătârlagele and Muşcel to the Bâsca Chiojdului valley. Cătunul Bisericii is the church hamlet. Physical features are involved in the case of Muşcel indicating a smooth hill (though usually spelt ‘muscel’); Malul Alb, dominated by its white cliff, has a name that indicates a rocky place without soil or vegetation; and Fundăturile occupies the head of a narrow valley with steep slopes and has a name that appropriately points to an isolated place without through passage. Gârla is damp ground in a valley; Pâcle is a source of mud (without any gas or oil content); while Murăturile indicates a salt springs significant for pickling. Brusturişu is covered with ‘brusture’ (Tussilago fanfare): a pioneer plant associated with fresh landslides; Copăcelul refers to a small tree; Crâng indicates a small wood; Poiana is a clearing – from the Slav ‘poljana‘ (Academia 1996-8, p.816); while Măceşu derives from ‘măceş’ the wild rose and Valea Viei is ‘vineyard valley’ where a substantial grape harvest was obrtained on the slopes below Dl.Viei prior to the phylloxera attack.

However a number of names have changed with V.Viei settlements once highlighting native (‘pământeni’) and Transylvanian ‘ungureni’ connections already noted: prior to 1835 Valea Viei was known as Valea Viei Pământeni and the old form appeared again in documents of 1839, 1876 and 1892. Meanwhile, the village higher up the valley, was known as Valea Viei Ungureni from 1819 and Stroeşti (the most important component of a highly dispersed settlement) did not appear until 1872; while the pairing ‘Stroeşti (Valea Viei Ungureni)’ was used by Iorgulescu (1892, p.475), while Valea Viei Ungureni was used again in 1922 in a historical map by Zaharescu. Drăgulineşti (reflecting the pesonal name Drăgulin) was used as an alternative to Muşcel in the 1870s and again in 1892 while there is an ongoing confusion between the village name of Muşcel and the commune name of Valea Muşcelului which persists as an ecclesiastical parish since the commune was eliminated by amalgamation with Patarlagele in 1968. Also, despite the local use of Orjani, this name was usually shown on maps as Horzaneşti (from the Hungarian name ‘ Horjan’) in the late nineteenth century and this continued on occasion through much of the last century (especially 1930-1974), Finally, Ţigăneşti became Mânăstirea in 1872 - with Vărbila Ungureni used fleetingly by Iorgulescu (1892, p.336). It is also noticeable that the village names are used for a range of other features. This ‘Copăcel’ is used to identify a place at Orjani with a single beech tree on low hill; while several names are based on Fundăturile: I/V.Fundăturilor Cu.Fundatorilor (meaning the ‘Fundăturile Hills’ which is not a toponym but a recent invention) and I.Fundăturilor; and others relate to Mânăstirea (Dl.Mânăstirii and Vf.Dl.Mânăstirii: the peak of Monastery Hill) and Murăturile (V.Murăturilor). Muşcel gives rise to Muşcel–În Vf.Pe, Pl.Muşcelului; V.Muşcelului and Vf.Muşcelului; while Orjani appears as Dl.Orjanilor and V.Orjanilor; and there are


numerous mentions for Valea Viei: Fn.Viei, Pr.Viei; V.Viei, Vf.Viei and Vf.Dl.Viei (i.e. the peak of Dl.Viei). Pătârlagele also appears as Ci/I.Pătârlagii, Fa.Mare a Muşcelului (Pătârlagelor); Mş, Pl, Pt, and Vf. Pătârlagelor as well as V.Pătărlaci and V. Pătârlagele.

4.3.2 Other Placenames: Sources and Interpretation Many other have names have been collected from relevant publications and also

from oral evidence, as noted elsewhere for the Pătârlagele Depression as a whole (N.Muică & Turnock 2008). The most useful sources are the topographical maps which comprise the two most recent editions of the Romanian ‘HartaTopografică’ produced by the Armed Forces Ministry in 1961 and 1980 at a scale of 1:50,000; but also the previous editions at a scale of 1:100,000 in 1906, 1916 and 1941 as well as a 1:50,000 provisional edition in 1900. For the nineteenth century the Austrian ‘General Karte von Central Europe’ is available for 1881, along with earlier Austrian maps on Wallachia for 1864 – based on data collected from 1856 (Fligely 1857) – and 1867; not to mention ‘Harta Terri Românesci’ compiled from the Austrian source material in 1861. Earlier maps give very little information on the area but the Specht (1790-1) already mentioned has some relevance. There are also a number of writings that mention many of the local placenames: Iorgulescu (1881, 1892) is an outstanding nineteenth century source while the physical geography papers by Bălteanu (1983) and N.Muică (1977) are also useful; along with the Agriculture Ministry’s ‘Dicţionar Statistic’ with 1912 data (Ministerul Agriculturii şi Domeniilor 1914) and Petrescu-Burloiu’s work in the Subcarpathians (1977) already noted. Clearly the origin of the names used for many landscape features and specific agricultural spaces is a matter for speculation, but the fact that most of the relevant settlements were initiated in the nineteenth century suggests that many of the names date to this period. Our research has produced 179 named features and locations (in addition to the village names already discussed) of which 84 are supported by documents while 95 are known through oral evidence only. Of the 84, 46 have only one source; while 29 have two to five sources; seven have six to ten sources (Dl.Murăturilor and Vf.Muşcelului with six; Pl.Muşcelului with seven; Chichilă and Vf.Cremenişului with eight; and Pt.Scrisă and V.Muşcelului with nine); while only two have more: Vf.Cătinei with 13 and Vf.Cornetului with 15. Clearly the prominent hills attract most attention while the streams are rather less striking: V.Viei attracts only four references. As regards the sources the most prolific are those of 1892 with 36 names; 1900 with 33; 1977 (N.Muică) with 28; 1881 (Iorgulescu) with 25; 1961, 1980 and 1983 each with 16; 1916 and 1941 with 10. There are eight references in 1864; seven in 1906; six in 1912; two each in 1790, 1861, 1867 and 1977 (Petrescu-Burloiu) plus one each for 1881 (General Karte) and 1983: a total of 221 references.

The derivation is usually from Romanian but there are exceptions in the cases of I.Padinei (valley spring) which comes from ‘padina’: the Slavonic word for a valley (Candrea 1931, p.884); while Vf.Cremenişului alludes to a deforested peak strewn with with fragments of silicious stone indicated by ‘cremene’ (meaning quartz) comes from the Old Slav ‘kremeni’ (Ibid, p.351); and Priporu, the name of a steep slope above Malul Alb, comes from the Russian ‘priporu’ and the Ruthenian ‘prypir’ (Ibid, pp.1004-5). Slemnea or Pl.Slemnea is a summit with a road, derived from the Serbian word for a summit ‘slem’ (Ibid, p.1162) near Vf.Pinişorului; I.cu Sânger (the valley with a red or blooded twig) comes from the botanical name Cornus sanguinea; and La Ştubeu: ‘at the well’ – relating to a spring in a tree hollow on Dl.Colon – relates to the Ruthenian ‘stub’(Ibid,


p..1260;Academia 1996-8, p.1062). Most of the names may be taken literally but this is not always the case. A narrow gap between two small conical hills (Pitileacu Mare/Mic) has been ironically likened to a cellar entrance belonging to a person (now unknown) called Pitileac: thus Gr.Pitileacului with the alternative ‘Gârlici-Pe’ using the word commonly used for an entrance in southern Moldavia. There are curious allusions to religious communities in remote places. Thus Mânăstire-La (‘at the monastery’) and V.Mânăstirii (monastery valley) suggest evidence of a former community in the Muşcel area (above Brusturişu) but, as previously noted, there is no documentary proof and the names cannot be taken at face value, though the name could relate to land formerly owned by monastery situated elsewhere. Other misleading references are Călugăriţe La (‘at the nuns’) for a place below a rocky precipice at Fundăturile (already mentioned); while Chilii-La (‘at the cells’) relates to a col between Dl.Viei and Dl.Murăturilor where there is a wayside cross (Cr.Banului) but certainly no cell structure. Meanwhile Cetăţuia (the diminutive form of ’cetate’), used as an alternative name for Chichilă (a prominent hill north of Crâng), is popularly assumed to be a ruined fortress although it is entirely a natural feature and although it is a potential strongpoint, associated by Iorgulescu (1892, p.155) with a struggle between Turks and Arvats, the same author (Ibid, p.381) quite explicitly denied the existence of a fortress; a point repeated by Petrescu-Burloiu (1977. p.139).

G.Pietrarului (stone cutter’s hollow) relates to a small quarry north of Crâng) where stone was obtained to pave the local church, but the spring at Fundăturile: I.La Olari: (‘at the potters’ spring) has no known connection with potters; while at Vf.Vătalei (‘peak of ‘vătele’) the implied availability of reed for plaiting is quite inappropriate. Sm.la Voica is a brine spring at Voica’s home, but there could not have been a house at this place which is just below Ma.Alb. Cb.Corbului exists in a remote place in old woodland west of Calea Chiojdului where a raven’s nest might plausibly have existed occasionally; but Liliac-La (‘at the lilac’) relates to a site near Poiana that is clearly not good for such a tree; and while Plop-La (‘at the poplar’) once referred correctly to a single large tree near Crâng beside the Pătârlagele road, the name is less appropriate now that many young poplars exist at this place. C.cu Scumpie means the hillside with smoke trees (Cottinus coggygria) just north of Calea Chiojdului but the name no longer makes sense in what is now a pine forest. Again, there are no willows now at V/G.cu Salcie. Scumpii-Între literally refers to a sheltered areas between two steeply-sloping hills, offering warm, dry conditions for wig trees, but the name is actually used illogically to indicate a slope; the name V.Bobeica indicates a deep, narrow valley but this is really an exaggeration; and finally Pt.Scrisă means the peak of the writing stone, but there is no large stone here, although the peak stands out as a prominent landmark

Broadly speaking the oral and documentary evidence can be reconciled with agreement over both the names and the features to which they apply. Clearly the oral evidence is of fundamental importance, being absolutely indigenous and also comprehensive whereas the documentary evidence is highly selective and appears to develop through widespread copying by each publication from its predecessors rather than by the engagement of surveyors with local people. Locations may be different between documents and local convention: thus Vn.Sărată which is shown erroneously on some maps as lying northwest of Murăturile instead of the southeast; while V.Saramura is incorrectly used in1900 for I.Duru due to confusion over the confluence of the two streams. On some maps (e.g. 1983) Dl.Mănăstirii is restricted to the area from the col (with the


former hermitage) to Ţ.Luncii, while local people associate it with the land from the foot of Cornet hill extending to Ţ.Luncii; and in the same area where Dl.Râpile is suggested from map evidence to be an alternative name for Mu.Niţului (the summit of Niţu) local people relate it to a completely different place 0.5km further south above the cold spring of Mânăstirea. Another case is Vf.Monte – the peak of the mountain – recorded first in 1790 (as M.Mare, actually Montele Mare) in the place of Vf.Muşcelului, whereas in 1861 the same name was used for a feature on the opposite side of V.Mardare which could be either the Chichilău peak or Dl.Mirodina. Much confusion can arise from the widespread use of alternative names for specific features which goes way beyond the reconciliation of documentary and oral evidence. In fact ignoring trivial variations (arising in many cases from successive spelling reforms of which the most recent relate to the cancellation of the changes made early in the communist period) there are 29 cases in the study area: 22 where two names are involved, while five cases involve three names and in two cases there are four. Minor vartiations occur between I.cu Brad and V.Bradului; Ghezura and Vezura, involving the use of dialect; and Vf.La Maican, Măicănese and Vf.Maicanului which all relate to a person named Maican.

There are quite distinct local alternatives over Ma.Alb and Ma.Bălan; Cetăţuia and Chichila (involving the mythical fortress); Vf.Ciortăniţei and Mu.Fluturi; F.Coastei and Ma.Feţii; I.Dorobanţului and V.Izvorului local alternatives (but only for the upper section); I.Fundăturilor, I.Tatomirului and I.Urzuitului; Vf.Huzuit, Vf.Urzuitului, M.Mare and Vf.Muşcelului; În Vf.la A.Lupenilor and Muscel-In.Vf.Pe; and Cu.Magurici and Vf.Dl.Mânăstirii. Several instances arise where old names have been superseded. Thus Vf.Cătinei is now used rather than Ca.Neamţului and M.Titila; Vf.Cremenişului is preferred to the old names Lz.Cheii/Lutii; while Dl.Orjanilor replaces the historic version based on Horjan. V.Saramura is preferred to V.Botii; La Trei Izvoare has superseded Fn.Vladei/Vladii and Vf.Muşcelului replaces M.Mare used by Specht in 1790! Local usage is preferred to map evidence in the case of I.Mare over V.Orjanilor; while Mu.Niţului is preferred to the published names: Dl.Râchei in 1900; Dl.Rîchie in 1961 and Dl.Rîpile in 1980. A local name Drăgulin used for a hill at Malul Alb has been confused with the General Dragalina of First World War fame; while the well-understood V.Muşcelului has been confused by a strange invention of V.Pătârlage made by Iorgulescu (1885). And finally there are several cases where variations arise from different community conventions: hence Pt.Albă and Mu.Înaltă; Vf.Botii and Dl/Vf.Rezei (actually relating to different sides of the same hill); Fifileţu and Hihileţu; Garlici Pe and Gr.Pitileacului; Mocanca and Mocanu; Dl.Murătuile and Pl.Stroeştilor; and finally a complex case relating to Vf.Dl.Viei (the peak of Dl.Viei) which is alternatively known as Vf.La Maiag and Pt.Şoimului by people in Valea Viei in contrast to Vf.Viei used by people in V.Muşcelului who cannot see the true Vf.Viei.

4.3.3 Review of Placenames: Personal Names Many names relate to people and although the vast majority have been forgotten:

some at least must have been important in their time given the multiple references to Bota (and to a lesser extent Maican, Mardale and Mirioara). Many could relate to small landholdings e.g. V.Ghiceanului (after Ghicean) comprising the small Saramura valley on the southern edge of the Muşcel basin. However Duru (appearing as I.La Duru) is a Hungarian name that could refer back to Ungureni migrants and it is the former Duru family home that is referred to by the name C.Odăii (‘the slope with the room’ meaning a


house). The same Transylvanian influence emerges with the names Mocanu-M (Mocan’s mountain, alluding to a Transylvanian shepherd) and Mocanca (a shepherd’s farm). However the Ungureni are also credited with the introduction of viticulture with which both V.Viei and the village (Valea Viei) were closely associated until the phylloxera epidemic. Geangu is an interesting case: although the name is not known in the area today, it suggests a Roma connection which makes sense because it marks the place in Valea Viei where one of the footpaths to Mânăstirea leaves the principal trackway along the valley. Drăgulin and the confusion with Dragalina has already been noted; while we have the alternative nicknames Fifileţu and Hihileţu applied to a small, isolated, conical ‘volcanic’ hill at Brusturişu. Indeed there are some cases where it is impossible to discriminate between a proper name (first name or family name) and a nickname. However a clear case of the latter arises with I.Trăistoaiei meaning the brook or spring of the large bag (one of minor streams of the Muşcel system marking the Fundăturile/Muşcel boundary – and also the commune boundary between the Pătârlagele and Valea Muşcelului communes before 1968 when Fundăturile was part of the old Pătârlagele commune). The name derives from the word ‘traistă’ and is a highly unflattering reference to a local woman.

Tab. 3 Placenames: Physical Features.

Toponime: caracteristici fizicie MOUNTAINS: Lz.Cheii (clearing of the gorge: ref.hilltop with fragments of

siliceous stone); Vf.Cremenişului (peak with fragments of siliceous stone); Chichila (steep hill); Cp.Dealului (head of the hill); C.Ma/Cp.Ma/Dl.Mu/Ma.Fetii (crest/hill etc. with steep slope); Po.lui Huhiu+; Mu.Înaltă (high summit); Cu.Măguricii (small hill summit); Muchiuliţa (little crest/summit); Pod-Pe (‘on the plateau or ‘şeţu’); M/Mu/Pt.Mare (great mountain/ridge etc); Dl.Râpelor (hill of the precipice); Pt.Scrisă (peak of the writing stone)

PRECIPICES: Ma.Alb (white precipice); Pt.Albă (white stone); Rp.Albă La (‘at the white precipice’); Ma.Bălan (white precipice); Chilii-La (‘at the cells’); F.Coastei (face of the slope); Ma/Rp.Galbenă (yellowish slope); Gârlici-Pe (‘cellar entrance’: narrow cleft between hills); Gogonu (‘gogon’: doughnut-shaped depression); Gr.Pitileacului+; Ma.Mare (great precipice); C.la Predaru+; Priporu (steep slope); Rupturi-În/Rupturiu (‘in the tears’); M.Titila (possible confusion with ‘Chichila’: a steep slope)

DRAINAGE: V.Bobeica (deep/narrow valley); Broşteanca (good for frogs); L.lui Dedu+; Gu.Glodului (mudflow); Lac-La/Lacuri-La (‘at the lake/lakes’); Lac-La Pe Vârf (‘at the lake on the hill’); I.Mare (great brook); L-al Mare (great lake); Mociorniţa (a wet area with black soil); V.Pâclelor/Pâcle-În (mud springs); I.Padinei (valley spring); I.Rău (bad brook); V.Rece (cold valley); I.cu Sânger (red valley); V.Saramura/Sărată/Sărăturei (salt valley); L.Scumpiei (smoke tree lake); I.La Surlă (brook of the ‘surlă’ or refuge); Trei Izvoare-La (at the three brooks/spings)

PLANTS: La Altoaie/Vf.La Altoaie (‘on the peak at the stock plant’); C.cu Căpşuni (wild strawberries); Vf.

Cătinei (buckthorn peak); C.cu Felicia (ferns); G.Leurdişului (bear’s garlic); Trestioara (common reed).

BIRDS/ANIMALS: Dl.Colon/Vf.Colonului (hill of the wild ass); Cb.Corbului (the raven’s nest); Ghezura/Vezura (badger brook); Mu.Fluturi (summit of butterflies); Pt. Şoimului (‘at the stone of the falcon’).

WOODLAND: Aninişu (forest of the alder); Pd.Balosin+; I.cu Brad/Vf.cu


Brad/V.Bradului (fir tree); I/V.Brăduleţului (small fir tree); Copăcel (small tree); Dl/Vf.Cornetului (cornel tree); Pd.Creţuleştii+; Gorânişu/Vf.Gorânului (hill/peak of the evergreen oak); Liliac-La (‘at the lilac’); Vf. Pinişorului/La Pinişor (peak of the little pine); Pp.de la Plop (poplar tree on a steep slope); Plop-La (‘at the poplar’); V/G.cu Salcie (white willow); Fd.Scumpie/Scumpiei (back side of a surface with smoke trees); C.cu/Fd.Scumpie (surface with smoke trees); Scumpii-Între (smoke trees between hillslopes); Pd.Vărbilei (Vărbila forest)

+ denotes a name relating to a family or personal name or nickname mentioned in Table 4. + indică un nume legat de o families au un nume de persoană sau poreclă menţionată în tabelul 4.

Specific features are abbreviated as follows (using the singular/indefinite article):

Arie (A): outdoor threshing floor; Bâlcă (B): small water-filled hollow; Cap (Cp): hilltop; Cuib (Cb): nest; Ciuciur (Ci): spring; Coastă (C): hillslope; Cruce (Cr): wayside cross; Culme (Cu): ridge; Deal (Dl): hill; Dos (D): north-facing slope; Depresiune (Dp): depression; Drum (Dr): road; Fag (Fg): beech tree; Fâneaţă (Fa): hayland; Fântână (Fn): well; Faţă (F): south-facing slope; Fund (Fd): back side; Gârlă (Gâ): marshy brook; Groapă (G): small hollow; Gură (Gu): mouth of a stream; Hotar (H): boundary; Izvor (I): commonly a spring but often used for a little brook; Lac (L): lake; Laz (Lz): recently deforested area; Luncă (Lu): floodplain; Munte (M): mountain; Mal (Ma): precipice; Moară (Mo): mill; Muchie (Mu): crest; Muşcel (Mş): gentle slope with landslides; Obor (O): cattle farm; Odae (Od): sheep farm; Pădure (Pd): woodland; Pârâu (P): small stream; Piatra (Pt): rock; Pisc (Ps): ridge or peak ; Plai (Pl): near-horizontal surface (perhaps with some undulation); Poartă (Pr): gate or entrance; Pod (Po): horizontal surface or a step on a hillside; Poiana (Pn): clearing; Pom (Pm): fruit tree; Pripor (Pp): steep slope; Puţ (Pu): well; Râpă (Rp): precipice; Râu (R): river; Ruptură (Ru): tear, occurruing in areas with young landslides; Saramură (Sm): salty spring; Stână (Sn): pasture station; Talpă (T): pavement;: Ţarină (Ţ): agricultural land; Vale (V): valley which may be small, with no permanent stream; Vână (Vn): spring but it may also refer to a brook;Vârf (Vf): peak.

4.3.4 Review of Placenames: Physical Features The names tell us much about the physical nature of the higher ground that has

been substantially re-evaluated during the last two centuries (Table 3). Specific surfaces typically have their own names that may reflect their varied agricultural possibilities. Hilltops may consist of smooth crests with a well-developed soil with a high agricultural potential. But some have only a thin soil like Po.lui Huhiu which is a small horizontal surface north of Brusturişu and northeast of Cp.Dealului; while Pod-Pe (from the Old Slav ‘pod’) refers to the small ‘step’ or geomorphological terrace at Mânăstirea between Vf.Cornetului and Mu.Niţului. Rocky summits typically support only woodland e.g. the wooded Vf. Pinişorului/La Pinişor (at Malul Alb) which alludes to pine trees in a diminutive form. But others have been cleared without particularly good result e.g. Vf.Cremenişului (835m), known for its stoney surface (already noted) which has been deforested as implied by the alternative names of Lz.Cheii and Laďu(Lazu)Luţii. Such surfaces may therefore revert to a poor vegetation cover as indicated by name Vf.Cătinei which means buckthorn peak, siuated above Stroeşti. Fundamental however is the distinction between north- and south-facing slopes. For example, at Stroesti, Dl.F.Botii/F.Botii – the south-facing.slope of Bota – complements the north-facing slope of Pl.Botii or Dl.Rezii; but while the former usually have greater potential this is not always


the case because at Fundăturile F.Coastei (‘the face or south-facing slope’: a topoclimatic name alluding to the strong southerly orientation) – also known as Mu.Feţii: the summit of the face – is a dry, rocky precipice with a poor vegetation. As for north-facing slopes we have the example at Mânăstirea of Dostină or Doştina, applying logically to the shaded side of Dl.Mânăstirii. Substantial clearances have been made, as indicated by ‘Poiana’ (Pn) and ‘Lazu’ (Lz) with the latter a particularly good indicator of ‘recent’clearance: e.g. Lz/Pn.Cheii (the clearing of the gorge). Meanwhile Seciu indicates land deforested by ‘seciuire’ i.e removing a ring of bark from the tree trunk: hence I.Seciului (meaning ‘a spring on deforested land’) at Stroeşti. Clearing names are often associated with particular people: e.g. Pn.Hozii (Hosa’s clearing) is a long-established and well-known clearing on old landslides used for fruit trees owned by local Roma at Mânăstirea (indeed during the communist period a local festival was held there on the Tuesday or Thursday after Easter). However, substantial areas of forest remain e.g. Aninişu is the forest of the alder tree (at the foot of Vf.Vătale) while Pd.Creţuleştii – Creţuleasca’s forest – lies northwest of Mânăstirea on the northeastern part of Vf.Cornetului and Vf.Vătalei. Pd.Vărbilei – the forest of Vărbilau (after the monastery in Prahova) – is situated in the northeastern part of Vf. Cornetului near Stroeşti. In addition woodland has been increased under communism at places such as Dl.Mânăstirii, as well as sites above Muşcel. Meanwhile, conditions in the valleys are highly variable as regards the quality of the land: steepness, smoothness and available moisture. A particularly rough valley may well be called a bad valley e.g. I.Rău at Muşcel and Stroeşti. Some valleys may also have reputation for coldness e.g. V.Rece (the cold valley) at Mânăstirea in the upper part of a valley on the eastern side of Dl.Cornetului (albeit with a good water spring).

As regards the landslides, references to a precipice are very common typically (though not always) in the sense that young landslides are sourced under such circumstances. Rupturi-În/Rupturiu (‘in the tears’) appears north of Brusturişu; also C.Ma.Feţii (the top of the precipice of the face i.e. F.Coastei) and Cp.Ma.Feţii (at the edge of the precipice) but the outstanding feature is Ma.Alb (the white precipice) – with an alternative name of Mu.Bălan, which has the same meaning – developed on non-resistant sandstone. At Mânăstirea Dl.Râpilor (the hill of the precipices) is a branch of Vf.Cornetului extending to Dl.Mânăstiirii (part of the summit known locally as Mu.Niţului). Landslides are typically distinguished by references to their varied potentials of landslides e.g. in V.Viei, Gârlici-Pe means literally a cellar entrance (following southern Moldavian usage) but the expression is used to convey the idea of a small narrow ‘gorge’ with landslides situated between two prominent hillocks that protrude like ‘nunataks’ near Stroeşti. Reference should also be made to depressions or ‘hollows’ often highlighted as ‘Gropi’ (the hollows). At Calea Chiojdului, Leurdiş/G.Leurdişului (the hollow place of the leurdiş – from the ‘leurdă’ plant or bear’s garlic) is a particularly appropriate name for a short, wide valley with landslides and a moist soil. Also G.cu Salcie (the hollow with the white willow tree) is known at Brusturişu (V.Muşcelului) while G.Duşilor (Duşi’s hollow) lies in the same area north of Malul Alb in a valley cut in clay strata between vertically-inclined resistant but porous rock. Gogonu relates to a vault or depression on the upper part of Dl.Viei reminiscent of a ‘gogon’ with a semi-ellipsoidal form like a doughnut. Mociorniţa relates to a wet but stable landslide area with a moist black soil resting on marl occurring at Mu.Pătârlagelor near Fundăturile and also at Mânăstirea. There is also the name Broşteanca (derived from ‘broască/broaşte’ meaning a frog): very appropriate for a place where moist


soil in spring provides a good environmnent for frogs. On the other hand, L.Scumpiei, on old landslides near Calea Chiojdului, is named Scumpii-Între (between the smoke trees) referring to a slope on landslides presumably so named after the dry, warm soils required for this tree had been quite forgotten!

Tab. 4 Placenames: Human Geography.

Toponime: geografie umană. PERSONS: M/Pd.Balosin and Balosinul Mare/Mic (Balosin); L.lui Bănică;

Dl.Botii F.Boţii, Pl.Botii V.Botii, Vf.Botii (Bota); Vf.Ciortăniţei (Ciortăniţa); I.La Crângani; Pd.Creţuleştii (Creţuleasca); L.lui Dedu/Inul Dedului (Dedu); Drăgulin/Dragalina; La Duru/I.La Duru; Ps.lui Duţă; Fifileţu/Hihileţu; Geangu; V. Ghiceanului (Ghicean); I.lui Hodorog; Pn.Hozii: (Hosa); Po.lui Huhui; Vf.Huzuit/Urzuitului (Huzuit/Urzuit); Lz.Luţii (Luţa); Vf.La Maican; I.Maloteasa; V.Mardale; I.lui Matei; V.Mirioara; Pl.Mirioarei (Mirioara); Mociorniţa; Mu.Niţului (Niţu); Pi.Oancei (Oancea); Gr.Pitileacului/I.Pitileac /Pitileacu Mare/Mic (Pitileac); C.La Predaru; Dl.Rezei (Reza); Ps.Staicului (Staicu); Vf.Tatomir/I.Tatomirului (Tatomir); V.Telonului (Telon); I.Trăistoaiei (Traistă); Mu.lui Turcan; I.Urzuitului (Urzuit); I/Fn.Vladei (Vlada); Sm.la Voica;

CROPS/FRUIT: Arie-La (‘at the threshing floor’); Arie-La pe Mu (‘at the threshing place on the peak’); În Vârf la Aria Lupenilor (‘at the threshing place belonging to Valea Lupului’); Inul Dedului (Dedu’s flax); Inărie-La (‘at the flax’); Leurdiş/G/I.Leurdişului (bear’s garlic); Ţ.Luncii (terrace/plateau); Vf.La Maiag (‘at the maize’); Pi.Oancei+; Ogoare-La (‘at the cultivated land’); Ogradă-Pe (‘on the old garden ground’); Pr.Ţarinei (Ţarină Gate); Vărzăria (cabbage garden); Pr.Viei (vineyard gate); I.Zmeurişului (spring with raspberry bushes)

LIVESTOCK/PASTURE: O.Cailor (horse pen); Cotinele-La (‘at the pigsty’); Fâneaţă (hayland); Pr.Fâneţii (Hayfield Gate); Fa.Mare a Muşcelului (Pătârlagelor) (great hayfield); Mocanca (shepherd’s farm); Mocanu-M (shepherd’s mountain); Scumpii-Între (sheltered ground between steeply-sloping hills); Ps.Stânii (summit with sheepfold); I.La Surlă (conical shepherd’s refuge);

HANDICRAFTS: L.lui Bănică (flax retting); Gâ.Lemnarului (referring to a carpenter); L-al Mare (great lake - for retting); La Olari (potters’ spring); G.Pietrarului (stone cutter’s hollow); Povarnă-La (‘at the brandy distillery’); Vf.Vătalei (‘vătele’: reed for plaiting);

ROUTES: Pr.Fâneţii (Hayfield Gate); Pl.Muşcelului (wooded hilltop with cart track); Pl.Pătârlagelor (summit with route to Pătârlagele); Plai-În (‘on the summit road’); Pp.de la Plop (path on a steep slope); Priporu (steep

Slope with cart track); Pl.Slemnea (summit with a track); Pr.Ţarinei (Ţarină Gate); Pr.Viei (Vineyard Gate)

RELIGION: Cr.Banului (cross of the ban: a high official); Călugăriţe La (‘at the nuns’); Ciumaţi-La (brook named after a burial of plague victims); Cr.din Curmătura-La (cross from the col); Mânăstire-La/V.Mânăstirii (at the monastery/monastery valley); I.Tămăduirii (religious name used for a spring).

WATER SOURCES: Pu.Dorobanţului (well of the Dorobanţi); Fântânele-La (‘at the little fountains dim.‘fântâna’) also I/Vf.Fântânelelor; V.Izvorului; Ci.Pătârlăgii; Vn.Puturoasă (sulphurous spring); Vn.Rece (cold spring);


V.Saramura/I.Sărat/V.Sărată/V.Sărăturei (salt spring etc); La Ştubeu (‘at the well’); Sm.la Voica+;

ASPECT: F.Coastei (face of the slope: a topoclimatic name derived from the strong southerly orientation of this dry precipice); Doştină (place on a north-facing slope); C.Ma.Fetii/Cp.Ma.Fetii/Dl.Fetii/Ma.Fetii/Mu.Fetii (south facing slope); Fd.Scumpie (back side with reference to smoke trees)

DEFORESTATION: Lz/Pn.Cheii (clearing of the gorge); Pn.Hozii+; Lz.Luţii+; I.Seciului (spring on deforested land)

OTHERS: Cetăţuia (small fortress); I/Ma/Pu.Dorobanţului (after the Dorobanţi or frontier troops based at Pătârlagele pre-1918; Vf.La Maiag (at the peak with a topographical mark); Ca.Neamţului (German topographical marker; possibly related to the Fligely survey of 1854-6); C.Odăii (slope of the room i.e. a house);

Rachiria (a word making no sense); Repaus-La (‘at the resting place of Mihai Viteazul’)

+ denotes names referring to persons that are also listed at the top +. For a key to the feature abbreviations see Table 3

+ denotă nume care se referă la personae menţionate la început. Pentru înţelegerea tabelului se va citi tabelul 3.

4.3.5 Reviewing the Placenames: Rural Life The historic alluvial farmlands – carrying the name ‘lunca’ (in the old sense of an

agricultural surface) or ‘ţarină’ – are found in each village to varying degrees e.g. Ţ.Luncii at Valea Viei relating to the 25-35m alluvial plain extending along the western side of the Buzău between the Muşcel, Viei and Gorneasca confluences below Dl.Viei and Dl.Mânăstirii. This was a historic ‘boiar’ interest until the land reform of 1923 when the simultaneous allocation of cereal lands on the Bărăgan allowed for some extension of orchards on this land which is broadly situated at Gu.Văii Viei where the narrow Viei valley meets the Buzău alluvial plain (though the name also indicates a source of water). However, ‘ţarină’ also occurs as Pr. Ţarinei – Ţarină Gate – arising from former practice of placing entrances on the edge of the village. Indeed Valea Viei also had a Pr.Fâneţii (Hayfield Gate) at the upper limit of the village while Pr.Viei (Vineyard Gate) gave access to vines maintained on the slopes of Dl.Viei prior to the phylloxera epidemic and traditionally associated with Ungureni settlers. However, there are names pointing to small domains established on high surfaces and landslides. In the Stroeşti area, Duru-La (‘at Duru’s farm’) recalls a Szekler settler from Transylvania, while C.Odăii (‘the slope of the room’) relates to the Duru family home. V.Ghiceanului – probably from the name Ghicean mentioned in 1864 in relation to V.Saramura near Murăturile – is a small property on the southern edge of Muşcel basin; complemented by V.Pătărlaci (also mentioned in 1864) which seems to suggest another domain around the Tatomir valley on the northern edge of the basin. This latter name clearly suggests a community of people from Pătârlagele and therby reinforces the historic link with Fundăturile. Agriculture here extended on to the smooth structural surfaces offering good topoclimatic conditions with dry, fresh air in contrast to the depressions. Names include Dl.Mânăstirii where today the emphasis is on hay, pasture and fruit growing with some partial return to woodland. But former agriculture is indicated by Vf.La Altoaie (‘on the peak at the stock plant’) near Crâng, but even more convincingly by evidence of threshing at an ‘aria’ where daught animals trampled the crop


at certain places in the fields before the chaff was removed by the wind using a wooden shovel. ‘Arie-La pe Mu.’ or ‘În Vf.la Arie’ point to a former threshing place near the summit of Dl.Mânăstirii. And particularly impressive are the two references to ‘În Vf. la A.Lupenilor’ (‘on the peak at the threshing place of the Lupeni’ i.e. natives of Valea Lupului) on land that they owned on Vf.Muşcelului: hence the alternative name ‘Muşcel-ÎnVf.Pe’ (‘on Muşcel peak at the threshing by the Lupeni’). Flax was also grown on the high surfaces – hence Inul Dedului (Dedu’s flax) relating to arable land near the summit above Malul Alb – while haymaking is indicated by ‘Fa.Mare a Muşcelului (Pătârlagelor)’: the great hayland of Muşcel situated on Mu.Pătârlagelor.

Cereals also used to be grown on young, unstable landslides where, once again, the present uses are for hay, pasture and orchards, including some resurgence of woodland e.g. Ţ.Văii Vie east of Dl.Viei. Other references include Ogoare-La (‘at the cultivated land’) which relates to hemp growing on Dl.Mânăstirea where Inărie-La (‘at the flax’) also occurs; also Ogradă-Pe (‘on the old garden ground’) suggesting very good agricultural land with fields and gardens close the village and a water supply. Surprisingly, the only reference to fruit is Pi.Oancei (Oancea’s plum tree) at Valea Viei where the village name alludes to the local vineyards of the past. Grazing is indicated by ‘Fâneaţă/Fâneaţa’ (hayland) on young landslides in the area of Orjani and Stroeşti/Valea Viei that would also have been used for fruit trees. Pr.Fâneţii may also be recalled in this connection. References to livestock include O.Cailor (the horse pen) recalling an ‘obor’ for monastery horses on the Ariniş landslide near Mânăstirea; while sheeprearing is indicated by Mocanu-M (Mocan’s mountain) recalling a Transylvanian shepherd (‘mocan’), while the female form – Mocanca – refers to shepherd’s farm at Mânăstirea where there was also some planting of vines. Ps.Stânii (the summit with a sheepfold) occurs on Dl.Viei, although there is no sheepfold there now; likewise in the case of Vf.Stânii (sheepfold peak) which also appears on Dl.Viei (close to Crâng) and also on Dl.Mânăstirii. I.La Surlă (the brook of the ‘surlă’: a conical shepherd’s refuge) occurs at Brusturişu. The once common practice of having all the pigs in a village grazing on common land is recalled through Cotineţe La (‘at the pigsty’) on the slope below the Mş.Lupenilor plateau north of Fundăturile. Water sources may be indicated through the term ‘izvor’ although the same word is often used locally for a small stream. However Ci.Pătârlăgii is an example of a strong, gushing spring where water appears to be spurting from a pipe. Salty water is usually most clearly distinguished e.g. at Stroeşti where we encounter Saramura or I.Sărat (salt water or a salt spring); also Sărăţel which is a diminutive form indicating a little salt brook) and V.Sărăturei which is the salt spring or valley. Other villages with such references in their localities are Murăturile, Muşcel and Stroeşti. While such salt water sources can be useful for cooking and pickling they are highlighted mainly because of their obvious drawbacks over watering livestock, while salt deposits on pastureland reduce the grazing potential.

Traditional activities are indicated by G.Pietrarului (stone cutter’s hollow) north of Crâng near Chichile peak, while there is a reference to Povarnă-La (‘at the brandy distillery’) which is still in regular use at Mihălceşti. Landslide hollows may hold small lakes often used in the past for retting flax and hemp: Lacuri-La (‘at the lakes’) occurs at Crâng on landslides above Sm.Murăturilor; also at Fundăturile near La Ogradă on landslides in the lower part of I.lui Tatomir. In a forest above Stroeşti, L-al Mare (the great lake) - documented as I.Rău in 1900 - was formerly valued for retting; as was L.lui Bănică (Bănică’s lake) in a similar situation. But for ValeaViei, Lac-La relates to a seasonally


marshy area on the Lunca Ţarinei below Dl.Viei. Finally, reference may be made to routeways accessing the higher ground e.g. Pl.Muşcelului (the ‘plai’ of Muşcel): an almost level wooded hilltop with a cart track; while Pl.Pătârlagelor indicates a summit crossed by routeway to Pătârlagele. Plai-În (‘on the summit road’) is encountered at Orjani; while Slemnea or Pl.Slemnea refers to a summit crossed by a trackway to Fundăturile. Ps.Ţiganului (Roma summit) relates to the hillslope falling from Vf.Muşcelului to V.Lupului with a former cart track for hay and other traffic connecting Muşcel with Valea Lupului. And routes may be highlighted with reference to wayside crosses e.g. the stone Cr.Banului (the cross of the ban: a high official) standing in the col where Dl.Murăturilor/Dl.Viei is crossed by the path between the Muşcel and Viei valleys. And above Fundăturile, Cr.din Curmătură-La (‘at the cross in the col’) stands by the trackway from Crivineni providing an alternative to the road along the Muşcel valley from Pătârlagele.

5. CONCLUSION

The paper has outlined the settlement history of the northwestern section of the

Pătâlagele Depression with particular reference to the major developments during the nineteenth century when permanent settlements were established on marginal land comprising the high structural surfaces and unstable landslides. Although such areas had previously been exploited through seasonal grazing based on temporary shelters (not to mention the hint of early monastic settlement at Mânăstirea) this was greatly developed by the ‘roirile’ that accompanied population increase and the rise of capitalism; enabling landowners to relocate some of their tenants away from the prime cereal lands. Thus while the Buzău valley became a highway with railway and national road access, hilly areas within a few kilometres could be reached only by paths and narrow trackways hazardous in bad weather. Much of this development remains in place although the dispersed settlement of Stroeşti is now heavily depopulated; while the inherent instability of the landslide surfaces will discourage attempts to build modern houses in future even if the access roads are improved for motor vehicles. But while the historical details have only limited documentary cover we have shown that there is a rich toponomy relating to landscape and land use in the area, even though there are drawbacks because the personal names are long forgotten and tracing them is almost impossible since many appear to be nicknames that are otherwise unrecorded. And while some names clearly do not sustain a literal interpretation the overall picture stands as a convincing evaluation of a challenging environment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Our study has been assisted by many local people Nistor Filon (Muşcel); Natalia

Ivan (Mânăstirea); Traian Popescu (Muşcel, later Valea Viei); Traian Ştefănescu (Muşcel).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Academia Română Institutul de Lincvistică ‘Iorgu Iordan’, (1996/1998), Dicţionar explicativ al limbii române (Bucharest: I.P. Univers Enciclopedic) 2nd edition


G.Angelescu, 1998, Începuturile şi evoluţia învăţământului în Judeţul Buzău până la 1900 (Buzău: MS CCD Library).

Anon ed. 1892, Analele parlamentare ale României: obicinuita obstească adunare a Térei Româneşti 1831-2 (Bucharest: Imprimeria Statului).

D.Bălteanu 1983, Experimentul de teren în geomorfologie aplicaţii la Subcarpatii Buzăului (Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR).

N.Baranovsky & I.Ştefănescu 1965, ‘Evoluţia numerică a populaţiei din Subcarpaţi dintre Slănicul Buzăului şi Dîmboviţa între anii 1835-1964’, Studii şi Cercetări: Geografie, 12(2), 299-306.

W.F. von Bauer 1778, Mémoires historiques et géographiques sur la Valachie (Frankfurt/Leipzig: Henry-Louis Broenner).

O.Bogdan & D.Bălteanu eds. 1986, Cercetări geografice asupra mediului înconjurator în Judeţul Buzău (Bucharest: Institut de Geografie).

O.Burlacu ed. 1979, Atlas geografic şi istoric al Judeţul Buzău (Buzău: Casa Judeţeană a Corpului Didactic).

I.A.Candrea 1931, Dicţionar encyclopedic ilustrat (Bucharest: Editura Cartea Românească).

L.Colescu 1905, Recensământul general al populaţiei României 1899: rezultate definitive (Bucharest: Institutul de Arte Grafice Eminescu).

H.Constantinescu 1987, Biserici de lemn din Eparhia Buzăului (Buzău: Editura Episcopiei Buzăului).

N.A.Constantinescu 1938, ‘Cele mai vechi ştiri din Judeţul Buzău’, Îngerul 10(4-5), 246-75.

F. Damé 1894, Recensământul copiilor în vîrstă de şcólă în comunele rurale (Bucharest: Lito-Tip. Carol Göbl) with 1893 data but no pagination.

N.Filon 1998, Monografia Satelor de pe Valea Muşcelului (Unpublished Manuscript) Fligely ed. 1856, Furstenthum Wallachei (Vienna: n.p). R.Gâlmeanu & A.M.Ionescu eds. 2002, Buzău: ghid monografic (Buzău: Editura

Anastasia-Ina). B.Iorgulescu 1881, Geografia Judeţului Buzău (Buzău: Tip.Alessandru Georgescu). B.Iorgulescu 1892, Dicţionar geografic statistic economic şi istoric al judeţului Buzău

(Bucharest: Socec). Ministerul Agriculturii şi Domeniilor 1914, Dicţionarul statistic al României 1912

(Bucharest: Institutul de Arte Grafice C.Sfetea). C.Muică & D.Bălteanu 1995, Relations between landslide dynamics and plant cover in

the Buzău Sub-Carpathians Revue Roumaine de Géographie 39, 41-7. C.Muică, I.Zăvoianu & N.Muică 1993, ‘Landscape changes in the Buzău

Subcarpathians’: C.Muică & D.Turnock eds., Geography and conservation (Bucharest: Geography Institute, International Geographical Seminars 1) 136-42.

N.Muică 1977, ‘Schimbări în reţeaua hidrografică secundară din împrejurimile Pătîrlagelor’, Studii şi Cercertări: Geografie 31, 105-10.

N.Muică, D.Nancu & D.Turnock 2000a, ‘Historical and contemporary aspects of pluriactivity in the Curvature Carpathians of Romania’, GeoJournal 50, 199-212

N.Muică & D.Turnock 1994, Living on landslides: the Subcarpathian districts of Buzău and Vrancea (Leicester: University of Leicester Department of Geography Occasional Paper 29).


N.Muică & D.Turnock 1997, ‘Pătârlagele: a key village in the Buzău Subcarpathians’, Analele Universităţii de Vest din Timişoara: Geografie 7, 115-28.

N.Muică & D.Turnock 2000, ‘Pluriactivity in the Buzău Subcarpathians: the case of plum brandy distilling’, Revue Roumaine de Géographie 43-44, 175-86.

Muica, N. & Turnock, D 2008, ‘A toponomical approach to the agrarian history of the Pătârlagele Depression’,

Journal of Studies & Research in Human Geography 2(2), 27-49. N.Muică & D.Turnock 2009, ‘Reconstructing the historical geography of settlement in

the Pătârlagele Depression of Romania’s Buzău valley’, Studii şi Cercetări de Geografie IN PRESS

N.Muică, D.Turnock & V.Urucu 2000b, ‘Coping strategies in rural areas of the Buzău Subcarpathians’, GeoJournal 50, 157-72.

D.Nancu & V.Alexandrescu 1993, ‘Formarea reţelei de aşezări rurale din Subcarpaţii de la Curbura: aspecte istorice şi toponomice’, Studii şi Cercetări de Geografie 40, 161-5.

G.Penelea 1973, Les foires de la Valachie pendant la période 1774-1848 (Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR).

I. Petrescu-Burloiu 1977, Subcarpaţii Buzăului: relaţii om-natura (Bucharest: Editura Litera).

Serviciul Geografic al Armatei 1916, Harta topografică 1:100,000 (Bucharest: Serviciul Geografic al Armatei).

O.Specht 1790-1, Militairische Carte der Kleinen oder Österreichischen und Grossen Walachie (Vienna: n.p.).

N.Stoica & N.Stoicescu 1983, ‘Aşezămîntele monahale din Episcopia Buzăului în trecut şi azi’: A. Plămădeală ed., Spiritualitate şi istorie la întorsura Carpaţilor (Buzău: Sectorul Cultural al Episcopiei Buzăului) II, 269-76.

N.Stoicescu 1970, Bibliografia localităţilor şi monumentelor feudale din România: Muntenia (Craiova: Mitropolia Olteniei).

E. Zaharescu 1923, 'Vechiul judeţ al Saacului in lumină istorică şi anthropogeografică’, Buletinul Sociatăţii Regale Române de Geografie 41, 147-73.


Fig. 1 The origin of settlements in the Pătârlagele Depression according to the earliest documentary evidence.

Originea aşezărilor în Depresiunea Pătârlage după cele mai vechi surse documentare.

Named settlements are those with a history of official existence in administrative

handbooks since the late nineteenth century. The dependencies: those in the study area are listed in the table. Localităţile menţionate sunt cele cu o existenţă oficială în documente administrative de la sfârşitul secolului XIX. Localităţile aparţinătoare din zona de studiu sunt menţionate în figură.


Fig. 2 The landscape of the Pătârlagele Depression. Peisajul Depresiunii Pătârlage.

The key for the coded dependencies is as follows:/localităţile aparţinătoare menţionate

numeric sunt: 1 Arvuneşti; 3 Băcioi; 4 Băia; 5 Băicuş; 6 Băjănii; 7 Balea; 10 Băşcureţ; 12 Bejani; 13 Benga; 14 Bogdăneşti; 17 Burduşoaia; 30 Dubroveşti; 34 Gorlani; 37 La Cătină; 40 La Odae; 42 Linie; 44 Luntrari; 48 Malul Alb (Pătârlagele); 51 Mânăstirea Cârnu; 52 Mărăcineni; 54 Mărunţişu Jitianu; 55 Mărunţişu Sibiesc; 56 Măţara; 58 Mlăcile; 59 Moara Sibicianului; 67 Panaieţi; 69 Pâslari; 71 Pătârlagele de Jos; 72 Pătârlagele de Sus; 73 Pe Crivină; 74 Pe Faţă; 75 Pe Muchie; 76 Pe Pisc; 77 Peste Gârlă; 78 Peste Izvor (Gornet); 79 Peste Izvor (Zahareşti); 82 Podul Viei; 83 Poduri; 85 Poiana; 90 Predeal; 91 Pripor; 92 Prundeni; 93 Racoş; 95 Redeny; 96 Robu; Rotărie; 98 Satu Nou; 102 Slabi; 106 Ţarină; 107 Ţarină de-din Jos; 111 Valea Gornetului; 118 Vlăiceşti.

settlement and toponomy in the ĂtÂrlagele...

Documents