MINORITIES IN OLTENIA CULTURAL STUDIES

Transcription

Coord. Carmen Ionela Ban]a
MINORITIES IN OLTENIA
CULTURAL STUDIES
Coord. Carmen Ionela Ban]a
MINORITIES IN OLTENIA
CULTURAL STUDIES
Bibliotheca Publishing House T@rgovi[te
2015
Coordonator:
Carmen Ionela Ban]a
Authors:
Nicolae Panea, Irineu Ion Popa, Dumitru Otovescu,
Alexandrina Mihaela Popescu, R#zvan Nicolae Stan,
George G\rle[teanu, Emil }\rcomnicu, Floren]a Simion,
Cornel B#losu, Gabriela Rusu, Gunnar Heiene, Solvor M. Latzen
Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Na]ionale a Rom@niei
Minorities in Oltenia : cultural studies / Nicolae Panea, Irineu Ion
Popa, Dumitru Otovescu, ..; coord.: Carmen Ionela Banţa. – T@rgovişte
Bibliotheca, 2015
ISBN 978-606-772-078-5
I. Panea, Nicolae
II. Popa, Irineu Ion
III. Otovescu, Dumitru
II. Banţa, Carmen (coord.)
323.1(498.2)
FOREWORD
This volume comprises a complex collection of studies that analyse the minorities in
Oltenia from a multidisciplinary point of view, at both the macro- and micro- levels. This
research was done within the project „Revitalisation and promotion of the Oltenia minorities
cultural heritage in the context of cultural diversity”, financed by means of a grant offered by
Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and the Romanian Government.
We have tried to make a relevant analysis of several ethnic groups in Oltenia in the
context of cultural pluralism and to cover a wide area of interdisciplinary research. Intended to
resemble a „puzzle”, the volume attempts to encompass most of the social and cultural
domains (law, religion, ethnology, ethnography, cultural anthropology) presented in a
coherent succession.
Thus, in his research on The Legal System and the Minorities, George Gîrleşteanu
states that his aim is to outline „the coordinates and the normative consequences of the nonlegal concept of minority within the legal system, from the point of view of the rights
guaranteed and of the legal protection offered to members of a minority group”. The reader is
to gain a legal „understanding” of the cultural, religious and linguistic identity of the national
minorities.
In order to have a general perception of The Promotion of the Human Person and of
His Inestimable Value in the Context of Cultural Diversity – Theological Principles, His
Eminence Irineu Ion Popa states that „considering the theological principles which
substantiate Christian anthropology in general and the Christian-Orthodox anthropology in
particular, it has been established that, irrespective of the social status, ethnicity or other
social, cultural or other differences, each human person has an inestimable value and therefore
has to be respected accordingly. Responsibility towards our fellow creatures is crucial, and our
own redemption depends on how it is fulfilled and realised”. All these can occur within the
current multicultural, globalising context, characterised by ethnic diversity, migration and
other realities that have various influences on the social environment and on our living
conditions.
The lengthy, thorough and very well documented study Historical and Ethnological
Aspects of the Oltenia Minorities: Beliefs, Customs and Traditions offers relevant and
nuanced information on the diachronic history of the settlement, continuity and socio-cultural
activities of the Oltenia minorities.
In order to have the clearest and most relevant research, the two authors (Emil
Tîrcomnicu şi Florenţa Simion) mention ab inition the ethnic minorities of the province,
stating how compact, how numerous or how scattered they have been. In fact, this data stands
proof of the socio-cultural and political relations established between the majority and the
minorities. Thus, there follows a thorough presentation of the Greek, Albanian, Bulgarian,
Macedonian, Jewish, Italian, German, Roma and Gipsy woodworker communities.
In the same context, the authors analyse eloquent and harmonious aspects related to
religion, mentalities, as well as to the psycho-social type of ethnic cohabitation and
communication. The research also includes rich, well-balanced ethno-folkloric data, which
proves the thorough, professional field research of the two specialists, as well as their
objective documentation.
The next survey included in the volume is Cornel Bălosu’s An Ethnographic Outline
of the Oltenia Minorities – Types of Dwellings, Activities, Architecture, Household Space
Management, Folk Costume. The research aims to reinterpret several rural communities of
ethnic minorities (or majorities – see Eibenthal and Sviniţa) by means of an objective,
5
nonprejudiced point of view, out of a constant wish to present reality in an open-minded and
objective manner. First and foremost, this „reality” concerns the identitary representation of
the other, starting from the traditional way of organising the household, moving on to
activities and ending with the spiritual values of the community. Field notes gathered during
the visits to the ethnic communities of the Serbians in Sviniţa and of the Czechs in Eibenthal
make up a lengthy analysis.
The authors of the interdisciplinary research The Socio-cultural Profile of the Oltenia
Minorities (Dumitru Otovescu, Alexandrina Mihaela Popescu şi Răzvan Nicolae Stan) use an
exemplary methodology, which has engendered equally valuable scientific results.
The pre-eminent aim of their endeavour is the identification of the system of values
specific to these minorities and their promotion within the cultural space of Oltenia by various
means of public communication.
By making use of an honest scientific approach and methodology, the researchers
analyse relevant data which certify the important aspects (social, cultural, religious and
political) in the life of the minorities and their coexistence with the majority.
The scientific observations refer to aspects related to demography, activities, types of
education, various situations of material and spiritual life, means of subsistence, the challenge
of facing society, psychosocial convergence, traditional cultures and their importance to the
group, group mentalities, social factors revealed by the rituals of passage, by wedding
traditions, by other rites and social order mentalities, the observation and reception of the idea
of tradition by all age groups, etc.
The volume is synthetically prefigured in Nicolae Panea’s Anthropological Outline,
where the suggested themes are essentialised. In his turn, the author makes use of
multidisciplinary research, which is understandably accompanied by field work. This study is
the one that, by means of an academic approach, may scientifically cover the entire theoretical
and practical context demanded by this project.
Research, claims the author, „can be considered a diagnosis” that not only relates to ”a
minority’s condition within the national context”, but also implies a comparison with other
European spaces that decided to solve the problem of minorities a long time ago and to this
purpose designed „integration grids” and implicitly grids „of formation and of coexistence” in
an administrative unit such as a Euroregion.
Case studies round the scientific segment of the volume. Thus, towards the end, there
are several personal stories of some representatives of the Oltenia minorities, presented by
Gabriela Rusu, who outlines them in a literary manner, this way increasing the emotional
perception of certain events and ontological experiences.
The survey of the Norwegian partners (Gunnar Heiene şi Solvor M. Lauritzen) nuances
the information on national minorities (especially the Roma population), in an attempt to
make a diachronic presentation of their presence in Norway, as well as „an X-ray” of their
status, different from the one in Romania.
In conclusion, we can say that the main idea of the volume is related to the wish to
rediscover, reunite with, reconsider and reintegrate THE OTHER, the one next to us, who is
similar to us, but at the same time different. Thus, the image of the other and the way in which
we see him are essential in a socio-cultural, existential and political relation.
The coexistence between the ethnic communities and the majority has triggered limits
and changes, feelings and resentment, acceptance and refusal, identification and
nonidentification, communication and lack of communication, violence or tolerance, intra
muros or extra muros.
We should also mention the fact that the outcomes of this project financed by
Norwegian funds include, besides this socio-cultural identity volume „The Oltenia Minorities.
6
Cultural Studies”, a consistent and hopefully valuable museum product – the multiethnic
exhibition hosted by the University of Craiova.
We wanted to create within the project a collection of museum artefacts aimed to
reanalyse the cultural history of the ethnic minorities in Oltenia, as a result of a museal
„narrative” that does not wish to imprison objects (patrimonial or not), but to open new doors
to cultural and scientific interpretation and to the acknowledgement of the history of
communities. It is, de facto, a display including instruments, significant objects, social and
political experiences, other written documents, images and museological adjuvants.
Therefore, for now, at least, the exhibition of the University of Craiova expresses,
reveals and gathers the characteristics and the cultural and mentalitary identity of those that
are next to us... whether Bulgarian, Roma, Albanian, Greek, Jewish, Czech, Serbian or of any
other ethnicity.
Unfortunately, instead of being fully illuminated, as it was supposed to, the 20th century
proved to be marked by tremendous ethnic grimness and „massacres”. In this context, any
project of this type is beneficial, not only as a remember, but also as a nuanced configuration
of a normal world that does not blatantly misuse the concepts of human and humanity.
CARMEN IONELA BANŢA, PhD

Project manager, reader, Faculty of Letters, University of Craiova, Romania.
7
5
THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND MINORITIES
GEORGE GÎRLEŞTEANU, PhD.
Abstract
The national or international legal system does not perceive minorities in a direct
manner, i.e. by attaching specific rights, but in an indirect manner, i.e. by guaranteeing certain
specific rights to persons belonging to a minority, in relation to the sociological criterion for
defining the latter concept. The present study endeavors to delineate the normative coordinates
and consequences of the non-legal concept of ‘minority’ in the field of law in the light of
guaranteed rights and the legal protection provided to persons belonging to minorities.
I. The Concept of ‘Minority’
The concept of ‘minority’1 is not specific to the legal system and is thus materialised by
means of appealing to sociological criteria such as race, nationality, ethnic origin, language,
religion, sex etc. that become the fundament for determining a minority. Confronted with the
necessity to regulate aspects related to the concept of ‘minority’, the legal system does not
offer a normative definition of ‘minority’, i.e. a legal definition, in spite of previous attempts
in this direction, especially at public international law level.
A. The United Nations System
These attempts, often put forth by international organisations such as The United
Nations, have the merit of drawing attention on certain elements that are a prerequisite for a
possible legal definition of the concept of ‘minority’.
Thus, as early as 1950 the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and
Protection of Minorities, United Nations, delineated the first coordinates of the concept as part
of a defining project, according to which the notion of ‘minority’ “includes only those nondominant groups of the population who possess and wish to preserve stable ethnic, religious or
linguistic traditions or characteristics, obviously different from those of the rest of the
population. Such minorities must correspondingly include a sufficient number of persons in
order to develop such characteristics. Members of such minorities must be loyal to the State
whose citizens they are” 2.
In a subsequent study carried out by Francesco Capotorti in 1979 within the frame of
the same Sub-Commission, ‘minority’ is defined as
A group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a State, in a non-dominant
position, whose members—being nationals of the State—possess ethnic, religious or linguistic
characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, if only implicitly, a
sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language3.
Moreover, in view of the same international body and on the conceptual basis of
Capotorti’s definition, two further attempts to define the concept can be drawn, the first in

Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Craiova, Romania
For further details with regard to the concept of minority please see Dan Claudiu Dănişor, Drept
constituţional şi instituţii politice. Vol. I. Teoria generală, C.H. Beck, Bucharest, 2007.
2
Marius Bălan, Statutul minorităţilor naţionale, Ed. Universităţii “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, Iaşi, 2013, p.
29; Bianca Selejan-Guţan, Comentariul art. 6 din Constituţia României, in Constituţia României. Comentariu pe articole, coord. Ioan Muraru, Elena Simina Tănăsescu, C.H. Beck, Bucharest, 2008, p. 64.
3
Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., p. 348; Bianca Selejan-Guţan, op.cit., p. 64.
1
9
1985, signed by Jules Deschênes according to whom a ‘minority’ is: ‘[a] group of citizens of a
State, constituting a numerical minority and in a non-dominant position in that state, endowed
with ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics which differ from those of the majority of the
population, having a sense of solidarity with one another, motivated, if only implicitly, by a
collective will to survive and whose aim is to achieve equality with the majority in fact and
law’, and the second in 1993, elaborated by Asbjørn Eide who considers that ‘[a] minority is
any group of persons resident within a sovereign State which constitutes less than half of the
population of the national society and whose members share common characteristics of an
ethnic, religious or linguistic nature that distinguish them from the rest of the population’4.
Nonetheless, such definitions of minority5 do not acquire normative character in the
international public law and are based on objective, numerical and sociological criteria, Jules
Deschênes alone having commendably accentuated a subjective facet of the concept, i.e. the
sense of solidarity with one another and the collective will to survive, as well as the minority’s
aim [...] to achieve equality with the majority in fact and law.
B. The European System and the National System
At EU institution level there have also been attempts to provide the concept of
‘minority’ with a normative definition. Thus, Recommendation 1133 (1990) adopted by the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a non-legal act, brings forth the concept of
‘national minorities’ defined as ‘separate or distinct groups, well defined and established on
the territory of a state, the members of which are nationals of that state and have certain
religious, linguistic, cultural or other characteristics which distinguish them from the majority
of the population’6.
The definition provided in the Recommendation has importance at the level of the
Romanian legal system, by taking view of its referencing in Decision 2 (2011) of the
Constitutional Court7, alongside Francesco Capotorti’s definition. Additionally, the Court
notes that the subjective and objective elements which characterize the notion of ‘minority’
represent prerequisites for the State’s obligation – all the more with regard to persons
belonging to national minorities – to respect and guarantee their right to identity. It hence
results that the State has both a negative obligation, of abstention, so as not to undermine,
through adopted measures the identity of persons belonging to minorities, as well as a positive
obligation, to support the maintenance and development of their identity, as part of the
universal cultural patrimony8.
The most significant act in the European system that endeavors to determine the
coordinates of the concept of ‘minority’ is, however, Recommendation 1201 (1993) of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, act by means of which an additional
protocol to the European Convention of Human Rights was expected9. Article 1 of the
Recommendation proposed a normative definition of the concept, as follows:
[…]‘national minority’ refers to a group of persons in a state who:
a. reside on the territory of that state and are citizens thereof;
b. maintain longstanding, firm and lasting ties with that state;
4
Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., p. 350.
Please also see Cristian Jura, Drepturile omului. Drepturile minorităţilor naţionale, C.H. Beck,
Bucharest, 2006.
6
Marius Bălan, op.cit., p. 31.
7
Published in the Official Gazette no 136 (February 23rd 2011).
8
Tudorel Toader, Constituţia României reflectată în jurisprudenţa constituţională, Hamangiu,
Bucharest, 2011, p. 10.
9
Gabriel Andreescu, Naţiuni şi minorităţi, Polirom, Iaşi, 2004, p. 102.
5
10
c. display distinctive ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic characteristics;
d. are sufficiently representative, although smaller in number than the rest of the
population of that state or of a region of that state;
e. are motivated by a concern to preserve together that which constitutes their common
identity, including their culture, their traditions, their religion or their language10.
Although the additional protocol to the Convention has not been concluded,
Recommendation 1201 presents paramount importance in the legal field in the light of
references made to it in some international law legal acts. In this way, the definition present at
Recommendation level may acquire normative character.
In the Romanian legal system, following the previously exposed mode, the definition
given to the concept of ‘national minority’ in Recommendation 1201 has acquired legal
character by referring to it in two international Treaties concluded with Romania, i.e. the
Treaty of Understanding, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness with Hungary – Article 15
corroborated with p. 3 of the Annex – and the Treaty of Understanding and Good
Neighborliness with Hungary – Article 13(1). Similarly, in case of both Treaties, the parts
have nonetheless convened that Recommendation 1201 does not refer to collective rights and
does not impose them the obligation to provide the mentioned persons with the right to a
special statute of territorial autonomy founded on ethnic criteria11.
Taking view of the fact that Article 11(2) of the Romanian Constitution of 1991
provides that ‘Treaties ratified by the Parliament are, according to law, part of the internal
law’, it hereby results that the ratification of the two Treaties led to the introduction into the
internal law of the definition given to ‘minority’, the coordinates enunciated at its level thus
becoming normative.
II. The Principle of Unity of the People and the Right to Identity of Persons
Belonging to National Minorities
A. The Principle of Unity of the People
The Romanian legal system, where according to Article 4(1) of the Constitution of
Romania the principle of unity of the people12 constitutes the fundament of the State – ‘The
State foundation is laid on the unity of the Romanian people and the solidarity of its citizens’ –,
excludes the possibility to attribute to minorities legal personality.
In the context of the indivisibility of the unitary Romanian State consecrated by Article
1(1) of the fundamental law, corroborated with the principle of equality of rights provided by
Article 16 of the Constitution, the principle of unity of the people has as main legal
consequence the interdiction of any differentiation between citizens on account of such criteria
as those exemplified in Article 4(2), i.e. race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion,
sex, opinion, political adherence, property or social origin13. Thus, this main legal
consequence prohibits legal division of the people in relation to the criteria enunciated by
Article 4(2), the people being legally constituted only of citizens, concepts such as that of
‘national, linguistic, cultural etc minority’ thus having but a purely sociological value and
being able to entail no legal consequence.
10
http://www.dri.gov.ro/recomandarea-nr-1201-cu-referire-la-un-protocol-aditional-la-conventiaeuropeana-a-drepturilor-omului-privind-drepturile-persoanelor-apartinand-minoritatilor-nationale/.
11
Dan Claudiu Dănişor, Constituţia României comentată. Titlul I. Principii generale, Universul Juridic,
Bucharest, 2009, p. 218; Gabriel Andreescu, op.cit., pp. 209-216.
12
For further details please see Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2007, p. 352.
13
For further details please see Nicolae Pavel, Egalitatea în drepturi şi nediscriminarea, Universul
Juridic, Bucharest, 2010.
11
It hence results that the indivisibility of the people prohibits the existence of some
minority rights, regardless of the establishment criterion of these minorities, whilst also
allowing the existence of some rights of persons belonging to minorities, in the context of the
guarantee of the right to identity, as laid down in Article 6 of the Constitution. Only natural or
legal persons can have rights which are recognized and guaranteed by the legal system, while
minorities, who are not legal entities and are consequently inexistent from a legal point of
view, cannot enjoy their own rights, i.e. collective rights in domains such as those enunciated
by Article 4(2) of the fundamental law.
The legal system does not establish rights which a collective body of persons could
benefit of, regardless of the setting up criteria of the collective body, but only rights belonging
to a subject of law constituted of a collective body of persons. Rights always belong to an
individually determined subject, even if it is constituted through the association of several
subjects of law. Minorities are not recognized by the legal systems as legal entities, thus
having the capacity of being conferred upon their own rights, due to the fact that ‘in order for
individual rights to become the rights of a national minority constituted as collective body
with its own legal personality, distinct from that of the individuals who make it up, it would be
necessary, through internal or international rules of law, to establish the procedural conditions
for their establishment and organization, the majority required to this end and the activities
that they are authorized to undertake in order to exercise their eventually recognized rights’14.
The legal system does not create this necessary legal frame, it can, however, ensure legal
protection of the structures that facilitate the exercise in the collective body of a minority
person’s right.
B. The Right to Identity of Persons Belonging to National Minorities
Article 6 of the Constitution of Romania lays down the right to identity of persons
belonging to national minorities, as follows:
(1) The State recognizes and guarantees the right of persons belonging to national
minorities to the preservation, development and expression of their ethnic, cultural, linguistic
and religious identity.
(2) The protection measures taken by the Romanian State for the preservation,
development and expression of identity of the persons belonging to national minorities shall
conform to the principle of equality and non-discrimination in relation to the other Romanian
citizens.
As it can be observed, the Constitution, in accordance with the individualist
fundamental principles of legal order (unity of the people, equality in rights and indivisibility
of sovereignty), lays down a right to identity that affirms as holder not the collective body of
persons, but the person belonging to the national minority.
1. The Holder of the Right to Identity: The Person Belonging to the National Minority
The constitutional disposition employs the term ‘person’, without making a distinction
between the natural person belonging to a national minority and the legal persons made up of
individuals belonging to a national minority. Therefore, an important legal issue lies in
determining whether legal persons belonging to national minorities can be holders of the right
to identity guaranteed by Article 6 of the Constitution and thus enjoy the legal protection
attached to it.
If we consider the Romanian constitutional context that guarantees only individual, not
collective rights, but also the fact that certain individual rights encompass a collective
14
Tudor Drăganu, Câteva consideraţii privind problema « drepturilor colective » ale minorităţilor
naţionale, Revista română de drepturile omului no 18/2000, p. 41.
12
exercise, the answer cannot be but affirmative, alongside a circumstantiated sense nonetheless.
Thus, legal persons constituted by natural persons belonging to a national minority are holder
of the right to identity guaranteed by Article 6 of the Constitution, if they ensure the frame of
common exercise of their members’ individual rights. Hence, legal protection of the right to
identity of a natural person belonging to a national minority attains greater efficiency by
guaranteeing the legal protection of the same right to a legal person whose member is the first.
This fact is also confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights (Metropolitan
Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, Application no. 45701/9915) who affirms that
effectivity of the freedom of religion can only be achieved if ‘the right of believers to freedom
of religion, which includes the right to manifest one’s religion in community with others,
encompasses the expectation that believers will be allowed to associate freely, without
arbitrary State intervention,’ so that this fact implies persons not be constrained to place
themselves without their consent into a sole legal person representing a religious belief, the
State thus infringing Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights by depriving the
Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia of legal personality16.
Thus, the term ‘person’ used in Article 6 of the Constitution makes reference both to
the natural, as well as to the legal person belonging to a national minority. It must, however,
be underlined, that this premise does not create the possibility of recognition for some
collective rights, but only for some individual rights belonging to a subject of law who can
require an individual or collective exercise.
At the same time, the constitutional disposition does not institute a simple enumeration
of the valences of law to identity guaranteed to persons belonging to a minority (ethnic,
cultural, linguistic and religious), but encompasses the main criteria for the establishment of a
minority whose members benefit from the protected right to identity. The enumeration must
necessarily be interpreted extensively, due to the fact that these criteria of minority
establishment do not have to be achieved cumulatively on the one hand, and because they are
not the only ones possible at normative level on the other hand, the State guaranteeing the
right to identity to persons belonging to minorities also on the basis of other criteria, such as
opinion, political adherence, sexual orientation etc.17
A person’s belonging to a minority may be determined either objectively, through the
existence of one of the above mentioned criteria, or subjectively, through the expression of the
person’s individual will to constitute him or herself as component of a certain minority. The
Constitution of Romania brings forth the subjective option, ‘due to the fact that adherence to a
minority must be the same as the adherence to the nation: subjectively determined’18. The
fundamental law prohibits discriminating legal treatment or persons’ legal privileges in
relation to their sociological adherence to a minority and guarantees their right to identity
without mandatorily, but rather voluntarily, assigning them to a minority. Hence, determining
a person’s adherence to a minority cannot be achieved but voluntarily, the State and other
subjects of law thereby having interdiction to assign a person to a minority on the basis of
objective criteria.
15
Please see the full text of the Decision at
http://host.uniroma3.it/progetti/cedir/cedir/Giur_doc/Corte_Stras/C_Metr_Bess_Moldova2001.pdf.
16
Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2009, p. 221.
17
Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2009, pp. 222-223.
18
13
2. The Object of the Right to Identity: The Identity Sphere
Article 6 of the Constitution of Romania lays down a right to identity whose object is
determined as having regard to the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of a person
belonging to a national minority. Thus, understanding the normative content of the right to
identity presupposes comprehending its four prescribed normative valences.
2.1. Ethnic Identity
The notion of ‘ethnicity’ is legally fluid and bivalent. The objective vision on ethnicity
is founded on the group’s objective traits, ethnic groups being those ‘communities which,
within a particular geographic area, speak mutually comprehensible languages and display
essentially similar forms of economic adaptation’19 or groups ‘which possess a common
territory and coordinately use force against others.’ The subjective vision on ethnicity targets
members’ subjective attitude towards adherence to the collective body, ethnicity thus being
regarded as a ‘social group whose members share sentiment of common origin, reclaim a
common and distinctive history and destiny and feel a particular direction of the collective
originality and solidarity’20. Thus, the fluidity of the concept of ‘ethnicity’ becomes
problematic in as far as the determination of the legal contour of ethnic identity is concerned21.
Nevertheless, a series of clarifications are required. Firstly, we must take into account
the fact that ethnic traits appear conjuncturally and evolutionarily via construction through
opposition, rather than by means of identifying certain common unchanged group
characteristics. Thus, a direct normative consequence is the prohibition imposed to the
constitutional law-maker or judge with regard to the enactment of a general definition given to
the concept that would limit it to certain particular characteristics22. Furthermore, the
protection constitutionally granted to the right to ethnic identity creates normative
consequences in the case of relation between different ethnic groups on the State’s territory, in
the sense of prohibiting their hierarchy. Additionally, legal protection granted to the ethnic
identity of persons belonging to a minority also guarantees access to the economic resources
necessary for the preservation of this identity by group members, and ensures the specific
economic behavior manner of these minority members23.
2.2 Cultural Identity
Just like the first aspect of identity, as presented in Article 6, cultural identity24 is
difficult to define, considering the integration of the general notion of ‘culture’, as well as the
impossibility to use certain specific elements of this identity, i.e. language or religion, due to
their benchmarking as distinct valences of the protected identity.
Professor Patrice Meyer Bisch, Université de Fribourg, had a significant contribution as
member in the Fribourg group responsible for drafting the Declaration on cultural rights to
throwing light on the key concept of ‘culture’ which ‘covers those values, beliefs, convictions,
languages, knowledge and the arts, traditions, institutions and ways of life through which a
person or a group expresses their humanity and the meaning they give to their existence and to
19
Ibid.
21
Please see Cristian Ionescu, Conceptul de identitate etnică. O perspectivă constituţională, Revista de
Drept Public no 3/2015, pp. 25-33.
22
23
For a detailed analysis of the concept and its normative consequences please see Dan Claudiu Dănişor,
op.cit., 2009, pp. 225-228.
24
For a detailed analysis on this aspect and on the position of cultural rights in the legal system please
see Laura-Maria Crăciunean, Protecţia drepturilor culturale în dreptul internaţional, C.H. Beck,
Bucharest, 2011.
20
14
their development’ (Article 2(a)) 25 and on the concept of ‘cultural identity’ as ‘the sum of all
cultural references through which a person, alone or in community with others, defines or
constitutes oneself, communicates and wishes to be recognized in one's dignity’ (Article 2(b))
26
. Although the definition is quite expansive, we consider that it should be taken into
consideration from the perspective of Article 6 of the Constitution of Romania.
Laying down the concept of ‘cultural identity’ has as corollary the legal protection of
the generic category of persons’ cultural rights at constitutional level, even if the constituent
has not expressly provided them in the fundamental law. The content of cultural identity
encompasses a conjunctural definition in relation to the actions and inactions which may affect
it27, so that this type of identity presupposes that ‘no one can pretend to define somebody’s
cultural identity in their place, nor deny them access to the necessary means to achieve it’28.
Thus, cultural rights, as means of achieving a person’s cultural identity, seem in turn to lack
concrete content and to be negatively defined, in the light of generic limitations imposed to the
other subjects of law so as not to affect them: on the one hand, the generic interdiction
imposed to all people to define a person’s guaranteed cultural identity in their place, and on
the other hand the generic interdiction imposed to all subjects of law to adversely affect or
restrict a person’s access, whose cultural identity is guaranteed, to the means through they can
build their own cultural identity29.
This negative manner of shaping the legal physiognomy of the right to cultural identity
of persons belonging to national minorities grants the holder of the right legal protection,
inclusively against the minority collective body they are part of, the person being alone
entitled to constructing this identity.
2.3. Religious Identity
A person’s religious identity is constitutionally guaranteed by dispositions laid down
by Article 29 – Freedom of conscience, as follows
(1) Freedom of thought, opinion and religious beliefs shall not be restricted in any
form whatsoever. No one shall be compelled to embrace an opinion or religion contrary to his
own convictions.
(2) Freedom of conscience is guaranteed; it must be manifested in a spirit of tolerance
and mutual respect.
(3) All religions shall be free and organized in accordance with their own statutes,
under the terms laid down by law.
(4) Any forms, means, acts or actions of religious enmity shall be prohibited in the
relationships among the cults.
(5) Religious cults shall be autonomous from the State and shall enjoy support from it,
including the facilitation of religious assistance in the army, in hospitals, prisons, homes and
orphanages.
(6) Parents or legal tutors have the right to ensure, in accordance with their own
convictions, the education of the minor children whose responsibility devolves on them.
25
Maria Moldoveanu, Respectarea drepturilor culturale I, Revista Caiete Critice no 10 (300)/2010, pp.
77-78 at http://caietecritice.fnsa.ro/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CC-10-2012.pdf
26
27
Ibid.
28
Patrice Meyer Bisch, Quatre dialectiques pour une identité, Revue de philosophie et sciences sociales
no 1/2000, p. 282 apud Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2009, p. 229.
29
15
Ensuring the identity of persons belonging to national minorities, as presented in
Article 6 of the Constitution has as consequence the principle of the State’s secularity, state
power being neither religious, anti-religious, nor areligious or neutral. Thus, the State’s
secularisation presupposes the reunification of three conditions: the secularisation of political
power, the State’s neutrality in relation to churches and the ensuring of the freedom of
conscience and cults30.
The secularisation of political power involves the inexistence of a influence of
churches on the State and its public services and the elimination of the political role of a
dominant church from public life. The principle therefore ensures the religious identity of
persons belonging to national minorities, by guaranteeing that a dominant church will not
influence political power to disfavor minority religions.
The State’s neutrality in relation to churches presupposes that the State refrains from
recognizing any cult. This, however, does not imply that the State does not admit cults, but
rather that practicing religion is no longer a public phenomenon. The State thus enters into an
obligation of neutrality from a religious stand. Neutrality can be negative which presupposes
the lack of any publically affirmed religious preference by the State, as well as the interdiction
to introduce any discrimination among persons on the basis of religious criteria. State
neutrality is also positive, the State hence intervening as arbitrator in the field of religious
cults, in the sense of granting all persons the possibility to exercise any religion, according to
their own preferences31.
2.4. Linguistic Identity
Linguistic identity guaranteed by Article 6 of the Constitution presupposes a right of
persons belonging to national minorities and not a means of protecting minority languages.
The exercise of this right to linguistic identity can only take view of a person’s private space,
and not of the public space, such as we will see next. Similarly, as in the case of religious
freedom, the State has an obligation to refrain itself in as far as the free use of minority
languages in a person’s private space is concerned32.
III. The Official Language, Minority Languages and Public Space
The constitutional establishment of a language as official language brings about in the
legal sphere a series of important normative consequences that are mandatorily imposed to
public power and that determine a certain structuring of the relationships among participants
to the public space.
The principle of pluralism, as condition and guarantee of constitutional democracy, as
well as supreme and universal value of social organization, imposes nonetheless the
coexistence in the State of several languages specific to the diverse group that make up the
people. In the democratic state, minority languages are generally recognized by positive law,
and the possibility to use them is guaranteed by the State.
It must thus be seen how these two institutions correlate and accommodate each other
in democracy: the official language on the one hand, and minority languages on the other
hand. Essentially, the concrete mode of coexistence of these two language categories shall be
reduced to the meaning assigned to the demos: the people as a large part expressed by the
principle of limited majority33. This meaning given to the demos mandatorily determines a
30
Ibid, p. 238.
32
For an in depth analysis please see Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2009, pp. 234-236.
33
For further details with regard to the meanings of the term ‘demos’ as people please see Dan Claudiu
Dănişor, op.cit., 2007, pp. 82-83.
31
16
certain degree of accommodation regarding the institutions called into question – the official
language, as direct expression of the majority has priority at the general level of State
organization, but the principle relativises through the very existence of a minority
linguistically characterized by the use of some minority languages.
The Romanian Constitution of 1991 consecrates the principle of the official language
in Article 13, stating: ‘In Romania, the official language is the Romanian language.’ Thus, the
principle of the limited majority, specific to the sense assigned to the demos, finds expression
through the consecration of the Romanian language as official language of the State, hence as
official language of the public space.
At the same time, Article 6 of the Constitution consecrates the right to linguistic
identity of persons belonging to national minorities, as follows: ‘The State recognizes and
guarantees the right of persons belonging to national minorities to the preservation,
development and expression of their ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity.’
Minority languages, expression of the minority function in democracy, are thus consecrated
and guaranteed by the Romanian fundamental law, and may be freely used in the private
space. The two constitutional dispositions are complementary in the clarification they bring on
the meaning of people, previously taken into consideration in democracy.
Public administration, as organ of the State, plays via its institutions an important role
in public space. The organs of public administration interact either within the system itself
through established and ongoing inter-institutional relations, or in the exterior, by coming into
direct contact with the civil society (citizens, associative structures, pressure groups etc.).
The concrete manner of interaction among public administration organs in the public
space, through their own activity conducted as direct means of public power exercise, thus
appears to be clustered within the limits imposed by the principle of the official language. The
entire activity undertaken by the organs, first and foremost in relation to individuals, must
comply with the normative consequences which result from declaring a language official.
A. The Official Language
1. The Normative Character of the Principle and the Position of the Romanian
Constitutional Court 34
As any constitutional principle, the principle of the official language must be
understood as having normative, and not declarative, intrinsic value. Elevating Romanian
language as official language to the status of constitutional principle is not merely a simple
statement from the Romanian constituent. Thus, the normative character implies that such a
disposition must not bear derogations. These derogations can appear either in the form of
declaring a language other than Romanian as the official language, or in the form of certain
dispositions that would violate either one of the normative consequences which can be
inferred from the character of a language as official language.
Nonetheless, from analyzing the jurisprudence of the Romanian Constitutional Court it
hereby results that Article 13 has for the Court but a simple declarative character, and as such
does not produce any legal consequence and cannot be therefore breached but through a
contrary declaration that would establish a language other than Romanian as official language.
Thus, through Decision 113 (July 20th 1995)35, the Court concludes that, since the
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages states that ‘the protection and
encouragement of regional or minority languages should not be to the detriment of the official
languages and the need to learn them’ and that the possibility to take measures in those areas
34
35
Published in the Official Gazette no 362 (July 29th 1999).
17
where regional or minority languages are used must be made ‘without prejudice to the the
official language(s) of the State’, this normative act does not encompass dispositions contrary
to Article 13 of the Constitution and is thus perfectly constitutional. Such manner of
interpretation betrays a lack of analysis on the effects of controlled dispositions, due to the a
priori declaration of the fact that the controlled act is without prejudice to the official
character of the Romanian language.
The same odd manner of interpretation is applied by the Court in Decision 114 (July
20th 1999) 36 as well. Thus, since the law ‘does not provide that multicultural universities are
authorised to use an “official language” other than Romanian’, there can be no question of a
breach of Article 13 of the Constitution in the present case.
Similarly, through Decision 112 (April 19th 2001) 37, the Court maintains its prior
position and transforms Article 13 into a declarative disposition, devoid of any intrinsic
concrete consequences. The dispositions subjected to the control of constitutionality conducted by the Court were part of Law 215 (2001) of local public administration and allowed
the use of minority persons’ mother tongue in their relations with and in the administration, a
fact which implied an evident derogation from Article 13 of the fundamental act.
It must be mentioned that if presently, as a result of the 2003 review, the possibility for
persons belonging to minorities to use their mother tongue in the relations with the
administration is laid down by dispositions of Article 120(2) of the Constitution providing that
‘in the territorial-administrative units where citizens belonging to a national minority have a
significant weight, provision shall be made for the oral and written use of that national
minority’s language in the relations with the local public administration authorities and the
decentralized public services, under the terms stipulated by the organic law,’ at the moment of
the adoption of the Decision quoted by the Court, i.e. 2001, this constitutional provision was
absent.
Without analyzing the legal dispositions in relation to the normative consequences of
Article 13 of the Constitution, ‘the Court states that neither one of the mentioned legal texts
declares the language of any national minority as official language. On the contrary, Article
43(3) takes up the constitutional disposition laid down by Article 13 and provides that
Romanian is the official language of the State. On the other hand, from the criticized legal
texts expressly results that, when the proportion of the population belonging to a national
minority is significant and exceeds 20% of the total of the population in territorialadministrative unit, provision shall be made for the use of the mother tongue of the citizens
belonging to the respective minority as well in relations with public administration authorities
and in the publicly made acts, without infringing the statute of official language of the
Romanian language.’ The Court’s precarious analysis can be summed up as follows: the
controlled legal dispositions do not infringe Article 13 of the Constitution since they reaffirm
it therein.
Therefore, any legal disposition by means of which the statute of the Romanian
language as official language would be simply reaffirmed is not at odds with Article 13 and is
thus perfectly constitutional. Such an interpretation is insufficient and resolves the issue of
constitutionality but tangentially, due to the fact that it does not stand for a substantial analysis
of the conformity with the normative consequences of Article 13, but constitutes instead a
transformation of the constitutional disposition into a mere constitutional declaration that
could only be infringed by a contrary declaration.
36
37
Published in the Official Gazette no 362 370 (August 3rd 1999).
Published in the Official Gazette no 362 280 (May 3rd 2001).
18
2. The Position of the Constitutional Council (France)
Unlike our Constitutional Court38, the French Constitutional Council, by Decision 99412 (June 15th 1999)39, controlling the constitutionality of the European Charter for Regional
or Minority Languages and taking up previous jurisprudence resulting from Decision 94-345
(July 29th 1994)40, undergoes an analysis on the compatibility of its dispositions with the
normative content of the constitutional affirmation with regard to the official character of the
French language.
The Constitutional Council, in considering Article 2 of the French Constitution of 1958
which declared French as official language of the Republic, states that ‘the use of French
could be imposed only on public-law corporations and private-law entities supplying a public
service, individuals cannot avail themselves, in their relations with the administrations and
public services, of a right to use a language other than French, nor be constrained to such a
use’ (recital 8) and that ‘no specific rights [can be conferred] to “groups” of speakers of
regional or minority languages, on the “territories” where these languages are practised’
(recital 10), so that these languages can be freely used in ‘private life’, but not in ‘public life’
(recital 11).
On the basis of this substantial argumentation, the French Constitutional Court
concluded in the afore mentioned Decision that the European Charter for Regional or Minority
Languages encompasses dispositions contrary to the French Constitution, being thus declared
unconstitutional41.
3. The Normative Consequences of Declaring Romanian Language as the Official
Language
As it can be observed, the two interpretations of the two constitutional courts, i.e. the
Romanian and the French, with regard to the official language, are radically different, if not
even opposed. If the Romanian Court’s interpretation practically excludes the normative
character of the constitutional disposition, the interpretation offered by the Constitutional
Council attaches the following legal consequences to the normative character of declaring a
language as official language42:
- The obligation to know the official language;
- The official language is the only one that can be used by the organs of the State and
the other public-law corporations and private-law entities supplying a public service;
- Only the official language can be used in public life;
- The regulation of the use of minority languages must not transform individual law
into collective law, nor can it bind the exercise of some fundamental rights or freedoms to the
citizens’ position on the territory;
38
Dan Claudiu Dănişor, 2009, op.cit., p. 331.
http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/depuis1958/decisions-par-date/1999/99-412-dc/decision-n-99-412-dc-du-15-juin-1999.11825.html.
40
http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/depuis1958/decisions-par-date/1994/94-345-dc/decision-n-94-345-dc-du-29-juillet-1994.10568.html.
41
For more details regarding the public debate in the hexagon on the signing and ratification of the
European Charter for Minority or Regional Languages, as well as the evolution of the Constitutional
Council jurisprudence concerning the constitutional principle of the official language, please see Michel
De Villiers, Thierry S. Renoux, Code Constitutionnel, comentté et adnotté, Litec, Paris, 2001, pp. 281282; Alain Fenet, Geneviève Koubi, Isabelle Schulte-Tenckhoff, Le droit et les minorités, Ed. Bruylant,
Bruxelles, 2000, pp. 324-335.
42
For more details with regard to the normative consequences imposed as a result of the declaration of
Romanian as official language according to Article 13 of the Constitution please see Dan Claudiu
Dănişor, 2009, op.cit., pp. 332-338.
39
19
- The use of a language other than the official language in public life, even if permitted
by the Constitution, must not create restrictive consequences with regard to freedom for the
other citizens.
B. Minority Languages
Qualifying a language as minority or regional language imposes itself as an expression
of the State’s will. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, ratified by the
Romanian State by Law 282 (October 24th 2007)43, defines in Article 1(a) the expression
‘minority or regional languages’ through two cumulative criteria: ‘“regional or minority
languages” means languages that are: i. traditionally used within a given territory of a State
by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's
population; and ii. different from the official language(s) of that State.’
The Romanian legislator, through the ratification law, in virtue of the national character
of the Romanian State laid down in Article 1(1) of the Constitution, defines in Article 3
national minority or regional languages by attaching a limitative list of these languages.
The Romanian constituent, by laying down in Article 6 the right to linguistic identity of
persons belonging to national minorities confers indirect protection to minority or regional
languages. It must be underlined that Article 6 protects persons, not languages, but through the
sphere of protection thus laid down by law there is also an indirect protection of the languages
employed by them.
C. The Official Language and Minority Languages in Conflict?
All normative consequences resulting from constitutionally declaring a language as
official language are imposed to the use of minority or regional languages, hence all normative
consequences of Article 13 of the Constitution which establish Romanian as the State’s
official language shall be correlated with those resulting from laying down the right to
linguistic identity by Article 6.
Article 13 of the Constitution imposes unilingualism at public space level by qualifying
Romanian as official language, so that the exercise of the right to linguistic identity by using
minority and regional languages cannot take place but within persons’ private spheres.
These general normative consequences drawn from the two constitutional dispositions
automatically impose on the State an obligation with dual valences: a negative obligation of
statist non-intervention in the use of languages in private space, and a positive obligation of
active intervention in their promotion and protection44.
The two institutions are clustered in principle in two different spheres, with no
possibility of interference: the official language in the public sphere, and the minority
languages in the private sphere. The 2003 constitutional review introduces through Article
120(2) a potential conflict in the public administration field: citizens belonging to a national
minority may use their own language in written and oral communication in relations with local
public administration authorities. If until then the use of regional or minority languages in
public space had been prohibited by law, the new constitutional regulation apparently opens
up the possibility to exceed the classic frame of language use, via its expansion from private to
public life and its consequent transformation into a potential conflict theme.
‘This polarization of our constitutional system between official monolingualism and
the recognition of the right to linguistic identity turns into potential conflict themes all
43
44
Published in the Official Gazette no 752 (November 6th 2007).
Dan Claudiu Dănişor, 2009, op.cit., pp. 234-235.
20
constitutional dispositions with regard to the use of minority languages in relations with local
administrations and the State’s decentralized services or in the area of justice’45.
The attitude of the Romanian Constitutional Court in this respect, as previously
observed and presented, is passive, although it obviously remarks the potential conflict.
Instead of acting a real arbitrator in managing the consequences resulting from such an
additional regulation, the Court makes ‘no choice between official monolingualism and the
right to linguistic identity, and prefers to coexist them without drawing the necessary
conclusions from either one the constitutional dispositions’46.
The lack of a clear course of action in handling the issues brought about by the two
constitutional dispositions, as well as their mismatch with the point of confluence and
divergence which came about through the 2003 review has resulted into an avoidance of a
potential conflict, the Romanian court evidently denying the possibility of its emergence.
Unlike our Constitutional Court, the French Constitutional Council has clearly blocked
any tentative emergence of a potential conflict in relation to the possibility of minority
language use in public space. Minority languages cannot be used but exclusively in the private
sphere of individuals, the French Court’s argument being founded on the constitutional
principles of the indivisibility of the Republic, unity of the French people and national
sovereignty which imply the interdiction of collective rights47: ‘these fundamental principles
oppose to the recognition of the collective rights of any group, defined by a community of
origin, culture, language or faith.’
D. Public Administration in Romania and the Use of Minority Languages in
Public Life
As we have previously seen, in the field of public administration in Romania, the point
of convergence and an equally potential conflict with regard to the use of the State’s official
language and that of minority languages, is represented by dispositions of Article 120(2): ‘in
the territorial-administrative units where citizens belonging to a national minority have a
significant weight, provision shall be made for the oral and written use of that national
minority’s language in the relations with the local public administration authorities and the
decentralized public services, under the terms stipulated by the organic law.’
Such a constitutional provision results in a relative openness of public life to the use of
minority languages and in the exceeding of their classic frame, i.e. the private sphere.
Undoubtedly, such a provision contradicts the logic of the principle drawn from the correlated
interpretation of Article 13 dispositions with Article 6: the official language corresponds to the
public space, minority languages to the private sphere. Nonetheless, such a derogation is
possible on the one hand, by taking view of the fact that it reflects in principle the will of the
constituent thereby expressed through the 2003 review and on the other hand, due to the fact
that there is no hierarchy among the constitutional norms, perhaps only with the exceptions of
those norms which are constituted within the limits of the review.
All things considered, we must underline the following aspect: the achievement of a
real control of constitutionality with regard to the review project proposed in 2003 should
have led the Romanian Court to the conclusion that such a disposition submitted for
introduction is not in accordance with the normative consequences of Article 4 which lays
down the unity of the people, thus prohibiting collective rights, and those of Article 13,
concerning the consecration of the Romanian language as the official language. Actually, the
45
Ibidem, p. 235.
Ibid.
47
Alain Fenet, Geneviève Koubi, Isabelle Schulte-Tenckhoff, Le droit et les minorités, Bruylant,
Bruxelles, 2000, p. 330.
46
21
two constitutional principles infringed by the content of Article 120(2), as established by law,
are additionally limits to any constitutional review according to Article 152(1)48.
Understanding the normative consequences of the new constitutional regulation in the
field of public administration in Romania must nevertheless be mandatorily correlated with
dispositions of Article 13 from the fundamental law, so that public administration institutions
(legal persons under public law) may not use a language other than the official language in the
undertaken activity and so that any limitation on the exercise of a citizens’ right or
fundamental freedom within public administration as a result of using a different language in
relations with its organs is prohibited.
1. The General Obligation of Public Administration Institutions to Use the
State’s Official Language
Public administration institutions cannot use but the Romanian language and the
official acts must be drafted in the State’s official language. Thus, Article 76(5) from Law
215(2001) of local public administration clearly lays down the above mentioned aspect when
it comes to acts adopted by local public administration institutions: ‘Official acts shall be
mandatorily drafted in the Romanian language.’
It firstly results that, in those cases where an administrative act is issued by these
organs in a language other than the official one, that act cannot constitute but a translation of
the official act, mandatorily drafted in Romanian. Any contradiction between the two forms in
such a situation will be resolved through the prevalence of the option in the State’s official
language. Thus, the legal regulations of the organization and functioning of public
administration shall not be able to impose on public administration institutions the obligation
to use a language other than the official one, but, at most, to use translations annexed to the act
in the Romanian language49.
In this respect, dispositions of Article 42(2) of Law 215(2001) establish that in local
councils where local council people belonging to a national minority represent at least a fifth
of the total number may use their mother tongue during council meetings, in such cases
provision being made by the mayor for translation into Romanian.
Such dispositions50 must not be interpreted in the sense of using a language other than
the official language in the activity conducted by public administration because this aspect
targets only the facilitation of dialogue for the majority group in the council, in such cases the
translation of this dialogue into Romanian for the minority group being ensured. Moreover,
the previously regarded assertion results and is consolidated both by the initial part of the
Article establishing that ‘meetings will be held in Romanian’, as well as by its final part
through the stipulation of the fact that ‘in all cases’ the documents of the council meetings
shall be drafted in Romanian.
Likewise, further dispositions in local public administration law that consecrate the
constitutional disposition of Article 120(2) can be evoked and interpreted as such.
Thus, Article 39(7) establishes that in those communes or cities where citizens
belonging to a national minority are above 20% from the number of the population the agenda
48
Mădălina Nica, Timpul sau timpii liberei administrări - drept fundamental à la roumanie? in the
volume „Democraţia participativă locală şi informarea cetăţenilor”, Universul Juridic, Bucharest,
2011, pp. 71-72.
49
This is also the position that the Constitutional Council (France) assumes and who by Decision 99-412
(June 15th 1999) affirms that Article 2 of the French Constitution of 1958 does not prohibit the use of
translations of official acts.
50
Please see with regard these legal dispositions Ştefan Deaconu, Comentariul art. 13 din Constituţia
României, in Constituţia României. Comentariu pe articole, coord. Ioan Muraru, Elena Simina
Tănăsescu, C.H. Beck, Bucharest, 2008, p. 132.
22
of the local Council is to be made public also in the mother tongue of the citizens belonging to
the respective minority (correlatively the disposition is taken up by Article 94(8) with regard
to the County Council as well). The official act of making the agenda of the Councils public is
hence drafted in the State’s official language, with the possibility, in some cases, for its
translation and posting in the language of a certain minority language as well.
Likewise, with regard to normative acts of public administration institutions, Article 50
from the quoted law establishes that in those territorial-administrative units where citizens
belonging to a national minority are above 20% from the number of the population normative
Decisions of local Councils are made public also in the mother tongue of citizens belonging to
the respective minority, and those Decisions of individual scope are communicated on demand
in the mother tongue as well. Therefore, both in view of provided normative Decisions, as
well as in view of acts of individual scope, the obligation instituted by the legislator is in the
sense of ensuring a translation of the official act drafted in Romanian into the minority
language as well, in the first case this obligation resting on its own, and in the second case
only on demand.
With concern to the inscription of the names of localities and public institutions,
Article 76(4) of the law establishes an obligation for local public administration authorities to
implement this in the mother tongue of citizens belonging to the respective minority as well,
under the circumstances of a 20% share of the total of the population in the respective
community. Nevertheless, inscriptions in the minority language have but the value of a
translation of the official name from Romanian.
Secondly, the general obligation which rests on public administration takes view of the
fact that only the official language can be used in activities undertaken by public services.
The possibility created by the constituent to use a different language in the relations
among the public service beneficiary and that service is not however equivalent to the use of a
procedure in that language and, consequently, does not constitute a prerequisite for demanding
the conduct of the procedure in that language. From this perspective, there can develop at most
an obligation to ensure the translation of the service beneficiary’s allegations or acts, due to
the fact that there can be no imposition on the public service representative to know or use a
language other than the official language (in such a situation the result would be the creation
of prohibited limitations with regard to the right to work, as laid down by Articles 16 and 4 of
the Constitution). Due to the fact that the constituent introduces the possibility to use in the
public space a language other than the official language, the direct results lies in that such a
possibility refers solely to citizens, and not to State organs, which continue to be bound by the
general obligation to use the official language.
Article 63(2) of the Law 215(2001) lays down as mayor’s attribution, in their quality as
State representative, the fulfilment of the position as public registrar. Thus, the entire solemn
procedure conducted in this case by the mayor as State representative must be mandatorily
carried out in Romanian, so that the use of a different language at the time of the openly made
free consent of the prospective spouses constitutes a violation of the procedure and hereby
attracts its nullity.
2. Interdiction of Limitations on Freedom in Public Administration as a Result of
the Use of Language other than the Official Language
Any Constitution created authorization to use a language other than the official
language in the sphere of public administration has as limit the impossibility to create
restrictive consequences with regard to freedom for the other Romanian citizens.
Thus, the right conferred to persons belonging to national minorities to use in certain
situations their mother tongue in relations with public administration must not restrain the
fundamental right to work of persons who wish to exercise this right in the public
23
administration system on account of knowledge/ lack of knowledge of the minority
language51. As previously mentioned, public administration organs can be bound by law to
ensure at most the translation of minorities’ acts drafted in the mother tongue, but they cannot
be obliged to use themselves that language in considering their quality as legal persons under
public law whom the State’s official language is imposed.
Article 76(2) provides that in those territorial-administrative units where citizens
belonging to a national minority are above 20% of the total number of the population, they
may also address orally or in writing in their mother tongue in their relations with local public
administration authorities, with the specialized organs and the bodies subordinated to the local
Council and they shall receive replies both in Romanian, as well as in their mother tongue.
Paragraph 3 states that public relations position will also be filled by people who know the
mother tongue of the citizens belonging to the respective minority.
The interpretation of this legal disposition must be made in the sense of the interdiction
to create restrictive consequences with regard to the right to work for the Romanian citizens
who only master the official language. The obligation imposed on public administration to
supply in such situations an answer in a different language than the official language does not
amount to the obligation on civil servants to know that language. Likewise, in fulfilling its
obligation, the administration cannot impose as condition for the notice of vacancy in case of
public servants knowledge of a language other than the official language.
The establishment by law of the fact that public relations position will also be filled by
people who know the mother tongue of citizens belonging to a minority must be interpreted in
the sense that public administration ought to proceed to the creation of institutional structures
with a role in the relation with the public exclusively intended for the respective minority
language speakers. These structures shall function alongside the other structures that maintain
relations with the State’s official language speaking public.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Andreescu, Gabriel, 2004, Naţiuni şi minorităţi, Iaşi, Polirom Publishing House
2. Bălan, Marius, 2013, Statutul minorităţilor naţionale, Iaşi, “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”
University Press.
3. Crăciunean, Laura-Maria, 2011, Protecţia drepturilor culturale în dreptul
internaţional, Bucharest, C.H. Beck Publishing House.
4. Dănişor, Claudiu Dan, 2007, Drept constitutional şi instituţii politice. Vol. I. Teoria
generală, Bucharest, C.H. Beck Publishing House.
5. Dănişor, Claudiu, Dan, 2009, Constituţia României comentată. Titlul I. Principii
generale, Bucharest, Universul Juriridic Publishing House.
6. Drăgan, Tudor, 2000, Câteva consideraţii privind problema «drepturilor colective»
ale minorităţilor naţionale, in Revista română de drepturile omului, no. 18.
7. Fenet, Alain, Koubi, Geneviève, Schulte-Tenckhoff, Isabelle, 2000, Le droit et les
minorités, Bruxelles, Editeur Bruylant.
8. Ionescu, Cristian, 2015, Conceptul de identitate etnică. O perspectivă constituţională,
in Revista de Drept Public, no. 3.
9. Jura, Cristian, 2006, Drepturile omului. Drepturile minorităţilor naţionale,
Bucharest, C.H. Beck Publishing House.
51
Any limitation on a fundamental right or freedom cannot be made but within the frame instituted by
Article 53 of the Constitution, due to its determination by the existence of certain specific and limitative
causes and the compliance with certain general imposed conditions.
24
10. Mezer-Bisch, Patrice, 2000, Quatre dialectiques pour une identité, in Revue de
philosophie et sciences sociales, no. 1.
11. Moldoveanu, Maria, 2010, Respectarea drepturilor culturale I, in Revista Caiete
Critice, no. 10 (300).
12. Muraru, Ioan, Tănăsescu, Simina, Elena (coord.), 2008, Constituţia României.
Comentariu pe articole, Bucharest, C.H. Beck Publishing House.
13. Nica, Mădălina, 2012, Egalitatea de şanse, Bucharest, Universul Juridic Publishing
House.
14. Nica, Mădălina, 2011, Timpul sau timpii liberei administrări - drept fundamental à
la roumanie?, in Democraţia participativă locală şi informarea cetăţenilor, Bucharest,
Universul Juridic Publishing House.
15. Pavel Nicolae, 2011, Egalitatea în drepturi şi nediscriminarea, Bucharest,
Universul Juridic Publishing House.
16. Toader, Tudorel, Constituţia României reflectată în jurisprudenţa constituţională,
Bucharest, Hamangiu Publishing House.
17. Villiers De, Michel, Renoux, Thierry S., 2001, Code Constitutionnel, comentté et
adnotté, Paris, Editeur Litec.
25
PROMOTING THE HUMAN BEING AND ITS PRICELESS VALUE
IN THE CONTEXT OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY –
THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES
His Eminence University Professor PhD IRINEU ION POPA
1. Introduction
The human being in its entirety: ontological content; potential of manifestation and
relationships; capacity of self-determination and definition; social, cultural, geographical and
economic characteristics; religious identity and confessional affiliation; particularities of the
structure of inherited human intimacy (gender, nationality, social status, etc.), as well as other
essential elements that help define and express the anthropological complex, they all represent
central themes of Orthodox theology.
Theological anthropology has an extremely important place in the doctrine and
practises of the Orthodox Church and it has its full attention. Father Professor Dumitru
Stăniloae states, in this sense, that man and God are the two fundamental dogmas of the
Church, the essential realities between which the entire theological endeavour operates and
takes place: „God and man are the two fundamental realities defined by the dogma. And the
second being linked to the first, it constitutes together with it one single dogma. God and man
are defined as fundamental dogmas because they are the fundamental beings, manifest and
unfathomable at the same time. Manifest, because nothing makes sense without them, and full
of mystery, because they are inexhaustible”.52
The doctrine about God and that about man represent the two poles of the dogmatic
construction of the Church. The other dogmas consider and define precisely the way in which
God and man meet, they come together in grace, our Saviour Jesus Christ being God- the Man
who fully united – unmingled, unchanged, undivided and not separated (according to the
formula of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, in 451)53 – the human nature with
the divine nature in His own Divine being, showing the priceless value humanity received
from God.
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, bringing into discussion the classification of theological
themes as per the importance of their clarification and contribution they have to the present
time, states that for the 21st century, from the perspective of Orthodox theology, anthropology
represents the central subject of the entire approach. In his opinion, this finding is based on
four important arguments: 1. Present-day social and political realities oriented towards a
continuous promotion and development of an ever-more complex urbanization and
globalization; 2. Complex technological developments that tend to shift contemporary man’s
preoccupations from their relation skills with others to their one-sided attention to machines;
3. The revolutionary discoveries of genetic engineering and contemporary man’s challenges
regarding sexual behaviour and referencing to the psycho-somatic structure of his own being
and that of the others, and the implications all these tendencies know and generate from a

Archbishop of Craiova, Metropolitan of Oltenia and Dean of the Faculty of Orthodox Theology in
Craiova.
52
Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă, vol. 1, Second Edition,
IBMBOR, Publishing House Bucharest, 1996, p. 67.
53
See: His Eminence University Professor PhD IRINEU POPA, Archbishop of Craiova, Metropolitan of
Oltenia, Iisus Hristos este Acelaşi, ieri şi azi şi în veac, Mitropolia Olteniei Publishing House, Craiova,
2010, pp. 275-283.
26
moral point of view; 4. The ecology crisis born, cultivated and made permanent by modern
man’s exacerbated selfishness and greed.54
The reasons enumerated above by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, as well as a series of
other tendencies, situations and anthropological concepts that appear much more rapidly and
diversified in our time, represent even more proof that the issue pointed out by anthropology
remains always open and requires permanent approach. It is sufficient to consider the realities
to which the entire humanity was witness this year, 2015, through the migration of a
considerable number of people from the Near East and North Africa toward Western Europe
in order to become aware of the incredible importance and inherent contemporaneousness of
the subject of anthropology.
Considering all these ideas mentioned above, the present study intends to theologically
establish and analyze the fundamental principles that support the promotion of ethnic
minorities and their cultural patrimony in the context of the great European and international
diversity.
2. One God and Father of all: the Uniqueness of the Creator and the Harmony of
Creation
Based on the Holy Scripture and the whole Divine revelation, the Orthodox Church
confesses that the basis of the entire universe and the entire humanity is the creating action of
God. He said and it was made (Genesis 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26), Then the Lord God formed a
man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man
became a living being (Genesis 2:7). Thus, everything that exists in this universe, both what
can be seen and perceived, as well as what cannot be seen and remains imperceptible, exists
due to the sole life-giving work of God: „For He said and it was made, He ordered and it was
created” (Psalm 32:9); „For in His hand are all the ends of the earth: and the heights of the
mountains are His. For the sea is His, and He made it; and His hands formed the dry land”
(Psalm 94:4-5); „Child, I beseech thee, lift thine eyes to heaven and earth, look at all that is
therein, and know that God did not make them out of the things that existed. So is the race of
men created” (Second Maccabees 7:28); „All things were made through Him, and without
Him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3); „For by Him all things were created,
in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or
authorities – all things were created through Him and for Him” (Colossians 1:16); „Worthy
are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for You created all things,
and by Your will they existed and were created” (Apocalypse 4:11) etc.
God is the only one whose existence is through Himself, in the sense that He exists
through Himself and by Himself. No one and nothing brings about or conditions His
existence, Him being, in fact, the Only One that brings about and conditions the existence of
the whole creation: „God wants that the life or the good that He is in existence and unlimitedly
to extend also to an existence limited by its being, but of course also with His help”.55 In this
sense, it is clear that creating the world out of nothingness by God expresses kindness, love
and His constant caring for what He brings into being. In other words, all people, regardless of
the humna classification criteria, are the work of the same God, the one Full of Love and
giving, and are called to the joy of life: „The Christian concept about existence is different
from the pantheist, emanationist or evolutionist concepts. It is a concept that knows, apart
from the free and merciful God, a world in which the freedom of conscious angel and human
54
METROPOLITAN KALLISTOS WARE, Orthodox Theology in the Twenty-First Century, WCC
Publications, Geneva, 2012, pp. 25-27.
55
Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Sfânta Treime sau La început a fost Iubirea, IBMBOR
Publishing House, Bucharest, 2005, p. 22.
27
beings is important, without them causing total disorder in the material or spiritual order, in
which these conscious beings are made to function”.56
The world created by God is good: „And God saw everything that He had made, and
behold, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31). It is good because it is thought, created and
constantly kept into being by the God full of love: „How amazing are the deeds of the Lord!/
All who delight in Him should ponder them./ Everything He does reveals His glory and
majesty./ His righteousness never fails.” (Psalm 110:2-4). Everything that He creates receives
His love and nourishing gifts: „For everything created by God is good and nothing is to be
rejected if it is received with thanksgiving” (First Timothy 4:4).
In this sense, Orthodox theology speaks about a rationality of creation, about the fact
that everything that exists in the universe, both man and all the other elements of creation are
allowed to exist with a tendency to search and relate to the other. Nothing of all that exists is
random. Nothing of what is materialized as being is the product of hazard or chaos, but all the
elements of creation, from a cellular level to the highest rational form represented by man, are
to be found in the same unity of life as gift and means of communication, communion and
shared accomplishment: „Analytical reason sees the world and every element of it somewhat
separately. But it is accompanied, in the person that fully lives his existence, by an
understanding that senses, through the progress of analytical logic, the higher and higher
levels of things and their supreme purpose. In our Christian conception, the logic progresses in
knowing the things and the logical links between them, as it is driven by reason or by the
understanding that senses their higher and higher levels and the supreme purpose of existence.
The analytical reason can be convinced even by its results on each stept that is hasn’t reached
the final and complete explanation of reality, and intuitive reason, or the understanding that
senses on each step higher and higher purposes, urges it to new research and at the same time
it gives it the knowledge that the supreme or complete purpose of any researched unit is a
mystery linked to the mystery of the entire reality and of the supreme reality, which it will
never fully know”.57
The harmony and unity of creation show and certify, at the same time, the uniqueness
of each element of creation, no matter how small and insignificant it may seem. According to
this fundamental understanding, no human being can ever be considered of having lesser or
higher value than another human being or than a group of people. All people are equally
important and together with the entire creation they are seen as a harmonious whole, which is
driven by the same reasoning and enjoys the same attention and love from God: „The creation
was brought to existence as a harmonious whole, thus supported by a unitary reasoning which
reunites the consciousness of all its components. The whole is seen in each one of its
components, but all these entireties are united in a universal whole. The whole of each part
and of all of the parts of the universe is so efficient and decisive for the particularity of the
parts and to support the universe, that it can be admitted that not only it is made up of its
components, but that it also collects them and holds them together, imprinting them its
particularities. This whole also shows its might in the fact that the individuals of the species
can adapt to the different shifting external circumstances, receiving amendments, but they
cannot be pulled out of their species”.58
56
Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Sfânta Treime sau La început a fost Iubirea, p. 23.
Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă, vol. 1, p. 240.
58
Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, Mitropolia Olteniei
Publishing House, Craiova, 1987, p. 253.
57
28
3. Unity of humanity
In close connection with the uniqueness of God who created the seen and the unseen
world, there is the unity of humanity. God did not create several human kins, several human
races or species; he created one kin, humanity. For this reason, from the perspective of
Orthodox theology, one can never speak of, or accept, any theory that intends to classify
people based on their race, gender, nationality, etc. In this context it is clear that all people are
equal and they enjoy the same value before God, because they all have the same nature, origin
and ontology.
Regarding these aspects, the Holy Scripture tells us that God created people of the
same nature: „God, who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and
earth… and he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth,
having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” (Acts of the
Apostles 17:24, 26).
A totally unique position, of extreme importance to our subject, is expressed by St.
Gregory of Nyssa. Commenting on the Scripture text in the Book of Genesis 1:27 – „So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he
created them”, – he states that the term „man”, used in this quote, refers to the entire
humanity, to the fact that, by the creation of Adam, God created all men, meaning that the
spirit of the primordial man comprised the human nature of all the people that will be born, or
better said, will be brought to life by God by their birth from parents of flesh, over time:
„When the Scripture says: «So God created man» (Genesis 1:27), it generally expresses,
without particularizing, the entire humanity. For speaking here about the creature He created,
its name is not given, as it is in the next story, but this creature is unnamed for now, it’s just
man in general. Thus, once the general indication of human beings is made, we can assume
that in this initial creation the Divine action and power acted upon the whole humanity.
Because we must understand that God left nothing unfinished when regarding the origin of
beings, but each one of them was given by the Creator a determined limit and measure. As
each man has a body a certain size and is destined to live his life within that size, which fully
corresponds to the surface of his body, in the same way I believe in God’s pre-science, which
takes care of everything, there is the whole humanity as a single organism”.59
The first book of the Holy Scripture, the Genesis, tells us that the first man, Adam, was
directly created by God: „Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature” (Genesis
2:7).
Also in this book we learn that the second human being history knows, Eve, was also
created by God, but not from dust, as Adam had been created, but from the already-existing
Adam: „So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took
one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from
the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man” (Genesis 2:21-22). Precisely for
this reason, when Adam sees Eve he recognizes in her the human nature he himself possesses;
he does not see her as a new species, but as a new person that individualizes in a new and
unique way their joint humanity: „Then the man said: «This at last is bone of my bones and
flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore a
man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one
flesh»” (Genesis 2:23-24).
59
ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, Despre facerea omului, 16, Writings, Second Part, PSB 30, translated by
Father Professor PhD Teodor Bodogae, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest, 1998, pp. 50-51.
29
Symeon the New Theologian says that Eve was created as coexisting in Adam60, in the
sense that the human nature in Adam and Eve, as in all humanity, is one and the same.
In this context, it is very important to underline the aspect of Eve’s creation from
Adam. Eve is not created from dust again, as Adam had initially been created, but was created
from Adam, from his human nature, precisely to maintain the unity of being of all humans.
She is created from Adam to show that she has the same being. She is not different from
Adam, she doesn’t represent a new human species with different value from Adam’s, but she
is a new person with the same characteristics as the first person created by God, namely
Adam: „Eve is not created by God from dust, but from Adam; so also from an act of
«creation», rather than birth. In the creation of the woman from the man it also results that the
man virtually comprises the woman and the woman virtually comprises the man, and that in
the word of God «by which all were made», as in their model, there is the face of both kinds
of humans. That is why in the act of creating the woman there is no requirement for awareness
from Adam, so there is no passionate pleasure in the act of her creation. This is shown by the
fact that she is created from Adam when he is asleep. This shows her quality as partner of
turning human nature into reality”.61
These aspects help us understand that all human beings that exist, existed or will ever
exist in this world share the same origin and one and the same human nature. For this reason,
it is clear that the differences by which people identify and define themselves don’t affect in
any way the unity of the being, but accentuates even further the variety and richness of
possibilities under which it is left by God to express and present itself. In other words, the
minority never has lesser importance, but it has and must be recognized the same value,
because it has the same human nature. Father Professor Dumitru Stăniloae speaks in this sense
about the ontological link that exists between all human beings. All people are linked between
them by the same human nature, and each one of them individualizes and particularizes it in a
unique way. But this does not appear as fragmentation or shrinking of the being, but on the
contrary, as capitalization and enrichment of the being for all the persons that hold it: „We
could materialize the continuity of human nature, tangibly existing in several hypostases, as a
thread on which they appear one after the other as knots. Among them there is no complete
void, but a thinning of the nature that appears thickened in them, or in the objectification of all
its virtualities. Without the continuity between humans, through the thinned out thread of
nature, there would be no understanding or upholding of its different materializations in
people. But one cannot say that first there exists the thread, and then the knots appear. Or that
the thinned out thread between them is not jointly shared by them. One cannot say that the
knots determine the thread between them, either. But that both the thread and the knots, or at
least some of them, exist simultaneously. The knots communicate through the thread and they
bring one another to being. They can become more and more interior one to the other. In a
sense, each human hypostasis bears all the nature in the hypostasis knots and the thread that
links them. One cannot talk about human individuals per se, as completely isolated
materialziations of the human nature. Each hypostasis is ontologically linked to the others and
this is apparent with their need to be related. By this they have a human character and their
true development lies in their development as humans, by their ever closer communication...
That is how one can explain in the human order created (as in the order of the other genuses
and species) tha paradox of unity in plurality”.62
60
ST. SYMEON THE NEW THEOLOGIAN, Cartea discursurilor etice, I, 1, in: ST. SYMEON THE NEW
THEOLOGIAN, Discursuri teologice şi etice, Writings I, Second edition, translated by Deacon. Ioan I. Ică
jr, Deisis Publishing House, Sibiu, 2001, p. 104.
61
Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, p. 169.
62
Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă, vol. 1, pp. 201-202.
30
4. The dignity of man as being created to the likeness of God
Speaking about the special way in which God created man, the Holy Scripture says that
man was created to the likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; 5:1-3; 9:5-6; Romans 5:14; I
Corinthians 11:7; II Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:13-15; Jacob 3:8-9). The classical text that
best showcases this teaching is the one in the Genesis 1:26-27 – „Then God said: «Let us
make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the
sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth!». So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God He created him; make and female he
created them”.
It is worth mentioning that this feature of being created to the likeness of God applies
only to man. It is a unique quality no one else in this universe benefits from, neither of the
seen, tangible creation, nor the unseen one, the spiritual: „It was not the heaven that was made
in the likeness of God, nor the moon, not the sun, or the beauty of the stars, nothing of what is
seen in creation; only you were made in the likeness of the being that is superior to any mind,
likeness to the pure beauty, proof of real Divinity, grail of joyful life, image of true light,
towards which, when looking, you become what He is, imitating the One that shines in you,
through the shining that comes from your cleanliness. Nothing of what exists can be measured
with your measure. The whole heaven is contained in the palm of God. The earth and the sea
are hidden in the fist of His hand. But the One that is such and so great, that holds in His hand
the entire creation, can be contained within you and lives inside of you; and is not stranded
within you, the one that said: «I shall live and walk within them» (Lev. 26, 2)”.63
Following the anthropological thinking of Gregory of Nyssa, we observe that the
notion of „image” refers to the entire ontology man receives from God through His creation.
The image refers to those Divine characteristics which the man is bestowed upon by his
Creator: „The man, who was created to enjoy the gifts of God, had to have seeded in him a
natural kinship with the One he shares with... life, reason, wisdom and all the gifts only the
Divine being has, so that each one of them awaken in him the longing for God, with whom
man knows he is related... eternity... in the idea of His image we comprise everything that
characterises God”.64
In this context, it is clear that man’s value is a very special one. It is not a value he
makes for himself, or to which he has any contribution, but it is a special honour and a unique
type of dignity that God bestowes to humanity. Not only the primordial man, not only the
saints, not only the people referred to in the Holy Scripture, etc., wear the mark of the dignity
of the „image”, but all the people that will share in communion or will do so in time: „There is
no difference between the man that was brought into the world during the creation phase and
the one that will live at the end of the world: they all share the same Divine likeness”.65
Thus, both the majoritarian and the minoritarian, the believer and the non-believer,
share in their being the mark of the same Divine characteristics offered by the creation „to the
likeness”, and all enjoy the same attention, caring and love from God.
Father Professor Dumitru Stăniloae, speaking about the great importance of the idea of
„likeness” to anthropological theology, says that by this feature of being created „in the
likeness of God”, man is lifted to the great dignity of partner of God, of personal and immortal
being capable of dialogue, communion and love with God and with the other humans: „God
created us for this dialogue of ours with ourselves, making us His images. Being God’s image
63
ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, Tâlcuire amănunţită la Cântarea Cântărilor, II, Writings, First Part, PSB 29,
translated by Father Professor. Dumitru Stăniloae and Father Ioan Buga, IBMBOR Publishing House,
Bucharest, 1982, PSB 29, p. 143.
64
ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, Marele cuvânt catehetic sau Despre învăţământul religios, 5, PSB 30, p. 294.
65
ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, Despre facerea omului, 16, PSB 30, p. 51.
31
and remaining God’s image and developing as such, means being God’s dialogue partner. And
man, being made dialogue partner communicating with God, is made for eternal existence.
God’s love cannot forget the one it once was in dialogue with, so it cannot allow that it stops
existing. God holds this dialogue with us through His Word. That is why even when we loosen
the tie with Him as dialogue partners, he creates us through it, He makes Himself man, but
also remains God, so that through the directness of the link to us, He can make us feel the
direct relation in which He has returned with us, as dialogue partner”.66
The image of God gives man the dignity of his uniqueness and personality, it makes
man unparalleled and unrepeatable and doesn’t allow that he loses himself in the shapeless
mass of nameless individuals. As being created after the image of God, any man is a person
with their own, unmistakeable identity: „Man is not only and individual of nature, belonging
to the generic reference of human nature with a God, creator of the whole universe, but he is –
especially – a person that cannot be reduced to the joint attributes (or individualized) of the
nature with which he is gifted together with other human beings. The condition of human
being belongs to every being due to a singular and unique relation with God that created man
„to his likeness”. This personal moment in anthropology, discovered by Christian thought,
does not indicate a participation report; even more so, a συγγένεια, «related» to God, btu
rather an analogy: like the personal God, after whose image he is created, man is not only
«nature». This offers him freedom from himself, as he is a natural individual. Not being
presented in the patristic anthropology, this new category of person or human hypostasis is not
always less supposed. What we must understand today, talking about the theology of the
image applied to man, it will refer to the human being to the extent in which he is a
manfestation of God”.67
Every man, regardless of the time and space he lives in, and also regardless of any
human principle of analysis is, according to Orthodox theology, made in the likeness of God.
Every man is an icon of God and, consequently, must be honoured as such. We know that in
Orthodoxy not honouring the icon is sacrilege, thus not honouring the human being may be
considered sacrilege against God, who created man. Precisely for that reason, from an
Orthodox point of view, redemption also means attending to, caring for and making correct
reference to other men: „We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love
the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death” (First John 3:14); „We love God because
He first loved us. If anyone says << I love God>> and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he
who does not love his brother who he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And
this commandment we have from Him: whoever loves God must also love his brother” (First
John 4:19-21).
5. Eternity of the human being
Man was created by God as immortal. God gave man life for eternity. He does not offer
something that expires, that diminishes or becomes lost in time, but He offers something that
remains, that has the power to grow and become permanent. Thus, in the case of man, he is
created immortal, as eternal partner of the dialogue with God: „God created man to be
innocent, righteous, virtuous, not knowing sadness or care, enlightened with all virtue, all gifts
bestowed upon him, like a second world, a microcosmos within the macrocosmos, another
dedicate angel, complex, observer of the seen world, initiated in the spiritual world, emperor
of the ones on the earth, driven by above, earthy and heavenly, ephemeral and eternal, seen
and spiritual, in the middle between greatness and humility, the same both as spirit and flesh;
66
VLADIMIR LOSSSKY, După chipul şi asemănarea lui Dumnezeu, translated by Anca Manolache,
Humanitas Publishing House, Bucharest, 2006, p. 139.
67
32
spirit due to the grace and flesh because of pride; spirit, to keep on living and give grace to the
Benevolent, flesh, to suffer and through suffering to remember and educate himself when he is
proud of his greatness. Animal driven here, in the present life, but moved somewhere else, in
the future redemption time; and the final term of the mystery is his Divinity by his dialogue
with God. He becomes divine by participating in the Divine enlightenment, and not through
his transformation in the Divine being”.68
The death that exists in the world and that we encounter everywhere is not the creation
of God, and is not part of man’s final purpose. It appeared as an accident, as a creation of the
man that distanced himself from God, from true Life. But this death is not permanent, it is an
Easter event through which we complete the passing from the time of fleeting existence, full
of conditioning, limitations and shortcomings, to the time of eternal, happy existence. In this
sense, it is clear that man has an eternal existence, which doesn’t stop when the body is laid to
rest in the grave, and which will continue forever.
In 1987, during the communist regime that strongly supported and promoted
evolutionism and materialism, with the purpose of completely denying the theological
dimension and the reality of the eternity of the human being, Father Professor Dumitru
Stăniloae – by the care and perseverence of our forerunner in the chair of Metropolitan of
Oltenia, the worthy of praise Metropolitan PhD Nestor Vornicescu – published at the
publishing house of the Metropolitan Church of Oltenia, an extremely important work called,
Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu (in translation, The Eternal Image of God), that clearly
shows that once brought into existence, man enjoys eternity. He is an immortal image of God,
a personal existence that permanently enjoys his existence. Thus, the central idea of this book
is that man is immortal, because God creats him to keep Himself eternal in their relation:
„Only God is unlimited as subject to be known, because He is a subject that makes Himself
known, always new, through His love toward the one that finds in this new resources to to
love Him. And only because God is like that, the man can also be like that, to a certain extent,
as His image, feeling the need of the everlasting relation with Him, to know Him in his
knowable and communicational infinity. For this, eternity is a gift from God. The man is
immortal through his link with God and was created in such a way by God, that this link can
make him immortal”.69
Once created, the man doesn’t disappear, he doesn’t go back to non-existence, because
God never canceles any one of the images He created:70 „The unique selves, being able to
enrich themselves and others forever by the particular and affectionate novelty they
communicate to each other, shows not only their value for themselves, but also for one
another. For that reason we cannot consider that God would cancel any one of them through
final death, as He cannot cancel any living proof of His creating imagination and of the proof
for a link between them, of a love that endlessly enriches and brings them joy”.71 He gives life
and he maintains it forever. The mere fact that no man cannot come to terms with or accept the
idea of death, does not wish to really die, shows that the final destination of mankind is not
nothingness, death, but immortality, the eternal life.72
Very often, Father Professor Dumitru Stăniloae stresses on the idea of the eternal value
of the human being. Any person is unique and eternal, and that is why he will never be
68
ST JOHN OF DAMASCUS, Dogmatica, II, 12, translated by Father Professor Dumitru Fecioru,
IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest, 2005, p. 83.
69
70
Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, pp. 10-11.
71
72
33
forgotten by God, or by his fellow men: „A person cannot be forgotten either by the human
being who communicated with them. And even less by the Word, its creator”.73
The man is eternal, thus he has the duty to act in consequence. In all his peers he must
see the eternal images of God with whom he lives and communicates not only in this life, but
also in the eternal one. Thus, there is the profound responsibility toward the social context in
which we live, but also toward every fellow person and the entire nation we live in, regardless
of ethnicity. This is a sacred responsibility both toward the minority and the majority, that
permanent concern for the needs and requirements of the others: „In the Apocalypse there is
persisten reference to the joy the nations as such will receive, in the Kingdom of God (20:2425; 22:22). This means that someone belonging to a nation bears responsibility for that nation
in front of God, so that he himself reaches that happiness bestowed by God, but that man will
also enjoy said happiness within his nation. He must take care that his nation be prepared for
the kingdom of heavens, for by this he takes care of so many people close to him, that,
together with himself, make up his nation; and because on the environment created within his
nation, to which he also has a role, the redemption or the loss of so many fellow men and of
himself depend. Thus, I cannot lose interest in my nation. But only God ensures the eternity of
its members. The very responsibility in front of God imposes my care for Him. If man
wouldn’t belong to a nation, he would have no language in which he listens from an early age
the word of God which he then communicates to others, out of care for them. And if he has no
responsibility for his nation in front of God, he doesn’t believe in the eternity of his members
and doesn’t care for that nation”.74
6. The singular, priceless and eternal value humanity receives through Jesus
Christ, our Saviour
Through His incarnation, meaning by his descent in time and space and by his
assumption of the entire humanity in his own Divine Being, the Son of God shows great care
and unlimited love for the whole of mankind. He comes for all people and for the whole
creation, so that everything God created would not disappear, but rather enjoy life, and have
eternal life as well. „And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), so that he
would lift us, men, to the glory of the Divinity.
It is interesting to underline the fact that the Incarnation of the Son of God as human
does not mean the union of God with a human being, with a specific person, on the contrary, it
refers to the way in which He, the true God, descends into the womb of the Virgin Mary, his
True Mother, and there, like in a new universe, creates from our humanity His own human
being; so that the human nature of Jesus Christ our Saviour is found in the nature of the whole
humanity. All people enjoy the presence of God among them, and the fact that God the Son
creates His own humanity from the humanity of us all. Through this human nature, Jesus
Christ speaks to man with human words, expresses Himself and lives like a man, he is humble
73
Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, p. 24. „The eternal
importance of every person in their uniqueness, but also in the specific communication they bring to the
others and by the others to them, is shown by the fact that each person known ones becomes
unforgettable to us; especially in reference to the communication we have had with that person. If all
persons were the same, they wouldn’t become unforgettable. Each one places a live mark on the spiritual
life of the person they communicated with. In this it is present the eternal value imprinted in each person
by God. We do not forget them because their existence is alive, it is singular, and has entered us through
unique communication, as the plants and animals are not unique and do not spiritually enter us, but as
species without conscience, not as singular persons” (Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Chipul
nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, p. 48).
74
34
and he descends at the level of all human aspects, transmitting, at the same time, with all his
gestures and human deeds the blessing, the peace and His Divine work.
Considering all these aspects, it is clear that, anthropologically, the Incarnation of the
Son of God as human being has a series of consequences and implications whose priceless
value cannot be equaled by anything else. All these shades, realities and perspectives are very
beautifully described by Father Professor Dumitru Stăniloae in the following words: „The
hypostasis of God’s Word was not united with another, human, hypostasis, but He
transformed by incarnation a human being, assumed and comprised in His Eternal Hypostasis,
and in this way the Hypostasis of human nature was also made. The first conclusion that
results is that the Son of God Himself came together with humanity to the maximum, or He
came closest to us. Now He no longer remains as person in other level but the human one; He
is no longer satisfied to make His presence and efficiency known, as person that supports the
rational human being existing independently from Him as His image and that of the logic of
things as different images of His reasons, as He would do before the incarnation and in a more
emphasized and obvious way in the Revelation of the Old Testament. He no longer dialogues
with human beings as a partner on another level; His reality as a person doesn’t remain as a
mysterious fact on another level, noticed through an exceptional experience only by some
humans, based on a special Revelation. Now the Divine Person of the Son of God or of the
Word enters the level of common experience of those who believe in Him, like a person from
the multitude of persons, who at the same time gives them the ability to perceive Him as a
Divine person. Before the incarnation, the two beings were «separated», according to Nicolae
Cabasila (διίσταντο), «for God was only Himself, and the human nature was only as such»
(Despre viaţa în Hristos, P.G., 150, 572A). Now we know for certain that God the Word is a
Person, or an existence similar to our personal existence, for He can make Himself a human
being without stopping to be a Divine Person as well. This way He guarantees the maximum
value of the human beings and their eternity. But this also shows that human nature was
created able to receive God the Word as Hypostasis”.75
The Son of God became human so that the entire humanity would have plenty of life.
He doesn’t do anything for Himself, but for us, the people. As it is shown in Simbolul de
credinţă (in English: Symbol of Faith), the epitome of the entire doctrine of the Orthodox
Church, all the activity and work of Christ our Saviour, is focused on man and his redemption,
in the sense that He fulfilled everything „for us the people and for our redemption”. St. Justin
Martyr shows, in this sense, that the Incarnation, the Sacrifice, The Resurrection and the
Assumption, the essential acts of the entire redeeming work of Christ, were done precisely for
the life of the whole world: „He did not accept to be Born and Crucified like someone that
needed this, but he did all this for mankind, whom since Adam had fallen under death and
under the wanderings of the snake, each one in turn committing evil, also through personal
mistakes”.76
It is important to underline the fact that Christ our Saviour, through everything He
does, is not focusing on one single nation, He embraces mankind as a whole, because all
people are His creation, and they all enjoy His divine undivided love and attention. The words
uttered by Christ the Saviour Himself – „For God so loved the world, that he gave His only
Son, that whoever believes in Him should not parish but have eternal life” (John 3:16) – are
extremely powerful and telling in this perspective.
75
Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă, vol. 2, Second Edition,
IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest, 1997, pp. 26-27.
76
ST. JUSTIN MARTYR, Dialogul cu iudeul Tryfon, LXXXVIII, in: Apologeţi de limbă greacă, PSB 2,
translation by Father Professor T. Bodogae, Father Professor Olimp Căciulă, Father Professor D.
Fecioru, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest, 1980, p. 198.
35
For Christ our Saviour all nations, all peoples and all persons are unique and
invaluable. He does not select people considering ethnic criteria, but shows that all people are
the creation of God and enjoy the same love from Him. Even though he is born in the middle
of the Judean people, through his very nativity Christ our Saviour holds within Him all the
peoples of the earth. The worship of the three Biblical Magi is solid proof that all the
ethnicities and peoples of the earth are attracted by Him to enjoy together the good He has
brought. Thus, Christ our Saviour speaks to the Samaritan woman (John 4:7-26), heals the
servent of the Roman centurion (Matthew 8:5-13), He raises Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:22-43;
Luke 8:41-56), the cleansing of the Samaritan leper (Luke 17:16) etc, proving that no nation is
more important than other, that the human being shouldn’t be respected based on its ethnicity,
but must be honoured because it is the creation of God. He does not divide people in majority
and minority, but shows that they all have the same value, regardless of the social
classification criteria. Every person is unique and invaluable, and must be honoured as such.
This is what Christ our Saviour teaches and shows us and the Parable of the Good Samaritan
is extremely eloquent in this respect (Luke 10:25-37).
7. Conclusions
In the present context of multiculturalism, globalization, ethnic diversity, the
phenomenon of migration, and other realities that influence one way or another the social
environment and life conditions, anthropology has the task of repurposing its own content in
order to create an ever more ample image of what the human being represents. The way in
which this is perceived and defined influences the entire spectre of life conditions and
relations. For this very reason, it is our duty, based on the truths uncovered by God, to try and
observed what each person represents and is about.
In this sense, considering the main theological principles on which Christian
anthropology in general is based, and especially the Christian-Orthodox one, it was
determined that every single human being, regardless of social status, ethnicity or other social,
cultural or other difference, is invaluable, and must be respected as such. Responsibility
towards one’s fellow humans is crucial, and one’s own redemption is dependent on the way in
which it is carried out and accomplished.
Each individual, regardless of their ethnic community, is our brother. He is one of us,
equal to us and from the same blood and the same human nature as ours. For this reason, the
language, culture, tradition differences, or of any other nature, should not be seen as barriers,
but as bridges toward intercommunion and as possibilities to discover the other in the
uniqueness of the gift of their personal existence received from God. Thus, the unity in
diversity and interpersonal communion constitute two essential components of the paradigm
that theological anthropology proposes in order to promote the human being and its invaluable
character in the context of present-day cultural diversity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. St. GREGORY OF Nyssa, 1982, Tâlcuire amănunţită la Cântarea Cântărilor, Writings,
First Part, PSB 29, translated by Father Professor Dumitru Stăniloae and Father Ioan Buga,
IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest.
2. St. GREGORY OF Nyssa, 1998, Despre facerea omului; Marele cuvânt catehetic sau
Despre învăţământul religios, Writings, Second Part, PSB 30, translated by Father Professor
PhD Teodor Bodogae, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest.
3. ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS, 2005, Dogmatica, translated by Father Professor
Dumitru Fecioru, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest.
36
4. St. Justin MartYr, 1980, Dialogul cu iudeul Tryfon, in: Apologeţi de limbă greacă,
PSB 2, translated by Father Professor T. Bodogae, Father Professor Olimp Căciulă, Father
Professor D. Fecioru, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest.
5. Losssky, Vladimir, 2006, După chipul şi asemănarea lui Dumnezeu, translated by
Anca Manolache, Humanitas Publishing House, Bucharest.
6. Popa, University Professor PhD His Eminence Irineu, Archbishop of Craiova and
Metropolitan of Oltenia, 2010, Iisus Hristos este Acelaşi, ieri şi azi şi în veac, Mitropolia
Olteniei Publishing House, Craiova.
7. ST. SYmeon the new theologian, 2001, Discursuri teologice şi etice, Writings I,
Second Edition, translation by Deacon Ioan I. Ică jr, Deisis Publishing House, Sibiu.
8. Stăniloae, Father Professor PhD Dumitru, 1996, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă, vol.
1, Second edition, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest.
9. Stăniloae, Father Professor PhD Dumitru, 1997, Teologia Dogmatică
Ortodoxă, vol. 2, Second Edition, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest.
10. Stăniloae, Father Professor PhD Dumitru, 1987, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu,
Mitropolia Olteniei Publishing House, Craiova.
11. Stăniloae, Father Professor PhD Dumitru, 2005, Sfânta Treime sau La început a
fost Iubirea, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest.
12. Ware, Metropolitan Kallistos, 2012, Orthodox Theology in the Twenty-First
Century, WCC Publications, Geneva.
37
HISTORICAL AND ETHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS
OF THE MINORITIES PRESENT IN OLTENIA
BELIEFS, CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS
EMIL ŢÎRCOMNICU PhD
FLORENŢA SIMION PhD
According to the population Census conducted in 201177, Romania’s population was of
20.121.641 inhabitants, of which 16.792.868 were Romanians and 2.091.963 constituted the
minorities (the others not declaring their ethnical affiliation). The main ethnicities in Romania
are: Hungarians (1.227.623), Roma people (621.573), Ukrainians (50.920), Germans (36.042),
Turks (27.698), Lipovan Russians (23.487), Tatars (20.282), Serbs (18.076), Bulgarians
(7.336), Croatians (5.408), Greeks (3.668), Italians (3.203), Jews (3.271), Czechs (2.477),
Polish (2.543), Chinese (2.017), Armenians (1.361), Csangos (1.536), Macedonians/ Slavic
Macedonians (1.264).
The number of Slavic Macedonians, of 1.264, is surprising. In fact, Aromanians
(Macedo-Romanians or Balkan Romanians displaced to Romanian after 1925), also called in
Romanian „machidon”, some of them stating that they are Macedonians, were wrongly
registered under the Slavic Macedonian minority. In Constanţa County there are 503
Macedonians, 63 of them in M. Kogălniceanu locality; in Tulcea County there are 59
Macedonians; in Voluntari Ilfov County, there are 41 Macedonians; in Slobozia – Ialomiţa
County, 21. In these counties and localities live Romanian Macedonians/ Aromanians.
In Oltenia the main ethnicities in relation to the Romanian majority, as per the 2011
census, are as follows:
Total
Romanians
Hungarians
Roma
Germans
Turks
Serbs
Bulgarians
Greeks
Italians
Jews
Czechs
Macedonians
Oltenia
2075642
1900970
752
63899
307
166
1124
80
129
160
79
566
141
Dolj
660544
554481
192
29839
60
46
99
65
91
68
60
134
Gorj
341594
321686
134
6698
22
11
17
8
28
10
-

Mehedinţi
265390
236908
153
10919
151
40
996
6
21
16
11
466
-
Olt
436400
400089
66
9504
11
27
6
5
19
4
Vâlcea
371714
347806
207
6939
63
42
6
4
9
29
8
3
Ethnologist, scientific researcher qualification levels I, ”Constantin Brăiloiu” Institute of Ethnography
and Folklore of the Romanian Academy.

Folklorist, scientific researcher qualification levels III, ”Constantin Brăiloiu” Institute of Ethnography
and Folklore of the Romanian Academy.
77
http://www.recensamantromania.ro/rezultate-2/, tabel sR_Tab_8.
38
The following can be observed: in Oltenia, the Romanians represent more than 91% of
the population, and the minorities represent less than 9%. The most important minority is the
Roma one, with a number of 63.899 (declared) individuals. At the same time, there are
persons who are part of mixed families, with foreign ancestry, and who, for various reasons,
be them historical, cultural, etc., declare themselves as Romanians or as pertaining to other
nationalities.
There are a few rural localities where larger compact groups are present, pertaining to
certain ethnicities: Urzicuţa-Dj (108 Macedonians), Sviniţa-Mh (835 Serbs), Dubova-Mh
(Czechs), Eşelniţa-Mh (Czechs) – only the Serbs in Sviniţa being a majority in relation to the
Romanian population (the three communes inhabited by Serbs and Czechs are part of the
historical Banat, and administratively are part of the Mehedinţi County). The number of
Hungarians dropped considerably between 1930 and 2011. There is also a small number of
Turkish ethnics.
Representatives of Balkan populations settled on the territory of the Romanian
principalities during the Middle Ages, especially after the Ottoman conquest of the Balkan
Peninsula. Thus, Greeks, Albanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Serbs, Bosnians, found shelter
in Romanian towns and small commercial settlements, where they could carry out different
economic activities.
The Roma people are located both in the urban, as well as in the rural areas: in Dolj
there are 10.733 (urban) and 19.106 (rural); in Gorj there are 3.850 (urban) and 2.848 (rural);
in Mehedinţi there are 2.503 (urban) and 8.416 (rural); in Olt there are 6.206 (urban) and
3.298 (rural); in Vâlcea there are 3.944 (urban) and 2.995 (rural). The Roma represent
important percentages in many rural localities, however they are not majoritarian in any of
them.
It is fairly difficult to make an ethnic- cultural presentation of the minorities in Oltenia,
because all, except for the Roma population, are numerically small. Even though the number of
minorities has always been small, there have been historical times when, due to economic and
political circumstances, the number of certain ethnicities was higher, their representatives then
naturally integrating within the majority (by constituting mixed families for two-four generations)
or emigrating but leaving „cultural” traces within Oltenia. In our approach we will try to highlight
this cultural patrimony, legacy of Romanians’ coexistence with the other nationalities.
GREEKS
The history of Greek settlement in the Romanian space is very old, since Antiquity the
Greeks founded fortresses in Dobruja, at the Black Sea. Then, during the Middle Ages and
later, between the 18th and 20th centuries, Greek communities were also established in
Romanian cities, primarily being merchants and craftsmen.
An important wave of Greek people came from Asia Minor after the defeat of Greece
by Turkey in 1923. The Greeks stem from all Greek provinces, sometimes whole families,
such as the case of the Epirus Greeks from Papingo, settled in Turnu Severin78. They were
more numerous in the Dobruja localities, but also in Brăila, Galaţi, etc.
The number of Greeks in Romania dropped in the 20th century, being counted at 3.940
in 1992 and 6.513 in 2002. However, we mustn’t confuse the Romanian citizens of Greek
origin, whose families settled hundreds of years before on Romania’s territory, with the new
78
According to Paula Scalcău, in Doru Dumitrescu; Carol Căpiţă; Mihai Manea; Laura Căpiţă; Mihai
Stamatescu (coordinator) History of National Minorities in Romania, Bucharest, Didactic and Pedagogic
PH R.A, 2008, p. 20.
39
wave of Greeks from the 20th century, settler in Romania after 1921, or with the children
brought as refugees after 1948. There are also those who came here for studies or business and
formed mixed families in Romania. Many of them repatriated. During the 2011 census, in Dolj
county 91 persons declared they were Greeks.
„The Greek Community in Craiova is part of the Greek Union in Romania, which has
its main office in Bucharest. We are 22 communities in the country. Dragoş Zisopol is our
deputy, he is a university professor. The Craiova branch was set up in 1992, after the
Revolution. The bases of the Greek Union in Romania were laid by the formed president, who
sadly passed away and is regretted by everybody, Mr. Sotiris Fotopolos. He was a
geologist.”79
By talking to Ion Florin Pâşcoveanu80, the president of the Greek forum in Craiova, we
find out important data about the Greeks in Oltenia.
The history of the Greek community in Craiova. „There are two branches of Greeks in
Craiova, unlike other cities and communities. The ones coming until 1945, coinciding with the
Greeks being forced out of Asia Minor ... [There was probably an earlier community of
merchants and craftsmen, and then came the ones after 1923, after losing the war against the
Turks and after the peace treaty signed in Lausanne – our note]. Yes. Then came children aged
a maximum of 14-15 years old, because of the civil war in Greece, and they settled here as
well. These children were well integrated in Craiova, they were given jobs, schooling... let’s
say they were the children of communists or communist sympathizers. Theu were climbed
into cars and taken to Russia, Yugoslavia... Thus, in Craiova there were two distinct
communities that did not get along, since part of them sustained the previous regime, the ones
who had owned shops, and some of these Greeks were imprisoned and had a lot to suffer.
However, the suffering was two-sided, because those children, brothers, hopped on a truck and
left for Russia, one left fro Yugoslavia, another one came to Romania. And they saw each
other again maybe after 15-20 years. Since a young age they lived alone. It was painful for
them, as well as for those who had settled here previously and had to see their parents, for
example children, whose father was jailed for having owned a small pie shop or who knows
what, a small business, a hotel... Everything was seized from them, there was no difference
between Romanian and Greek merchants. The other group was subsidized by the state, by the
communists, whereas the other children had no rights [special rights, c.n.81], same as the
Romanians and others alike… Even after these 25 years there still is a [problem, c.n.], but it’s
been toned down. After 1990 the community tried to tone down these differences; however the
older ones left with this suffering.... it cannot be suppressed... The revolutionary Greeks had a
headquarter, they got together, had an orchestra, it was right in front of Oltenia restaurant.”
In turn, the president of the Greek Community in Romania82, related to us the following
information on Greek emigration after the war: „the Greeks that had come in 1948-1950,
settled in the municipality of Craiova, and who started to organize themselves, around 400 of
them, had the Greek club next to Oltenia restaurant. It was 400 paying members who paid for
their membership, it was a legally constituted association. The respective space was given by
79
Ion Vasoyanis was born in Craiova in 1947, in a mixed Roman- Greek family. He completed
electrotechnics engineering studies, and is the President of the Greek Community in Craiova since 2003.
At the association headquarters also participated in the interview Vasilica Preda, née Sărseludi in 1942,
came in Romania in 1950, completed highschool studies and the courses of a technical school, and Elena
Dobre, born Akrivăţ in 1954. Her parents came to Romania in 1948, she graduated from college, then
worked at the Electroputere plant (inteview from the 1th of August, 2015).
80
Ion Florin Pârşcoveanu, born in Craiova in 1957, graduated from the Art and Music Highschool in
Craiova. The interview took place on the 26th of March, 2015, in Craiova.
81
Between square brackets there are the interventions of the authors, marked c.n., our addition.
82
Ion Vasoyanis.
40
the municipal authorities. The place was known as the Greek club, where artistic activities
were taking place. There had [previously] been Greek merchants [in Craiova]. Around 2.000
children arrived. There was a civil war in Greece, they came without parents. They were also
distributed to Câmpina, Slatina, Braşov, Tulcea, Oradea, Ştefăneşti, Piteşti. Do you know how
respectfully they speak of the conditions created by the Romanian state? They were schooled,
given a qualification; schools were set up ... I believe now there are about 70 people with
Greek origins in Craiova. The association was created in 1950 by Greek refugees. The
Romanian state took very good care of them. The association existed until 1989, when it was
dissolved, since many of them had left, about 60%. Mixed families were then formed, many of
them went back.”
The situation of the Greek community in Oltenia after 1990. Today there are two Greek
associations in Oltenia: The Craiova Greek Forum, represented by Ion Florin Pâşcoveanu, and
the Greek Community in Craiova, represented by Ion Vasoyanis.
„In 1990 we were set up in Craiova, around end of the year. The first great assembly
took place in 1991 at the Lyrical Theatre, when we celebrated March 25 [the Greek national
day]. We tried to bring everyone together...it was rough, but we tried to make something good,
I’d say, during the respective period, close to 1997, 1998, even 2000. Up until then, the state
didn’t really subsidize communities. When it started to properly subsidize communities, these
issues [within the communities] started. Greece was also very supportive, as far as I know it is
the only country that has such a well-organized Diaspora. There is a Diaspora Greek council,
they also have a ministry for the Greeks living abroad, our children were able to go on camps
subsidized by the Greeks, the elders could also go on special camps there. Not to a great
extent, but we also have children that went to Greece to study. Without exaggeration, I believe
[in Craiova] their number is less than 200, 150-200. Statistically, there are more Greeks in
Calafat, but I know from when they set up their community that they were never that many,
and the town is small, too. There was also a financial interest in declaring oneself Greek.”
The Greek language is spoken in mixed families. „Nowadays very few people also
write in Greek, but there are more to speak the language, both the revolutionaries, as well as
the older ones. Since there is no Greek school here, the revolutionaries held courses with the
children at their club... the others didn’t have access and lost touch... they also know how to
speak the language, but there’s also a problem here: many of the elders speak an older
language, not archaic, it’s similar to the Romanian language at the turn of the 20th century.
There are also younger people with relatives in Greece so they went there more often, they
changed the i’s, since that’s an issue, and so on.... and they speak a clean language, like the
Greeks living there.”
Greek families were preserved as such until close to 1990. However, many mixed
families were formed: „up to 1990 there were families of very old Greeks. There are many
children from Greek families that were born in Romania. If both the mother and the father
came in 1921, the child was born here, a Romanian citizen. [Then] they became mixed
families. The revolutionaries’ children kept to themselves for as long as they could, but
children were born in Romania and they went to school with Romanian children, they became
friends at the university, at work, and [they got married]. The parents weren’t very particular,
it was not like with the Jews, a caste... they were more open. In the case of this community
that was set up they began with dancing, with music, a few hours of Greek language. It was
two, three generations of children... The children of those who danced in 1990 were the ones
dancing in this troop. We would meet up, cut vasilopita, as whoever said vasilopita originated
from other nations, should know it is of Greek origin.”83
83
Ion Florin Pârşcoveanu.
41
Greek students who have come to Craiova. „In the 1990s, up to 1995-1997, many
Greeks studied medicine, and not only that. The local community shared a rather close relation
with those students. With part of them we still exchange emails. And they supported us. We
held these celebrations, 25 [March] and 28 [October] together, as they were closer like that as
well. I can say that they were probably the only student community that had an organization; it
was hundreds of them, at times even 400 students. They left, since they came here to receive a
diploma and in order to be able to hold a position there. They generally came to study
medicine, but they were also enrolled in law school or natural sciences. I cannot say it was the
largest Greek student organization in Romania, since there were more in Iaşi or in Bucharest.
But they were very well organized, and if the governing power was the New Democracy, the
president of the organization here was a member of the respective party. The vice-president
was a PASOK member, but there were never any [internal] conflicts. For a long time they
came due to the low cost of education, unlike in other countries. During Ceauşescu’s
dictatorship there were also many of them here, they were even more united. When they were
allowed to buy homes wherever they wanted, everything started to fall apart, less and less of
them came...”84
The Greek Community in Craiova, together with the Greek Union in Romania, is
organizing a series of cultural activities, Ion Vasoyanis mentioning the following: „We now
have an amazing artistic troop. These children are wonderful. The „Irini” troop, once you see
them you cannot forget them! The Union organizes competitions of the neo-Greek language;
in 2007 it was held in Craiova. Each year we organize the Youth Festival, on October 18,
where all communities participate. Each year on March 25 we celebrate in Drăgăşani Greece’s
national day. Since 2010 the neo-Greek language is officially taught in a school environment.
The classes are held every Saturday at the «Fraţii Buzeşti» National College. The teacher is
one of our members, he has academic studies. All children are given diplomas. In Romania
there are several teachers from Greece who organize classes in a high-school environment,
specifically at Hristo Botev, in Bucharest.” The Greek Union in Romania publishes Speranţa
[Hope] magazine.
Traditions and customs. There are a few reference points regarding religious and
community celebrations of the Greek community in Romania. Being Orthodox, the Greeks
and the Romanians celebrated together the religious holidays. There are, however, a few
elements particular to the Greek community, which the Greek people in Craiova highlighted
within their associations:
„Vasilopita is St. Basil’s bread. This aghios Vasilis was Greek. He was supposed to pay
tribute to the Turks and he said: «We don’t have money, the city, each one of us should
contribute!». «We don’t have anything!». «You, give a piece of jewellery! You, a ring, you a
bracelet, you a golden earring!». And so on. He eventually managed not to pay the respective
tribute to the Turks and found himself with a mass of gold jewellery and he had no idea who
each one belonged to. And how to call everybody? He made some little breads and in each one
of them he put a gold object and he shared the breads and said: «Each one with their own luck!»
Thus, for January 1st a bread is made, it is said the seven spices are used in it, as gradually it was
not a pita bread, a simple bread. The seven spices are now added, such as pistachios, peanuts...
and the eldest or the most important person in the family cuts it. The first piece is said to be for
Christ, the second for St. Basil, the third one is for the house and then, in order of age, from
grandfather, grandmother, to the youngest child. It is said that the person who finds in their piece
of bread this coin – as there is a coin hidden in it – will be lucky. We made this every year, the
tradition is also kept by the community, since it is a good opportunity to get together. Even
though we make this bread on January 1st at home, at the community meeting we make it on the
84
42
4th, the 5th, or maybe the following Saturday. This, together with the days of March 25 and
October 28, we definitely celebrate.”85
„After January 1st we celebrate the vasilopita, which is one of the most important
customs of the Greeks. There is a pie made in honour of St. Basil, a coin is inserted in this
cake, we cut it, and whoever finds the coin will be rich. It is a sweet bread made with
cinnamon and other spices, whatever one wants. We meet up here, serve the pie and eat it...”86
Flag of the „Irini”
folklore ensemble
Traditional costume
The Vasoyanis Greek
family, and their children
National Day. „In the Drăgăşani cemetery there is a monument of the Greek people, the
fighting children that had come with the sacred battalion in 1821, fallen in the battle of
Drăgăşani against the Turks, c.n.]. Many of the elder [Greeks, c.n.] say, even though the children
lost some of this information, that whoever failed to see all this, was not… On March 25 we go
and deposit wreaths, people from the Embassy also come to the monument. Mostly it’s us that
go, the ones we are closer, from Bucharest, Piteşti, Craiova, Calafat.”87
The Greek monument in
the cemetery of Drăgăşani
It was built in 1885 and
refurbished in 1975
It is dedicated to the
memory of the battles of the
Filiki Eteria fighters (the
sacred battalion) with the
Turks in 1821
The Great No/Ohi (October 28) „is the second national holiday of the Greeks. The
Greeks were first occupied by the Italians. Until the Germans came, they could not be
conquered. In the Parliament also there was a proclamation and it was said: «Well now, what
85
Ion Vasoyanis, Vasilica Preda and Elena Dobre (inteviewed on 11th of August 2015).
87
86
43
are we going to do? We either let ourselves trampled by the Germans, or we fight!». And the
Greeks said: «No! Ohi! We fight, we will not let ourselves be trampled!». And of course
eventually the Germans, being more numerous, more... they conquered them. [Today] it’s like
a national day [in Greece], with parades, with the presence of the army.”88
„The Day of the Great No (Ohi), October 28, is the day when the Greeks said no to the
invading power. It was a moment of the insurrection.”89
Christian holidays. „St. Mary is a huge holiday. St. George and St. Demetrius of
Thessaloniki. Craiova has the same patron saint as Thessaloniki (St. Demetrius). The Saint’s
mosaic in Thessaloniki has the same features as the one in the church here. Certain links
always existed, with the Greek’s school existence here, Tudor Vladimirescu..., Michael the
Brave was of Greek descent, his mother was Greek.
New Year Tradition: On New Year’s day we throw a pomegranate over the house and
depending on how it breaks” [that’s how abundant it will be like, c.n.].
Aghios Vasilis: There is no Santa Claus, there is only St. Basil, aghios Vasili, he brings
gifts to the children. Except for those about Jesus Christ, all carols are about aghios Vasilis.
Baptism is completely different. Here the godfather is not the important one, but the
godmother. Regarding the name, the girl must receive not the godmother’s first name, but the
grandmother’s. However, the tradition is not kept as it was.
Mourning. If the husband died, the wife would wear black until her own death. She was
continuously in mourning, until old age. For a long time, when these children arrived from
Greece, they were taught to wear black, as recognition to their country of origin. Greek people
are very patriotic.
Funeral wheat porridge. The funeral porridge is made in a completely different
manner, because of the heat. It’s made of wheat also, but it is not boiled. It also [has] some
added spices.”90
Ties with the church. There was never a church [of the Greeks in Craiova]. We tried to
come together, but it was difficult as they were not used [to go to a certain church]. Craiova
being a larger city, each one of us went to the church where we lived, being of the same
religion [as the Romanians]. During Ceauşescu’s regime you were not really allowed to say it,
the children of the revolutionaries didn’t really attend church, they were being taught
differently and that’s how the connection with the church was lost. Unfortunately, many of
these children died without really making peace with the church.
In Calafat there is a church subordinated to the Metropolitan Church of Oltenia, but in
which the priest that refurbished it even during Ceauşescu’s dictatorship, kept the paintings
and the Greek writings, including the church’s painter, a Greek, is mentioned there, on the
wall.”91
88
Ion Vasoyanis.
90
91
89
44
Ion Vasoyanis, President
of the Greek Community
in Craiova
Ion Florin Pâşcoveanu,
President of the Greek
Forum in Craiova
Folklore Ensemble of
Greeks in Romania
Case study – the Vasoyanis family. „I had my grandparents who came to Craiova in
1912. They were initially in Brăila, from Brăila to Bucharest, then in Craiova. In Bucharest, in
Calea Rahovei, they had a little shop, I went myself to see the place where it was. I found
descendants of my grandfather’s associate, his name was Taşula. They were merchants, they
had a shop, they came for business and the Communist Party took it away from them, took
everything away from them, it destroyed them. They were already considered to be a part of
the small bourgeoisie. Both the Jews and the Greeks faced the same troubles. That’s what it
was like back then. When you were considered to be a kulak or bourgeois, they took [your
property]. After that they lived from one day to the other, poor souls. They had four children.
From my mother’s side they are Romanians, a mixed family.”92
Case study – the Pâşcoveanu family. „There are very few people named Pâşcoveanu.
There is a village here, Pâşcoveni, there was a rather powerful boyar from the Brâncoveanu
family, who, as far as I know, around 1820, before the arrival of T. Vladimirescu, proposed to
one of them, Ştefan Pâşcoveanu, to become ruler, but he refused… The Pâşcoveni boyars are
linked also to the Obedeanu church, with donations… My origin is also from that side, from
the name, but also from another side. My paternal grandmother was Greek and my grandfather
was Romanian. A native of Asia Minor, she was stolen by my grandfather, here, he was a
merchant in Caracal. He was doing business with the Greeks, with this family, he liked her
and he stole her. My father was orphaned when he was nine, he was a judge. Being orphan, he
declared himself always an orphan, because of the files, you know what it was like, the
autobiography, what is your mother, how about your father... My grandparents’ shop in
Caracal was taken over [by the communists], whatever happened, happened, he registered
himself as orphan because since he was nine that’s exactly what he was. This thing with the
Greeks, I don’t even know what to say about it, no one talked about it at home, one couldn’t
leave, we don’t know our family there, especially for being orphaned. And the information he
had was what you’d expect for a nine-year old to know.
My wife’s grandfather [Romanian] had a furrier’s shop here, and he had brothers in
Greece. He left because he couldn’t get along, financially Greece was weak at the time. He left
the fur business and opened a pie shop. His brothers in Greece presented him this girl, they
liked each other, they adjusted to one another, they remained together. The Greeks live a long
life, my wife’s grandmother lived until she was 93-94.”93
92
Ion Vasoyanis.
93
45
ALBANIANS
The Albanians in Romania are documented at the end of the 16th century, in 1595
Michael the Brave allowing a number of 15.000 Albanians to settle in the Principality of
Wallachia94. The reason was clearly the entrance of the Balkan territories in the composition
of the Ottoman Empire, the Christian princes successively losing the wars against the Turks.
Later, the Albanians came as merchants and craftsmen, as well as fighters in the ruler’s guide
(Albanian mercenaries). The Albanians’ cultural link with the Romanians is strong, in
Romania taking shelter, as in the case of the Bulgarians, part of the Albanian national cultural
elite, which activated toward the formation of the independent Albanian state. We mention
here the Drita (Lumina) society, which functioned between 1884 and 1914. The ruler Vasile
Lupu was of Albanian origin, and in the cultural area we mention Elena Ghica (Dora d’Istria)
and Naum PanajotVeqilhaergi (author of the first Albanian spelling book mid-nineteenth
century). The writer Victor Eftimiu, born in a village in the Southern part of Albania,
Boboştiţa, settled and worked in Romania. In Romania (Homeland of Freedom – Vatan i
lirimevet, as it was called by Albanian patriots) several Albanian newspapers and magazines
were edited at the end of the 19th century- beginning of the 20th: Drita (starting with 1887),
Shqiperia, Shqiptari, PërlindjaShqiptare, Jetashqiptaro-rumune, Atdheu, Shqiperia e re95.
After 1878, in Bucharest there were several Albanian cultural associations, among which
Bashkimi/ Union (set up in 1906). The hymn of the association, Ciprian Porumbescu’s
composition, Pe-al nostru steag e scris unire (On our flag stands written union), became, in
November of 1912, the national anthem Himni i Flamurit on the occasion of Albania’s
independence.
Many Albanian intellectuals repatriated after 1912. Permanently, however, there were
Albanian families that settled in Romania. Thus, the Gendarme Inspectorate in Craiova, as per
the order no. 36779 of 1943 of the General Gendarme Inspectorate handed out a table with the
names of 11 Albanians settled in Dolj County96.
„The Albanians were always devoted to their adoptive country, contributing as per their
possibilities to its prosperity, being workers, merchants, doctors and teachers, engineers and
architects, writers and actors, etc.”97
During the 2002 census, the Albanians in Romania were 520 in number. In Oltenia, the
number of Albanians is quite small, in Craiova existing a branch of the League of Albanians in
Romania.
The Albanians Union in Romania was set up in 1990, and then, on June 30 of 1999, the
League of Albanians in Romania was set up, presided nowadays by deputy Oana Manolescu.
The association has a diverse activity, being involved in cultural projects to promote the
Albanian language and culture, publishing books, as well as The Albanian magazine.
94
Marius and Maria Dobrescu, in Istoria minorităţilor naţionale din România, p. 33.
See also Nicolae Djamo, Gelcu Maksutovici, „About the Albanians in Romania”, in GelcuVesedin
Matsukovici (coordinator), Istoria comunităţii albaneze din România, Bucharest, Cultural Union of
Albanians in Romania, 2000, vol. 1, p. 28-31.
96
Nicolae Ciachir, „Original details about the Albanians Foreign Citizens settled in Romania in 1943”,in
Istoria comunităţii albaneze din România, volume 1, Bucharest, 2000, p. 339.
97
N. Djamo, G. Maksutovici, quoted work, p. 30.
95
46
Deputy Oana Manolescu,
President of the Albanian
League Association in
Romania
Young Albanians in
traditional costumes
„Sf. Nicolae Dintr-o zi”
Church – „Albanian
people’s church”
(Academy Rd., Bucharest)
The „Sf. Nicolae Dintr-o zi” Church on Academy Rd. in Bucharest is considered the
„Albanian church” because, as shown on the memorial plaque: „Between 1911-1945, this
church served as place of prayer to the Albanian Orthodox community in Bucharest. Here
served in the Albanian language Fan S. Noli (1882-1965), remarkable personality of the
Albanian literature and culture, Albanian prime-minister between June and December of
1924.”
„The Albanian community in Oltenia is rather small. There are many Albanian and
Romanian names that hide Albanian people. This community only lives in urban areas.”,
according to the deputy of the Albanian minority, Oana Manolescu, during the workshop
organized in Craiova on the 2nd of July of 2015. Having come from the Christian- Orthodox
southern area of Albania, the orthodox Albanians integrated in time within the Romanian
Orthodox community in Oltenia. Like this, the holidays and traditions are similar to the ones
of the Romanians living in the area.
A family of Muslim Albanians, the Memish family, settled in Slatina at the end the
18th century, when many Balkan people migrated to Wallachia, at the turn of the 20th century,
opened a confectionery shop, „By the Albanian Athlete”, which has functioned ever since,
without interruption, being one of the very few private ventures during the communist regime.
Hashim Memish (born in 1939), the person running this confectionery shop that sells oriental
sweets, ice-cream and millet beer, was named honorary citizen in 2008, Because of the media,
the shop is known nation-wide, many occasional tourists having tasted their products through
time.
BULGARIANS
There are two Bulgarian communities in Romania: one in Banat, which is a Catholic
one, and the other scattered across all the other provinces, this one being Orthodox. Orthodox
Bulgarians in the Southern part of Romania, in Oltenia and Muntenia, were naturally
assimilated by the Romanian population during the last two centuries. An important group of
the Bulgarian population was found in the two counties of North Dobruja, namely Tulcea and
Constanţa. By applying the provisions of the Treaty of Craiova from September 1940, there
47
was a change of population between Romanian asylum seekers of Bulgarian origin from North
Dobruja, and Romanian asylum seekers of Romanian origin from South Dobruja. In this way,
with the loss of the two Southern counties in Dobruja came the loss of an important Bulgarian
community in the Northern part of Dobruja, transferred to the South.
In Craiova, the presence of Bulgarians is very old. „There was also a Bulgarian suburb,
at Sfântul Spiridon [church] there were a lot of Bulgarians. I know the Gheciu [family], Petre
and Tănase Gheciu. It was an entire suburb of gardeners, their street pertained to the
Mântuleasa church, as well as the St. Demetrios church. It was a swampy area which allowed
the practice of gardening. They had the gardeners’ guild. They were assimilated to the main
population, their offspring are known. I met some of them myself, they had Bulgarian
particularities. I met some who had fought in the Bulgarian army in 1913. They were in
Băileşti, coming [here] to the South. We have an issue with the fact that we call the people
from South of the Danube Serbs and one cannot differentiate between Bulgarians and Serbs”,
according to Mr. Toma Râdulescu, a historian based in Craiova (interview from the 27th of
March, 2015).
We thus reach an important issue: in the region of Oltenia, under the denomination of
Serbs we must include the ones from the South of the Danube – Bulgarians, Serbs,
Macedonians, Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians – who appeared as merchants through
oriental companies and as craftsmen. In this sense, the Serbs’ suburb in Craiova, which no one
really recalls where it was situated exactly, somewhere behind a church with St. John as
patron, was in fact made up of Macedonian-Romanian (Aromanian) merchants from the
Wallachia- Clisura, that had come at the end of the a7th century and beginning of the 18th.
During the interwar dispute regarding the location of the Serb suburb, another historian
considers the year 1825 as the moment starting with which we can consider the arrival of the
Aromanians from Wallachia-Clisura in Craiova.98
„It is historically undisputed that, starting with the 17th century, many Macedonian
families [Macedonian- Romanian] crossed into Ardeal and Oltenia to settle here and do
business. From the beginning of the 18th century an important number of these families also
settled in Craiova, and they are still present here through their offspring. Having come from
Macedonia, be it from Wallachia- Clisura or Meglena or from other Romanian villages, for a
while they were completely foreign to the inhabitants of Craiova; and their name and national
costume, very similar to the one of the Serbs, rightfully determined the population of Craiova
to consider these Aromanians (Aromanians from Macedonia, Macedonians) as Serbs and to
also name the part of the city where they lived y the name of the Serbs’ suburb, comprising
namely of that part of town close to St. John church, where back then and in newer times these
numerous Macedonian families in Craiova used to live. This historical mention does not mean
that the new denomination of the Popa Anghel or Chiţărănoaia suburb, until it was changed
into the suburb of St. John, as it is called now, would have been removed by the passing and
short-lived denomination of the Serbs’ suburb, as it was very often the case with other suburb
names in our city.”99
98
Gigi Orman, „From Craiova’s past: Clisurean Neighbourhood”, in the Archives of Oltenia, MarchApril. 1928, year VII, p. 110.
99
George Mil.-Demetrescu, „From Craiova’s past. Serbs’ Ghetto (suburb) (St. John Suburb)”, in the
Archives of Oltenia, january- February 1928, year VII, p. 11-12.
48
MACEDONIANS
The Macedonians (Macedonian-Slavs, population from the Macedonian space), came
in important waves between 1564 and 1565, because of a series of defeated peasant uprisings
throughout Macedonia’s territory, in the Mariopo-Prilep region. Another emigration moment
is the year 1595, during the rule of Michael the Brave. Also, during the revolution of Tudor
Vladimirescu Macedonian people came, and they joined the revolutionary army. The peasant
uprisings of the 19th century produced other emigrations toward the Romanian space, settling
in rural localities in the Southern part of Oltenia. Coming from the Balkan space through
Serbia and Bulgaria, the Romanians called them Bulgarians, Serbs, „pecialbar” people,
Macedonians100.
The historic territory of Macedonia, after the Balkan wars of 1912-1913 and the fall of
the Ottoman Empire, was divided between Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece. In diplomatic circles
there was this idea of Macedonia for Macedonian people, meaning of the populations that
inhabit it, mainly Macedonian Slavs, Macedonian Romanians (Aromanians) and Albanians.
The Macedonian area that became part of the Serbian-Croatian-Greek Kingdom, and later of
the Yugoslav Kingdom and the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, was autonomous
starting with 1963 and from the 8th of September of 1991 it became independent, under the
name of the Republic of Macedonia, which led to a diplomatic conflict with Greece. Greece
challenged the name of the new state, in diplomatic circles the denomination of FYROM –
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia being used.
In Dolj county, Urzicuţa village, there is a community of Macedonian people (Slavs) of
Orthodox religion, only recently admitted to, after the emergence of the Macedonian state, a
community of 108 people (3,45% of the total of 3.128 inhabitants). During the 2011 census
134 people in Dolj county declared themselves Macedonian, 133 of them settled in Urzicuţa.
They set up a branch of the Association of Macedonians in Romania, the community obtaining
a deputy place in the Romanian Parliament (now occupied by Ionel Stancu).
The Association of Macedonians in Romania was set up in 2000, the Macedonians being
recognized as national minority in Romania that same year. Starting with 2001, the Association
became a member of the Council of National Minorities, together with the other ethnicitiees
recognized in Romania. The Association tried to find its own identity, publishing every year
books and magazines dedicated to the Macedonian customs and traditions, their traditional
gastronomy, etc.101
The confusion between the Macedonian Slavic/ Macedonian and MacedonianRomanian/ Aromanian in Romania is recognized by the Association of Macedonians in
Romania, according to the 2013 statement of Emilian Mircea, its cultural counsellor: „There is
a very strong Macedonian community in the Southern area of Romania. We speak about
Slavic Macedonians, they ones that are a majority in Macedonia, over 60% of the entire
population. There is a major confusion between them and the Aromanian community.”102
100
Liana Dumitrescu, Laura Rogobete, Marijan Mihailov, in the Istoria minorităţilor naţionale din
România, p. 28-29.
101
Pease check the website http://www.asociatia-macedonenilor.ro/reviste.php?revista=7 (19th of
August 2015)
102
Asineta Gâscan, „Macedonian Day, celebrated in Craiova”, in Ediţie specială, 9th of September 2013,
interview with Emilian Mirea, please check: http://www.editie.ro/articole/actualitate/ziuamacedonenilor-celebrata-la-craiova.html.
49
JEWS
The Jewish community in Oltenia is divided into the two main branches: Sephardic
(Jews from Spain and the Mediterranean basin – Greece, Turkey, Serbia) and Ashkenazi (from
Central and Eastern Europe, mainly from Galicia and the Western areas of the Russian
Empire). The two communities came in waves, the first that arrived being the Sephardic Jews.
They started settling in Europe and Northern Africa after the Alhambre Decree of 1492, issued
by the Spanish kings, which imposed the forced conversion of Jews, followed by the de facto
expulsion from Spain. The Sephardic Jews represented a community that had settled in Spain
ever since the Roman times and had lived mainly among the Arabs that had established the
Al-Andalus Caliphate, thus in time starting to be differentiated by language (Judaeo-Spanish,
commonly referred to as Ladino, a Spanish dialect) and certain aspects of their traditions and
customs from the Jews that had settled in regions of the Roman Empire that became Christian
(Jews that created their own language, Yiddish, a dialect created based on medieval German)
After the Alhambra Decree, Sephardic Jews left the country either towards the South
(especially Morocco and Tunisia), or to the East (Greece, Servia, Turkey, Bulgaria). During
the 16th and 17th centuries the latter ones entered the Romanian Principalities and, if we refer
to Oltenia alone, they represented the first wave of Jews settled in this province. Their first
documentation seems to be in the case of Michael the Brave’s army103, and they are later
mentioned in documents of Craiova.104 „In 1647, the Patriarch baptised a young Jew at the
Brâncoveni monastery, and another one, also converted by Athanasius the Gatekeeper in
Craiova, these being the first references of Jews in the Banate of Craiova.”105
Regarding the Ashkenazi Jews (the majority of them coming to the Romanian
principalities from Galicia), after the 19th century pogroms, their origin being different. They
are present in Central Europe ever since the first millennium of existence of the Holy Roman
Empire. Their name originates from a Biblical denomination, initially used, apparently, for the
region of Armenia and/ or Khazaria and subsequently applied to German territories in general.
Thus, as Sephardic Jews are the Jews from Spain (Sepharad), the same goes for Ashkenazi
Jews who are Jews from Germany (Ashkenaz). Moreover, in Judaic sources, including
crusaders from the Holy Roman Empire are called Ashkenazi (meaning Germans).
Regardless of their origin, be it from the Sephardic or the Ashkenazi branch, in the
Romanian territories, especially in Muntenia, administratively the Jews were divided into two
types: the Sudit people (meaning residents), who lived in the respective countries but were
foreign subjects (usually Austrians) and were under the care of the consulates of their
countries of origin; and the Hrisovelit/Hrisovoli people who possessed a tax payer document,
thus being subjects of the Romanian principalities in which they lived. The majority of
Sephardic Jews in Oltenia belonged to the latter category, while the majority of Ashkenazi
103
According to the Craiova-based historian Toma Rădulescu (interview from 27.03.2015), in the army
of Michael the Brave there were soldiers called Sabetay, name of clear Sephardic Jewish origin. Also,
the documents mention Michael the Brave’s Jewish creditors, who were not Wallach nationals, but
people from the Ottoman Empire or from Central Europe.
104
This study not being a historical one, we will only mention the fact that, even though sporadically, the
presence of people of most likely Jewish origin, part of the Roman legions (especially the 5th Legion
Macedonica, moved from Palestine), stationed in Dacia after the conquest (according to Sabina Ispas,
„The Old Testament in Popular Romanian Traditions”, in the Yearbook of C. Brailoiu Ethnography and
Folklore Institute, new series, volume 6/1995, Bucharest, Academy PH, pp.147-154, and Lya Benjamin,
„In Roman Dacia”, in the collective volume Romanian Jews Contribution to Culture and Civilization,
Bucharest, Hasefer PH, 2004, p. 34.)
105
Constantin Rezachievici, „In the Romanian Principalities. The Middle Ages”, in the collective
volume Romanian Jews Contribution to Culture and Civilization, Bucharest, Hasefer PH, 2004, p. 52.
50
(who had come, as mentioned above, after the pogroms in the Russian Empire) were Sudit
people. In time, this led to issues concerning the granting of citizenship.
The data concerning the numeric evolution of the Jewish population in the region of
Oltenia are available in an article by Ion Dongorozi, Jewish Settlements in Oltenia – after the
war (1920-1929)106. Thus, in the census made by the Austrians in Oltenia between the years
1734 and 1735, there are 4 family heads, 16 Jews respectively. In 1786, in Craiova there were
10 families of Jews of approximately 40 people, and in 1792 a document by Constantin Vodă
Şutzu confirmed the existence of a Jewish community in Craiova.
From the Statute of the Jewish community of Spanish rite107 we know that in 1970 this
community was established as „public institution of worship, instruction and entombment”,
which was made up of all the Jews of Spanish rite.
The house of prayer in Craiova was built between 1829 and 1832, with money from the
Jewish community, at the initiative of Tsevi Eskenasi, and restaured in 1887 by architect
Birkental, when it was transformed into the Coral Temple108. It is situated at no. 15 Horezului
Rd., in downtown Craiova.
The synagogue (15
Horezului Rd.)
Inside the synagogue
Inside the synagogue
With the number of Jewish people rising in time, the building of the synagogue became
necessary, as shown by the data of the 1831 census, when there is a number of 328 in Craiova,
and a total of 340 in Oltenia. The 1838 census indicates 495 Jews in Craiova, and 735 in
Oltenia; the 1899 census indicates 4.577 Jews in Oltenia (Vâlcea – 294, Gorj – 69, Mehedinţi
– 825, Romanaţi – 323, Dolj – 3.266), settled especially in towns like: Râmnicu Vâlcea (244),
Craiova (2.891), Turnu Severin (815), Calafat (263), Caracal (211), Corabia (103) etc. The
1912 census indicated 5.052 Jews in Oltenia, 4.818 of which in urban areas and 234 in rural
areas.
The Jewish cemetery in Craiova is situated on Bucovăţ Rd. and is over 200 years old.
From a document signed by ruler Constantin Alexandru Ipsilanti it results that in 1806 in
Craiova there was a „Jewish synagogue”, and also a Jewish cemetery in 1800109.
106
Ion Dongorozi, „Jewish settlements in Oltenia – after the war (1920-1929)”, in the Archives of
Oltenia, Craiova, year IX, May - August 1930, pp. 157-175.
107
Published in Craiova, Ramuri graphic Arts Institute 1927.
108
Sefarzii otomani la Craiova,
http://www.idee.ro/jewish_heritage_4/index.php?language=ro&pagina=craiova,
consulted on 27.09.2015.
109
Ion Dongorozi, quoted work, p. 158.
51
The gate of the Jewish
cemetery in Craiova,
Bucovăţ Rd.
Image from the Jewish
cemetery
Iosif and Ralian Samitca
funerary monument,
famous typographers
After WWI, the 1920 census indicates a number of 1.335.628 Romanians and 3.496
Jews (steady inhabitants), 150 Jews respectively (residents), as well as their dissemination per
counties: Mehedinţi (rural Romanians 245.492, rural Jews 0, urban Romanians 35.725, urban
Jews 813); Gorj (rural Romanians 174.270, rural Jews 3, urban Romanians 14.404, urban Jews
35); Vâlcea (rural Romanians 196.144, rural Jews 40, urban Romanians 22.101, urban Jews
134); Romanaţi (rural Romanians 209.850, rural Jews 3, urban Romanians 24.884, urban Jews
146); Dolj (rural Romanians 339.000, rural Jews 15, urban Romanians 74.658, urban Jews
2.457).
The 1929 census indicates a number of 1.549.676 Romanians and 3.790 Jews (steady
inhabitants), 249 Jews, respectively (residents), as well as their dissemination per counties:
Mehedinţi (rural Romanians 278.084, rural Jews 0, urban Romanians 40.607, urban Jews
604); Gorj (rural Romanians 199.098, rural Jews 1, urban Romanians 14.628, urban Jews 39);
Vâlcea (rural Romanians 219.805, rural Jews 106, urban Romanians 25.805, urban Jews 225);
Romanaţi (rural Romanians 241.968, rural Jews 10, urban Romanians 29.344, urban Jews
187); Dolj (rural Romanians 396.152, rural Jews 23, urban Romanians 104.185, urban Jews
2.844).
In 1865 a Jewish school called Lumina (in translation: The Light) is attested, this school
later being transformed into a high school, and during the first part of the 20th century it had
over 100 students. The high school functioned until 1941.
Of the personalities of the Oltenian Jews we mention Herman Mendel, Iosif Samitca
(1806-1882), Ignat Samitca (1857-1925) – famous typographers, Albert Zimbler, Corneliu
Sabetay (the current president of the community).
The Jews were merchants, clerks, freelance craftsmen. In Craiova there are several
houses that were owned by prominent Jewish merchants, today regarded as historical
monuments: The Englishman’s House, The Eskenozy House, The Zwillinger House, etc.
Englishman’s House
(80 Unirii Rd.)
Eskenozy House
(42 Unirii Rd.)
Zwillinger House
(88 Unirii Rd.)
In Caracal also there was an important Jewish community, proof of this being the
synagogue (no. 2 Ion Grigore Rd.) built in 1902, as well as the Jewish cultural heritage. In
52
Caracal, in 1838 there are mentioned 27 Jewish merchants, and in 1912 the community
reached 234 people. In 2012 only 3 Jews still lived in Caracal110.
Also in Turnu Severin there was a Sephardic synagogue, at no. 3 Mareşal Ion Averescu
Rd. (transformed into a notary office, the building being registered on the List of Historic
monuments), built in 1881, in the city having existed in the past the two branches of Jewish
people: the Ashkenazi and the Sephardic Jews. In 2009 in the city there were only 3 Jews.
During the 2011 census 60 people in Dolj County declared themselves to be Jews, the
majority of which being part of mixed families.
Apart from these people, in Craiova there is also a small group of students from Israel
(not all of them being Jews, though, some are Arabs), especially studying at the Faculty of
Medicine or Dental Medicine. But since they are not a part of the community, and only having
sporadic links with the synagogue, they were not included in the target group of this study.
Memorial plaque in the
Craiova synagogue, with
Jewish soldiers who fell
during WWI
Synagogue interior
Synagogue interior
Customs and traditions. Since among the minorities present in Oltenia the Jews are the
only ones whose religion is not Christianity, we consider it necessary to make a more
thorough presentation of their customs and traditions. The differences between Sephardic and
Ashkenazi Jews are not that great when it comes to religion and traditions. The order of
certain prayers is changed, as well as there being certain differences regarding the interdictions
surrounding the Pesakh respect rules. Thus, the Ashkenazis don’t eat starchy foods (peas,
beans) during Pesakh, while the Sephardic ones abstain from eating rice during the same
period. However, apart from these differences insignificant to the Jewish faith and identity, the
traditional ritual practices are generally unitarian. For this reason we shall present the Jewish
traditions in general, without taking into consideration these differences.
As a preliminary specification, we remind the fact that all Jewish celebrations start at
sundown, the day previous to the actual holiday.
The first holiday is the Sabbath (Saturday), considered sacred because on the Genesis it
is said that’s when God rested after making the world. The Sabbath was celebrated through a
110
See project 92108: Creation of a modern multimedia system for the inventory and informatization of
the cultural heritage of the Jewish community in Romania, in the European context of multiethnicity and
patrimonial diversity (http://www.jewish-romania.ro/u/media/patrimoniu/patrimoniu-studiu-caracal.pdf).
53
ritual dinner, on Friday evening, followed by the lighting of the candles and the drinking of
wine from a special, holy cup. Nowadays, because of the steep fall in the number of Jews left
in the community, the Sabbath is no longer held at the synagogue, but people do hold the
traditional dinner on Friday evening. „In Craiova there are women who light the candles, if
they are Jews.”111
The Judaic religious calendar begins with Rosh Hashanah, the celebration of the New
Year, which takes place at the beginning of the Tishrei month (approximately SeptemberOctober, the seventh month of the Hebrew calendar). Rosh Hashanah (the beginning, starting
point of the year) lasts for two days, and during this time the shofar is blown (the twisted ram
horn) and it is traditional to ear, among other things, apples dipped in honey, as a wish for the
sweetness and freshness of the year that is about to begin. Francisc Abraham says that during
the frist night (the Rosh Hashanah) the synagogue is full. On Rosh Hashanah day there are
about 10-12 people at the synagogue and the ministrant holds the religious service. „On the
second day we don’t organize anything, since no one comes.”112
After Rosh Hashanah there is YomKippur (Atonement Day, when the Jews ask for
forgiveness for the sins committed in front of God and their fellow men, hoping to appear in
the book of life for the following year as well ), one of the two Jewish fasting days. On the
previous evening, the people go to the synagogue for the religious service and start fasting
from dusk until the following sunset: „one day, from when the first star appears until the
following day, when it appears again”.113 „For YomKippur, before the cutting, [the father]
said a prayer, would through the birds behind over his head (makes a gesture as if rotating a
bird over the head) and then would bring them to be slaughtered.”114 The fasting is preceded
and followed by rich meals. Jewish families have kept this fasting tradition. „While we were
in Romania, we always fasted. Ever since I left to Israel, we don’t fast anymore.”115
Sukkot(The Holiday of Tents or Tabernacles, commemorating the 40 years spent by the
Jewish people in the desert, after leaving Egypt)- it starts four days after YomKippur and it
lasts for seven days, during which time the families live in huts (suka) made out of specific
vegetable materials, prepared beforehand, partying and visiting friends and family. It was a
celebration of joy. Now the suka part is no longer celebrated, it’s just a party. On ShminiAtzeret
(the last day of the holiday) „we perform the masses, during the very last day”. 116
Hanukkah (the Celebration of Lights) – This minor celebration that takes place during
the first month of winter lasts for eight days. During this celebration we light candles in 9-arm
candlestick, one of them being used to light the others. For Hanukkah the children received
presents and they played dice. Presently, since there are no children in the Jewish community
in Craiova, this celebration is no longer held.
Purim (The Carnival) – It was an important celebration, marking hte beginning of
spring, and one of the main characteristics of the Jewish culture in the Romanian towns from
past times. The custom that everyone should wear a costume is very similar to what happens
during carnivals in Western countires. In the aging communities that exist now in Craiova, the
Purim is only celebrated during a short service at the synagogue.
111
Interview with Francisc Abraham, born in 1938, dental technician, married to a Christian, now
secretary of the Jewish Community in Oltenia. Interview from 26.03.2015.
112
Francisc Abraham.
113
Francisc Abraham.
114
Francisc Abraham.
115
Interview with AnyFischman, born in 1946, lab technician, from Craiova; left to Israel in 1964.
Interview from 19.08.2015.
116
Francisc Abraham.
54
Pesach (Passover, the 15th of the Nisan month, March-April) – the most important of
all Jewish holidays, marked by very severe rituals of house purification. Francisc Abraham
remembers what his parents did for Pesach: „on the morning before Pesach, my father would
say a prayer and my mother would gather the leavened bread from everywhere around the
house. „On Easter Eve everything was cleaned. For the cleaning, goose or turkey feathers
were used, which were then placed in a parcel and burnt. The leavened bread is not burnt, it is
thrown away. Other dishes are used, especially for the Passover. During this holiday the Jews
won’t eat leavened bread for seven days, but only flat unleavened bread (Matzo). Abraham
makes a comparison with Israel, where leavened bread is also eaten. „In Craiova we only eat
unleavened bread. I can’t believe that during these seven days there are any shops in Israel that
sell bread. I simply can’t believe it.” It’s worth mentioning that, because of the drastic
shrinking of the community, the factory where the Matzo was made, which, according to our
interlocutor, was situated right next to the synagogue, has been long closed, and now the
Matzo is imported from Israel by the FCER (in English, The Federation of Jewish
Communities in Romania) and is sent from Bucharest, being sold to the persons who wish to
buy it.117 Next to the Matzo, for the Pesach table, called seder (order), which is prepared on
the evening of the holiday, as all Jewish ritual tables, it is customary to have six ritual foods:
baked lamb shoulder – sometimes replaced by baked beetroot – as a reminder of the lamb
sacrificed on the night prior to the flight of the Jewish people from Egypt („We prepare baked
lamb shoulder, haggis, for Easter”, according to F. Abraham, who lives in a mixed family);
bitter herbs, usually horseradish, as a symbol of the bitterness of slavery in Egypt; a salad
made with apples, walnuts, wine and cinnamon, a reminder of the mortar used by Jewish
slaves to make bricks; greens, usually parsley, the symbol of spring; an over boiled egg, which
is not to be eaten and which symbolises renewal. Also, there is the custom of placing on the
table salt water (the symbol of the tears and sweat of slavery, but also a symbol of purity, of
spring and of the sea), in which the participants dip the greens. Before the beginning of the
seder dinner each person eats a hard-boiled egg – not the over boiled egg! – dipped in the salt
water bowl, and during dinner everyone must drink four glasses of wine. Being a ritual dinner,
during the seder there are also readings from the Book of Exodus, and especially singing
songs from a hymnbook called the Haggadah, which refers to the freedom from slavery, as
well as the principles specific to the Judaic religion, which were transmitted, in that form, to
the children, whose presence to this dinner was compulsory.
Shavuot(The Celebration of the Weeks, of the first harvest, which takes place 50 days
after the Pesach) – is an agrarian celebration, marked by the offering of the first harvests of the
year. The tradition is that mainly dairy be consumed, which most likely links it to certain
pastoral traditions.
Tisha B’Av – fasting to commemorate the destruction of the First and of the Second
Temple, on the 9th day of the month of Av (July- August). „We do not fast on Tisha B’Av.”118
Life-related customs. Organization of the household: the distinctive sign of a Jewish
house is the Mezuzah (doorpost, literally), a piece of parchment inscribed with a particular
fragment from the Book of Deuteronomy and is placed in a narrow rectangular casing, with
the name of the Lord (Shaddai) written in it, which is placed on the right side of the doorpost
of the house, at eyesight level, diagonally; when they leave or reach the house, the people
living in the respective household touch or even kiss the Mezuzah for blessing.
The Brit milah – On the eighth day since birth all male newborns are circumcised;
usually by a Rabbi, and a good one too; in Craiova, the person performing this service is Prof.
Corneliu Sabetay, who is a paediatrician and the president of the Jewish community in
117
118
Francisc Abraham.
Francisc Abraham.
55
Oltenia. „Here, in Oltenia, the priest [for brit milah, c.n.] is the Professor [Corneliu Sabetay].
He was called to perform the ritual in Bucharest as well.” Apart from the person performing
the circumcision, an important part is played by the baby’s godfather, who is usually an older
man from the baby’s family and who holds the baby during the ceremony: „- Who holds the
baby for the performance of the brit? – The godfather.”119 For girls there was no particular
ceremony, except for the fact that they were given a name. Should the parents wish to, both
boys and girls receive a modern name, as well as a Jewish name, related to the Judaic religion.
Children born in mixed marriages are considered non-Jewish if the mother herself is not
Jewish.
Bar mitzvah – the ceremony by which a boy who has reached the age of 13
(traditionally considered the age of maturity in Judaism) takes on the responsibilities of an
adult, the most important being that of reading the Torah (comprising the first five books of
the Old Testament) in the synagogue. Nowadays in the Oltenia community the Bar Mitzvah is
very rare, since there are hardly any children left.
The wedding (hatuna) – Since there are hardly any young people left in the
community, the number of weddings is drastically small. The matchmaker institution was very
important in Jewish communities; the parents would give their consent; there is a marriage
contract (ketubah), which is handed to the bride on the wedding day, when the bride and
groom are under the canopy (hupah). The wedding would take place at the synagogue: „in our
community the weddings have always been performed at the synagogue”.120 During the
wedding ceremony, the groom breaks a glass, smashing it under his foot; this signifies luck, it
signifies the right direction towards which the new family is heading, as well as remembrance
of the kiss of Jerusalem. „In our community and faith cousins do marry each other.”121 He
mentions that this union is allowed from the second or third grade, not for the first. However,
F. Abraham doesn’t really know what the weddings are like. He attended one in Israel, he
liked it very much, and he also attended the wedding of Corneliu Sabetay’s son, which was
held at the synagogue. Nowadays, the couples are mostly mixed.
The funeral (kevura) – For a religion that celebrates life, such as the Judaism, the death
of a person is considered a source of impurity. For this reason those who are considered to be
from priestly kin (Cohen) cannot enter a cemetery, not even for the funeral of their relatives.
Also for purification, the dead person’s body is cleaned very well, in all openings, after which
it is washed, before it is wrapped in the funeral cloth and laid in the coffin. Traditionally, the
Jews had to bury a dead person before nightfall, without coffin or clothes, wrapped in only 14
meters (or 10 pieces) of cloths. De facto, accepting the traditions of the place and obeying by
the law, „there must be a 48-hour waiting time”, and the dead are laid in coffins. The funeral is
taken care of by a group of people from the community, especially chosen, called the Hevra
Kadisha (The Holy Society). In Craiova, the dead „are placed in coffins”. „Maybe in
Bucharest they lay them to rest wrapped in cloth.”122 (The answer of our interlocutor to the
question whether the custom of wrapping the dead in cloth is still performed). „In the Jewish
cemetery in Craiova there are also Christian people buried, from mixed families, but they are
not side by side. There is a separate place for ... [Christian spouses]”123. This can be
considered both a proof in time of mixed marriages, as well as their partial acceptance by the
Jewish community.
In the cemetery there are monuments for the fallen heroes.
119
Francisc Abraham.
AnyFishman.
121
Francisc Abraham.
122
Francisc Abraham.
123
Francisc Abraham.
120
56
During the week of celebrations (for Pesach) nobody enters the cemetery.
After a funeral there is no food offering. Shiva (the custom according to which the
persons in mourning from the respective household should only sit on the floor for seven days
after the funeral whenever they received visits of condolences) was made, and they indeed
only sat on the floor for seven days after the funeral, however the custom seems to have
disappeared. [Lately] „I don’t know if anyone has sat in Craiova.” But in Israel everyone sits
on the floor for seven days. „Here I don’t know if anyone has stayed on the floor [lately].”
There is a blessing held at the cemetery: „The Rabbi – or the officiant, since now we have
officiants, for lack of Rabbis. There are only two Rabbis left in Romania. [Timişoara and
Bucharest] „For lack of a Rabbi, there are officiants who hold the services who train each year
in Cristian, Braşov.”124
Case study – Francisc Abraham, Ashkenazi, born in Craiova in 1938. He studied his
first years at the synagogue. „My parents were fanatical. We are from Cluj, in Ardeal. In ’38, I
don’t know why my father came here, in Oltenia. If he remained there, his parents, his sisters,
brothers, they were all taken and never returned. Only four brothers made it back. Two of
them even worked at the ovens in … [Auschwitz; he cannot say the name; the wife finishes
the sentence for him, also with difficulty].” The parents were religious, they held all the
customs and traditions. „We slaughter the birds at the… Hakham. We came here [at the
synagogue], because the slaughter-house was there, in the back. For every holiday we brought
the poultry: hens, stuffed geese. My mom stuffed a whole lot of geese. Poor thing, I can see
her even now, her hands were full of pinches. We would also bring lambs and the Hakham
would slaughter them. There is one Hakham in the country. There is one in Bacău that
slaughters beef...”
„The majority of us here are mongrels… These people in Oltenia have no idea. Many
of them are old. Many have died, or went to Israel. We are all at least 70 years old. The
youngsters are mixed, from mixed families. The mothers are generally Orthodox.” [Asked if
there were issues when he married a non-Jewish woman, the wife also being from a mixed
family, Orthodox Albanian with Muslim Bosnian): „There were issues when I got married.
[with a shikse? – a term in Yiddish, very pejorative, designating a non-Jewish woman]: „This
word...there is a family here in Craiova which gave way to a huge scandal with that word. And
with the word goy [non-Jewish] there was a scandal between two families… the term was used
as an insult.” „My parents died in Israel.”
[About Rabbis]: „There are two Rabbis in Romania: one in Timişoara and one in
Bucharest, the rest are officiants. There was a young Rabbi, but wasn’t recognized here
because his mother was not Jewish, and he left for Canada. But he had a Rabbi certificate
issued in the USA.” „For prayers, we keep in mind the ten people that come for prayer. If they
are ten... That’s why I liked him, he was modern this Rabbi from Bucharest. I asked him: what
happens if they aren’t ten? You do your work, you hold the service. And I also asked: what if
he knows neither Modern Hebrew, nor Yiddish? We hold it in Romanian as well.[…] If no
one knows… I don’t think anyone knows Yiddish in Craiova.” [Among the ten adults required
by tradition to fulfil the Minyan – the minimum number to hold a prayer at the synagogue or
for a funeral – must they all be men?]: „Only men. We completed with Orthodox, because..
you cannot take a person, especially since they came with the kipa on the head [the round cap
Jews wear in the place of worship and not only there], and take them by the hand: please stand
back Sir. Especially since they are married to Jewish wives and they help us very much around
here. They come to service… But generally we are always ten.”
124
Francisc Abraham.
57
„The Sephardi Jews had a very beautiful synagogue, close by. But it fell when the
earthquake struck. They later made residential buildings there.”125
ITALIANS
The Italian community in Oltenia was formed starting in the 19th century, when,
because of the economic crisis in the Italian territories, families of Italian peasants and
merchants from the regions of Friuli, Venice, Giulia, etc., for economic and political reasons
(the agrarian crisis), came for seasonal work. Later on the workers settled in different localities
in Oltenia, bringing their families with them.
According to the data found by Rodica Mixich126 in the Archive of Dolj County
Prefecture(file 180/1898, f. 13, 33, 116, 117), in 1839 there is a mention of the first
agricultural workers in Oltenia. Oftentimes, they brought the entire family in Romania,
differing from the majority by their Catholic faith. During the next generations mixed families
would be formed, Italian- Romanian.
Rodica Mixich divides the Italian migration to Romania into three categories: „Italians
come to work beginning with 1883; Italians settled in Oltenia until 1940 – the so-called
colonists; Italians that remained in Oltenia after 1950”. The author specifies that, during the
two world wars, Italian reservists had to return to Italy, being called to join the Italian army.
After WWII the immigration process of the Italians to Romania was over, the community
formed being of approximately 8.000 persons.
„The number of Italian families that immigrated to Oltenia, initially, is greater than
expected. The first official lists which mention Italians drawn up by town halls were found in
the 1898 archive. According to declarations mentioned in these lists, the Italians settled in
various localities starting with 1883. We assume that during this period they settled on a
temporary- seasonal basis, they came back every season, they established relations and
eventually they brought their families. Staring in 1883, in the parish registries there is almost
an invasion of Italian families that, however, cease to appear during the following years,
which leads to the supposition that they ceased coming for the following season. Also, there
are numerous emigrant families originating from the same locality: Arsie (Belluno) – the
Fauro, Bettini, Bethini, Strapazone, Polli, Tenale, Mores, Menegars, Cescatto families (The
Craiova Roman-Catholic Parish, Parish registry 1884-1892); Belluno – the Debiasi,
Casagrande, Mariotti, Fantini, Vizentin, Biazi, Bellegante, Reviani, Dinale (idem) families;
Cormons (Udine) – the Nardin, Vizintin, Muzina, Sgubin (idem) families; Udine –the Philippi,
Dellaschiava, Franciscus Dellfrate, Cividino, David Rosa, Ioanes Venturi, Chiavelli families
(The Piteşti Roman-Catholic Parish, Parish registry 1884-1892); Ospitale (Belluno) – the
Olivotto, Riccobon (idem) families; Goritia (Aielo) – the Mozochini, Carmilotto, Ustulin
families (The Craiova Roman-Catholic Parish, Parish registry 1884-1892)”127.
„The arrival of the first Italians from Friuli in the Craiova area, at first only during the
summer, and after 1860 permanently, is linked to the name of Pera Opran, the owner of the
Işalniţa estate near Craiova… The migrating flux continued uninterruptedly until the 30s of
the past century, when the Friuli community reached considerable dimension” – according to
125
All quotes in this case study belong to Francisc Abraham.
Rodica Mixich, Italienii din Craiova, published on 9.11.2013 on the website:
http://www.culturaromena.it/Rom%C3%A2n%C4%83/tabid/88/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/825/Italienii
-din-Craiova.aspx
127
Rodica Mixich, quoted work.
126
58
Elena Pîrvu128. Thus, the Italian community in Craiova during 1930-1935, was made up of
approximately 5.000 people, many repatriated after the beginning of the communist regime in
Romania.
Due to the better salaries paid in Romania at the end of the 19th century, hundreds of
Italian workers are hired for public works (roads, bridges) in several counties in Romania,
including in Gorj and Vâlcea.129
The Italieni (Italians) village, situated near Craiova, was set up about a century ago by
the Italians looking for work, with different occupations: masons, confectioners, farmers. In
the 80s there were 150 families in the village, many of which were mixed. The village,
however, was destroyed during the village systematization plan.130
On the road to Işalniţa, in the Izvorul Rece village, where 25 mixed Italian-Romanian
families live, these inhabitants constructed in 1999 a new church, with Ascension of the Holy
Cross patron.
Another locality with descendants of mixed families, Romanian- Italian, is Brezoi in
Vâlcea, for the 2011 census only three people declaring their ethnicity as Italian. 68 people
declared they are Italians in Dolj County.
The Italian church Santissimo Redentore (Blessed Saviour) in Bucharest, situated on
Nicolae Bălcescu Avenue, was built 100 years ago (1915-1916), following the plans of two
Italian architects, Mario Stoppa and Giuseppe Tiraboschi, at the initiative of the Italian
community in Bucharest, on a piece of land donated by the Romanian state. The church serves
as place of worship for several nationalities, the mass being held in Romanian, Italian, Polish
and German. The Italian community in Bucharest kept close relations with the Italian
community in Oltenia, and also with the other ethnical minorities of Catholic confession in
Romania.
Today, the Italian community is represented by the Italian Association in Romania,
founded in 1993 in Suceava and which gained legal personality in 1996131.
The Blessed Saviour Italian
church – Bucharest
The Ascension of the Holy
Cross Roman-Catholic
church in Izvoru Rece
village, Dolj County
Plaque on the church in
Izvorul Rece village
Case study – Scubini Elena132. „The Italians „were brought here, I believe it’s
happened more than 150 years ago, an Italian colony, because they were very poor there, they
128
Elena Pîrvu, „For a history of the Friuli ethnics in Romania. The Community of Craiova”, n
Orizonturi culturale italo-române, no. 4, year V, April 2015, p. 1-2.
129
Sabin Drăgulin, „The migrating phenomenon in Romania. Case study: the Italians (1868-2010)”, in
Sfera politicii, no. 158, 2015, p. 5.
130
Toma Rădulescu, „Italians cast away from Dolj in the 80s”, in Adevărul, 5th of December 2009.
131
According to the associtaion website: http://roasit.ro/site/despre-noi/asociatia-ro/.
132
Elena Scubini, born in 1941 in Drăgăşani, Romanian married to Scubini Giovani, 7 classes,
housewife, settled in Izvoru Rece village, Dolj County.
59
came with their families brought by a prominent landlady, her manor was in Işalniţa, she
owned all this land. They came from Udine, [the village of] Cormons. She created proper
conditions for all of them, then she had houses built for them, for example this little house was
made by this rich lady, we modified it in time, though. Later they started to live better, and
made their own houses. They were farmers and builders. Their children learnt this profession,
of builders. Being with their families, they had children, these children grew up, they got
married, some with people from their own religion, Catholics, others married Orthodox
people... In time, even if they got married... for example my husband was Catholic, his
grandmother came with her family, my parents were three years old, they kept their religion.”
„The Romanians and Italians lived well together, without any discussions regarding the
differences between them.” In the case of marriages, the ethnic origin or religious confession
did not matter. „I was so young, what did I know about the difference? I didn’t care about it.”
The children „bore their parents’ name, their fathers’ names. They all kept their names. For
example, I have two boys: Carleti and Toni. It also depends on the spiritual parents the couple
had at their wedding.” Surnames: Scubini, Stumină, Dinale, Del Negro, Giusepe, etc.
The Ascension of the Holy Cross church was built by priest Ionel Râtan. „He fought a
lot for a church to be made for us. He died [on the 16th of December, 2013]. He was [a priest]
at the St. Anthony for 35 years and he wanted very much to build a Catholic church in this
village. He walked around the village and we offered our land, the church is raised in my
husband’s garden. We gave up the land and the father rewarded us. There are about 20 years
since he bought the land, 15 from when he built it... Our grandparents are buried in the
Catholic cemetery, but the rest of the family is here, in the village cemetery, mingled with the
Orthodox.”
„I am Orthodox, while he is Catholic. They kept their religion and customs. I followed
my husband’s religion; the difference is not that important, many celebrations are the same as
the Orthodox ones. There is only one God everywhere! Many people don’t understand this;
they believe there is a difference so they separate between the two. I was married in the
Catholic faith, my children are baptized. In the case of children that receive communion or are
offered the Eucharist, there is a great difference between Catholic and Orthodox children. For
example, in the case of Orthodox children, we are taken from a very early age to church,
especially for Easter, to take the Eucharist bread. For Catholics, when the children are seven,
eight years old and have learnt to read and write, the Catholic priest starts to teach them about
religion and they receive communion. It is called the First Holy Communion. It’s very
curious: the girls wear white dresses, veil on the head, and the boys wear white shirts and
pants, either short or long.”
Regarding the habits of remembrance of the dead, many families in Izvoru Rece being
mixed, also kept their Orthodox traditions. Thus, although "Catholics don’t really have giveaways" women give alms in memory of deceased family.
„People give alms on the day the person die, on the burial day, especially with the
family or at a restaurant. There are no towels or handkerchiefs given, and definitely not as
many give-aways. [At 40 days] we also give alms, but the same, within the family circle. But
not how we, the Orthodox, do things, because here [the Romanians] prepare meals, and so
many other things... However, I did all this like my mother before me. And sometimes you
think about the shame, you don’t want people to start talking. The priest tells me that if you
are to do something, you should do it wholeheartedly, and give alms to poor people. At six
months I invited people over, we made a barbeque, my son lives here, next to the church, so
we also invited the priest and the girl who helps out in the church. At nine months, whoever
wants cooks at home and then gives the good away, to neighbours and especially to poor
people, which is even better. At one year it’s on Christmas, and according to tradition
60
everyone gives something away, so I will do the same. No one does this in the city, only here,
in this village, we still keep the tradition.”
„There is another special holiday on the 2nd of November, it’s the celebration of all the
Catholic dead. The priest comes to the cemetery and he reads out prayers in front of every
tomb. Whoever wants to also gives alms at home. Or, for example, in the city, I used to go to
the city and give alms, everyone would make a small package, saw people who were poor and
gave it to them.”
„We hold requiems; we pay a tax at church. When you schedule it, be it on a special
moment, a holiday, the family, the neighbours, relatives, we all go to church.”
„For Epiphany, called tamoşe, on the eve of the feast we make a fire. We used to make
it with stalks... the younger children would bring the stalks. Now we use car tyres. At a
crossing [it’s where the fire is made]. Elder Italians would go and spray the place with holy
water, that was traditional. This custom is held to this day, people gather, they talk, tell jokes.”
Regarding certain aspects that have lingered in the gastronomy of Italian families, the
following can be said: „When they slaughtered their pigs at Christmas, older Italians had a
more special ritual of preparation. They used the leaner cuts of meat, muscles and a bit of fat,
to make some sort of Italian salami. They also made a sausage called the marcundela, for
which they used mixed meat and liver. In time Orthodox people started to make the same
specialities. They also made dandelion salad for which they collected the green leaves, washed
them very well, then mixed them with oil and a bit of salt. This was their favourite salad.”
GERMANS
The Germans came to Craiova in the 19th century. Among the important people of the
community we mention Gheorghe Simonis (a Transylvanian Saxon, born in Rupea, Braşov),
who came in 1944 to Craiova and founded the city’s Philharmonic.
There is a branch of the Democratic Forum of Germans in Romania, founded in
Craiova in 1990 by Josif Görner, under the patronage of the Roman-Catholic Church,
obtaining legal personality in 1993, between 1992 and 2000 being presided over by Johann
Oberding. Nowadays the management is ensured by Prof. Adelheit Dăneţ. The members of the
association get involved in different social and cultural actions, promotion of the German
language, organization of classes, celebration of holidays such as Easter, St. Nicholas and
Christmas, as well as German Ethnics’ Day (5th of October), etc.133
About the history, customs and traditions of the German we talked with the history
teacher Cristinel Prodescu134.
The relations between Lutheran and Catholic Germans: „There are very few Catholics
in Craiova, the Catholic church across the street is usually attended by Italians and Polish
people, as well as Germans, about one in ten. If during the two world wars there were one
thousand Lutherans, then there were one hundred Catholics.”
Deportation of Germans after the war: „Within the family, even if it is a mixed one,
German is also spoken. My family actually spoke the Transylvanian Saxon dialect, being their
native tongue. Simply out of habit. My mother-in-law, for example, didn’t even speak
Romanian very well. But things have changed because grandfather, my mother-in-law’s
father, was deported for five years in Siberia simply because his name was Koner. This led to
a sort of reluctance, a revolution even; for example, I know that my wife’s baptism
133
According to: http://www.fdgr-re.ro/ro/filiale/forumul-democrat-al-germanilor-din-craiova.html
Cristinel Prodescu, History teacher in Craiova, born in 1959, married to Marlene Koner Prodescu,
German ethnic of Evangelical Lutheran religion, in 1978; interviewed on 11th of August 2015.
134
61
godmother’s family, whose surname was Bertogen, changed it to Berthier in order to escape
deportation, pretending to be of French origin. They only returned after the 90s, but they
didn’t change the name back, they remained Berthier, however they returned to the church.
During the communist regime, because of these impressive deportations, tens of thousands of
Transylvanian Saxons were taken to the Soviet Union in 1945-1950. And later they emigrated.
The grandfather was always taken to the Securitate offices, and it was his own fault, because
he would always listen to Deutsche Welle.”
Family and calendar traditions and customs are presented by Prof. Cristinel Prodescu:
„In church there is a service once a month, as well as Christmas and Oster Sontag/ Easter. It’s
when people attend church, but the number is less than 25 people, years ago the church would
be packed, over 100 people. Unfortunately, in the 80s, when Ceauşescu allowed them [to
leave], he practically sold the Transylvanian Saxons and the Germans, they emigrated. During
the October service we would always have a harvest celebration. Before Christmas the
parishioners receive communion.
German people don’t fast, there are no memorial services for funerals. Is the so-called
TränenBrot, it’s nothing but a meal, the community attending. Each family, as per their
possibilities, offers one, two dishes, one, two glasses of wine, plum brandy, drinks, a piece of
cake. In Cristian, in Sibiu, the entire community takes part, and during the communist regime
this meal was held at the Cultural House, and now at the largest restaurant, the most important
in the area, in the community. And that’s where all Germans come together, supporting the
grieving family, including financially. After the funeral we hold the so-called TränenBrot.
The last funeral was that of my mother-in-law, who died in 2008; the priest came from
Sibiu especially for this and he held the funeral service. [The service] was held at home, at my
mother-in-law’s house, and it was written down in official documents. We don’t go to church,
there is no service there. The dead person is kept at home, the priest comes, holds the service,
then we all go to the cemetery. My mother-in-law died at home, she was taken to the
cemetery, accompanied by the relatives, a service was held for her there, in front of the chapel,
only in German, and the she was buried. On her cross it is written: geboren – born, and
gestorben – deceased. There is usually no mourning, black is no longer worn, the humble and
sorrowful attitude is held for a maximum of one week.
If there is any baptism or wedding, the community also comes together. They wear nice
clothes, form a line and partake in the celebration, in the congratulations, meal and dance. But
that is all, this community was dedicated to work and time was scarce.
The last baptism took place about 15 years ago. They lived in this very courtyard, but
they emigrated in the 80s. Also, the children who left then got married and wanted to come
from Germany, from Stuttgart, to baptize their child in the church, in the courtyard where they
spent their childhood.
Children are baptized when they are small, but they are confirmed when they are 14.
The baptism is different from the Orthodox one, they are only sprinkled with water. But then,
at 14, the confirmation takes place, they take a German language test, the priest asks them
questions, as well as the members of the community. It is accepted, but also the Lutheran
confession must be earned, it has to be deserved.”
„Our daughter was confirmed at 14 and she decided she wanted to be Lutheran. My
wife, my in-laws and my mother-in-law’s brother were Lutherans, and we all lived together
here, in the parish house and in the courtyard of the Lutheran church. I was a minority, I was
the only Romanian, and Orthodox. My daughter has a name specific to the region of Oltenia,
her name is Anica, and Prodescu, and she actually kept her surname of Prodescu after
marriage as well, however she is of Evangelical religion, she is Lutheran.”
Holiday customs: „For Easter we made a special Easter cake. It was made at home by
my mother-in-law, and especially my wife’s grandmother, oma, made it. They always had
62
alcohol, my mother-in-law’s brother and grandfather called it medicine. They boiled, made the
plum brandy, always boiled it twice, and the first drops, the forehead, as we call it here, in
Oltenia, they would put aside and write on it medicine. And they always drank it moderately
during the holidays, be it Easter or Christmas.”
Slaughtering of the pig: „For Christmas they would slaughter a pig, observing the
regulations of the EU! Being from Oltenia, I was surprised when I came to my in-laws’ house
to notice that things were done differently, instead of tricking the pig into coming to you by
using some corn...no, everything was very peaceful, the pig didn’t even feel that it was dying.
It had to be done in a way that prevented the animal from suffering. Whereas here in Oltenia
we would take the pig, throw it to the ground, slaughter it.”
Traditional songs: „For celebrations or weddings the Polka was danced, which is an
Austrian dance. There are also the famous Christmas songs, Elvis Presley ennobled them with
his amazing voice, especially since Silent Night is always sung during Christmas time, but this
song dates from 1818 and it’s a Franz Gruber song, StilleNacht, as seen in the Evangelische
Gesangbuch. Also O du Frӧhliche and the rest are Lutheran songs.”
Receiving communion before the Christmas holiday: „There is always a communion
service before Christmas and people receive communion, the priest brings the cup of wine and
the piece of bread, which every parishioner receives from the priest’s hand.”
The harvest holiday: „During the October celebration, for harvest holiday, we place on
the table from corn cobs to plums, apples, all the crop of the earth, and the priest gives thanks
to the Divinity for all these.”
ROMAN-CATHOLIC CHURCH IN CRAIOVA
The „All Saints- St. Anthony” Roman- Catholic church in Craiova was built in 1844
and is situated at no. 10 Michael the Brave Rd., being a historical monument.
The Roman- Catholic community was founded as early as 1827. According to historian
Toma Rădulescu, there existed an ancient Catholic community in Oltenia, which also
contained Catholic Bulgarians, who were assimilated in time, and they also had a Catholic
bishop.
The descendants of these Italians, Polish and Germans come to church, many of them
being part of mixed families, of Catholic and Orthodox confession.
Inside the religious complex there is also the branch of the Democratic Forum of
Germans in Craiova.
There are three educational institutions supported by the Roman-Catholic Church,
where the Italian and German languages are studied: The Catholic Kindergarten in Craiova,
The Catholic Primary School in Craiova and The „St. Joseph” Catholic After-High school in
Craiova135.
135
Cf. Prof. Monica Wojcicki, in the Record of the session of talks on ,,Intercultural Education” from the
25th of March 2010, Craiova, România.
63
The „All Saints” –
”St. Anthony” Church
(no. 10 Michael the Brave
Rd., Craiova)
The Cross of Aquilea,
plaque indicating the
existence of the German
Kindergarten and Austrian
memorial plaque (in honour
of Johann Oberding)
Italian community
monument set up in 2002,
on which it is written: „A
TUTTI GLI ITALIANI
CHE IN QUESTA TERRA
HANNO TROVATO LA
SECUNDA PATRIA”
Remembrance of the dead: „once a year the Catholics hold a requiem, the dead person
is remembered there. For example, my parents passed away more than 30 years ago, I held a
requiem for them for seven years. When the year has passed, it’s done yearly. On Monday
evening we held a requiem, on Tuesday, both in the morning and in the evening, on
Wednesday- in the morning we held a requiem, tomorrow evening the same. At 5 thirty the
service begins, and it lasts for half an hour.
Us Catholics hold the Day of the Dead on the 1st and 2nd of November, and it’s a
celebration of all the dead. There is no give-away of alms, there is no gathering, no give-away
in the streets. On the 1st and 2nd of November, that’s when it’s held all over the world, the
priest goes to the cemetery, all tombs are visited, and in church he holds a service for all the
deceased.”136
CATHOLIC CEMETERY
The Catholic and Evangelical cemetery in Craiova is situated at no. 98, Bucovăţ Rd.
and it is under the patronage of the Roman-Catholic Archdiocese. These cemeteries are mixed,
from a confessional point of view, being entombed here not only Catholics, but also
Evangelical parishioners and Orthodox ones. The entering of Romanians into mixed Italian,
Polish, German, Austrian families, is noticed on their tombstones. Since these communities
are numerically small, even if these people had distinct religions, starting with the interwar
period many families of foreign origin become mixed through the marriage of their
descendants with Romanians.
„In 1829, after the Russian-Turkish War, the skulls of the soldiers from the Southern
part of the region were gathered and were laid to rest there. It was [the estate] of a general
[Eismund], he gave away about 50 hectares, the entire cemetery as it is now, he donated the
land. The mausoleum in the middle was built then, with that iron crucifix, it was raised then.
[Then] the land was donated to the Roman-Catholic Church, which has been in Craiova for
200 years now.”137
136
Lucian Dorovschişi Ludovic Dorovschi(cemetery administrator), interviewed on 24th of March 2015.
Lucian Dorovschi, born in 1948. „My father, a Polish officer, could live in the Romanaţi District only
if he adopted a child. And that’s how they adopted me from Sadova, from the nursery. He gave me a
Catholic education, he gave me everything, I have been playing the organ for 56 years at the Catholic
church. I did 7 classes in school plus 3 of vocational training.”. He administered the Catholic cemetery in
Craiova.
137
64
Monument for Russian
soldiers in the war between
1828-1829
Russian cross with a
crescent moon in the lower
part
Inscription on the ossuary
At the entrance in the cemetery, on the right-hand side, there is the statue of the Italian
constructor Giovanni Battista Peressutti (1880-1953). Born in Pintano al Tagliamento (FriuliVenice Giulia province), with a diploma in Construction Engineering, was a friend of architect
Petre Antonescu, with whom he cooperated for the building of a series of very important
constructions. Settling in 1908 in Craiova, is the architect behind important buildings in
Craiova, such as the Prefecture, the Administrative Palace, the City Hall, the Faculty of
Agriculture, etc. A street in Craiova bears its name.
The Statue of the Italian
constructor Giovanni
Battista Peressutti
Funeral monument of Dr.
Charles Laugier
Photography of Dr.
Charles Laugier
On the left side there is the tomb of the Laugier family, that had come here from
Marseille. Its most important member was Charles Laugier (1875-1930). Born in the locality
of Cernele, Dolj County, he obtained a diploma in medicine in 1898, becoming a primary
doctor of Dolj County and sanitary inspector for the Oltenia region. He had a massive
contribution to the fight against some epidemics, to the setting up of several medical
65
institutions, to the sanitary education in general, as well as the Romanian medical
ethnography. He managed the Oltenia Archives. The sanitary high school (sanitary school) in
Craiova bears his name.
Funerary monument –
Feruglio Italian family
Funerary monument Makovetz Hungarian family
Funerary monument –
Volf Czech family
Other nationalities (Italians, Austrians, Germans, Hungarians, Czech, recently Roma)
are signalled in the Craiova area, over time, through funeral monuments.
Memory of the Polish refugees. On the 7th of October, 2014, the Polish Embassy held a
ceremony that marked 75 years from the start of WWII, Romania accepting Polish refugees on
its territory. In the cemetery there is a piece of land where some tens of Polish refugees are
buried, in which place the Polish Embassy set up a funeral stele.
As related by Mr. Lucia n Dorovschi as well, the memory of the Polish refugees,
together with the former president, settled in Craiova at the end of 1939, is marked by a plaque
installed in the left side of the Art Museum in Craiova, between the first two windows – the
Jean Mihail Palace.
„The Polish, mostly aviators and officers, I believe they are 45 in total, were found on
the front, after WWII, and they were buried [in a separate piece of land] and the Polish tombs
were made. A plaque was raised now, by the Polish Embassy. There are a lot of Polish people
buried in the cemetery, who didn’t go to fight in the army and who adopted children and
settled in Craiova or in Oltenia. Such is my father’s case, and many others. They were
enemies, but they became friends.
On the 16th of April we held a manifestation, a short one, similar to a requiem,
traditional in our Catholic faith, at the Polish funeral monument, the priest said a prayer. And
we held this ceremony also at the plaque at the Art Museum, which is situated in the left-hand
side of the entrance. That’s where the Polish [civil] government worked.”138
138
Lucian Dorovschi.
66
Funeral monument in the
plot of the Polish
refugees
The funeral stele placed by the
Polish Embassy in the memory
of the refugees (2014):
„POLSKIM UCHODŽCOM Z
LAT II WOJNY
ŚWIATOWEJ
SPOCZYWᾼCYM NA
CMENTARZU PRZYJAZNEJ
ZIEMI RUMUŃSKIEJ
OJCZYZNA” – „TO THE
POLISH REFUGEES FROM
THE SECOND WORLD
WAR WHO REST IN
FRIENDLY ROMANIAN
LAND”
The Art Museum in Craiova,
where the memorial plaque
can be seen:
„W TIM DOMU
PRZEBYWAA JAKO
UCHODŹCA OD 5.XI. DO
24.XII.1939 IGNACY
MOŚCICKI PREZYDENT
RZECZYPOSPOLITEJ
POLSKIEJ W LATACH
1926-1939” – „IN THIS
PALACE LIVED AS
REFUGEE FROM
NOVEMBER 5 TO
DECEMBER 24, 1939,
IGNACY MOŚCICKI
PRESIDENT OF THE
POLISH REPUBLIC
BETWEEN 1926-1939”
LUTHERAN EVANGELICAL CHURCH
On the 19th of May, 1839, the superintendent Sükei, who had been a reformed pastor
in the Wallachia principality for 25 years, requests from ruler Alexandru Dimitrie Ghica the
approval for the construction of a Protestant chapel in Craiova, also presenting a list of 250
names of people of Evangelical confession139.
Evangelical Lutheran
Church
Church bell
139
Detail from the church
façade
T.G. Bulat, „From the history of Protestantism in Wallachia”, in Arhivele Olteniei, year VI, no. 29-30,
1927, p. 40, 59-60.
67
The Evangelical Lutheran Church, situated next to the Jean Mihail Palace (The Art
Museum), at no. 13, Calea Unirii Rd., was built between 1870 and 1872, being considered
today to be an architectural monument.
The history of the German Lutheran community, told by the history teacher Cristinel
Prodescu from Craiova:
„The Lutheran community in Craiova settled here during Austrian occupation, after
the 1714-1718 war, which ended with the Passarowitz peace. Thus, the Germans started
coming here. They were simple people, mostly craftsmen, particularly masons. And they
formed a community that allowed them in 1839 to found the Lutheran Church (Evangelische
Kirche), church of Augustan confession. They received this plot in downtown Craiova, where
they built a prayer house which from 1872 became this Lutheran church. It knew great
developments especially during the interwar period, there were approximately 1000 Lutherans,
with a German school, a German kindergarten, a library, all in the present settlement. There was
a house across the street, but after the earthquake in 1977 the communists took advantage of the
situation, they demolished it and dispossessed us. [The school and the kindergarten functioned]
the whole time, from 1872 until 1948 when the communists took over the building as well. For a
short period of time it continued to function as kindergarten, but without the school. The Church
[functioned] from 1839 until the present day. The building is from 1872.
[Nowadays] the priest comes from Sibiu or even from Germany or the consistory in
Sebeş – Alba, from Petroşani or Braşov, once a month, usually during the first Sunday of the
month. [Here came] only Germans and Transylvanian Saxons.
The community is slowly dissolving. In papers we are 22, but this is a lie, I am not
afraid to say this, because we also consider ourselves Transylvanian Saxons, me included,
although I am Romanian and Orthodox, but since my wife is a Transylvanian Saxon and my
wife and daughter are Lutheran. We are mixed families and write ourselves down in church
documents to have at least 20 members, so that the priest would come. Even my daughter,
who settled in Bucharest 20 years ago, but is part of our community. Like this we have at least
20 people on paper, but they have been in Germany for a very long time, but appear to still
belong to the community. Practically, there are never more than 15 people at service. [I go to
church], yes. EineÜbungfür Deutsche sprache – an excellent German language exercise! It is
due to my family [that I go]. I am Orthodox and I will die Orthodox! There is tolerance, there
is indulgence, transculturality, plurality and everything else. There are also two other husbands
of German ladies, like myself.”
„Einfefte Burg ist
unferGott”/
„A happy fortress is our
Lord”
Organ from 1872
Evidence registry – 20th
century – beginning of the
21st century
Church organ: „The organ has been here since the church was opened, in 1872. It is
from Transylvania, it’s been functional for a century and a half now. Always during service it
is played, because the customary songs are played at the organ, we sing by the book, the organ
68
next to the priest. We also have a new organ, and there is a lady teacher at the Art High
school, a colleague of mine, and I ask her to come because no one in the community [plays the
organ]. The lady is a Romanian Orthodox, but she enjoys playing very much, especially since
she is an organ teacher, she studied this instrument at the Conservatory.”
EVANGELICAL CEMETERY
The Evangelical cemetery is situated next to the German heroes cemetery and the
Catholic cemetery, initially being part of the same plot of land. And the same as the German
heroes cemetery, the Evangelical cemetery is also under the administration of the Lutheran
Church.
The first tombs are dates approximately 1825, according to the funeral inscriptions.
„The Burkhardt family is the one that founded the cemetery. Here is the old side, to the left
from the [central] alley. They are from 1824, and behind from 1926, so the entire family. Here
there’s also a very old cross, from 1868.”140
Also, you can see on the crosses how after the interwar period Romanian families
entered through marriage into the Evangelical ones, the different confession not being an
impediment.
„They split up, a part o the Germans remained Catholic and the Lutherans turned
Evangelical. The confessional difference arose. We are subordinated to the Evangelical church in
Sibiu. For the German heroes we also cooperated with the Black Church in Braşov, when we
restaured the German heroes with the Romanian army and with the army from Germany. The
cemetery kept most of its identity. Since in time the German parishoners slowly disappeared, or
they married into families from Romania and from Craiova (mixed families), the cemetery also
became mixed. Considering this aspect, whether the family has relatives [buried] here and requests
a place, then we serve them, as they are paying parishoners and have a right to receive a place in
this cemetery. We don’t say no to any Romanian belonging to the respective family.”141
Burkhardt family funeral monuments
1868 cross
„The cemetery is mixed [Lutheran and Orthodox] also because of the fact that we
must exist as well. They emigrated to Germany, there are very few [Germans]. Those 20 lei
140
Mirela Leu, born in 1963, administrator of the Evangelical cemetery in Craiova, interview from 2nd
of July 2015.
141
Mirela Leu, interviewed on the 2nd of July, 2015.
69
per year, 2 lei per month, it’s the only income for the cemetery. The church’s interest, is the
light functional– it must be paid, the water must be paid, the gravedigger must be paid… And
since it’s only 20 lei per grave, and because the Germans emigrated and left it, the Orthodox
were also admitted.”142
Funeral monument: Ana
Imposing funeral monument Visible on the monuments:
Moga, née Roth (1883(belonging to a count),
the entrance of Romanians
1914), and Dumitru Moga
entrance in the Evangelical
into German families
(1874-1936)
cemetery
through marriage
Between the Catholic and the Evangelical cemetery lies the plot dedicated to the
German heroes.
Even though the Germans and the Romanians fought against each other during WWI,
the memory of the German soldiers is kept alive on that piece of land in the Evangelical
cemetery.
„During WWI the bones of the members were gathered, to the left there is the German
cemetery. Ironically, next to the Germans there is also a Romanian, as well as several
Italians.”143 „There are also soldiers from WWI, Germans and Hungarians. The front reached
this region and it incorporated citizens of all nationalities, however the majority here is made
up of Hungarians. They buried here the ones from WWI, they identified them and each one
received a cross. A monument was also erased, as a symbol. The land was donated by
Craiova’s City Hall, it does not belong to any church, but it was ceded in the patrimony of the
churches to manage, and since there were also parishoners of Polish, Italian and German
origin, they said yes.”144
Entry to the German
heroes cemetery
Funeral monument of WWI
heroes
142
Cristinel Prodescu.
Lucian Dorovschi.
144
Mirela Leu.
143
70
Crosses of Germand and
Hungarian heroes
The remains of 160 German heroes fallen during WWII, buried in the front of the
cemetery, were exhumed in May of this year by the representatives of the German Popular
Union for the Maintenance of War Monuments foundation (VDK). They were transported to
the Eternity cemetery in Iaşi, to be re-buried in a special location.
ROMA POPULATION
A lot was written about the origin and the formation of the Roma population within a
historical territory, the most reliable historical- linguistic hypotheses is that they left from
India. Their migration took place about one thousand years ago. Some theories present them
as slaves of the Byzantines, others as slaves of the Tatar. Their emergence in the Romanian
area is quite late, starting with the 14th century.
In a PhD thesis sustained by Mihaela Daniela Preda at the Faculty of Geography in
Bucharest and published in 2010, The Roma Ethnicity in Oltenia between Tradition and
Modernity. Human Geography (University of Bucharest Publishing House), the author
concludes regarding the emergence of the Roma people in the Romanian space: „their
propagation was possible due to the waves of migrations, direct consequence of a nomadic
lifestyle, which never had a pre-determined direction and purpose, being strongly influenced
by social, political and economic factors of the time, in the present being difficult to determine
the causes of its precise onset.”145
In old documents it is mentioned that the slave settlements were alienated together with
the estates they belonged to. The institution of slavery is prior to thr arrival of the Roma
people, the Tatars being documented as slaves in the Romanian principalities. At the same
time, the Romas appear as slaves in other Balkanic regions as well, but it cannot be said
whether they reached the Byzantine Empire as slaves or as a nomadic population.
Slavery must be seen as exploitation of the workforce, the Roma people being used for
different crafts, such as wood and metal processing, as well as agriculture. Up to the medieval
era, the nomadic lifestyle represented a characteristic of some groups of Roma people, who
moved around to find better places to live. There is also a negative side to nomadism, in that
the Roma people were seen as foreigners, which led to them being rejected by the sedentary
communities.
In the 17th and 18th centuries in Transylvania and Banat there were laws that faught
against nomadism, registering the settlement of some nomadic populations, as well as a lesser
number of people in these Roma communities, because of them leaving these territories.146
The large number of Roma people in Moldavia and Wallachia can lead also to the idea that in
these territories the Roma people could have favourable and relatively safe lives, so that they
could perform their specific occupations and crafts, being less opressed.
This is also brought into discussion by Ion Chelcea: „Among the curious aspects that
the gipsies bring about in contact with the Romanian people is that of their adherence to the
Romanian social environment. Of course this adherence can be viewed as a gain obtained in
time. One of the oldest ethnical entities in our country is the gipsy population. Perhaps that is
also a reason for which the attachment of the gipsy to the Romanian living environment is
exceptional.”147
145
Mihaela Daniela Preda, Etnia rromă din Oltenia între tradiţie şi modernitate. Geografie umană,
Bucharest University Publishing House, 2010, p. 15.
146
Mihaela Daniela Preda, quoted work, p. 17-18.
147
Ion Chelcea, Ţiganii din România, Publishing House (PH) of the Central Statistics Institute in
Bucharest, 1944, p. 17.
71
In Moldavia and in Wallachia, Mihail Kogălniceanu and Ion Câmpineanu militated for
the disestablishment of slavery, the first laws appearing in 1843-1844148. The manumission of
the Roma people was, however, a process that span across the entire 19th century.
The Roma population, declared during the official census in the regio of Oltenia, was
as follows: 26.094 persons (1930), 4.631 (1956), 3.899 (1966), so that in 1977, 1992, 2002149
to register an abrupt increase, reaching 63.899 persons in 2011. In the years after WWII, until
the 8th decade, the Roma population, for various reasons, avoided affirming their ethnic
affiliation (there are probably cases of Roma people being regiastered with the majoritarian
population). After 1990, and especially after 2007, the migration factor of the Roma
population towards the EU countries also appears to be important.
The denominations of Roma peoples are in accordance with their occupations:
blascksmith, copper-smith, brick workers, bear tamers, „lăutari” etc. There are other
denominations as well, such as „tismănari”, „vătraşi”, „cocalari”, „lăieţi” etc.
„At the basis of the emergence of the ‚kin” term within the Roma population was
always the performance of the traditional occupation, the manifestation of different crafts with
direct repercussion the organization in „kin”. The situation is not singular, this type of guild or
class organization being quite common throughout history, and being specific to closed or
semi-open social groups, and these, the same as with the kins, being characterised according to
their common origin, the performance of their profession or the privileges manifested only in
the case of the members.”150
The division of the Roma population is also made from the point of view of their
sedentary life or of their nomadism. There are categories of Roma people whose occupation
determined them to settle in certain localities, becoming sedentary. Among them, throughout
the centuries, in the context of mixed marriages, the Roma became closer to the Romanians
regarding the concept of life and social inclusion, such being the example of the „tismănari”
gipsies – monastery or settled gipsies (in the past, belonging to the monasteries or to the
boyars), being called „vătraşi” because „they own a hearth, by this indicating their character as
permanent settlement”151. In time, also the boyar, the sedentary gipsies, who depended
judicially on a boyar, settled down, gaining properties. Since in many situations they do not
accept to be called gipsies, there is one legitimate question: to what percent are they gipsies or
Romanians, how do they identify themselves, and into what ethnic group can they be
included? Is there enough legitimacy to include them legally and/ or ethnografically into the
gipsy group?
The gipsies in Romania are represented in the Romanian Parliament by deputy Nicolae
Păun, from the Party of the Roma „Pro-Europe” Association.
About the past and present situation of the gipsies in Oltenia, especially in Craiova, as
well as about their customs and traditions, we spoke with Romeo Tiberiade, councillor for the
Roma population at Craiova City Hall, the president of the Party of the Roma Association –
Craiova branch, born in 1965 in Craiova, graduate of the Faculty of Law and Public
Administration.
The associative framework of gipsies in Craiova: „In Craiova there are nongovernmental associations that were founded 12-13 years ago, there is an institution of the
Government Secretariat called the National Agency for Roma People, which has a branch in
Craiova as well as the Party of the Roma Association. Some of the non-governmental
organizations became involved in educational projects. Unfortunately, such an organization
148
Mihaela Daniela Preda, quoted work, p. 19.
Mihaela Daniela Preda, quoted work, p. 26.
150
Mihaela Daniela Preda, quoted work., p. 94.
151
Ion Chelcea, quoted work p. 24.
149
72
never won any nationally important projects, such as strategic projects, because of something I
cannot define, I cannot understand why they are never awarded such projects. But, in order to
be able to complete such projects, we managed to establish partnerships with stronger,
Romanian organizations, thus becoming involved in several projects of interest. From my
point of view it would be wonderful and highly beneficial if the Roma communities,
especially the traditional ones, such as the tinmen, bear tamers, copper-smiths, who keep their
way of dressing, their customs, traditions and language, would be able to keep these customs
and unwritten laws, such as the „judgement”, with the condition of there being more education
in said communities. Unfortunately, the lack of education is at an extremely high level in the
Roma communities. However, with the help of some non-governmental organizations we
managed to do more on the educational side: an «afterschool» project, one for second chances.
Regarding the «afterschool», if you go in the Roma communities and tell them exactly what it
means, it’s better. You shouldn’t just talk to them about the «afterschool», because it can be
translated as tutoring, school after school, and with the gipsies it is better to use more familiar
words, and not enter a discussion where you use mechanical, scientific terms. Out of respect
they listen to you, but they will understand nothing.”
The use of the denominations of Roma/ gipsy is not seen as opposing or blamable (in
the case of using the term gipsy), unless the latter has a pejorative character. During the past
years within the gipsy communities the term „Roma” was adopted, however the „gipsy” one
being widely used as well.
„I would be proud to be called gipsy, but it depends on the tone of voice or the accent
used by my interlocutor. I don’t like it to be called a gipsy in a pejorative, negative sense of
the word. I am a gipsy and I am proud of it, since I never hurt anybody, I learnt and I went to
school, and my children also went to school, I am proud to be a member of the Roma
community. I never said I was anything else but Romanian before being a gipsy, because we
were born in Romania for many generations now, so if we were born here, we are Romanians
of Roma ethnicity. The context is important [for the use of the word gipsy]. If you call
someone: «Hey, gipsy!», this is bothersome, I would also be upset to be called out like that; or
when negative words are used when addressing someone of Roma ethnicity, such as:
«Stinking gipsy!», «You disgusting gipsy!», «Painted crow!» and so many insulting words. I
don’t know if there is a matter of discrimination when it comes to the authorities. I think the
Romanians have been making such pejorative remarks regarding discrimination because that’s
human nature, not necessarily because they have something against us, there is a small number
of people who, I believe, is sick. If you are Romanian and you have something against me
because I’m a gipsy it means one of two things happened: Either myself or someone else in
the Roma community, or the community itself, have done something wrong to you, however I
tend to believe this is not true, or simply out of the blue you hate me.”
Classification of Roma groups: „The gipsies in Oltenia… from my research and that of
my colleagues, it results that there are several „kin”. There is one Roma ethnicity and it is
several kin, such as: copper-smiths, settled gipsies, bear tamers, tinmen, woodworkers, the
lăutari, florists, the tismănari and many others. All these kin, guilds, if you want, to make it
understandable to everyone, differ from one another by their dress, customs and accent. The
language is the same and we all speak it, wether it’s a Spanish, Italian or American gipsy, the
language is the same.
The tinmen can be recognized by their traditional clothing, the women of this group
wear small coins in their braided hair.
The copper-smiths make cast iron buckets and other vessels, hence their name. This is
also a traditional group, and their women wear colourful skirts.
73
The settled gipsies (in Romanian: „de vatră”) are those gipsies that made a hearth, a
fire. Their gipsy home center is the hearth, meaning they found a place and settled there, their
families developed in that area and they are settled gipsies.
The case of the bear tamers is rather controversial, because several sociologists and
historians, professors, contradicted me in what I told them. But some years after our initial
discussion on the matter they discovered I was right and they came to me to tell me this. This
group, before being called bear tamers, were called „cocalari”. You saw many times that in
the negative sense of the word the Romanians use: «”Cocalarule”!» The bear tamer got this
name more than one hundred years ago. They were the group that would tame animals.They
succedeed in taming bears, and this was their means of gaining their existence, as they
developed games with the bear, and the bear would walk over a person, and that person would
mount the bear to heal, or for whatever sins. Then they transformed all this, being also
shamans, or so they said, and they turned into circus people, or tiger tamers, and they made the
poor bears roll over, and they gained their existence by staging these small performances.
Before being bear tamers they were „cocalari”, or bone carvers. What does cocalar mean? This
words derives from the gipsy word cocal, which means «bone», and if you use the plural,
more bones means „cocalari”, bone carvers. The „cocalari”, before being ursari, before taming
the bear, were the ones that identified animal remains, and the bones that had dried with the
passing of time. With the respective bones they made different ornaments, combs, buttons,
they worked in bone. So this term translated into Romanian is the equivalent of „cocalar”.
About 150 years ago they tamed the bear and they became ursari. Nowadays, many of them
are lăutari, bear taming lăutari.
There are two types of lăutari: the ones originating from the tismănari group and the
bear taming lăutari.
The lăutari from the tismănari group are people who integrated themselves the majority
losing their language, and are easily recognizable through their music and virtuosity. They
don’t only play a musical instrument, but also sing with their voice. Nowadays, after many
years, the lăutari transformed into musicians, some very important too. From my point of
view, corroborated with the study I made, there are more than 20-30% of Roma people in the
Romanian philharmonics.
The Tismănar gipsies represent part of a group that comes from the Monastery of
Tismana. The ones that were many years ago, I don’t know exactly, gipsies and Romanians
who were in the church fortresses, meaning they were governed by the church. They [were
governed] by Tismana. This group of the tismănari only exists in the area of Oltenia.
The florists are a group of people that are special because of the way they know how to
keep the flower without it withering, for many dies, so that they can sell it. A large part of the
florists lost their language, very few of them still keep it.
The blacksmiths are the ones that, using different types of metal, make gates, banisters,
horseshoes, chairs, tables.
The brick makers are the ones that make bricks out of a special clay; they are the only
ones who know how to choose the best area. Throughout hundreds of years they made
exceptionally good bricks.
The woodworkers, are those people who make all kinds of ornaments and handmade
wood things; they are the ones that make spoons, tables, they are wood carvers.
These are the groups present in Oltenia. Nationally, there are 28 such groups.
The ones who collect waste, plastic recipients, they are part of the “tismănari” group.
No traditional gipsy will ever do that These gipsies are not traditional gipsies. The traditional
gipsies are the ones that keep their tradition – the language, they way they dress, as well as
their customs. Whereas the “lăutar”, except for his music, is no different from the Romanian.
74
Unfortunately, the majority of “lăutari” doesn’t acknowledge the affiliation to the Roma
ethnicity.”
About migration: „The migration of the Roma population is very important in Oltenia.
There are many gipsies abroad, from all the communities. The difference between them and
the Romanians is that if a Romanian goes abroad and has a job which way better paid than in
Romania, I believe 95% of them won’t come back. They are married, they go there, or they
get married there. Wehereas the gipsies work, make money, then they come back home. They
spend the money in Romania.”
Discrimination of the Roma people: „In this respect the gipsies have a major setback,
because of their skin colour they are easy to spot, and if some of them have committed any
crime, or some are beggars, they are easier to notice, and the one that was correct is
assimilated with the one that has committed an illegal act. The fact that they wear the same
kind of coat and skirt puts them in the same situation. Allow me to give you an example: my
woman, my wife, wears the long, traditional, skirt, because also in our group, the one of
settled gipsies, it is worn. We receive many insults from the Romanians. Personally, even
though I represent a public institution, I am a city hall councillor, I was denied, together with
my wife, access in restaurants, bars, or pools. First of all because we are gipsies also by our
clothing.”
Regarding clothing: „There is a seamstress that makes these clothes for the community,
usually she is also of Roma ethinicity, but I noticed that more recently the Romanian
seamstresses have also learnt how to make these skirts and started making them for the Roma
communities. But before all this the gipsy women made their own clothes, they sew them.”
A „social-judicial” custom of the gipsies is the Stabor (the Gipsy Judgment) or the
gipsy council: „the gipsy judgment is a process by which we try the elimination of any
conflicts among us. This organism comprises between five to ten judges, chosen with the
approval of both parties, depending on the gravity of the deed. Of course, regardless of its
decisions, the respective organism cannot situate iteself outside the legal provisions”152,
declared one of the leaders of the Roma population in Craiova to a journalist, in 2008.
Romeo Tiberiade also explains this tradition to us: „During a discussion I had with
[Professor] Otovescu, who is an amazing person, and whose experience in ethnography issues
is very vast, even though he is a sociologist, he said, and he was about 80% right, too, that this
gipsy judgement is more a council of the elders: it analyses, it researches and it draws its
conclusions, then it gives its verdict. He called it mediation. And it is one, up to a point.
Because the mediator or the mediation is just that, nothing more. Whereas this trial, which I
say is a council of the elders, also delivers a verdict. Thus, if it also gives a verdict, it means
it’s a sort of judgement. Just that we don’t judge anybody, we only analyse whether the person
is guilty or not, and present the solution to the Roma people, in order to avoid the situation
from happening again. The panel of jurors or of elders does not have an even or uneven
number of representatives. It is formed of a minimum of three people and can reach up to 15
people, depending on the severity of the deed which is analysed. There is one beneficial aspect
for the Roma communities: throughout hundreds of years this unwritten law of the gipsy
judgment has been kept alive. This judgment is based on logic, on the talks held and on
testimonies, after which the judges go to a secret place, a room, where they analyse everything
and they make a reconstruction of the discussion. They reach a conclusion on which they all
say what they have to say. The conclusion they reach must be beneficial to them, as well as to
152
Dumitru Tatian, interviewed by Constantin Preda, 19th of February 2008, in Expresul de Sud.
According to him, in Dolj County there were 70.000 gipsies, of which approximately 40.000 in Craiova;
in the Faţa Luncii neighbourhood, Bucovăţ, Drumul Jiului, Strungari, Hanul Roşu, Stânjeneilor, Căluşari
Roads, etc. There were 2.500 gipsies.
75
the community. There are cases when a couple is on the verge of divorce, or a scandal is about
to start between two clans or two families, because one of them beat up someone from clan X;
then the gipsy judgment comes, it analyses the situation and it reaches a conclusion that is
meant to bring peace to the community. Gipsy community to me means community and it is
used in the positive sense of the word. To us this is a sacred word, and when I tell someone: «I
am gipsy from the Gipsy community», then this is something of value, it’s like saying «I am
Romanian and I am from Romania», when you meet a foreigner. That is the same for us. For
example, in the case of a divorce, which lasts between three hours and three days, together
with the final and irrevocable decision, it depends on the gravity, on family, fortune. If the
woman did something wrong, she had an affair with X, then the judgment, the community,
takes away all her rights. The same second the verdict was given, she has lost everything,
house, fortune, including her children. So she is left with nothing. Now the decision belongs to
the husband: if he accepts her still, despite her mistake, the verdict is no longer upheld and the
couple moves forward with their life. But the family is no longer as easily accepted by the
community. For this reason the trials are very important in the Roma communities!”
Lucian Cherata presenting
a paper on Roma
ethnology
Romeo Tiberiade, councillor
for The Roma population at
he Craiova City Hall
Young Roma dancers
Religion of the Gipsies in Oltenia. „Religion is dependant on the geographic area. In
Oltenia the majority is Orthodox. After the Revolution some people turned their attention to
other confessions as well. Some became Jehovah’s witnesses, Pentecostals, Adventists, but
generally they are Orthodox. In other areas of the countries they are also Catholics, [for
example] in Ardeal.”
About the gipsy „king”: „On the 8th of September, for St. Mary’s date, all the coppersmiths in Romania gather near Sibiu. It is not a holiday that is observed, rather a habit of
populating the respective area. Many years ago the Cioabă family arrived there with their
carts. This family had three kings. They made a crown, and the first king was Ion Cioabă, who
proclaimed himself king on St. Mary’s day, when all these gipsies came together and [they]
said: «All these people came here for me!». It was a lie. He took advantage of the opportunity
of this large number of gipsies, he put a crown on his head and remained with the king title.
After his death his child took over, and then he died too… they start to make a reenactment,
where he went, what he wished for. «Look, we are with daddy, with grandpa…». Until about
seven, eight years ago they were from a family only, now [they go] from all families”.
Organisation of the nomads: „The gipsy tribe („şatra”) is represented by several carts,
with all the family members. A “şatra” has a minimum of three carts. The „bulibaşa” is the
leader of the tribe.”
Family prosperity – the image of the family’s power and prosperity: „The power of a
family lies in its children. Whoever has more children is seen as a force and if we have
children, it means that we are strong. In traditional Roma communities it doesn’t mean that if
you have money, you hold the power. If you have many children, and they in turn have more
children, then this is the family’s power and strength.” Or: „Each family that takes part in a
76
religious ceremony or a wedding, their power is represented by the gold they wear on them.
The women must wear necklaces, as well as the men. I no longer do that, I look at my gold, at
the silly rings I used to wear, and I laugh at them. It was a primitive thing, it’s lack of
education.”
Customs at birth: „When a child is born, if it is a male, it is a reason of great joy and
respect, a celebration is held. It really does matter whether it is a boy. More than 30 years ago
we still lived in small gipsy tribes, I lived in a cart and we travelled like that; when a boy was
born there, in the fields, the wife of the leader, of the gipsy leader, and another three or four
women, assisted the birth. The carts were placed in a circle to keep shade, and there was a fire
in the middle. We, the men, left from the site, as we were not allowed to watch the birth. The
women stood there, took out the baby, cut the chord with a pocket knife, the old woman would cut
it. In our small tribes we always had a melted candle, incense, ashes, and we used all these and
some plants to make some kind of medicine which was placed in a small cloth, like in a
handkerchief, and it was placed on the navel. I believe the salt must have had an extraordinary
effect, isolating the area and closing the wound. When it fell, the chord was kept in a piece of cloth.
When a little boy was born, it was cried out immediately. One of the young members of the
community, a 15-18 year-old, would mount a horse, go to the nearest village and bring plum
brandy. He would buy several ţoi. And they would stay there for three days and nights, they
wouldn’t leave the şatra, which was not to be placed next to an abandoned fântână or at a crossroads, as it was bad luck. When the woman was close to giving birth they would hurry the horses
in order to reach the poalele muntelui, or the edge of the forest. There are no more şatre now.”
Godparentship: „In our culture the child doesn’t have to have the same name as the
godfather, it’s not a rule. The godfather is chosen freely and the parents must consider that in
the future the godfather should be able to sit with them at the table, celebrate and help the
family grow, and the godfather is a respected figure.”
The name of the baby: „Usually the name of the child is given after someone important
in the family. Generally, in many cases, for example my eldest son named his first child after
me [so the grandfather’s name]. This name thing is odd sometimes [to give them exotic
names], they have so many unusual names, scientific, from the movies, names of actors. Some
would like to name their children Schwarzenegger, but in their birth certificates it’s written in
a different manner and they do not use the correct name. A person is called Admirator, from
the verb «to admire», and we call him Acmirator, with a «c», in the community, because we
were a primitive group back then and we didn’t know what the correct form was. Another
person is called Senofon, but I think this word doesn’t exist, rather Xilophone or Xenophon.
He has a brother whose name is Filozof (Philosopher), and the majority of gipsies, because
they lack the education and don’t know how to properly read and write, call him Filofob
instead of Filozof.”
Wedding customs. Choosing the spouses by the parents: „In the communities of
traditional Roma the customs are still kept. Some are very good, with others I do not agree,
such as early marriage. For the Roma people, the marriage is proposed by the parents. In the
case of the copper-smiths the marriage is done at an early age, they can be as young as 10 or
11 years old. From my point of view, I believe this is neither al right, nor healthy or correct.
The parents’ decision is kept in very high regard, even if the young boy or girl does not
approve. They have no choice, they are bound to accept, as you have to go to work every day
and sign for presence. The same with marriage, [she] has to accept, there is no other way, you
cry, you fight, but you get married and in time, as life follows its course, you fall in love with
the respective person, the one you live with, and the other way around, they fall in love and
they have children, [they] live their life and respect each other.”
Stealing the girl: „There is another type of marriage in the Roma communities, when the
girl is literally stolen. This happens when they are certain the girl’s parents will not accept if they
77
go to woo her, with a plosca or bottle of wine. If the girl’s parents won’t accept, and in order to
avoid public shaming, they steal the girl. In such cases the elders’ judgment is called in, as well
as the unwritten laws of the community, and no one can woo the girl anymore, even if her
family, at that time, does not give its consent. It can be a month, two, three, maybe even a year
until they do. Even if the girl no longer wishes to marry the one that stole her, no one else will
accept her and then she is forced by the situation, by this tradition, to marry the respective boy.”
Wooing (or Courtship). „First we go without the bottle, without cortege, without music.
Only the husband and the wife go, directly to the person from whom they have to ask for the
girl’s hand, and they say: «You are the ones we accept, we love and we respect you! Our child
wants to marry your daughter! Please give us your conditions! How much do you want to ask
from us? We will give it to you, we will make a golden bridge for you and we will give you
the sun and the moon and anything you might want!» This is the initial talk. And the girl’s
family says: «We decline!» or «Give us some time to think!» or «Yes, we accept!» If in the
respective community it is heard that myself and my wife went to woo a certain girl, no one
else has the right to go after us, otherwise I will consider that the respective person has
something against me. Even if the parents accept or not, no one else is allowed to go after me,
unless I withdraw.”
Funerary traditions: „The gipsies have a sensitive side, they become very scared when
the near their death. They won’t admit the fact that they are about to die and they are even
afraid to believe it, so they don’t talk about it and just bear this fear in silence.”
Mourning: „It is held for a longer period of time, it is the same as for the Romanians.
Our elderly women in the countryside are in mourning for years, through their clothing. They
are no longer allowed to watch TV, they can no longer experience any kind of happiness, no
more dancing, no more joking... They cut themselves off from the community and take it upon
themselves to stop doing certain things.”
Roma Burial Vaults in the
Catholic cemetery in
Craiova.
In this cemetery the burial
vaults are rare (three-four)
for the representatives of
the other ethnicities
Roma burial vault in the
Catholic cemetery.
On the left there is a marble
plaque on which a life lesson
is written down, as we can
see in the photography on
the right
„Reader, beware!
Tell your friend what you
ate, don’t tell him your
trouble or your pain
otherwise you will regret it,
sooner or later. You are my
good friend as long as you
don’t surpass me.
Take care, as everything
ends”
Religious holidays. Easter customs: „Someone considered lucky in the family, the
eldest son or the second son or the mother, or the grandfather, whoever is luckier and brings
bounty into the house, that is the person who must bring the Eucharist bread from the church.
And at home he or she gives it to everyone in the morning, not in the evening or during the
night. The majority of Roma people in Oltenia has a ritual: when you eat the Eucharist bread,
with your foor you cut out a piece of clay with grass and put it in the courtyard, place your
right foot on top of it, toast with eggs, you give the family a bit of wine to taste, give them to
eat the holy bread, or the paştele, and we start with the first child until we reach the youngest.”
78
New Year customs: „The most important moment is New Year’s Eve, because that’s
when the year changes and we pass into a new year, which is when we must all be present in
the house. However, as an unwritten rule, 12 o’clock should never find us in the house, but
outside, so that’s where we go. It is said that it isn’t good to be inside when the clock strikes
12.
On New Year’s Eve one must wear new clothes and look nice, and most importantly be
clean.”
St. Basil: „[The child is made the well-wishings] yes, these are folklore customs and
we observed them because we lived alongside Romanians and we learnt from them.”
The Mărţişor: „In our case, this is a Romanian custom, we don’t usually hang a
mărţişor on our clothes, we wear a white and red şnur on the wrist.”
Other beliefs and customs:
Fortunetelling: [Fortunetelling is what] „traditional gipsies, settled gipsies, the coppersmiths and bear tamer do. As far as I could see for the past twenty-something years, thirty
years, this gift of fortunetelling, of foretelling, is a legacy. We must admit there are many
impostors as well, but I have personally seen old gipsies that would tell you what your future
was and I became scared. They would tell me things I had seen myself. There are people that
have this gift.”
Disenchantment: „The disenchantment is something real, and it is still done today. I
myself try to avoid being given the evil eye. The person that has the evil eye doesn’t know that
he or she has done this, that they have this negative power. There are many people that can
give the evil eye and a sort of disease falls on you, and it manifests in several ways: falling
asleep, headache, stomach ache, there are numerous types of pains and illnesses. This can only
be solved by an old gipsy woman, and she starts to sing, to talk, I don’t know what she says.
There is no distinct sign of the people who have the evil eye. It is said that people with blue
eyes have the evil eye. That’s why we spit on a child, a beautiful car, a horse: «May it be
shielded from the evil eye!» [Against this we put] a little red bow, to anyone. The same for
animals that were touched by the evil eye, our elders would throw water on their horses, the
gipsies didn’t really have other animals.”
Community hospitality and solidarity: „The hospitality of the Roma people, and
especially of the traditional gipsies, the tinmen, bear tamers, copper-smiths, settled gipsies …
they are very hospitable, they are very receptive when you are in their community and they
would do anything to show their respect, especially when you are not part of their ethnic
group. They want to show you the greatest respect. If you take part in a baptism, celebration or
wedding they organized, they try to place you in the best possible light, they take upon
thelselves that the person that has come to their celebration is respected by all the attendees. If
you happen to arrive in the community, you are lost, you ask for help, you will be attended
and respected, and a solution will be found for you. It isn’t true that you will be bitten, or
things will be stolen from you, or that something will happen to you. This is incorrect, it’s
something invented by the journalists. If a traditional gipsy accepted you by his side no one is
allowed to touch you, come police or anyone else, the gipsy will protect you. If they see you in
a difficult situation, no matter where they are, if they see someone, be it Romanian, Italian, it
doesn’t matter, if they see them beaten, abused by someone, the gipsies will intervene. They
are not afraid of fire, of the police, in such situations. If a house catches fire, all the gipsies
come together to help, there is solidarity among them. I now live in a Romanian
neighbourhood, and for example a neighbour’s house caught fire, and another neighbour said:
«Oh, poor man, his house is on fire! What will he do now?» We don’t accept that, we jump
into the flames, we go, we risk our lives, we don’t know what’s going on but we go in to save
the person or the house. When someone dies, when there is a death in the community, also out
of solidarity and friendship with the respective family, even between two families there is an
79
arguement, whether it turned violent, beatings had taken place, but it happened that a death
occurred in the community, these two families leave aside their dispute, any kind of hatred,
and attend the wake together. Once the ceremony is over it’s again each with its own, but I
want to point out that after the funeral they will stay close to the family in mourning, in order
to not leave them alone. Also, they secretly try to find out whether the respective family has
enough money, funds for the funeral. If they don’t have enough, then a collection will take
place or one of the gipsies lends them money and helps out. Money is not given with interest,
with usury, in any situation involving hospitals, funerals or jail.”
WOODWORKERS
The woodworkers’ ethnogenesis represents yet another enigma, their inclusion within
the Roma population being an abuse153.
Nicolăescu-Plopşor disputes the affiliation of the Woodworker people to the gipsy
ethnicity, stating that: „However, in our research we encountered from the beginning a clear
distinction between gipsies and woodworkers. Among which a sacrifice mentioned [the
„curban”] is not present in any one of the gipsy communities. Then, the woodworkers don’t
speak the Romani language; they speak Romanian; I heard some of them came from Serbia so
they also know the Serbian language. This shouldn’t be overlooked, because of all the gipsies
only the vatră, settled after their slavery among Romanians, started to forget the language; but
the nomadic gipsies and those employed by the estates, the sălaş gipsies (gipsy dwellers,
translator’s note), haven’t forgotten it. If the woodworkers had been gipsies, considering the
way they work in isolated groups, with their huts made within the forests, it would have been
virtually impossible to lose their language.
The woodworkers don’t have the organization or the judicial customs as the gipsies,
each dwelling having a bailiff – formerly known as voivode, judge or leader – that leads the
group and judges the situations arisen between them, this organization being documented in
papers as old as the time when they came to our country. Their wedding customs aren’t
similar, like for example the buying of the girl; they don’t use the cloth house – the tent – they
don’t work with iron, they aren’t musical, and so many other aspects. They only work with
wood and we cannot know for certain why they stopped extracting gold, as is written in the
above-mentioned authors’ works. The ones that work with wood are mentioned in documents
and other works as spoon makers.
Asked whether they are gipsies, they ask no. And the curious part is that they say they
are „Old Romanians”, with a general tradition that they are descendants of the Dacians. Some
Romanians think they are gipsies, but they make great difference between themselves and the
others. Others say they are wookworkers, not gipsies. The gipsies say about them that they are
not gipsies, but „Romanians”. One of them even told me a story about the origin of the
gipsies, which is interesting only to the extent to which it denies the gipsy origin of the
woodworker population.
That their ancestors were bondmen no one remembers, the gipsy type is rarely
encountered, and that happens in the case of woodworkers mixed with gipsies. The similar
lifestyle of both groups led to this situation, and there can be no doubt that they are mixed with
the gipsies.”154
153
During the 2011 census the woodworkers were affiliated to the Roma group.
C.S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor, „Gurbanele”, in Arhivele Olteniei, year I, no. 1, 1922, p. 37-38. Also, the
respondents in our researches on the woodworkers in the Varna (Bulgaria) region, in DolniCiflik and
StaroOriahovo, in the summer of 2011, said they were Romanian woodworkers, refusing to be associated
154
80
Also, commenting on the affirmations of Th. Filipescu about the caravlah people from
Serbia, according to which they kept the Romanian characters, being „moved to tears” when
they are called gipsies, Ion Chelcea presented the following reasons: „The research of the
woodworkers in the Olt Country led me to the same conclusions. They don’t know any other
language but the Romanian and are different in many respects from the other gipsies. Because
of their isolated lifestyle- always close to forests – they have a very particular character. Kind,
hard-working, honest, in comparison with the other gipsies, they represent a mystery among
the gipsies in our country. That’s why some scholars even refuse to include them in the gipsy
group.”155
„The skin colour – wrote Th. Filipescu – is not the only sign by which we can deduct
the origin of a population.”156Referring to the same caravlah population, Ilie Gherghel, who is
later acknowledged also by Ion Chelcea, states: „with all my desire to meet in them pure
Romanians and not only a population that speaks the Romanian language, we must admit that
the caravlah people look more like mixed gipsies than Romanians.”157 The idea of the blend
between Romanians and gipsies is also mentioned by C.S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor, who notes as
well that they refuse to be identified as gipsies, affirming their descendants from the old
Dacians.
In more recent studies, like the one made by Ion Calotă158, the woodworkers are
assimilated to the Roma/ gipsy population. „Gipsies in their ethnical origin, the woodworkers
have, of course, spoken the Roma language before adopting the Romanian language. The
abandonment of their own language took place in the area of the Apuseni Mountains, where
this category of gipsies, the woodworkers, was forced to work as bondmen. This is where the
Romanization of the woodworker gipsies happened, with the help of the Romanian goldsmith,
from whom they learnt both the trade, as well as the Romanian language, as it was spoken in
this part of the country at the time.”
In the conclusions of a study, Angela Costescu159 considers that: „the importance given
to a biological feature, namely the skin colour, is a first element that justifies the tendency to
identify the woodworkers with the Roma people. This tendency generates an entire
discrimination process, reflected in the Romanian’s preoccupation to maintain a social
distance from the woodworkers. Because of the circulation of some well-known clichés (their
skin is dark, so they must be gipsies, if they are gipsies they must be avoided), the chances for
social mobility within this community of woodworkers are slim.”
Case study – Grigore Andriţoiu160, woodworker from Argetoaia, seller of wooden
products in the Central Market in Craiova: „The woodworkers are a nation... there’s a
difference between them and the gipsies, they are not gipsies, they are a nation between
with the Roma ethnicity, some of them declaring they were of Romanian ethny during the Bulgarian
census. (see Emil Ţîrcomnicu (coord.), Rudarii românofoni din Bulgaria. Volumul III, Regiunea Varna,
Bucharest, Ethnological Publishing House, 2012, p. 14-15).
155
Ion Chelcea, quoted work, p. 42.
156
Th. Filipescu, Coloniile Române din Bosnia, C. Göbl, Bucharest, 1906,p. 239.
157
Ilie Gherghel, Prin câmpii şi plaiuri străbune, second edition, Bucharest, 1930, p. 14, apud Ion
Chelcea, quoted work, p. 46
Ilie Gherghel, Prin câmpii şi plaiuri străbune, second edition, Bucureşti, 1930, p. 14, apud Ion Chelcea,
quoted work, p. 46
158
Ion Calotă, „South-Danubian Elements in the Language of Woodworkers in Oltenia”, in
Dacoromania, 1996-1997, Cluj-Napoca, p. 47.
159
Angela Costescu, „Social Marginalisation of a Woodworkers’ Community in Gorj County,
Romania”,in Terra Sebus. Acta Musei Sabesiensis, no. 5, 2013, p. 547-559.
160
Grigore Andriţoiu, born in1966, woodworker from Argetoaia, 10 classes, occupation – wood
working, interviewed on the 11th of August, 2015.
81
Romanians... so also Romanians, but more of a mix, so to speak. There are many [in
Argetoaia], the woodworkers community there is large, possibly more than 600 people. It is a
very close community. Some of us are also of Pentecostal confession, and also Orthodox161. I
am Orthodox. We are surrounded by forests, our village is literally situated in a wooded area.
There are also in the region of Calafat, towards Bechet… We came here when we were
displaced from Bulgaria, as far as I understood, that’s our origin, in the Southern Dobruja area,
as I heard from my grandparents [possible confusion, referring to a migration from the South
of the Danube, centuries ago, or a migration from Southern Dobruja in 1940, which is highly
unlikely]. [Everyone consider themselves to be] Woodworkers, we don’t know the gipsy
language, we speak Romanian, but a little less correctly [than the Romanians]. We don’t
consider ourselves that [gipsies], because we don’t know the language.” [They are actually
upset to be called gipsies, as per our interlocutor].
„The elders used to keep our traditions alive. Now everything in this respect is lost,
you don’t know whether the person is from the woodworkers population or is Romanian. Our
ethnicity is no longer taken into consideration. [Our observation is that they consider the
woodworkers to be a separate population]. [We saw that during the census the woodworkers
were positioned in the same category as the gipsies. Isn’t that wrong?]. It is very wrong! It is
an ethnicity without the Roma people, without the others, like the tinmen, like the coppersmiths, like several other ethnicities. [Is there a story that the woodworkers are descendants of
the Dacians?]. I heard that story, from Thracians. I heard of that too.”
Also, discussing further the subject of the affiliation of the woodworkers to the Roma
population with Mr. Romeo Tiberiade, representative of the gipsies in the Party of the Roma
and councillor at the Craiova City hall, he made the following remarks: „The woodworkers
will definitely not confirm themselves as gipsies. As a personal opinion, and after research
made by my colleagues at our organization, with the risk of upsetting many Romanians now,
we have also underlined the fact that, according to this research, were Romanians, hundreds of
years ago, but they were the ugliest part of the Romanians, so the general population rejected
them and affiliated them to the gipsies. They viewed them on the other side of the ugly part,
that of the gipsy. Thus they are no longer Romanians; however, they are not gipsies either. But
because they were affiliated to our population, they are now considered woodworker gipsies.
From my point of view they are not gipsies! And precisely because not one of them knows the
gipsy language! Whereas with the “lăutari”, for example, some speak the Romani language,
some don’t. The woodworkers have never spoken it. According to the explanations of the
elders we spoke with, from around the country, there was never any account of anyone’s
great-great-grandparents ever speaking the Romani language.”162
Occupations: „[We work with] wood. This tradition will be slowly lost, firstly because
our children don’t work, they don’t even want to hear about it. It’s not paid well! In order to
bring the merchandise here, to the market, we need... We make chairs, small tables, spoons,
chopping boards, everything that can be worked in wood. We don’t make much, after tax I’m
probably left with... ten million [1 000 lei per month]. We buy the wood. The spoon is made
out of cork, willow, beech, linden tree, plum-tree, but the plum tree is very rare now. My wife
makes them also, our parents are long gone, the children won’t get involved. There’s no
financial gain! We go to fairs, open markets, everywhere. [We make] long-stick spoons,
skimmers – used for jams, or to sieve shortening or broth – spoons, forks, eggplant knives,
mortars and pestles, stirring sticks for polenta, spigots for barrels and flutes, paddles for
161
During the 2011 census in Argetoaia there were 4..903 inhabitants, of which 98,38% Romanians, and
confessionally 93,61% Orthodox and 4,75% Pentecostals.
162
Romeo Tiberiade, interviewd on the 11th of August of 2015.
82
stirring, laddles, sifters, distaffs – like the ones used when the wool was spun, [it’s bought]
more for decor now.”
Grigore Andriţoiu,
woodworker from
Argetoaia, at his booth in
the Central Market
Wooden spoons
Craft objects made of wood
We will present some customs described by Grigore Andriţoiu:
The tradition of the “curban”: „This tradition is not found at any other ethnicity. We
place the lamb on the spit and we party with all the family, with friends. Whatever is left from
the lamb is buried, for health. This is done at a celebration, for St. George, for example, or
whenever we want to, for health. First of all one mustn’t... with your wife... for three days you
have to be clean. You washed yourself, [you are] clean... We place the lamb on the spit, we
prepare it, we celebrate with family and friends. We say: «May God give us health!», as you
would say a prayer. The majority makes the “curban” on the same day, each with their own
family. But this tradition is no longer kept. We made this two years ago. We don’t give alms.
We party with the family, the friends and guests that we have.”
Winter holiday traditions: „We went[carolling], more from our community there would
be separate groups, but we went to everyone’s houses, regardless [of ethnicity], doesn’t
matter, with the Pluguşor, the Sorcova, the Steaua, all these being traditional carols…”. „[On
Christmas Eve] my wife still does this, people would go on the street, would find a twig, a
straw, then they would sit in front of the stove and would pray for the prosperity of the house,
for health.” „We mind [who comes first at home on Christmas morning], so that we may all
have health.” „[On Christmas night] we kept the fire going, we wouldn’t let it burn out.”
Wedding traditions. Wooing and godparentship: „[In my case] the parents made the
agreement. They got along also due to the well-being of the families, wealth and reputation. I
agreed, I was seventeen, and she was sixteen. There was a courtship, I went with my parents,
of course! [During the wooing phase] we say [what we want] directly, because they have to
agree. A meal would be offered, we’re all hospitable people! [Was the girl supposed to have
dowry?] Yes. The girls were also bought, but one wouldn’t say that. The wedding followed,
directly, to be auspicious to both families. We made the wedding four months after the
courtship. At home [we made it]. The family, friends [were present]... [Are there differences
between woodworkers weddings and Romanians’ weddings?] No, since they are the same...
We go to church, we offer meals, people give something in return, so everything is the same,
everything... You choose the godparents. Before, you would keep the godparents; that was the
tradition. Now also the children keep their godparents, they follow the tradition. Family ties
are considered, relatives, the third kin...”.
83
DOLJ INTERETHNIC FORUM
AN ATTEMPT AT ASSOCIATIVE COOPERATION
In Craiova there existed a form of association of the organization representing ethnic
minorities. This form of associative cooperation lasted for a decade. Ion Pâşcoveanu163 gave us
the following details about the activity of the Dolj Interethnic Forum:
„After 1990 we were the only county where we formed a forum, unfortunately it only
lasted until 2000 and something, the Dolj Interethnic Forum, where we had gathered all the
ethnic communities, it was so well-organized that we had on board both Romanians as well as
representatives of the County Council and the Municipal Council who were in charge with the
[department of] culture. We weren’t able to register it in court, for which reason the project
fell apart. The County Council helps out on different occasions, such as December 18th –
minorities day, providing a hall for our exhibitions... However, the City Hall hasn’t given us a
space where we can register this organization. The president would be a representative of each
ethnicity, and if there were two such members, as it was our case [the Greeks], for the next
round the leadership would be taken by the other person.
The soul of this idea was represented by two people who, unfortunately, are no longer
among us: Mr. [Albert] Zimbler, from the Jewish community, and Mr. [Alexandru Firescu],
who was Romanian, but was a good journalist, pensioner, writer, with a rich activity. He has a
published book, as well, Craiova, monamour [written together with Constantin Gheorghiu,
published by the Scrisul Românesc Publishing House in 2009], that appeared one year before
he left for Sibiu where, unfortunately, he passed away two years after. I told him: «Professor,
you are from Craiova, you are tearing yourself away from the community! ». «No, I’m going
to live with my daughter!» and, unfortunately, this love for Craiova most likely slowly killed
him… I’m just saying. He knew a great deal of things about Craiova and about the minorities;
we published a newspaper called Excelsior, where every two-three months there was an
edition where there would be information about one identity or another. He died; I tried to
keep the organization together, myself and my colleague in Băileşti... The Roma community
supported us financially for a while, but Dacian passed away... The Roma were also divided in
several groups. We couldn’t register it in court and this idea slowly died. I was Executive
Director of this federation for a long time, which is why I know the activity so well.” The
meetings of the Dolj Interethnic Forum were periodically held at the Dolj County Inspectorate
for Culture, which was to become in 2001 the County Directorate for Culture, Religious
Affairs and National Cultural Heritage (the local representative body of the corresponding
ministry).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Bulat, T.G. 1927, Din istoricul protestantismului în Ţara Românească, in Arhivele
Olteniei, year VI, no. 29-30, pp. 40, 59-60.
2. Cajal, Nicolae, KULLER . H.(coord.), 2004, Contribuţia evreilor din România la
cultură şi civilizaţie, Bucharest, Hasefer Publishing House.
3. Calotă, Ion, 1996-1997, Elemente sud-dunărene în graiul rudarilor din Oltenia, in
Dacoromania, Cluj-Napoca.
4. Chelcea, Ion, 1944, Ţiganii din România, Bucharest, Central Institute of Statistics
Publishing House.
163
Ion Florin Pârşcoveanu, interviewed on the 26th of March of 2015.
84
5. Costescu, Angela, 2013, Marginalizare socială în cazul unei comunităţi de rudari din
judeţul Gorj, România, in Terra Sebus. Acta Musei Sabesiensis, no. 5, pp. 547-559.
6. Demetrescu Mil., George, 1928, Din trecutul Craiovei. Mahalaua Sârbilor (Mahalaua
Sf. Ion), in Arhivele Olteniei, Jan.-Feb., year VII, pp. 10-12.
7. Dongorozi, Ion, 1930, Aşezările evreieşti din Oltenia – după război (1920-1929), in
Arhivele Olteniei, Craiova, year IX, May-August, pp. 157-175.
8. Drăgulin, Sabin, 2015, Fenomenul migrator în România. Studiu de caz: italienii
(1868-2010)”, in Sfera politicii, no. 158, p. 5.
9. Dumitrescu, Doru, Căpiţă, Carol, Manea, Mihai, Căpiţă, Laura, Stamatescu, Mihai
(coord.), 2008, Istoria minorităţilor naţionale din România, Bucharest, Editura Didactică şi
Pedagogică R.A.
10. Filipescu, Th., 1906, Coloniile Române din Bosnia, Bucharest, C. Göbl.
11. Gâscan, Asineta, 2013, Ziua Macedonenilor, celebrată la Craiova, in Ediţie
specială, 9 September.
12. Gherghel, Ilie, 1930, Prin câmpii şi plaiuri străbune, 2nd edition, Bucharest.
13. Ispas, Sabina, 1995, Vechiul Testament în tradiţiile populare româneşti, in Anuarul
Institutului de Etnografie şi Folclor C. Brăiloiu, new series, vol. 6/, Bucharest, the Publishing
House of the Academy, pp.147-154.
14. Matsukovici, Gelcu (coord.), 2000, Istoria comunităţii albaneze din România,
Bucharest, The Cultural Confederation of the Albanians in Romania, vol. 1.
15. Nicolăescu-Plopşor, C.S. , 1922, Gurbanele, in Arhivele Olteniei, year I, no. 1, pp.
35-40.
16. Orman, Gigi, 1928, Din trecutul Craiovei: Cartierul Clisurean, in Arhivele Olteniei,
Mart-April., year VII, pp. 414-416.
17. Pîrvu, Elena, 2015, Pentru o istorie a friulanilor în România. Comunitatea din
Craiova, in Orizonturi culturale italo-române, no. 4, year V, Aprili, pp. 1-2.
18. Preda, Daniela Mihaela, 2010, Etnia rromă din Oltenia între tradiţie şi
modernitate. Geografie umană, Bucharest, bUcharest University Press.
19. Rădulescu, Toma, 2009, Italieni alungaţi din Dolj în anii ‘80, in Adevărul, 5
December.
20. Ţîrcomnicu, Emil (coord.), 2012, Rudarii românofoni din Bulgaria. Volume III,
Regiunea Varna, Bucharest, the Ethnological Publishing House.
Sites:
http://www.asociatia-macedonenilor.ro/reviste.php?revista=7
http://www.recensamantromania.ro/rezultate-2/, tabel sR_Tab_8.
http://www.idee.ro/jewish_heritage_4/index.php?language=ro&pagina=craiova
http://www.jewish-romania.ro/u/media/patrimoniu/patrimoniu-studiu-caracal.pdf
http://www.culturaromena.it/Rom%C3%A2n%C4%83/tabid/88/articleType/ArticleView/ar
ticleId/825/Italienii-din-Craiova.aspx
http://roasit.ro/site/despre-noi/asociatia-ro/.
http://www.fdgr-re.ro/ro/filiale/forumul-democrat-al-germanilor-din-craiova.html
85
ETHNOGRAPHICAL LAYOUT OF MINORITIES IN OLTENIASETTLEMENST, OCCUPATIONS, ARCHITECTURE,
MANAGEMENT OF THE DWELLING PLACES,
TRADITIONAL COSTUME
CORNEL BĂLOSU, PhD
I. Ethnic communities in Oltenia (spatial location)
Oltenia was and is a crossroads territory. Therefore, ethnic successions were
frequent. The Danube could not stop "exchanges", population crossings on either sides, or any
other type of transmissions; we are referring to the cultural ones, of course.
However, the movements across the Danube in Oltenia (two-way), were hard to
capture and register; according to historical accounts, they begin to be recorded sporadically
since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. A more rigorous control of these "wanderings"
makes temporal reference to the early nineteenth century.
In this context, any map of emigration and immigration and the ethnicity of the
"transients" is a random one. We do not fully believe even in recent official statistics, because
they require concrete re ... research.
But our approach is not particularly interested in this situation, but especially in the
establishment and surveying certain communities (more or less compact) of cohabiting ethnics
in Oltenia in the present.
From these considerations, without claiming totality, we will name the places
(especially rural) which had and still have ethnic minority communities (compact or at least in
large numbers, dissipated).
In Dolj County
Community of Friulan Italians in Cernele (former Italieni village, now Izvor);
Community of Bulgarian and Macedonians in Băileşti;
Community of Roma people in Sadova, Piscu Vechi, Sălcuţa, Tencănău, Cerăt,
Murgaşi, Rojiştea, Craiova, Filiaşi;
There are Greek families living in Craiova, as well as Bulgarian, Serbian, Albanian,
Armenian, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, German, Turkish, Macedonian;
In Vâlcea County
Woodworkers communities in Vaideeni, Băbeni, Bujoreni; they used to deal with wood
processing, and they still do; gipsies in Brezoi that worked in the wood industry.
In Brezoi, during the interwar period, there were tens of Italian families working in the
wood industry. There are no information that they remained in the locality (please check the
book by Petre, Bardaşu, Brezoi, 100 de ani de la exploatarea forestieră; 1873-1973, Rm.
Vâlcea, f. an.)
In Rm. Valcea there are families of ethnic Slavs and Italians, German, Hungarian,
Hebrew and Roma (of different types).
The wood workers also had communities in Ţara Loviştei, Valea lui Stan and Brezoi;
lately their numbers dropped due to lack of essential material of their work: willow, poplar,
linden.

Curator, the Ethnography Department of the Oltenia Museum, Craiova.
86
In Gorj County
There are wood workers in the following localities: Brădiceni (Buduhala village),
Godineşti (Pârâu village), Borăscu (spoons and spindles factory).
Copper-smith Roma people in Budieni, Obreja and the „Meteor” neighbourhood in
Târgu-Jiu (N.B. during the last 20 years they changed professions).
The „lăieţi” gipsies are documented and still live in Cărbuneşti and around that town.
In the city of Targu-Jiu, there live families of ethnic Greeks, Turks, Germans, Serbs,
Hungarians, Italians, Turks, Roma.
Mehedinţi County
Community of Serbs in Sviniţa (commune with a population of about 90% Serbs);
The communities of Czechs in Eibenthal, Sfânta Elena, Bigar, Gârnic, Ravenska,
Sfânta Elisabeta etc;
The Roma communities in Strehaia;
In Turnu Severin there also live families of Czechs, Hebrews, Italians, Turks, Germans,
Roma people, Hungarians.
Olt (Romanaţi) County
Community of copper-smith gipsies in Drăgăneşti-Olt;
In Slatina there are families of Roma people, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Italians,
Hebrews, and Macedonians.
We wish to underline the fact that, apart from the Roma ethnicity that has tight-knit
communities in all counties, Oltenia does not have majority ethnic settlements; with two
exceptions: the Eibenthal village (Dubova commune – Mehedinţi) with approximately 280
Czech inhabitants, and Sviniţa with about 900 inhabitants of Serbian ethnicity.
II. Charles Laugier and "Health in Dolj" (Scope and certain clarification on the
Bulgarian, Serbian, Macedonian, Albanian etc. ethnicities)
Charles Laugier was born on 21 January 1875 in Cernele village near Craiova. He was
an active specialist, certainly supported by a great team of professionals, without which he
would not have been able to undertake and finalize a work such as "Health in Dolj".
The Dolj County Folklore Centre made a modest effort (apparently), but essential to
revive a comprehensive and relevant work on a cultural, social, ethnographic, folk etc. rift in
an area of stability, but also of interference with the... the Balkan world!, and not only with
them.
The book is a schematic one and too methodical for modern taste. But once read, you
understand its scientific value and especially the socio-cultural one. The doctor is thorough
and rigorous ... as a German person, but sometimes the clerks forget to fill in certain fields or
refuse to do it.
However, the information that we can use from this paper are of interest because, based
on them, we can make comparisons and draw conclusions. In general, the items of surveys
prepared for municipalities (communes of Dolj), include historical, social, ethnographic,
demographic, etc questions. Enough to figure out the "situation" in Dolj villages in the early
nineteenth century (the book was published in 1910).
And thus we learn that in Bechet, in 1909, "in addition to the local ethnic element, there
are many Bulgarians or mixed." And we find out that this "Bulgarians" and the "mixed" had
been given lands as "producing peasants with 7 acres and 19 poles and one square to 498
square stânjen to build a house"; working peasants "with 4 acres and 15 poles each, and one
498 square stânjen to build a house " (Laugier, 2010, p. 163).
87
The law based on which this apportionment of property was being made was given in
1879 and it also coincided with the interest of the immigrants for Romania, and especially for
Oltenia.
Also in Almăj, commune close to Işalniţa, there are mentions of Bulgarians and
Serbians. Their number is not specified, but we learn that here machines are used for quality
agricultural land; residents worked about 5-6 acres, raising pigs, work cattle, poultry, but ...
they would also grow vegetables, crops in which, we know, the Bulgarians or Romanians
returning from Bulgaria or in general from the Balkans were professionals. It is clear that the
world, at least ethnically, was mixed.
In Băileşti, according to doctor Laugier, one of his clerks, or from the town hall,
declared the following: „The population of the commune of Băileşti is made up of two
elements, Romanians and the so-called Serbs (of Bulgarian origin) (sic!) These two elements
form two separate suburbs: the actual inhabitants (Romanians) and the Serbs suburb, which
populate mostly the Northern side of the commune. These elements remained separated for a
long time, by family ties, and it’s been only in recent years that these ties were established
between them. The Serb element (Bulgarian) was originally brought here for agricultural
purposes” (p. 154) (we kept the text’s original orthography, as did the editors that published
the book; author’s note).
The quoted text is important to understand the confusions that existed and that still
exist between...being Serb and...being Bulgarian. These confusions, picked up also by
historians, are easy to clear. However, it is possible that after 1910, during WWI and after, in
Băileşti there were immigrants of other ethnicities, too.
Breasta commune in the early nineteenth century also had "a small number of
foreigners: Germans, Hungarians, Italians, Serbs, Bulgarians and Turks (p. 191); immigrants
generally settled either in Craiova, or in neighbouring areas. It is clear that these settlements
were based on the occupations of those who came in Oltenia, their qualifications and
specializations.
Confusions and ambiguities related to ethnic typology can be found in Caraula as well:
„The predominant element is the Dacia-Roman one, there are also Slavs (Serbs) settled here
in the past. The mixed population is however so frequent that there is hardly any distinction”.
(p. 201)
Let us note that we are at the beginning of the century (between 1905 and 1910) and
already the phenomenon of assimilation was as clear and as natural as possible.
At the time, villagers in Caraula, either Bulgarian (or Romanians returned from
Timočka Krajina) all worked the land; they had no other source of sustenance. They cultivated
2 to 3 hectares of arable land, particularly wheat and maize. In 1900 in Caraula there were 600
houses of which "150 houses of brick and 450 houses clay" (201).
We do not know for certain how many house of Romanians and how many of
Bulgarians, Serbs or Macedonians there were... .
The situation is similar in Călăraşi as well. Regarding the ethnic type, except for the
indigenous population, or except the Dacia-Romanian, as Ch. Laugier calls Romanians, in the
locality there are, „like on the entire bank of the Danube, for that matter, both as customs and
as skull conformation, an influence of the Bulgarian and Serbian element” (p.12).
The main occupations, including for the co inhabiting ethnicities, were land cultivation,
then viticulture, fruit-growing and raising cattle. It seems that the Bulgarians and Serbs were
also handymen, especially masons and house painters (p. 212).
In Cârcea, there are only a few ethnic types of Slavic origin. In Cernăteşti as well,
doctor Laugier makes an anthropological description of the inhabitants: ...„medium size. Head
under dolichocephalic, strong lower molar and jaw bone, even teeth...high and rounded
88
forehead... etc” (p. 128), but he refrains from writing what the ethnic origin of the inhabitants
was. Here there is room for other comments as well; but it is not the case.
Regarding Cernele, Laugier mentions that here the inhabitants partially work in
agriculture, but they also have other crafts and professions such as „masonry, smithy,
carpentry, furrier’s trade, shoemaking etc.”, which makes us believe these professionals were
in fact of Italian origin living on the land of Miss Eliza Opran, who had brought the Italians
from Friuli to her lands (we will return to this subject).
In Ciutura, Ch. Laugier makes a few observations we find very interesting: the doctor
writes that the population of the commune is „a mix...Bulgarians who, in time, became
Romanized, losing both their language and their customs and mixing with Romanian
peasants” (p. 243). This assimilation process is particular to the Northern part of the Danube;
it is observed in the majority of communes in the Danube Valley, where Slavic ethnics
(Bulgarians, Serbs, Macedonians) did not have large, compact communities.
The inhabitants of Desa, Ch. Laugier continues, by their language and customs are of
Dacia-Roman origin, but...they suffered the influence of the neighbouring Bulgarian element”.
Unfortunately the doctor does not mention what these influences were, the acculturations etc.
(p. 201). In Dobridor the situation changes, being mentioned that here there are numerous
foreign elements... „Bulgarians, but especially Serbs” (p. 267).
During the 1908 census, in Filiaş there were „3021 souls”, the majority of them
Romanians, but also... „foreigners of different nationalities”, according to the brief comment
of the author, and in Hunia the Slavic influence is present. Also in Işalniţa, among its 2705
inhabitants, there are also Serbs, Bulgarians, Germans and Italians. In Malu Mare, Murgaşi,
Pieleşti, Pleşoiu, there are also...”Slav elements” and even Hungarian-Mongols (!!!)
The first remarks about gipsies are in Rojiştea; the doctor writes: „the majority of the
population in Rojiştea is made up of gipsies, former slaves on the land of Lady Steward Maria
Coţofeanca. Fiddler gipsies can also be found in Rudari, but they...”live separately”. However,
we found it very odd that in the book there is no mention if the Roma community in Sadova,
neither that of the Macedonians in Urzicuţa. In Tunari, thought, things are clear: „...on one
side of the village the inhabitants are of Slavic origin, and the rest are Latin. Part of the Serbs,
especially the old ones, speak Serbian even today” (p. 467). (Was it Serbian, Bulgarian, or
Macedonian?!!!- our note)
Yes, Charles Laugier’s book offers us plenty and diverse information from an
ethnographic perspective. However, we must underline the fact that not all these details are
unforgettably certain and precise. We must consider the fact that maybe not all the surveys
were filled in by the eminent doctor. Undeniably, though, the documented transmissions in
monograph are of maximum importance and they cannot be neglected, especially since we do
not have that many documents and ethnographical accounts from the beginning of the century
in Oltenia.
The Czech communities in Eibenthal and in Mehedinţi County
The Czechs in Eibenthal set up their settlement in 1827 brought by the AustroHungarians to keep watch at the border. Now it is difficult to reach the village, where 300
Czech ethnics live. The village, administratively under the commune of Dubova, is isolated;
three times a week the „pemi” population in Eibenthal receives bread from its Serb neighbours
in Sviniţa, which is about 20 km away. The geography of the village is unbelievably beautiful,
but at the same time you wonder who these people lived and survived here, in such isolation.
The answers came initially from the representatives of the „pemi” in Eibenthal that came to
Craiova to introduce themselves and to communicate directly, naturally, modestly, their
identity and their ways. Then we met with Augustina Postpisil, whom we visited and on this
occasion we saw also the village museum, made up with love and respect for everything that
89
belongs to the tradition of the community and ethnical particularity, both materially and
spiritually.
At the beginning of the 19th century, when they crossed the Danube on rafts, the
„pemi” who had come from Bohemia (hence their name), cleared the forest and started
building wood houses. Then, after a fire, they went down toward the Danube where they still
live.
Their agricultural land is on the right, and the ones for housing are in the upper part of
the village. They never had a lot of land; 1 to 3 hectares which they cultivated with potatoes
(especially), with corn and cereal, wheat and barley, mostly.
For a long time men were mining at Baia Nouă. They pulled out anthracite of superior
quality. The mine was closed in 2006 and, after that, many inhabitants left for the Czech
Republic, especially the young ones.
Even now in Eibenthal people practice subsistence agriculture, as they did before;
potatoes for their own use, then corn and the other cereals for the animals (pigs, cattle) and
poultry.
In the village there are several Romanian families, and some mixed. Eibenthal
Romanians came here to work in the anthracite mine. But, says Augustina, "mixed marriages
have always been accepted and there have been no problems. It depended, of course, on the
families, as the rich do not really wish to be in-laws with the poor".
In general, in Eibenthal mining was the main occupation. Women took care of the
household, farming and raising children. The village was not too rich. There are some photos
from the interwar period where we can see that almost all children went to school barefoot. In
fact, the first school here had only one classroom. Later, a school with several classes was
built. If the “pem” man went mining, and his wife was involved in agriculture and took care of
household, their children, even at an early age (7-8 years old) took the cattle out to graze and
took care of their younger siblings.
We do not know and we could not find out from our informants, either, what the first
village at Eibenthal looked like; we believe there must have been wood housed, with 1-2
rooms and the animal shelters. When the village was burnt down, all this settlement plan
changed also. Now the village is linear, on the side of the road, between the mountain base
and the creek.
Even so, we find out that the traditional Eibenthal-type house was built of stone bound
with clay and lime mortar and sand. The museum is housed in such a dwelling with a roof
with two slopes and two rooms and a larder: the first room where the parents slept was also
the kitchen. The second, more spacious, was the children's room. In the kitchen, the heating
and cooking were provided by a stove hob; in the other room there was a brick stove. We
could say that the settlement and village architecture does not refer to the Serbian Banat,
typologically speaking, as we can certainly see in Sviniţa. It is true that in the last 30-40 years
many traditional houses have been replaced with new ones. That was the case in the other
Czech communities in St. Helena, Gârnic, Bigar, Ravensca, St. Elizabeth).
The traditional household in Eibenthal also comprises of the traditional animals stable
and the hay shelter, the chicken coop and the pigsty.
But the “pemi” had to be parsimonious with space all the time. They used sparingly
and with intelligence every square meter. All houses had cellar and also a place where they
stored the higher household objects and crafts; we are referring to the “stopa”, a kind of wood
fulling mill, then the cabbage barrels, wooden containers (from a single tree trunk –
“buduroaie” - in Romanian) “maselniţa”, ie churn in Romanian, the “holovrat” (spinning
machine), the rolls (churns cheese) etc.
In their household, order was essential; it couldn’t have been otherwise, given that the
space was hardly sufficient.
90
Augustina Postpisil also told us that during her childhood she loved going to the
wooden refrigerator in their cellar, where they kept their food supplies. That’s also where all
the house appliances were stored.
The traditional costume was made of bought cloth. Girls’ costumes were no different
from that of married women. The Eibenthal costume was made up of petticoat, apron, blouse
and vest. The inhabitants of Eibenthal say that the traditional costumes of the Czechs in St.
Helena, Gârnic, Bigar, Ravensca are more beautiful than those of Eibenthal. Said communes
remained original and kept their costume, as well as their language, which they speak; it is
true it is a language that was spoken 100 years ago, though, a language that...stood still.
At the same time, there are two kinds of costume: a common one, in different colours,
predominantly blue and white in combination with deep red, lilac combined with a white,
light-blue apron, with polka dots or flowers. This costume was sacred, for celebrations, and it
was worn on Sunday, at church, when meeting other Czechs, mainly during festive moments,
for dances, or for other manifestations of the community.
The other costume is used mostly by young girls at the dance, for parties, at weddings,
and by the recently married women. During mass and after, girls and women use a sombre
costume, buttoned up, and also wear specific head knots.
Of the components we remind the white silk blouse with lace-end sleeves, with buttons,
the skirt with white lace over which the main skirt was placed, which could be flowery and
starched. On their feet they would wear sandals and shoes. Men had a simple costume made
up of black pants (made of broadcloth), white shirt, tie and cockade hats; on their feet they
wore shoes, boots; the girls wore shoes.
There was a time, in the 70s and 80s, when the Czech traditional costumes were
forbidden in Eibenthal, as well as the Czech language. And that’s how a mixture, a hybrid of a
Czech-Romanian costume appeared, especially for children.
Woven fabrics of Czech homes from Eibenthal were typically Romanian, rugs, layouts,
carpets and in the traditional Mehedinti style. Typically, the Czechs use white embroidered
bed sheets and pillows also embroidered.
It seems that the grandmothers still wear cloth shirts called "guardian angel", more to
protect the body. It seems also that the kids at school were wearing some kind of hybrid
Czech-Romanian costumes (interesting!).
Regarding the rites of passage there were a few rules: there would be no marriage
within the family up to cousins third removed. Is this decision more in line with a selfsufficient community?
There is no wailing at funerals; the family relations of the „pemi” population go up to
the fifth generation.
There are no alms, but the liturgy is paid for; as many as possible: 2, 3,5,10. In our
ritual, says Augustina Postpisil, the people of Eibenthal speak the Czech language that was
spoken 100-120 years ago; its level is archaic and regional. All the Czech communities in
Mehedinţi speak this old form of the language, without any innovation: Sf. Elena, Sf.
Elisabeta, Gârnic, Ravensca, Eibenthal, Şomiţa.
The greatest political problems were in the communist era when children at school
were forbidden to speak Czech and the costumes of the folk ensemble were ... mixed, they
looked more Romanian.
The humanized, civilized area was that of the village, the following limits were the
borders of agricultural plots and pastures. The forest then becomes the unsafe space, foggy,
sometimes aggressive, although people from the mountain, the “pemi” perceived the forest as
a space of mutual benefit. From here they took their firewood and building materials. Their
adaptation to the environment was exemplary. It could not be otherwise. Apparently the
village of Eibenthal is the village where there is no stealing; they don’t lock the doors and they
91
hang their bread bags in the door and ... with money in them. The bread comes from Sviniţa,
brought by Ioan Giurşa. The driver takes the money and leaves the bread ...; that’s the proper
way to do things.
The Serb community in Sviniţa
This settlement is one of the places where I'd go back every time. Especially since the
route from the Danube bank to climb the hill where the village is situated is one of pure and
wild beauty, mysterious and hidden but also with many signs of history and civilization.
As is known Sviniţa was moved to the current place in 1970. I can understand the
tribulations and spiritual sorrows of this transmutation. What a man can feel when he sees his
home, sentimental place for some their whole life, mystery and travail, all the travail, when the
waters flooded it. And not just any water, but precisely the Danube, which the inhabitants of
these places hold so dear.
In 1970, with the construction of the dam, the waters went up 17 meters "and flooded
the old village almost entirely"; so recount in a dry, resolute manner the authors of the
monograph "The phenomenon Sviniţa", Ilie Sălceanu, professor and archaeologist, as well as
the current mayor of the commune, Master in Economics, Nicolae Curici.
The village church which was on a pretty high location ... was dynamited. Of all
Sviniţa there are only a few houses left, and ... the cemetery. At least ancestors were not
disturbed from their eternal sleep.
In the old village there was preserved, fortunately, the parental home of Professor
Alexandru Curici. The house was built in the old style of the inhabitants, in stone. Otherwise,
the village now under water had the traditional architectural appearance specific to the Serbian
Banat. But even now the new settlement has kept the same look and still makes reference to
the old nostalgic and wonderful village.
We are told by mayor Nicolae Curici that, in fact, the old village kept also the
authenticity of Banat, but had systematically been influenced by the Austrian rigor.
Now the settlement is a concentrated village, but the mountain farmhouses, the
dwellings, are also very interesting. Time did not permit us to descend and climb the mountain
to see these types of housing and humanization of the mountain. In a cartogram made by
Dumitru Chiriac there appear six shelters on high terraces and very few on the mountain
terrace. They are found in the Ieleşeva and Livadiţa areas.
On another Austrian-Hungarian map from 1910 there appear 63 such dwellings, which
means that the civilization and the existence in Sviniţa were and still are complex and with
various levels of understanding.
Nowadays too, the households of the Sviniţa dwellings „are made up of agricultural
plots situated in deforested areas, mostly gardens where people grow plants compatible with
the altitude, some cereals and even vegetables. These households also have orchards with
fruit-bearing trees, pastures, hay-yielding plots, vineyards and beehives. The inhabitants had
access to water mills. Even nowadays they raise sheep, goats, cows and work cattle there”
(Sălceanu, Curici, 2014, p.36).
It is very clear that there is a stable and deep relationship between man and space,
especially since this Serb community (Slavic) descended here in the thirteenth century,
perhaps even earlier; historians say that during the eleventh and twelfth centuries there were
continuous migrations in this area, of the Bogomils from Vardar Valley, and that in fact these
mountains have been continuously inhabited. The inhabitants of Sviniţa say they're talking
about the oldest, archaic Serbian language.
The occupations of the residents of this settlement were the most diverse and all in
agreement and consonance with the environment. The style of life was a closed, autarchic
one. But the community could or knew how to settle and resolve all needs, from housing to the
92
sacred. Being autarchic, they kept their faith in the old style. Their calendar until now has been
the Julian one, like the Serbs on the other side of the Danube.
The residents of Sviniţa are determined and tenacious people, firm in what they say and
what they do. They leave no meter of land uncultivated and everything is done in order.
When the village was lower, near the Danube, they would also go fishing, then they
continued their lives working the land, raising cows, cattle, pigs, poultry, and planting and
tending vines, orchards, and now they make the most of the mild climate of the valley and
grow figs. The fig plantations total nearly "6,000 shrubs and are extended on the areas situated
along the Danube, where the climate is milder ... Next to the fig preserve, people also prepare
fig jam, fig brandy and wine" (Sălceanu, Curici, p. 253).
These people have always known, as already stated, to use the environment in
beneficial ways. Always in the village there have been skilled craftsmen: carpenters, masons,
wheelwrights, lime burners (one can still see the marks), then some of the best blacksmiths,
farriers, bakers, confectioners and.. especially householders. After all... household
management is also a profession. And if you do it well, you have everything you need; even if
you are on a mountain top.
And because the world is beginning to change, the inhabitants of Sviniţa have
rediscovered tourism. It wasn’t even hard, because the land they inhabit is magical.
In Sviniţa over 90% of the population is of Serb ethnicity. And the ethnicity makes
endeavours to preserve their identity. And it has succeeded so far. They kept their calendar,
that archaic language, old style habits. Moreover, they set up an ethnographic museum worthy
of praise, but also a folk ensemble, DUNAV, made up of young people. How pretty! It is
normal that the world should see the Serbian folk costumes, their specific songs and dances.
Coming back to the traditional folk costume, we can state that the traditional clothing
of the Serbs in the Clisura Dunării area is very well kept, reminding us of its old forms
through cut and decorations.
The costume is made up of a blouse (oplecak) made of cotton or floss silk, a skirt
(sucnja) of wool spun in the weaving loom, decorated with flowers or geometrical features of
green colour, hues of red, brown or black.
The female costume also contains the shirt front (grundjac) decorated with silk thread,
the shirt that is worn during winter over the blouse, the apron worn over the skirt, the petticoat
– girdle, peasant sandals (opante) and socks (ciarape).
In general, the house of these residents belongs to the Balkan area. Naturally. The
traditional house had two or three rooms. The dwellings were high with roofs in two or four
waters. In general, the interiors were simple with fleece and cotton cloths, “chilimuri”
(carpets) decorated with the most diverse patterns. The favourite colours were the strong,
intense ones. The Orthodox icon was always visible in the house, as well as bronze,
sometimes silver objects (candlesticks). The most beloved and celebrated saints are still
Nicholas, John, George. Sviniţa Serbs also practice the alms “hora” dance, similar patterns to
the Romanian ones in the Danube Valley, in Oltenia (Poiana Mare, Desa, Ciuperceni, Salcia
etc.). Let us not forget that the alms “hora” dance is practiced in almost all Banat.
Roma people between diversity and mystery
It is very difficult to identify a pattern of Roma identity using immutable types and
other considerations. An attempt of this kind would be, however, a failure. If you do not pay
attention to nuances and do not correlate them, or you do not pay attention to socio-cultural
adjacent conjunctures, you also risk making a mistake, or losing the essence; i.e. instead of a
picture you end up with a pointless, worthless blank.
We have the feeling sometimes that we all know the Roma, we sat next to them, talked
to them, we bought something from them, a bucket of brass, a stool with three legs or a sieve,
93
a silver ring, or ... a cauldron for brandy. They, the Roma, were part of our lives and will
continue to be so.
When I was a kid, my best friend was Virgil who was Roma. His father was a fiddler;
people called him Neagu. Virgil and all his family live on the outskirts of the village in an
adobe house. One summer my father hired him to guard our watermelon plantation, together
with me, of course. And we got along very well; but when my mother came with the food
basket, Virgil was the first; he would eat like a horse and save only some leftovers for me. I
was having fun because the melons were already ripe and I could eat them. I was saying to
Virgil Medearu: Dear boy, I am ingesting vitamins ... you stuff yourself with soup and
cabbage...!
You cannot write about Roma without understanding them; without understanding their
nature, their social difficulties, the way they are being perceived by the world throughout
history, everything they have suffered and paid with their lives and with a lot of suffering.
But I believe we should refer to concrete ethnographic matters.
The Roma had the most diverse professions.
Very few Romanians worked as blacksmiths in the villages of Oltenia.
And without a blacksmith in the village you were bound hand and foot. Whom to shoe
your horse or ox, who to change your wagon trails, who to fix your cart if not Tandin,
Budescu, Păpănău and his family, who to make you a sickle or a scythe if not Barabulea and
his family…!?
But maybe I exaggerated a little with a longish introduction, which actually wanted, de
facto, to confirm my initial statement; that in Oltenia there was no village without a Gypsy
blacksmith, at least in the Plains of Oltenia, maybe even toward the mountains.
More than that, older documents from Oltenia and Muntenia confirm, indeed, that „in
every village throughout the country there frequently worked a blacksmith and a farrier...”
Sources of the same nature impose the finding that the blacksmiths and farriers from kings’
courts, on boyars’ lands and those of the monasteries...”were in their majority, gypsy slaves
and that the inventory of their smithies were made up, in general, of bellows (sheets), anvils,
hammers and tongs” (Iordache, 1996, p. 334). But the inventory of a smithy contains
numerous other tools, like the following: hand hammer, sound hammer, chisel hammer, nail
head hammer, drill hammer, bolt hammer...slice bar, parrot-nose wrench pliers, bolt cutter,
shoe chisel, different holders, augers, bits, hack saws, files etc.
The products of the gypsy blacksmiths were also of great diversity and functionality:
domestic and household items, locks, latches, bolts, keys, hinges, door handles, locks, links,
grills and pans, embers tong, fireplace tongs, dustpans, lamps, flints, fire irons, needles, hooks,
axes, spades ... etc.
But the blacksmiths weren’t the only ones creating things, but also the copper-smiths,
the candle makers, the gipsies that made objects out of bone; (also called „cocalari”); the
copper-smiths were also called „kikavani”. Let us not forget the brick makers, the tinmen, the
bear leaders, silversmiths etc.
Lately there appeared some important works about Roma life, occupations, attitude
about the Roma language or languages, their habits and spirituality in general etc. All these
statements deserve separate chapters. Space does not permit. Let's not forget the Roma
musicians who have kept for a good while our folklore and made... more musical our
weddings, baptisms and parties.
Also, let us not forget all the wood workers in Oltenia, whom for centuries made and
offered us the entire domestic inventory: troughs, wash tubs, wooden bowls, spoons, mangers,
ladles, spindles, shuttles, salt cellars etc.
94
A family of woodcutters from Băbeni, Vâlcea
Craftsman Iordan Lepădatu in Băbeni learned the craft of carving wood within his
family, from his father, who in turn had learnt also within his family. He was a child when he
began to learn the craft. Also, he had plenty of persons to learn from, his father, his
grandfather and the other craftsmen. That's because during the 60s Băbeni was the most
important centre where wood had been worked by dozens, maybe a hundred years.
Iordan started to work seriously when he was about 14 years old. In Valea Mare village
there were about fifty families of wood workers. They mostly made troughs, spoons, spindles,
but also larger pieces, like wash tubs.
They sold their products around Ardeal, in Sibiu, or in the Valley of Olt River.
Sometimes they walked for tens of kilometres from village to village. Iordan remembers that
his father left the village by train to Câineni, and from there he would walk from village to
village, until he would reach Sibiu.
Viţa Lepădatu, Iordan’s wife, has also worked with wood ever since she was a little
girl. She remembers that her parents would go to the markets and to the annual large fairs in
Roşiori, Turnu Măgurele, Bolintin, Alexandria. The craftsmen woodworkers especially
travelled to sell their products in Teleorman and Ilfov. They bartered. They gave wash tubs,
troughs, ladles and received mostly flour and grains.
They would take the road of Bărăgan, via Vişina. They would prepare their wagons,
they made them „orliţă” (they covered them). The wagons being rather small, they would not
fit more than ten wash tubs. So they prolonged the cart-ladders with poles and make a cover
from blankets. They would arrange the sleeping place also in the wagon.
Toward the celebration of St. Demetrius of Thessaloniki they would go to larger fairs
and sell their products in exchange for cereals and other products necessary during winter
time. Viţa Lepădatu tells us that the barters would also be for alcohol, plum brandy and wine.
They would also take eggs and poultry, or even little pigs.
Viţa remembers a memorable trip she made from Olăneşti, to a village near Bucharest.
Secrets of the trade
Iordan Lepădatu works with all his family, meaning his wife, their two children,
George and Constantine, and their daughters-in-law. In this team each person is specialized on
something, but they all know the principles of the entire „production” operation. And even if
George has formal training as sculptor, the accepted leader and craftsman of the team is
Iordan. The making of the object itself begins with the selection and cutting of the poplar,
willow or linden log. The piece of wood is specially prepared for adzing, operation that is
made with a crescent-shaped tool. After adzing the wood is shaped with the hatchet – the back
of the object is shaped as much as possible. After using the hatchet, the wood is trimmed with
the knife; then it is finished. After these operations, the object should be left to dry in the
shade, not in the sun. The wood is best worked when it is green, but must be left to dry,
compulsorily, between the work phases, at least twice.
After the wood has dried, which is determined through touch, it is carved with the
interior carver. After carving, the piece must be left to dry again, after which it is defined
again with the knife to achieve the final form.
Finally, the piece is finished with the 120, 150 or 170 sand paper, depending on the
granulation.
The final operation is decoration. In the Lepădatu family the ones in charge with
decorating are Iordan’s two spoiled sons, Cristi and Gigi. The decoration is done with a knife
with a V-shaped point.
All the tools used by the wood workers in Băbeni are made by blacksmith Ion Boţogan.
We mean the axe, hatchet, adz, knife, carving tool, scalpel.
95
Typology of the traditional bowl worked in Băbeni
Great wash tub
Pig’s through
Wine through
Baby’s wash tub
Swinging tub
Bread through
Sieving through
Salad bowl
Roast bowl
Garlic smashing bowl
Bowl for nettles and other vegetables
Eating bowl
The eating through, the sheepfold through – was carved inside, with an opening of 5060 cm. At one end it had a small carving in which the salt was placed. Inside the through the
food bowl would be placed. It functioned as a sort of tray.
The food spoon made of field maple, plum or willow wood – very beautifully
decorated
Ladle to pour food from the pot or cast-iron kettle
Water ladle
Spindles coloured in natural colours (dwarf elder leaves and seeds, walnut-tree leaves,
dandelion root, etc)
Shuttle
Salt cellars
During the last 20 years the craftsmen especially make less functional and more
aesthetic objects.
Bulgarian community in Băileşti
In Băileşti, the Bulgarians settled on a narrow street, which was called of the Serbs,
who in fact were...Bulgarians who populated the Northern part of the locality. Doctor Charles
Laugier adds that the Romanians and Bulgarians in the locality (the so-called Serbs), „were
separated by their family ties and it’s been only a few years that these family and alliance ties
could be established between them”. Then Laugier adds: „The Serb element (of Bulgarian
origin) was brought for agricultural purposes” (p. 154).
In fact, for what kind of agriculture in an agrarian country?!!! I believe it is gardening
and cultivation of vegetables and even flowers. It seems that, indeed, at the beginning of the
twentieth century in Băileşti there lived approximately 60-70 Bulgarian families. However,
Constantin Câşlaru, historian, researcher and museograph from Brăila, who wrote
systematically about Danube histories, between the continuous crossings between the two
banks, who published important monograph of the settlements in the Northern part of the
Danube corresponding to Oltenia, maintains also that we must be more attentive regarding the
origin of the places of riverside Oltenia. Professor Câşlaru, in the monograph of Urzicuţa also
publishes the census of the locality in 1831. It is very clear that there are many Slavs,
Bulgarians and Serbs. The Macedonians are not mentioned because they were under a
different rule.
The Macedonian communities in Urzicuţa and the Macedonians in Oltenia
In Urzicuţa, Dolj, there live over 100 declared Macedonians that are part of the
Association of Macedonians in Romania. It is certain that in the mentioned locality, ever since
the middle of the 19th century, people would hear around them Slavic languages as well; but
96
not only Macedonian. It is very difficult to make a statement in this respect, since people no
longer speak their language on a daily basis. But the Macedonians were meticulous; they
wrote and cured books that would prove their identity. They wrote about customs and
traditions, about their traditional foods, about the folk costume and they transcribed
documents certifying their origin.
Thus, in 1902, entered through Calafat, with all necessary approvals, 20 agricultural
workers from Macedonia, to work as farmers on Scarlat Ferechive’s estate, which was located
in Caraula, Dolj. But the documents also tell us that these workers were actually seasonal (see
E. Mirea, 2013, p.26).
Countless documents confirm continuous crossings of the Danube by the Macedonians
and their settlement in riverside Oltenia or even towards the centre. Macedonians came mainly
from the Ottoman Empire. The vast majority of the letters submitted by the Macedonians to
Romanian institutions are demands of the refugees to settle permanently in villages and
settlements in Oltenia, where they actually already lived and coexisted peacefully with the
locals long before requesting formal settlement.
At one point in the late nineteenth century, they have to avoid certain
misunderstandings and diplomatic differences. Old Europe was troubled by innumerable
conflicts, claims and restoration of borders after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The
diplomats were on alert but ... in continuous lack of coverage.
There are tens of cases of Macedonians who want to settle in Oltenia. Some have
Slavic names, others have genuine Romanian names.
For example Gabril Blagi who had lived for a long time in Mierea Birnici (the village
where Maria Tănase’s father was born) sends the prefect of Dol-Jiu, on the 14th of September
1900, a written petition to have his situation clarified and be given the rights of „devout”
Romanian, legally settled and married to a Romanian. It is worth mentioning that Gavril Blagi
already had, come 1900, a 16-year old boy and a girl aged 8, for which reason the mayor, N.
Mihai, (also) considers him as „Romanian subject, voter of the commune and a good father to
his family” (see E. Mirea, work in manuscript, p. 60)
All these archive documents are in fact pages of life, of the desire of a minority to settle
in a place and to work and start families.
The Macedonians in Oltenia were mainly...bakers, potters and masons, confectioners,
carpenters, farmers etc.
The Italians form Italieni (Atârnaţi)
The history is not sufficient to understand an emigration. It is an attempt to understand
and to scientifically subject a time with all its beauty and ugliness. Emigration means life,
empathy, revolt, all at the same time.
The Italians that came to Southern Oltenia, especially to Craiova and the surroundings,
were Friulan. Their first descent was mid-nineteenth century. But the important migrations
happened after 1880. Near Craiova, in Atârnaţi, the „talians” settled on the estate of Miss
Eliza Opran. We saw Miss. Eliza in several paintings carefully kept by the Zgubin family in
Işalniţa.
From Atârnaţi the village (toponimically) became „Italieni”. Here there lived about 40
families that worked on the Opran estate. Some time later, the men understood that they were
craftsmen, especially good and hard-working masons. They slowly gave up farming and
started building houses in Craiova as well as the surrounding areas, especially in Cernele,
Işalniţa, Şimnic, Almăj, Bucovăţ, Breasta. The women remained to farming, but they planted
orchards, vine yards and small vegetable gardens.
97
In Işalniţa there are still descendants of the Zgubin, Rizzi and Nardin families. They are
Orthodox. In Atârnaţi there remained several families so that they manage to build a church.
They were and they remained Catholic.
We met Tolo and his son Berto, the ones that built my parents’ house in the 60s- 1965.
I was a child, but as it is known, childhood memories are the best kept ones. Tolo was tall,
bony, fiery and self-sufficient at a first glance. But he was a good professional, a master. And
as I was already saying, Tolo and Berto erected tens of houses in Işalniţa also, and in all the
villages around Craiova.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Achim, Venera, ACHIM Viorel (coord.), 2010, Minorităţile etnice în România în
secolul al XIX. Romanian Academy Publishing, Bucharest.
2. Achim, Viorel, 1998, Ţiganii în istoria României, Enciclopedica Publishing,
Bucharest.
3. Berciu-Drăghicescu, Adina, 2004, Aromânii în publicaţiile culturale 1880-1940,
Sigma Publishing, Bucharest.
4. Carabas, Dumitru, 2010, Aromânii din România. Nume de persoane, Universitaria
Publishing, Bucharest.
5. Câşlaru, Constantin, 2011, Urzicuţa, străveche şi actuală vatră românească, Scrisul
Românesc Publishing, Craiova
6. Câşlaru, Constantin, 2013, Amintiri despre Băileşti, vol. III, Sitech Publishing,
Craiova.
7. Gaivoronschi, Vlad, 2002, Matricile spaţiului tradiţional, Paideia Publishing,
Bucharest.
8. Geraud, Marie-Odile, LESERVOISIER, Olivier, POTTIER, Richard, 2001,
Noţiunile cheie ale etnologiei, Polirom Publishing, Iaşi.
9. Gidó Attila, Horvath Istvan, PAL Judith, 2010, 140 de ani de legislaţie minoritară în
Europa Centrală şi de Est, ISPMN Publishing & Kriterion, Cluj-Napoca.
10. Gido, Attila (ed.), 2012, Cronologia minorităţilor naţionale din România. Vol. I
Albanezi, armeni, bulgari, croaţi, eleni, evrei şi germani, ISPMN Publishing, Cluj –Napoca.
11. Gido, Attila (ed.), 2013, Cronologia minorităţilor naţionale din România. Vol. II
Macedoneni, polonezi, ruşi lipoveni, ruteni, sârbi, tătari şi turci, ISPMN Publishing, ClujNapoca.
12. Horvath István, Nastasă Lucian (ed.), 2012, Rom sau ţigan. Dilemele unui etnonim
în spaţiul românesc, IPMN Publishing, Cluj-Napoca.
13. Iordache, Gheorghe, 1985, Ocupaţii tradiţionale pe teritoriul României, Scrisul
Românesc Publishing, Craiova.
14. Laugier, H. Charles, 2010, Sănătatea în Dolj, Craiova.
15. Milcu, Petre, STANCIU, Eliza, Laura, 2013, Monografia comunei Işalniţa, Agora
Publishing, Craiova.
16. Mirea, Emilian, 2013, Macedonia şi comunitatea macedoneană din România,
Macedoneanul Publishing, Bucharest.
17. Nicolau, Irina, 2007, Haide, bre! Incursiune subiectivă în lumea aromânilor, Ars
Docendi Publishing, Bucharest.
18. Papacostea-Danielopoulu Cornelia, 1996, Comunităţile greceşti din România în
secolul al XIX-lea, Omonia Publishing, Bucharest.
19. Scalcău, Paula, 2005, Grecii din România, Omonia Publishing, Bucharest.
98
20. Stan, Dorinel, 2012, Societăţile cultural artistice româneşti din Voivodina (19451962), University Press, Cluj-Napoca.
21. Stewart, Michael, 2014, Vremea romilor, ISPMN Publishing, Cluj-Napoca.
22. Tătulea, Viorica,1989, Mobilierul ţărănesc din Oltenia, Sport-Turism Publishing,
Bucharest, 1989.
23. Zsolt Jakab Albert, LEHEL Peti (eds.), 2009, Minorităţi în zonele de contact
interetnic. Cehii şi slovacii în România şi Ungaria, ISPMN Publishing & Kriterion, ClujNapoca.
99
INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY:
SOCIOCULTURAL PROFILE OF MINORITIES IN OLTENIA
DUMITRU OTOVESCU, PhD
ALEXANDRINA MIHAELA POPESCU, PhD
RĂZVAN NICOLAE STAN, PhD
1. Content and structure of the interdisciplinary research plan
1.1. General methodology to elaborate the study
1.Study title: Sociocultural profile of minorities in Oltenia.
2.Purpose of the study: Identification of the system of values characteristic to
minorities and their promotion in the cultural space in Oltenia through various means of public
communication.
3.Investigated population: ethnic minorities on the territory of the five counties in the
Oltenia Region: Dolj, Gorj, Vîlcea, Olt, Mehedinţi. A special attention will be given to
knowing the Roma community, because it is the most numerous and it is spread in all
mentioned counties.
4.Planned research units: members and leaders of ethnic communities and people aged
18 and above, of both genders, of the respective minority groups, with a relevant role for the
research theme.
5.Size of the sample: about 390 Roma people, 25 Greeks and … Hungarians (residing
both in the urban and rural area).
6.Selected research methods:
a) Statistic analysis method;
b) Opinion survey based on questionnaire method (administered and selfadministered);
c) Comparative method;
d) Typological method;
e) Hisorical method.
f) Observation method
7.Data-collection techniques (used selectively, depending on the concrete
circumstances of information collections):
- Statistic tables and statistic data correlations;
- Sociological questionnaire;
- Semi-structured interview
1.2. General and characteristical objectives of quantitative research
General objectives:
They derive from the fundamental objectives of the project and they are in accordance
with the purposes of the field research:
1.Identifying ethnic minorities in Oltenia and determining their territorial distribution,
based on officiall statistics data;

Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Craiova, Romania
Reader, the Educational Staff Training Department, University of Craiova, Romania

Reader, Faculty of Orthodox Theology, University of Craiova, Romania

100
2.Knowing the social and cultural profile of ethnic minorities in Oltenia, based on
collected field data.
Characteristical objectives
As characteristical objectives, we wish to accomplish the following:
1.To disclose the percentage of ethnic minorities in reference to the total population, on
social environments (urban-rural), on age groups etc.;
2.To differentiate the degree of social integration of minority groups in the ensemble of
the population in a territorial community or another;
3.To appreciate the capacity of self-reproduction and demographic evolution of
minority groups;
4.To evaluate the living conditions of the minority populations.
1.3. Hypotheses of quantitative research
1.The majority of the population in ethic communities is concentrated in urban areas;
2.The larger the number of those marrying partners of the same ethnicity, the greater
the self-reproduction capacity of the respective community;
3.Using one’s maternal tongue within the family life and in the relation with those of
the same ethnicity represents a determining factor for the continuation of the minority
conscience;
4.If the ethnic traditions and other spiritual values are observed by the majority of
members in a communit, then the safekeeping of the sociocultural identity of each ethnic
group is ensured;
5.The higher the literacy and education level of people, the more accented is their
openness toward the national society and culture.
1.4. Elaboration of the research instrument – sociological questionnaire
It comprises of the following categories of questions, both free and with formulated
answers:
- Questions referring to the sociodemographical structure of the evaluated population
(age, gender, civil status, number of children, profession, occupation, level of studies, etc.);
- Questions regarding the individual’s link to their own ethnicity (computation of the
number of members, age categories, friendship relations and communication with the other
members of the community etc.);
- Questions regarding life in the same community (on the occasion of shared holidays,
manifestation of group solidarity by offering help when needed, entering into endogamous
marriages, etc.);
- Questions relevant to determine the sociocultural identity of ethnic minorities (using
one’s mother tongue within the family and social life, the consciousness of ethnic belonging
and evaluation of one’s own identity, observation of traditions, invoking cultural values
characteristic to the ethnicity, acknowledgement and affirmation of traits characteristic to the
ethnicity etc.);
- Questions regarding the quality of life (compared to the previous year and in
reference to the future, compared to the residents of the same locality, income categories, etc.);
- Questions regarding social values (work, money etc.);
- Questions regarding the roles in family life (of the husband, of the wife, of the
children etc.);
- Questions regarding the nature of relations with the Romanians in the locality
(evaluation, discrimination etc.)
101
1.5. Research sampling file (structured on the region of Oltenia)
We used a multilayer probabilistic sampling considering the percentage of the
population of each county in the ensemble of the inhabitants of the Region of Oltenia and the
ethnical structure of the residents. This was a quantitative research.
Next, we present the structure of the sample and the distribution of questionnaires per
countyper locality and social environment (urban/rural).
Multilayer probabilistic sampling
Margin of error =/-1,9% for an interval of trust of 95% (p=0,05)
Total number of questionnaires 390
Questionnaires distribution:
County
Dolj
Gorj
Mehedinţi
Number of questionnaires
Total
Urban
Rural
152
55
97
53
30
23
71
17
54
Olt
Vâlcea
64
50
42
28
22
22
Total
390
172
218
Locality
Urban
Rural
Craiova
Sadova
Tg Jiu
Scoarţa
Tr.
Tâmna
Severin
Slatina
Stoeneşti
Rm
Câineni
Vâlcea
As any direct research tool to access the social environment involves a prior check of
instruments and data collection techniques, we resorted to the completion of 40
questionnaires.
This operation was indispensable in the process of finalizing the questions (with free
and pre-formulated answers) of the questionnaire.
Filling in of the questionnaires was made through direct contact with the interviewed
subjects, at their homes.
Thus, there were 20 questionnaires for the Roma people in Balş (Olt County), 10
questionnaires in Craiova and 10 questionnaires in Novaci, Gorj County.
After recording the observations and proposals arising from the pre-testing period, the
following month we passed to analyze them and to finalize all the questions in the managed
questionnaire.
2. The Statistical Perspective of Studying Ethnic Minorities
2.1. Introductory notes
Interdisciplinary field research is supported by a series of official statistical data that
give us a summary and overview of minorities in Oltenia, as well as in Romania.
The statistics below were correlated and calculated based on the objectives and purpose
of the research. These data are the result of analyses based on representative indicators for the
knowledge of minority groups in the historically, geographically and culturally examined area.
The registration of the information presented below was made following the Population
and Housing Census conducted by the National Institute of Statistics, in 2011, but released in
2014.
After the Romanians, the largest ethnic community in Oltenia is represented by the
Roma, which is why a detailed statistical analysis of the territorial spread of the minority
102
members (especially fpr each county and on the social urban / rural environment) was
conducted.
Although apparently the Oltenia region would fall within the scope of regions in
Romania with reduced ethnic diverse (as is believed, for instance, about Moldova), in reality
on this geographical, historical and cultural territory there have been found inhabitants
belonging to 17 ethnic minorities, 13 of which are of more than 10 people, and 4 were less
than 10 people (the Slovaks, Tatars, Poles and Croats).
The largest ethnic group is the Roma (63,899 members), followed by the Serbs (1,124),
and the Hungarians (752), the Czechs (476) and the Germans (307). The diversity of the ethnic
population in Oltenia does not correlate, however, with a high proportion of minority
populations, which constitute less than 10% of the inhabitants of this region, where the local
demographic factor has a numerically preponderant role.
2.2. Ethnical composition of the population of Romania and of the Oltenia region
Table no. 1. The ethnic composition at national, regional and county level
(în absolute and percentage data)
Referential Romania Oltenia
Dolj
Gorj
Mehedinţi
Olt
Vâlcea
area
Ethnic
composition
Total
20121641
2075642
660544
341594
265390
436400
371714
Romanians
16792868
1901330
594841
321686
236908
400089
347806
Percentage
of
Romanians
from total
population
(%)
Roma
83.46
91.60
90.05
94.17
89.27
91.68
93.57
621573
63899
29839
6698
10919
9504
6939
3.09
3.08
4.52
1.96
4.11
2.18
1.87
1227623
752
192
134
153
66
207
6.10
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.06
50920
72
17
24
13
5
13
Percentage
of Roma
from total
population
(%)
Hungarians
Percentage
of
Hungarians
from total
population
(%)
Ukrainians
103
Referential
area
Romania
Oltenia
Dolj
Gorj
Mehedinţi
Olt
Vâlcea
Ethnic
composition
Germans
36042
307
60
22
151
11
63
Turks
27698
166
46
11
40
27
42
Lipovan
Russians
Serbs
23487
47
11
11
10
7
8
18076
1124
99
17
996
6
6
Bulgarians
7336
80
65
0
6
5
0
Greeks
3668
129
91
8
21
0
9
Italians
3203
160
68
28
16
19
29
Hebrews
3271
79
60
0
11
0
8
Czechs
2477
476
0
10
466
0
0
Macedonians
1264
141
134
0
0
4
3
Others
18524
433
243
48
29
53
60
Undeclared
1236810
106341
34747
12879
15624
26588
16503
Source: TEMPO ON line database (visible at: http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/)- we own
the data processing
Note: In Oltenia there are other ethnicities also, but with very few members, such as
Tatars, Slovaks, Croats, Poles, Chinese, Armenian, Csango (that is why there was no
recording of the number of those ethnicities, which each have less than 10 members).
2.3. Ethnical composition of the population of the region of Oltenia and territorial
distribution of ethnicities per counties
Current
no.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Table no. 2: Number and percentage of foreign ethnics in Oltenia
Total per
Percentage in
Ethnic category
region
the region’s
total
population
Romanians
1901330
Roma
63899
3,36
Hungarians
752
0,039
Ukrainians
72
0,003
Germans
307
0,016
104
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Turks
166
0.008
Lipovan Russians
47
0,002
Serbs
1124
0,059
Bulgarians
80
0,004
Greeks
129
0,006
Italians
160
0,008
Hebrews
79
0,004
Czechs
476
0,025
Macedonians
141
0,007
Others
433
0,022
Undeclared
106341
5,59
TOTAL
2.075.642
100,00
the data processing
According to official statistics, the first two numerically significant ethnic communities
are:
- Roma, in Dolj (29839 members) and Mehedinţi (10919)
- Serbs, in Mehedinţi (996 members) and Dolj (99)
- Hungarians, in Vâlcea (207 members) and Dolj (192)
- Czechs, in Mehedinţi (466 members) and in Gorj (10)
- Germans, in Mehedinţi (151 members) and Vâlcea (63)
- Turks, in Dolj (46 members) and Vâlcea (42)
- Italians, in Dolj (68 members) and Vâlcea (29)
- Macedonians, in Dolj (134 members)
- Greeks, in Dolj (91 members) and Mehedinţi (21)
- Bulgarians, in Dolj (65 members)
- Hebrews, in Dolj (60 members) and Mehedinţi (11)
- Ukrainians, in Gorj (24 members) and Dolj (17)
- Lipovan Russians, in Dolj (11 members) and Gorj (11)
The map of the territorial spread of ethnic minorities from the 5 counties of Oltenia
involved major difficulties in the composition of the sample, the more so as we are dealing
with a total of 13 ethnic groups and not all of them have members concentrated in certain
localities to be easily traced and therefore interviewed.
Therefore, only the Roma community, which benefits from a recording of its members
on urban and rural localities, allowed for the carrying out of rigorous calculations, based on
which the sampling chart could be designed, according to all the requirements of achieving a
sociological field research. We make note that neither the Roma community is sufficiently
homogeneous, being divided in many occupational structures and sociocultural identities, such
as the following: fiddlers, florists, tinsmiths, spoon makers, goldsmiths, Hungarian gypsies,
copper-smiths, bear handlers, wood workers, brick makers, settled gypsies, blacksmiths etc.
Current
no.
1.
2.
3.
Table no. 3: Ethnic distribution in the counties in Oltenia
Ethnic
Counties in Oltenia
category
Dolj
Gorj
MeheOlt
Vâlcea
dinţi
Romanians
594.841 321.686 236.908 400.089 347.806
Roma
29.839
6.698
10.919
9.504
6.939
Serbs
99
17
996
6
6
105
General
total
1.901.33.
63.899
1.124
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Hungarians
192
134
153
66
207
752
Czechs
0
10
466
0
0
476
Germans
60
22
151
11
63
307
Turks
46
11
40
27
42
166
Italians
68
28
16
19
29
160
Macedonians 134
0
0
4
3
141
Greeks
91
8
21
0
9
129
Bulgarians
65
0
6
5
0
80
Hebrews
60
0
11
0
8
79
Ukrainians
17
24
13
5
13
72
Lipovan
11
11
10
7
8
47
Russians
15.
Others
243
48
29
53
60
433
16.
Undeclared
34.747
12.879
15.624
26.588
16.503
106.341
17.
Total
660.544 341.594 265.390 436.400 371.714 2.075.642
the data processing
4. Distribution of the Roma population in Romania per counties
4.1. At national level
Table no. 4: Distribution of the Roma population in Romania per counties
COUNTY
PERMANENT
Current
POPULATION ROMA PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE
No.
OF TOTAL
OF ROMA
TOTAL
COUNTRY
TOTAL
POPULATION
20121641 621573
3.09
ROMANIA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
ALBA
ARAD
ARGEŞ
BACĂU
BIHOR
BISTRIŢA-NĂSAUD
BOTOŞANI
BRAŞOV
BRĂILA
BUZĂU
CARAŞ-SEVERIN
CALĂRAŞI
342376
430629
612431
616168
575398
286225
412626
549217
321212
451069
295579
306691
14292
16475
16476
15284
34640
11937
4155
18519
8555
20376
7272
22939
4.17
3.83
2.69
2.48
6.02
4.17
1.01
3.37
2.66
4.52
2.46
7.48
2.30
2.65
2.65
2.46
5.57
1.92
0.67
2.98
1.38
3.28
1.17
3.69
13.
CLUJ
691106
22531
3.26
3.62
14.
CONSTANŢA
684082
8554
1.25
1.38
15.
COVASNA
210177
8267
3.93
1.33
16.
DAMBOVIŢA
518745
27355
5.27
4.40
106
17.
DOLJ
660544
29839
4.52
4.80
18.
GALAŢI
536167
16990
3.17
2.73
19.
GIURGIU
281422
15223
5.41
2.45
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
341594
6698
1.96
1.08
GORJ
310867
5326
1.71
0.86
HARGHITA
418565
7475
1.79
1.20
HUNEDOARA
274148 14278
5.21
2.30
IALOMIŢA
772348 11288
1.46
1.82
IAŞI
388738 15634
4.02
2.52
ILFOV
478659 12211
2.55
1.96
MARAMUREŞ
265390 10919
4.11
1.76
MEHEDINŢI
550846 46947
8.52
7.55
MUREŞ
470766
6398
1.36
1.03
NEAMŢ
436400
9504
2.18
1.53
OLT
762886 17763
2.33
2.86
PRAHOVA
344360 17388
5.05
2.80
SATU MARE
224384 15004
6.69
2.41
SĂLAJ
397322 17946
4.52
2.89
SIBIU
634810 12178
1.92
1.96
SUCEAVA
380123
8198
2.16
1.32
TELEORMAN
683540 14525
2.12
2.34
TIMIŞ
213083
3423
1.61
0.55
TULCEA
395499
5913
1.50
0.95
VASLUI
371714
6939
1.87
1.12
VÂLCEA
340310 11966
3.52
1.93
VRANCEA
1883425 23973
1.27
3.86
MUNICIPIUL BUCUREŞTI
the data processing
4.2. In the Oltenia Region
a) Distribution of the Roma population in Dolj county per social environments
(rural/urban)
Current
I. URBAN
PERMANENT
no.
POPULATION
Roma
PERCENTAGE
TOTAL
OF TOTAL
POPULATION
1.
ROMANIA
20121641
621573
3.09
2.
DOLJ
660544
29839
4.52
3.
URBAN
344037
10733
3.12
4.
CRAIOVA MUNICIPALITY
269506
5291
1.96
5.
BĂILEŞTI MUNICIPALITY
17437
1629
9.34
6.
CALAFAT MUNICIPALITY
17336
887
5.12
7.
BECHET
3657
1193
32.62
8.
DĂBULENI
12182
158
1.30
107
9.
10.
FILIAŞI
16900
759
4.49
SEGARCEA
7019
816
11.63
the data processing
Current
no.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
II. RURAL
PERMANENT
POPULATION
TOTAL
316507
2633
1974
5520
1703
2112
4382
3689
4356
809
1550
4431
3684
3313
3906
4213
1590
5977
3723
2423
3424
1363
2375
3394
1832
4593
4226
1929
5368
1595
5274
3237
2337
1904
6257
COMMUNES
AFUMAŢI
ALMĂJ
AMARĂŞTII DE JOS
AMARĂŞTII DE SUS
APELE VII
ARGETOAIA
BIRCA
BISTREŢ
BOTOŞEŞTI-PAIA
BRABOVA
BRĂDEŞTI
BRALOŞTIŢA
BRATOVOIEŞTI
BREASTA
BUCOVĂŢ
BULZEŞTI
CALARAŞI
CALOPĂR
CARAULA
CÂRCEA
CÂRNA
CARPEN
CASTRANOVA
CATANE
CELARU
CERĂT
CERNATEŞTI
CETATE
CIOROIAŞI
CIUPERCENII NOI
COŞOVENI
COŢOFENII DIN DOS
COŢOFENII DIN FAŢĂ
DANEŢI
108
Roma
19106
69
0
1223
152
8
0
754
701
3
0
23
0
4
269
0
0
0
680
738
67
171
0
48
803
71
1440
0
918
5
24
469
7
529
0
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
POPULATION
6.04
2.62
0
22.16
8.93
0.38
0
20.44
16.09
0.37
0
0.52
0
0.12
6.89
0
0
0
18.26
30.46
1.96
12.55
0
1.41
43.83
1.55
34.07
0
17.10
0.31
0.46
14.49
0.30
27.78
0
Current
no.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
II. RURAL
PERMANENT
POPULATION
DESA
DIOŞTI
DOBREŞTI
DOBROTEŞTI
DRAGOTEŞTI
DRĂNIC
FARCAŞ
GALICEA MARE
GALICIUICA
GHERCEŞTI
GHIDICI
GHINDENI
GIGHERA
GÎNGIOVA
GIUBEGA
GIURGIŢA
GOGOŞU
GOICEA
GOIEŞTI
GRECEŞTI
ÎNTORSURA
IŞALNITA
IZVOARE
LEU
LIPOVU
MACEŞU DE JOS
MACEŞU DE SUS
MAGLAVIT
MALU MARE
MÎRŞANI
MELINEŞTI
MISCHII
MOŢĂŢEI
MURGAŞI
NEGOI
ORODEL
OSTROVENI
PERIŞOR
PIELEŞTI
TOTAL
4740
3054
2443
1733
2174
2738
1951
4268
1512
1690
2408
1936
3131
2478
2036
2883
723
2760
3113
1706
1508
3770
1643
4824
3313
1338
1348
4875
3780
4745
3890
1760
6935
2508
2235
2731
5062
1746
3609
109
Roma
21
27
7
0
3
20
193
4
18
0
0
0
250
251
0
222
0
0
20
0
8
76
0
7
1120
4
71
342
359
63
62
4
0
0
911
5
168
6
26
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
POPULATION
0.44
0.88
0.29
0
0.14
0.73
9.89
0.09
1.19
0
0
0
7.98
10.13
0
7.70
0
0
0.64
0
0.53
2.02
0
0.15
33.81
0.30
5.27
7.02
9.50
1.33
1.59
0.23
0
0
40.76
0.18
3.32
0.34
0.72
Current
no.
II. RURAL
PERMANENT
POPULATION
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
TOTAL
POPULATION
75.
PISCU VECHI
2499
143
5.72
76.
PLENIŢA
4686
198
4.23
77.
PLEŞOI
1395
0
0
78.
PODARI
6909
639
9.25
79.
POIANA MARE
10740
356
3.31
80.
PREDEŞTI
1905
22
1.15
81.
RADOVAN
1432
166
11.59
82.
RAST
3343
278
8.32
83.
ROBĂNEŞTI
2395
0
0
84.
ROJIŞTE
2421
0
0
85.
SADOVA
7976
1400
17.55
86.
SĂLCUŢA
2319
827
35.66
87.
SCĂESTI
2139
0
0
88.
SEACA DE CÂMP
1965
10
0.51
89.
SEACA DE PĂDURE
1042
0
0
90.
SECU
1140
0
0
91.
SILIŞTEA CRUCII
1609
146
9.07
92.
ŞIMNICU DE SUS
4627
12
0.26
93.
ŞOPOT
1836
0
0
94.
TALPAŞ
1262
8
0.63
95.
TEASC
3253
0
0
96.
TERPEZIŢA
1673
8
0.48
97.
TESLUI
2432
58
2.38
98.
ŢUGLUI
2834
14
0.49
99.
UNIREA
3814
38
1.00
100.
URZICUŢA
3128
692
22.12
101.
VALEA STANCIULUI
5642
178
3.15
102.
VÂRTOP
1658
456
27.50
103.
VÂRVORU DE JOS
2955
6
0.20
104.
VELA
1943
0
0
105.
VERBIŢA
1342
0
0
the data processing
110
Roma
b) Distribution of the Roma population in Gorj county per social environments
(rural/urban)
Current
no.
I. URBAN
PERMANENT
POPULATION
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
POPULATION
1.
GORJ
341594
6698
1.96
2.
A. MUNICIPALITIES AND TOWNS
154514
3850
2.49
3.
TÂRGU JIU MUNICIPALITY
82504
2650
3.21
4.
MOTRU MUNICIPALITY
19079
77
0.40
5.
BUMBEŞTI-JIU
8932
325
3.64
6.
NOVACI
5431
50
0.92
7.
ROVINARI
11816
53
0.45
8.
TÎRGU CARBUNEŞTI
8034
558
6.95
9.
ŢICLENI
4414
53
1.20
10.
TISMANA
7035
81
1.15
11.
TURCENI
7269
3
0.04
the data processing
Current
no.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
II. RURAL
PERMANENT
POPULATION
TOTAL
187080
2587
1854
3914
1346
3984
2117
7404
7126
1674
3116
2149
3126
3492
2426
2105
3376
2145
2174
B. COMMUNE
ALBENI
ALIMPEŞTI
ANINOASA
ARCANI
BAIA DE FIER
BALĂNESTI
BĂLESTI
BÂLTENI
BĂRBĂTEŞTI
BENGEŞTI-CIOCADIA
BERLEŞTI
BOLBOŞI
BORASCU
BRANEŞTI
BUMBEŞTI-PITIC
BUSTUCHIN
CÂLNIC
CĂPRENI
111
Roma
Roma
2848
3
0
46
0
0
0
238
180
8
330
0
0
39
0
0
38
6
0
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
POPULATION
1.52
0.12
0
1.18
0
0
0
3.21
2.53
0.48
10.59
0
0
1.12
0
0
1.13
0.28
0
Current
no.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
II. RURAL
PERMANENT
POPULATION
TOTAL
2551
1596
5133
3357
2269
3875
2505
4996
3289
1889
2061
1613
2252
2072
1854
2272
2731
5027
1985
3555
4800
3732
6234
2820
3124
3132
5311
1542
1739
2110
1674
4844
3227
2310
2585
2376
5289
2473
4076
CĂTUNELE
CIUPERCENI
CRASNA
CRUŞEŢ
DĂNCIULESTI
DĂNEŞTI
DRĂGOTEŞTI
DRAGUŢEŞTI
FARCAŞESTI
GLOGOVA
GODINEŞTI
HUREZANI
IONEŞTI
JUPÂNEŞTI
LELEŞTI
LICURICI
LOGREŞTI
MĂTĂSARI
MUŞETEŞTI
NEGOMIR
PADEŞ
PEŞTIŞANI
PLOPŞORU
POLOVRAGI
PRIGORIA
ROŞIA DE AMARADIA
RUNCU
SĂCELU
SĂMĂRINEŞTI
SĂULEŞTI
SCHELA
SCOARŢA
SLIVILEŞTI
STĂNEŞTI
STEJARI
STOINA
ŢÂNŢĂRENI
TELEŞTI
TURBUREA
112
Roma
0
0
3
10
3
7
0
0
0
0
27
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
6
45
0
404
0
136
4
0
0
0
11
647
0
0
0
0
487
156
0
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
POPULATION
0
0
0.06
0.30
0.13
0.18
0
0
0
0
1.31
0
0
0.14
0
0
0
0.06
0
0
0.13
1.21
0
14.33
0
4.34
0.08
0
0
0
0.66
13.36
0
0
0
0
9.21
6.31
0
Current
no.
II. RURAL
PERMANENT
POPULATION
Roma
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
TOTAL
POPULATION
59.
TURCINEŞTI
2226
0
0
60.
URDARI
3024
0
0
61.
VAGIULEŞTI
2642
0
0
62.
VLADIMIR
2793
0
0
the data processing
c) Distribution of the Roma population in Mehedinţi county per social
environments (rural/urban)
Current
I. URBAN
PERMANENT
no.
POPULATION
Roma
PERCENTAGE
TOTAL
OF TOTAL
POPULATION
MEHEDINTI
265390 10919
4.11
124224
2503
2.01
1.
DROBETA-TURNU SEVERIN MUNICIPALITY
92617
549
0.59
2.
ORŞOVA MUNICIPALITY
10441
114
1.09
3.
BAIA DE ARAMĂ
5349
534
9.98
4.
STREHAIA
10506
1171
11.15
5.
VANJU MARE
5311
135
2.54
the data processing
Current
no.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
II. RURAL
PERMANENT
POPULATION
Roma
B. COMMUNES
BÂCLEŞ
BALA
BĂLĂCIŢA
BALTA
BALVANEŞTI
BRANIŞTEA
BREZNIŢA-MOTRU
BREZNIŢA-OCOL
BROŞTENI
BURILA MARE
BUTOIEŞTI
CĂZĂNEŞTI
CIREŞU
TOTAL
141166
2070
3963
2830
1120
995
1827
1520
3859
2865
2239
3344
2303
572
8416
0
32
208
0
0
0
0
40
57
22
139
0
4
113
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
POPULATION
5.96
0
0.81
7.35
0
0
0
0
1.04
1.99
0.98
4.16
0
0.70
Current
no.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
II. RURAL
PERMANENT
POPULATION
Roma
CORCOVA
CORLĂŢEL
CUJMIR
DARVARI
DEVESEL
DUBOVA
DUMBRAVA
EŞELNIŢA
FLOREŞTI
GÂRLA MARE
GODEANU
GOGOŞU
GRECI
GROZEŞTI
GRUIA
HINOVA
HUŞNICIOARA
ILOVAŢ
ILOVIŢA
ISVERNA
IZVORU BARZII
JIANA
LIVEZILE
MALOVĂŢ
OBÂRŞIA DE CÂMP
OBÂRŞIA-CLOŞANI
OPRIŞOR
PADINA
PĂTULELE
PODENI
PONOARELE
POROINA MARE
PRISTOL
PRUNIŞOR
PUNGHINA
ROGOVA
SALCIA
ŞIMIAN
ŞIŞEŞTI
TOTAL
5431
1366
3221
2490
3287
785
1574
2565
2603
3382
632
3799
1292
1990
3030
2849
1393
1291
1316
2145
2703
4695
1678
2780
1780
953
2315
1469
3636
854
2425
1048
1457
2029
2936
1359
2794
9650
2959
262
209
44
76
285
22
0
572
0
1061
0
461
0
5
975
0
0
0
0
8
0
836
0
22
0
0
0
0
12
0
5
0
0
0
748
9
0
708
0
114
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
POPULATION
4.82
15.30
1.37
3.05
8.67
2.80
0
22.30
0
31.37
0
12.13
0
0.25
32.18
0
0
0
0
0.37
0
17.81
0
0.79
0
0
0
0
0.33
0
0.21
0
0
0
25.48
0.66
0
7.34
0
Current
no.
II. RURAL
PERMANENT
POPULATION
Roma
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
TOTAL
POPULATION
53.
SOVARNA
1270
0
0
54.
STANGACEAUA
1367
0
0
55.
SVINITA
925
8
0.86
56.
TÂMNA
3260
551
16.90
57.
VÂNĂTORI
1964
24
1.22
58.
VÂNJULEŢ
1884
356
18.90
59.
VLĂDAIA
1735
292
16.83
60.
VOLOIAC
1694
0
0
61.
VRATA
1599
361
22.58
the data processing
d) Distribution of the Roma population in Olt county per social environments
(rural/urban)
Current
I. URBAN
PERMANENT
no.
POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE
TOTAL
OF TOTAL
POPULATION
OLT
436400 9504
2.18
1.
170554 6206
3.64
2.
SLATINA MUNICIPALITY
70293 1739
2.47
3.
CARACAL MUNICIPALITY
30954 1229
3.97
4.
BALŞ
18164
609
3.35
5.
CORABIA
16441 1046
6.36
6.
DRAGĂNEŞTI-OLT
10894
744
6.83
7.
PIATRA-OLT
6299
424
6.73
8.
POTCOAVA
5743
415
7.23
9.
SCORNICEŞTI
11766
0
0
the data processing
Current
no.
1.
2.
3.
4.
II. RURAL
PERMANENT
POPULATION
Roma
TOTAL
265846
2084
1089
1694
1793
3298
7
0
0
0
B. COMMUNES
BĂBICIU
BALDOVINEŞTI
BÂLTENI
BĂRĂŞTI
115
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
POPULATION
1.24
0.34
0
0
0
Current
no.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
II. RURAL
PERMANENT
POPULATION
Roma
TOTAL
2532
3314
2730
4830
3016
2145
1519
2329
1830
3244
2072
2458
2435
3651
2178
4192
3827
3157
1227
3736
1831
1546
1828
1219
4004
4683
3775
2303
2050
1530
2381
2919
2370
1507
2857
1693
3560
4118
1917
70
4
0
70
238
8
0
0
0
0
0
318
28
0
0
38
86
4
0
51
0
0
0
0
91
55
5
0
0
7
0
85
564
4
10
4
69
126
0
BARZA
BOBICEŞTI
BRÂNCOVENI
BRASTAVĂŢU
BREBENI
BUCINIŞU
CĂLUI
CÂRLOGANI
CEZIENI
CILIENI
COLONEŞTI
CORBU
COTEANA
CRÂMPOIA
CUNGREA
CURTIŞOARA
DĂNEASA
DEVESELU
DOBREŢU
DOBROSLOVENI
DOBROTEASA
DOBRUN
DRĂGHICENI
FAGEŢELU
FĂLCOIU
FARCAŞELE
GĂNEASA
GÂRCOV
GAVĂNEŞTI
GHIMPEŢENI
GIUVARĂŞTI
GOSTAVĂŢU
GRĂDINARI
GRĂDINILE
GROJDIBODU
GURA PADINII
IANCA
IANCU JIANU
ICOANA
116
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
POPULATION
2.76
0.12
0
1.45
7.89
0.37
0
0
0
0
0
12.94
1.15
0
0
0.91
2.25
0.13
0
1.37
0
0
0
0
2.27
1.17
0.13
0
0
0.46
0
2.91
23.80
0.27
0.35
0.24
1.94
3.06
0
Current
no.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
II. RURAL
PERMANENT
POPULATION
Roma
TOTAL
1441
4807
3485
1640
4163
1678
1546
2545
3443
1271
2902
1777
1250
1247
2331
1567
5215
3062
2215
3105
2034
1580
3402
3006
2841
4434
1209
2053
3002
2660
2061
2902
2585
1279
2069
2694
1808
2422
2638
101
134
0
0
18
0
8
3
4
0
49
0
0
0
9
43
123
0
0
0
0
0
5
11
5
37
3
0
130
0
4
5
25
8
18
32
22
265
11
IPOTEŞTI
IZBICENI
IZVOARELE
LELEASCA
MARUNŢEI
MIHĂIESTI
MILCOV
MORUNGLAV
MOVILENI
NICOLAE TITULESCU
OBÂRŞIA
OBOGA
OPORELU
OPTAŞI-MĂGURA
ORLEA
OSICA DE JOS
OSICA DE SUS
PARŞCOVENI
PERIEŢI
PLEŞOIU
POBORU
PRISEACA
RADOMIREŞTI
REDEA
ROTUNDA
RUSĂNEŞTI
SAMBUREŞTI
SÂRBII - MĂGURA
SCĂRIŞOARA
SCHITU
SEACA
ŞERBĂNEŞTI
SLĂTIOARA
ŞOPÂRLIŢA
SPINENI
SPRÂNCENATA
ŞTEFAN CEL MARE
STOENEŞTI
STOICĂNEŞTI
117
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
POPULATION
7.01
2.79
0
0
0.43
0
0.52
0.12
0.12
0
1.69
0
0
0
0.39
2.74
2.36
0
0
0
0
0
0.15
0.37
0.18
0.83
0.25
0
4.33
0
0.19
0.17
0.97
0.63
0.87
1.19
1.22
10.94
0.42
Current
no.
II. RURAL
PERMANENT
POPULATION
Roma
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
TOTAL
POPULATION
83.
STREJEŞTI
3237
25
0.77
84.
STUDINA
2985
0
0
85.
TĂTULEŞTI
1088
0
0
86.
TESLUI
2737
3
0.11
87.
TIA MARE
4496
0
0
88.
TOPANA
991
0
0
89.
TRAIAN
3264
3
0.09
90.
TUFENI
3038
0
0
91.
URZICA
2283
0
0
92.
VĂDASTRA
1449
5
0.35
93.
VĂDASTRIŢA
3437
0
0
94.
VÂLCELE
2526
0
0
95.
VALEA MARE
3829
92
2.40
96.
VĂLENI
2826
43
1.52
97.
VERGULEASA
3139
55
1.75
98.
VIŞINA
2930
0
0
99.
VIŞINA NOUA
1767
17
0.96
100.
VITOMIREŞTI
2282
0
0
101.
VLĂDILA
1925
3
0.16
102.
VOINEASA
2229
32
1.44
103.
VULPENI
2255
0
0
104.
VULTUREŞTI
2591
0
0
the data processing
e) Distribution of the Roma population in Vîlcea county per social environments
(rural/urban)
Current
I. URBAN
PERMANENT
no.
POPULATION
Roma
PERCENTAGE
TOTAL
OF TOTAL
POPULATION
VÂLCEA
371714
6939
1.87
164649
3944
2.40
1.
RÂMNICU VÂLCEA MUNICIPALITY
98776
1298
1.31
2.
DRĂGAŞANI MUNICIPALITY
17871
1041
5.83
3.
BĂBENI
8451
343
4.06
4.
BĂILE GOVORA
2449
22
0.90
5.
BAILE OLĂNEŞTI
4186
51
1.22
6.
BĂLCEŞTI
4864
101
2.08
7.
BERBEŞTI
4836
36
0.74
118
8.
9.
10.
11.
BREZOI
6022
529
8.78
CĂLIMĂNEŞTI
7622
430
5.64
HOREZU
6263
79
1.26
OCNELE MARI
3309
14
0.42
the data processing
Current
no.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
II. RURAL
PERMANENT
POPULATION
TOTAL
207065
4109
1826
3318
2769
1313
5694
4410
2639
2500
3782
2603
3244
2151
2899
2041
1981
1980
3976
1559
4988
3748
1822
2027
2540
2622
1535
4130
1477
2036
2478
2154
2301
B. COMMUNES
ALUNU
AMĂRĂŞTI
BĂRBĂTEŞTI
BERISLĂVEŞTI
BOIŞOARA
BUDEŞTI
BUJORENI
BUNEŞTI
CÂINENI
CERNIŞOARA
COPĂCENI
COSTEŞTI
CREŢENI
DĂEŞTI
DĂNICEI
DICULEŞTI
DRĂGOEŞTI
FÂRTĂTEŞTI
FAUREŞTI
FRÂNCEŞTI
GALICEA
GHIOROIU
GLĂVILE
GOLEŞTI
GRĂDIŞTEA
GUŞOENI
IONEŞTI
LĂCUSTENI
LĂDEŞTI
LALOŞU
LĂPUŞATA
LIVEZI
119
Roma
2995
157
0
0
0
0
54
151
182
187
0
0
7
25
260
0
0
0
0
0
471
0
0
0
0
68
0
7
0
0
391
0
0
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
POPULATION
1.45
3.82
0
0
0
0
0.95
3.42
6.90
7.48
0
0
0.22
1.16
8.97
0
0
0
0
0
9.44
0
0
0
0
2.59
0
0.17
0
0
15.78
0
0
Current
no.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
II. RURAL
PERMANENT
POPULATION
TOTAL
3045
1797
1459
1703
1809
3096
6443
1265
945
2467
3462
2890
3198
2641
2717
3992
2326
1692
2881
2972
3990
1822
2105
2759
980
1983
1861
2297
2404
3293
1270
3248
3409
3747
2809
3291
2031
2683
898
LUNGEŞTI
MĂCIUCA
MĂDULARI
MĂLAIA
MĂLDAREŞTI
MATEEŞTI
MIHĂEŞTI
MILCOIU
MITROFANI
MUEREASCA
NICOLAE BĂLCESCU
OLANU
ORLEŞTI
OTEŞANI
PAUŞEŞTI
PAUŞEŞTI-MAGLAŞI
PERIŞANI
PESCEANA
PIETRARI
POPEŞTI
PRUNDENI
RACOVIŢA
ROEŞTI
ROŞIILE
RUNCU
SALATRUCEL
SCUNDU
SINEŞTI
SIRINEASA
SLĂTIOARA
STĂNEŞTI
ŞTEFANEŞTI
STOENEŞTI
STOILEŞTI
STROEŞTI
ŞUŞANI
ŞUTEŞTI
TETOIU
TITESTI
120
Roma
213
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
31
0
0
0
15
0
169
0
0
0
0
15
144
0
0
5
10
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
6
0
6
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
POPULATION
7.00
0
0
0
0
0
0.47
0
0
1.26
0
0
0
0.57
0
4.23
0
0
0
0
0.38
7.90
0
0
0.51
0.50
0
0
0.33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.12
0.30
0
0.67
Current
no.
PERMANENT
POPULATION
II. RURAL
Roma
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
TOTAL
POPULATION
72.
TOMŞANI
3729
18
0.48
73.
VAIDEENI
3946
228
5.78
74.
VALEA MARE
2610
0
0
75.
VLĂDEŞTI
2883
76
2.64
76.
VOICEŞTI
1612
52
3.23
77.
VOINEASA
1455
0
0
78.
ZĂTRENI
2498
0
0
the data processing
3. Sociological Perspective of Studying Ethnic Minorities
3.1. Quantitative field research. Questionnaire-based field research. Results of the
research in the Roma communities
3.1.1. Demographical structure of the investigated population
The characterization of the population studied was achieved through some indicators
on age, gender, marital status, profession, occupation, level of education and ethnicity. The
resulting data is shown in the following tables and graphically illustrated.
1.Age:
1. 18-25 2. 26-33 3. 34-41 4. 42-50 5. 51-60 6. 61 si peste
Age
%
1.
34-41 years old
22,4
2.
18-25 years old
17,4
3.
26-33 years old
17,4
4.
42-50 years old
17,1
5.
61 years old and above
13,0
6.
51-60 years old
12,7
Total
100,0
2.Gender
1. Male 2. Female
Gender
1.
2.
%
Female
Male
Total
51,6
48,4
100,0
3.Marital status:
1.Married 2. Married with children 3. Unmarried
Marital status
1.
Married, with children
121
4.Other (which?...)
%
59,8
2.
3.
4.
5.
Unmarried
Married
OTHER
Will not respond
Total
19,0
17,1
3,8
0,3
100,0
4.Present occupation
………………......................
Occupation
1.
Stay-at-home/ No occupation
2.
Worker
3.
Will not respond
4.
Pensioner
5.
Unemployed
6.
Pupil/ Student
7.
Freelance
8.
Doctor, enfineer, teacher
9.
Seller, merchant, sales agent, distributor
10.
Technician, Foreman, Public Clerk
11.
Educator, Teacher, non-commissioned officer, Medical
nurse
Total
5.Level of education
1.Unschooled 2. Primary 3. Secondary 4. High-school 5.Superior
Level of education
1.
Primary
2.
Secondary
3.
Unschooled
4.
High-school
5.
Superior
6.
After high-school
Total
%
37,4
22,9
13,4
7,7
4,9
4,6
4,2
2,8
0,7
0,7
0,7
100,0
%
33,6
27,2
18,0
15,2
5,7
0,3
100,0
After applying the questionnaire to 390 Roma, who were part of the representative
sample for this ethnic group from the territory of the five counties of Oltenia were completed
and a total of 25 questionnaires within the population of Greek origin and a total of 25
questionnaires in the Hungarian ethnic group. Thus, the sample originally designed was
numerically supplemented, leading ultimately to a total of 440 subjects who were interviewed
by specialized operators.
We wish to stress on that, overall, the broader sample based on which the opinion
survey was made comprised of 91.8% Roma, 7.9% Greeks and 0.3% Hungarians. In absolute
data, the Roma people make up a community of 63,899 people in the Oltenia region, 129
122
Greeks and 752 Hungarians. Naturally, the Romanian ethnic composition is predominant: of
the 2,075,642 residents of the counties of Oltenia, 1,901,330 are Romanian, i.e. around 92%.
The Roma account for 3.9% of the total Romanian population and 3.08% of the total
population of Oltenia, almost half of them is being domiciled in Dolj County (29, 838 from
63,899 Roma people in Oltenia). Therefore, numerically they are a minority that can be
analyzed from several different perspectives: histo rical, legal, political, sociological, and
anthropological."In a very broad understanding, minority groups are social, political, ethnic,
racial, linguistic, religious, cultural, etc. which exists in a society and have a number of
members lower than that of the community they belong to (the community representing the
majority). Nowadays, minorities are present in almost all countries, the number and volume of
the component members varying from one country to another"1. The concept of minority has
"multiple meanings" and "its operational definition implies the existence of criteria against
which a group of people can be considered a minority: race, ethnicity, language, political
power, age, religion, gender.Therefore we can speak of a certain type of minority” 164.
Although it is often stated that a minority of people is becomes study material only
when its legitimate interests and rights are not respected, its own aspirations, actually
researching a social minority can be justified by the requirement of knowing its sociocultural
profile in order to promote its specific values in a regional and national context, as assumed by
us in the current work.
The collection of information about the age groups of the examined population (Roma,
Greek and Hungarian minorities) indicate a high percentage of people between the ages of 34
and 41, and a reduced percentage of those over 50. More than 57% of the interviewed subjects
belong to the younger age groups, between 18 and 41, while 25,7% of them are aged 51 and
above. It is clear that we are dealing with a predominantly young population that has enough
biological resources to self- reproduce, as well as a high work potential that can be used in the
economic and social activities in their communitites of residence throughout Oltenia. The
Hungarian ethnics considered they are part of a predominantly old community, 66,9% of the
Roma ethnics considered they are part of communities with mostly middle-aged persons
(however, 23,4% of the stated they are part of communities made up mainly of young
persons), and the Greek ethnics perceived and evaluated their community as being made up
mostly of middle-aged persons. Thus, there are different perceptions of the age of one
ethnicity or another, according to the real situation and personal evaluation capability.
Regarding gender, the field research resulted in the fact that the female population
represents 51,6%, and the male one 48,4%, this report being also valid at a national level.
Almost 60% of the Roma community (as well as the Greek and Hungarian) are married and
have children, 17% are married without children, and 19% are not married. Therefore, more
than three quarters of the interviewed ethnics are married people, this indicating a major
characteristic of the respective cultural ethnicity in Oltenia, which correlates with the
preponderance of the young age groups.
The professions of the Roma people, especially, are mainly linked to their condition as
workers (22,9%). Other 13,4% could not indicate any occupational affiliation, and another
important percentage (37,4%) is part of the „stay-at-home/ no occupation” category. Very low
percentages have the professions that imply a superior level of professional qualification –
doctor/ engineer/ teacher, characterizing only 2,8% of the total of the respondents. Also, the
group of the pupils and students, so people currently involved in the process of high-school
and superior education, does not exceed 4,6%, which is a worrisome percentage. The
pensioners as well are not a majority group, their percentage being of 7.7%, which can be
explained by the low number of qualified people and by doing certain activities without a
164
Ibidem, p.472
123
work contract (based on which the right to a pension is obtained). In fact, only 32% of the
members of the Roma community have useful social occupations (workers, freelancers,
doctors/ engineers/teachers, commercial workers, foremen, technicians, public clerks,
educators, schoolmasters, medical nurses, non-commissioned officers).
The indicator ”level of education” justifies the above-mentioned situation, since of the
Roma ethnics especially, only 15,2% have high-school studies and 5,7% have higher
education studies (without them necessarily being occupied based on their qualification level).
The majority of them have primary (33,6%) and secondary (27,2%) studies, which are usually
associated with occasional work and the lack of occupation hereof, or a decreased level of
professional qualification. Also, draws attention the 18% of those „without formal education”,
them having the most reduced chances to access jobs on the work market, fueling illegal work,
the illiteracy phenomenon in the present-day Romanian socitety, evaluated at about 250,000
people) and eliminating any hope to ever benefit the right to obtain a pension when they reach
the appropriate age.
When a community such as the Roma is constantly concerned with ensuring the
material conditions of existence (in the absence of steady income) it develops a culture
centered on subsistence values and defense against the risk of social exclusion.
3.2. Perception of social relations in the community of origin
Any ethnic community is characterized by certain dimensions (large, medium and
small), through a category that comprises of different age categories (young, middle-aged
people, old people), by the relations between the members of the respective ethny (permanent,
occasional, accidental), by family and friendship links, by cultural values that make the
members of a ethny come together especially during the holidays. The existence of different
social relations between the members of an ethnic community and between the human groups
that belong to the respective community ensure its internal social cohesion, a continuation of
its internal structures. ”Any minority with a normal lifestyle is concerned about its social
status, about increasing its prestige within the society. In the case of subordination by the
majority, the need for social recognition of the minority, of respecting its specificity and
valuating its own needs by the entire society appears as a dominant psychological and moral
need (at an individual and group level)”165.
As long as there is a continuous communication between the component units of the
ethny, there also appears a social interaction of individuals, groups, institutions, which
develops the consciousness of "we", the sense of ethnicity. The sociological literature
considers that social interaction can be both spontaneous, natural (e.g. between relatives,
friends, colleagues) and organized, directed by statuses and occupational and professional
roles people have in society at a given time. The fact that a child is born into a family indicates
its kinship relations and the position of its role in this family, which in turn belongs to a
certain ethnic group. It enters a natural interaction with parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents
and other relatives; he inherits certain relationships arising from the position in the family
group, which he forwards.
When an adult is engaged in a workcollective, his relations are preponderantly official
and directed by their status and the role they hold in the group, being determined to cooperate
with colleagues and superiors, professionally, in an organized frame governed by laws,
statutes, etc.Therefore, social interaction is organized and formal (based on norms, values,
etc.).
The stronger the social interaction in and ethnic community and it is being held through
a process of permanent education, the more consistent the solidarity of that ethnic
165
Ibidem, p.475
124
community. A strong solidarity generates strong group self-awareness and therefore a lively
awareness of belonging of each member. "Therefore, the feeling of solidarity of the members
of small groups is usually more intense and it is checked especially when entering tense and
conflict relations with other groups (the Roma solidarity is widely recognized compared to the
Romanians in a situation of potential or real danger)”.166
We will try to characterize some ethnic minorities through the opinions and evaluations
of their members, so that in the end we can evaluate what is the degree of cohesion of the
respective communities: Roma, Greek and Hungarian.
6. Ethnic affiliation:
Ethnic affiliation
1.
2.
3.
Total
%
Roma
Greek
Hungarian
91,8
7,9
0,3
100,0
7. The ethnic community you are part of…?
1.Small 2. Medium
3. Large 4. Does not know/NR
Size of the ethnic community
1.
Medium
2.
Large
3.
Doesn not know/ Refuses to answer
4.
Small
Total
8. From what you know, the majority of its members is formed of…?
1. Young
2. Middle-aged
3. Old
From what youknow, this is formed of...
1.
Middle age
2.
Young
3.
Old
4.
Refuses to answer
Total
%
51,5
28,5
12,7
7,3
100,0
%
68,4
21,8
9,5
0,3
100,0
9.Do you have relations with the other members of the community?
1. No
2. Yes, permanently
3. Occasionally 4. Very rarely
%
Do you have relations with other members of the community?
1.
Yes, permanently
74,6
2.
Occasionally
15,9
3.
Very rarely
5,4
166
Ibidem, p,473
125
4.
Total
No
4,1
100,0
10. Where are the most of your friends?
1. Among those of my ethnicity
2. Among Romanians
Where are the most of your friends?
1.
Among those of my ethnicity
2.
Among Romanians
3.
I have none
Total
3. I have none
%
75,9
22,8
1,3
100,0
11. What are the celebrations or occasions when the majority of the members of
your ethny come together?
1.....................
2....................
3....................... 4 Doesn’t know
%
What are the celebrations or occasions when the majority of the
members of your ethny come together?
1.
Easter
31,7
2.
Christmas
25,3
3.
Refuses to respond
19,0
4.
Other
17,7
5.
National Day
3,8
6.
St. Mary
2,5
Total
100,0
12.What is your ethny’s greatest celebration?
1..................... 2. Doesn’t know
12. What is your ethny’s greatest celebration?
1.
Easter
2.
Refuses to respond
3.
National Day
4.
St. Mary
5.
Other
6.
Christmas
Total
%
32,6
25,9
11,7
10,8
10,8
8,2
100,0
After processing the responses received it resulted that 51.5% of respondents consider
they are part of an ethnic community of medium size, while 28.5% rated it as large - an
opinion supported especially by those of Roma ethny, which correspond to reality, as shown
by the arguments of statistical nature.
From a psychosociological point of view, the size of the social group appears as an
indicator of safety, which any individual has and defines by reference to a community they
belong to. The link with the minority does not, as a rule, offer a state of psychological confort,
126
while the awareness of belonging to a majority generates self-confidence and the hope of
acquiring help when needed. Other theoretical sociological interpretations require us "to
specify that the sense of social inferiority derives not necessarily from the size of the group,
but from the inequality produced in the distribution of power (<differential power>)"4.
Also, the interviewed subjects perceive the community they are part of as being made
up in its majority by young people (according to 28,1% of the sample total) and middle-aged
(68,4%) the evaluation being supported by their own life experience, as well as by the social
communication relations with those of the same ethny. Besides, the links with the other
members of the community are defined as „permanent” by almost three quarters (74,6%) of
the respondents, which indicates a solid social „weaving” that characterizes especially the
Roma community.
The family ties between members play a major contribution to the consolidation of
ethnic communities, these ties being more than mere individual physical contacts, or of social
communication. Apart from the family, people also need friends, or people they trust in order
to confess, request advice or ask for help. Our field research showed that about 70% of the
respondents have friends of the same ethny, 22,8% confessed to having friends among
Romanians, while 1,3 % said they have no friends. It was noticed that with the increase of the
education level there is also an increase in the percentage of those who have friends among
Romanians. For example, over 72% of those with higher education declared that the majority
of their friends are Romnanians and 27,8% indicated that they are part of the same ethny. In
return, over 87% of those with primary education, more than 74% of those with secondary
studies, and 93% of the illiterate said that their friendships gravitate within the same ethny.
An important factor in the coagulation of the community spirit is represented by the
holidays in which the members of the ethnic communications come together. Of the answers
received to the question: what are the celebrations and occasions on which your ethny meets
the most?, it became aparent that Easter and Christmas times are the reason to meet for 57% of
the respondents, then St. Mary (10,8%) and other religious and secular celebrations (National
Day of Romania – 11,7%). From the data of the field research it does not result that there are
celebrations specific to one ethny or another, so that the ones above have a general character
and are, for the most part, stipulated in the Christian calendar, being observed by the majority
population in the Region of Oltenia and in Romania in general (which is predominantly
orthodox).
Thus, the mentioned celebrations, especially the religious ones, have the power to unite
people, cultivating their sense of closeness and, implicitly, to integrate them in society, as
family and ethnic groups. During the holidays there is a pronounced community spirit, a
general relaxed atmosphere that does not allow for ethnic differences ore the „minority”
mentality.
The fact that the Roma, Hungarians and Greeks as well as other minorities in Oltenia
speak the same national language, that they knew to mention a series of classic writers of
Romanian literature, or that they positively appreciated their relations with the Romanians, in
a percentage of over 83% of the sample as being „cooperation” (46,3%) and ”friendship”
(37%) proves the functioning of an interaction pattern between ethnic groups based on
assimilation, on the voluntary conformation to the cultural values and types of social
behaviour promoted at the level of Romanian society. Please note, in this context, that only
6,2% of the respondents considered that their rights have been breached in Romania because
of their ethny, while the majority of them denied having been discriminated (54,6%) or they
could not say (39,2%), which means that they haven’t faced situations of inequality of chances
in their social life, because of their ethnicity.
127
Correlations
Age
Level of
Education
Occupation
1. Evaluation of the friendship level based on age
Table no.1
Do you have relations with the other community
members?
No
Yes,
Occasion
Very
permanently
ally
rarely
18-25
3,6%
70,9%
23,6%
1,8%
26-33
81,8%
10,9%
7,3%
34-41
9,9%
73,2%
11,3%
5,6%
42-50
1,9%
79,2%
15,1%
3,8%
51-60
7,5%
72,5%
20,0%
61 and over
68,3%
17,1%
14,6%
2.Type of friends in reference with the level of education
Table no.2
Where do you have most of your friends?
Among my
Among
I don’t have
ethny
Romanians
any
No
93,0%
5,3%
1,8%
schooling
Primary
87,7%
9,4%
2,8%
Secondary
74,4%
25,6%
High52,1%
47,9%
school
Higher
27,8%
72,2%
education
After high
100,0%
school
Total
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Total
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
3. Participation at occasions/ celebrations in reference to age
Table no.3
What are the holidays or occasions when most of your
ethnicity meet?
Not Christmas Easter
St. National Other
respon
Mary
Day
ding
Not
13,2%
2,6% 31,6%
52,6%
responding
Worker
16,9%
15,4% 38,5%
29,2%
Freelance
8,3%
8,3% 33,3%
50,0%
Seller,
100,0%
merchant,
sales agent,
distributor
Technician,
100,0%
Foreman,
Public Clerk
128
Total
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Educator,
Schoolmaster, noncommission
officer,
Medical
Nurse
Doctor,
engineer,
teacher
Pupil/
Student
Pensioner
Unemployed
Stay-athome/ No
occupation
100,0% 100,0%
50,0%
25,0%
25,0%
100,0%
7,7%
61,5%
7,7%
23,1%
100,0%
22,7%
7,1%
21,7%
18,2%
27,3%
78,6%
22,6%
27,3%
43,4%
5,7%
4,5% 100,0%
14,3% 100,0%
0,9% 5,7% 100,0%
4.Main age group of the population in relation to ethnic group
Table no.4
Main age group of the population in relation to ethnic group
As far as you know, the majority of its
members are ...
No
Young Middle-aged
Old
Response
Ethnic group
Roma
0,3%
23,4%
66,9%
9,3%
Hun100,0%
garian
Greek
4,0%
88,0%
8,0%
Total
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
5. Relations with community members in relation to ethnic group
Tabelul nr.5
Relations with community members in relation to ethnic group
Do you have relations with the other members
Total
of the community?
No
Yes, perma- Occasio
Very
nently
nally
rarely
Ethnic group
Roma
4,2%
74,7%
15,2%
5,9% 100,0%
Hunga100,0%
100,0%
rian
Greek
76,0%
24,0%
100,0%
129
Ethnic
group
6.Importance of the holidays in relation to the ethnic group
Table no. 6
Importance of the holidays in relation to the ethnic group
What is the most important celebration of your ethnic
Total
group?
No
Christ- Easter St. Mary National
Other
resmas
Day
ponse
Roma
28,3%
8,6% 35,5% 11,7%
4,1% 11,7% 100,0%
Hunga100,0%
100,0%
rian
Greek
100,0%
100,0%
3.3. Evaluation of the conservation factors of one’s own ethnic community
The main social factors perpetuating an ethnic group are, in our opinion, the
endogamous marriage, everyday speaking of their language and individuals’ organic
solidarity. Of course, there are other factors of identity support, such as common customs and
traditions, clothing, types of food, certain spiritual values, some moral rules and to manage the
collective justice, but their role is not always sufficiently relevant to macrogrupal level.
13. How is marriage usually done in your ethny?
1. Only among its members
2. Mostly with Romanian nationals
3. No rules apply (each person marries whoever they like)
How is marriage usually done in your ethny?
1.
There is no rule
2.
Only among its members
3.
Mostly with Romanian nationals
Total
14.What is the language you frequently use at home?
1. Romanian
2.Other (which?....)
What is the language you frequently use at home?
1.
Romanians
2.
Other
Total
1.
2.
3.
4.
Total
15. How about with persons from the same ethny?
1. Romanian
2. Other (which?...........) 3. Both
What is the language you speak with persons of the same ethny?
Both
Romanian
Other
No response
130
%
50,9
42,8
6,3
100,0
%
55,1
44,9
100,0
%
55,7
27,5
16,5
0,3
100,0
16. Do your ethny members generally help each other?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Cannot tell
Do your ethny members generally help each other?
1.
Yes
2.
Cannot tell
3.
No
Total
%
80,1
15.2
4,7
100,0
Although more than half of the respondents (50,9%) responded that there is no rule
when selecting one’s life partner for marriage, approximately 43% of them indicated that
marriage is usually contracted between the members of the same ethnic community, and a
reduced percentage of 6,3% said it i done „mostly with Romanians”.
The continuation of ethnic communities through endogamous marriages is a social
reality, which can be easily seen especially in the Roma communities, where young people
marry when still teenagers, under the influence of the parents (who ”negotiate” the choice of
the life partner) and the customs or traditions that permitted the realization of such a social
practice. Adopted due to tradition and continued by the authority of the adults, this unwritten
law is imposed even at an age when future spouses have not ended their childhood, which
leads to the conservation of the Roma ethnic groups. The marriages contracted only between
the members of the same ethnicity is admited to and supported by 46,7% males and by 53,3%
females. The lower the marriage age, the lower the chances that the respective person keeps
attending school, and in the case of those that bear children as well, these chances nearly
disappear. That’s one explanation for the reason why the Roma ethnicity is characetrized by
such a high number of dropouts and perpetuation of illiteracy among the young population.
Another factor that helps maintain the living universe of ethnic minorities is ensured by
the permanent use of their own language. Field researched showed that 45% of the Roma,
Greek and Hungarian ethnicities frequently use their mother tongue within the family, and
55% of them use Romanian most often. Of course, Romanian is the official language, being
used in the relations with institutions, with the other persons – in the street, at work, in the
broader social environment, but the act that it is used also within the family proves that there
is a strong social interaction between ethnic groups and the society as such, which has an
overwhelming integration role, especially at educational and professional levels.
Field research data emphasize the obvious correlation between the level of education
and the language commonly spoken in the family. Thus, the lower the level of education, the
more extensive the use of their own language is. Over 66% of those without school and over
63% of those with primary school testified that within the family they speak their own
language, specific to their ethnic group. Of course, these are people who belong to the Roma
minority and contribute greatly to the preservation of ethnic identity, knowing that the Greek
and Hungarian minorities are not characterized by a low level of school education.
The higher the level of education, the higher the frequency of Romanian being spoken
in the families of those composing the ethnic minorities. From the information collected
through personal opinion inquest, it resulted that 85% of high-school graduates and all those
that graduated from after high-school and different forms of higher education speak Romanian
most often in their family lives, in a higher proportion than the language of their ethnicity.
In the relations with persons of the same ethny the communication is realized in both
languages by the majority of respondents (55,7%), however there are other categories of
people that make use only of the Romanian language (27,5%) or only their mother tongue
(17,5%).
131
Theoretically, we know that minority groups do not have a more pronounced solidarity
sense than the majority ones, where the members are rarely in the situation of coming face to
face with one another. Physical contact generates interaction and emotional contacts. Constant
social relations favour the internal cohesion of ethnic groups to a larger extent than reports
mediated by certain official norms and statute regulations.
Starting from this sociocultural assertion, we wished to check how credible this
statement is in the case of the groups invesigated in Oltenia. Let us first remind that
sociologists define human groups considering three characteristic processes: member
cooperation and communication, solidarity or cohesion and conflict. The cohesion expresses
„the degree to which the members feel themselves tied to the others (...). The closer a group is,
the greater the possibility for stability and that the members will comply with its rules. Closely
knit groups solve issues better. Generally, cohesion seems to be more important to groups.”167
Solidarity is understood as a form of social cohesion and is manifested as mechanic
solidarity (”similarity of the qualities and activities of the individuals”) and as organic
solidarity (”society is linked through mutual support and interdependence of its members”)168.
A detailed analysis in this respect is made by the French sociologist Emile Durkheim, who
makes the distinction between societies based on mechanic solidarity (usually characteristic to
underdeveloped ones) and the societies where organic solidarity is predominant (usually
characteristic for societies with a strong social work division).
In the present context we tried to find out how the solidarity of the people of the same
ethnicity is perceived, compared to the general social environment. The opinion of those of the
same ethnic community was obtained through the following question: Generally, are the
members of your ethnicity solidary, do they help each other when needed? We obtained three
types of answers that reflect the valuation capacity, as well as the social life experience of the
respondents, as follows:
- 80,1% mentioned that solidarity is characteristic to ethnies;
- 15,2% said ”they could not tell precisely”;
- 4,7% rejected the idea that those of the same ethnicity were solidary, helping each
other when needed.
We wish to stress on the fact that the positive answers came from over 77% of the
subjects of every age group, starting with the 18-25 up to the 51-60, which proves that
solidarity is indeed a characteristic of ethnic groups, as well as a social sustainable relation
that ensures the strong cohesion and their continuity in the cultural space of Oltenia.
Correlations
1. Language spoken in the family in relation to the level of education
Table no.1
What language do you frequently speak
in your family?
Romanian
Other
Education
level
Unschooled
Primary
Secondary
High-school
Higher
After high-school
33,3%
36,8%
66,7%
84,8%
100,0%
100,0%
167
66,7%
63,2%
33,3%
15,2%
-
Norman Goodman, Introducere în sociologie, Lider Publishing, Bucharest, 1998, p.96
Ibidem, p.486
168
132
Total
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
2.
Age
Solidarity of ethny members in reference to their age
Table no.2
Generally, the members of your ethnicity are solidary,
they help each other out when needed?
No
Yes
No
Cannot tell
Response
18-25
83,6%
9,1%
7,3%
26-33
1,8%
81,8%
7,3%
9,1%
34-41
-
80,3%
5,6%
14,1%
42-50
-
77,8%
3,7%
18,5%
51-60
-
85,0%
-
15,0%
70,7%
-
26,8%
61 and
above
2,4%
Total
100,0
%
100,0
%
100,0
%
100,0
%
100,0
%
100,0
%
3. Fulfilment of marriage depending on gender
Table no.3
13. How is marriage
done in your ethnicity?
Only between members
Mostly with Romanians
There is no rule
Gender
Male
Female
46,7%
53,3%
50,0%
50,0%
49,7%
50,3%
4. Marriage options based on ethnic affiliation
Table no. 4
Marriage options based on ethnic affiliation
How is marriage done in your ethnicity?
Only
Mostly with
There is no
between its
Romanians
rule
members
Ethnic group
Roma
46,6%
5,9%
47,6%
Hungarian
100,0%
Greek
12,0%
88,0%
5. Language used within the family in relation to ethnicity
Table no. 5
Language used within the family in relation to ethnicity
What language do you frequently
speak within your family?
Romanian
Other
Ethnic group
Roma
51,0%
49,0%
Hungarian
100,0%
Greek
100,0%
-
133
Total
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Total
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Total
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
6. Language used with same ethnicity persons in report to the ethnic group
Table no. 6
Language used with same ethnicity persons in report to the ethnic group
What language do you use with persons of the same
Total
ethnicity?
No
Romanian
Other
Both
Response
Ethnic Roma
0,3%
25,2%
17,2%
57,2% 100,0%
group
Hungarian
100,0%
100,0%
Greek
52,0%
8,0%
40,0% 100,0%
7. Solidarity in relation to ethnic affiliation
Table no. 7
Solidarity in relation to ethnic affiliation
Generally, the members of your ethny are solidary,
do they help each other?
No
Yes
No
Cannot tell
response
Roma
0,3%
78,6%
5,2%
15,9%
Ethnic Hungarian
100,0%
group
Greek
4,0%
96,0%
-
Total
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
3.4. Representative values and characteristic elements of the sociocultural
patrimony (conscience of ethnical identity)
The members of the ethnic group differ from other members of society by certain
cultural characteristics: language, religion, history, literature, specific material civilization. All
these features converge to the sense of identity as members of a specific group.
The research results showed that more than half of the respondents (57,9%) consider
that there are specific characteristics of the ethny they are part of, while for 13,3% of them
these characteristics, that give identity to their ethnic group, don’t actually exist, 28,8% having
no opinion in this respect. The ones that answered positively to this indicator showed that they
are different from the other ethnies through specific cultural traits expresses in: mother tongue
(44,5%), traditional costume (22,7%), music (14,3%), religion (6,8%), the difference to 100%
being given by the way they prepare food and something else.
When an individual identifies with a particular ethnic group, it means that he is defined
by its features, emulating the values, rules, symbols of the group, accepting and internalizing
in his own behavior and self-awareness.
Eduard Sapir said that „the language is the mirror of a culture, and if there is anything
important for a culture, the language will undoubtedly reflect that something”.169
In the context of ethnic affiliation and the selection of the mother tongue as a
distinctive element of the ethnicity they belong to, a significant percentage of Roma (76.6%)
mention that they do not read books or publications in their mother tongue, more than three
quarters of the ethnic Greek do read, but rarely, and the Hungarians do not. Certainly, the
language is a feature of the Roma in general, but certain categories of this ethnic group in
Romania are in an advanced stage of linguistic assimilation.
169
Panea Nicolae, Antropologia culturală şi socială – vademecum, Omniscop Publishing, Craiova, 2000,
p.32
134
Regarding relations with relatives or other persons from the country of origin, 100% of
the Hungarians keep these family ties, and 88% of the Greeks do that as well.
Also, the results of the research pointed out that more than half of the respondents
(55,9%) mostly observe their traditions, 39,3% to a lesser extent, and 4,4% don’t follow the
traditions of the ethnic group they are part of.
Another dimension of awareness of self-identity is the cultural identity, regarded as an
inclusive dimension; almost all other sizes can be placed under its umbrella. Cultural identity
is the "sense of self" derived from an individual's membership in the group to which he
belongs and which communicates knowledge, attitudes, values, traditions and ways of
life. Compared with social identity, which is built by reference to a certain time, cultural
identity is a component of individual identity that involves transfer of information from one
generation to another.
Referring to the identification of the cultural values characteristic for an ethnic group,
which distinguishes it from other ethnic groups, the majority of subjects (85%) did not
respond, only 15% think diligence, hospitality, artistic spirit and respect to be values that
differentiate them from others. When referring to the Roma minority, we must consider the
low cultural level caused by the high level of illiteracy, which does not allow them to make
relevant assessments from a cultural perspective, both towards their minority, or towards other
minorities.
The subjects were asked to name a few very well-known Romanian writers. Almost
half of the interviewed mentioned classic writers: Ion Creangă (21,4%), Mihai Eminescu
(13,1%), Mihail Sadoveanu (8,8%), Ion Luca Caragiale (3,3%), Liviu Rebreanu (1,6%). The
number of those who did not answer this question is correlated with the level of education (the
lower the level, the higher the level of those who do not respond).
The individual is born with his ethnicity; it is not acquired during one’s life. The birth
certificate is a document that can hold an identity, it is abstract, and the real one is the one that
the individual acquires through socialization with other group members, which transmit the
language, traditions and customs.
The element that makes the distinction between national and ethnic identity is that of
option. National identity is an option, the individual has a right to opt for it, but it does not
stem from ethnic identity. The research emphasized that 60,9% of respondents consider
themselves to be more Roma/ Greek/ Hungarians than Romanians, and only 37,8% consider
themlseves more Romanian than Roma/ Greek/ Hungarians, according to case. At the same
time, the feeling of belonging to an ethny makes 56,4% of the respondents proud, and 3,5 %
feel “ashamed” to be part of an ethnic group. We must underline the significant percentage
(40,1%) of those who did not answer this indicator, not having a clear opinion in this respect.
The research data showed that the veiry young consider themselves more Romanian than the
identity given by the affiliation to an ethnic group, whereas those aged between 26 and 60 and
over have a clearer sense of the feeling of identity affiliation to the ethnic group they are part
of.
Another characteristic of ethnic identity is religion. The respondents said they are
believers, 95,2% of them. Of this total, 83,6% declared themselves to be Orthodox, 11,1%
Pentecostals, 3,3% Baptists, 0,5% Catholics, 0,5% Jehova’s Witnesses.
For a better illustration of the values and specific elements of the sociocultural
patrimony of the minorities in this research, we shall disclose additional data illustrated with
the help of tables.
135
17. Do you consider there are specific characteristics of your ethny?
1. Yes 2. No 3. Doesn’t know
%
Do you consider there are specific characteristics of your ethny?
1.
Yes
57,9
2.
Doesn’t know
28,8
3.
No
13,3
Total
100,0
18. If yes, how do you believe it is different from others?
1. Mother tongue 2. Music 3. Traditional costume 4. Religion 5.Food preparation 6.
Other
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Total
If yes, how do you believe it is different from others?
Mother tongue
Traditional costume
Music
No Response
Religion
Something else
Food preparation
19. Do you read books or other publications in your mother tongue?
1. Yes, daily 2. Yes, monthly 3.Yes, but seldom 4. Not at all
Do you read books or other publications in your mother tongue?
1.
Not at all
2.
Yes, but seldom
3.
Yes, daily
4.
Yes, monthly
5.
No Response
Total
20. Do you have relations with relatives or people from your country
of origin?
(not addressed to the Roma people)
1. Yes 2. No
Do you have relations with relatives or people from your country of
origin?
1.
Yes
2.
No
3.
No Response
Total
136
%
44,5
22,7
14,3
8,8
6,8
1,9
1,0
100,0
%
68,8
22,9
5,7
2,2
0,4
100,0
%
74,2
24,1
1,7
100,0
21.Do the people in your ethny respect their own traditions?
1. Yes, mostly 2. Yes, to a lesser extent 3. Not at all
Do the people in your ethny respect their own traditions?
1.
Yes, mostly
2.
Yes, to a lesser extent
3.
Not at all
4.
No response
Total
%
55,9
39,3
4,4
0,4
100,0
22.What do you think are the cultural values specific to your ethny,
that make you stand out from other ethnic groups?
1.......................... 2....................... 3..............................
4. Doesn’t know
%
What are the cultural values specific to your ethny?
1.
No Response
85,0
2.
Artistic spirit
5,0
3.
Diligence
3,1
4.
Respect
2,6
5.
Talent
2,6
6.
Others
1,3
7.
Hospitality
0,4
Total
100,0
23. Can you name a few very well known Romanian writers? (1)
1.Doesn’t know 2............ 3.............
Can you name a few very well known Romanian writers?
1.
No Response
2.
Mihai Eminescu
3.
Ion Creanga
4.
Mihail Sadoveanu
5.
Other
6.
Ion Luca Caragiale
7.
Liviu Rebreanu
Total
24.How do you consider yourself to be?
1. More Romanian than......... 2. More ............than Romanian
How do you consider yourself to be?
1.
More roma/ hungarian/greek than Romanian
2.
More Romanian than roma/ hungarian/greek
3.
No Response
Total
137
%
68,3
19,0
6,6
2,2
2,2
1,3
0,4
100,0
%
60,9
37,8
1,3
100,0
25. What feeling does your ethnic affiliation give you?
1.Pride 2. Shame
3. No Response
What feeling does your ethnic affiliation give you?
1.
Pride
2.
No Response
3.
Shame
Total
%
56,4
40,1
3,5
100,0
Other detailed information can be accessed in the tables and illustrations below.
Education
level
Total
Correlations
Specific features of the ethny in relation to the level of education
Table no.1
Do you consider there are specific features of your
Total
ethny?
Yes
No
Doesn’t
know
No
50,9%
17,5%
31,6% 100,0%
schooling
Primary
56,6%
15,1%
28,3% 100,0%
Secondary
54,7%
11,6%
33,7% 100,0%
High60,4%
10,4%
29,2% 100,0%
school
Higher ed.
94,4%
5,6%
100,0%
After high100,0%
-100,0%
school
57,9%
13,3%
28,8% 100,0%
Differences from other ethnies in relation to the education level
Table no. 2
If yes, how do you feel it is different from other ethnies? Total
Education
level
No Mother Music Tradi- ReliFood
Other
Resp. tongue
tional gion
preparacostion
tume
7,1% 44,6% 10,7% 28,6% 5,4%
3,6%
100,0%
No
schooling
Primary
9,4% 46,2% 8,5% 27,4%
Secondary 9,9% 42,0% 14,8% 18,5%
High10,9 47,8% 19,6% 17,4%
school
%
Higher ed.
33,3% 44,4% 11,1%
After high100,0%
school
138
6,6%
9,9%
4,3%
0,9%
-
,9% 100,0%
4,9% 100,0%
100,0%
5,6%
-
-
5,6% 100,0%
100,0%
Reading books/ publications in the mother toungue
in relation to the level of education
Table no.3
Do you read books or other publications in your
Total
mother tongue?
No Resp. Yes,
Yes,
Yes, but Not at all
daily monthly seldom
Education No schooling
100,0% 100,0%
level
Primary
1,2%
1,2%
1,2%
14,8% 81,5% 100,0%
Secondary
5,4%
25,0% 69,6% 100,0%
High-school
19,2%
7,7%
42,3% 30,8% 100,0%
Higher ed.
6,3%
12,5%
75,0%
6,3% 100,0%
After high100,0%
100,0%
school
Cultural values of the ethny in relation to the level of education
Table no. 4
What cultural values are characteristic to your ethny?
Total
Educa- No
tion level schooling
Primary
Secondary
Highschool
Higher ed.
After
highschool
No
Dili- Hospita- Artistic Respect Talent Others
Resp. gence
lity
spirit
91,5%
2,1%
2,1% 2,1% 2,1% 100,0%
87,7%
85,7%
73,1%
3,7%
3,6%
3,8%
1,2% 1,2%
1,8%
15,4%
2,5%
3,6%
3,8%
68,8%
100,0
%
6,3%
-
-
25,0%
2,5% 1,2% 100,0%
3,6% 1,8% 100,0%
3,8% 100,0%
-
-
100,0%
100,0%
Mentioning Romanian writers in relation to the level of education
Table no.5
Can you name a few very well known Romanian writers?
Total
No
Resp.
Education No
level
schooling
Primary
Secondary
Highschool
Higher ed.
Mihai
Ion
Emi- Creangă
nescu
91,5%
6,4%
81,5%
64,3%
11,1%
19,6%
19,2%
31,3%
Mihail
Sadoveanu
Liviu
Rebreanu
Ion Other
Luca
Caragiale
2,1%
100,0%
4,9%
12,5%
1,8%
2,5% 100,0%
1,8% 100,0%
50,0%
11,5%
7,7%
43,8%
6,3%
6,3%
139
3,8%
7,7% 100,0%
12,5%
100,0%
After
highschool
100,0%
100,0%
Relations to relatives/ other persons in the country of origin in relation to age
Table no. 6
Do you have relations with relatives/
Total
other people in your country of origin?
No Resp.
Yes
No
Age
18-25
70,6%
29,4%
100,0%
26-33
14,3%
71,4%
14,3%
100,0%
34-41
68,8%
31,3%
100,0%
42-50
66,7%
33,3%
100,0%
51-60
85,7%
14,3%
100,0%
61 and above
87,5%
12,5%
100,0%
Opinion about ethny affiliation in relation to age
Table no. 7
How do you consider yourself?
No
Response
Age
More
Romanian
than ….
54,8%
18-25
26-33
34-41
42-50
51-60
61 and above
More ....than
Romanian
26,3%
43,4%
24,2%
34,5%
36,7%
3,4%
6,7%
45,2%
100,0%
73,7%
56,6%
75,8%
62,1%
56,7%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Religion in relation to age
Table no. 8
Are you a religious person?
No
Response
Age
18-25
26-33
34-41
42-50
51-60
61 and above
3,3%
140
YES
Total
Total
NO
93,0%
7,0%
100,0%
97,4%
98,1%
93,9%
100,0%
86,7%
2,6%
1,9%
6,1%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
10,0%
Occupation
Ethny affiliation in relation to occupation
Table no. 9
What feeling does belonging
to an ethny give you?
No
Pride
Shame
Resp.
No Response
76,9%
23,1%
Worker
45,5%
54,5%
Freelancer
20,0%
80,0%
Seller, merchant, sales agent,
50,0%
50,0%
distributor
Technician, Foreman, Public
100,0%
Clerk
Doctor, engineer, teacher
100,0%
Pupil/Student
23,1%
69,2%
7,7%
Pensioner
29,4%
64,7%
5,9%
Unemployed
66,7%
33,3%
Stay-at-home/without
46,5%
51,5%
2,0%
occupation
Total
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Grounds of ethnic specificity in relation to ethnic affiliation
Table no. 10
Grounds of ethnic specificity in relation to ethnic affiliation
Do you believe there are specific
Total
characteristics of your ethny?
Yes
No
Doesn’t
know
Ethnic affiliation
Roma
54,5%
14,1%
31,4% 100,0%
Hungari
100,0%
100,0%
an
Greek
96,0%
4,0%
100,0%
Defining characteristics in relation to ethnic affiliation
Table no. 11
Defining characteristics in relation to ethnic affiliation
If yes, how do you believe it is different from other
Total
ethnies?
No Mother Music Tradi- ReliFood
Other
Resp. tongue
tional
gion
prepacostume
ration
Ethnic Roma
9,6% 45,4% 11,3% 23,4% 7,1%
1,1% 2,1% 100,0%
affiliation Hun100,0%
100,0%
garian
Greek
36,0% 48,0% 12,0% 4,0%
100,0%
141
Ethnic
affiliation
Mother tongue readings in relation to ethnic affiliation
Table no. 12
Mother tongue readings in relation to ethnic affiliation
Do you read books or other publications in your
mother tongue?
No Res- Yes, daily Yes,
Yes, but Not at all
ponse
monthly seldom
Roma
0,5%
5,5%
1,0%
16,4%
76,6%
Hun100,0%
garian
Greek
8,0%
12,0%
76,0%
4,0%
Total
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Family relations with persons in the country of origin in relation to ethnic
affiliation
Table no. 13
Family relations with persons in the country of origin in relation to ethnic affiliation
Do you have relations to relatives or people
Total
in your country of origin?
No Response
Yes
No
Ethnic affiliation
Hunga100,0%
100,0%
rian
Greek
4,0%
88,0%
8,0% 100,0%
Observing traditions in relation to ethnic affiliation
Table no. 14
Observing traditions in relation to ethnic affiliation
Do people in your ethny usually observe traditions?
No Response Yes, mostly
Yes, to a
Not at all
lesser extent
Ethnic
Roma
0,5%
50,2%
44,3%
5,0%
affiliation Hunga100,0%
rian
Greek
100,0%
Total
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Cultural values in relation to ethnic affiliation
Table no. 15
Cultural values in relation to ethnic affiliation
Ethnic
affiliation
Roma
Hungarian
Greek
What are the cultural values specific to your ethny?
Total
No
DiliHospi- Artistic Respect Ta- Other
Resp gence
tality
spirit
lent
87,6%
2,5%
0,5%
2,0%
3,0% 3,0% 1,5% 100,0%
100,0
100,0%
%
64,0%
8,0%
28,0%
100,0%
142
Grounds for ethnic affiliation in relation to self-evaluation
Table no. 16
Grounds for ethnic affiliation in relation to self-evaluation
How do you consider yourself?
No
More
More ....than
Response
Romanian
Romanian
than…
Ethnic affiliation Roma
35,7%
64,3%
Hungarian
100,0%
Greek
12,0%
56,0%
32,0%
Grounds for the feeling of belonging
Table no.17
Grounds for the feeling of belonging in relation to ethnic affiliation
What feeling do you have toward the
affiliation to your ethny?
No Resp.
Pride
Shame
Ethnic affiliation
Roma
45,3%
51,2%
3,5%
Hungarian
100,0%
Greek
96,0%
4,0%
Total
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Total
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
3.5. Concept about family and living standard, about work and other social
values. Plans for the future
Family life is an important component of the ethnic profile of minorities in Oltenia. It
is one of the distinctive elements of the minority population in relation to the majority
population.
The main elements that characterize family life, identified at the minorities in Oltenia
are revealing about the state of dissatisfaction illustrating the present situation compared to
last year. More than half (55.9%) of respondents considers family life, compared to 2014, to
be harder, and only 35.7% notice an improvement in family life, while 8.4% cannot appreciate
this. Those who believe that family life is tougher than last year were aged 26-33 years
(65.8%), between 42-50 years (58.6%) between 61 and over (66.7%).
The analysis of data provided by the research revealed that there is, among those
interviewed, hope that they will be better off (53.8%). A lack of hope for the future emerged
among the 26.4% of respondents who do not believe that in the future they will be better off,
while 19.8% do not know what their future holds. Hopelessness occurs predominantly among
those married (57.4%) and those married with children (57%).
Also, the research shows a great deficit of income compared to the needs, 70.9% of
respondents consider the income to be lower than the needs, 27% have incomes to match their
needs and only 2.1% can afford to save money as well. The percentage of those who signal the
insufficiency of income is mostly made up of workers (71%), doctors/ engineers/ teachers
(87.5%), pensioners (64.7%), unemployed (66.7%), of the ones who stay at home/ have no
occupation (84.8%). The ones that stated that their incomes match their needs are among the
freelancers (60%), of sellers/ merchants/ sales agents (100%) and, paradoxically, students/
pupils (69.2%). The technicians/ foremen/ public clerks are the ones that can make economies
as well (50%).
Of all the respondents, 61,1% have someone in their family that works or worked
abroad and only 30.9% said that no one in their families works or has worked abroad. The
143
possibility that someone in the family work abroad represents and option for 32.6% of the
subjects, 65.2% does not consider this option, and 2.2% will not answer.
Ensuring one’s living is made through work, according to 69.4% of the participants,
and 21.5% expect to receive state aid, while 7% consider they must do something else than the
options given in the questionnaire. The others consider stealing (0.5%), conning (0.3%) and
begging (0.3%), while 0.6% won’t answer.
The sociological research showed the roles of the husband, of the wife and of the
children within the family, as follows:
- The husband must work (47.1%), bring in the money (24.4%) and take care of his
family (8.2%);
- The wife must look after the family (29.2%), work (23.5%), take care of the
children’s education (22.5%), cook (3.2%) and bring money into the household (1.6%);
- Children must study well (54%), help with the chores (5.8%), work (5.3%) and play
(2.7%).
It’s worth mentioning that more than a quarter of the respondents could not identify the
roles of the members of a family.
This research resulted in the opinion that the optimum age for marriage of Roma boys
is between 18 and 21 (38.3%), for Hungarian ethnic boys 22-25 years old (100%), and for
Greek ethny boys 26-30 (56%). The best age for marriage for the girls, compared to the boys,
is lowered in the Roma ethny – 15-18 years old (53.7%) and in the Greek one, 22-25 years of
age (76%).
Detailed information, based on answers to questions addressed, also results from the
tables presented as follows
30. How do you consider your family life, compared with last year?
1. Better
2. Worse
3. Doesn’t know
How do you consider your family life compared with last year?
1.
Worse
2.
Better
3.
Doesn’t know
Total
31.Do you think things will improve in the future?
1.Yes
2. No 3. Doesn’t know
Do you think things will improve in the future?
1.
Yes
2.
No
3.
Doesn’t know
Total
32. How is your family income?
1. Less than the needs 2. Meets the needs 3. Allows for economy
What is the income of your family?
1.
Less than the needs
2.
Meets the needs
3.
Allows for economy
Total
144
%
55,9
35,7
8,4
100,0
%
53,8
26,4
19,8
100,0
%
70,9
27,0
2,1
100,0
33. Is there anyone in your family that worked or works abroad?
1. Yes 2.No
Is there anyone in your family that worked or works abroad?
1.
Yes
2.
No
Total
%
61,1
38,9
100,0
34. What do you think it’s best we do in life to survive?
1. Work 2. Receive state aid 3. Steal 4. Con 5.Beg 6. Other
%
69,4
21,5
7,0
0,9
0,6
0,3
0,3
100,0
What do you think it’s best we do in life to survive?
1.
Work
2.
Recieve state aid
3.
Other
4.
Steal
5.
No Response
6.
Con
7.
Beg
Total
35. What do you think the following members do in a family:
1. Husband.............................. 0.Doesn’t know
2. Wife..............................
0. Doesn’t know
3. Children............................ 0. Doesn’t know
1.
2.
3.
4.
Total
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Total
What do you think the husband must do in a family?
Work
Bring money in the household
No Response
Take care of the family
%
47,1
24,4
20,3
8,2
100,0
What do you think the wife should do in a family?
Take care of the family
Work
Watch after the children’s education
No Response
Cook
Bring money in the household
%
145
29,2
23,5
22,5
20,0
3,2
1,6
100,0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total
%
What do you think the children must do in a family?
Study well
No Response
Help with the house chores
Work
Play
54,0
32,2
5,8
5,3
2,7
100,0
Correlations
1. Family life in relation to age
Table no.1
Age
How do you evaluate your family life,
compared to last year?
Better
Harder
Doesn’t
know
44,2%
41,9%
14,0%
18-25
26-33
34-41
42-50
51-60
61 and above
23,7%
40,7%
36,4%
34,5%
30,0%
65,8%
48,1%
63,6%
58,6%
66,7%
10,5%
11,1%
6,9%
3,3%
Total
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
2. Hope for a better future in relation to marital status
Table no.2
Marrital
status
No Response
Married
Married with
children
Not married
OTHER
Do you hope to have a better life in the
future?
No
Yes
No
Response
100,0%
Total
100,0%
25,1%
15,7%
57,4%
57,0%
17,0%
27,3%
100,0%
100,0%
24,9%
20,0%
43,8%
40,0%
31,3%
40,0%
100,0%
100,0%
146
3. Family income in relation to occupation
Table no.3
How is your family income?
Occupation
No Response
Lower
than
needed
60,0%
Matches
the needs
71,4%
40,0%
20,0%
60,0%
100,0%
Worker
Freelancer
Seller, merchant, sales
agent, distributor
Technician, Foreman,
Public Clerk
Doctor, engineer, teacher
Pupil/Student
Pensioner
Unemployed
Stay-at-home/ No
occupation
Allows for
economy
40,0%
100,0%
50,0%
87,5%
30,8%
64,7%
66,7%
84,8%
Total
8,6%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
50,0%
100,0%
12,5%
69,2%
35,3%
33,3%
15,2%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
4. Opinions regarding ways of living in relation to occupation
Table no.4
What do you believe it’s best to do in life to live?
Occupation
No
Resp
No Response 2,6%
Work
Receive Stea Con
state aid l
39,5% 26,3%
Worker
87,7%
7,7%
Freelancer
25,0%
33,3%
Seller,
merchant,
sales agent,
distributor
Technician,
Foreman,
Public Clerk
Doctor,
engineer,
teacher
Pupil/Student
Pensioner
100,0%
7,7%
Beg
Total
Other
31,6% 100,0
%
4,6% 100,0
%
41,7% 100,0
%
100,0
%
100,0%
100,0
%
100,0%
100,0
%
100,0%
100,0
%
100,0
92,3%
147
Unemployed
100,0%
Stay-at-home/
No
occupation
Total
100,0%
%
100,0
%
100,0
%
53,8%
39,6% 2,8
%
,9%
,9%
1,9% 100,0
%
5. Perspective of working abroad in relation to age
Table no. 5
Is there anyone in your family that works or has worked abroad?
Age
If not, has anyone in your family
considered working abroad?
No
Yes
Not yet
Response
5,0%
15,0%
80,0%
18-25
26-33
34-41
42-50
51-60
61 and above
9,1%
36,4%
41,2%
22,2%
40,0%
41,2%
Total
100,0%
54,5%
58,8%
77,8%
60,0%
58,8%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
6. Opinions regarding the work possibilities in relation to age
Table no.6
What do you think it’s best we do in life to be able to live?
No
Resp
Age
18-25
3,6%
Work Receive state Steal
aid
74,5%
14,5%
26-33
72,7%
18,2%
1,8%
34-41
67,6%
21,1%
1,4%
42-50
66,7%
25,9%
51-60
65,0%
25,0%
61 and
above
68,3%
26,8%
148
2,5%
Con
Beg
1,4%
2,5%
Total
Other
7,3% 100,0
%
7,3% 100,0
%
8,5% 100,0
%
7,4% 100,0
%
5,0% 100,0
%
4,9% 100,0
%
7. The husband’s role in the family, in relation to age
Table no.7
Age
18-25
26-33
34-41
42-50
51-60
61 and
above
What do you think the husband must do in a
family.....
No
Work
Bring
Take care
Resmoney in
of the
ponse
the
family
household
25,5%
40,0%
27,3%
7,3%
100,0%
21,8%
14,1%
22,2%
12,5%
26,8%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
45,5%
64,8%
46,3%
42,5%
34,1%
32,7%
16,9%
13,0%
27,5%
34,1%
4,2%
18,5%
17,5%
4,9%
Total
8. Wife’s role in the family in relation to the ages of the respondents
Table no.8
35.What do you think the wife should do in a family?
No
Respo
nse
Age
Total
Work
18-25
20,0%
Bring
Take care Take care of Cook
money in
of the
the children’s
the
family
education
household
16,4%
1,8%
27,3%
30,9% 3,6% 100,0%
26-33
34-41
42-50
51-60
61 and
above
21,8%
15,7%
22,2%
12,5%
29,3%
18,2%
44,3%
7,4%
27,5%
22,0%
1,4%
2,5%
4,9%
27,3%
21,4%
35,2%
37,5%
31,7%
30,9%
11,4%
35,2%
15,0%
9,8%
1,8% 100,0%
5,7% 100,0%
100,0%
5,0% 100,0%
2,4% 100,0%
9. Children’s role in the family in relation to the ages of the respondents
Table no. 9
What do you think children must do?
Age
18-25
26-33
No Res- Help with Learn well
ponse
the
household
chores
34,9%
2,3%
58,1%
31,6%
57,9%
149
Work
Total
Play
4,7% 100,0%
10,5% 100,0%
34-41
42-50
51-60
61 and
above
28,3%
36,4%
31,0%
33,3%
5,7%
12,1%
10,3%
6,7%
60,4%
48,5%
51,7%
40,0%
5,7%
3,0%
6,9%
20,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
10. Opinions about the marriage-appropriate age of boys, in relation to the ages of
the respondents
Table no. 10
Age
18-25
26-33
34-41
42-50
51-60
61 and
above
What is, in your opinion, boys’ appropriate age for
marriage
No
15-18
18-21
22-25
26-30
Resp
2,3%
18,6%
39,5%
34,9%
4,7%
39,5%
34,2%
18,4%
7,9%
5,6%
29,6%
31,5%
27,8%
5,6%
15,2%
30,3%
54,5%
3,4%
10,3%
34,5%
34,5%
17,2%
3,3%
10,0%
33,3%
30,0%
23,3%
Total
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
11. Opinions about the marriage-appropriate age of girls, in relation to the ages of
the respondents
Tabelul nr.11
Age
18-25
26-33
34-41
42-50
51-60
61 and
above
What is, in your opinion, girls’ appropriate age for
marriage
No
15-18
18-21
22-25
26-30
Resp
2,3%
41,9%
16,3%
34,9%
4,7%
2,6%
60,5%
23,7%
13,2%
5,6%
59,3%
22,2%
11,1%
1,9%
36,4%
57,6%
6,1%
3,4%
41,4%
31,0%
17,2%
6,9%
3,3%
36,7%
36,7%
20,0%
3,3%
Total
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
12.
Considerations on the living conditions in relation to ethnic affiliation
Table no.12
Considerations on the living conditions in relation to ethnic affiliation
What do you consider we can do in life in order to be able to Total
live?
No
Work Receive Steal
Con
Beg Other
Resp
state aid
Ethnic
affiliation
Roma
0,3%
66,9%
23,4%
150
1,0%
0,3%
0,3% 7,6% 100,0
%
Hungarian
Greek
100,0%
4,0%
100,0
%
100,0
%
96,0%
13. The husband’s role in the family, in relation to ethnic affiliation
Table no.13
Considerations of the husband’s role in relation to ethnic affiliation
What do you think the husband must do in a
Total
family?
No
Work
Bring
Take care
Resmoney in
of the
ponse
the
family
houselhold
Ethnic
Roma
19,3%
48,3%
24,5%
7,9% 100,0%
affiliation
Hunga100,0%
100,0%
rian
Greek
32,0%
36,0%
20,0%
12,0% 100,0%
14. The wife’s role in the family, in relation to ethnic affiliation
Table no.14
Considerations of the wife role in relation to ethnic affiliation
What do you think the wife must do in a family?
No Work
Bring
Take care Take care
Resmoney in
of the
of the
ponse
the
family
children’s
household
education
Ethnic
affiliation
Roma
19,0% 22,8%
,3%
30,4%
23,9%
Total
Cook
3,5% 100,0%
Hunga100,0%
100,0%
rian
Greek
32,0% 32,0%
16,0%
12,0%
8,0%
100,0%
15. Considerations of the children’s role in relation to ethnic affiliation etnica
Tabelul nr.15
Ethnic
affiliation
Considerations of the children’s role in relation to ethnic affiliation
What do you think the children must do in a family?
Total
No Res- Help with Learn well
Work
Play
ponse
the
household
chores
Roma
35,5%
6,5%
49,0%
6,0%
3,0% 100,0%
Hunga100,0%
100,0%
rian
Greek
8,0%
92,0%
100,0%
151
16. Marriage-appropriate age of boys, in relation to ethnic affiliation
Table no.16
Marriage-appropriate age of boys, in relation to ethnic affiliation
Boy’s age
Total
No
15-18
18-21
22-25
26-30
Resp.
Ethnic
Roma
1,5%
24,9%
38,3%
32,3%
3,0%
100,0
affiliation
%
Hunga100,0%
100,0
rian
%
Greek
12,0%
32,0%
56,0%
100,0
%
17. Marriage-appropriate age of girls, in relation to ethnic affiliation
Table no.17
Ethnic
affiliation
Marriage-appropriate age of girls, in relation to ethnic affiliation
Girls age
No
15-18
18-21
22-25
26-30
Resp
Roma
2,0%
53,7%
33,3%
9,5%
1,5%
Hungarian
Greek
100,0%
12,0%
76,0%
12,0%
Total
100,0
%
100,0
%
100,0
%
3.6. Opinions and evaluations regarding the relations between minority and
majority (cooperation/discrimination)
The types of relations between the majoritarian population and the minorities are very
important, because a good coexistence is based on mutual appreciation and respect.
The types of relations existing between the majority and the ethnic populations in
Oltenia are identified with the help of the question: „How do you evaluate the relations
between your ethny and Romanians, in general?”. The respondents were asked to evaluate the
inter-ethnic relations by reporting to five variants of answers, which identify with the type of
relation or cooperation, respectively (46,3%), friendship (37%), indifference (11,9%), hatred
(2,2%), other type of relation (2,6%). These data point out the fact that the subjective
perception of the majority of participants in the study regarding inter-ethnic relations is that
between the majority and the ethnies in Oltenia there is a majority of cooperation and
friendship relations.
In the case of relations of indifference, the respondents’ subjective perspective is
different depending on ethny, the lowest percentage being with the relations of the Greeks/
Hungarians and Romanians, and the highest in the Roma/ Romanian relations.
The issue of discrimination and confrontation with unfavourable situations because of
ethny was measured by the question: „Has it ever happen to you that a right of yours was
infringed just because you are….?”. More than half of the respondents (54.6%) declared they
have not been involved in situations where a person had to suffer because they belonged to a
certain ethny, 39.2% cannot evaluate certain situations of this kind, and 6.2% signaled they do
not know anything about the infringement of any rights.
152
40. How do you evaluate the relations between members of your ethny and
Romanians, in general?
1. Cooperation 2. Friendship 3. Indifference 4 Hatred 5 Other type (which?...)
How do you evaluate the relations between your ethny and Romanians?
%
1.
Cooperation
46,3
2.
Friendship
37,0
3.
Indifference
11,9
4.
Other type
2,6
5.
Hatred
2,2
Total
100,0 %
41. Was ever a right infringed in your case just because you are............?
1. Yes (which right?................) 2. No
3. I cannot evaluate
Was ever a right infringed in your case just because you are …… ?
1.
No
2.
I cannot evaluate
3.
Yes
Total
Age
%
54,6
39,2
6,2
100,0 %
Correlations
Relations between ethny members and Romanians, in relation to age
Table no.1
How do you evaluate the relations between your ethny Total
and Romanians, in general?
Coope- Friendship IndifHatred Other type
ration
ference
of
relations
18-25
37,2%
48,8%
7,0%
7,0% 100,0%
26-33
31,6%
42,1%
26,3%
100,0%
34-41
50,0%
25,9%
11,1%
7,4%
5,6% 100,0%
42-50
63,6%
27,3%
6,1%
3,0%
100,0%
51-60
51,7%
37,9%
10,3%
100,0%
61 and
46,7%
43,3%
10,0%
100,0%
above
153
Relations between ethny and Romanians in relation to gender
Gender
Total
Male
37.How do you
evaluate the
relations
between your
ethny and
Romanians, in
general?
Female
Cooperation
50,5%
49,5%
100,0%
Friendship
Indifference
Hatred
Other type of
relations
45,2%
18,5%
20,0%
33,3%
54,8%
81,5%
80,0%
66,7%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Opinions regarding the infringement of ethny rights in relation to the occupation
of the respondents
Table no.3
Was any of your rights infringed just
Total
because you are......?
No Resp. Yes
No
Cannot tell
Occupation
No Response
Worker
Freelancer
Seller, merchant, sales
agent, distributor
Technician, Foreman,
Public Clerk
Doctor, engineer,
teacher
Pupil/Student
Pensioner
Unemployed
Stay-at-home/ No
occupation
38,5%
7,7%
30,8%
23,1%
100,0%
-
9,1%
-
39,4%
100,0%
51,5%
100,0%
-
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
-
-
100,0%
-
100,0%
12,5%
87,5%
-
100,0%
5,9%
7,1%
100,0%
58,8%
66,7%
59,6%
-
5,9%
-
29,4%
33,3%
33,3%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Evaluation of relations between ethnics and Romanians in relation to ethnic
affiliation
Table no.4
Evaluation of relations between ethnics and Romanians in relation to ethnic affiliation
How do you evaluate the relations between your community Total
and Romanians?
Cooperation Friendship Indifference Hatred Other type
of relations
Ethnic
Roma
49,3%
31,8%
13,4%
2,5%
3,0% 100,0%
affilia- Hunga100,0%
100,0%
tion
rian
Greek
20,0%
80,0%
100,0%
154
Opinions regarding the infringement of civ
il rights in relation to the ethnic affiliation of the respondents
Table no.5
ÎInfringement of rights because of ethny affiliation in relation to it
Was any of your rights infringed just because
you are......?
No
Response
Ethnic
affiliation
Yes
No
Roma
2,5%
6,0%
50,2%
Hungarian
Greek
4,0%
8,0%
100,0%
88,0%
Total
Cannot be
evaluated
41,3%
-
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
4. Conclusions and evaluations
The population of the 5 counties of Oltenia is of 2, 045, 642 inhabitants, of which
91.60% Romanians, and the rest of 8.40% pertain to a number of 17 ethnic minorities. Of all
these, the most significant in size are the Roma community (63,899 persons or 3.08% of the
population), Serbs (1124 or 0.059%), Hungarians (752 or 0.04%), Czechs (476 or 0.025%)
and Germans (307 or 0.016%).
The Roma can be found in all 5 counties of Oltenia region, but their number is
preponderant in Dolj (29 839 people) and Mehedinti (10,919 people). They have the widest
territorial coverage, their presence being signaled in both the rural and urban areas. For
example, in the towns and cities of Dolj County there are 10733 Roma, representing 3.12% of
the total population. In communes and surrounding villages of this district live 19 106 Roma
people, which means that the Roma population in rural areas is almost double that of urban
areas.
Ethnic minorities in Oltenia are the Roma, Hungarians, Ukrainians, Germans, Turks,
Lippovan Russians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks, Italians, Hebrews, Czechs, Macedonians, with
a variable number of people: from a minimum of 47 (in the case of Russian Lippovans ) to a
maximum of 63 899 people (the Roma). Also included are other minorities that each are made
up of fewer than 10 people, such as the Tatars, Slovaks, Croats, Poles, Chinese, Armenian,
Csango etc.
The ethnic diversity of the population in Oltenia are not correlated, in the case of the
existing minorities, with a large number of appertaining people in the cases of Roma, Serbs,
Hungarians, Czechs and Germans, who each have demographic resources of self-reproduction
and perpetuating. Otherwise, the population of the other minorities is sensitively aging, and
thus decreasing numerically, in time reaching extinction.
The Roma community is not homogeneous, being fragmented in numerous
occupational structures and sociocultural identities. Thus, we meet fiddlers, florists, tinmen,
spoon makers, goldsmiths, Hungarian gypsies, copper-smiths, wood workers, brick makers,
blacksmiths, etc.
The data of the field research, made on a mixed sample (91.8% Roma, 7.9% Greeks
and 0,3% Hungarians), revealed that more than half (57%) of the respondents are of the
younger age groups, between 18 and 41, while 25.7% are aged 51 and above. Thus, we can
understand that the Roma ethny especially disposes of a vigurous work potential, which is not
completely capitalized, since the degree of professionalism or qualification is low, such young
energies not being utilized in economic-social activities of local communities.
155
From a gender point of view, the examined minorities are made up of 51.6% females
and 48.4% males, these percentages being similar to the ones that characterize the general
population in Romania.
Also, it was noted that defining for the Roma, particularly, are the worker occupations
(22.9%) and freelancers (4.2%), while a significant part of them have no occupation or stay at
home (37.4%). On the date of the research only 2.8% of the total of the respondents
maintained that they perform activities based on higher education qualifications (doctors,
teachers, engineers). For that matter, the percentage of Roma involved in the high-school and
higher education levels is of only 4.6% of the total of respondents, which explains the low
level of employment in qualified positions of the members of this community and their
possibility to access usually only seasonal, occasional work.
The collected data show that 33.6% went to primary school, 27.2% finished the
secondary schoo and 18% have attended no school at all. On the ensemble of the sample there
are 15.2% who graduated from high-school, 5.7% attended higher education studies, and 0.3%
who graduated from an after high-school form of education.
Consequently, unskilled people are forced to carry out and perform occasional jobs
without employment contract. Therefore they do not qualify for a pension, either for sickness
or old age, and have no health insurance. Field research revealed that over 60% of the Roma
community members have either family, household occupations, or are workers or are outside
of socially useful occupations.
Therefore, it is necessary that the authorities of local communities understand that they
have a duty to mobilize Roma families to send their children to school in order not only to
obtain general training, but for the acquisition of professional qualifications, which would
allow them to occupy a job and actively integrate into society. A successful solution might be
leading young Roma toward vocational schools because there is a shortage of manpower in
the practice of building trades (welding, blacksmith-labourer, locksmith, mechanic, etc.),
services (plumbers, drivers etc.) etc.
The lack of stable monthly income and of other material sources of existence
determines the Roma community to be preoccupied permanently by the procurement of
subsitence goods and values, instead of cultural activities and of intellectual efforts. The
various material needs are more visible for the Roma families living in rural areas, as they
don’t even have civilized living conditions (running water, restroom, etc.).
Any ethnic minority is keen to be recognized its status in society, to enjoy a certain
social prestige, respect of its rights and traditions. Therefore, the social interaction of
individuals and component groups of some minorities is much higher than in the case of a
majority. The stronger the social interactions in ethnic communities and happen as part of a
process of continuing education, the more prominent is the solidarity in the respective ethny.
Some psycho-sociological interpretations associate the size of the minority group with
the feeling of psychological discomfort, while awareness of belonging to a majority group
provides self-confidence and hope that individual / family needs can be resolved more easily
than in the case of the minority group. More than half (51.5%) of respondents perceived their
community as of medium size, and another 28.5% rated it as large - an opinion supported
especially by those of Roma ethnicity. This is true, as is shown by the statistics presented in
Chapter II, which shows that there is a diversity of ethnic groups in terms of component
members. Note that each interviewed member reported himself to the local community, to
which it belongs rather than to the general one, existing on the five counties of Oltenia. Thus,
the fact that 80% of Roma people felt they belong to large and medium Roma ethnic
communities gives them a tonic moral support and a mental state of confidence that, if
necessary, they have where to turn; this all the more as their families are numerous and
kinship relations usually function very well.
156
Solidarity is a defining mark of the members of Roma community. About 75% of those
polled confessed that they are in regular contact with each other, which indicates a strong
social fabric throughout this race. Field research also revealed that 70% are in friendship
relations with those from the same ethnic group, and 22.8% had friends among the
Romanians. With increasing level of education comes increased number of those who have
friends among Romanians, which can be explained by the fact that the communication
relations of Roma people are extending, primarily those in the same job.
Throughout the sample we noticed that over 80% of the subjects polled revealed that
„they are solidary, they help each other when needed”. This answer characterizes 78.6% of the
Roma, 96% of the Greeks and 100% the Hungarians ethnics.
The holidays in which the members of the studied ethnies generally take part in are
Christian ones – Easter, Christmas and St. Mary, indicated by 67.8% of those polled, and other
secular ones (such as the National Day of Romania, indicated by 11.7% of the respondents,
who were Roma and Greeks), so that we cannot talk about celebrations specific to one
minority or another (of the ones examined by us). For the duration of the respective
celebrations there is an accented collectiv spirit which does not allow minority or ethnic
differences to be visible. An argument is that over 83% of respondents considered their
relations with the Romanians to be of „cooperation” or „friendship”. In consequence,
especially on the occasion of major religious celebrations, which have a more popular
character, but also in the case of secular ones, there is an framework for social assimilation
and integration of the members of the ethnic groups into the larger territorial collectivities
(towns, villages), which determines us to recommend a systematic cultivation of religious
education as main way to harmonize inter-ethnic relations. We mention that in Oltenia there
have not yet been major tense of conflict relations between the existing ethnic groups.
The social factors which ensure the perpetuation of ethnic groups are mainly
endogamous marriage, mother tongue and organic solidarity relations between the members of
each ethnic community. "In Romania there are many sociological and anthropological
researches on the Roma population, the Hungarians, the German ethnic groups, Turks
etc. <<Ethnicity is defined generally as a population designated by a name (ethnonym), which
relies on the same origin, with a shared cultural tradition specified by a consciousness of
belonging to the same group, whose unity is based, generally, on identical language, territory
and history »”170.
Ethnic groups were object of research and reflection for thinkers from various fields so
we can find multiple types of approach: history, philosophy, anthropology, sociology,
statistics, legal, linguistic, political, etc. From the perspective of political science, "the
minority group is treated as a national minority, which lives on a State’s territory and that have
not reached the stage of perfection as a nation (...). Irrespective of their entnic affiliation,
individuals on a common territory are citizens of the same state and as such they benefit from
equal rights and treatment.”171 "In this context, we mention that 6.2% of the ones interviewed
considered that some of theirs were infringed just because they are a minority. This opinion
was expressed by 6% of Roma and 8% of all Greeks. Generally the studied ethnics considered
none of their rights was infringed (55%), while 39.2% could not say for certain, which means
they were not the victims of any ethnic-based discrimination act.
Whereas for us, we resorted to the preponderantly sociological study of the ethnic
groups in Oltenia, because such an endeavour helps us descipher, on one hand, the identity
elemenets, and on the other, to showcase their cultural patrimony. That is why we considered
170
Adrian Otovescu, Conservarea identităţi culturale în mediile de imigranţi români din Europa,
Publishing House of the National Museum of Romanian Literature, Bucharest, 2013
171
Ibidem, p.76
157
it to be important to first understand the social identityt172 of the ethnic minorities, that being
fundamental in the process of exploration and understanding of cultural identity.
The assertion we started from, fundamented by empirical observations, is that members
of the same ethny tend to marry between themselves, this practice being very popular among
the Roma population. Although over 50% of the polled denied the existence of this custom,
saying that „it is not a rule” regarding choosing one’s life partner through marriage, however
43% admitted that, in fact, marriage only happens „between the members” of the ethnic
community (statement supported in a larger percentage by women – 53.3%, than men –
46.7%). In consequence, endomagous marriage and families constitute on this type of social
relation a significant role in the conservation of the ethnic identity, noting that 46.6% of the
Roma sustained the existence of the endogamous marriage, while no one of the Greeks or
Hungarians even indicated this answer option, their options being that „it is not a rule” or that
those in their community mostly marry „Romanians”.
The language frequently spoken within the family in the case of researched minorities
(Roma, Greeks, and Hungarians) is both the mother tongue, as well as Romanian, 55% of the
total of the sample mostly using the latter, and 45% mostly the one of their own ethny. The
lower is the level of studies of the ethnics, the smaller the percentage of those who speak
Romanian. The research data proved that over 66% of those with no formal education and
over 63% of those with primary school education use their mother tongue to communicate
within their families (this situation, of course, applies to the Roma ethny). The use of the
Romanian language at home is more present for those with high-school (a percentage of 85),
after high-school (100%) and higher education studies (100%).
Linking data about the frequently spoken language in the family and ethnicity reveals
that 51% of Roma use Romanian and 49% Romani and the Greeks and Hungarians speak, in
their totality, Romanian. In relations with people of the same ethnicity both the mother tongue
and Romanian are used for communication, a fact supported by 56% of respondents, while
17.5% only uses their mother tongue.
Nearly 79% of Roma, 96% of Greeks and 100% of Hungarians felt that the solidarity
among the members of different ethnic groups is a real social fact, helping each other when
needed. Solidarity is based on the awareness of common belonging and on a sense of
relief. Research has shown that they possess an awareness of the existence of specific features
of their ethnicity, supported by 58% of the interviewed subjects
The main cultural features by which and ethny is different from the others were
considered by the respondents to be the following: mother tongue (chosen by 44.5% of the
total of the sample); traditional costume (22.7%); music (14.3%), religion (6.8%), food
preparation (1%). The information was obtained with the help of questions with preformulated answers.
The written culture of the Greek and Hungarian ethnies is less accessed by its members
from Oltenia, since only about 31% of them stated that they still read books or other
publications in their mother tongue (rarely 22.9%, daily 5.7%, and monthly 2.2%).
In turn, the relations with people in their country of origin are maintained by 74.2% of
Hungarian and Greek ethnics, the first ones in a greater measure than the latter (the smaller
distance to Hungary being, probably, a helping factor).
Observing traditions characterizes over 95% of the members of the Roma, Hungarian
and Greek communityies in Oltenia, only 4.4% saying that those in their ethny do not respect
their „own traditions” at all.
172
It is valued base don certain markers regarding marriage relations and family situations, the level of
studies, social environment (urban/rural), occupation/profession, class affiliation, social prestige (Ibidem
pp. 109-110)
158
Although there is awareness of ethnic specificity, when the subjects were requested to
name the cultural values that help identify their ethnic group only 15% were able to offer an
answer, while the vast majority (85%) could not make any comment. Thus, 5% of the
respondents indicated the „artistic spirit”, 3.1% „diligence”, 2.6% „respect”, 2.6% „talent”,
0,4% „hospitality”.
Also, in order to understand to what extent some of the cultural values of the Romanian
people are known, a free question was formulated, referring to literary values, knowing they
are well-known and being study matter in school as well. In this case also there is a majority
of non-answers (68.3%), and of those who were able to indicate an answer, 19% mentioned
the name of Mihai Eminescu, 6,6% that of Ion Creangă, 2,2% that of Mihail Sadoveanu, 1,3%
that of I.L.Caragiale. It is clear that the lack of schooling (18%) and the primary level of
education (33,6%), which characterize 51% of the sample subjects, who are Roma, made a
mark on the capacity and availability of the polled to offer conclusive answers.
Over 60% of the subjects identified themselves with the ethnies they are affiliated with
and 37.8% stated that they consider themselves more Romanian than Roma/ Greeks/
Hungarians. The ethnic affiliation is linked with a feeling of pride for 56.4%, while 3.5% feel
shame (only acknowledged to by the Roma and the Greeks), while 40.1% could offer no
answer. The undesirable character of certain people influences the self-esteem of those of the
same ethny, and the confessed negative opinion (shame) is based on a healthy critical
perception of those who become involuntary victims, being forced to stand the consequences
of certain group social labelings.
The majority of families (55,9%) of the three ethnic groups researched in the area of
Oltenia underlined the fact that their life in the present is more difficult than last year and only
35.7% registered an improvement. Over 70% of them have incomes smaller than the ones
needed to cover their own needs. However, the general state of mind is optimistic, since
53.8% believe they will have a better life in the future. A significant role in this optimistic
state is most likely given also by the perspective of leaving the country to go and work abroad.
Let us not forget that in the case of 61.1% of the families of ethnic minoritiesin Oltenia there
exists at least one person that has worked or is currently working abroad.
More than 69% of the interviewed ethnics considered work to be a moral and social value,
considering it the main way to make a living. Other 21.5% are waiting to receive „state aid”, being
subject to long-gone prejudices, and 1.2% don’t exclude resorting to criminal actions (theft,
begging, conning people), these being indicated by some members of the Roma community.
Characteristic for the studied ethnies is the traditional type of family, in which the
husband must work (47.1%) and bring money in the household (24.4%), while the wife has
several roles: to take care of the family (29.2%), to work (23.5%), to take care of the
children’s education (22.5%), etc. This pattern of family roles is, in fact, characteristic to the
living universe of the Roma people, who have the highest percentage within the sample
studied by the sociological inquest method.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Frăsie, Maria-Cristina, 2010, Minorităţile naţionale şi drepturile omului, în vol.
Tratat de sociologie generală (coord. D. Otovescu), Beladi Publishing, Craiova.
2. Norman, Goodman, 1998, Introducere în sociologie, Lider Publishing, Bucharest.
3. Otovescu, Adrian, 2013, Conservarea identităţi culturale în mediile de imigranţi români
din Europa, Publishing House of the National Mueum of Romanian Literature, Bucharest.
4. Panea, Nicolae, 2000, Antropologia culturală şi socială – vademecum, Omniscop
Publishing, Craiova.
159
OLTENIA, AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL SKETCH
NICOLAE PANEA PhD
Desperate with the accumulation of emergencies, with the feeling that the entire
Romanian ethnology is under the sign of recovering the time lost because of political,
financial, institutional, epistemic blocks, desperate with the dephasing between schools
tendencies, currents, themes, bibliographies around the world, overwhelmed by the lack of
inadequateness of university programmes, by the discreet voice of the national school, by the
rift between society and school, society that treats ethnology like an intellectual curiosity,
tolerating the bunch of scholars like a sort of scientific adventurers or not so praise-worthy
derivatives of philosophy, sociology, philology, the ethnologist discovered the notion of
project.
He suddenly entered an equation of the modern world, which both challenges and
obligates him to think his own activity within new coordinates, I would say even improper to
his profession: the ones of the arbitrariness of competition and of the temporary- accounting
constraints.
Regardless of how scientifically generous a project may be, it must be won,
implemented, the steps must be made in order, reported systematically, the accounting aspect
observed stricter than scientific opinions, activities that shape a new dimension of our
ethnology, applied or adaptation bureaucracy.
This is a kind of very pressing misalliance, between science and the institutional
interface of society, between the responsibility toward the subject of the research and the
legislative- bureaucratic architecture of the state.
The result is the creation of a multiple personality ethnologist. In his eyes and those of
his fellow ethnologists, he is a scholar. For them, the concept, the work, the finalized inquest,
the published text, are important. For the sponsor he is a project manager, a neutral
personality, with no concrete identity, a contractor. The text represents only an investment and
what really matters is the balance sheet.
This modern-day Janus must adapt to an overwhelming bureaucracy and, at the same
time, adapt it to the needs of his science. Most of the times the results are impressive;
however, in some cases they remain in an anonymity that equals failure.
This adapting bureaucracy of scientific project also has an impressive shaping power.
The competition imposes inventiveness and constraints; it shapes scientific behaviours,
depending on the time of the project, the amounts available to it, the particularities of the
team. It builds up a new fashion.
The themes proposed can be adapted to general contexts, rural development, tourism
development, regional identity, etc., insinuating with logical flexibility in allogenous rhetoric,
always attentive to terms, amounts, finality, and feasibility.
The settled, multi-annual, sometimes life-long research, with huge, self-imposed
themes, validated by the scientific councils of institutions in this area of research is challenged
by annual or biannual restraining research, validated by anonymous commissions of some
ministries. The ethnologist must adapt along the way to the new conditions, because the
scientific exactness of results, their utility and relevance depend on his capacity to adapt.

Professor, Faculty of Letters, University of Craiova, Romania
.
160
The change Romania underwent post-revolution allowed Romanian ethnology to
rediscover Romanian-speaking communities that live outside the borders of the country, and,
at the same time, the consciousness that the time gone determined substantial changes within
these communities, changes remained unstudied.
Since almost all these communities live in aggressive contexts, with states that don’t
recognize their Romanian origins or simply the cultural otherness and, implicitly, the rights
stemming from it, with dramatic denationalising pressure, a true current of recuperation
emerged, a major theme of our ethnology, where the scientific responsibility intertwines with
patriotic passion.
From the very beginning it was noted that an independent research was nearly
impossible, that no matter how important the impersonal relations, they could not make up for
the opaqueness and even aversion of the authorities.
We lived ourselves such an unpleasant experience when, during the mid-ninties, after
the success of a research on the Bulgarian part of the Timočka Krajina, part of the team, (N.
Panea, M. Fifor) tried to extend, for obvious reasons, this inquest toward the West of Timočka
Krajina, to the Serbian side.
The failure of said attempt convinced us that any descent in such areas must have the
maximum scientific, institutional, administrative- political coverage, and this can be achieved
only through specific projects.
The emergence of cross-border development strategies, initially with Bulgaria and
Hungary, and then with Serbia as well, eased the development of some projects, with
remarkable results. The involvement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through its
Department of ”Policies for the relation with Romanians everywhere” ensured the fluency
and, at the same time, an increase in the number of research teams present in the Romanian
communities across the border. Even more so, every important university situated close to the
border focused its research in the adjoining cross-border areas, which allowed for a rhythmic,
sustained, profound and diverse research, even though, and this needed to be subject to the
regulations, especially the financial ones, of the saving institution, which is called Project and
which we learned to adore.
Sometimes, the limitations are the dysfunctions imposed by the development of a
project, and no matter how annoying and frustrating they may seem, they sometimes (not
always!) produce happy solutions.
One of them would be the mirror discovery of the interest for the minorities „next to
you”, those minorities that, together with the majority, make up the cultural profile of a region,
in our case Oltenia.
1.Oltenia, space of multiculturalism
Oltenia, area of interference, has shaped in time a particular culture, determined by the
wealth of other’s alluvium.
„In Dolj County
Community of Italians from Friuli in Cernele (former village Italieni, now Izvor);
Community of Bulgarians and Macedonians in Băileşti;
Community of Romani people in Sadova, Piscu Vechi, Sălcuţa, Tencănău, Cerăt,
Murgaşi, Rojiştea, Craiova, Filiaşi;
In Craiova there are families of Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, Armenians,
Jews, Hungarians, Italians, Germans, Turks, Macedonians;
In Vâlcea County
Communities of wood workers in Vaideeni, Băbeni, Bujoreni; they worked in wood, as
they still do; Romani people in Brezoi, who worked in the wood industry.
161
In Brezoi, during the interwar period, tens of Italian families worked in the wood
industry. There is no information according to which they remained there (see the book of
Petre, Bardaşu, Brezoi, 100 de ani de la exploatarea forestieră; 1873-1973, Rm. Vâlcea, f.
an.)
In Rm. Vâlcea there are families of Slavic ethnics, as well as Italians, Germans,
Hungarians, Jews and Romani (of different typologies).
The wood workers also had communities in Loviştei Country, Valea lui Stan and
Brezoi; lately, their number was reduced because of the lack of the material vital to their work:
willow, poplar and linden.
In Gorj County
There are wood workers in the following localities: Brădiceni (Buduhala village),
Godineşti (Pârâu village), Borăscu (spoons and spindles factory).
Copper-smith Romani people (gipsies) in Budieni, Obreja and „Meteor”
neighbourhood in Târgu-Jiu (N.B. during the last 20 years they changed professions).
The „lăieţi” gipsies are documented and still live in Cărbuneşti and around that town.
In Târgu-Jiu there are families of Greeks, Turks, Germans, Serbs, Hungarians, Italians,
Romani people.
Mehedinţi County
Community of Serbs in Sviniţa (commune with a population of about 90% Serbs);
The communities of Czechs in Eibenthal, Sfânta Elena, Bigar, Gârnic, Ravenska,
Sfânta Elisabeta etc;
The Romani communities in Strehaia;
In Turnu Severin there also live families of Czechs, Jews, Italians, Turks, Germans,
Romani people, Hungarians.
Olt County (Romanaţi)
Community of copper-smith gipsies in Drăgăneşti-Olt;
In Slatina there are families of Romani, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Italians, Jews,
and Macedonians.
We wish to underline the fact that, apart from the Romani ethnicity that has tight-knit
communities in all counties, Oltenia does not have majority ethnic settlements; with two
exceptions: the Eibenthal village (Dubova commune – Mehedinţi) with approximately 280
Czech inhabitants, and Sviniţa with about 900 inhabitants of Serbian ethnicity (according to
Associate Professor Cornel Bălosu)
However, the minorities that contributed to the imposition of a regional cultural
identity were never globally researched, were never brought together, they were never the
subject of a transversal, unitary, homogeneous radiography.
This was the purpose of our project and, regardless of what it will be viewed as, it has a
series of undeniable qualities.
Firstly, it is an example of emergency ethnology, focused on an unusual subject, the
minorities in their regional ensemble.
Secondly, the approach is coherent and unitary in its transdisciplinarity.
Thirdly, the theoretical approach is an academic one; all the members of the research
teams being part of reputed research institutions, themselves with experience in the study of
minorities.
In the fourth place, the field research was systematic, based on an important
documentation work.
In the fifth place, the present research may be considered a diagnosis. It not only notes
the state of a minority in the national Romanian context, it can also draw comparisons with the
state of Romanian minorities existing in neighbouring countries, political behaviours,
162
integration strategies, etc., especially since we talk about everyone’s coexistence in an
administrative unit such as an Euro-region.
The analysis pointed out a staggering diversity of contexts.
Oltenia gathered an impressively large number of minorities, which proves the
existence of a permeable cultural climate and a high level if not of tolerance, at least of
acceptance of coexistence.
However, not all of them played a first-hand role in shaping the cultural profile of the
area. Some can be named historic, their coming on Romanian soil being very old (the Serbs),
others very recent (the Polish in the 40s of the past century, the Greeks, in a last wave, during
the military dictatorship), the majority settling here between the 18th and the 19th centuries.
Others have imprecise dates to their arrival here (Romani, Jews, Bulgarians).
The context of the arrival of some of them is very clear, constructions, commerce and
the development of the towns in the area, especially Craiova (Italians, Jews, Greeks,
Germans), border guarding and forestry or the politics of neighbouring empires (the Czechs),
of others, obscure (the Macedonians, Albanians).
Some minorities coagulated close groups, keeping their communities and language( the
Romani, the Czechs, the Serbs), others integrated losing their language and customs, but
keeping the space where they lived well-determined (Bulgarians, rural Italians) and others face
being dissolved within the majority community (Macedonians, Albanians, Greeks).
Some minorities are well-represented numerically (Serbs, Romani), others are discreet
(Italians, Jews, Greeks), and others are in a marked dissolution process (the Polish, the
Germans).
Some are very well organized, benefiting from education in their own languages (stateowned or private), religious service and places of worship, public libraries with books in their
own languages (Serbs, Czech, Italians), or cultural organizations, own administration (Serbs,
Czechs), others have only ethnic or cultural organizations in activity and modest
representativeness (the Bulgarians, the Macedonians and the Albanians).
Some are known as such by the majority, others are received with uncertainty,
ambiguously (the Bulgarians in Băileşti are mistaken for and called Serbs, the Macedonians
are mistaken for Bulgarians or Bosnians, depending on the route they took to come to
Romania or, simply, they are denied the exo-ethnicity by the fact that they are completely
assimilated and numerically without real representativeness.
Some minorities belong to Oltenia only administratively (the Serbs and Czechs at the
border with Mehedinţi County), customs borrowed from Romanians, the typologies of living
proving that they are more from Banat, other are credited to Oltenia in their entirety.
All minorities researched are bilingual, using their maternal language for interpersonal
communication, intracommunitary, except for the closed communities (Serbs and Czechs),
who use their language also in administration, at school and in church.
The majority have close relations with their countries of origin. They, in return, provide
publications, teachers (the Czechs), stipends for children, cultural exchanges.
Some minorities have known intense repatriation (Greeks, Italians, Germans, Polish),
others seasonal (the Czechs), thus contributing to the process of dissolution of their own
communities.
All of them are interested to keep and prove their identity, almost as an obsession, for
which reason we encountered everywhere either exhibitions, or museum collections. We
decided to collect all of them in a museum of the minorities.
163
2.Anthropological constants.
The approach from the perspective of cultural anthropology is, in fact, a synthesis of
diverse information, present in the studies of the members of the research team. Their
synthetisation was made from the perspective of the four identity coagulant nuclei that define
a culture: language, kinship, concept about space and forms of understanding time.
From a linguistic point of view, the minority panorama of the region is a true challenge.
And when we make this statement we consider the double pole, the one of linguistic nature
and the one of linguistic practice, of structure and of competence.
We may state that the principle of compatibility is not relevant. But the Italians speak a
language (Romance) related to the Romanian and this reality can be considered one of the
reasons of their rapid and radical integration. Apart from that, we have Slavonic languages
(Bulgarians, Serbs, Macedonians, Polish, Czechs), Albanian, Greek (unique linguistic
branches, of the Eastern group of the Indo- European language in the case of Albanian, and
the Southern branch in the case of the Greek language) and the Romani language.
In the majority of the cases, the mother tongues are used as means of communication,
with the exception of the Macedonian community in the Southern part of Dolj County
(Giurgiţa and Băileşti), where there is no fluent speaker anymore.
The performance of communication is different and it covers a very wide range from
rudimentary to remarkable abilities. Young speakers either approximately know the mother
tongue, or they don’t know it at all, or they learn it through courses organized by their ethnic
cultural organizations, in some cases (Romani, Serbs, Czechs), in state schools, in other
situations (Italians), in confessional schools.
The majority of mother tongues are, in fact, dialects (the Italians speak the Friulan
dialect, the Czechs the Bohemian dialect), with an obvious archaic aspect to them. The literary
dimension was attained exclusively in school, radio and TV broadcasts, the media or
literature.
Sometimes, the spoken language determined their appellative in the regional space
(from Bohemians, the Czechs are called „pimi” in Romanian). Other times, as in the case of
the Serbs in Sviniţa, the language creates identity dilemmas. They noticed they get along a lot
easier with current speakers from former Yugoslav Macedonia than they do with their very
close neighbours, the Serbs.
Only in the two compact communities (the Serbs in Sviniţa and the Czechs in
Eibenthal), the mother tongues are also official, administrative languages.
For all minority languages there are state or community forms of education, local and/
or national. The Romani, Serb and Bulgarian minorities have educational structures up to
university level (Romani and Serbs), sometimes, with places reserved for them (Romani).
For the large majority of minority communities the religious service is in their maternal
language (except for the Romani, Bulgarian, Macedonian and Greek minorities).
All minority communities are practically bilingual.
From the point of view of kinship, the situation of these communities is ambiguous.
In the past, preponderantly endogamic, the parental panorama became relaxed and
permitted exogamy, but in different measures, from one ethnicity to another.
The most conservative are the representatives of the Romani community, who also
have the most interesting family formula. In general, all minority communities are
characterized through a nuclear type of family; mixed, lately.
The Romani minority maintains, at least structurally, the formula of patriarchal family,
with a quasi functional role of the patriarch (the gipsy leader), of which the juridical ones
prevail.
This type of family constitutes the basis of integrated social organization, typical for
this ethnicity, family, kin, and clan. It is a known structure and preserved by the state.
164
From the point of view of the concept about space, we will tackle to aspects, regarding
settlement and living.
When we refer to structured, unitary communities, we must say that the cultural
dimension of spatiality is characterized by marginality. Either it’s about urban Romani
settlements (Meteor in Tg. Jiu, Faţa Luncii in Craiova or Tg. Cărbuneşti), or we talk about the
rural settlements (Sadova, Piscu Vechi, Vaideeni, Băbeni), where the Romanian area is clearly
delimitated from the Romani one, or if we talk about settlements of Bulgarians or
Macedonians in Băileşti, the Italians in Talieni, they all have in common the peripheral
situation in reference to the majority community.
This reality has a historic character and it persists:
„The population of the commune of Băileşti is composed of two elements, of
Romanians and of so-called Serbs (of Bulgarian origin) (sic!) These two elements form two
distinct neighbourhoods: the actual inhabitants of Băileşti (Romanians) and the Serb
neighbourhood which populates mostly the Northern part of the commune. These elements
have long been separated through their family ties and only since a few years these family and
alliance ties were established between them. The Serb element (Bulgarian) in origin was
brought for agriculture” (according to Charles Laugier)
To this assumed marginality we add another type of marginality, imposed, as in the
case of the Czech community in Eibenthal.
Deported here by the Austrian administration, for multiple reasons, rather supposed
than documented, among which that of protecting the delicate border that divided two
Romanian-speaking populations that never considered themselves to be divided, is the most
important, to which there is added an economic one, the „pemi” (as they are called in
Romanian) live in the truest sense of marginality. Their isolation is impressive even today.
Regarding living, each community initially had a living model that kept the features of
their area of origin. In time, this model suffered cultural syncretism that led to the adoption of
allogenous models. There are, however, particular situations.
The case of the Czechs in Eibenthal is again relevant. Field research convinced us of
the following aspects, which I quote from Cornel Bălosu’s report:
”Even like this, we can learn that the traditional living space of the Eibenthal type was
built from stone tied with clay and lime mortar and sand. The museum of the place if housed
by such a dwelling with a two-way roof, with two rooms and a storage room: the first room in
which the parents slept was also the kitchen. The second room, more spacious, was the
children’s room. In the kitchen the heating and cooking were done on a hotplate stove; in the
other room there was a brick stove. We could say that the layout and architecture of the village
make no reference to the Serbian Banat...”
The comparison to the community of Serbs is imposed because both settlements have
suffered displacements due to exceptional events, a fire that devastated the settlement of the
Czech community and the construction of the Porţile de Fier dam that led to the flooding of
the old Sviniţa.
If in the case of the Serb community the new dwelling pattern is the one from Banat
and, by extension, the one particular to the Austrian- Hungarian space, the Czech settlement
does not respect the same pattern. The old architecture in Sviniţa is poorly represented by
dwellings built very high, probably outside the traditional centre of the village, and that proves
the existence of a Balkan architectural pattern.
Another example referring to exceptional cases regarding dwelling is that of the
Romani minority. The last decades brought about the imposition of an architecture particular
to the Romani minority, ostentatious above all.
The constitution of an architectural style is legitimizing identity. It does not target
functionality, because in the most cases the buildings are designed with no utilitarian function.
165
Huge hallways, monumental staircases prevail, and they are imposed by the owners
instead of real living space, and this considering that these palaces are inhabited, in most cases
they are built only out of social vanity, an emphasis of role, statute and social position.
Generally built without approval, sometimes even without a project, these palaces are
of a rather rhetorical function, not utilitarian, that of impressing and proving the welfare of the
owner.
Paradoxically, the effect is also one of marginalization, even denial, rejection. The lack
of taste and sense, the pointless hyper dimensioning, lead to a stylistic and social
marginalization. We can even talk about a ratification of the marginal, as central effect of the
new dwelling form chosen by the members of the Romani community.
From the point of view of the concept of time, the report between profane and
celebratory times functions perfectly and the celebration is the one that coagulates temporal
identities, be it secular or religious.
We must specify that we are dealing with three types of calendars, according to the
confessions of the existing minorities, the Orthodox, the Old Calendar Orthodox and the
Catholic or Protestant.
From the point of view of secular celebrations, the minorities kept a series of identityrelated festive nuclei, but they have also adopted Romanian celebrations. From a religious
point of view, however, there is a distinct configuration.
If the Romani have an important celebration on St. Mary’s day, the Serbs honour St.
Sava as well as Saints Nicholas and George. Each family chooses a patron saint. St. Mary’s
cult is present in all Catholic minorities (Polish, Czech), together with the very popular
miracle saint, St. Anthony.
Our conclusions converge toward outlining a predictable scheme regarding the
minorities statute in European context.
Oltenia has a very large number of minorities.
Not all, numerically speaking, are the same, some are well defined, other more discreet.
Obviously, their contribution to the cultural profile of the area is different.
They are all in a real process of acculturation, parallel to the presence of a visible effort
of identity preservation, however made chaotically and rather spectacularly.
With little exception, the administrative communities, their majority, are in a visible
assimilation or dissolution process.
There is no minority solidarity on a regional scale, and, implicitly, common politics,
common solutions to problems, their assuming a cultural contribution to the realization of
regional identity.
The majority has a relatively tolerant behaviour toward minorities, neutral in the worst
case. There are no known efforts to support minority communities, with the quasi-general
exception case of the Romani people.
There is no real consciousness of multiculturalism in the area, as a result of the poor
knowledge and understanding of these minorities.
166
LIVE STORIES
GABRIELA RUSU, PhD
(pen name Gabriela Rusu-Păsărin) 
1.Prospects of approach and interpretation
Psichological introspection and direct observation are the most utilized means for the
configuration of life stories, narrative structures that bring out the personality of an important
actor for the minority community (in the case of our studies) and/ or for the public space in
which the actor of the story performed. The autobiographical narrative is an aspect of the life
story, the subjective targets are evident, the ultimate dominant note being that of selfappeciation of the reference environment. There are parametres that can be analyzed to draw
up the profile of the actor of the story at a certain moment. The reading grid of the storyteller
may be shaped by direct approach to obtain all relevant details, which will be linked with the
information already obtained and will eventually contextualise everything within the analysis
frameworks, or by asking for the participation of an intermediary in the family or community
environment, who will offer a perspective of the life story, agian under the spectre of
subjective approach. The interview, the most common method of data collection in quality
studies, was used in the case of the three stories selected for analysis, in different forms: radio
interview (with spontaneous questions and answers), conversation based on a previously given
theme, and written interview with questions offered for reflection and answering. The three
perspectives generated the idea of combining the forms of recomposition of the life story and a
bifocal perspective was obtained, esentially based on a phenomenological approach. Reading
and interpretation from this latter perspective allow for the completion of the story with
subsequently obtained details, without affecting the overall image (image barometre) of the
actor of the story.
1.1. Forms of the life stories
The three protagonists are perceived in the public space as representing personalities of
a certain minority or of a certain area of expertise. Lucian Zatti was a Romanian writer and
journalist of Italian origin. Oana Manolescu is a writer and a deputy of the Romanian
Parliament, as well as the President of the Association Cultural League of Albanians in
Romania. Anina Ciuciu is gipsy, the first Romanian student of Romani ethnicity who is a MA
student at Sorbonne, co-author (together with Frédéric Veille) of an autobiographical prose
volume titled Mândră de a fi rromă: de la Faţa Luncii la Sorbona: un destin de excepţie
(Pandora publishing, Bucharest, 2014).
The challenge of relating these life stories was centred on the interview linked with the
content analysis of the literary creation. I invited Anina Ciuciu during the broadcast”Longing
for Romania – radio magazine of Romanians everywhere” at Radio România Oltenia Craiova
(public regional station of the Romanian Radio Broadcasting Company), then I participated to
the release of her volume at the University of Craiova. Oana Manolescu is a well-known
Romanian MP, writer, chief editor of the magazine of the Association Cultural League of
Albanians in Romania. The three perspectives from which I obtained the content categories of
the story were completed with a written interview with questions and answers sent and

Reader, Faculty of Letters, University of Craiova, Romania
167
obtained remotely. Lucian Zatti’s life story was put together after a combined process of
accounts about his life, account given through open items, in which his wife Ana Zatti also
took part, and content analysis of some of the confessions made in his literary creations. To
this we added the dialogues that took place between the months of January and September of
2015, for the duration of the project.
By summarising all the above, we obtain:
- Anina: radio interview+analysis of the content categories in her autobiographical
prose
- Oana: written interview with open items + analysis of the content categories of her
press articles + similarities to her literary work;
- Lucian: family member’s account (wife) using a subject structured on themes that
generated exposure from a phenomenological perspective (diachronic route) + the analysis of
confessions made in short proses (cavatinas).
The purpose of our endeavour was to explore the personality of the actor of the story
and to obtain an „open story”, in which the elements of relevance of the culture and
environment of the minority community to which the character belongs.
An interpretation perspective might be considered also the analysis of the way in which
each character wrote/ told their own life story. The common element of this analysis is the
challenge of telling the story (directly or indirectly) and liniking it to the content categories
also visible in the literary works that have an autobiographical feel to them.
We obtain polyphonic versions of the subjective constructions or of self-representations used in certain contexts, significant for the profile of the story actor.
1.2. Assumed or induced autobiographical narrative
The content of the autobiographical narrative is material for the analysis of the story
offered by the actor linked with the elements given by the culture to which the minority person
belongs to. We obtain a life story on the perspective on life and world, the interpretation grid
being imposed by the culture of the character’s minority. The productive semantic field of
self-reference will generate the premises of the process of recreation of a story out of the story
of their life. It is the „story within a story” to which every reader of the story will contribute
and will outline a new story, which will stand up only through the elements of relevance
common to all the stories of circles circumscribed to the central nucleus: autobiographical
narrative.
In the case of the three selected stories, the immediate impact was:
- A confession under the emotion of a radio recording (Anina);
- A confession guided by the known questions of the interview sent via email (Oana);
- A reenactment of the life itinerary from direct information or information
intermediated by the family (Lucian).
The elements of relevance from the autobiographical narrative become truly relevant
only through the confrontation of their validation by the public space. We retained only these
ones in order to observe the principle of verification through the correlation of the reflected
image with the induced image.
2.Life stories – dialogue and polyphonic fields
2.1. Polysemantism of dialogue sequences
Through the exploration of the life stories there appears an intepretation field of the
actor’s interior world. By the stories offered by the protagonists themselves we perceive a new
life story, being known that every individual tells what they consider to be important, the
selection of events being subjective, the emotional impact being different by direct experience
and by re-living the experience when resuming the narrative sequence. Sometimes it is a
168
different story than the one known in the public space (there is an actual confrontation
between the projected image, desired image, and constructed image (the case of migrating
Romani people, implicitly the story of Anina’s destiny. The catalyst of the storytelling is
equally important: the public space imposes the telling of the story (the release of Anina’s
autobiographical volume), the continuation of the projection of the image in the public space
after their disappearence (Lucian Zatti’s case, a man of high „visibility” through his activity of
over 50 years at the Romanian public radio), or the ordinary activity of a politician to explain
her biographical and career-related reference points in a public context. De facto, these stories
reconstruct their life and, by the repetition of such processes of reconstruction of self-images,
they fuel even further a new story by which they connect even further with the culture they
represent. Sometimes the life story is passed over in silence (Lucian’s case), because during
his lifetime it would have been a hindrance in finding his family in Italy, after his
disappearance the details are insignifiant for the community, the projected image being that of
the Romanian writer, and not the Italian. But the converse is also true: people create life
stories with the purpose to bind them to the culture in which they were born or they created.
The signification fields of the story are developed through dialogue action in different
circumstances, thus generating the polyphonic, overview field.
In our analysis we used:
- Stories told directly – analysis made under the spectre of the subjectivity of
storytelling (Anina’s case);
- Stories told indirectly – analysis under the spectre of rebuilding rather than
restauration of the life story (Lucian’s case);
- Stories deducted from the synthesis of information in the interview and the content
analysis of published articles (Oana’s case).
2.2. Criteria to assess and validate the life stories
Of the multitude of criteria offered by the specific literature we will invoke in this
context those formulated by W.M.C. Runyan (Life histories and psychobiography:
Explorations in theory and method, Oxford University Press, New York, 1984, p. 152),
because they fold well on the individual case study (rather than the group one), and the stories
we selected are individual cases, with elements of relevance to the community they represent.
W.M.C. Runyan formulates seven assessment criteria of individual study cases, with
express reference to narrative studies. We will mention and explain them on the cases we
analyse:
1. to provide an exact perception on the person, thus clarifying defining aspects of their
life, aspects that had not been contextualized previously, and hadn’t been understood well
enough as value for the community:
-”the most devout of Oltenia’s inhabitants among Italians, and the most Italian among
Oltenia’s inhabitants” – a definition (D. R. Popescu) of Lucian Zatti’s personality;
- The young gipsy, Anina Ciuciu, is the proof that Romani people can integrate in a
community and they can excel;
- Oana Manolescu is a voice of the Albanian minority as well as a voice of the
Romanian Parliament, both attributes being identifiable in her journalistic and poetic creation.
2. To provide and impression of the respective person, to transmit the experience of
having directly interacting with that person:
- I met Anina Ciuciu personally at the release of her autobiographical volume, on
which occasion I invited her to the radio show ”Longing for Romania”, at Radio Romania
Oltenia Craiova; in this way her life story became known by the radio public in the region of
Oltenia, and her image in the public space was received also through the press;
169
- I met Lucian Zatti personally, but not enough to even sketch his life story. However, I
have known his wife for 20 years and I learnt the story reconstructed in various moments (I
created the „Lucian Zatti” Short Narrative National Competition, I initiated the denomination
of the radio’s grand editing suite with his name, I promoted his postumous volumes and I
wrote their forewords or afterwords);
- The collaboration with MP Oana Manolescu has started over 20 years ago. The
complex personality gained shape in time, during the events I particopated in and that I
exposed on the radio. The writer quality, however, is the most prolifc and it presents the most
persuasive and the most relevant.
3. Help understand the interior or subjective world of that persone:
- Anina Ciuciu’s world contains several points of reference: Faţa Luncii area, the
refugee camp in Italy, the new cultural environment – France. They are all cultural spaces that
influenced the interior universe of the protagonist;
- being the public voice of the minority you represent is a difficult task, which implies
immediate responsibility and taking on some remote effects. It is the statute of MP Oana
Manolescu, the representative of the Albanian minority in the Romanian Parliament;
- Lucian Zatti is an Italian born in Romania. The trips on Italian soil to find and make
whole his family represent an enterprise that had major effect on his sensitivity, apparent in
his literary and journalistic writings.
4. To raise our simpathy or empathy towards the respective person:
- placing them in the forefront through the impact of the events is a way of attracting
attention toward a person that brings an element of novelty and of public interest.
5. to describe the social and historical world in which the person lives: the confessions
generated by the questions in the radio interview, or the written one, or the support themes for
storytelling recompose the life story inscribed on the backdrop of an era with its social
dynamics (war in Lucian’s case, emigration in Anina’s case, or multiculturalism, like in
Oana’s case):
6. To make light regarding the causes (and meanings) of relevant events, of the
experiences and life conditions:
- Anina’s personal experience, the life in the Romani camp in Italy and the means to
adjust to a new cultural space are as many life experiences that bring light to an era and a
world in transition;
- The rigour imposed by a society on the verge of a new political system in the postwar period will elucidate the professional and life options of the Italian refugees’ son
(Lucian’s case);
- keeping the cultural identity of the Albanians in a world of diversity is a process
explained also by the endeavours made by a representative of this minority in the Romanian
Parliament (Oana’s case).
7. to be alive, to be evocative, to be emotionally demanding and to drive people to
read:
- There are two interpretative lines: the story told through autobiographical narratives
and telling the story in frames that draw upon the emotional background of the reader of the
respective individual case study. Both of them are submitted to reading in this context.
In the end we will formulate the validation criteria. We will invoke the ones
formulated by M.Hammersley (What 's wrong with etnography? Methological exploration,
Routledge & Kegal Paul, Londra,1992): validity, which refers to the degree of truth, of
plausible and of credibility of the story thus told, and relevance, meaning how much
importance the public opinion will credit this story with. It is a validation in time, an initial
decanting taking place before the case is brought to the attention of the reader: Lucian Zatti is
a name in the Romanian radiophony, however few people know the origins of his family (the
170
story will be accepted through the notoriety of the positivity associated with his name), Anina
Ciuciu is an example of life brought back to human dignity and public recognition, her name
may not be remembered but her destiny remains an exemplary one, and the public and
political life will remember the name of MP Oana Manolescu because for the past two decades
she has been one of the voices in the Romanian Parliament advocating for good coexistence
and equal opportunities for spiritual affirmation of all minorities in the Romanian space.
And now, the life stories told in the information collection frameworks (combined
modules).
Lucian Zatti – recovering”roots”
1.Emigration to Romania
The disastruous effects of WWI on the economies of all participating countries
determined some people to emigrate in search of a workplace. Some chose the USA, Brasil,
others...Romania. An example is the Zatti family, from Florence, Italy. We were going to learn
their story from pieces of confessions made by Mrs. Ana Zatti, the Romanian who became
close to this Italian family and will contribute to its reunion after more than half a century. The
brothers Carlo and Umberto Zatti were married, each one being father to three boys. When an
opportunity to work at a wood factory in Romania became apparent, the brothers decided to
leave sunny Italy, which had been shadowed by the effects of war. They decided to go in
turns, to become familiar with the living and work conditions. Carlo remains in Florence, after
learning about the harsh living conditions in Romania. In the mountain locality Brezoi, in
Vâlcea County, the „Carpatina” Italian company started its activity, where the Italians were in
charge with the organization of the work front, with assembling the then-modern equipments,
specialized in deforestation and wood processing. The three brothers, Luigi, Domenico and
Mario Zatti, together with their father, were employed at the sorting station and then the
funicular loading station. Working and living alongside Romanian workers, the Italians started
learning the Romanian language and integrate in the new community. One of the boys, Luigi,
will later marry an Italian emigrant named Catarina Molinaro. A son will result from their
marriage, Luciano, born on the 6th of February of 1927, an Italian baby born on Romanian
soil. The child will learn Italian at home and Romanian in the community of Brezoi. It is
known that, in order to adapt to the new political conditions in Romania after 1944-1945,
some emigrants will change their names, thus hiding the origins of their families. Born in
Romania, Luciano will change his name into Lucian and the family will declare him as
Romanian. This is one of the many minority assimilation processes, based on political
decisions. The young Luciano will even publish in the media under the pseudonym L. Talaz or
L. Severineanu, to mislead everyone from his Italian origin.
Mario went back to Italy to perform his military service. The family is divided and it
will be reunited after 40 years.
2. A life halt: Turnu – Severin
In 1933 the Zatti family moves to Turnu-Severin, setting up a construction site for
buildings and roads. They buy a house on Calomfirescu Road and the child Luciano is
registered at the primary Roman-Catholic school, where he has a hard time adjusting to the
strict discipline, a direct opposite of the freedom he had enjoyed in Brezoi, where he lived in
an enticing mountain area that he will later evoke in his writings. Four years later the child is
registered at the Vocational High-school – sculpture department, from which he is forced to
171
pull out after only four classes. Because of the war, between 1940 and 1944 the family takes
refuge in the mountains, in Bumbeşti-Jiu and Lainici, the father working for the Edititatea
Enterprise, which had work sites at the construction of the Valea Jiului railway line and the
Bumbeşti-Livezeni main road. Luciano is registered at the Industrial Technical School for
Boys in Vădeni-Gorj. During the holidays he works on the site alongside his father, coming
into contact with the harsh life of the people that worked outdoors. But he views nature with
the eyes of the child destined to write memorable descriptions of places which he will
assimilate as his own. As radio editor he will write reports, stories, and later, as writer,
sketches and short stories, cavatinas and novels.
In 1945 the family returns to Tr. Severin, they buy a piece of land at no. 39, Tabla Buti
Rd., where they build a home. Then a troubled, post-war period starts, with major changes in
the social order. The family had already been through this drama in Italy during WWI. Luigi
Zatti had no more news of his brother in Italy, communicating abroad being nearly impossible.
Several emigrants were forced to declare that they had no family abroad and ask for
Romanian citizenship in order to have the right to keep working in Romania. The only one
that kept his Italian passport was Luciano, otherwise he would have been taken in the army. It
was only after he turned 30 that he applied for Romanian citizenship, keeping his Italian
nationality. They had no information regarding their family in Italy; all they had was a
photograph where a happy family event had reunited them all. In Tr.Severin Luciano does not
return to the high-school studies he had been forced to interrupt. Having a literary talent
(certified by the cultural circles he frequented) he starts to write poems, short stories, which he
presents in one of these literary cirlces. That’s how we explain his literary debut at only a little
under 17: on December 1st, 1944, at 17, he published in the "Severinul liber" newspaper his
first reports. He then becomes the correspondent of several central newspapers. Between 1945
and 1946 he is employed by the "Înainte" newspaper in Craiova, being valued for the
spontaneity with which he wrote his reports and travel notes.
On January lst, 1947, he returns to Tr. Severin, where he takes over the position of
editor in charge of the "Severinul liber" newspaper, holding the respective position until the
newspaper is reorganized and renamed "Drumul socialismului". From this date onwards he is
named Editor-in-chief and he becomes a permanent correspondent to "Agerpres", "România
liberă", "Flacăra", "Scînteia tineretului", where he publishes under different pen names.
In September of 1950 he marries Ana, a 17-year old girl who is still studying at the
girls’ high-school in Tr. Severin, with whom he will remain for the rest of his life, sharing the
joys and sadness of life, the greatest sadness of all being that they had no children, and the
name of Zatti being destined to oblivion on Romanian soil.
3. Craiova – from forced domicile to a home forever
On the 1st of July of 1951, the Zatti family, like many other „foreigners”, was ordered
to leave Tr.Severin in a matter of hours, being assigned a forced domicile in Tg. Jiu. The
decision was taken because of Iosip Broz Tito’s „betrayal”, the town bordering Yugoslavia.
However, Lucian Zatti obtains a derogation from the authorities, changing his forced domicile
to Craiova, where he was wanted by the editorial office of the "Înainte" newspaper. He is thus
employed, together with his wife, by the newspaper, and they receive a living space consisting
of a rented furnished room.
In January of 1953 he takes a test and he obtains an editor’s position at the Committee
of the Romanian Broadcasting Station in Bucharest, cultural department, where he will work
alongside Pop Simion, Dionisie Şincan and Dinu Săraru. This moment is decisive for his
journalistic career, but it was cut short. One October morning he was expected at the gate of
the Broadcasting Station by two military men who brought him under arrest in Craiova, at the
Foreign Office, because since he had forced domicile, he was not allowed to leave it. The
172
management in Bucharest was notified, and in order to solve the case he was offered a 6months dispatch. His duty was to transmit registered reports about Oltenia and to organize a
local editorial office for a regional broadcasting station.
The new editorial office will start operating officially in May of 1954, initially with a
smaller number of hours of transmission. His name will be associated with the first-ever
broadcast of the Craiova broadcasting station; he was 27 years old. The application for
Romanian citizenship will be made after he turns 30. With his forced domicile in Craiova,
Lucian Zatti will remain an employee of the Oltenia-Craiova Broadcasting Committee, until
the station is suddenly closed in 1985, after which he will resort to an early retirement.
During these years his father, Luigi Zatti, worked for a while at the Craiova Chemical
Plant, where he was involved in various design works, and then at the "Porţile de Fier” work
site. He retired and remained in Tr. Severin. His mother, Catarina, died in 1967.
4. Searching for the family in Italy
During all this time they had no news from their family in Italy. The only hope was for
Lucian to find a way to search for them. In 1968 the situation being calmer in Romania,
Lucian Zatti, who had previously obtained Romanian citizenship, applied for a tourist visa for
Italy, for documentation as journalist and writer. As a member of the International Federation
of Journalists and of the Writers’ Union of Romania, he received the recommendations of said
institutions to travel in order to write several travel reports.
In June of 1968 Lucian and Ana Zatti were traveling by train on the route CraiovaFlorence and return, with an insignificant amount of money allocated as foreign currency and
only a photograph of a family they were searching for in order to become acquainted with it.
In a phonebook they found the names of the three sons of Carlo Zatti, their first cousins. They
randomly chose Valerio, who had a confectionery shop in Florence, and the meeting was
downright emotional. They were seeing and hugging each other for the first time. In the
evening the entire family came together. Only Carlo was missing, as he had passed away two
years before. They told their life stories, they looked at family photos. They had found each
other.
Renewing their family ties, more visits from their side to Romania followed. Lucian
and Ana Zatti will return to Italy in the years 1971, 1976,1979,1981,1987 and they met other
members of their Italian family. There were circumstances that would have favoured their
remaining in Italy during the communist dictatorship in Romania. However, Lucian was
happier to return to his native country, „home” as he called it. Here, in Romania, his parents,
uncles, cousins, died without realizing their dream to see Italy again. Their adoptive country,
Romania, offered them the much-needed life conditions during tough historic times. They
remained forever in the Catholic cemetery in Drobeta Tr. Severin. In 1993 Lucian Zatti found
a place near them, him being the one that will carry with him and through personal history the
story of a family reunited on either side of a totalitarian system, belonging by birth to
Romania, and by „roots” to Italy.
5. Lucian Zatti- the destiny of a Romanian Italian and of an Italian Romanian
Lucian Zatti wrote novels, literary reports and short stories (which he called cavatinas),
spread in literary magazines and radio broadcasts. "This profession fascinated me; I’ve always
wanted to be a frantic journalist. I have a predisposition for short prose, which, I believe, owns
the future"- he would say.
"Lucian Zatti remains one of the most valuable reporters and writers Oltenia ever had"
– according to critic Ovidiu Ghidirmic.
173
"His work is extensive and wonderful. He was generous, wasteful with his talents
offered to others, a man and a writer who fascinated us and keeps doing so. This was the
reporter and prose writer Lucian Zatti. For him we will always find yet unwept tears”, Ilie
Purcaru would say.
The words of writer Dumitru Radu Popescu remain iconic for the definition of Lucian
Zatti’s destiny: "For Lucian Zatti his true homeland remains Romania. The writer found
himself profoundly bound to the land of Oltenia and the values of Romanian spirituality.
Lucian Zatti was the most Italian of the inhabitants of Oltenia and the most
representative of Oltenian inhabitants among Italians".
The information given by Ana Zatti, Lucian Zatti’s wife, helped us diacronically
retrace the existential path of the writer of Italian origin. The literary history and the history of
the radio in Romania will retain his contribution to the patrimony of Romanian values. The
echoes of his family history are of too little relevance to discover information regarding the
Italian community in Romania. The years he spent in the Italian community in Brezoi are not
evoked on this tone, after his forced domicile in Craiova he will no longer mention his Italian
origins, and after the “ideological thaw” this will no longer be relevant. Lucian Zatti will look
for his family, he will essentially contribute to its reunion on Italian soil, however he will only
seldomly have ties with the members of the Italian community in Romania and only as family
friendships (for example, with the Amzolini family in Craiova). He remains isolated from the
Italian community; however he has an Italian surname which he imposes in the history of
Romanian literature.
Conclusions:
From this holistic approach of the content of the story told by Lucian Zatti’s wife, Ana
Zatti, we obtain too little details about the social world of the Italian community in Oltenia,
but we can outline a life story defining to the adaptation to a new cultural and geographical
space, a process of identification with the foster country. The actor of the stories is important
in the economy of life stories through the temptation to recover their origins. Declaring one’s
origins will not change in any way the personal destiny, they will add to the expressions of the
solar spirit, of the Southern temperament, of the jollity with which he approached canzonets,
to then write cavatinas. From our field research it resulted that Lucian Zatti was an eminent
personality in the fields in which he worked, the writer the media managers of the time needed
to prove their supportive attitude toward human values. It was a story- interface for a system
that tried to save itself from censorship through writers that favoured metaphors, “colourful”
radio stories, and real salvation from the daily grey.
Oana Manolescu – Albania and Romania,
two countries of a creative spirit
If the first life story, that of Italian Lucian Zatti, is based on the progression of the
narrative, with episodes that support the progressive trajectory of the plot, in a circular story
started in Italy and recovered as motivational sequence in Italy, but manifested in Romania,
the second story, that of Oana Manolescu, is that of a public „voice”, relevant on two
reference levels: the personal one, and that of representativeness in the public space. We will
follow the two levels applying two different methods. The first one is the open-item interview
sent by email, important detail to allow the reception of the questions and allowing for a
reflection time. It is a process of subjective decanting and settling in a hierarchy of values
prioritary for the definition of the role in the concretion of the Albanian community in
174
Romania. The second will be the analysis of theme content – categorial (in oversimplified
lines), based on the categories of content that underline the activity in the public space in the
service of the minority she represents.
I. Questions for a possible portret
1.You are a Romanian politician of Albanian origin. What is you belonging to the
Albanian community?
My ancestors came to Mehedinţi from South-Western Macedonia, area which 200
years ago (as nowadays) was inhabited mostly by Albanians and Aromanians, along with the
Macedonian population. In fact, my ancestor led a rebellion against the Turks and the family –
mixed – Aromanians and Orthodox Albanians – was forced to flee. They reached Baia de
Aramă and they settled in the area. (The story is much more consistent and very beautiful).
This was the family on my mother’s side.
2.You are the representative of the Albanian minority in the Romanian Parliament.
What were your initiatives in order to support the cultural identity of the minority you
represent?
A deputy works for the legislation of their whole country, regardless of their ethnicity.
Since 2012 I have only been part of 19 legislation initiatives. Supporting the cultural identity
of an ethnicity is stipulated by law in Romania. But at present I am working at the amendment
of the law regarding obtaining the Romanian citizenship, which would also benefit young
Albanians settled in Romania.
3.The Association League of Albanians in Romania has a history of its own. Since
when have you identified with it and what were the most important moments of the Albanian
community in which you have been involved?
The Association League of Albanians of Romania was set up in 1999. I have been its
president ever since. For us, all cultural events to promote ethnical identity that we organize
are important! The first of them is the celebration of the National Day of the Republic of
Albania.
4.You are the director of the magazine Prietenul Albanezului (in English, Albanian’s
Friend magazine). What are the editorial directions of the magazine to reflect the
particularity of the Albanian culture and civilization?
In this magazine we have set sections: history, literature, culture, etnography,
spirituality, community, Albanian language notions, and not only that (the feature article,
kaleidoscope, etc.). Thus, a constant reader of the magazine receives monthly information on
the culture of the Albanians, wherever they may live.
5.You have published novels, poems, short stories, essays. The image of the natal
places is strongly outlined (the novel Munţii noştri (translated Our Mountains)). Have you
also depicted episodes of life of the Albanians in Romania? Please offer us a few excerpts!
The historical novel Strigătul oprit, in two volumes, still a manuscript since 1995,
portrays life moments of the Albanians. But after 1990, since you have made me the honour of
calling me a poet, I wrote theme poems, such as: Iliria, La mulţi ani Albania, Port în suflet,
Veni-va lumina and many others written on the shores of Lake Ohër (Ohrid in Macedonian).
One cannot command poetic inspiration anything, anywhere; however, I have been inspired by
the Albanian landscape...
175
6.As a poet you created the lyrics for the Romanian versions of Albanian songs,
published in the book "Serenade korceare". What were your feelings, thinking in two
languages (the native one, which is the Romanian, and the Albanian language, which is the
language claimed through your bloodline)?
The expression, the Albanian order of words is different from the one in Romanian,
and the translation was subject to several proofreadings... But the challenge was to keep the
idea, to come as close as possible to the text with the rhymes, but especially with the rhythm
of the song... It is very, very difficult, there are 70 songs, so I „made up” 70 poems, the
Romanian versions.
7.What volumes in the Albanian language were published by the League of Albanians
of Romania, and what was the basis of selection for the theme?
Through its publishing house ”Privirea” (in Romanian, „The Look”), the Association
published the bilingual books: Pacea din noi volumes I and II, Manual de limba albaneza,
volumes I and II, Serenade korceare şi alte cântece albaneze, Ghid de conversaţie românalbanez, Frazeologie comună româno-albaneză, Nori reci (poems), Coloniile albaneze din
România, Oglinzi literare, Prin Bucureştiul albanez, Timp de viaţă, timp de moarte, Ne va uni
iubirea (poems) - approximately 30% of what we’ve published. The criterion was to learn the
Albanian language, to learn poems and the communication of the history of Albanians in
Romania both towards the Romanian citizens, as well as towards the Albanian ones.
8.You were a member in the parliamentary groups of fellowship with Albania, Sweden,
and Holland. What were the events organized to support the cultural identity of Albanians in
Romania within these organizations?
On the occasion of official bilateral meetings, there are also meetings of the members
of the parliamentary groups of fellowship and there are exchanges of information regarding
the legislations of the two countries.
9.In Oltenia, in Craiova, what are the Albanian identity reference points?
During the census only a few tens of Albanians have been declared in Oltenia, but the
surnames are much more numerous, proof that of all ethnicities, the Romanians, and
especially the inhebitants of Oltenia, got along best with the Albanians.
10. How would you define yourself, including your affiliation to the Albanian
ethnicity?
I am an ordinary person and, regardless of ethnicity and with the help of God I try to
fulfil the duty I have toward the people that trusted me spiritually and socially.
I graduated from the Faculty of Chemistry of the University of Bucharest. I studied the
poano for 10 years. I was part of the basketball team of the University of Bucharest. I have
two achievements in chemistry: 1. the separation of Thorium from other elements through
ionic exchange, and 2. the laboratory achievement (Craiova Chemical Plant) of the
composition of a catalyst in the industry of ammonia that replaced imports from West
Germany. I can „handle” myself well in about 5 foreign languages. I wrote 8 books and 2
brochures, each one in several editions. I have 3 more books in manuscript form. I worked for
4 years as a researcher and for 27 years in education (chemistry) at the Electroputere Industrial
High-school in Craiova. I organized and I manage the Serenada artistic ensemble of song and
dance of the Association. In high-school I did the radio broadcast of the school for three years.
I prepared and won with the students of the Electroputere school group places 1, 2 and 3 for
three years at the National Chemistry Olympics. I take the Serenada ensemble yearly to
Albania for shows in different cities.
176
Oana Manolescu is a poet, prose writer, essayist, known in literary circles as being the
beared of a culture she represents: that of the Albanian minority in Romania. An analysis of
her public appearances, of contexts with personalities that claim her as notable presence, of
her taking the floor in the Romanian Parliament would prove the prevalence of this image
before her personal image. She is a vector of information and bearer of meanings for the
environment of expression of the Albanian minority in Romania. It is in a bidirectional
“representation” report: from the minority community to personal experience and from
personal experience to the Albanian minority community.
For the configuration of the life story from the perspective of thematic content analysiscategorical, we refer to the relation between context and presentation. J.-C. Abric ( ”Les
représentations sociales: aspects théoriques”, în J.-C. Abric (ed.), Pratiques sociales et
representations, PUF, Paris, pp.10-36, 1994) and J.-C. Abric and C. Guimelli ( ” Les
représentations sociales et effets de context”, în Connexions, 72, pp.23-37, 1998) consider
social representation as a “contextualized” system, subject to the influence of factors and
contextual changes. They consider the context to be of two types: discoursive context
(situational) generated by conditions and social context generated by the values the individual
adheres to, and the place occupied in society, in the group they belong to.
The situational context is explicit: Oana Manolescu represents the Albanians in
Romania, and the social representations generated by her public speeches address both the
minorities, as well as the majority, with the purpose of presenting the particularity of the
Albanian culture and promoting it in the Romanian space. The social context is more complex:
it reunites the values to which the deputy and intellectual Oana Manolescu makes reference,
and the place she holds in society. In this latter perspective Oana Manolescu has a sum of
public attributions and positions: deputy, President of the League of Albanians of Romania,
director of the”Prietenul albanezului” Magazine, she is the initiator and conductor of the
Serenada vocal group of the League.
These social positions will allow the public to obtain relevant information about
Albanians in Romania in three ways:
- Through media information sources (the magazine, the publishing house, the CDs
made by the Association) (context: media contact);
- Through experience determined by discussions with others (national and international
politics-related appearences) (context: contact mediated by others’ experience);
- Through personal experience (context: direct contact with the events organized and
managed in the public space by Oana Manolescu).
Two of the many volumes published by Oana Manolescu offer the narrative material to
support the three types of context:
- The volume Pacea din noi (Privirea Publishing House, Bucharest, 2009) reunites the
featured articles which she signed in ”Prietenul albanezului” magazine, since the emergence of
the magazine (November 2001) until December 2009. We find themes (categories) widely
represented:
 The significance of the word Union (spiritual union of the Albanian and Aromanian
pupils, students, MA and PhD students that learn in Romania) (p.15);
 ”Religion. Culture. Tolerance”: ”The right to non-discrimination is the logical
extension of the concept regarding constitutional, civil and political rights” (p.39);
 ”the good understanding with the other ethnicities and the majoritary population”
(p.57);
 National Day of Albania (28th of November) and Romania’s National Day (1st of
December), three days of celebration (p.146);
 Albanian cultural values celebrated in Romania (Ismail Kadare) (p.170-171)
177
- The volume Amestec şi combinaţie (Privirea Publishing House, Bucharest, 2009)
reunites studies, speeches, articles, as well as short stories, translations, in which we find the
same themes (categories): ”National minorities in Romania” (p.119), ”Romanian-Albanian
interferences in literature” (p112), ”the Albanians were received like brothers in Romania” (p.
131) etc
These volumes, like the”Prietenul albanezului” magazine, support the first type of
context (through media contact).
The second context, of her presence in national and international political level
(context: contact mediated by others’ experience) is broadly represented by the speeches held
in this type of contexts, speeches published in the mentioned volumes. A few examples:
speech in the Chamber of Deputies with the occasion of the National Day of Albania, 28th of
November 2002, speech during the festive Session held on the occasion of the “Days of
Craiova”, 2003, speech during the Solemn Session of the Romanian Parliament with the
occasion of 140 years from the constitution of the Senate, 2004, etc.
The third context, through personal experience (direct contact with events organized
and managed in the public space by Oana Manolescu) is the most prolific. By setting up and
supporting a magazine, a publishing house, of a vocal group, Oana Manolescu will take part in
national cultural events of this type (book fairs, Festival of the Minorities, anniversary or
theme shows in the public space). These are opportunities for the public manifestation of the
va.lues of the Albanian community in Romania, association she represents nationally and
internationally. There is, however, another meaning of the personal experience that influences
the social context: Oana Manolescu is a well-known poet. Her verses in Romanian, as well as
verses adapted into Romanian of the songs in the repertoire of the “Serenada”vocal group are
Oana Manolescu’s creations, the deputy of the Albanian minority in Romania.
Conclusion:
This is a life story that feeds itself from the consequences of an activity progressing
through a life-long career, a story fueling the story of an ethnic community in Romania, the
Albanian community, a beneficial image transfer that generates credibility and notoriety.
Anina Ciuciu – ”an exceptional destiny”
The following life story is base don the radio broadcast transcript of the radio interview
with Anina Ciuciu. The repetitions, pauses (without real emotional value) were eliminated, as
well as the sequences that anticipated the musical moments. The full transcript of the
broadcast helps revisit the confessions made in an emotional context generated by the
recording place, the editing suite of Radio Romania Oltenia Craiova (the “Lucian Zatti”
editing suite). In a portrait broadcast (with only one interlocutor, the character of the show),
the editor can make the censure and self-censure feeling become blurry, through radio
techniques and persuasive language. He or she will induce the impression of a friendly
dialogue, without witnesses. When the broadcast has at least two guests, live or on the phone,
this feeling of confession disappears, self-censorship intervenes, and we obtain a speech
directed by the guest’s intention regarding the radio portrait. In Anina Ciuciu’s case we opted
for the complex form of registering the life story: three interlocutors, each with a narrative
task to reflect a perception angle of the guest’s personality. Because Anina Ciuciu now lives in
France and has adapted to the French cultural environment, we invited in the broadcast the
French lector at the University of Craiova, himself a character whose genealogy claims several
cultural influences (French and Polish). We obtained the emotional support of this life story
178
with the help of a phone interview with one of Anina’s family members. The presence next to
her would have diminished the emotional impact (and would have lowered the radio impact as
well). In this complex formula we completed the portrait- interview about a life story nothing
short of “exceptional”. What was exceptional about this destiny was about to become clear
from the progression of the broadcast. Anina’s story presents several perspectives for analysis:
- A phenomenological perspective, a diachronic itinerary of a Romani family that
leaves Romania in 1997 and manages to integrate in the French envirnment, after dramatic
episodes in Italy;
- A psychological perspective of the Young gipsy, who surpasses the obstacles
generated by the projection in the public space of an undesirable image about Romani
emigrants;
- A comparative psychological introspection perspective of two reference texts:
autobiographical narrative, narrative material for the volume”Mândră să fiu rromă. De la Faţa
Luncii la Sorbona. Un destin de excepţie” and the transcript of the radio broadcast ”Longing
for Romania – radio magazine for Romanians everywhere” (transmitted on the 6th of July,
between 21.30-22.00)
The auto-narrativity and personal identity are to be confronted in the hiden space of
interior reality. Anina’s life story thus obtained through confronting radio confessions and the
autobiographical narrative is different from the other life stories. The verification key was to
immediately overlay chronological elements, narrated elements, and words of symbolic value.
D.P.Spence wrote about the”narrative thruth” (Narrative truth and historical truth: Meaning
and interpretation in psychoanalysis, Norton, New York, 1982); however, we plead for the
configuration of personal identity elements in this narrative truth, important guidelines for the
vision on life and on integration in the community. The autobiographical narrative is a stance
of the life story, it can modify according to the circumstances or in time. Born in Romania in
1990, Anina emigrates at 7 years old. She becomes the first MA Romani student of Romanian
origin at the University of Sorbonne in 2012. The title of her book is symbolic and
declarative:”Mândră să fiu rromă” (in translation, “Proud to be Roma”). At page 17 of her
autobiographical volumen she writes:”My name is Anina, I am twenty years old, my country is
France (s.n.), but my origins are somewhere more than two thousand kilometers from Paris. I
was born in Craiova, in the Romanian cold of January, 1990.” There is an apparent sadness to
her writing: “Despite this path, which some consider exceptional, with all proof of perfect
integration, I haven’t received French nationality.” (p. 150). She has a French resident permit
until 2020. The autobiographical narrative is written with a stated purpose:”I dared to unveil
the darkest moments of my life so far, the ones I desire to forget and erase forever from my
mind, because I want to change something in the way people see us.” (p.155). It is the
therapeutic function of subjective narrative.
1. Transcript of the radio broadcast
Anina Ciuciu is a native of Craiova. We start this incursion in the essential reference
points of a destiny from the recent volume published by Anina Ciuciu ”Mândră să fiu rromă.
De la Faţa Luncii la Sorbona. Un destin de excepţie”. In order to shape this destiny we have
two guests, the actually protagonist, Anina Ciuciu. She is the PM’s councillor on issues of the
Romani people. The second guest is the French lector at the University of Craiova, Mr.
Gauillaume Dujardin.
Welcome, Anina!
- Thank you ! Good afternoon.
- You have come from Paris ?
- Yes ! I have been here in Romania for a week now, in Craiova.
- That means this is a reunion with your birthplace, your family, your childhood...
179
- Yes ! I am very happy to see those close to me, my family, my friends, because I
have been unable to come to Craiova for a long time, even though I was in Romania to publish
my book in Romanian, and now I am very happy to be here.
- Welcome, Gauillaume!
- Good afternoon!
- Do you speak Romanian ?
- Yes, I already do !
- Was meeting Anina beneficial to you ?
- It was highly beneficial, indeed.
- We will learn how the two cultures come together, the Romanian and the French
culture, in an exceptional destiny like Anina’s.
- Anina, we must confess that when we speak about Romani people we remember the
Mailat case in Italy; it is still in the public eye, because it was extremely troublesome. The
media was the catalyst of this subject. When it was found out that Mailat was not as guilty as
he had been portrayed it was already too late. It was known that a Romani Romanian had
killed a woman. And now we have you and your exceptional destiny. What is the exception in
this case, apart from the fact that you are the only young Romani of Romanian origin ever
admitted at the University of Sorbonne? What is the exception in your life, apart from a
childhood marred by adversity?
- I am afraid I will make an exception now, as there is nothing exceptional in my path,
or in my destiny.
- It is the destiny of all Romani people, with their desire to leave abroad, with large
periods of time spent in Romani camps, with the unsanitary life they have there, with their
personal dramas in the search of stability...
- You spoke about desire, it is not desire, and unfortunately it is a necessity. Many
Romani people, maybe the majority, are forced to leave their country, abandon their family,
their homeland, seeking a more dignified life and better living conditions. This was also our
case. When we left Romania in 1997 of course we face many obstacles... We knew that this
search for a dignified life, for Eldorado, as it was portrayed in our minds, will be difficult and
marked by obstacles, which we managed to surpass with a lot of willpower and with the help
of someone in France; I believe this is the exceptional part. It is exceptional that we have to
leave our country for the sole reason that we belong to a community, an ethnicity, we cannot
have access to all the rights, all the facilities the other citizens have. That is exceptional! The
violence with which Romani people are treated all over Europe, because it is real violence we
are talking about, has been going on for centuries, with different intensity. We know it was at
its worst in 1944 during the Romani genocide, but today also this desire is real, it exists, and
the case proves it, the case you mentioned, in Italy, as well as the recent situation in France,
because I was very impressed by it and I want to bring it into discussion. It is the case of a
young man, Darius, who was severly beaten and is now in a coma, because he was suspected
of theft, simply because of his Romani ethnicity. It is the case that proves that there is
violence, and it is criminal. There is nothing exceptional in my path. I am a young person, yes,
I am a young person that made it to Sorbonne, but there may have been others before me who
did the same thing without actually mentioning they were Romani. So there is nothing
exceptional!
- This is another idea I picked up in your book, Anina, the idea of hiding that you are
of Romani ethnicity to protect yourself from humiliation in a civilized world. When you read a
book, and I read yours over only a few hours, at the end of the reading process a few images
remain. The first image is that of a car leaving toward Europe from Romania in 1997 and in
the trunk of the car there are ten children. That is a terrifying image.
180
- Yes ! And our road to France, to Europe, was horrible, incredibly difficult, in harsh
conditions... We were a lot of people in that car, the trip took a very long time... There were
many incidents as well because we passed through very dangerous places, like Kossovo, so
there were many adventures. We left with our hopes high, and that was important for us,
especially for us, the children who were in that car, children with eyes full of dreams...
According to what was said at the time, we believed that the West was a wonderful world, far
more beautiful than anything we knew.
- Reading Aninei Ciuciu’s book Mândră să fiu rromă. De la Faţa Luncii la Sorbona.
Un destin de excepţie I remembered a broadcast I did with Ana- Maria Beligan, daughter of
the great actor Radu Beligan, who left accompanied by her mother in Australia and had to
spend some time in a camp in Germany where, as their most basic necessities were being
ensured by the social services, the same as in the Romani camps, at five in the afternoon on
the hallways through which the Romanian refugees could leave their rooms, tea was being
placed and this ritual would take place in a cultural context. So all people there would
participate in a cultural moment. Gauillaume, it is extraordinary to want to adapt and to have
the power to do so. What do you think about Anina? How did she make it on French soil? You
being French...
- It is a very good question, because I hold an Erasmus preparatory course for
Romanian students that go to France for one year to study. And it is true, when we go to a
foreign country we have to think that we are foreigners there, as me here, and that we have to
adapt to that country. There are different types of adaptation, we read a book or we listen to
the radio, we wathc TV...
- Has Anian successfully adapted to the French environment, the French cultural
environment, the civilization one?
- I believe it was easier for her because she left when she was a child, and I believe that
helps a lot in school, because when we are children we are in a group, whereas as adults we
are alone, on our own.
- The family is the representative environment. In Anina Ciuciu’s volume we find
many details about family, about the wedding ceremony with its fundamental elements, about
values Romani families strictly respect. There, as Anina would write, you must keep your
spiritual and physical purity, that is the law, and it is something that cannot be overlooked
regardless of the Western influences. I want to surprise Anina and we will go online via phone
with one of her family members. Good afternoon, Dana.
- Good afternoon.
- I am together with Anina and Gauillaume, French lector at the University of Craiova,
and my great joy is to know that Anina has managed this performance of having an
exceptional destiny. How are you related with Anina?
- Anina is my cousin, but we consider ourselves sisters. She is like a sister to me.
- You remained in Romania ?
- Yes !
- Is it a reason of pride for your family, an example to follow, the fact that she
succeeded in having an exceptional destiny in France?
- For us, for our family in particular, and for the entire Romani community in general,
and I believe for the Romanian people as well, I can definitely say that Anina Ciuciu is a
reason of pride; she makes us proud to be Romani. She is Romani and we have to admit the
fact that very few people reach the level she is at right now.
- If you were to send Anina a message, what would you say to her ?
- With all the power of the soul, she must carry on in the same way in which she has
carried on so far, make all the members of our community feel proud, in order to prove that
181
we also have the strength, the intelligence necessary to be equal with all the other people, I
won’t say Romanians, as I do not want to discriminate.
- Dana, from your speech I understand that you are a learned person.
- I am a modest person. I want to transmit a message to all Romani people, I won’t say
gipsies, although I would like to point out the fact that I am proud to be gipsy, despite the fact
that we are being judged the way that we are...
- You are Romanian citizens.
- Yes! We are Romanian citizens, but I can proudly say, at the same time, that I am
gipsy. Now twice as much, because we have Anina Ciuciu as example, a precious, priceless
diamond.
- That’s how Dana defined you! Now it is Anina’s turn to send you a message.
- She already knows my message, as I had the chance to say it, but I have to say that I
am proud not only to be Romani, but because I had the support, the encouragement and the
love of my family, which made a huge difference for me, because without that courage and
love I wouldn’t have made it. To me, the members of my family are like protecting angels.
- Exchange of feelings, if you will, via the radio waves, Dana... We thank you for your
presence and for your kind thoughts to Anina. Dana – Anina, a radio dialogue with deep
feelings, with emotion, with tears in the corners fo the eyes, that’s what it means to love one’s
family, to respect its values, to be a Romanian citizen of Romani ethnnicity and to honour
both your community, as well as your homeland. Thank you, Dana, have a wonderful day, and
all the luck in the world!
- Have a good day, and good bye to all of you.
- Anina, the genesis of this book, according to the statement made by Frederic Veille
was your presence at a radio station in France; you spoke about Romani people’s statute in
France. Here we are at the microphone of the public Romanian radio station pleading for the
same idea: the Romani people must be shown the same respect as the other European citizens.
What was your experience in France, from the perspective of the way in which you were
perceived? We know that you had no friends in kindergarten, because „they already had”, as
you would put it, but the reality was that they did not want your friendship. In school, when
the line was formed, no one would hold your hand to walk into the classroom. For the same
reason. All this is behind you. How were you perceived in France?
- My sisters and I, and many other Romani people, suffered these prejudices, this
discrimination in all areas of our lives. In Romania it started when I was a little girl in
kindergatren, even though we tried very hard to be perceived as good Romanians, we spoke
Romanian, because we were taught the language from a very early age... We made all the
efforts, we dressed nicely, but unfortunately that didn’t work out for long as it was discovered
I was gipsy and I was set aside, and the same thing happened in France. When I arrived in
France there was an additional barrier as well, because int he beginning I didn’t speak French.
I learnt the language very quickly, in six months I was able to have a conversation. I learnt the
French language very quickly, but even though I crossed this important language barrier, I still
endured the prejudice, because of the image foreigners have about us, especially us Romani
people, so we were set aside in the same way, I was alone in school, without friends. In time
we managed to surpass these obstacles and to make friends, who were a little bit smarter and
knew to overlook this image foreigners have about Romani people and who accepted to know
me, so we struck up new friendships. It was, however, several years until we started to really
integrate and make friends. It was a little bit difficult, but we willpower and patience we
passed this obstacle too.
- I will ask Gauillaume, how do you, the French, regard Romanian citizens of Romani
ethnicity? They are Romanians.
182
- Yes ! Firstly, it is important to know that France has always received foreigners. I am
half foreigner myself.
- What is your foreign half?
- From Poland. I am from the North. The name Dujardin is owed to the fact that my
father is a true Frenchman. Now, regarding the events that are ever-so-present at the radio and
on TV, I believe we can also talk about manipulation...
- Definitely the manipulation of affections, of emotions...
- Yes ! Exactly !
- So you are being somehow emotionally manipulated through the events that you are
presented.
- Anina, from your book to a recent event! Young Darius is now in a coma, in France,
precisely for being suspected (not proven that as a fact though) to have stolen. What do you
think about that, Anina?
- I have always tried to keep an objective perspective maybe also because I have an
objective in sight at the end of my journey, that of being a magistrate, and a magistrate must
be independent and impartial. And all arguements I give in favour to this cause, let’s say, in
favour of the recognition and emancipation of the Romani community, are arguments I
consider to be objective and a person outside of the Romani community could also support
them. Objectively, what happened to Darius is simply intolerable. In a democratic country, in
a country in which the fundamental rights of the people are observed, the country of the
human rights, because France continues to be portrayed that way, it cannot be tolerated that a
person suffers such violence only because they belong to a certain ethny. They may be
Romani, they may be of a different ethny, this simply cannot be tolerated. And these events do
happen, unfortunately, because of this context all over Europe, and also in France, as
Gauillaume said. It is manioulation from the media and from the political area. In political
speeches there are many rasist aspects, xenophobic, that make the Romani community look
like a huge problem for France, that continue to spread such prejudice, so damaging to our
community and that allow for such behaviour to happen. So, when a person at the highest
level of a government says that Romani people cannot adapt in France and that they must, at
all costs, return to their native countries of Romania or Bulgaria, because this person believes
that there are Romanian or Bulgarian gipsies, it is logical that other citizens will allow
themselves to perform acts of violence against this person.
- Anina, I was telling our listeners that I was marked by several images, that remained
stuck in my mind after I read your volume Mândră să fiu rromă. De la Faţa Luncii la
Sorbona. Un destin de excepţie. You lived ten kilometres from The Vatican, in a completely
unsanitary environment, where disease and especially humiliation marked your life and you
went begging for the first time. This event also happened in your life and that of your family.
What was the feeling?
- It is a very brutal feeling, the humiliation is huge, but he were forced to do this, and
society also forced us into begging, as I told you, when you are forced to leave your home and
your country and your family because you cannot live in dignified conditions, it is also the
society’s responsibility, not only ours, because my parents simply lost their jobs for being
gipsies, I simply don’t know why... for no objective reason and this was the main reason why
we left Romania. It is something difficult for me to talk about, but because the Romani people
image is very close to this image of complete humiliation, I would like to say that the Romani
people are not born beggars, it’s simply that they do not have a choice and that society pushes
them towards this situation and that any one of us, any one of you who are not Romani, may
fall into this situation of extreme humiliation to which society and necessity exposes us. This
is really all I would like to say on this subject.
183
- Nothing more. I would however like to add that your parents never did anything antisocial in that environment that pushed people toward such attitudes. All of your sisters, not
only you, managed to be part of an institutionalized environment, you graduated, Romani
people of extraordinary dignity. And that’s what the exceptional destiny is all about. Anina,
please share with us your message at the end of today’s broadcast!
- I read somewhere that the Romani people, who have always been cast away, was a
people always on the go. If that’s the situation, I can easily say that my parents crossed the last
barrier. I hope with all my heart that they will not have to return, that they can settle their
luggage in this El Dorado-like place, at the end of an obstacle-filled road. For them, for the
Romani people so little known, but about which so many things are written, I wanted to share
my story, so that everyone understands that deep within our heart there is love and hope, that
we do not want to be rejected or shown pitty, we only want to be understood.
- A message transmitted by Anina Ciuciu, the young girl with an exceptional destiny,
who left Romania in 1997 together with her family and now she is a future French magistrate.
Anina Ciuciu is a honorary councilor to the Prime Minister on Romani-related issues. We had
with us Gauillaume Dujardin, French lector at the University of Craiova and we confronted
two cultures and two means of adaptation in a world that tends towards globalization.
2. The life story – the story of a family
The portrait broadcast was drawn up as a means to present the essential details of an
„exceptional” destiny. This communication target, however, developed a much more visible
image than the one intended: the image of a family with all the characteristics of a subsystem
(Morgan, D.H.J., The family, politics and social theory, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Londra,
1985, p.134):
- A family’s elements are inter-relational, in the case of the gipsies, the feeling of
belonging to the family is visible, and Anina offers an image of this inter-dependence: the
houses are glued one to the other, the house has a central room where the family members
come together, the home is where the family is;
- An element of the family cannot be understood independently; Anina’s destiny stands
out only in the context of presenting the family’s contribution, of its moral support;
- The organization of the family is essential in understanding the behaviour of its
members (Anina begged together with her mother, and this is the image that most humiliated
her, but not one of the members of her family ever committed any anti-social acts, on the
contrary, they made use of the power to adapt to a foreign environment and the ease with
which they learn foreign languages, Anina now speaks 5 foreign languages);
- ”the family’s transactional patterns shape the behaviour of its members” (they can be
found in Anina’s autobiographical work and in her radio confessions).
Conclusion
Thriugh this life story told by the protagonist in two different ways (autobiographical
narrative and radio confessions) we can shape the elements of individual identity and the
systems of values, the culture and the social world of the narrator Anina Ciuciu.
Epilogue
The life stories are a synthesis with different degrees of credibility between elements
stemming from the history of the personal life and from the cultures with which the main
characters come into contact. These stories shape their lives, in time they become projected
images of interior stories, which are permanently checked through the reference to the indexes
of reality subject to social dynamics.
The effect of these life stories target the understanding of personal identity, of the
culture and the environment in which the protagonists live. The content categories of the
184
stories will later be reflection themes for other stories of the same protagonists. The open
question remains: how much do the protagonists find themselves in the identification
parametres of the communities to which they belong, how much is the community reflected in
the universe of values and in the behaviour of the ones claiming the destiny of the community
they represent at a certain point in time?
185
NATIONAL MINORITIES IN NORWAY –
OVERVIEW AND EXPERIENCES
GUNNAR HEIENE, PhD
SOLVOR M. LAURITZEN, PhD
1. Introduction
During the last years, there has been an increased awareness of the national minorities
that have existed in Norway for hundreds of years. This is partly due to the international
discussion on national minorities. In 1999, Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for
the Protection of National Minorities was ratified by Norway. Five minority groups are
considered to be national minorities: Jews, Kvens/Norwegian Finns, Roma (Gypsies), Romani
people/Tater and Forest Finns. These groups are very different in many respects, but they have
all obtained a specific cultural protection, and they receive economic incentives to protect their
cultural heritage.
In this article, we will give a brief historical overview of the national minorities in
Norway, and then concentrate on two groups: Romani people/Tater and Roma (Gypsies).
During the last years, these two groups have been in the focus of the public discussion, and
different attitudes to integration and protection of minority groups have become visible in the
debate.
2. Historical overview
Historically, the Norwegian society has been characterized by farming as a main
characteristic for a long period, at least until the last part of the 19th century. Compared with
other countries, the farms in Norway have been scattered, due to topographical reasons, and
Norwegian farmers were mostly quite poor. Still, some immigrant groups found their way to
Norway as settlers from the 17th century on: The Forest Finns settled in the border areas
between Norway and Sweden, and the Kvens, also coming from Finland, or from the Finnish
speaking part of Sweden, settled in the Northern part of Norway (the counties of Finnmark
and Troms). The Kvens were welcomed because of their agricultural competence, but both
groups were also seen as a threat to Norwegian security, being minorities in border areas.173
During the 17th century, a few Jews, mainly merchants, settled in Norway, and they
were probably tolerated because Norway needed economic capital. But in the Norwegian
Constitution from 1814, paragraph 2 explicitly stated, ”Jews are still excluded from the
country”. In 1851, the first Jews were allowed to settle in Norway, most of them as merchants.
Between 1880 and 1920, Jewish immigration increased, and in April 1940, when Norway
became invaded by Germany, about 2100 Jews were living in Norway. During the war, almost
800 Jews were deported to Germany, where most of them were executed by the National
Socialist regime, and the remaining part of the Jewish population fled to Sweden and stayed
abroad until the war had ended. Today, about 1500 Jews live in Norway.
Roma and Gypsies are the most common words used to describe a group of minority
people with some common characteristics, although they have a varied background, with
different languages, distinguished from the Norwegian majority both in language and lifestyle.

Professor, the Norwegian Institute of Theology, Oslo, Norway.
Researcher, the Norwegian Institute of Theology, Oslo, Norway..
173
Anne Bonnevie Lund & Bente Bolme Moen (eds.), Nasjonale minoriteter i det flerkulturelle Norge.
Trondheim: Tapir Akademisk forlag. 2010.

186
The group named “Roma” is only a small part of a group of people living in different Western
countries, especially in Europe. In Norwegian research, Roma people are described as a
“transnational minority with extended family networks characterized by regular contact”.174
During the last years, words like “Roma” or “Roma people” have replaced the earlier use of
“Gipsy”, but there is no agreement among those who belong to these groups about
terminology. Their culture is still oral, and therefore, it is necessary to trace their history by
language research, and by looking into external sources and official documents. Their
language seems to be related to Indian languages, and the linguistic term “vlax romanés”
refers to the language that was developed by the Roma population living in the area which
today is a part of Romania, based on the language that they had brought with them, with
influences from the Romanian language.
Group of gypsies have been travelling in Scandinavia since the 16th century, and
probably, they have been integrated in the other minority group Romani people/Tater. But the
group of Norwegian Roma who are still speaking the romanes language, have another origin,
belonging to the group called Vlach-rom, leaving Valakia (the southern part of Romania)
about 1850. It seems as if this group has preserved their language and traditions to a larger
extent than gypsies from other countries. Also after 1850, Roma and Gypsies have been
persecuted and discriminated, especially during the Second World War.
The Norwegian Roma people are descendants from the Romanian Roma people who
left Romania and travelled through different European countries, also to Norway to find work.
In 1860, a new law allowed people to come into Norway without passports, and therefore,
there were no longer any formal hindrances for travelling people wanting to go to Norway. In
1922, however, the Ministry of Justice gave orders to the police offices to expel all Roma
people who could not prove their affiliation to Norway. As a response to the official
restrictions, some Roma families emigrated to France and Belgium. In the 1930’s Norwegian
policy became even more restrictive, and even Roma people with Norwegian passports were
returned. During the Second World War, only a few members of the families with Norwegian
affiliation survived, and at least 60 Norwegian Roma people lost their lives in Auschwitz.175
Romani people/Tater is a minority group that has existed in Norway since early 16th
century, and it should be distinguished from the Roma people (Gypsies) as a distinct national
minority with a specific culture and language. Today, Norwegian Taters speak different
Norwegian dialects, and many of them have little knowledge about the traditional language
romani, where more than 60 % of the words have their origin in Indo-Aryan languages. The
Romani people have been traditionally been travelling around in the country, and therefore the
term “travelers” has also been used to characterize this group. In their first period in Norway,
many of them had to do work that was considered to be unclean or dishonest, working as
executers, butchers or cleaners.
For this group, horses have been important, both symbolically and practically, and in
the 17th and 18th centuries, many Romani men were registered as horse castrators. They were
involved in many activities concerning equipment for horses and making objects both for
practical use and for decoration. From the last part of the 19th century, many worked as
tinsmiths or in junk shops, and selling or repairing watches became an important source of
income. Selling and buying was important for Romani people, and the whole family was
involved in activities to get money for the family. The women were especially important in
sales activities. But such activities could not be limited to a small local community, and this is
one important reason for the lifestyle as travelers. Through travelling, they could reach new
174
175
Lund & Moen, eds. (2010), pp. 87-96.
Jahn Otto Johansen (1989), Sigøynernes holocaust. Oslo: Cappelen.
187
markets and earn money both through selling and through working, especially through work
that was important in the old farmer’s society.176
During the early immigration period, Romani people were – to a certain extent tolerated by the authorities, due to the pilgrimage tradition within the Roman Catholic Church.
But this soon changed after the Lutheran reformation in Denmark and Norway (1536), when
the Danish king declared the Romani people to be outlaws. In 1589, the king gave order to
capture all taters and kill them without mercy. In the 18th and 19th century, begging and
travelling on the roads was punished, and many taters were arrested. Local authorities tried to
keep taters outside their districts, and there are examples of organized “tater hunting”.
3. Norwegian policy towards Romani people/tater during the last century
From the last part of the 19th century, the official Norwegian policy towards Romani
people has been characterized as “Norwegianization”, a policy aiming at assimilation of the
minority into the Norwegian society by destroying their specific culture and lifestyle.
Legislation as tools for assimilation
As part of this strategy, different laws were changed or established in order to speed up
the assimilation process. In 1896, the Norwegian Parliament passed a law that made it possible
for public authorities to intervene into families, and remove children from their parents to
prevent neglect. A few years later (1900), a new law against vagrancy intended to exclude
beggars, drunkards and other marginalized groups from public aid, and according to one of the
paragraphs, “travelling people” (i.e. Romani people) without legal work, could become object
of forced settlement. Another law aimed at preventing Romani people from selling goods
during their travelling, and in 1935 the Government even tried to prevent Romani people from
using horses on their travels, but in the Parliament a small majority voted against the proposal.
But later, in 1951, an amendment to the Law on Animal Protection made it illegal for
“travelers” to use horses in their work as salesmen. In 1934, a law on sterilization opened up
the possibility of forced sterilization to prevent “defect” individuals from having children.
Before the law was passed, influential voices within the medical profession had argued that
also Romani women should be included in the law, but that did not happen. During the Second
World War, however, the National Socialist government proposed an amendment to the law,
where Romani people were included, but this law did not come into effect. The old law from
1934 lasted until 1978, and although the “travelers” were not explicitly mentioned in the law,
recent research has shown that relatively many women with Romani/tater background were
affected by the law. 125 women with Romani/tater background were sterilized in the period
1934-1977, most of them according to the paragraphs in the 1934 law.
In practice, there are many examples of different practices against Romani/tater in the
way they were treated by local police officers and other authorities. In some areas, the police
tried to prevent travelers from staying within their district, while others put little emphasis on
this, obviously because Romani/tater were seen as well integrated in the local community.
The law that most directly hit this group was the law against use of horses. On the one
hand, later research has not documented that this law was much used in practice, although
there are stories about local police officers shooting horses belonging to Roma/tater people.
But the law in itself has been interpreted as perhaps the most striking example of the
discrimination that hit this particular minority group.
176
Anne-Mari Larsen, Vi er fargerike bare vi tør. Taternes fortellinger. Oslo: Tapir Akademisk Forlag,
2010, p.83ff.
188
Discrimination and stigmatization
During the 20th century, different practices against Romani people could be
characterized as discriminatory. Recent research has documented different aspects of
discrimination against individuals belonging to this minority group, within fields like school
and education, and in specific areas as refusal to use public campsites.177
The negative attitudes and stereotypes regarding Romani people were quite common in
the Norwegian majority population. Even in the Parliament, some representatives spoke about
Romani/tater as a social “outgrowth” that ought to be cut off. Such negative attitudes among
politicians and in newspapers created a public climate that justified the harsh policy of
assimilation. These attitudes were particularly negative in the years between the two World
Wars, because of the tendency to use biology as a framework of interpretation also for politics,
culture, history and society. In this period, there was a tendency to stigmatize particular human
beings and social groups as “less valuable” than the “sound”, “good” and “normal” people.
Especially in the press, there was I tendency to characterize Romani/tater as an inferior group,
which should not be allowed to reproduce itself. Newspapers described travelers as
“criminals”, and negative characteristics of this group were quite common in the media.
“The Norwegian Mission for Homeless People”
From 1897 to 1986, the state allowed a private organization, “Norwegian Mission
among homeless”, to take the responsibility for the work with Romani/tater. All state support
and aid for Romani people was channeled through this organization, through an extensive
cooperation between public and private actors. A lot of children were removed from their
biological families and grew up in orphan homes or in ordinary Norwegian homes through
foster care.
In the middle of the 19th century, an important Norwegian sociologist, Eilert Sundt, had
published important research on this group. He concluded that Romani people/tater should be
considered as a minority group with distinctive identity, language and work traditions. But
when the plans for a “mission” organization among this people were made in the end of the
1890’s, this perspective was not included. Instead, the plan focused on the “un-Christian” way
of life among the “travelers” and the problem of poverty that had to be overcome through
cooperation between private actors and the public authorities. The “Plan for the work among
Travelers” which was published in 1896, claimed the private part of this cooperation should
represent “mildness”, while the public authorities were supposed to represent “strictness”.
These two attitudes should be combined in the new Mission organization. From 1897, this
organization for the “homeless” played a very important role as the most important tool for the
government in the attempts to assimilate the Romani people into the mainstream Norwegian
culture and society. Resent research on the history of the Mission has concluded that in
practice, the “strictness” became the main characteristics of the work performed, and that the
signs of “mildness” are not always visible in the history of the organization.
The Mission for the Homeless gained power and influence through the close
cooperation with public authorities, especially through economic support and specific
agreements with the state. The organization was led by ministers of the Church of Norway,
and besides, key persons from the state department on Social issues were members of the
Board of the Mission. In this way, the new organization became a part both of the political and
the religious power structure of Norway.
177
Assimilering og motstand. Norsk politikk overfor taterne/romanifolket fra 1850 til i dag. Norges
offentlige utredninger 2015:7. Arnfinn H. Midtbøen & Hilde Lidén, Diskriminering av samer, nasjonale
minoriteter og innvandrere i Norge. En kunnskapsgjennomgang. Institutt for samfunnsforskning –
Rapport 2015:01
189
In its work, the Mission was given a large degree of freedom. The activities of the
organization was very much in line with the mainstream negative view of Romani/tater, and at
the same time, this view justified and legitimized the work of the Mission.
An important part of the Mission’s work was the attempt to settle the “travelers”. In
1907, a new law on “tramps” laid the fundament for the state policy in this field. As an
alternative to being put into forced work, travelers could be sent to “working colonies”
according to this new law, and the state regarded the cooperation with the Mission as a
necessary condition for effective results. Travelers should be forced to stay for a period in one
of the colonies established by the Mission. The Ministry of Church Affairs supported this
view, and even proposed that the Mission should take the main responsibility for the
settlement project on behalf of the state. The government then declared that the Mission
should take the main responsibility for the settlement project for the travelers.
An important part of the Mission’s work in this settlement project was the work on
child care. The task of giving the children a new home, where the children could be brought
up, could only be successful if the parents were removed from the roads. The Mission wanted
to force the families to live in a home, and often the parents were told that they had to settle if
they wanted to keep their children. Otherwise, the Mission would take over the care for the
children, they were told, in spite of the fact that this practice could not be justify by existing
laws.
The most important institution in this work, “Svanviken Working Colony”, was the
most important part of the settling work of the Mission. Living in this colony was supposed to
contribute to the permanent settlement of the “traveling families”, so that they could become
“useful citizens” through work training, including house work, regular school education and a
life within a “fixed framework”. According to the rules, the families living in the colony
should consider themselves as living at home, in order to prepare for a natural family life.
During the last decades, the work of the Mission, both at Svanviken and in other
institutions for children from Romani/tater families, has been heavily criticized. In recent
research, many examples of care neglect and serious violations have been documented, and
often, the children lost contact with their family and their group. The official policy towards
this minority group was to destroy family ties and to overcome the “traveling” lifestyle and
culture.
Registration was another attempt to control the Romani/tater group. The state
considered registration and counting of the members of this group as an important, and the
Mission supported this view and even worked for a more accurate registration. In the years
between 1921 and 1978, the Mission received copies of documents from the police with very
sensitive information about Roma citizens (and also some citizens from other minority groups,
Gypsies and Kvens) who were punished. This is another example of the extensive cooperation
between a private organization and public institutions, and during the last decades this
cooperation has been criticized.
The Mission also supported sterilization as a necessary tool to solve the “traveling
problem”. In the public discussion on the law on sterilization that was discussed in the early
1930’s, the General Secretary of the Mission in 1933 advised the Minister of Justice to
intensify the work with the new law. And in the years after 1934, the leader of the Mission
actively engaged in the issue of sterilization for Romani/tater, even during the Second World
War, when he tried to convince the National Socialist government that sterilization should be
used more extensively in this group. Research has shown that at 125 women with
Romani/tater background were sterilized in the period 1934-1977, most of them according to
the paragraphs in the 1934 law.
From the late 1920’s the Mission initiated an intelligence test for children living in the
Mission’s homes for children. 71 children were tested by a medical student, and when the
190
results were published in 1931, the study concluded that 61 of the children were more or less
below the normal intelligence level. Both the leader of the Mission and some politicians used
this as an argument for sterilization, and later the results were used to argue for a stronger
emphasis on classification and segregation of children from Roma/tater families. During the
1930’s, a lot of children from the Mission’s children homes were transferred to institutions for
mentally retarded children. Later, the Mission also took the initiative to regular psychiatric
testing of the children in the Mission’s homes, in order to send retarded children to special
institutions. The Mission’s homes should only concentrate on children with “basically normal
capabilities”. This practice became efficient in the early 1950’s, and could be interpreted as a
means to destroy the links between children and their biological parents. Through intelligence
testing, the Mission intended to sort out children below an acceptable intelligence level.
Children who passed the test could be assimilated, but those who did not pass, should be
segregated.
During the Second World War, the National Socialist regime continued the
assimilation work that had been the dominating principle for the last decades. The aim was the
same, but the NS regime used more extreme means and measures to reach it. All adult
members of the group were supposed to live in “work camp”, in order to force families to give
up their mobile lifestyle. At the same time, the NS regime wanted to reduce the influence of
the Mission. But in practice, it is not easy to see how the policy during the war differed from
the years before and after the war. The Norwegian war experiences do not seem to have
modified the official policy towards this group during the first years after 1945. The ideal of a
community where everybody should contribute to the common good through work that could
lead to economic growth for the whole society, did not open up for a more tolerant attitude
towards people who represented an alternative lifestyle that was characterized as
unproductive, criminal and parasitic. The leaders of the Mission often spoke about the need to
change the travelers into “clever and positive human beings in the society” who could
contribute to the growth of the national fellowship.
Change of attitudes and criticism of earlier policy against Roma/tater
From the 1970’s, the attitude towards Roma/tater gradually started to change within the
Norwegian society. In April 1975, a member of the Parliament posed critical question about
the traditional policy against this minority group in a question to the Minister of Social affairs.
As a result of the debate in the Parliament, a public commission in 1979 was asked to present
a report on the topic. The commission finished their report in 1982, and in one of their
recommendation they proposed a change in the economic system, integrating the economy in
ordinary structure within the local municipalities instead of treating the minorities in as a
particular group outside the society. As the Parliament changed their policy in 1986, the
Minister of Justice said:
“It is important that the specific tradition and history of the “tater” people is recognized
and treated as a valuable part of our society. We should also formulate an acceptation towards
those who are not living in a specific place and/or are not integrated. We have to accept that
people do not want to be like all others. This can only be achieved by increased
knowledge.”178
During the following years, the local municipalities became more professional in their
contacts with the travelers, and their economic resources were improved, so that they could
give better and more adequate help. As a result of the changes in the economic system, some
of the old paragraphs in the laws that had contributed to discrimination, were removed.
178
Assimilering og motstand, p. 69.
191
In the same years, the Mission changed its name, organization and profile. In 1983 the
phrase “work for travelers” was removed from § 1. Instead the aim of the Mission was
described with these words: “to realize the diaconal mission of the church by giving children,
youth and adult people in a difficult situation possibilities for fellowship and personal growth
in home, church and society”. Three years later, the name was changed to “The Social Service
of the Church”, and the old Mission organization was replaced by a foundation.
From the 1970’s the old policy of assimilation gradually had met increased criticism.
At the same time, the lifestyle of the Romani/tater people had changed during the last years,
since many lived in permanent houses most of the year, reducing the traveling lifestyle to
shorter periods. Still, many people feared the authorities because of the negative experiences
from earlier times, and the process of integration took its time.
If we compare the situation at the end of the 20th century with the conditions 100 years
earlier, it is obvious that the situation for the group had changed a lot, from a strict policy of
assimilation to a recognizing policy towards minorities. But the process towards had been very
slow, and the issue of human rights did not play a role as a critical force against
discrimination.
Recent developments and changes
From early 1990’s, Romani/tater people founded interest organizations in order to
engage in public debates. An important issue was the need to map the policy in earlier periods
in order to show the need for excuse and rehabilitation. In newspapers and television
programs, individuals and families from this group told their stories about harassment and
violations. The pressure for an official excuse from the side of the political authorities became
stronger.
During the last 20 years, the Norwegian government has tried to answer these claims in
different ways, both through public excuses and individual programs for compensation. In
1996, a specific research program was established within the Norwegian Research Council,
with the aim of mapping the history of the Romani/tater people and the official policy towards
this group.
The inclusion of the group as a national minority from 1999 is another example of the
change in attitudes and policy. But the Norwegian ratification of the Framework Convention
of the European Council of 1 February 1995 for the Protection of National Minorities, was
criticized by a majority of the spokespersons from the Romani/tater organizations. One of the
argument used, was that Romani people in Norway should be seen as Norwegian citizens with
the same rights and duties as all other citizens, and therefore they should not isolate
themselves from the rest of the society. On the other hand, they also warned against being
defined as a particular group. One of the organizations said that the status as a minority,
national or ethnic, should not “follow us as a stamp”. Another organization warned against a
split within the group between those who would prefer to belong to this minority and those
who would refuse this or would keep neutral. Only one of the Romani organizations preferred
a new status as a minority, claiming that the convention would give a robust recognition of
earlier violations, and a duty to ensure that the groups should be considered as an equal
participant on all levels in the Norwegian society.
Spokespersons from the Romani/tater people have also demanded a critical evaluation
of the work of the Norwegian Mission of the Homeless. When the five different groups were
recognized as national minorities, the authorities in many cases gave excuses for earlier
violations and racist attitudes against the minorities. The different tater organizations
demanded both excuses from the authorities and compensations for violations and losses
during the years of discrimination and violations.
192
In 1998, the Norwegian government gave a public excuse to the Romani/tater people,
and two years later the Stoltenberg government repeated this excuse in an official paper to the
Parliament:
This policy was supported and sanctioned positively by official authorities (The
Parliament, the government, central and local administration), and to a large extent realized by
the organization Norwegian Mission among the homeless. … The government strongly
abominates the violations against the Romani people, and asks for forgiveness for the injustice
that has taken place. Something similar must never happen again.179
Also from Church of Norway there were excuses, given by the General Assembly both
in 1998 and 2000. The first excuse was not accepted by some of the representatives from the
Romani/tater people, since the church mainly criticized the state, without focusing on the
violations coming from the Church, especially the Mission. Therefore, a new statement with a
stronger excuse, without reservations, was given two years later.
Also within the organization that replaced the Mission from 1986, an internal process
has been started to evaluate the history of the Mission. This work is still in progress.
In 2015, an official commission presented a large report on the Norwegian policy
towards Romani/tater people from 1850 to the present situation, summing up the history and
important research on the topic. In this report, the Mission has been heavily criticized for its
attitudes and acts against Romani people, but criticism has also been launched against political
authorities, both on state level and on the regional and local level. The situation has changed a
lot during the last decades, and the integration of this national minority group has reached a
new level during this last period.
4. Norwegian policy towards Roma (Gypsies)
Roma people in Norway after the Second World War
As we have seen in the historical overview, Norwegian authorities tried to keep Roma
people (Gypsies) outside Norway’s national borders before the Second World War. This
policy must be understood against a specific ideological background. Among Norwegians,
there was a general distrust against Roma, and people belonging to this group were denied
access to Norway even when they brought Norwegian passports and valid papers. After the
war, the same attitudes dominated the official Norwegian attitude towards the group, when
Roma people returning to Norway applied for a renewal of their citizenship.180 The family
members who had survived the war, were stateless, and they lived in Belgium with a
temporarily citizenship. In 1953 the first family tried to get permission to travel to Norway,
but they were denied access, although the head of the family brought papers showing that he
was born in Norway. On the other hand, survivors from another family with the same links to
Norway, were given Norwegian citizenship at the end of the 1950’s.181
In 1962, the Ministry of Social Issues established a Commission for Contact with
Gypsies. In addition to representatives from the ministry, the police and schools in Oslo, the
Roman Catholic Church and the Norwegian Mission among the Homeless were represented in
the commission. This could be interpreted as a policy trying to isolate the problem with the
Roma/Gypsies as a specific challenge, distinct from the old problem with the Romani/tater
people. At this time, there were about 60 members of the group of Vlach-rom with Norwegian
attachment, some of them living abroad for periods. When members of this group traveled to
Oslo or other parts of Norway, the public opinion showed signs of worry.
179
Assimilering og motstand, p. 85.
Johansen 2010.
181
Lund & Moen, eds., p.93f..
180
193
In order to come into closer contact with the group, spokesmen for the Roma people
were appointed, on the basis of a private or a professional knowledge to the group. This made
it easier for the group of Roma to present their wishes through spokesmen outside of the
group. The Roma people themselves normally did not participate in the public debate. The
spokespersons tried to influence the work on Roma within the Ministry, and they also used the
press to try to change the attitudes to the Gypsies among the majority population.182 The work
within the Commission for Gypsies resulted in a public proposal on measures for the gypsies,
and an official document about this was presented for the Parliament in 1972/73.
This document can be seen as the first example of a new policy against the group of
Roma/Gypsies, compared with the earlier policy of assimilation. The main idea was
integration into the Norwegian society and working life, but at the same time the document
supported the Roma people’s wish to keep their cultural uniqueness. The proposal underlined
settlement, education and work as important parts of a strategy for integration, and underlined
the need for the gypsies to play an active part in the evaluation of the different measures. For
example, there a class on the language romanes was established for Roma children, and the
authorities in the city of Oslo established a specific department for Gypsy matters, covering
both ordinary social issues and housing policy. In 1978, a Kindergarten for all Roma children
and a Youth Club was established.
In 1988, the social matters for Roma people were transferred from the department for
Gypsy matters to the ordinary offices in the different areas. This can be seen as a new policy,
with the aim of “normalizing” the relationship between the group of Roma and the society as a
whole. The specific measures towards the group were phased out in order to integrate the
Roma population into a system where welfare assistance was given on an individual basis, not
a group basis.
The present discussion on Roma people in Norway
Norway’s ratification of Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the
Protection of National Minorities in 1999, where the Norwegian Roma (Gypsies) were given
status as a national minority because of their historical background in the country, could be
interpreted as compensation for the long history of assimilation, violations and discrimination
towards this group. During the last years, Roma people are also coming from other geographic
areas, for example as asylum seekers from Eastern European countries. The Schengen
agreement and the extensions of the EU have led to an increased freedom of movement across
national borders, and this has led to new discussions about Roma people in Norway. Most
Roma people coming from abroad lack education and professional skills, and therefore a lot of
them end up as beggers. Often, they get into conflict with the authorities. In the sumner of
2012, a newspaper reported the following about the situation in Oslo:
Around 200 migrants from south-eastern Europe, who claim to be looking for work in
Oslo but mostly resort to begging, have landed in yet another conflict after settling in a
privately owned gravel pit over the weekend. (…) The migrants, most of them Roma people
from Romania and Bulgaria, were ordered to leave the grounds around Sofienberg Church in
Oslo where they’d settled last week. After months of camping out under bridges and in city
parks, repeatedly violating city sanitation lws in doing wo, the migrants banded together and
set up camp outside the church in Oslo’s trendy Grünerløkka neighbourhood to seek refuge
from what they claimed was police harassment. (…) Both city and church officials, the latter
182
Ted Hanisch, Om sigøynerspørsmålet. En undersøkelse av bakgrunnen for sosial konfrontasjon. Oslo:
Institutt for samfunnsforskning, 1976.
194
suspecting they were being used as pawns in the conflict, ordered the church camp
disbanded.”183
Recent research on the new group of Roma people coming to Norway, from Romania
and other Eastern European countries, has shown that the most typical pattern is married
couples in the 40’s and 50’s. Some bring adult children with them, while others travel in large
family groups without children.184 They travel in different ways, by train, minibuses, tourist
buses or own cars to Norway (and other European countries).
In Norway, begging on the streets is the most visible activity among these people, but
they are also performing other activities, collecting bottles, clothes and other objects from
trash containers, in order to earn money from selling. Some of them are musicians, playing on
the street. A Norwegian report from 2012 suggested that begging and other kinds of street
work demands effective work on a collective basis to be profitable. In that case, it is possible
to send a considerable amount of money back to the home country.185
The beggars belonging to Roma people, is both considered to be a victim and a
violator, but first and foremost as exotic and strange. Not only in Norway, but in most
European countries, the authorities consider these people as the most difficult group to
integrate, because they refuse to accept the framework they have to be a part of. Therefore,
both Norway and many other European countries have started projects, programs and
activities to integrate gypsies, often based on the idea that the marginalization of this group is
caused by social poverty. On the other hand, researchers have claimed that we also should see
the other side, and that gypsies and Roma are a very varied population with different social
and economic status, and that we have to distinguish between the myths and realities when we
describe this group.186
In the Norwegian public debate, there have been many examples of media reports that
paint a very negative picture of “bands of beggars” with a criminal background, crating
disturbance in the public sphere, both in Oslo and some other cities. Some politicians have
claimed that the Roma beggars should be expelled from the country, both because of links to
criminality and because of their unsound way of living, producing garbage at the street. On the
other hand, politicians have warned against focusing too much on this group, since it has been
difficult to verify the accusations about links to organized criminality. But still, this discussion
is quite strong in Norway today, and both from politicians and church representatives, there is
a considerable uncertainty about the best strategy towards this group of Roma (Gypsies) that
have become so visible, especially in Oslo.
Conclusion
Different national minorities have a long history in Norway, especially during the last
4-500 hundred years. The way these minorities have been treated by Norwegian political
authorities have differed a lot, and the social acceptance among the majority population has
gradually changed from a hostile to a more positive attitude. The main tendency has been a
change from hostility and discrimination, through a period of assimilation policy, to a more
inclusive attitude during the last decades, aiming at integration and full participation in the
Norwegian society. The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities has
183
Quoted from Kjetil Fretheim, «Majority church and migration: A Norwegian case study», CULTA
Religion and Multiculturality, 2013.
184
Ada I. Engebretsen. Tiggerbander og kriminelle bakmenn eller fattige EU-borgere? Myter og
realiteter om utenlandske tiggere i Oslo: NOVA 2012.
185
Engebretsen 2012, p. 33.
186
Engebretsen 2012, p. 41.
195
played an important role during the last 15 years, but already before Norway signed the
Convention, the movement towards integration and inclusion had started.
Still, there are problems to be solved, especially with regard to the last years’ situation
for the new group of Roma people coming to Norway as beggars. Still, Norwegian politicians
have not been able to find a common strategy in this issue, and the attitudes within the
population is quite divided when it comes to what measures should be preferred. So there are
still challenges for Norwegian policy towards the national minorities.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Assimilering og motstand. Norsk politikk overfor taterne/romanifolket fra 1850 til i
dag. Norges offentlige utredninger 2015:7.
2. Engebretsen, Ada J., 2012, Tiggerbander og kriminelle bakmenn eller fattige EUborgere? Myter og realiteter om utenlandske tiggere i Oslo. Oslo: NOVA – Norsk institutt for
forskning om oppvekst, velferd og aldring, (Notat Nr. 2/12).
3. Fretheim, Kjetil, «Majority church and migration: A Norwegian case study», CULTA
Religion and Multiculturality: Educational Pathways for Local Church Leaders – National
Researches.
4. Hanisch, Ted, 1976, Om sigøynerspørsmålet. En undersøkelse av bakgrunnen for
sosial konfrontasjon. Oslo: Institutt for samfunnsforskning.
http://www.cultaproject.eu/index.php/en/research-products/research-from-mf-norway
5. Johansen, Jahn Otto, 1989, Sigøynernes holocaust. Oslo: Cappelen.
6. Johansen, Jahn Otto, 2010, Romafolket (sigøynerne) - utstøtt og forfulgt. Drøbak:
Kultur og utenriks.
7. Larsen, Anne-Mari, 2010, Vi er fargerike bare vi tør. Taternes fortellinger. Oslo:
Tapir Akademisk Forlag.
8. Lund, Anne Bonnevie & Bente Bolme MOEN (eds.), 2010, Nasjonale minoriteter i
det flerkulturelle Norge. Trondheim: Tapir Akademisk forlag.
9. Midtboen, Arnfinn H. & Hilde Liden, 2015, Diskriminering av samer, nasjonale
minoriteter og innvandrere i Norge. En kunnskapsgjennomgang. Institutt for
samfunnsforskning – Rapport :01
.
196
TABLE OF CONTENT
FOREWORD...............................................................................................................................5
Carmen Ionela Banţa, PhD
THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND MINORITIES .............................................................................. 9
George Gîrleşteanu, PhD.
PROMOTING THE HUMAN BEING AND ITS PRICELESS VALUE
IN THE CONTEXT OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY –
THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES ................................................................................................ 26
His Eminence University Professor PhD Irineu Ion Popa
HISTORICAL AND ETHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE MINORITIES PRESENT
IN OLTENIA. BELIEFS, CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS ...................................................... 38
Emil Ţîrcomnicu PhD
Florenţa Simion PhD
ETHNOGRAPHICAL LAYOUT OF MINORITIES IN OLTENIA-SETTLEMENST,
OCCUPATIONS, ARCHITECTURE, MANAGEMENT OF THE DWELLING PLACES,
TRADITIONAL COSTUME .................................................................................................... 86
Cornel Bălosu, PhD
INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY:
SOCIOCULTURAL PROFILE OF MINORITIES IN OLTENIA ............................................ 100
Dumitru Otovescu, PhD
Alexandrina Mihaela Popescu, PhD
Răzvan Nicolae Stan, PhD
OLTENIA, AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL SKETCH ................................................................. 160
Nicolae Panea PhD
LIVE STORIES ...................................................................................................................... 167
Gabriela Rusu, PhD
NATIONAL MINORITIES IN NORWAY – OVERVIEW AND EXPERIENCES .................. 186
Gunnar Heiene, PhD
Solvor M. Lauritzen, PhD
197
Printed at ALMA DCMI
Tel./Fax: 0251.587.300
e-mail: [email protected]
Baza industrial# ALMA CONS
Calea Severinului, Nr. 44 A
200610 - Craiova
Rom@nia

MINORITIES IN OLTENIA CULTURAL STUDIES

Transcription

Similar documents

review of reviews - Romanian Review of Political Sciences and

Diapozitivul 1

Prezentare Universitatea Danubius

THE ROMANIANS HISTORICAL PLACE EUROPE

ROMA WITH AN EDUCATION, ROMA WITH A FUTURE.

¯ The songs always start with the ritornello, even if by exception they

constantin brâncuși - Rhonda L. Holmes

World Refugee Day 2011 Romania

UNIVERSITATEA „SPIRU HARET”

Untitled