settlement and toponomy in the pătârlagele depression: the muscel

Transcription

Geogaphica Timisiensis, vol. 18, nr.1-2, 2009 (pp. 121-148) ●
SETTLEMENT AND TOPONOMY IN THE
PĂTÂRLAGELE DEPRESSION: THE MUSCEL AND VIEI
VALLEYS
David Turnock
Geography Department, University of Leicester
+ N.Muică
Institute of Geography, Bucarest
ABSTRACT The Subcarpathians are known as a well-settled region since early times, but it is also
evident that many settlements are relatively modern and reflect the expansion of subsistence farming
from the major valleys on to the hillsides during a period of acute population pressure in the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This phase of growth is investigated in the context of the
northwestern part of the Pătârlagele Depression – the Muşcel and Viei valleys – with particular
reference to the toponomy emerging from large-scale maps, key texts (especially Iorgulescu’s epic
works of 1885 and 1892) and very rich oral evidence. The paper pays particular attention to landslide
areas that were often attractive to pioneer peasant farmers on account of their soil fertility and
moisture context. It is evident that many areas used today for hay, pasture and plum orchards were
well cultivated until cereal lands were acquired in the Bărăgan under the 1923 land reform and
economic diversification accelerated after 1945. Toponomy is therefore presented as a major source
for understanding an important phase of rural settlement. While the placenames contribute much of
interest in terms of ecology and environmental potentials in the light of survival by extended families
and other small communities there is little reliable information on the origins of settlement.
Rezumat. Aşezări şi toponime în Depresiunea Pătârlagele: Văile Muscel şi Viei. Subcarpaţii sunt
cunoscuţi drept o regiune bine populate din cele mai vechi timpuri, dar este de asemenea evident că
numeroase aşezări sunt de vărstă relative modernă şi reflect expansiunea agriculturii de subzistenţă de la
văile principale pe culmile deluroase în timpul unei acute presiuni demografice la sfârşitul secolului XIX şi
începutul secolului XX. Această perioadă de creştere este cercetată în contextual părţii de nord vest a
depresiunii Pătârlagele – văile Muşcel şi Viei –cu referire specială la toponimele ce provin de pe hărţi la
scară mare, texte cheie (cum sunt lucrările lui Iorgulescu din 1885 şi 1892) şi din memoria oralî bogată.
Articolul acordă o atenţie specială zonelor afectate de alunecări de teren care au fost atractive pentru ţărani
pionieri datorită solurilor fertile şi caracteristicilor lor hidrologice. Numeroase yone folosite azi pentru
fâneţe, păşunat şi livezi de pruni au fost bine cultivate până cănd s-au achiziţionat terenuri cerealiere în
Bărăgan în timpul reformei agrare din 1923 şi diversificării economice accelerate după 1945. Toponimia
este prezentată drept o sursă importantă pentru inţelegerea unei perioade importante din dezvoltarea
aşezărilor rurale. Există puţine informaţii legate de originea aşezărilor deşi toponimele lămuresc multe
aspecete legate de ecologie şi potenţialul de supravieţuire al mediului pentru familiile numeroase şi alte
mici comunităţi.
Key words: agriculture, colonisation, historical geography, Pătârlagele, rural settlement,
Subcarpathians, toponomy, Valea Muşcelului, Valea Viei
122●Settlement and Toponomy in the Pătârlagele Depression: The Muscel and Viei
Valleys
Cuvinte cheie: agricultură, colonizare, geografie istorică, Pătârlagele, aşezare rurală, Subcarpaţi,
toponimie, Valea Muşcelului, Valea Viei.
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the projects started in the 1990s under a research agreement between the
Romanian Academy’s Institute of Geography and the Department of Geography at the
University of Leicester (UK) concerned the human geography of the Pătârlagele area,
having in mind the rural restructuring process (N.Muică & Turnock 1997) and the
problematic nature of much of the terrain prone to landslides and mudflows (C.Muică &
Bălteanu 1995; N.Muică & Turnock 1994). Historical investigation into this topic was
encouraged by the wider studies in Buzăucounty (Nancu & Alexandrescu 1993), gaving
rise to case studies of nineteenth century rural strategies of pluriactivity (N.Muică et al.
2000a, 2000b). We have continued our historical research into the problems of village
origins and toponomy and this paper discusses our findings against a background of
knowledge emphasising the historical continuity of relatively dense settlement in the Buzău
Subcarpathians as a whole (Petrescu-Burloiu 1977, pp.139–40) although historically the
Pătârlagele Depression was part of Saac county before 1845. We find that the great
majority of settlements date back only to the nineteenth century while proof of settlement
continuity is extremely sparse for earlier periods (Muică & Turnock in press). The full
study area comprises the communes of Pănătău and Pătârlagele, with the latter now an
urban area which has always been the centre of the district. It comprises not only the Buzău
valley but also adjacent Subcarpathian hill country drained by a number of tributary
valleys, including the Pănătău and Sibiciu valleys on the eastern side as well as
V.Muşcelului and V.Viei which comprise the study area for the present paper (Figure 1).
The main settlements occupy the main Buzău corridor system but are complemented by
smaller villages and hamlets in the hills where there are extensive landslide surfaces
attractive for small-scale agriculture (though problematic for settlement) and complement
the ‘ţarină’ lands on the low ground which offer a much better basis for capital investment.
This paper deals with the settlement history of the Muşcel and Viei valleys – lying
immediately west of Pătârlagele – using the local toponomy to supplement the
documentary record. The study area is roughly square-shaped: extending some 6.5kms
east-west from the Buzău valley to the watershed between the Buzău and Bâsca Chiojdului
marked by a line of hills including Vf.Stânei (967m), Vf.Pătârlagelor (833m), Vf.Cătinei
(791m) and Vf.Cornetului (827m) and also from north to south: the limits of the Muşcel
and Viei valleys involving secondary waterseds (a) from Vf.Pătârlagelor to
Vf.Cremenişului (835m) to the lower hills of Dl.Mirodina (611m) and the Mu.Flutur ridge
at c.600m overlooking the main Buzău valley; and (b) the southern limit extending from
Vf.Cătinei and Vf.Cornetului (827m), with the adjacent Pd.Creţuleasca, Vf.Vătalei and
Vf.Haiului. The intervening watershed between the Muşcel and Viei valleys is relatively
low and consists of open grazing land between Dl.Viei (which is complemented by
Dl.Mânăstirei to create a gorge comprising the intermediate section of the Viei valley) and
the hamlet of Orjani. We make extensive use of cartographic evidence. The ‘Harta
Topografică’ by Serviciul Geografic al Armatei (1916) – based on 1895-8 data – provides a
picture for the end of the nineteenth century while the end of the eighteenth century is
covered by Specht’s ‘Militairische Carte’ (1790-1) and von Bauer’s ‘Mémoires
Nicolae MUICĂ, David TURNOK ● 123
Historiques’ (1778). Out of a total of 119 settlements throughout the Pătârlagele
Depression (including many that are merely neighbourhoods within larger villages) only 41
can be convincingly dated to the eighteenth century or earlier (Muică & Turnock in press)
(Figure 2). Of course some settlements may well be much older, but a key point is the
apparent focus on the lower ground (and especially the Buzău terraces) with only
temporary/seasonal use of the higher ground, which could of course include an element of
monastic settlement in the form of hermitages that provide a possible origin for Cârnu
monastery in the southeastern part of the depression. The latter is known from the sixteenth
century along with a cluster the three leading settlements beside the Buzăuriver:
Pătârlagele, Sibiciu de Jos and Sibiciu de Sus. At the same time a comparison can be made
between the two halves of the nineteenth century thanks to the Russian map (‘Harta
Rusă/Rusească) of 1853.
Tab. 1 Population 1832-2002.
Main
Villages#
Calea
Chiojdului
Crâng
Fundăturile
Mânăstirea
Muşcel
Orjani
Stroeşti
Valea Viei
Total (i)
Total (ii)
1912a
1912b
Populaţia 1832-2002
1966b 1966c
1941b
1992b
2002b
Gndr.
18312a
0
89
351
333
245
91.8
103
98
50.8
42
40
0
68
49
27
108
55
74
107
45
37
429
223
298
434
181
154
479
280
327
486
181
206
567
245
300
691
265
346
42.8
86.0
73.5
80.3
n.a.
78.6
613
203
108
566
n.a.
589
216
97
536
n.a.
33
51.1
51.9
49.6
51.2
49.7
50.9
506
2083
11179
51.9
50.9
n.a.
57
283
1167
102
617
2536
421
2491
10994
521
2813
13162
616
3275
12911
49.8
n.a.
65.4
41`
514
2148
11778
a households; b total population; c employment in agriculture (percent). For gender the
figures are the female perentages (taking the average for 1912, 1930, 1941, 1956, 1966, 1977, 1992
and 2002 – but 1912, 1930 and 1941 only for Orjani). Mânăstirea now has a female majority while
Stroeşti has a clear male majorit .
The totals relate to the Muşcel and Viei valleys (i) and the Păţărlagele Depression (ii). It is
evident that the study area maintained a share of about a quarter of the total population of the wider
area until 1992 when the concentration on Păţârlagele became particularly striking. For households
the figures were 24.2 percent for 1831-2 and 24.3 for 1912. For total population the figures were
22.7 percent in 1912, 21.4 in 1941, 25.4 in 1966, 18.2 in 1992 and 18.6 in 2002
# denotes the villages which have official recognition today as components of communes or
towns. Dependent hamlets are listed as follows with differentiation between those with official status
in the past (*) and others that are recognised locally as distinct (named) quarters or small detached
settlements: Calea Chiojdului: *Brusturişu[16], *Malul Alb[49], *Mihălceşti/Mihăileşti[57]; Crang
(Class 3): Cetate/Subcetate [21], Copăcelul[23], *Murăturile[61], *Orjani/Horjani [64];
Mânăstirea: La Mânăstire în Ţigănie/Ţigănia Mânăstirii/Ţigăneşti][39]; Muşcel: Cătunul
Valleys
Bisericii/Drăgulineşti/Manoleşti[20], Gârlă[32], *Măceşu[46],
Pâcle[65], *Poiana[84];
Stroeşti/Valea Viei Ungureni]: Chelăreşti[22], Ivăneşti[36], Murea[62], Podosu[81], Potorăşti[89],
1a, Şoghiorani[103], Vasiloi[117]; Valea Viei/Valea Viei Pământeni: Bărbuleşti[9],
Lemnăreşti[41]. These hamlets ate located on Figure 1.
Source: Census returns but Anon (1892) for 1832.
a. gospodării;b populaţia totală; cangajaţi în agricultură (procent). Pentru gen figurile
indică procentajul feminine (considerând valoarea medie pentru 1912, 1930, 1941, 1956, 1966,
1977, 1992, şi 2002 – dar pentru 1912, 1930 şi 1941 numai pentru Oriijani). În Mănăstirea populaţia
majoritară este feminin dar Stroeşti are o majoritate masculină.
Totalul se referă la văile Muşcel and Viei (i) şi depresiunea Pătârlage (ii).este evident că
aria de studiu avut o pondere a populaţiei de aproximativ un sfert din totalul populaţiei ariei mai
mari până în 1992 când concentrarea Pătârlagele a devenit evidentă. Cifrele care indică gospodării
sunt 24,2 % în 1831-1832 şi 24,3 pentru 1912. Pentru totalul populaţiei cifrele au fost de 22,7% în
1912, 21,4 în 1941, 25,4 în 1966, 18,2 în1992 şi 18,6 în 2002.
# Denotă satele care sunt ayi părţi componente din commune sau oraşe. Cătunele
dependente sunt listate după cum urmează cu diferenţe între cele cu statut official ăn trecut (*) şi
altele care sunt recunoscute local ca fiind diferite cartiere sau mici aşezări distincte Calea
Chiojdului: *Brusturişu[16], *Malul Alb[49], *Mihălceşti/Mihăileşti[57]; Crang (Class 3):
Cetate/Subcetate [21], Copăcelul[23], *Murăturile[61], *Orjani/Horjani [64]; Mânăstirea: La
Mânăstire
în
Ţigănie/Ţigănia
Mânăstirii/Ţigăneşti][39];
Muşcel:
Cătunul
Bisericii/Drăgulineşti/Manoleşti[20], Gârlă[32], *Măceşu[46],
Pâcle[65], *Poiana[84];
Stroeşti/Valea Viei Ungureni]: Chelăreşti[22], Ivăneşti[36], Murea[62], Podosu[81], Potorăşti[89],
1a, Şoghiorani[103], Vasiloi[117]; Valea Viei/Valea Viei Pământeni: Bărbuleşti[9],
Lemnăreşti[41]. Aceste cătune sunt localizate pe harta 1.
2. THE LOCAL TERRAIN
As the basis of a countryside of depressions and rolling hills at 300-900m, the
complex geology embraces Miocene and Pliocene rocks that vary greatly in their resistance
to erosion: ranging from clays and marls to limestones and sandstones. The landscape is
remarkably youthful because of the vertical uplift of about 1,000m during the Quaternary
which continues today at the modest rate of 0.5-1.5mm per annum. Rivers have become
ever more deeply incised in an area of steeply-inclined (sometimes near vertical) strata.
Hills manifest youthful characteristics, while valley deepening also results in a massive and
continuing transfer of material from the slopes to the channels. But great instability arises
from the geology that throws together a variety of sedimentary rocks: clays, marls, sands
and gravels intercalated with more resistant cemented rocks: sandstone (calcareous,
silicious or otherwise depending on the binding material), limestone, gypsum and even
conglomerate which may be steeply sloping or even vertical. Level ground is to be found
on the Buzău alluvial lands comprising well-developed terrace systems appearing as steps
beginning just 3.0-4.0m above the floodplain; complemented by fragments of mature relief
on the higher ground where mature/fossil soils support pastures and hayfields today with
with ample traces of former cropping activity as well. The high terraces of the Buzău and
other rivers have cut across geological layers of varied resistance and inclination. On the
western side of the Buzău on the hill of Mş.Pătârlagelor, above C.Crivinenilor, terrace
fragments at 180-200m carved in vertical geological layers comprise a gently-inclined 35deg. surface facing the Buzău valley and provide a striking legacy of the old, developed
relief.
There are also fragments of old terraces (limited by steep slopes) on the eastsouth-eastern part of the Dl.Viei summit, although there is no surface of uniform
inclination here but rather some near-horizontal areas of agricultural value separated and
dominated by small summits transversally orientated (reflecting the vertical geological
layers with varied resistance at the erosion). Another example concerns the eastern part of
Dl.Mânăstirii (south of V.Viei) where the remnant of an old surface appears as a slope
between two old terraces: although very limited in extent, mature soil that is visible in some
‘precipices’ that form parts of this slope. And in the western part of Dl.Mânăstirii there are
also remnants of Villafranchian gravels; some of them in a highly modified form with a
reddish or reddish-brown colour. In the context of human settlement ‘the mosaic-like
Subcarpathian landscape facilitated a multitude of soil uses’ as forest largely disappeared
(C.Muică et al.1993, p.137). The new mosaic pattern reflected the main scarp and dip slope
features linked with a succession of cuestas - with woodland and agriculture - further
differentiated by scarps and terraces on the dip slope giving rise to small areas of
woodland, with former orchards (now poor grazings) and hayfields. There may be an
alternation of sandstone and marl outcrops across a sloping surface: introducing a
corrugated pattern – with minor cuestas – and contrasting landuses of woodland/scrub and
pasture. An exception to the mosaic landscape can be seen on Dl.Viei and the ridge to
Orjani. This is an anticlinal structure occurring between the sandstone of Blidişel and the
area south of V.Viei. The area is affected by salt and gypsum/sulphate and is not good for
crops or trees. Some oak has been found on salty ground (rare enough to warrant
consideration for a nature reserve). Some fruit trees survive where there is only a little salt
but growth is retarded.
But much emphasis must be given to landslides (‘pornituri’) since mass movement
occurs throughout the extensive ‘flysch zone’ of the Carpathians, given the great variety in
lithology as well as tectonic and structural fragmentation conducive to a dense river
network. But these characteristics apply especially to the Curvature Carpathians where the
instability of the hillslopes – comprising most of the agricultural land – has always posed
risks for settlement. And these hazards have become more significant today in the context
of increasing investment in housing and infrastructure (Bogdan & Bălteanu eds. 1986).
However landslide material varies considerably in character. The main ingredients are clay,
marl and sandstone, but the proportions vary as does the amount of lubrication (for heavy
rain may well provoke sudden changes in the speed of advance), while fragments of hard
rock may occasionally predominate. The depth of the landslides varies considerably: most
are quite shallow (0.4-0.8m) but some reach as much as 10.0m and occasionally more. The
shallower landslides tend to be the more extensive – emanating from amphitheatres
(formed by the slumping of part of the hillside) to occupy as much as two-thirds of a
hillslope: as material is torn away to form a landslide source area, a quite large steep-sided
‘detachment cup’ may be created to resemble a glacial cirque. Clearly landslides have great
significance for settlement because their fertility and moisture content is enhanced by a
natural ‘churning’ process. The lack of extensive smooth surfaces with easy access – so
important for commercial agriculture – is no great handicap for subsistance farming when
people are able to live in close proximity. Since they offer moisture retention (particularly
valuable during dry periods) and remove salt from the soil, even the shallowest landslide
tongues (‘limbi de pornituri’) are widely used for agriculture (maize, fruit trees and hay) in
contrast to the pasture and forest prevailing elsewhere. Many landslides have stabilised and
Valleys
could have been active as long ago as the prehistoric period (indicated by the level of soil
development). Thus it is not surprising that many villages are situated wholly or partially
on landslides: Crâng, Fundăturile, Muşcel, Stroeşti and the older part of Valea Viei.
In the Muşcel valley there are many landslides that vary according to form,
dimensions, age and stability. In the upper part, with a montainous character, landslide
tongues are similar to glaciers, with great contrasts between the hillslopes and the landslide
surfaces. Agricultural use is very evident above Brusturişu and in the central section at
Fundăturile there are some old suspended landslide fans e.g. in the Maloteasa valley there
is also an old suspended tongue, with some young landslides lower down. On the left side
of the Muşcel there are traces of old landslide fans such as ’La Arie’, visible from the right
side of the valley above Crâng. In the V.Viei basin there is (a) an upper part with relatively
gentle slopes and a extensive area of young, clayey and superficial landslides (with some
salt, especially on the left side of the V.Viei stream) in addition to an old landslide tongue
on which Stroeşti village is situated; while (b) the lower part is narrow and menaced by
steep slopes with old landslides, with serious consequences when the 1940 earthquake
damaged property including the church: indeed with the recent cutting of a meander below
the village the danger is now increased because the river profile has been steepened.
Intensive use of landslide surfaces has been a feature of the last few centuries. After major
landslide activity, the soil develops relatively quickly (faster on sands and sandstones than
on marls) because the water washes out the salt and creates a good agricultural soil. So the
moist, young soils of stabilised landslides may be very good for agriculture, although the
risk of renewed instability can never be overlooked. The peasant’s eye will select the most
suitable of the gentler slopes that may be cleared for grazings and orchards – perhaps even
for settlement, for although houses on relatively stable landslides may eventually be
undermined (say once each century) they have advantage of access to forests and grazings.
Sliding interrupts soil formation, but there is the value of soil mixing through landslides:
note orchards at the lower end of landslides (while other trees easily take root in view of
humidity e.g. Salix and Alnus). In V.Viei, progressive deepening of the valley has worked
landslide material into terraces that are good for agriculture including fruit trees; though the
land is not stable, given further deepening. There may also be fans of alluvial material
where minor tributaries change course through landsliding and the old course can be used
for fruit trees. Five levels of natural potential have been recognised across the Pătârlagele
Depression as a whole: very good (7.3 per cent) – comprising the Buzău terraces; good
(20.4 per cent); average (50.3 per cent); poor (7.8 per cent); and very poor (14.2 per cent).
The poor land includes the brown soils found on sands, sandstone and young rendzinas);
while the very poor relates to salt marls – abandoned from the agricultural point of view
where the soil layer has largely disappeared – as well as wet areas beside the streams and
brooks and the stoney summits and precipices.
3.
THE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM
2.1. Primary Settlement: Prehistory to 1800
It is widely believed that many settlements are old; having in mind the historical
record pointing to a relatively dense settlement of the Subcarpathians at least during the
invasion period and since; a point emphasised by Petrescu-Burloiu (1977, pp.139-40) in his
survey of the Buzău Subcarpathians as a whole. Geto-Dacian evidence is claimed for the
Muşcel area (Ibid, p.141), while Gâlmeanu & Ionescu (2002) refer to Muşcel and Valea
Viei. But this evidence does not provide clear indications of settlement, while the theory of
a stronghold (‘cetate’) at Crâng – where one of the village neighbourhoods is so named – is
undermined by the lack of any structural evidence at the top of a hill that has only the
appearance of a Dacian stronghold. We also have in mind the claims made by Burlacu
(1979) regarding small monastic establishments (‘schituri rupestre’) emerging during 11001500. It is not surprising to find that while there is a tradition of free ‘moşneni’
communities in the hills the northern half of the study area in general, servile ‘clăcaşi’
communities were more prominent in the southern part where the Buzău terraces are
relatively extensive. The only settlement in the area shown on the Specht map of 1790-1
was Valea Viei (then known as ‘Wii’) but we also know that the first church was built there
in 1760 and this also secures an eighteenth century origin for the quarters of Bărbuleşti (on
the right side of V.Viei beside the Iz.Vladii landslides) and also Lemnăreşti. Church history
is also a powerful guide at Muşcel where the first church is dated 1799 and in this is
remarkable because the relevant wooden beams were twice relocated within Saac county:
first in 1775 from Lapoş village in Buda commune to Sibiciu de Sus (close to Pătârlagele
but on the eastern side of rthe Buzău) in 1775 and again to Muşcel after a new church was
built at Sibiciu. There are no references to either Specht or von Bauer but the church
evidence is decisive and also secures an eighteenth century date for the constituent hamlets
of Cătunul Bisericii and Gârla. However at Muscel there is a strong likelihood that a
cemetery preceded the church while the location ‘La Mânăstire’ northeast of the hamlet of
Brusturişu relates to a small depression with a southesterly aspect suggesting the possibility
of an early monastic establishment. However there is no firm evidence available and claims
of a seventeenth century ‘schitul Muşcel’ now seem to have arisen from a confusion
between the Muşcel near Pătârlagele and Muscelu Cărămăneşti in today’s Colţi commune.
(Constantinescu 1987, p.81; Stioca & Stoicescu 1983, II p.271). Again, we must discount
the name ‘Calugărite La’ – at the nuns – known nearby at Fundăturile; for there is no
supporting evidence of a monastery despite an accompanying legend about the closure of a
hermitage through malevolent local action (precipitating a curse on the village to which all
subsequent local problems may be ironically attributed).
At Crâng, the church (1790) is again our only guide, although local legend again
fuel speculation thanks to the tradition of a ‘repaus’ by Mihai Viteazul in 1599 (where the
mythical Cetate has already been referred to) and also the ‘tabara’ in the same place by one
Petru cel Tănâr on a journey to Transylvania the late Medieval period (Gâlmeanu &
Ionescu 2002, pp.68-70). Finally, The case of Mânăstirea also arises at this time although
expansion falls essentially to the nineteenth century, probably through the movement of
Roma slaves from Benga. For there is clear evidence of a ‘schit’ (sometimes referred to
misleadingly as ‘Schitul Mărunţişu’) belonging to Vărbila monastery and legend insists that
it was lost by fire in the mid-nineteenth century during Prince Cuza’s reign. It is not known
when the chapel was built and while the ‘proscomidia’ for the rebuilt church of Zahareşti
(where the monastery of Vărbila in Prahova maintained an apiary) alludes to a ‘schit’ built
by the monks on the hill of Mânăstirea as part of their demesne, no date is specified.
However, Stoicescu (1970, p.421), as an authority on ecclesiastical matters, claims an
eighteenth origin by virtue of a surviving ‘catagrafia’ or inventory. This document is
undated but it is written in Cyrillic and Gavrilă Ştrempel, an expert at the State Archives
where the document is held, considers that it is definitely older than 1800. Therefore we
Valleys
credit Mânăstirea with an eighteenth century origin and given the sheltered site of the
village in a shallow depression (albeit on a hilltop) it is quite understandable that our
principal documentary sources for the late eighteenth century should be silent in this case.
Overall therefore we have a ‘primary’ network comprising the four villages of Crâng,
Mânăstirea, Muşcel and Valea Viei.
4. SECONDARY SETTLEMENT
4.1 The Nineteenth Century
Study of this period reveals an explosion in settlement to take fuller advantage of
the landslides, as well as the fragments of ‘mature landscape’ on the higher ground. The
process may be demonstrated from the map evidence already referred to; also by the
increase ion the total number of households between 1831-2 and 1912 (Table 1), with
the local trends endorsed by a broader picture for the Subcarpathians using the commune
data collected in 1899 (Colescu 1905) and researched by Baranovsky & Ştefănescu (1965).
Predictably, new settlements in the hills were less nucleated than the primaries already
mentioned since the priority was not the growth of central places but the needs of
subsistence farmers seeking a niche in the age of capitalism – typically in relatively remote
areas on landslides. Indeed we would underline the quite remarkable situation in which the
hillslopes – extensively covered with relatively fertile landslide material – offered much
support to scattered subsistence communities comprising the core of an alternative socioeconomic system to the capitalist estates supported by the rich agriculture of the Buzău
terraces. At the same time, a modern infrastructure based on road and rail communications
along the main valley contrasted with the crude ‘drumurile accidentate’ (Petrescu-Burloiu
1977, p.146) on the higher ground, with erosion increased by deforestation that restricted
woodland to the steepest slopes, as noted by N.A.Constantinescu (1938). This centreperiphery dualism was thus accentuated following the abolition of feudalism, leaving estate
owners freer to concentrate on commercial farming on the river terraces while much of the
subsistence farming was transferred to the landslides. Although relatively remote and
inherently unstable, intensive use of the hillsides was certainly maintained until alternative
cereal lands were allocated in the Bărăgăn as part of the 1923 land reform; continuing on a
considerable scale until the collectivisation in the 1960s brought a measure of resettlement
with expansion at Pătârlagele and Mărunţişu.
Of course we are not suggesting a clear watershed in 1800 between the primary
and secondary phases of settlement. Petrescu-Burloiu (1977, p.145) refers to a seventeenthnineteenth century expansion of agricultural land at the expense of woodland; guided by
the potentials for settlement in an age of population growth boosted by Habsburg
mercantilism in the imperial borderlands as ‘Ungureni’ immigrants were able to negotiate a
stake in ‘moşneni’ landholding and either join existing communities or establish new
settlements in the hills as part of the ongoing process of ‘roirile pastorale’ or more
appropriately ‘roirile agricole’ given the strong subsistence element. The nineteenth
century trend is therefore an acceleration of what has been noted for the eighteenth century
but with permanent settlement in landslide areas much more accentuated through
fragmented settlement outside the main villages. All over the hills it seems that new land
was being broken up as ‘mosaics’ of mixed agricultural activity extended across the
landslide tongues that had previously supported only grazing and haymaking on the ‘conac’
model without the subsistence crops, plum trees and permanent settlements of subsistence
farmers seeking a niche in the age of capitalism. Any attempt to discriminate between the
two halves of the century rests on the accuracy of the cartographic evidence and we cannot
make significant distinctions apart from the accelerated development of capitalism in the
second half. But it is significant that in V.Viei, with the stimulus of ‘roirile’, there is an
emphasis on the early nineteenth century through the cluster of family farms around
Stroeşti; while in the upper part of the Muşcel valley the string of settlements extending to
Calea Chiojdului (including Brusturişu, Măcesu, Malul Alb and Mihăileşti) become visible
only in the later part of the century. This could highlight the difference between the mature
landslides of Stroeşti and the younger landslides at the head of V.Muşcelului. As
population pressure grew it seems that progressively younger landslides – involving greater
risk – were pressed into service. On this basis the settlements listed in Table 1 may be
reorganised on the basis on the basis of primary and secondary settlement phases (Table 2).
Tab. 2 Settlement Groups.
Grupuri de aşezări.
MUŞCEL. Primary: Cătunel Bisericii (20), Crâng (25); Gârla (32), Muşcel (63).
Secondary A: Fundăturile (31), Măcesu* (46). Secondary B: Brusturişu (16), Calea
Chiojdului (19), Malul Alb (49), Mihălceşti (57), Murăturile (61), Poiana (84). Secondary
C: Pâcle (65). Total 13 [4-2-6-1]
VALEA VIEI. Primary: Bărbuleşti (9), Lemnăreşti (41), Mânăstirea (50), Valea
Viei (116). Secondary A: Chelăreşti (22), Copăcelul* (23), Ivăneşti (36), La Mânăstire în
Ţigănie (39), Orjani (64), Podosu (81), Potorăşti (89), Şoghiorani (103), Stroeşti (104).
Secondary B: Murea (62). Total 14 [4-9-1-0]
Secondary settlement is divided into three periods: A 1800-1850; B 1850-1900; C
1900-2000. Settlements in italic are those (generally small) settlements that never gained
official recognition. Those underlined are the settlements officially recognised today e.g. in
census returns. An asterisk denotes a secondary settlement which cannot be confidently
allocated to the early or late nineteenth century.
Aşezarea secundară este divizată în trei părţi: A. 1800-1850; B1850-1900; C
1900- 2000. Aşezările scrise cursiv sunt mai ales acele (mici) aşezări care nu au fost
niciodată recunoscute oficicial. Cele subliniate sunt cele recunoscute azi, eg. În
recensăminte. Un asterisc indică o aşezare care nu poate fi cu certitudine datată
începutului sau sfârşitului secolului XIX.
Although we have few details, expanding ‘moşneni’ communities were evidently
complenented by ‘clăcaşi’ elements displaced uphill to free more of the terrace lands for
commercial farming. We believe the nineteenth century extensions were unprecedented and
forced transfers to some sites that proved to be dangerously unstable. Thus Fundăturile
village is associated with a ‘boiar’ Ion Giurgiuveanu based in Pătârlagele which accounts
for the traditional links between the two settlements (also reflected in the alternative name
of. Vallea Păterlaci in 1864 and Fundăturile’s inclusion in Pătârlagele commune until
transfer to Muşcel in 1925 (with a return to Pătârlagele when Muşcel commune was
absorbed in 1968). Petrescu-Burloiu (1977, fig.45) confirms that Fundăturile was
established in the nineteenth century, while a market in Fundăturile in 1839 was sought by
‘Pătârlagenii’ from Pătârlagele de Sus. This is consistent with the building of the church in
Valleys
1809 and Penelea’s (1973, p.154) reference to a fair on the day of Sf. Michel sanctioned in
1839 at the request of the free peasants of Pătârlagele de Sus. Tr.Popescu, a native of the
area, recalls the involvement of a relative of the founder (Cristof Iliescu) but there was
evidently continuing support from the original ‘boiar’ family including help with the
refurbishment of the church at Fundăturile in 1913. So the landowner influence was
evidently benign, although we do not know for sure if Fundăturile was established to
relieve population pressure in Pătârlagele or to remove families in order to free land on the
Buzău terraces for agriculture serving a wider market. At the same time the expansion of
‘moşneni’ communities was in some degree contested, for we have interesting oral
evidence (from the late Tr.Popescu of Muşcel and Valea Viei) of pressure on the ‘moşneni’
families of Muşcel from their neighbours at Păltineni to the north who ‘ravished their
lands’: a point corroborated to an extent by Iorgulescu (1892, p.346) who noted that the
Muşcel people were impoverished.
Meanwhile in upper Valea Viei we have some of the best evidence for the
settlement of ‘free’ Ungureni settlement by families from Transylavania, then under
Habsburg rule. Although there are no documents, it is believed that Stroeşti developed as a
string of now-derelict hamlets – geared to pastoral farming – extending from a small core
area to Şoghiorani, Chelăreşti, Vasiloiu and Ivăneşti lying in sequence up the valley. But
the older settlement of Valea Viei is not without its own history of Transylvanian
settlement since the tradition of ‘moşneni’ colonists settling in the narrow valley (menaced
by erosion and landslides) is very much alive today – confirmed by Petrescu-Burloiu
(1977, Figs.46/47) – while family names like ‘Braşoveanu’ (i.e. coming from Braşov) and
Petrache Basta (a Szekler or Hungarian name) are remembered. The settlers brought vines
from Transylvania – providing good fruit but not much juice – that were established on
Dl.Viei and Dl.Mânăstirii at Mocanca (a specific placename linked with the colonists)
according to Zaharescu (1923) and confirmed by local opinion (Tr.Popescu and
I.Mihalcea) quoting from an undated document held in the parish church: ‘Ardelenii au
adus vie şi au plantat pe versantul sudic al Dl.Viei (Oprea Gavriloiu) dar şi chiar pe
versantul nordic al Dl.Mânăstirii, pe Mocanca (nume arătând populaţie din Ardeal) era
2,000sq.m vie un soi de vie cu bobul cărnas (Mihălcescu din Valea Viei)’ It is also recalled
that oxen were used to pull a ‘car: mai greoi şi mai lent dar bun pentru greutaţi mari’.
However it is curious that the Valea Viei people subsequently tried to project themselves as
an authentic local community through the clear distinction made between ‘Valea Viei
Pământeni’ – used in documents for the present Valea Viei during 1819-32 and 1876-92 –
and‘Valea Viei Ungureneni’ (Stroeşti) which was evidently settled by later wave of
Ungureni colonisation showing greater commitment to shepherding as was appropriate for
farms at 340-440m in the upper reaches of V.Viei. Meanwhile, Tr.Popescu recalls that the
Braşoveanu family changed their name to Gavriloiu to conform with this ‘Pământeni’
identity of Valea Viei: evidently the distinction was seen as important even though there
must have been cordial relations between the two villages with the Valea Viei church and
school serving both communities.
All this this raises a wider, complex question over the development of community
identity from a host of family-based colonisation projects; for there seems to have been a
progression from individual farmsteads to wider groupings with names that gradually
gained general approval as church and school brought small communities together, not to
mention the centralising logic of the state bureaucracy wishing to identify official
settlement units. So we might expect a mixed picture: with some small places trying to
maintain a sense of separateness while others were reconciled to membership of a wider
grouping. Thus Stroeşti appears to be the only name used after 1876 for Valea Viei
Ungureni: originating as a cluster of hamlets with separate family names. In addition to
those already quoted, Murea and Podosu are also known (though not the precise locations
of these farmsteads of which all trace has now disappeared) while Orjani (Valea Viei
Orjani in 1874) – derived from a family name with Hungarian resonance remains on fertile
land close to the watershed between V.Muşcelului and V.Viei with its own identity, though
it has civil and ecclesiastical links with Crâng and Stroeşti respectively. ‘Struggles’ over
names clearly go beyond the arrival of ‘Ungureni’, for Petrescu-Burloiu (1977, Fig.48)
mentions Drăgulineşti becoming Valea Muşcelului, while the Szathmary Map of 1856
(Fligely 1864) suggests the simultaneous usage of Fundăturile and Vallea Păterlaci
(recalling the old feudal association) as well as Murăturile and Vallea Ghiceanului.
Development of services was restrained since commerce took root in the most
accessible places especially Pătârlagele where pre-1914 developments culminated in the
railway station and the adjacent road bridge across the Buzău river in 1911. In contrast to
Pătârlagele’s expanding its service base, facilities were sparse in the hill settlements. Apart
from the churches already mentioned (which included a second boiar church – ‘biserică
boierească’ – in Valea Viei in in 1834 ; and the rebuilding of the original church in 1876
after a fire) a schools programme started in 1839 for the main villages in the area including
Muşcel and Valea Viei (Angelescu 1998; Damé 1894) and periodic fairs were held in
Valea Viei (supplementing those held more frequently in Pătârlagele). Although the hill
areas in general were relatively poorly served the commune status for Muşcel ensured a
small local development ‘pole’ in the upper part of the district with the local administration
and a post office. There was also a tavern (with others at Mihălceşti further up the valley
and at Crâng); also a water-powered mill in the upper valley at Brusturişu (Ministerul
Agriculturii şi Domeniilor 1914) while Iorgulescu (1892) has previously referred to a
blacksmith at Muşcel. But very little documentation is available to expand and illustrate
this scenario of settlement advance and retreat over a relatively short period of time. While
there is little evidence on pluriactivity scenarios, distillation was certainly an important
consideration in fruit growing areas and the production of plum brandy (‘ţuica’) was
undertaken for domestic consumption but occasionally for barter transactions in areas as far
afield as Covasna (Muică & Turnock 2000). Thrifty farmers with plum trees in their
gardens and others in the hills (perhaps in a small sheltered depression or ‘padină’) –
making up a hectare of land out of a total holding of some 10ha – might well produce
1,000l of brandy. Owners of stills would usually loan their equipment to poorer families on
a daily basis in return for a rent amounting to about a tenth of the production. In this way
most families could make enough brandy for their own needs.
4.2 The Twentieth Century
Conditions improved with the 1923 reform which made more pasture and arable
available to peasants, while substantial areas of cropland were allocated in lowland areas of
Buzău county and further afield. While little is recorded about the developments of the
inter-war years, services did improve somewhat. Commune funds were available for church
repair at Muşcel and Valea Viei, while education facilities improved with a school to serve
Fundăturile – using the teacher’s house in nearby Gârla until a building was made available
in the village in 1925 – while Mânăstirea got a school in 1923, although this may not have
Valleys
been permanent since the school that opened at Stroeşti in 1941 was also used by
Mânăstirea children until better arrangements were made after 1945. The net result was a
network of villages with both a church and a school: Crâng, Fundăturile, Muşcel and Valea
Viei while Mânăstirea and Stroeşti had just a school. Improvements during the 1930s
included a telephone line from Pătârlagele to Muşcel. A ‘banca popular’ was reported at
Muşcel in 1919; followed by a ‘cooperative de consum’ in 1943 (amalgamating with the
Pătârlagele organisation in 1954). In 1957 a new oil-powered mill was opened in the
Muşcel valley near the junction with the Fundăturile brook, replacing two water mills that
were closed at the time (though the new mill was subsequently abandoned by the 1970s).
The village hall (‘cămin’) became an important institution at this time and a new hall was
provided in 1959 (after Fundăturile gained its first ‘cămin’ in 1950) while electrification
eventually reached all the villages with the exception of Orjani which remains without a
supply even today.
The biggest event was probably the collectivisation of agriculture that was driven
forward primarily on account of the cereal lands now held in the Bărăgan. By 1956 there
were two agricultural associations in the commune of Valea Muşcelului: ‘23 August’ with
62 families and 36.5ha of land and the larger ‘Scînteia’ with 91 families and with 87.75ha.
Then in 1962 agriculture was fully collectivised under the ‘GAC Scînteia’ (subsequently
becoming a cooperative farm – CAP – organised across the enlarged Pătârlagele
commune). Initially the farm involved 327 families and 630ha including 138ha of cereals
and sunflowers located mainly in the Bărăgan. Similar changes would have affected the
other villages but the details are not recorded and it is thanks the unpublished manuscript
by N.Filon (1998) that information for Valea Muşcelului (absorbed by Pătârlagele in 1968)
has been preserved. Some land passed out of local control through allocation of the best
land on the Buzău terraces – and in the Muşcel valley – to the Cândeşti state farm, but
although the CAP farming was administered from Pătârlagele from 1968, there was a
branch of the farm was maintained at Muşcel.Thus there was a role for the declining hill
communities through concentration on livestock with access for mechanised transport in
the form of tractors or light four-wheel drive ARO vehicles. Dl.Viei and the Muşcel-Viei
watershed area extending westwards to Orjani was managed as a extensive grazing area
diversified by only a few trees and arable enclosures. Even so, collectivisation brought a
degree of centralisation with consolidation of the main villages and several new ‘quarters’
emerged with their own names to generate a further phase of secondary settlement. At
Muşcel a small new settlement emerged on the southern edge of Poiana, known as Pâcle.
There was also some resettlement from Orjani, Mânăstirea and Stroeşti in Valea Viei where
the former ‘boiar’ estate was expropriated and the area around lower church became
available for housing. But strangely, no particular name emerged – even informally – for
this new quarter and even the post-1989 extension further downhill to the edge of
Pătârlagele has not produced any new identity. However most of the resettlement after
1968 was focused on Pătârlagele.
Population continued to grow from 2,491 in 1912 to 2,813 in 1941 and 3,275 in
1966 although there was some reduction after 1941 in Calea Chiojdului, Fundăturile and
Mânăstirea suggesting that the agricultural potential was most limited in these areas.
However, between 1966 and 1992 only Crâng continued to grow and although this made
sense in the context of proximity to the growth point of Pătârlagele it is curious that Valea
Viei – lying even closer to Pătârlagele – lost population at this time. Evidently the siting
problems in a very narrow valley with potential flood hazards prevented further growth
once the former ‘boiar’ domain had been colonised while the 30-35m terrace (Ţ.Luncii) at
Gu.Văii Viei was presumably considered too valuable for agriculture and was not made
available for housing until after 1989. Valea Viei’s decline is all the more remarkable in
view of the collapse of population in Stroeşti: from 206 in 1941 and 346 in 1966 to just 41
in 1992! But the poverty of this area made it a target for resettlement (likwise Calea
Chiojdului and Mânăstirea) as apartment blocks were provided in Pătârlagele while all
three – with Fundăturile – were scheduled for complete evacuation under
Ceauşescu’s’sistematizare’ programme first mooted in the 1970s but relaunched in 1980s
and abandond after 1989. As regards local services, Valea Viei was always too close to
Pătârlagele to justify a bus service in the communist period but Muşcel was so favoured,
albeit through the use of a converted truck. This has now been withdrawn and commuters
(who include teachers living in Pătârlagele and Sibiciu who work in Muşcel) now face a
five kilometer walk in each direction. While Mânăstirea got improved road access from
Mărunţişu immediately after 1989, the condition of the Muşcel road remains an important
local issue. Mânăstirea also succeeded in having its primary school reopened (although
Fundăturile closed in 1996 following the earlier demise of the school at Stroeşti) while
primaries remain at Crâng, Muşcel and Valea Viei and Muşcel also retains secondary
education along with a culture house (‘cămin’) – likewise Crâng, Fundăturile and Valea
Viei – and a local museum.
The Orthodox churches remain prominent with periodic refurbishment e.g. Valea
Viei upper church in 1938, with subsequent repairs to both churches in the village
following earthquake damage in 1941 and 1977 (with the old ‘boiar’ church – or lower
church – becoming the parish church after 1940) and Fundăturile in 1998. At Muşcel a new
church was built beside the old in 1949, but it was lost in a devastating fire in 1964 which
eventually gave rise to a further new building completed in 1998. Although only
Fundăturile grew between 1992 and 2002 the locality has slightly increased its share as a
result of overall decline in the Pătârlagele Depression which might be predicted as a shortterm resurgence for subsistence agriculture following land restitution and the collapse of
employment in industry. However there is no question of a return to the scale of cropping
evident before the First World War and the dry thin soils of the structural surfaces are
generally marginalised today. Some maize is still grown on the high ground at Orjani and
although today’s varieties do not ripen so readily on the higher ground, sandstone areas
that are typically forested may be cultivated given a good aspect. But there is a legacy of
soil degradation arising from intensive use under heavy population pressure. Through
erosion the soil becomes more compact and clayey; also drier (with less moisture retained)
and poorer in nutrients (C.Muică et al. 1993, p.140). Even meadows carved from forest are
vulnerable to soil erosion caused by torrents that displace nutrients down the slope.
‘Cătină’ (buckthorn) is very evident in areas of former cultivation where land is eroded
(with calcium on the surface and degradation revealing the lower soil horizon). It marks the
start of a return to woodland and offers some protection against erosion; also a decline in
agriculture with resurgence now virtually impossible since the labour force is much
reduced.
4.3. The Place Names
4.3.1 Village Names
Valleys
The names of the settlements are of considerable interest in themselves. Many
relate to individual persons and families: Bărbuleşti (after Barbu); Chelăreşti (Chelaru),
Ivăneşti (Ivan), Lemnăresti (Lemnaru), Manoleşti (Manole); Mihălceşti (Mihalcea), Murea
(a family name derived from ‘mură’ meaning a blackberry), Orjani (Horjan: of Hungarian
origin), Podosu (a family name in itself, derived from ‘pod’ meaning a bridge); Potorăşti
(the Hungarian name Pótor), Stroeşti (Stroe) and Vasiloi (Vasiloiu); while Şoghiorani
derives from the Hungarian ‘Şoghior‘ meaning a brother in law. There is a clear Roma
connection through Ţigănia Mânăstirii – the Roma ‘Ţigănia’ in Mânăstirea, while
Mânăstirea indicates a monastic establishment (despite the official use of ‘Mănăstirea’).
Cetate means a fortress and the variant Subcetate ‘below the fortress’. Calea Chiojdului
clearly points to a settlement on a direct historic routeway from Pătârlagele and Muşcel to
the Bâsca Chiojdului valley. Cătunul Bisericii is the church hamlet. Physical features are
involved in the case of Muşcel indicating a smooth hill (though usually spelt ‘muscel’);
Malul Alb, dominated by its white cliff, has a name that indicates a rocky place without soil
or vegetation; and Fundăturile occupies the head of a narrow valley with steep slopes and
has a name that appropriately points to an isolated place without through passage. Gârla is
damp ground in a valley; Pâcle is a source of mud (without any gas or oil content); while
Murăturile indicates a salt springs significant for pickling. Brusturişu is covered with
‘brusture’ (Tussilago fanfare): a pioneer plant associated with fresh landslides; Copăcelul
refers to a small tree; Crâng indicates a small wood; Poiana is a clearing – from the Slav
‘poljana‘ (Academia 1996-8, p.816); while Măceşu derives from ‘măceş’ the wild rose and
Valea Viei is ‘vineyard valley’ where a substantial grape harvest was obrtained on the
slopes below Dl.Viei prior to the phylloxera attack.
However a number of names have changed with V.Viei settlements once
highlighting native (‘pământeni’) and Transylvanian ‘ungureni’ connections already noted:
prior to 1835 Valea Viei was known as Valea Viei Pământeni and the old form appeared
again in documents of 1839, 1876 and 1892. Meanwhile, the village higher up the valley,
was known as Valea Viei Ungureni from 1819 and Stroeşti (the most important component
of a highly dispersed settlement) did not appear until 1872; while the pairing ‘Stroeşti
(Valea Viei Ungureni)’ was used by Iorgulescu (1892, p.475), while Valea Viei Ungureni
was used again in 1922 in a historical map by Zaharescu. Drăgulineşti (reflecting the
pesonal name Drăgulin) was used as an alternative to Muşcel in the 1870s and again in
1892 while there is an ongoing confusion between the village name of Muşcel and the
commune name of Valea Muşcelului which persists as an ecclesiastical parish since the
commune was eliminated by amalgamation with Patarlagele in 1968. Also, despite the local
use of Orjani, this name was usually shown on maps as Horzaneşti (from the Hungarian
name ‘ Horjan’) in the late nineteenth century and this continued on occasion through much
of the last century (especially 1930-1974), Finally, Ţigăneşti became Mânăstirea in 1872 with Vărbila Ungureni used fleetingly by Iorgulescu (1892, p.336). It is also noticeable that
the village names are used for a range of other features. This ‘Copăcel’ is used to identify a
place at Orjani with a single beech tree on low hill; while several names are based on
Fundăturile: I/V.Fundăturilor Cu.Fundatorilor (meaning the ‘Fundăturile Hills’ which is
not a toponym but a recent invention) and I.Fundăturilor; and others relate to Mânăstirea
(Dl.Mânăstirii and Vf.Dl.Mânăstirii: the peak of Monastery Hill) and Murăturile
(V.Murăturilor). Muşcel gives rise to Muşcel–În Vf.Pe, Pl.Muşcelului; V.Muşcelului and
Vf.Muşcelului; while Orjani appears as Dl.Orjanilor and V.Orjanilor; and there are
numerous mentions for Valea Viei: Fn.Viei, Pr.Viei; V.Viei, Vf.Viei and Vf.Dl.Viei (i.e.
the peak of Dl.Viei). Pătârlagele also appears as Ci/I.Pătârlagii, Fa.Mare a Muşcelului
(Pătârlagelor); Mş, Pl, Pt, and Vf. Pătârlagelor as well as V.Pătărlaci and V. Pătârlagele.
4.3.2 Other Placenames: Sources and Interpretation
Many other have names have been collected from relevant publications and also
from oral evidence, as noted elsewhere for the Pătârlagele Depression as a whole (N.Muică
& Turnock 2008). The most useful sources are the topographical maps which comprise the
two most recent editions of the Romanian ‘HartaTopografică’ produced by the Armed
Forces Ministry in 1961 and 1980 at a scale of 1:50,000; but also the previous editions at a
scale of 1:100,000 in 1906, 1916 and 1941 as well as a 1:50,000 provisional edition in
1900. For the nineteenth century the Austrian ‘General Karte von Central Europe’ is
available for 1881, along with earlier Austrian maps on Wallachia for 1864 – based on data
collected from 1856 (Fligely 1857) – and 1867; not to mention ‘Harta Terri Românesci’
compiled from the Austrian source material in 1861. Earlier maps give very little
information on the area but the Specht (1790-1) already mentioned has some relevance.
There are also a number of writings that mention many of the local placenames: Iorgulescu
(1881, 1892) is an outstanding nineteenth century source while the physical geography
papers by Bălteanu (1983) and N.Muică (1977) are also useful; along with the Agriculture
Ministry’s ‘Dicţionar Statistic’ with 1912 data (Ministerul Agriculturii şi Domeniilor 1914)
and Petrescu-Burloiu’s work in the Subcarpathians (1977) already noted. Clearly the origin
of the names used for many landscape features and specific agricultural spaces is a matter
for speculation, but the fact that most of the relevant settlements were initiated in the
nineteenth century suggests that many of the names date to this period. Our research has
produced 179 named features and locations (in addition to the village names already
discussed) of which 84 are supported by documents while 95 are known through oral
evidence only. Of the 84, 46 have only one source; while 29 have two to five sources;
seven have six to ten sources (Dl.Murăturilor and Vf.Muşcelului with six; Pl.Muşcelului
with seven; Chichilă and Vf.Cremenişului with eight; and Pt.Scrisă and V.Muşcelului with
nine); while only two have more: Vf.Cătinei with 13 and Vf.Cornetului with 15. Clearly the
prominent hills attract most attention while the streams are rather less striking: V.Viei
attracts only four references. As regards the sources the most prolific are those of 1892
with 36 names; 1900 with 33; 1977 (N.Muică) with 28; 1881 (Iorgulescu) with 25; 1961,
1980 and 1983 each with 16; 1916 and 1941 with 10. There are eight references in 1864;
seven in 1906; six in 1912; two each in 1790, 1861, 1867 and 1977 (Petrescu-Burloiu) plus
one each for 1881 (General Karte) and 1983: a total of 221 references.
The derivation is usually from Romanian but there are exceptions in the cases of
I.Padinei (valley spring) which comes from ‘padina’: the Slavonic word for a valley
(Candrea 1931, p.884); while Vf.Cremenişului alludes to a deforested peak strewn with
with fragments of silicious stone indicated by ‘cremene’ (meaning quartz) comes from the
Old Slav ‘kremeni’ (Ibid, p.351); and Priporu, the name of a steep slope above Malul Alb,
comes from the Russian ‘priporu’ and the Ruthenian ‘prypir’ (Ibid, pp.1004-5). Slemnea
or Pl.Slemnea is a summit with a road, derived from the Serbian word for a summit ‘slem’
(Ibid, p.1162) near Vf.Pinişorului; I.cu Sânger (the valley with a red or blooded twig)
comes from the botanical name Cornus sanguinea; and La Ştubeu: ‘at the well’ – relating to
a spring in a tree hollow on Dl.Colon – relates to the Ruthenian ‘stub’(Ibid,
Valleys
p..1260;Academia 1996-8, p.1062). Most of the names may be taken literally but this is not
always the case. A narrow gap between two small conical hills (Pitileacu Mare/Mic) has
been ironically likened to a cellar entrance belonging to a person (now unknown) called
Pitileac: thus Gr.Pitileacului with the alternative ‘Gârlici-Pe’ using the word commonly
used for an entrance in southern Moldavia. There are curious allusions to religious
communities in remote places. Thus Mânăstire-La (‘at the monastery’) and V.Mânăstirii
(monastery valley) suggest evidence of a former community in the Muşcel area (above
Brusturişu) but, as previously noted, there is no documentary proof and the names cannot
be taken at face value, though the name could relate to land formerly owned by monastery
situated elsewhere. Other misleading references are Călugăriţe La (‘at the nuns’) for a place
below a rocky precipice at Fundăturile (already mentioned); while Chilii-La (‘at the cells’)
relates to a col between Dl.Viei and Dl.Murăturilor where there is a wayside cross
(Cr.Banului) but certainly no cell structure. Meanwhile Cetăţuia (the diminutive form of
’cetate’), used as an alternative name for Chichilă (a prominent hill north of Crâng), is
popularly assumed to be a ruined fortress although it is entirely a natural feature and
although it is a potential strongpoint, associated by Iorgulescu (1892, p.155) with a struggle
between Turks and Arvats, the same author (Ibid, p.381) quite explicitly denied the
existence of a fortress; a point repeated by Petrescu-Burloiu (1977. p.139).
G.Pietrarului (stone cutter’s hollow) relates to a small quarry north of Crâng)
where stone was obtained to pave the local church, but the spring at Fundăturile: I.La Olari:
(‘at the potters’ spring) has no known connection with potters; while at Vf.Vătalei (‘peak
of ‘vătele’) the implied availability of reed for plaiting is quite inappropriate. Sm.la Voica
is a brine spring at Voica’s home, but there could not have been a house at this place which
is just below Ma.Alb. Cb.Corbului exists in a remote place in old woodland west of Calea
Chiojdului where a raven’s nest might plausibly have existed occasionally; but Liliac-La
(‘at the lilac’) relates to a site near Poiana that is clearly not good for such a tree; and while
Plop-La (‘at the poplar’) once referred correctly to a single large tree near Crâng beside the
Pătârlagele road, the name is less appropriate now that many young poplars exist at this
place. C.cu Scumpie means the hillside with smoke trees (Cottinus coggygria) just north of
Calea Chiojdului but the name no longer makes sense in what is now a pine forest. Again,
there are no willows now at V/G.cu Salcie. Scumpii-Între literally refers to a sheltered
areas between two steeply-sloping hills, offering warm, dry conditions for wig trees, but
the name is actually used illogically to indicate a slope; the name V.Bobeica indicates a
deep, narrow valley but this is really an exaggeration; and finally Pt.Scrisă means the peak
of the writing stone, but there is no large stone here, although the peak stands out as a
prominent landmark
Broadly speaking the oral and documentary evidence can be reconciled with
agreement over both the names and the features to which they apply. Clearly the oral
evidence is of fundamental importance, being absolutely indigenous and also
comprehensive whereas the documentary evidence is highly selective and appears to
develop through widespread copying by each publication from its predecessors rather than
by the engagement of surveyors with local people. Locations may be different between
documents and local convention: thus Vn.Sărată which is shown erroneously on some
maps as lying northwest of Murăturile instead of the southeast; while V.Saramura is
incorrectly used in1900 for I.Duru due to confusion over the confluence of the two streams.
On some maps (e.g. 1983) Dl.Mănăstirii is restricted to the area from the col (with the
former hermitage) to Ţ.Luncii, while local people associate it with the land from the foot of
Cornet hill extending to Ţ.Luncii; and in the same area where Dl.Râpile is suggested from
map evidence to be an alternative name for Mu.Niţului (the summit of Niţu) local people
relate it to a completely different place 0.5km further south above the cold spring of
Mânăstirea. Another case is Vf.Monte – the peak of the mountain – recorded first in 1790
(as M.Mare, actually Montele Mare) in the place of Vf.Muşcelului, whereas in 1861 the
same name was used for a feature on the opposite side of V.Mardare which could be either
the Chichilău peak or Dl.Mirodina. Much confusion can arise from the widespread use of
alternative names for specific features which goes way beyond the reconciliation of
documentary and oral evidence. In fact ignoring trivial variations (arising in many cases
from successive spelling reforms of which the most recent relate to the cancellation of the
changes made early in the communist period) there are 29 cases in the study area: 22 where
two names are involved, while five cases involve three names and in two cases there are
four. Minor vartiations occur between I.cu Brad and V.Bradului; Ghezura and Vezura,
involving the use of dialect; and Vf.La Maican, Măicănese and Vf.Maicanului which all
relate to a person named Maican.
There are quite distinct local alternatives over Ma.Alb and Ma.Bălan; Cetăţuia and
Chichila (involving the mythical fortress); Vf.Ciortăniţei and Mu.Fluturi; F.Coastei and
Ma.Feţii; I.Dorobanţului and V.Izvorului local alternatives (but only for the upper section);
I.Fundăturilor, I.Tatomirului and I.Urzuitului; Vf.Huzuit, Vf.Urzuitului, M.Mare and
Vf.Muşcelului; În Vf.la A.Lupenilor and Muscel-In.Vf.Pe; and Cu.Magurici and
Vf.Dl.Mânăstirii. Several instances arise where old names have been superseded. Thus
Vf.Cătinei is now used rather than Ca.Neamţului and M.Titila; Vf.Cremenişului is
preferred to the old names Lz.Cheii/Lutii; while Dl.Orjanilor replaces the historic version
based on Horjan. V.Saramura is preferred to V.Botii; La Trei Izvoare has superseded
Fn.Vladei/Vladii and Vf.Muşcelului replaces M.Mare used by Specht in 1790! Local usage
is preferred to map evidence in the case of I.Mare over V.Orjanilor; while Mu.Niţului is
preferred to the published names: Dl.Râchei in 1900; Dl.Rîchie in 1961 and Dl.Rîpile in
1980. A local name Drăgulin used for a hill at Malul Alb has been confused with the
General Dragalina of First World War fame; while the well-understood V.Muşcelului has
been confused by a strange invention of V.Pătârlage made by Iorgulescu (1885). And
finally there are several cases where variations arise from different community
conventions: hence Pt.Albă and Mu.Înaltă; Vf.Botii and Dl/Vf.Rezei (actually relating to
different sides of the same hill); Fifileţu and Hihileţu; Garlici Pe and Gr.Pitileacului;
Mocanca and Mocanu; Dl.Murătuile and Pl.Stroeştilor; and finally a complex case relating
to Vf.Dl.Viei (the peak of Dl.Viei) which is alternatively known as Vf.La Maiag and
Pt.Şoimului by people in Valea Viei in contrast to Vf.Viei used by people in V.Muşcelului
who cannot see the true Vf.Viei.
4.3.3 Review of Placenames: Personal Names
Many names relate to people and although the vast majority have been forgotten:
some at least must have been important in their time given the multiple references to Bota
(and to a lesser extent Maican, Mardale and Mirioara). Many could relate to small
landholdings e.g. V.Ghiceanului (after Ghicean) comprising the small Saramura valley on
the southern edge of the Muşcel basin. However Duru (appearing as I.La Duru) is a
Hungarian name that could refer back to Ungureni migrants and it is the former Duru
family home that is referred to by the name C.Odăii (‘the slope with the room’ meaning a
Valleys
house). The same Transylvanian influence emerges with the names Mocanu-M (Mocan’s
mountain, alluding to a Transylvanian shepherd) and Mocanca (a shepherd’s farm).
However the Ungureni are also credited with the introduction of viticulture with which
both V.Viei and the village (Valea Viei) were closely associated until the phylloxera
epidemic. Geangu is an interesting case: although the name is not known in the area today,
it suggests a Roma connection which makes sense because it marks the place in Valea Viei
where one of the footpaths to Mânăstirea leaves the principal trackway along the valley.
Drăgulin and the confusion with Dragalina has already been noted; while we have the
alternative nicknames Fifileţu and Hihileţu applied to a small, isolated, conical ‘volcanic’
hill at Brusturişu. Indeed there are some cases where it is impossible to discriminate
between a proper name (first name or family name) and a nickname. However a clear case
of the latter arises with I.Trăistoaiei meaning the brook or spring of the large bag (one of
minor streams of the Muşcel system marking the Fundăturile/Muşcel boundary – and also
the commune boundary between the Pătârlagele and Valea Muşcelului communes before
1968 when Fundăturile was part of the old Pătârlagele commune). The name derives from
the word ‘traistă’ and is a highly unflattering reference to a local woman.
Tab. 3 Placenames: Physical Features.
Toponime: caracteristici fizicie
MOUNTAINS: Lz.Cheii (clearing of the gorge: ref.hilltop with fragments of
siliceous stone); Vf.Cremenişului (peak with fragments of siliceous stone); Chichila (steep
hill); Cp.Dealului (head of the hill); C.Ma/Cp.Ma/Dl.Mu/Ma.Fetii (crest/hill etc. with steep
slope); Po.lui Huhiu+; Mu.Înaltă (high summit); Cu.Măguricii (small hill summit);
Muchiuliţa (little crest/summit); Pod-Pe (‘on the plateau or ‘şeţu’); M/Mu/Pt.Mare (great
mountain/ridge etc); Dl.Râpelor (hill of the precipice); Pt.Scrisă (peak of the writing stone)
PRECIPICES: Ma.Alb (white precipice); Pt.Albă (white stone); Rp.Albă La (‘at
the white precipice’); Ma.Bălan (white precipice); Chilii-La (‘at the cells’); F.Coastei (face
of the slope); Ma/Rp.Galbenă (yellowish slope); Gârlici-Pe (‘cellar entrance’: narrow cleft
between hills); Gogonu (‘gogon’: doughnut-shaped depression); Gr.Pitileacului+; Ma.Mare
(great precipice); C.la Predaru+; Priporu (steep slope); Rupturi-În/Rupturiu (‘in the tears’);
M.Titila (possible confusion with ‘Chichila’: a steep slope)
DRAINAGE: V.Bobeica (deep/narrow valley); Broşteanca (good for frogs); L.lui
Dedu+; Gu.Glodului (mudflow); Lac-La/Lacuri-La (‘at the lake/lakes’); Lac-La Pe Vârf
(‘at the lake on the hill’); I.Mare (great brook); L-al Mare (great lake); Mociorniţa (a wet
area with black soil); V.Pâclelor/Pâcle-În (mud springs); I.Padinei (valley spring); I.Rău
(bad brook); V.Rece (cold valley); I.cu Sânger (red valley); V.Saramura/Sărată/Sărăturei
(salt valley); L.Scumpiei (smoke tree lake); I.La Surlă (brook of the ‘surlă’ or refuge); Trei
Izvoare-La (at the three brooks/spings)
PLANTS: La Altoaie/Vf.La Altoaie (‘on the peak at the stock plant’); C.cu
Căpşuni (wild strawberries); Vf.
Cătinei (buckthorn peak); C.cu Felicia (ferns); G.Leurdişului (bear’s garlic);
Trestioara (common reed).
BIRDS/ANIMALS: Dl.Colon/Vf.Colonului (hill of the wild ass); Cb.Corbului
(the raven’s nest); Ghezura/Vezura (badger brook); Mu.Fluturi (summit of butterflies); Pt.
Şoimului (‘at the stone of the falcon’).
WOODLAND: Aninişu (forest of the alder); Pd.Balosin+; I.cu Brad/Vf.cu
Brad/V.Bradului (fir tree); I/V.Brăduleţului (small fir tree); Copăcel (small tree);
Dl/Vf.Cornetului (cornel tree); Pd.Creţuleştii+; Gorânişu/Vf.Gorânului (hill/peak of the
evergreen oak); Liliac-La (‘at the lilac’); Vf. Pinişorului/La Pinişor (peak of the little pine);
Pp.de la Plop (poplar tree on a steep slope); Plop-La (‘at the poplar’); V/G.cu Salcie (white
willow); Fd.Scumpie/Scumpiei (back side of a surface with smoke trees); C.cu/Fd.Scumpie
(surface with smoke trees); Scumpii-Între (smoke trees between hillslopes); Pd.Vărbilei
(Vărbila forest)
+ denotes a name relating to a family or personal name or nickname mentioned in Table 4.
+ indică un nume legat de o families au un nume de persoană sau poreclă menţionată în tabelul 4.
Specific features are abbreviated as follows (using the singular/indefinite article):
Arie (A): outdoor threshing floor; Bâlcă (B): small water-filled hollow; Cap (Cp): hilltop;
Cuib (Cb): nest; Ciuciur (Ci): spring; Coastă (C): hillslope; Cruce (Cr): wayside cross;
Culme (Cu): ridge; Deal (Dl): hill; Dos (D): north-facing slope; Depresiune (Dp):
depression; Drum (Dr): road; Fag (Fg): beech tree; Fâneaţă (Fa): hayland; Fântână (Fn):
well; Faţă (F): south-facing slope; Fund (Fd): back side; Gârlă (Gâ): marshy brook;
Groapă (G): small hollow; Gură (Gu): mouth of a stream; Hotar (H): boundary; Izvor (I):
commonly a spring but often used for a little brook; Lac (L): lake; Laz (Lz): recently
deforested area; Luncă (Lu): floodplain; Munte (M): mountain; Mal (Ma): precipice; Moară
(Mo): mill; Muchie (Mu): crest; Muşcel (Mş): gentle slope with landslides; Obor (O): cattle
farm; Odae (Od): sheep farm; Pădure (Pd): woodland; Pârâu (P): small stream; Piatra (Pt):
rock; Pisc (Ps): ridge or peak ; Plai (Pl): near-horizontal surface (perhaps with some
undulation); Poartă (Pr): gate or entrance; Pod (Po): horizontal surface or a step on a
hillside; Poiana (Pn): clearing; Pom (Pm): fruit tree; Pripor (Pp): steep slope; Puţ (Pu):
well; Râpă (Rp): precipice; Râu (R): river; Ruptură (Ru): tear, occurruing in areas with
young landslides; Saramură (Sm): salty spring; Stână (Sn): pasture station; Talpă (T):
pavement;: Ţarină (Ţ): agricultural land; Vale (V): valley which may be small, with no
permanent stream; Vână (Vn): spring but it may also refer to a brook;Vârf (Vf): peak.
4.3.4 Review of Placenames: Physical Features
The names tell us much about the physical nature of the higher ground that has
been substantially re-evaluated during the last two centuries (Table 3). Specific surfaces
typically have their own names that may reflect their varied agricultural possibilities.
Hilltops may consist of smooth crests with a well-developed soil with a high agricultural
potential. But some have only a thin soil like Po.lui Huhiu which is a small horizontal
surface north of Brusturişu and northeast of Cp.Dealului; while Pod-Pe (from the Old Slav
‘pod’) refers to the small ‘step’ or geomorphological terrace at Mânăstirea between
Vf.Cornetului and Mu.Niţului. Rocky summits typically support only woodland e.g. the
wooded Vf. Pinişorului/La Pinişor (at Malul Alb) which alludes to pine trees in a
diminutive form. But others have been cleared without particularly good result e.g.
Vf.Cremenişului (835m), known for its stoney surface (already noted) which has been
deforested as implied by the alternative names of Lz.Cheii and Laďu(Lazu)Luţii. Such
surfaces may therefore revert to a poor vegetation cover as indicated by name Vf.Cătinei
which means buckthorn peak, siuated above Stroeşti. Fundamental however is the
distinction between north- and south-facing slopes. For example, at Stroesti,
Dl.F.Botii/F.Botii – the south-facing.slope of Bota – complements the north-facing slope of
Pl.Botii or Dl.Rezii; but while the former usually have greater potential this is not always
Valleys
the case because at Fundăturile F.Coastei (‘the face or south-facing slope’: a topoclimatic
name alluding to the strong southerly orientation) – also known as Mu.Feţii: the summit of
the face – is a dry, rocky precipice with a poor vegetation. As for north-facing slopes we
have the example at Mânăstirea of Dostină or Doştina, applying logically to the shaded side
of Dl.Mânăstirii. Substantial clearances have been made, as indicated by ‘Poiana’ (Pn) and
‘Lazu’ (Lz) with the latter a particularly good indicator of ‘recent’clearance: e.g.
Lz/Pn.Cheii (the clearing of the gorge). Meanwhile Seciu indicates land deforested by
‘seciuire’ i.e removing a ring of bark from the tree trunk: hence I.Seciului (meaning ‘a
spring on deforested land’) at Stroeşti. Clearing names are often associated with particular
people: e.g. Pn.Hozii (Hosa’s clearing) is a long-established and well-known clearing on
old landslides used for fruit trees owned by local Roma at Mânăstirea (indeed during the
communist period a local festival was held there on the Tuesday or Thursday after Easter).
However, substantial areas of forest remain e.g. Aninişu is the forest of the alder tree (at
the foot of Vf.Vătale) while Pd.Creţuleştii – Creţuleasca’s forest – lies northwest of
Mânăstirea on the northeastern part of Vf.Cornetului and Vf.Vătalei. Pd.Vărbilei – the
forest of Vărbilau (after the monastery in Prahova) – is situated in the northeastern part of
Vf. Cornetului near Stroeşti. In addition woodland has been increased under communism at
places such as Dl.Mânăstirii, as well as sites above Muşcel. Meanwhile, conditions in the
valleys are highly variable as regards the quality of the land: steepness, smoothness and
available moisture. A particularly rough valley may well be called a bad valley e.g. I.Rău at
Muşcel and Stroeşti. Some valleys may also have reputation for coldness e.g. V.Rece (the
cold valley) at Mânăstirea in the upper part of a valley on the eastern side of Dl.Cornetului
(albeit with a good water spring).
As regards the landslides, references to a precipice are very common typically
(though not always) in the sense that young landslides are sourced under such
circumstances. Rupturi-În/Rupturiu (‘in the tears’) appears north of Brusturişu; also
C.Ma.Feţii (the top of the precipice of the face i.e. F.Coastei) and Cp.Ma.Feţii (at the edge
of the precipice) but the outstanding feature is Ma.Alb (the white precipice) – with an
alternative name of Mu.Bălan, which has the same meaning – developed on non-resistant
sandstone. At Mânăstirea Dl.Râpilor (the hill of the precipices) is a branch of Vf.Cornetului
extending to Dl.Mânăstiirii (part of the summit known locally as Mu.Niţului). Landslides
are typically distinguished by references to their varied potentials of landslides e.g. in
V.Viei, Gârlici-Pe means literally a cellar entrance (following southern Moldavian usage)
but the expression is used to convey the idea of a small narrow ‘gorge’ with landslides
situated between two prominent hillocks that protrude like ‘nunataks’ near Stroeşti.
Reference should also be made to depressions or ‘hollows’ often highlighted as ‘Gropi’
(the hollows). At Calea Chiojdului, Leurdiş/G.Leurdişului (the hollow place of the leurdiş
– from the ‘leurdă’ plant or bear’s garlic) is a particularly appropriate name for a short,
wide valley with landslides and a moist soil. Also G.cu Salcie (the hollow with the white
willow tree) is known at Brusturişu (V.Muşcelului) while G.Duşilor (Duşi’s hollow) lies in
the same area north of Malul Alb in a valley cut in clay strata between vertically-inclined
resistant but porous rock. Gogonu relates to a vault or depression on the upper part of
Dl.Viei reminiscent of a ‘gogon’ with a semi-ellipsoidal form like a doughnut. Mociorniţa
relates to a wet but stable landslide area with a moist black soil resting on marl occurring at
Mu.Pătârlagelor near Fundăturile and also at Mânăstirea. There is also the name Broşteanca
(derived from ‘broască/broaşte’ meaning a frog): very appropriate for a place where moist
soil in spring provides a good environmnent for frogs. On the other hand, L.Scumpiei, on
old landslides near Calea Chiojdului, is named Scumpii-Între (between the smoke trees)
referring to a slope on landslides presumably so named after the dry, warm soils required
for this tree had been quite forgotten!
Tab. 4 Placenames: Human Geography.
Toponime: geografie umană.
PERSONS: M/Pd.Balosin and Balosinul Mare/Mic (Balosin); L.lui Bănică;
Dl.Botii F.Boţii, Pl.Botii V.Botii, Vf.Botii (Bota); Vf.Ciortăniţei (Ciortăniţa); I.La
Crângani;
Pd.Creţuleştii
(Creţuleasca);
L.lui
Dedu/Inul
Dedului
(Dedu);
Drăgulin/Dragalina; La Duru/I.La Duru; Ps.lui Duţă; Fifileţu/Hihileţu; Geangu; V.
Ghiceanului (Ghicean); I.lui Hodorog; Pn.Hozii: (Hosa); Po.lui Huhui;
Vf.Huzuit/Urzuitului (Huzuit/Urzuit); Lz.Luţii (Luţa); Vf.La Maican; I.Maloteasa;
V.Mardale; I.lui Matei; V.Mirioara; Pl.Mirioarei (Mirioara); Mociorniţa; Mu.Niţului
(Niţu); Pi.Oancei (Oancea); Gr.Pitileacului/I.Pitileac /Pitileacu Mare/Mic (Pitileac); C.La
Predaru; Dl.Rezei (Reza); Ps.Staicului (Staicu); Vf.Tatomir/I.Tatomirului (Tatomir);
V.Telonului (Telon);
I.Trăistoaiei (Traistă); Mu.lui Turcan; I.Urzuitului (Urzuit);
I/Fn.Vladei (Vlada); Sm.la Voica;
CROPS/FRUIT: Arie-La (‘at the threshing floor’); Arie-La pe Mu (‘at the
threshing place on the peak’); În Vârf la Aria Lupenilor (‘at the threshing place belonging
to Valea Lupului’); Inul Dedului (Dedu’s flax); Inărie-La (‘at the flax’);
Leurdiş/G/I.Leurdişului (bear’s garlic); Ţ.Luncii (terrace/plateau); Vf.La Maiag (‘at the
maize’); Pi.Oancei+; Ogoare-La (‘at the cultivated land’); Ogradă-Pe (‘on the old garden
ground’); Pr.Ţarinei (Ţarină Gate); Vărzăria (cabbage garden); Pr.Viei (vineyard gate);
I.Zmeurişului (spring with raspberry bushes)
LIVESTOCK/PASTURE: O.Cailor (horse pen); Cotinele-La (‘at the pigsty’);
Fâneaţă (hayland); Pr.Fâneţii (Hayfield Gate); Fa.Mare a Muşcelului (Pătârlagelor) (great
hayfield); Mocanca (shepherd’s farm); Mocanu-M (shepherd’s mountain); Scumpii-Între
(sheltered ground between steeply-sloping hills); Ps.Stânii (summit with sheepfold); I.La
Surlă (conical shepherd’s refuge);
HANDICRAFTS: L.lui Bănică (flax retting); Gâ.Lemnarului (referring to a
carpenter); L-al Mare (great lake - for retting); La Olari (potters’ spring); G.Pietrarului
(stone cutter’s hollow); Povarnă-La (‘at the brandy distillery’); Vf.Vătalei (‘vătele’: reed
for plaiting);
ROUTES: Pr.Fâneţii (Hayfield Gate); Pl.Muşcelului (wooded hilltop with cart
track); Pl.Pătârlagelor (summit with route to Pătârlagele); Plai-În (‘on the summit road’);
Pp.de la Plop (path on a steep slope); Priporu (steep
Slope with cart track); Pl.Slemnea (summit with a track); Pr.Ţarinei (Ţarină Gate);
Pr.Viei (Vineyard Gate)
RELIGION: Cr.Banului (cross of the ban: a high official); Călugăriţe La (‘at the
nuns’); Ciumaţi-La (brook named after a burial of plague victims); Cr.din Curmătura-La
(cross from the col); Mânăstire-La/V.Mânăstirii (at the monastery/monastery valley);
I.Tămăduirii (religious name used for a spring).
WATER SOURCES: Pu.Dorobanţului (well of the Dorobanţi); Fântânele-La (‘at
the little fountains dim.‘fântâna’) also I/Vf.Fântânelelor; V.Izvorului; Ci.Pătârlăgii;
Vn.Puturoasă
(sulphurous
spring);
Vn.Rece
(cold
spring);
Valleys
V.Saramura/I.Sărat/V.Sărată/V.Sărăturei (salt spring etc); La Ştubeu (‘at the well’); Sm.la
Voica+;
ASPECT: F.Coastei (face of the slope: a topoclimatic name derived from the
strong southerly orientation of this dry precipice); Doştină (place on a north-facing slope);
C.Ma.Fetii/Cp.Ma.Fetii/Dl.Fetii/Ma.Fetii/Mu.Fetii (south facing slope); Fd.Scumpie (back
side with reference to smoke trees)
DEFORESTATION: Lz/Pn.Cheii (clearing of the gorge); Pn.Hozii+; Lz.Luţii+;
I.Seciului (spring on deforested land)
OTHERS: Cetăţuia (small fortress); I/Ma/Pu.Dorobanţului (after the Dorobanţi or
frontier troops based at Pătârlagele pre-1918; Vf.La Maiag (at the peak with a
topographical mark); Ca.Neamţului (German topographical marker; possibly related to the
Fligely survey of 1854-6); C.Odăii (slope of the room i.e. a house);
Rachiria (a word making no sense); Repaus-La (‘at the resting place of Mihai
Viteazul’)
+ denotes names referring to persons that are also listed at the top +. For a key to
the feature abbreviations see Table 3
+ denotă nume care se referă la personae menţionate la început. Pentru
înţelegerea tabelului se va citi tabelul 3.
4.3.5 Reviewing the Placenames: Rural Life
The historic alluvial farmlands – carrying the name ‘lunca’ (in the old sense of an
agricultural surface) or ‘ţarină’ – are found in each village to varying degrees e.g. Ţ.Luncii
at Valea Viei relating to the 25-35m alluvial plain extending along the western side of the
Buzău between the Muşcel, Viei and Gorneasca confluences below Dl.Viei and
Dl.Mânăstirii. This was a historic ‘boiar’ interest until the land reform of 1923 when the
simultaneous allocation of cereal lands on the Bărăgan allowed for some extension of
orchards on this land which is broadly situated at Gu.Văii Viei where the narrow Viei
valley meets the Buzău alluvial plain (though the name also indicates a source of water).
However, ‘ţarină’ also occurs as Pr. Ţarinei – Ţarină Gate – arising from former practice of
placing entrances on the edge of the village. Indeed Valea Viei also had a Pr.Fâneţii
(Hayfield Gate) at the upper limit of the village while Pr.Viei (Vineyard Gate) gave access
to vines maintained on the slopes of Dl.Viei prior to the phylloxera epidemic and
traditionally associated with Ungureni settlers. However, there are names pointing to small
domains established on high surfaces and landslides. In the Stroeşti area, Duru-La (‘at
Duru’s farm’) recalls a Szekler settler from Transylvania, while C.Odăii (‘the slope of the
room’) relates to the Duru family home. V.Ghiceanului – probably from the name Ghicean
mentioned in 1864 in relation to V.Saramura near Murăturile – is a small property on the
southern edge of Muşcel basin; complemented by V.Pătărlaci (also mentioned in 1864)
which seems to suggest another domain around the Tatomir valley on the northern edge of
the basin. This latter name clearly suggests a community of people from Pătârlagele and
therby reinforces the historic link with Fundăturile. Agriculture here extended on to the
smooth structural surfaces offering good topoclimatic conditions with dry, fresh air in
contrast to the depressions. Names include Dl.Mânăstirii where today the emphasis is on
hay, pasture and fruit growing with some partial return to woodland. But former agriculture
is indicated by Vf.La Altoaie (‘on the peak at the stock plant’) near Crâng, but even more
convincingly by evidence of threshing at an ‘aria’ where daught animals trampled the crop
at certain places in the fields before the chaff was removed by the wind using a wooden
shovel. ‘Arie-La pe Mu.’ or ‘În Vf.la Arie’ point to a former threshing place near the
summit of Dl.Mânăstirii. And particularly impressive are the two references to ‘În Vf. la
A.Lupenilor’ (‘on the peak at the threshing place of the Lupeni’ i.e. natives of Valea
Lupului) on land that they owned on Vf.Muşcelului: hence the alternative name ‘MuşcelÎnVf.Pe’ (‘on Muşcel peak at the threshing by the Lupeni’). Flax was also grown on the
high surfaces – hence Inul Dedului (Dedu’s flax) relating to arable land near the summit
above Malul Alb – while haymaking is indicated by ‘Fa.Mare a Muşcelului (Pătârlagelor)’:
the great hayland of Muşcel situated on Mu.Pătârlagelor.
Cereals also used to be grown on young, unstable landslides where, once again,
the present uses are for hay, pasture and orchards, including some resurgence of woodland
e.g. Ţ.Văii Vie east of Dl.Viei. Other references include Ogoare-La (‘at the cultivated
land’) which relates to hemp growing on Dl.Mânăstirea where Inărie-La (‘at the flax’) also
occurs; also Ogradă-Pe (‘on the old garden ground’) suggesting very good agricultural land
with fields and gardens close the village and a water supply. Surprisingly, the only
reference to fruit is Pi.Oancei (Oancea’s plum tree) at Valea Viei where the village name
alludes to the local vineyards of the past. Grazing is indicated by ‘Fâneaţă/Fâneaţa’
(hayland) on young landslides in the area of Orjani and Stroeşti/Valea Viei that would also
have been used for fruit trees. Pr.Fâneţii may also be recalled in this connection.
References to livestock include O.Cailor (the horse pen) recalling an ‘obor’ for monastery
horses on the Ariniş landslide near Mânăstirea; while sheeprearing is indicated by MocanuM (Mocan’s mountain) recalling a Transylvanian shepherd (‘mocan’), while the female
form – Mocanca – refers to shepherd’s farm at Mânăstirea where there was also some
planting of vines. Ps.Stânii (the summit with a sheepfold) occurs on Dl.Viei, although there
is no sheepfold there now; likewise in the case of Vf.Stânii (sheepfold peak) which also
appears on Dl.Viei (close to Crâng) and also on Dl.Mânăstirii. I.La Surlă (the brook of the
‘surlă’: a conical shepherd’s refuge) occurs at Brusturişu. The once common practice of
having all the pigs in a village grazing on common land is recalled through Cotineţe La (‘at
the pigsty’) on the slope below the Mş.Lupenilor plateau north of Fundăturile. Water
sources may be indicated through the term ‘izvor’ although the same word is often used
locally for a small stream. However Ci.Pătârlăgii is an example of a strong, gushing spring
where water appears to be spurting from a pipe. Salty water is usually most clearly
distinguished e.g. at Stroeşti where we encounter Saramura or I.Sărat (salt water or a salt
spring); also Sărăţel which is a diminutive form indicating a little salt brook) and
V.Sărăturei which is the salt spring or valley. Other villages with such references in their
localities are Murăturile, Muşcel and Stroeşti. While such salt water sources can be useful
for cooking and pickling they are highlighted mainly because of their obvious drawbacks
over watering livestock, while salt deposits on pastureland reduce the grazing potential.
Traditional activities are indicated by G.Pietrarului (stone cutter’s hollow) north of
Crâng near Chichile peak, while there is a reference to Povarnă-La (‘at the brandy
distillery’) which is still in regular use at Mihălceşti. Landslide hollows may hold small
lakes often used in the past for retting flax and hemp: Lacuri-La (‘at the lakes’) occurs at
Crâng on landslides above Sm.Murăturilor; also at Fundăturile near La Ogradă on
landslides in the lower part of I.lui Tatomir. In a forest above Stroeşti, L-al Mare (the great
lake) - documented as I.Rău in 1900 - was formerly valued for retting; as was L.lui Bănică
(Bănică’s lake) in a similar situation. But for ValeaViei, Lac-La relates to a seasonally
Valleys
marshy area on the Lunca Ţarinei below Dl.Viei. Finally, reference may be made to
routeways accessing the higher ground e.g. Pl.Muşcelului (the ‘plai’ of Muşcel): an almost
level wooded hilltop with a cart track; while Pl.Pătârlagelor indicates a summit crossed by
routeway to Pătârlagele. Plai-În (‘on the summit road’) is encountered at Orjani; while
Slemnea or Pl.Slemnea refers to a summit crossed by a trackway to Fundăturile.
Ps.Ţiganului (Roma summit) relates to the hillslope falling from Vf.Muşcelului to
V.Lupului with a former cart track for hay and other traffic connecting Muşcel with Valea
Lupului. And routes may be highlighted with reference to wayside crosses e.g. the stone
Cr.Banului (the cross of the ban: a high official) standing in the col where
Dl.Murăturilor/Dl.Viei is crossed by the path between the Muşcel and Viei valleys. And
above Fundăturile, Cr.din Curmătură-La (‘at the cross in the col’) stands by the trackway
from Crivineni providing an alternative to the road along the Muşcel valley from
Pătârlagele.
5. CONCLUSION
The paper has outlined the settlement history of the northwestern section of the
Pătâlagele Depression with particular reference to the major developments during the
nineteenth century when permanent settlements were established on marginal land
comprising the high structural surfaces and unstable landslides. Although such areas had
previously been exploited through seasonal grazing based on temporary shelters (not to
mention the hint of early monastic settlement at Mânăstirea) this was greatly developed by
the ‘roirile’ that accompanied population increase and the rise of capitalism; enabling
landowners to relocate some of their tenants away from the prime cereal lands. Thus while
the Buzău valley became a highway with railway and national road access, hilly areas
within a few kilometres could be reached only by paths and narrow trackways hazardous in
bad weather. Much of this development remains in place although the dispersed settlement
of Stroeşti is now heavily depopulated; while the inherent instability of the landslide
surfaces will discourage attempts to build modern houses in future even if the access roads
are improved for motor vehicles. But while the historical details have only limited
documentary cover we have shown that there is a rich toponomy relating to landscape and
land use in the area, even though there are drawbacks because the personal names are long
forgotten and tracing them is almost impossible since many appear to be nicknames that are
otherwise unrecorded. And while some names clearly do not sustain a literal interpretation
the overall picture stands as a convincing evaluation of a challenging environment.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Our study has been assisted by many local people Nistor Filon (Muşcel); Natalia
Ivan (Mânăstirea); Traian Popescu (Muşcel, later Valea Viei); Traian Ştefănescu (Muşcel).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Academia Română Institutul de Lincvistică ‘Iorgu Iordan’, (1996/1998), Dicţionar
explicativ al limbii române (Bucharest: I.P. Univers Enciclopedic) 2nd edition
G.Angelescu, 1998, Începuturile şi evoluţia învăţământului în Judeţul Buzău până la 1900
(Buzău: MS CCD Library).
Anon ed. 1892, Analele parlamentare ale României: obicinuita obstească adunare a Térei
Româneşti 1831-2 (Bucharest: Imprimeria Statului).
D.Bălteanu 1983, Experimentul de teren în geomorfologie aplicaţii la Subcarpatii
Buzăului (Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR).
N.Baranovsky & I.Ştefănescu 1965, ‘Evoluţia numerică a populaţiei din Subcarpaţi
dintre Slănicul Buzăului şi Dîmboviţa între anii 1835-1964’, Studii şi Cercetări:
Geografie, 12(2), 299-306.
W.F. von Bauer 1778, Mémoires historiques et géographiques sur la Valachie
(Frankfurt/Leipzig: Henry-Louis Broenner).
O.Bogdan & D.Bălteanu eds. 1986, Cercetări geografice asupra mediului înconjurator în
Judeţul Buzău (Bucharest: Institut de Geografie).
O.Burlacu ed. 1979, Atlas geografic şi istoric al Judeţul Buzău (Buzău: Casa Judeţeană a
Corpului Didactic).
I.A.Candrea 1931, Dicţionar encyclopedic ilustrat (Bucharest: Editura Cartea
Românească).
L.Colescu 1905, Recensământul general al populaţiei României 1899: rezultate definitive
(Bucharest: Institutul de Arte Grafice Eminescu).
H.Constantinescu 1987, Biserici de lemn din Eparhia Buzăului (Buzău: Editura
Episcopiei Buzăului).
N.A.Constantinescu 1938, ‘Cele mai vechi ştiri din Judeţul Buzău’, Îngerul 10(4-5), 24675.
F. Damé 1894, Recensământul copiilor în vîrstă de şcólă în comunele rurale (Bucharest:
Lito-Tip. Carol Göbl) with 1893 data but no pagination.
N.Filon 1998, Monografia Satelor de pe Valea Muşcelului (Unpublished Manuscript)
Fligely ed. 1856, Furstenthum Wallachei (Vienna: n.p).
R.Gâlmeanu & A.M.Ionescu eds. 2002, Buzău: ghid monografic (Buzău: Editura
Anastasia-Ina).
B.Iorgulescu 1881, Geografia Judeţului Buzău (Buzău: Tip.Alessandru Georgescu).
B.Iorgulescu 1892, Dicţionar geografic statistic economic şi istoric al judeţului Buzău
(Bucharest: Socec).
Ministerul Agriculturii şi Domeniilor 1914, Dicţionarul statistic al României 1912
(Bucharest: Institutul de Arte Grafice C.Sfetea).
C.Muică & D.Bălteanu 1995, Relations between landslide dynamics and plant cover in
the Buzău Sub-Carpathians Revue Roumaine de Géographie 39, 41-7.
C.Muică, I.Zăvoianu & N.Muică 1993, ‘Landscape changes in the Buzău
Subcarpathians’: C.Muică & D.Turnock eds., Geography and conservation
(Bucharest: Geography Institute, International Geographical Seminars 1) 136-42.
N.Muică 1977, ‘Schimbări în reţeaua hidrografică secundară din împrejurimile
Pătîrlagelor’, Studii şi Cercertări: Geografie 31, 105-10.
N.Muică, D.Nancu & D.Turnock 2000a, ‘Historical and contemporary aspects of
pluriactivity in the Curvature Carpathians of Romania’, GeoJournal 50, 199-212
N.Muică & D.Turnock 1994, Living on landslides: the Subcarpathian districts of Buzău
and Vrancea (Leicester: University of Leicester Department of Geography
Occasional Paper 29).
Valleys
N.Muică & D.Turnock 1997, ‘Pătârlagele: a key village in the Buzău Subcarpathians’,
Analele Universităţii de Vest din Timişoara: Geografie 7, 115-28.
N.Muică & D.Turnock 2000, ‘Pluriactivity in the Buzău Subcarpathians: the case of plum
brandy distilling’, Revue Roumaine de Géographie 43-44, 175-86.
Muica, N. & Turnock, D 2008, ‘A toponomical approach to the agrarian history of the
Pătârlagele Depression’,
Journal of Studies & Research in Human Geography 2(2), 27-49.
N.Muică & D.Turnock 2009, ‘Reconstructing the historical geography of settlement in
the Pătârlagele Depression of Romania’s Buzău valley’, Studii şi Cercetări de
Geografie IN PRESS
N.Muică, D.Turnock & V.Urucu 2000b, ‘Coping strategies in rural areas of the Buzău
Subcarpathians’, GeoJournal 50, 157-72.
D.Nancu & V.Alexandrescu 1993, ‘Formarea reţelei de aşezări rurale din Subcarpaţii de
la Curbura: aspecte istorice şi toponomice’, Studii şi Cercetări de Geografie 40,
161-5.
G.Penelea 1973, Les foires de la Valachie pendant la période 1774-1848 (Bucharest:
Editura Academiei RSR).
I. Petrescu-Burloiu 1977, Subcarpaţii Buzăului: relaţii om-natura (Bucharest: Editura
Litera).
Serviciul Geografic al Armatei 1916, Harta topografică 1:100,000 (Bucharest: Serviciul
Geografic al Armatei).
O.Specht 1790-1, Militairische Carte der Kleinen oder Österreichischen und Grossen
Walachie (Vienna: n.p.).
N.Stoica & N.Stoicescu 1983, ‘Aşezămîntele monahale din Episcopia Buzăului în trecut şi
azi’: A. Plămădeală ed., Spiritualitate şi istorie la întorsura Carpaţilor (Buzău:
Sectorul Cultural al Episcopiei Buzăului) II, 269-76.
N.Stoicescu 1970, Bibliografia localităţilor şi monumentelor feudale din România:
Muntenia (Craiova: Mitropolia Olteniei).
E. Zaharescu 1923, 'Vechiul judeţ al Saacului in lumină istorică şi anthropogeografică’,
Buletinul Sociatăţii Regale Române de Geografie 41, 147-73.
Fig. 1 The origin of settlements in the Pătârlagele Depression according to the
earliest documentary evidence.
Originea aşezărilor în Depresiunea Pătârlage după cele mai vechi surse
documentare.
Named settlements are those with a history of official existence in administrative
handbooks since the late nineteenth century. The dependencies: those in the study area are listed in
the table. Localităţile menţionate sunt cele cu o existenţă oficială în documente administrative de la
sfârşitul secolului XIX. Localităţile aparţinătoare din zona de studiu sunt menţionate în figură.
Valleys
Fig. 2 The landscape of the Pătârlagele Depression.
Peisajul Depresiunii Pătârlage.
The key for the coded dependencies is as follows:/localităţile aparţinătoare menţionate
numeric sunt: 1 Arvuneşti; 3 Băcioi; 4 Băia; 5 Băicuş; 6 Băjănii; 7 Balea; 10 Băşcureţ; 12 Bejani;
13 Benga; 14 Bogdăneşti; 17 Burduşoaia; 30 Dubroveşti; 34 Gorlani; 37 La Cătină; 40 La Odae; 42
Linie; 44 Luntrari; 48 Malul Alb (Pătârlagele); 51 Mânăstirea Cârnu; 52 Mărăcineni; 54 Mărunţişu
Jitianu; 55 Mărunţişu Sibiesc; 56 Măţara; 58 Mlăcile; 59 Moara Sibicianului; 67 Panaieţi; 69
Pâslari; 71 Pătârlagele de Jos; 72 Pătârlagele de Sus; 73 Pe Crivină; 74 Pe Faţă; 75 Pe Muchie; 76
Pe Pisc; 77 Peste Gârlă; 78 Peste Izvor (Gornet); 79 Peste Izvor (Zahareşti); 82 Podul Viei; 83
Poduri; 85 Poiana; 90 Predeal; 91 Pripor; 92 Prundeni; 93 Racoş; 95 Redeny; 96 Robu; Rotărie;
98 Satu Nou; 102 Slabi; 106 Ţarină; 107 Ţarină de-din Jos; 111 Valea Gornetului; 118 Vlăiceşti.

settlement and toponomy in the pătârlagele depression: the muscel

Transcription

Similar documents

historical geography of settlements in the pătârlagele depression

historical geography of the pătârlagele depression

T:\Working Site Plans\_Malls Site\Imperial Valley SP arch.dwg, 3/28

Multi-temporal monitoring of slow

settlements and toponomy in the pătârlagele depression

Full text

Here For Pdf Version

INSIDE High Climbers

Wednesday, March 20 6 to 8 p.m. Centerra Mirage Elementary

HHR group 2013 ltrhd - Valley of Fear and The Original Haunted