Marin CONSTANTIN APARTENENȚȚAA ETNO‐‐CULTURALĂĂ DIN ROMÂNIA ÎN CONTEXTUL GLOBALIZĂĂRII CRITERII ANTROPOLOGICE ALE ETNOGENEZEI ŞŞI I ETNOMORFOZEI

APARTENENȚȚAA ETNO‐‐CULTURALĂĂ DIN ROMÂNIA ÎNÎN CONTEXTUL GLOBALIZĂĂRII CRITERII ANTROPOLOGICE ALE ETNOGENEZEI Ş ŞI I ETNOMORFOZEI

Autor: Marin CONSTANTIN Conducăătortor ş ştiințțific: Dr. Cristiana GLAVCE

Lucrare realizatăă în în cadrul proiectului „„Valorificarea identitățăților culturale înîn procesele globale”,”, cofinanțțatat din Fondul Social European prin Programul Operațțional Sectorial Dezvoltarea Resurselor Umane 2007 –– 2013, contractul dede finanțțare nr.nr. POSDRU/89/1.5/S/59758. Titlurile şşii drepturile dede proprietate intelectuală şşii industrialăă asupra rezul‐‐ tatelor obobțținute în în cadrul stagiului dede cercetare postdoctoralăă aparțținin Academiei Române.

Punctele dede vedere exprimate înîn lucrare aparțținin autorului ş şii nunu angajeazăă Comisia Europeană şşă ii Academia Română ă , , beneficiara proiectului.

Exemplar gratuit. Comercializarea în în ț țarară şă şii strstrăăininăătate este interzisăă.. Reproducerea, fiefie ş şii parțțialială şşă ii pepe orice suport, este posibilăă numai cucu acordul prealabil alal Academiei Române.

ISBN 978‐‐973‐‐167‐‐134‐‐55 Depozit legal: Trim. IIII 2013

Marin CONSTANTIN

Apartenențța etno‐‐culturală din România în contextul globalizării Criterii antropologice ale etnogenezei şşii etnomorfozei

Editura Muzeului Națțional alal Literaturii Române Colecțțiaia AUL AULAA MA MAGNAGNA

CUPRINS

INTRODUCERE...... INTRODUCERE...... 99

PARTEA AA II‐‐AA ‐ ‐ STUDIUL BIBLIOGRAFIEI ANTROPOLOGICE AA ETNICITĂȚIIII ÎNÎN ROMÂNIA...... 13

Capitolul 1:1: AUTO‐‐REFERENȚȚIALITATE Ş ŞII INTER‐‐ REFERENȚȚIALITATE ÎNÎN EVOLUȚȚIAIA ANTROPOLOGIEI CULTURALE ROMÂNEŞŞTITI ...... 1515

Geneza antropologiei culturale în în România, în în context est‐‐central european...... 15

Auto‐‐referențțialitate în în practica antropologiei culturale ş şii sociale româneşştiti (1964‐‐1989) ...... 19

Mențținerea orizontului auto‐‐referențțialial dede cercetare antropologicăă româneascăă (1990–2012)...... 28

Dezvoltarea inter‐‐referențțialitățățiiii antropologice în în România (1990 ‐ ‐ 2012)...... 35

Concluzii: coordonatele evoluțțieiiei epistemologice aa antropologiei culturale româneşşti...... 42

Capitolul 2:2: ETNOCENTRISMABORDAREA OMOLOGIC Ş ŞII RELATIVISMĂ ŞII ANALOGIC CULTURALĂĂ AA ÎNÎN IDENTITĂȚIIII ETNO‐‐CULTURALE DIN ROMÂNIA...... 4848

Etnocentrismul ş şii relativismul cultural în în teoretizarea antropologicăă ...... 48

Comparatismul auto‐‐referențțialial în în antropologia culturalăă româneascăă...... 52

55

Comparatismul inter‐‐referențțialial în în antropologia culturalăă româneascăă ...... 56

Omologii ş şii analogii în în comparatismul antropologic românesc...... 59

Concluzii: etnocentrism ş şii relativism cultural în în antropologia româneascăă aa etnicitățățiiii ...... 63

PARTEA AA IIII‐‐AA ‐ ‐ CONCEPTUALIZARE Ş ŞII COMPARATISM ÎNÎN VARIABILITATEA ETNO‐‐CULTURALĂ ŞII CONFESIONALĂĂ DIN ROMÂNIA...... 6565

Capitolul 3:3: VOCABULARUL ANTROPOLOGIC AL VARIABILITĂȚIIII ETNICE DIN ROMÂNIA...... 6767

Categorii dede analizăă ale bibliografiei antropologice româneşştiti despre etnicitate ...... 68

Etnografia comunitățăților dede ccăăldldăărari, lipoveni, rudari, sasaşşii ş şii secui ...... 72

Serialitatea terminologicăă în în etnografia grupurilor etnice minoritare din România...... 73

Repere antropologice în în studiul apartenențțeiei etno‐‐culturale din România ...... 81

Concluzii...... 87

Capitolul 4:4: VARIABILE CULTURALE ALE ETNICITĂȚIIII DIN ROMÂNIA...... 8888

Cadre rurale, urbane ş şii regionale ale etnicitățățiiii din România ...... 88

Etnicitatea ruralăă ...... 90

66

Etnicitatea urbanăă...... 96

Etnicitatea regionalăă...... 99

Variabile culturale în în încadrarea ruralăă , , urbanăă şşii regionalăă aa etnicitățățiiii ...... 102

Concluzii...... 118

Capitolul 5:5: SINCRONIE Ş ŞII DIACRONIE ÎNÎN VARIABILITATEA ETNICĂĂ DIN ROMÂNIA ...... 120

Regimuri temporale în în istoriografia grupurilor etno‐‐culturale din România ...... 120

Ritmuri etnografice în în variabilitatea etno‐‐culturalăă din România...... 123

Concluzii...... 136

PARTEA AA IIIIII‐‐AA ‐ ‐ APARTENENȚȚAA ETNO‐‐CULTURALĂĂ ÎNÎN ROMÂNIA Ş ŞII ÎNÎN UNIUNEA EUROPEANĂĂ ...... 137

Capitolul 6:6: TRADIȚȚIILE ORALE Ş ŞII ARTIZANATUL POPULAR ÎNÎN AUTO‐‐REPREZENTAREA IDENTITĂȚIIII ETNICE DIN ROMÂNIA...... 139

Despre etnografia auto‐‐reprezentăăriirii etnice din România..139

Narativitatea grupurilor etnice...... 144

Arta popularăă aa grupurilor etnice...... 149 Variabilitatea narativă şă şii meşşteteşşugugăăreascăă aa grupurilor etnice...... 154

Concluzii...... 160

77

Capitolul 7:7: CRITERII ANTROPOLOGICE ALE ETNOGENEZEI Ş ŞII ETNOMORFOZEI ...... 162 Originea ş şii transformarea etnicitățățiiii în în teoretizarea antropologicăă ...... 162

Etnogeneza ş şii etnomorfoza sub‐‐grupurilor dede aromâni, germani, maghiari, români, romi ccăăldldăărari ruruşşii‐‐lipoveni, ttăătari ş şii turci în în România ...... 169

Concluzii...... 183

Capitolul 8:8: DIMENSIUNEA ETNO‐‐CULTURALĂĂ AA CETĂȚENIEI EUROPENE (1992‐‐2012) ...... 184

Etnicitatea ş şii cetățățenia europeanăă în în legislațțiaia Uniunii Europene ş şii în în conceptualizarea antropologicăă ...... 184

Apartenențțaa etno‐‐nanațționalăă în în definirea legislativăă românească şă şii în în etnografia transfrontalierăă ...... 193

Concluzii...... 202

BIBLIOGRAFIE ...... 204

LISTA INTERLOCUTORILOR...... 223

INDEX TEMATIC ...... 225

SINTEZĂĂ ...... 229

ADDENDA SYNTHESIS...... 254

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 280

88

ADDENDA

Synthesis Ethno‐‐cultural Belongingness in Romania in the Context of Globalization: Anthropological Criteria of Ethnogenesis and Ethnomorphosis

Introduction Relying onon the ethnographic information about several ethno‐‐ linguistic groups and subgroups inin Romania today, my study dwells onon the comparative understanding ofof ethnicity from the perspective ofof cultural anthropology. The Romanian population (representing the national majority inin Romania), and –– inin alphabetical order –– the Aromanian, the German, the Magyar, the Roma, the Russian‐‐speaking Lipovan, the Tatar, and the Turkish communities, are here concerned inin their variable ethnographic traits. Except the Aromanians, the other non‐‐Romanian groups belong toto the national minorities inin Romania. Choosing such ethno‐‐linguistic „kaleidoscop” has depended onon the existence ofof case studies carrried out inin anan anthropological „key” (mainly

basedresearchers); onon fieldworkalso implied and are fieldthe datatheoretical that II haveapproach personally ofof gatheredspecialized inin the ethnography ofof the German, Magyar, Roma, Russian‐‐Lipovan, Tatar, and Turkish groups inin Romania. Following such documentation, II undertake aa study onon the intra‐‐etnicity inin Romania , , with ethnography and the anthropological analysis and interpretation engaged inin identifying the degree ofof convergence and // oror divergence inin the inventory ofof cultural traits representative for one oror another ethnicity. With this aim, my investigation isis organized according toto the major and apparently irreconcilable

254

coordinates ofof ethnogenesis (as aa given “birth” ofof ethno‐‐linguistic oror

religiouscomparison identity) between and subgroups ethnomorphosis ofof the (as abovementioned “transformation” ethnic ofof ethnicity). identities, ByByasas well asas between ethnic cultures described inin the international anthropology, II seek toto distinguish aa series ofof conceptual and methodological meanings ofof the ethno‐‐cultural belongingness..

Chapter 1:1: Self‐‐referential and inter‐‐referential perspectives inin the evolution ofof Romanian cultural anthropology

The bibliographic retrospective ofof the practice ofof cultural anthropology inin Romania isis significant for the actuality ofof aa process ofof changing and renewing the scientific interest and the inquest “field” ofof Romanian researchers. More precisely, the self‐‐referential oror “intra‐‐ cultural” knowledge about Romanian communities oror groups ofof population currently appears toto be turned into aa inter‐‐referential knowledge, with aa cross‐‐cultural content. ItIt isis through such theoretical and methodological metamorphosis that the study ofof minority ethno‐‐linguistic communities inin Romania takes part toto aa contextualized understanding ofof Romanian cultural identities inin relation toto the groups ofof Magyars, Germans, Roma, Russian‐‐speaking Lipovans, Turks, Croatians, etc. As aa result, my text attempts (first ofof all) toto evaluate the inner dynamics ofof Romanian cultural anthropology inin terms ofof aa critical synthesis ofof the local specialized literature, inin the context ofof anthropological disciplinary evolution inin Central and Southeastern Europe.

(re)orientation,Before discussing II outline the the continuity epistemological ofof many meanings ofof the ideas ofof such and scholarlyworking procedures that belong (from my viewpoint) toto the self ‐‐referential exercise ofof Romanian anthropology. ToTo the same extent that the inception (in 1964) ofof cultural and socio‐‐demographic anthropology inin Romania stems from ethnography, sociology, and pysical anthropology, the inter‐‐referential development inin the 2000s cultural anthropology isis not aa total rupture from the forma mentis ofof the self ‐‐referential anthropological thought, but rather anan inheritance (across autonomous research branches, however) ofof aa culture ––

255

and ‐‐ social structure way ofof theoretical categorizing. As ifif mirroring the

‐‐ ‐‐ ethnographicconstancy ofof datathis fromconceptual within theframework, 1964 –– 2012 the Romanian self and anthropology inter referential has recurrently been focused around the ideas ofof village // group // community , , intra‐‐cultural and cross‐‐cultural , , monographic description and comparatism , , cultural unity // ethno‐‐linguistic variability , , and geographical distribution. Accounting for the self‐‐referential research unit per excellentiam, Romanian village has almost exclusively represented the fieldwork “topos” ofof the native anthropologists inin Romania, before 1989 (in villages like Berivoieşştiti inin Argeşş County, MMăăgura and ŞŞirnea inin Braşşovov County, Novaci inin Vâlcea County, Soveja inin Vrancea County, Tilişşcaca inin Sibiu County, etc.), and afterwards asas well (at(at DDăăneneşştiti‐‐Maramureşş , , Cetățățele‐‐Maramureşş , , CrCrăăsani‐‐Ialomițța,a, DrDrăăguguş‐ş‐Braşşov, Voineşştiti‐‐Ialomițța,a, ŞŞiişşeeşştiti‐‐Maramureşş , , etc.) Exceptions here were (in 1960‐‐1980s) the region ofof Bicaz, the “micro‐‐ urban” location ofof the pilot‐‐station from Câmpulung‐‐Muscel, and (after 1989) the Bucharest open‐‐air markets. InIn another case, that ofof Novaci, the village population was presented via the ethnographic dichotomy between the communities ofof PPă ă mânteni (autohtonous people) and Ungureni (a(a Romanian, Transylvanian‐‐originated, group); each time, however, the Romanian peasants were the sole object ofof investigation. From the inter‐‐ referential angle, the themes and goals ofof anthropological inquiry have regularly implied the ethnic group and // oror the multiethnic community , , inin the countryside (Başşpunar inin Constanțțaa County, Korond inin Harghita County, Oituz and Frumoasa, inin Bacăăuu County, Sântana inin Arad County, Sfântu‐‐ Gheorghe and Slava Rusăă , , inin Tulcea County, ZZăă bala inin Covasna County, etc.), asas well asas inin cities (Bucureşşti,ti, CCăăllăăraraşşi,i, Constanțța,a, Medgidia, Roman)

cases,and onon such aa regional locations scale have ((Clisura also included Dună ă riirii , , RomanianCaraş‐ş‐Severin groups County). –– asas described InIn most and interpreted not inin enclavisation, but inin ethno‐‐cultural interaction with the national minorities. The mentioned case studies advance their cross‐‐cultural vision asas concerns various Romanian ethnographic areas (Argeşş , , Bran, Gorj, Maramureşş , , MMăărginimea Sibiului, ȚȚara FFăăggăăraraşşului), albeit within the same linguistic and national culture asas the anthropological authorship inin discussion. The permanence ofof such analytical and interpretive standpoint

256

practically reconfirms the original interdisciplinary “osmosis” between

preponderentlyethnography, sociology,“self‐‐referential” and ininphysical Romania), anthropology which isis also (all indicative ofof them for the theoretical endowment ofof Romanian cultural anthropology. On the contrary, the research ofof multiethnicity from areas like Banat, Crişşana, Szekeyfold, and Dobrodja reveals itsits cross‐‐cultural vision , , which, without ignoring the local presence ofof Romanians, has been interested inin their living together with the different minority groups, asas well asas inin the minorities’ contribution toto the making and expressing ofof indigenous ethnographic cultures. InIn fact, this perspective belongs toto those Romanian anthropologists devoted toto the approach ofof the ethno‐‐confessional and religious otherness ofof the Magyars, the Roma, the Germans, the Russian‐‐Lipovans, the Turks, the Croatians…, and inin exploiting itit within their specific theorization oror methodological instrumentarium. As aa research program, cross‐‐culturalism comes toto contribute toto the contemporary specialization ofof Romanian cultural anthropology, beyond the initial paternalism inin itsits self‐‐referential inter‐‐ disciplinary agenda. As aa matter ofof fact, the Romanian self‐‐referential anthropology cultivates itsits monographic commitment, asas originated into the Bucharest interwar Sociological School, and revived thereafter due toto the partnership between physical and cultural anthropologists during research campains such asas inin the villages ofof BBăătrâna and Clopotiva (Hunedoara County), and within the “pilot‐‐stations” from Berivoieşştiti and Câmpulung (Argeşş County). The same analytical pattern has been reproduced inin further situations (Tilişşca, ŞŞirnea), while the examination ofof many local cultural and social aspects also reflects the monographic focus, inin the absence ofof anan interregional

traditionaland even lesscommunity cross‐‐cultural economic perspective structures (for ofofinstance, the composesorate inin studying andthe “neighborhhods” inin the area ofof ȚȚara FFăăggăăraraşşului inin Braşşovov and Sibiu counties, the folk philosophy and folk fairs inin Vrancea County, the funeral rituals inin Argeşş and Maramureşş counties, etc.) As aa consequence, the comparison ofof “social units” isis rarely encountered (Soveja ↔↔ Tulnici ↔↔ Negrileşşti,ti, inin Vrancea County; CrCrăăsani ↔↔ Voineşştiti inin Dâmbovițțaa County). The inter‐‐referential approach regularly makes use ofof anthropological comparison , , first ofof allall atat aa village level (normally, aa monographic

257

framework) –– with the aim ofof “particularizing” local ethnographic “topics”:

RomaMagyars, inin Sântana,Romanians, Romanians and Gypsies and Lipovans inin ZZăă bala, inin Romanians,Mahmudia villageGermans, (Tulcea and County), Turks and Tatars inin Cobadin village (Constanțțaa County), Roma groups ofof Spoitors , , Rudars , , and Silky Gypsy inin CCăăllăăraraşşii town, etc. Regional comparisons are similarly engaged between factions ofof the same ethnic groups: Turks and Tatars inin Cobadin and Medgidia town (Constanțțaa County), Magyar‐‐speaking Roman‐‐Catholics inin Oituz and Frumoasa. Such comparisons may also seek toto equate different ethnic groups, inin accordance with the given thematic purpose: the “co‐‐ belongingness” ofof the Romanian‐‐ speaking Vlachs and Serbs inin the area ofof Clisura Dună ă riirii , , the pilmigrage ofof Romanians inin LLăăpuşş village (in Maramureşş County) and the pilmigrage ofof the “Old‐‐Belief” Lipovans inin Slava Rusăă , , the artisanship industries among Magyars inin Korond, Roma Kalderash inin Brateiu village (Sibiu County), Turks inin Cobadin, Croatians inin Caraşşova village (Caraş‐ş‐Severin County), etc. InIn rare cases (the Aromanians inin the towns ofof Constanțțaa and CCăăllăăraraşşi,i, Lipovans ofof Caracaliu village inin Tulcea County, and the Turks inin BaBaşşpunar village), the anthropological study ofof ethnicity isis conducted within aa monograph contour. The ethnographic locations ofof self‐‐referential anthropology mostly incorporate the soso‐‐called Romanian people’s unity inin diversity.. Evidences for anan ancient community organization –– devă ă lmlmăşăşiaia ‐‐ , , often evoked inin the Middle‐‐Ages history ofof Romanian free peasantry, are the peasant obobşştete ofof Bran ((ŞŞirnea), the free‐‐peasant traditions ofof rră ă zezeşşii inin Vrancea (Negrileşşti,ti, Tulnici) and ofof moşşneni inin Argeşş (Berivoieşşti), asas well asas the composesorate from ȚȚara FFăăggăăraraşşului (in Braşşovov County). Even inin post‐‐socialist contexts,

type of of mixed‐‐diffuse household type of of individual thehousehold (in Voineşşti)ti) are described(in CrCrasasăă sani)one “historicaland the variation ofof aa common inherited structure”. Lastly, characterizing the villagers from Berivoieşşti,ti, DrDrăăguguşş (Braşşovov County), and Valea Lungăă (Dâmbovițțaa County) by means ofof their value orientations isis argued toto reflect local convergent views with respect toto the “positive appreciation ofof human nature” and “relational collaterality”. InIn contrast, the inter‐‐referential anthropology isis intended toto validate the ethnic, linguistic, and religious variability.. Thus, the social structures ofof the same village may differ from each other because ofof

258

their ethnic composition (Z(Zăă bala). The historical narrativity ofof Romanians, Germans, and Roma inin Sântana renders asas many ethno‐‐cultural interpretations onon the local villagers’ belongingness. The matrimonial behavior from the villages ofof the same region isis specific toto each ofof the local ethno‐‐confessional groups (Oituz and Frumoasa). The crafts ofof the Kalderash, the Croatians, the Turks, and the Szeklers are “congruent”( from anan economic point ofof view), with distinct “degrees” ofof expresivity and creativity inin their arts and ethnic symbolistics, however. The divergences between the Popovțții and the Bespopovțții parishes suspend the Old‐‐Belief Lipovan communion. Also inin autonomous community structuring –– the Aromanians inin Constanțța,a, the Lipovans inin Carcaliu village (Tulcea County), the Rudars inin Argeşş County –– the ethnic groups concerned are resembled, oror differentiated from, other homonymic groups. InIn Romania, the evolution ofof cultural anthropology from the self‐‐ referential viewpointing toto the inter‐‐referential one may also be verified inin aa cartographic representation. Indeed, the Romanian anthropological intra‐‐ cultural inquiries are centered over communities from ethnographic areas ofof the national Carpathian chain ((ȚȚara Hațțegului [B[Băătrâna şşii Clopotiva]; Oltenia [Novaci]; Argeşş [Berivoieşşti], Dâmbovițțaa [Voineşşti], Vrancea [Soveja, Negrileşşti,ti, Tulnici], MMăărginimea Sibiului [Tilişşca, Turnişşor, Cristian], ȚȚara Oltului, Bran [Măăgura, ŞŞirnea], Valea Bistrițțeiei [Bicaz]), Maramureşş [[ŞŞiişşeeşşti,ti, DDăănnăşăşti,ti, Cetățățele]). Exceptions from this submontane localization inin the research ofof aa free peasantry ofof moşşnean , , rră ă zezeşş , , and nemeşş traditions are the villages ofof CrCrăăsani and „Romanațți”i” (Olt County) –– both ofof them inin association with post‐‐socialist contexts ofof Romanian peasants’ (under)development. Instead, the topography ofof Romanian cross‐‐cultural

anthropologythe plains (Bratei, isis much Sântana), more Danube diversified, shoreline with the(E(Eşş elniinclusionțța,a, Plavisebi ofof villagesțța,a, Svini fromțța,a, inin Caraşş Severin County), alongside rural communities inin Dobrodja (Başşpunar, Cobadin, Medgidia, Mahmudia, Jurilovca, Slava Rusăă , , Carcaliu, Sfântu Gheorghe) and urban (sub)groups (Bucureşşti,ti, CCăăllăăraraşşi,i, Constanțța,a, Roman). With respect toto the historical areas ofof one oror another ethnicity, sub‐‐Carpathian research sites are also present inin such inter‐‐referential bibliography (Caraşşova, BBăă beni, Cisnăădioara, Oituz, Frumoasa, Korond, ZZăă bala), with nono generalizing interpretation inin social and economic terms.

259

Chapter 2:2: Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism inin the homological and analogical approach ofof the ethno‐‐cultural identity inin Romania

InIn virtue ofof their very epistemological particularities, the self‐‐ referential and the inter‐‐referential “worldviews” ofof Romanian cultural anthropology can be scrutinized from the angles ofof ethnocentrism and cultural relativism. Since (under the signature ofof Romanian anthropologists) one side ofof the above‐‐cited research isis concerned with the Romanian ethnographic cultures, while another one isis interested inin the minority ethnic cultures ofof Romania, aa theoretical foundation ofof their authorships isis supposedly responsible either for the “intrinsic” understanding ofof Romanian groups ofof population, oror for the accumulation, verification, and debate over the anthropological knowledge ofof Romanians vs.vs. that ofof national minorities from the same ethnographic areas. InIn what follows, II hypothesize the possible correspondence ofof ethnocentrism and // oror cultural relativism with two ways ofof applying comparison inin the Romanian anthropology, inin terms ofof homologies and analogies between subgroups oror communities ofof the same, oror aa different, ethno‐‐cultural identity. InIn order toto discern the ethnocentric and // oror relativist character ofof Romanian anthropological comparison, II situate my investigation within aa strictly methodological (and not ethical oror ideological) framework inin theorizing ethnocentrism and cultural relativism. My objective isis assessing the manner inin which comparisons are formulated toto establish intraethnic and interethnic corelations, inin the national context ofof Romanian majority and minority ethnic groups, and inin variable conditions ofof inhabitation, migration, enclavisation, cohabitation, and inter‐‐ethnic exchanges. The comparative argumentation ofof ethnographic homologies and analogies reveals ethnocentric and // oror relativist meanings inin the anthropological theory ofof cultural variability inin Romania. InIn other words, homologation ofof aa cultural trait between subgroups ofof the same ethnic

260

community isis the result ofof aa comparison centered within that ethnicity,

differentwhile the ethnic analogous groups association isis inin accord ofof with ethnographic the cross‐‐ culturalcharacteristics relativization between ofof those traits. InIn Romanian anthropology, there isis nono absolute relation between self‐‐referentiality and ethnocentrism, onon the one hand, and between inter‐‐referentiality and relativism, onon the other; while (for instance) the social organization ofof the Romanians, Magyars, and Gypsies inin ZZăă bala isis interpreted inin aa relativistic sense, the economy ofof the Romanians from the same village community also requires anan ethnocentric analytical support. Again, whereas cultural traits (such asas language, exogamy, the exchange ofof goods, etc.) ofof Romanian folk fairs inin the Carpathians happen toto foster the ethnocentric theorization, their “focal” role inin the inter‐‐regional trade, and especially their ethnic function ‐‐ are heuristically exploited from the perspective ofof cultural relativism. When comparison isis homologous, there occurs the probability ofof adopting the principle ofof ethnocentrism –– the ethnic groups keep anan entire and definitive authorship over their own patterns ofof culture (such asas inin the case ofof Romanian composesorate and inin that ofof the Rudar woodcarving), with interethnic analogies not distorting the initial, original, and “unique” imprint ofof what isis made, inherited, preserved, and transmitted by each ofof these groups. Conversely, anan analogous viewpoint ofof research isis inin conformity with the principle ofof cultural relativism –– cultural and social facts take place under the regimes ofof polygenesis and polycentrism, while their evaluation will recognize the interexchange, free convertibility, and equivalence between lifestyles attributes ofof different ethno‐‐linguistic oror confessional groups (for example, goodparenthood among the Romanians and the Muslims inin Medgidia town and the protector‐‐saints holy days inin the Ortodox church rituals among the Vlachs and the Serbs from the region ofof Clisura Dună ă riirii).).

Chapter 3:3: Towards anan anthropological vocabulary ofof ethnic variability inin Romania

The heteromorphic nature ofof ethnicity (in terms ofof sociality, economic organization, cultural self‐‐identification, etc.), asas well asas the current 261

diversification ofof Romanian studies and their thematic content related toto the minority ethnic groups –– equally require aa terminological synthesis concerning the description and interpretation ofof the ethno‐‐cultural variability inin Romania. ItIt isis the ethnographic reality itself ofof the ethno‐‐cultural groups oror minorities ofof Romania that makes evidence ofof aa remarkable differentiation –– atat the level ofof aa series ofof exonyms oror denomination categories ofof the national administration (among which Magyars, Germans, Roma , , etc.), asas well asas within the intra‐‐specific distinctiveness ofof several endonyms (Magyar‐‐speaking Szeklers and Roman‐‐Catholic Csangos;; German‐‐ speaking Landlers, Saxons , , and Swabians;; Romani‐‐speaking Kalderash , , Spoitors, Gypsies , , etc.) On the other hand, inin itsits turn, Romanian anthropological literature isis “multi‐‐layered” with itsits orientation towards subjects such asas the ethno‐‐cultural symbolistics, oral tradition, social structuring, multiculturalism, etc., inin various ethnographic locations inin Dobrodja, Banat, Transylvania, etc. My assumption isis that the scientific vision onon social facts oror values accounting for ethnicity may converge with the native “arrangement” ofof them. Without claiming herewith aa generalized oror invariable congruence between indigenous “ethnic meanings” and their theorization, II attempt toto identify the conceptual potential ofof several categories ofof analysis inin the anthropological study ofof ethnicity inin Romania, inin terms ofof language, ethno‐‐ history, territoriality, sociality, economy, ethos, and worldview.. The narrative identity and the kinship vocabulary are usually defined asas theoretical issues. Likewise, the linguistic affiliation and the dialectal differentiation constantly represent themes ofof ethnographic research. ByBy their content and rhetorical expressivity asas well, current verbal evidences

primaryprove and referential reassert theuniverse constitutive ofof ethno contribution‐‐cultural belongingness ofof native languages, inin Romania. asas aa The official status ofof Romanian language inin the national administration and inin the interethnic relationships isis inin anan active coexistence with Rudar vernacular accents (in BBăă beni, Vâlcea County) and with dialects like Kalderash (Bratei, Sibiu County), Saxon (Michelsberg, Sibiu County), Szekler (Korond, Harghita County), Russian‐‐Lipovan (Jurilovca, Tulcea County), etc. Such ethnographic bilingualism practically designates aa dialectics ofof

262

language distinctiveness atat the level ofof local “knowing each‐‐other”

communities.The analytical constants ofof retrospective community discourse, with legendes about village foundations, asas well asas the folkloric leitmotifs ofof the ethnic groups’ origin, autochtony, and sedentation, equally participates toto the making ofof historical traditions ofof nationalities inin their “story‐‐telling”. My field interlocutors (of Kalderash, Lipovan, Rudar, Saxon, and Szekler identity) actually narrate their own ethno‐‐histories within particular “topoi” safeguarded by Church and “plowed up” by inter‐‐generational labor: based onon more‐‐oror‐‐less veridical reminiscences ofof their shared experiences inin the past, such communities denote essential landmarks ofof their ancestry. Beyond factology (and itsits possible stereotypes), the memorial exemplarity ofof national minorities thus becomes aa coordinate ofof the cultural configuration specific toto each ofof them. The exploitation ofof natural resources (in Romanian anthropological bibliography) and the ecology‐‐and‐‐livelihood contextualization ofof the Rudars and Lipovans –– relate toto the issues ofof physical adaptibility inin local conditions ofof cultural variability. The ethnic groups’ territorial behavior isis relevant for their anthropization process, which implies the symbiosis ofof the abovementioned communities with their environment, asas “given”, oror appropriated, toto // by them. However, such “symbiosis” isis not only the function ofof aa sort ofof organic device inin environmental integration, asas different social experimentations ofof aa given village hearth (i.e. the sedentation inin Rudar BBăă beni and the enclavisation inin Kalderash Bratei) shape the ethno‐‐cultural pattern ofof territoriality and, expectedly, the contribution ofof ethnicity toto the “conformation” ofof itsits ecotypes.

ethnicThe organization heuristical ofof importance humankind ofof isis socialityconfirmed for by the the understanding special attention ofof thatthe the Romanian researchers ofof ethnicity pay toto the traditional social structures, asas well asas toto the ethnographic reconstitution ofof the ways inin which the customary‐‐ juridical institutions work (among the Kalderash and the Saxons). Neither someone’s condition ofof ethno‐‐linguistic minority, nor his // her cultural cohabitation with people ofof national majority uniformly shape the institutional “backbone” and “motion” ofof ethnic groups; from this viewpoint, the differences between the Kalderash and the Rudars (for

263

example) seem toto have originated rather from the internal “arrangement” ethno‐‐systems acculturationofof such social oror the administration , , than ofofnecessarily modern state.under Thethe normativeeffect ofof character ofof ethnic institutionalization may be interpreted asas the consuetudinary expression ofof nationality by the association and solidarity ofof itsits members. Theorizing the economic specialization ofof urban networks and village groups ofof different ethnic identity, along with occurrences ofof contemporary craft knowledge among the Kalderash, the Lipovans, the Rudars, and the Szeklers, simulteneously argue onon the compatability ofof ethnicity with demands ofof productive activities. Contrarily toto the individualistic and somewhat “centrifugal” presupositions ofof market orientation, one’s ethno‐‐ cultural belongingness thus appears asas the social condition basic for his // her daily subsistence, and also for his // her competitiveness and surplus. Economy, then, isis able toto rediscover anan original sense ofof aa micro‐‐ community’s “management” and interdependence, asas based onon technical skills intergenerationally transmitted and accumulated. Beside conferring authenticity toto ethnic groups, the labor “vocation” isis (at(at the same time) aa resource for their interethnic exchanges. Some aspects ofof Romanian anthropological literature contribute toto the moral portraying ofof diverse ethnic groups, more exactly toto the clarification ofof their ethical and esthetical orientations (in terms ofof one’s spiritual‐‐values protection, manner ofof music interpretation, clothing demeanor, etc.) Similarly, my own ethnographic information regarding the Kalderash traditional costumes, the cult ofof Saint Michael (among the Saxons inin Michelsberg), and the savor ofof aa kürtös kalacs cake (among the

Szeklersculture among inin Korond) the minorities –– points underout asas examination.many traits definingSuch approximations the patterns ofof the national ethos are suggestive for the core ofof ideals and interests that the ethnic groups share, and upon which they found their communion. As aa result, ethnicity isis also given birth asas aa value system, with formulae probably unique ofof conceiving and living one’s beliefs, artifacts, songs, etc. The Romanian anthropological references about the transborder interethnicity, the economic interdependence inin multiethnic context, the interconfessional marital behavior, together with my field documentation

264

ofof the cultural coexistence ofof the Kalderash, the Rudars, oror the Saxons with ‐‐ betweenthe Romanian the ethnicmajority identitypopulation and the processallall thematically ofof acculturation.point toto Alongthe relation with local “substantiations” ofof nationality, the ethno‐‐linguistic groups express their specific worldviews –– inin fact, indigenous representations ofof cultural otherness. InIn the framework ofof one’s “knowing each other” community, asas well asas atat aa regional scale, such osmosis does not lead toto the dissolution ofof ethniciy, but (through various repositionings and reinterpretations ofof multiculturality) comes toto reify primary data ofof national (majority oror minority) belongingness.

Chapter 4:4: Cultural variables ofof etnicitity inin Romania

According toto the above discussed disciplinary terminology, language, ethno‐‐history, territoriality, sociality, economy, ethos, and worldview are theoretically developed asas anthropological landmarks ofof ethno‐‐cultural belongingness. AA series ofof variable traits inin the ethnography ofof Romania may be circumscribed within such equally vernacular‐‐and‐‐scholarly categories, asas folows: language (mother tongue, territorial ethnonyms, religious ethnonyms, bilingualism and dialectal hybridization, language abandonment, ethno‐‐linguistic revitalization), ethno‐‐history (traditions ofof ethnic and local origins, politic‐‐and‐‐ideological persecution, religious persecution, ethnic extraneity with nomadism, migration, and colonization), territoriality (ethno‐‐territorial homogeneity, valueing environment, ethno‐‐residential marginality, territorial‐‐and‐‐confessional dichotomy, and territorial‐‐and‐‐matrimonial interconfessional diversity), sociality (traditional‐‐community organization, genealogical structuring, endogamy and exogamy, godparenthood, and social dismemberment), economy (traditional livelihoods, ethnic‐‐and‐‐kin based labor organization, autarchy, modern labor, and interethnic exchanges), ethos (ethno‐‐ confessional attachments, folk religion, traditional clothing, the material culture ofof ethnicity, ethno‐‐music and choreography, the ethno‐‐traditional revitalization, religious conversion, syncretism, and the ethno‐‐traditional abandonment), and worldview (intraethnic and interethnic cultural

265

otherness, ethno‐‐cultural conservatism, and acculturation). These variables actually reflect the repertory ofof ethno‐‐cultural variability ofof Romania, inin accordance with records ofof anthropological research conducted inin rural, urban, and regional analytical scales. Within such classification, ethnic groups appear inin relation toto the occurrences ofof their ethnographic positioning, inin that their similarities and differences can be synoptically assessed from methodologically juxtaposed perspectives. Examining Romania’s ethnic groups and subgroups isis basically relevant for the attempt and presupposition ofof identifying some “branchements” between certain communities and some discontinuities, between others. AtAt the same time, this isis toto discuss the methodological premises and variables inin the comparative study ofof ethnicity. Within my own investigation, choosing one oror another „case study” ofof inter‐‐ethnicity has taken into account the ethnographic comparability ofof them, asas seen from the angle ofof proven convergences between cultural traits inin apparent association. Based onon this, II have established congruences oror disparities between rural, urban, and // oror regional references for ethno‐‐ linguistic families. AA general finding here isis that the “nucleus” ofof given behavior variables may contribute toto the mapping ofof ethno‐‐cultural belongingness across particular environments and analytical contours. Such frameworking inin Romania isis preponderently rural, asas itit includes the Romanians from villages like Frumoasa, Oituz, Sântana, and ZZăă bala, the Lipovans from Carcaliu and Mahmudia, the Szeklers from ZZăă bala and Magyar‐‐speaking subgroups from Frumoasa and Oituz, the Turks from BaBaşşpunar and Cobadin, and the Tatars from Cobadin. However, this series also eludes strictly countryside localizations ofof coco‐‐ethnics, inin favor ofof

Cuza(trans)regional Vodăă village contextualizations and from Dobrodja; ofof their the “kindreds”: Landlers from the KalderashApoldu dede from Sus (Großpold), Cristian (Großau) şşii Turnişşoror (Neppendorf), and the Saxons from Cisnăădioara (Michelsberg), inin the South‐‐Transylvanian area ofof MMăărginimea Sibiului; Landlers from Sibiu County and Schwaben from Arad County; the Lipovans from Carcaliu and the Lipovans from Mahmudia inin Upper Dobrodja; the Szeklers inin ZZăă bala (Covasna County) and the Magyar‐‐speaking Roman‐‐Catholics inin Frumoasa and Oituz (Bacăăuu County).

266

AtAt the same time, the homologation ofof intraethnic compatibilities confirms the significance ofof the urban referentiality (Saxons inin Sighişşoara town inin association ofof the Landler villages from MMăărginimea Sibiului) or, onon the contrary, itit shows ethnic disjunctions from the rural world (the Lipovans from Roman town vs.vs. the Lipovans from Carcaliu and Mahmudia; the Kalderash from Roman town vs.vs. the Kalderash from Wallachia and Dobrodja; the Turks from Medgidia town vs.vs. the Turks from BaBaşşpunar and Cobadin; the Tatars from Medgidia vs.vs. the Tatars from Cobadin). On the same comparative basis, the Aromanian townsmen from Constanțțaa and CCăăllăăraraşşii are equated toto aa common evolution onon anan ethno‐‐ linguistic‐‐and‐‐social ground. InIn retrospect, II conclude that itit isis neither the historical reconstitution, nor the geographic localization, and nor even the combining ofof such interpretive views, that could always, and only per sese , , argue onon the cultural belongingness ofof ethnic subgroups designated by exonymic categories ofof the national administration terminology. ItIt isis true that the regional contiguity sometimes allows for the conservation and reassertion ofof ethno‐‐ linguistic “rootedness” (the “Germans” inin MMăărginimea Sibiului, the “Roma”, the “Russian‐‐speaking Lipovans” and the “Aromanians // Macedo‐‐ Romanians” inin Dobrodja, the “Turks” and “Tatars” inin Dobrodja). However, there are situations inin which (more oror less consistent) connections between some groups come toto exceed the universe ofof aa given native oror ethnic‐‐ compact area, toto evolve (in specific conditions ofof migration and // oror multiculturalism) toward aa interregional scale (the Kalderash from Wallachia and Dobrodja, the Magyars from Covasna County and from Moldavia, the Romanians from Bacăăuu County and from the Szekler area inin

Transylvania,Rudars). the Rudars from Northern Wallachia, and the Dobrodjan The ethnic communities’ exonymic variability isis thus accompanied by aa “intraspecific” multiculturality (per excellentiam, anan endonymic one), which requires aa new comparative “dioptry”, asas adapted not only toto the topographic classification ofof ethnic collectivities, but also toto the recognition ofof their interethnic and cross‐‐cultural mobility. Debates such asas onon the Aromanian ethnicity, the Magyar origin ofof the Moldavian subgroups ofof

267

Roman‐‐Catholics, asas well asas the ethno‐‐linguistic belonging ofof Rudars –– are inin this way given new horizons ofof argumentation. Variables ofof behavior are able toto make itit possible toto gradually adjust the comparative understanding ofof ethnographic convergences and divergences. ByBy having made evidence for aa common traditional background or, onon the contrary, for socio‐‐economic cleavages between ethno‐‐linguistic groups inin appearance akin, cultural traits account after allall for the self‐‐referential and inter‐‐referential constituents ofof ethno‐‐cultural belongingness, inin itsits rural, urban, and regional locations.

Chapter 5:5: Synchrony and diachrony inin the ethnic variability ofof Romania

Across the ethnograhic areas ofof Romania, the immediate circulation ofof social phenomena, institutions, and techniques between contemporary ethno‐‐linguistic groups, asas well asas the historical continuity ofof social facts within ancestral and genealogical “chains” ofof ethnicity –– are equally heuristical for the chronological interpretive potential ofof anthropology. InIn vernacular accounts, asas well asas inin the national bibliography references, inscribing the bearers ofof one oror another ethnic cultures either into the same temporality, oror inin the intergenerational sequentiality, suppossedly points toto important variables inin their (inter)ethnic identification oror representativeness. As aa matter ofof fact, defining aa synchronic oror aa diachronic character ofof the information about the ethnic belongingness and distinctiveness isis aa way ofof establishing the relation between the traditional social facts and those aspects ofof sociality –– institutions, techniques, worldviews, etc. –– that originate inin exogenous influences. InIn their rural, urban, and regional contextualizations, the ethnographic descriptions and the case studies onon ethnicity inin Romania contain meaningful details regarding the situation inin time ofof diverse national groups oror minorities, which, onon the one hand, provide general information about the historical “age” oror “development” ofof them, while conferring, onon the other hand, certain constants and // oror irregularities toto their collective evolution. The historiographic representation ofof ethno‐‐

268

cultural groups inin rural, urban, and regional milieus practically enlightens distinct temporal regimes , , according toto specific ethnographic thematizations. InIn this way, communities are studied either atat the level ofof their everyday life (as part ofof aa very recent past and ofof immediate actuality), oror inin aa chronological expanding ofof aa multi‐‐centennial duration. Within my approach, the above‐‐described cultural variables are discussed inin ethnographic and bibliographic concern with synchronic and dyachronic characteristics ofof ethno‐‐national groups and identities inin Romania. When, for instance, some ethnic communities appear toto be more “conservative” than others that are inin course ofof “modernization”, their rhythmicities expectedly stem from, and also generate, cultural particularities ofof social organization and interaction. As aa result, the understanding ofof the relation between tradition and cultural metamorphosis , ,

betweeneveryday lifeduration…… ‐ ‐ isis estimatedand ethnographic (within presentmy field , , andinformation between and permanence inin relation and toto the Romanian anthropological literature) inin accordance with the synchronic oror diachronic distribution ofof cultural traits reported for subgroups ofof Aromanians, Germans, Lipovans, Kalderash Roma, Magyars, Romanians, Rudars, Tatars, and Turks. The interpretation based onon circumstantial “dating” oror simply historical contextualization ofof ethnicity points out the existence ofof aa aa number ofof diachronic cultural nuclei (the Aromanians inin Constanțțaa and inin CCăăllăăraraşşi;i; the German‐‐speaking Landlers inin Großpold, Großau, and Neppendorf, the Saxons inin Sighişşoara, and the Schwaben inin Sântana; the Russian‐‐speaking Lipovans inin Carcaliu, Jurilovca Jurilovca,, Mahmudia, and Sarichioi; the Romanians inin Frumoasa, Oituz, and inin ZZăă bala; the Magyars inin Frumoasa, Oituz, and inin ZZăă bala). AA synchronic cultural nucleus isis documented for the Kalderash from Cuza Vodăă and Constanțța.a. Establishing such “contemporaneities” isis followed by identifying situations ofof cultural‐‐and‐‐ historical discontinuity ofof some ethnic subgroups inin relation toto the rest ofof their ethnonymic ensamble (the Kalderash inin Roman town vs.vs. the Kalderash inin Wallachia and inin Dobrodja; the Saxons inin MMăărginimea Sibiului vs.vs. the Schwaben inin Sântana; the Lipovans inin Roman town vs.vs. the Lipovans inin Dobrodja; the Szeklers inin Harghita vs.vs. the Magyar‐‐speaking Roman‐‐ Catholics inin Moldavia). InIn the case ofof the Muslim Turkish and Tatar groups 269

inin Dobrodja, the existence ofof aa synchronic linguistic and religious background isis not invariably echoed into aa historical convergence inin the evolution ofof these ethnographic cultures. Categorizing ethnographic traits inin Romania into either “genealogies” oror “generations” ofof populations isis not toto recognize absolute properties ofof “historicity” oror “ahistoricity”, nor toto hierarchize ethnicity according toto the “cultural memory” ofof communities concerned. Each subgroup oror ethno‐‐linguistic larger family actually “becomes” and “coexists” toto the same extent –– with mention that, inin particular conditions, their becoming and coexistence are “rhythmed” either inin autonomous and distinct manner, oror inin interdependence and confluence. InIn time, cultural variability reveals (among others) aa repertory ofof such “rhythmicities” and their “frequencies” between ethnic groups homonymic but not entirely

homogenous. Chapter 6:6: Oral traditions and folk artisanship inin the self‐‐representation ofof ethnic identity inin Romania

InIn the ethnographic description, the oral traditions and the folk artifacts generally stand for types ofof uttering and, respectively, making ofof ethnic identity. The hypothesis according toto which one’s vernacular evocations would participate toto restoring his // her specific community origins (of legendary oror historical character) isis thus accompanied by the presupposition that the same informant’s artifacts would mirror specific cycles ofof events responsible for the cultural developments and trajectories ofof his // her ethnic group, once itsits founding –– be itit mythical oror historical –– would have taken place. The narrativity and material culture are expectedly interdependent, inin equally historical and ethnographic contextualizations, asas legends and life stories are learned and transmitted by word ofof mouth and by the ethno‐‐folkloric recognition ofof the past craftsmen’s contribution. The ethno‐‐national belongingness inin Romania has, therefore, toto be validated inin coherence ofof the local expressivity and substantiation ofof ethnicity, inin the framework ofof several linguistic minorities

270

referred toto here (Kalderash, Lipovan, Rudar, Saxon, Szekler, Tatar, and Turkish), then inin their cross‐‐cultural referentiality. InIn the Romanian anthropological literature, the ethnic minority groups’ cultural distinctiveness isis often depicted by means ofof their particularities inin folklore (oral histories, eponymy, toponymy, music and dance, etc.) and inin the material ethnography asas well (traditional livelihoods, forms ofof habitats, clothing, etc.) The vernacular and craft traditions are especially attributed aa representational function inin the ways inin which the various ethnic communities narrate and portray themselves. Within my own research, the actuality ofof such process ofof cultural self‐‐definition isis evaluated through several ethnographic references onon the Kalderash inin Bratei (Sibiu County), the Lipovans inin Jurilovca and Sarichioi (Tulcea County), the Rudars inin BBăă beni (Vâlcea County), the Saxons inin Cisnăădie

[Heltau]Korond (Harghitaand Cisn ăăCounty),dioara [Michelsberg](Sibiu the Tatars inin Cobadin County), and the Independen Szeklers inințțaa (Constanțțaa County), and the Turks inin BaBaşşpunar and Cobadin (Constanțțaa County). As such, ethnicity inin Romania isis understood asas aa variable interrelationship ofof narrativity and folk arts, with three interpretive directions concerning the theorization ofof one’s cultural belongingness. Identifiable cases ofof intraethnicity are reported for the Lipovans inin Jurilovca and Sarichioi (both inin terms ofof correspondence between oral traditions and artisanship, and ofof local distnctness inin narrative and craft performances), the Saxons inin Heltau and Michelsberg (in narrativity and craftsmanship asas well), the Tatars inin Cobadin and Independențțaa (narrativity), and the Turks inin BaBaşşpunar and Cobadin (narrativity and craftsmanship). Some interethnic “compatibilities” oror “congruences” are also mapped inin regional and transregional frameworks. While the neighboring communities ofof the Kalderash, the Saxons, and the Szeklers, with concordances inin their vernacular traditions and artisanship, may be represented within aa “Southeastern Transylvanian ethnographic area”, aa similar situation isis encountered inin Dobrodja, among the Tatars and the Turks (as concerns their shared religiosity). As toto the transregional inter‐‐ ethnicity, itit isis discerned within the similitudes inin narrativity and artisanship between the Kalderash and the Rudars.

271

Chapter 7:7: Anthropological criteria ofof ethnogenesis and ethnomorphosis

InIn the study ofof ethnicity, the founding and the becoming ofof ethno‐‐ linguistic groups are recurrent (and hence continuously reconsidered) themes ofof anthropological literature. The ethnographic recognition ofof various peoples representing national majorities and minorities asas well –– does imply validation ofof their constitutive antecedents. InIn either terms ofof aa mythological tradition oror aa historical reconstruction, the beginnings and modifications to,to, oror admixtures of,of, ethno‐‐nationality reflect the ever‐‐ changing relationship between autochtony and foreigness; inin which ways isis such relationship formulated inin the methodological, analytical, and conceptual framework ofof cultural anthropology? InIn the international anthropological literature, ethnogenetic evolutions are associated with the perpetual dialectics ofof ethnic origins and transformations revealing asas many particular worldviews ofof anan equally intraethnic and cross‐‐cultural character. Inaugural ethnogenesis may evoke the “gestation” ofof aa people asas well asas itsits revivalism. However, under the influence ofof itsits own analytical polisemantism, ethnogenesis isis currently adjusted, verified, and reinterpreted by means ofof two further concepts, namely etnomorphosis and phylogenesis.. As aa matter ofof fact, the making ofof ethnicity isis rather aa process that, inin virtue ofof continous ethnographic changes among communities ofof various cultural identities, radically differs from the circumstantial prominence ofof aa given ethnogenesis having occurred “once upon aa time”. Ethnogenesis asas acculturation isis responsible for such transformative meaning. From another point ofof view, ethnogenesis

betweenthrough culturalcultural difussionvariation andisis contrasted biological toto patterns. phylogenesis and itsits association ToTo the extent toto which the identification and juxtaposition ofof cultural traits can contribute toto the characterization ofof national belongingness among the ethnic groups inin Romania, the ethno‐‐linguistic variability allows for aa comparative investigation ofof the processes ofof ethnogenesis and ethnomorphosis. Intracultural evolutions among the Aromanians, the Germans, the Magyars, the Romanians, the Roma, the Russian‐‐Lipovans, the Tatars, and the Turks are thus synthetized according

272

toto historical and ethnographic similarities between their own subgroups (the Aromanian Cipans , , Cutsovlachs, Farsherots, Gramostens inin Constanțța,a, and Gramostens inin CCăăllăăraraşşi;i; the German‐‐speaking Landlers inin Großpold, Großau, and Neppendorf, Saxons inin Sighişşoara, and Schwaben inin Sântana; the Magyar‐‐speaking Szeklers inin ZZăă bala and Csangos inin Frumoasa and Oituz; the Romanians inin Frumoasa, Oituz, and Roman; the Tatars inin Cobadin and Medgidia; the Turks inin BaBaşşpunar, Cobadin, and Medgidia). InIn the abovementioned cases, the linguistic identity isis conservative (as itit isis the Aromanian dialect inin the continuity ofof homonymic subgroups ofof Gramostens);); itit isis also adaptive inin technical domains (the terminology ofof Lipovan fishing and the lexicon ofof the Turkish artisanship) and inin sociality (the Landler and Saxon institutional vocabulary, and the Romanian and Magyar bilingualism); otherwise, the native languages are simply differential (the Kalderash Kade dialect vs.vs. the Kide dialect ofof other Roma groups; the Tatar Kirim Tili dialect vs.vs. the further Tatar dialects Nogai Tili and Yaliboyi Tili).). The ethno‐‐historicity first comprises evocations ofof one’s remote past (the historical tradition ofof the Saxon Middle‐‐Ages colonization, the mythology ofof the Szekler early Middle‐‐Ages migration, the narrativity ofof the Lipovan late Middle‐‐Ages religious persecution); accounts ofof recent collective experiences are also active (the memory ofof the political persecution ofof the Germans and the Kalderash inin World War IIII circumstances). The ethno‐‐cultural territoriality initially results from state colonizing politics (as regards the German‐‐speaking Saxons, Landlers, and Schwaben, from Central Europe toto Transylvania, under the Middle‐‐Age regimes ofof

KingdomAromanians ofof Hungaryfrom Balkans and Habsburgtoto Dobrodja, Empire, under respectively, the Romanian asas well interwar asas the regime). InIn other situations, demographic movements take place during Middle Ages, under pressure ofof various fiscal policies and also asas aa requirement ofof pastoral economy (the Szekler and the the Romanian trans‐‐ Carpathian migration); inin contemporary times, ethnic exodus occurs asas aa political reaction (the Saxon, Schwaben, and Landler migration from Transylvania and Banat toto Germany). The ethno‐‐territorial homogeneity isis

273

aa conservative trait ofof inhabitation among the national minority groups ofof the Kalderash, the Tatars, and the Turks. The sociality inin the organizational patterns ofof ethno‐‐linguistic communities isis similarly conservative (the Aromanian endogamy, the Saxon and Landler traditional social institutionalization) and adaptive (exogamy among the Aromanians, the Magyars, and the Romanians). The economic dimension of of ethnicity continues toto be associated with traditional livelihoods (the Kalderash coppersmithing, the Turkish iron smithing and leather processing), inin concomitance with the trading adaptation ofof artisanship (the Szekler pottery, the Kalderash coppersmithing), and with the agrotourism development (among the Saxons and the Szeklers). The ethos ofof national belongingness first ofof allall defines religious

attachmentsChristianity amongofof the Aromanians,ethnic groups Kalderash, and their and subgroups Romanians; (the the OldOrthodox‐‐Belief Orthodox Christianity ofof Lipovans; the Roman‐‐Catholic and Protestant Christianity among Magyars and Schwaben; the Protestant Christianity among Saxons and Landlers; the Islamism among Tatars and Turks; the folk religion among Kalderash). The ethno‐‐confessional identity isis sometimes reinforced by religious ethnonyms (the Magyar Roman‐‐Catholics , , the Romanian Orthodoxes , , the Tatar and Turkish Mahomedans).). Further traits ofof ethnic culture and civilization are architecture (among Kalderash, Lipovans, and Turks), traditional clothing (among Kalderash, Lipovans, Tatar, and Turks), music and choreography (among Magyars, Romanians, and Lipovans), and cuisine (among Saxons, Lipovans, and Turks). On the whole ofof the above‐‐described ethnic variability, the worldview reproduces the perspective ofof cross‐‐cultural coexistence (Aromanians with Romanians; Germans with Romanians and with Roma; Magyars with Romanians and Roma; Romanians with allall the other groups; Tatars with Romanians, Aromanians, Turks, and Roma; Turks with Romanians, Tatars, Aromanians, and Roma). The multiconfessional cohabitation isis encountered among the Protestant Landlers and Saxons and the Roman‐‐Catholic Schwaben living together with Orthodox Romanians and Roma, the Roman‐‐Catholic and Protestant Magyars with the Orthodox Romanians

274

and Roma, the Old‐‐Belief Orthodox Lipovans with the Orthodox Romanians and Roma, the Islamic Turks and Tatars with the Orthodox Romanians, Aromanians, and Roma. The ethnic hybridization and synchretism are favored by the Orthodox Romanians’ marriages with the Roman‐‐Catholic Magyars, asas well asas by the exogamy between Lipovans and Romanians. InIn this way, the conservative oror traditional character ofof some cultural traits has been highlighted with respect toto historical dialects and traditions, ethno‐‐territorial homogeneity, endogamy and customary social organization, ancestral crafts, and millenial religious devotion. Several particularities ofof “adaptive” ethnicity have equally been summarized inin terms ofof bilingualism, migration and colonization, exogamy, folk‐‐arts trade and agrotourism, religious reform, and synchretism.

intra‐‐ethnicity repertoryFrom ofof suchcultural perspectives, characteristics the sharedvalidation by atat ofofleast two homonymical(as aa subgroups) outlines two complementary methodological ways atat the level ofof the abovementioned ethnic groups’ ethnographic contemporaneity and historical sequentiality.. Indeed, cultural equivalencies may occur within aa “long duration” ofof history (the Aromanian dialect, the Tatar dialects, the Magyar Roman‐‐Catholicism, the Romanian Ortodoxy, the Turkish Islamism, and the Tatar Islamism), while concordances ofof material culture may seem “ahistorical” (the Kalderash artisanship and folk clothing). Convergent evolutions are evident among the Lipovan subgroups (from the seventeenth toto the twentieth centuries) asas well asas among the Aromanian, German‐‐speaking, Magyar‐‐speaking, and Romanian ones (in Romania’s interwar and postwar periods). Religious persecution, migration from Russia, and the Old‐‐Belief Orthodoxy are simultaneously lived by the Lipovans inin Carcaliu, Mahmudia, and Roman. Likewise, the Aromanians inin Constanțțaa and inin CCăăllăăraraşşii are synchronized with their post‐‐1925 colonization and exogamy from the second half ofof the twentieth century onwards. The deportation toto Russia (after 1945) and the emigration toto Germany (in the 1980‐‐2000s) are ethnic experiences identically shared by the South‐‐Transylvanian and Banat‐‐located Germans. The Magyar exogamy inin Frumoasa, Oituz, and ZZăă bala, asas well asas the Romanian exogamy (in the same localities) are reported for the interval ofof 1947 –– 1996. 275

The Crimean origination ofof Tatars from Cobadin and Medgidia isis dated back toto the half ofof the nineteenth century, while the territorial homogeneization ofof these subgroups (as well asas that ofof the Turks from BaBaşşpunar and Cobadin) belongs toto aa history they spent together inin the framework ofof the modern Romanian state, during one century and half. As aa result, ethnogenesis isis accounted for conservative cultural traits ofof aa “paternity” recognizable within their very intergenerational succession, asas the evolution ofof aa given ethnic group (and itsits component subgroups). Ethnomorphosis , , instead, based onon ethnic circulation, foreign ethnographic influences, and cultural hybridization, isis rather associated with adaptive ethnographic traits ofof aa cross‐‐cultural condition belonging toto the same community (also including itsits subgroups). The interdependence ofof such traits does definitely not entail any uniformization inin the making and

Magyars,transformation the Romanians, ofof ethnicity; the indeed,Roma, the the Russian Aromanians,‐‐Lipovans, the theGermans, Tatars, andthe the Turks represent asas many “processes” and “syntheses” ofof their own history oror cultural patterns. However, the documented expression ofof the relationships between ethnogenesis and ethnomorphosis may contribute –– through the intraethnic comparison –– toto the clarification ofof ethno‐‐linguistic origination and interculturality asas variable criteria ofof cultural belongingness.

Chapter 8:8: The ethno‐‐cultural dimension ofof European citizenship (1992‐‐2012)

An implication ofof Romania’s accession toto the European Union (2007) isis the reappraisal ofof the traditional cultural heritage both inin the case ofof Romanian majority and inin that ofof the national minorities. The cultural identify ofof ethno‐‐linguistic communities isis currently related toto the statute ofof European Union citizenship , , asas established by the article 88 ofof the Maastricht Treaty ofof European Union (1992). InIn such socio‐‐economic and legislative framework, the anthropological theorizing ofof ethnicity and “cosmopolitanism”, alongside that ofof the “human rights” and the “national minorities”, actually approximates the ethno‐‐cultural dimension of of the

276

European and national citizenship , , inin the historical continuity and development ofof the European national states, asas well asas within their institutional structuring, once they have adhered toto aa European community. The three main conceptual constants ofof ethnicity // nationalism, citizenship, and cosmopolitanism are empirically and theoretically interwoven, which does not restrain their ethnographic, macro‐‐social, and philosophical substance. Both among the Romanian majority and the national minorities inin Romania, Europeanism can be interpreted from the perspective ofof law documents according toto which, once they have been adopted for the country’s citizen ensemble, the ethno‐‐cultural rights, freedoms, and duties wholly become values of of aa patrimony shared with the citizens of of European Union.. Indeed, the Constitution of of Romania (1991, last amendment inin 2003) and the Statute of of National Minorities inin Romania (a(a draft law inin Romanian parliamentary debate since 2005) stipulate the legal assignment ofof ethno‐‐ nationality not only within the citizen framework ofof Romanian state, but also within the horizon ofof international relationships (first ofof all, the European ones). Romanian (including national minorities) citizens’ right toto elect and be elected inin European Parliament, together with the European Union citizens’ right toto elect and be elected inin the authorities ofof Romanian public administration –– together enlarge the sphere ofof the national civic body’s public expression and political representation, along with the similarly democratic exercise from the part ofof citizens (of diverse ethnic identity) from other European countries. Likewise, inin the Statute of of National Minorities , , the engagement expected from the part ofof Romanian state toto support the contacts ofof itsits minority nationals with their coco‐‐ethnics from

languageother states –– andimplicitely the transborder recognize cooperation the variable inin areasdistribution ofof the sameofof ethnicity spoken throughout the European state territoriality. Lastly, with the exigency (jn(jn 2005) ofof the European Comission for Democracy through Law that the terms ofof the Statute of of National Minorities inin Romania should be inin accordance with the provisions ofof the European Convention of of Human Rights (1950, last amendment inin 2010) and ofof the Framework Convention for the Protection of of National Minorities (1995) –– the ethno‐‐national legislation isis accurately shaped “in letter and spirit” ofof international law.

277

ToTo the same extent, the traditions and politics ofof transborder ethnicity anticipate (and coexist with) contemporary law theorizing ofof the rights, freedoms, and obligations associated with the identity, belongingness, and character ofof ethnicity inin Romania and inin Europe. Romanianness isis thus significant not only asas aa system ofof national‐‐state values, inin the ethnic‐‐majority expression ofof them, but also asas anan ethos shared within micro‐‐community and regional frameworks beyond the national state borderline, this time inin aa minority worldview. Moreover, with their citizenship, Romanians allow for the participation ofof ethnic minorities toto their own national structure ofof government, just as,as, inin their turn, they are recognized and integrated within aa European elective body. From this point ofof view, the amendments ofof the European Comission for Democracy through Law toto the Statute of of National Minorities inin Romania are illustrative for the critical thinking exercise ofof complementing local understandings ofof ethnicity with itsits civic and transnational oror “cosmopolitan” correspondence. The equivalence and communication between the terminology ofof European and national legislation (with itsits specialized juridical principles) endorse inin this way the European conceptualization ofof national citizenship, and, atat the same time, the national intelligibility ofof European citizenship. ToTo exemplify, the official language ofof Romanian state isis also one ofof the official languages ofof Europen Union, the same asas the recognition by the Constitution of of Romania ofof the minorities’ right toto use their maternal languages inin justice. The ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious identity compose the “configuration” ofof ethno‐‐nationality inin the Framework Convention for the Protection of of National Minorities, inin the Constitution of of Romania Statute of of National Minorities inin Romania conclusion, , , and the inin membershipthe draft within aa recognized minority inin Romaniaasas well. InInisis basic for benefiting ofof the same elective rights asas any other national citizen, within national asas well asas European election campaigns. Despite the existence ofof such “common values ofof European peoples”, the legislative “harmonization” over the cultural content ofof citizenship inin Europe and inin the national law framework does not also authenticate aa theoretical agreement onon the reprezentations and “givens” ofof ethnicity within the native ethnographic cultures. When the Framework Convention for

278

the Protection of of National Minorities specifies the prevalence ofof the “national law”, the “international [legal] standards”, and the “requirements ofof public order” over “traditional practices”, one’s ethnic identity (together with allall itsits characteristics) isis obviously adjusted, particularly asas regards the possibilities –– constitutionally state‐‐guarenteed –– ofof “protecting and preserving the national cultural heritage”. Similarly, the expectations ofof the Statute of of National Minorities inin Romania inin “safeguarding traditional relationships asas based during history inin those country areas where they are reported toto traditionally occur” cannot coincide with the reticence ofof the Framework Convention for the Protection of of National Minorities inin defining the “areas traditionally inhabited”. Again, the European Comission for Democracy through Law consents (by itsits 2005 Opinion onon the draft law ofof the Statute of of National Minorities inin Romania)) that itit isis “only cultural institutions” that, “in cooperation with the public authorities”, “can implement the policy ofof promotion and preservation ofof the historical and present culture ofof national minorities”, and that „the exercise ofof rights inin community with others, including rights for persons belonging toto national minorities, isis often anan emanation ofof the freedom ofof association”. On the other hand, the terminology ofof the Statute of of National Minorities inin Romania also utilizes, along with the phrase “national minority”, that ofof “national community”. However, the Framework Convention for the Protection of of National Minorities (within itsits Explanatory Report)) excludes “the recognition ofof collective rights” from the constitutive principles ofof the “protection ofof national minorities and ofof the rights and freedoms ofof persons belonging such minorities”.

279

Table of contents

INTRODUCTION ...... 99 Chapter 1:1: SELF‐‐REFERENTIAL AND INTER‐‐REFERENTIAL PERSPECTIVES ININ THE EVOLUTION OF ROMANIAN CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY ...... 1313 Chapter 2:2: ETHNOCENTRISM AND CULTURAL RELATIVISM ININ THE HOMOLOGICAL AND ANALOGICAL APPROACH OF THE ETHNO‐‐CULTURAL IDENTITY ININ ROMANIA...... 4848 Chapter 3:3: TOWARDS AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL VOCABULARY OF ETHNIC VARIABILITY ININ ROMANIA ...... 67 Chapter 4:4: CULTURAL VARIABLES OF ETNICITITY ININ ROMANIA...... 8888 Chapter 5:5: SYNCHRONY AND DIACHRONY ININ THE ETHNIC VARIABILITY OF ROMANIA...... 120 Chapter 6:6: ORAL TRADITIONS AND FOLK ARTISANSHIP ININ THE SELF‐‐REPRESENTATION OF ETHNIC IDENTITY ININ ROMANIA...... 139 Chapter 7:7: ANTHROPOLOGICAL CRITERIA OF ETHNOGENESIS AND ETHNOMORPHOSIS...... 162 Chapter 8:8: THE ETHNO‐‐CULTURAL DIMENSION OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP (1992‐‐2012) ...... 184 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 204

280

Editura Muzeului Națțional alal Literaturii Române CNCS PN ‐ ‐ IIII ‐ ‐ ACRED ‐ ‐ ED ‐ ‐ 2012 –– 0374 Coperta colecțției: AULA MAGNA Machetare, tehnoredactare ş şii prezentare graficăă:: Luminițțaa LOGIN, Nicolae LOGIN Logisticăă editorială şă şii diseminare: Ovidiu SÎRBU, Radu AMAN

Traducerea sumarului ş şii sintezei, corectură şşă ii bun dede tipar asigurate dede autor

ISBN 978‐‐973‐‐167‐‐134‐‐55 Apăărut trim. IIII 2013