GeoJournal 50: 285–304, 2000.© 2001Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

285

Romania’s Apuseni Mountains: Safeguarding a cultural heritage

Vasile Surd1 & David Turnock21Geography Faculty, Babes-Bolyai University, Str.Clinicilor 5–7, 3400 Cluj-Napoca, Romania2Geography Department, The University, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK(e-mail: dt8@leicester.ac.uk)

Received and accepted 16 June 2000

Key words:accessibility, conservation, cultural landscape, demography, light industry, rural planning, rural settlement,tourism

Abstract

The Apuseni Mountains are unusual on account of the extreme fragmentation of the settlement pattern particularly in theupper Aries valley. Not only is hamlet settlement very much the rule, but these small units of settlement may be quite widelyseparated from each other by distance and altitude. Such networks have evolved through clearance of the high surfaces whichcannot be efficiently farmed from the valleys in which modern infrastructure has been concentrated over the last century.Important questions therefore arise with regard to the survival capacity of communities which are critical elements in acultural landscape that constitutes a valuable resource for both Romania and Europe. In other parts of the region dispersalis not so extreme, but there are still depopulation tendencies which are potentially damaging for the cultural landscape.The paper examines the lifestyles associated with outlying settlements and the extent to which centralising tendencies havebeen resisted in recent times. In the context of the present transition it considers the actions being considered to safeguardfragile mountain communities in a vulnerable area exposed to growing commercial penetration associated with cross-bordercooperation on the Hungarian- Romanian frontier.

Introduction

The Western Carpathians are situated between the Pannon-ian Plain and the Transylvanian Plateau and rise to a centralcore of some 2,500 km2 comprising the Bihor, MunteleMare and Vladeasa Mountains (Figure 1). With great geo-logical variety and a high level of biodiversity, the districtis a prime candidate for a regime of environmental protec-tion. Yet the cultural element is an essential component ofthe landscape, involving pluriactivity strategies grounded inlocal agriculture and a settlement network in which smallhamlets predominate (especially in the Aries valley). Com-munist planning, though decisive and effective in manyrespects, was hardly sympathetic to the environment or thetraditional economy, despite the trickle of scientific publi-cations (Bleahu and Bordea, 1982) and the challenge todaylies in finding viable alternatives to radical settlement con-solidation (Abrudan and Turnock, 1999). Land resourceswill always be fundamental and they involve a balance offarmland and woodland, with the latter frequently the moreextensive of the two: sometimes exceeding 75% while theagricultural land is frequently below 40% (Figure 2(a)). Theforests are an important part of the commercial economy andthey also support local handicrafts (Pop, 1985). But theirecological value is now of particular significance and aftersome bias towards the most productive species, the prob-lems of disease and die-back are prompting a return to anatural forest which provide greater stability and aesthetic

value. Meanwhile the agricultural land is mainly pasture andwhile the arable component is usually less than one fifth(compared with over a half on the Transylvanian Plateau)only a fraction of this may be cultivated in any one year(Knappe and Benedek, 1995). Despite a short growing sea-son the high level of summer insolation will allow crops toripen - and small plantings of apples, cherries and plums areavailable for distillation - but podsolised soils on deforestedland need heavy fertiliser dressings in the tradition of ‘in-field’ cultivation. Under the transition, with restitution anda lower technological level (including management compe-tence) and lack of strong market stimulus, arable land isgenerally less intensively used than before. While the city ofCluj tends to promote values of over 60 percent in the sur-rounding area, the situation in the Apuseni is very variablewith Maguri Racatau and Rasca over 60% (through heavyhuman pressure on poor soil where commuting is difficult)while Calatele and Manastireni are below 35 percent. Thehighest levels of arable use are restricted to the lowlandswhere there is high fertility and organisation through effi-cient family associations, without the constraint of smallplots farmed on a part-time basis by owners with limitedequipment and expertise (Figure 2(b)).

286

Figure 1. Apuseni Mountains: settlements and communications. Source: Maier 1987.

The peasant economy before communism: The logic ofdispersal

Although the Romanian Carpathians in general are verywell- settled (Giurcaneanu, 1988), the Apuseni are remark-able for the extent to which small communities are per-manently established at high levels with summer pasturingmovements taking place over a relatively modest altitudinalextent. In Albac commune 68.6% of the population livesbelow 200 m; with 16.8% in the 200–400 m band, 8.6 at400–600 m, 4.0 at 600–800 m, 1.8 at 800–1,000 m and 0.2above 1,000 m (Samochis, 1985). It would appear howeverthat early Romanian political organisations were rooted inthe valleys and depressions, as is typically the case, with oneparticular grouping (‘cnez’) associated with Lupsa depres-sion in the Aries Valley where the local prince (‘cneazul’)Vladislav established his residence. De Martonne (1922,pp.63–64) followed contemporary Romanian opinion in sup-posing that the high level hamlet settlements are very old,being specifically Romanian (Vuia, 1975, I–178) and remi-niscent of Illyrian-Thracian settlements in refuge situations.But a more plausible explanation would invoke a growth ofpopulation in the 18th and 19th centuries when the agricul-

tural potential was fully exploited, combined with feudalpressure (Abrudan and Turnock, 1999). Richardson and Bur-ford (1995, p.184) see the local peasantry (known as ‘Moti’)retreating into the mountains when the Habsburg authoritiestried to conscript them into the army. But equally, Hun-garian landowners seeking to exploit the forests may havefacilitated colonisation by the Romanian woodcutters onthe gentler surfaces suitable for a mixed farming economy(Savu, 1984). Small hamlets placed on the high surfacesdeveloped as single family farms were subdivided amongdescendants, with the name ‘crang’ (derived from the Slavword for a circle) indicating groups of two to eight houses.The term ‘matca’ (meaning a branch of a trunk) is also usedin the sense of a family tree or source; a process described byApolzan (1987, pp.218–9) who quotes oral evidence relatingto the late nineteenth century.

When the Habsburgs created the great Zlatna mining es-tate (‘Domeniul Zlatnei’) under the ‘urbariul’ of 1746, theMoti area comprised the upper section: ‘Domeniul de Sus’.This provides the basis for feudal pressure to secure thelabour of the peasants which could well have driven theminto remote places and indeed to the Gilau Mountains, be-yond the limits of the estate, where new settlements like

287

Figure 2(a). Cluj County: percentage of land in agriculture (by commune) 1995. Source: National Commission for Statistics, Cluj-Napoca.

Maguri and Marisel were founded (Pop and Farcas, 1978).The peasants were also provoked into revolt, first in 1784,under Horea, and again in 1848 when Avram Iancu tried toprevent the Hungarian takeover of Transylvania. It is clearthat there were major settlements in the valley at Albacand Garda, but much movement occurred on the high sur-faces and when a commune system was introduced muchof the high ground on the southwestern side of the Arieswas administered from Neagra (today Poiana Vadului). Thereduction in the area of this commune by the transfer ofthe northern portion to create a new commune of Arieseniin 1925 points to the growth of population in the uppervalleys and also the growing functional links between thehigh ground settlements and service centres in the valleyimmediately below. It was also in the aftermath of the FirstWorld War that names associated with Romanian revolu-tionaries like Avram Iancu and Horea could be introduced- for Vidra de Sus and Arada respectively. However it was

only in the communist period that the present administrativearrangements concerning the grouping of the tiny kinshipunits (‘crangurile’) into official village units was undertaken.

In the context of a mixed economy, the Moti were pri-marily concerned with livestock rearing and maximum usewas made of the high mountain grazings. Thus the karsticplateau of Padis was a common pasture shared by the com-munities of Giurcuta de Sus, Pietroasa and the SighiselValley (Butura, 1958). The term ‘mutatura’ refers to theseasonal movements of stock to hayfields in spring and highpastures in summer, then back to the hayfields and finally tothe village to eat the grass through the autumn and subsiston hay through the winter. The pasture stations themselveswere called ‘mutari’ or ‘mutatori’ and sometimes ‘sura dedric’ (or ‘poiata’ for cattle and ‘colna’ for sheep). ‘Colibele’were used in common and situated above the forest. Sub-sistence cropping for rye and potatoes was an essential partof the picture and ploughing on the gentle slopes resulted

288

Figure 2(b). Cluj County: percentage of arable land cultivated in 1995 (by commune). Source: National Commission for Statistics, Cluj-Napoca.

in terrace and pseudo-terrace systems (Pacurar, 1997), theformer deliberately engineered and the latter arising fromploughing with a reversible mouldboard that would alwaysthrow soil downslope. Wool was worked up into cloth inthe home, with dependence on milling facilities in the val-ley and with some exchanges of wool for flax that wasgrown on the low ground (Vesa, 1991). Textiles were promi-nent at Baisoara and Ocolis while woodworking was morecommon in the upper valleys that were closer to the mainforested zones. Exchanges took place at the periodic gath-erings among which the annual festival on Gaina (1,488 m),above Avram Iancu, serves as an outstanding example of a‘nedeia’ fair, situated on a mountain convenient for peoplein the valleys of the Aries, Cris and Mures that convergeon it (Florescu, 1937). This sheep breeders’ feast, dedicatedto their protector Sf. Ilie, traditionally started with womenplaying alpenhorns and subsequently involved marriage anddowry negotiations.

The years after World War One were brightened by theenlargement of the Romanian state so the Moti populationwas no longer subjected to the pressures of Magyarisation.But the local economy took time to adjust to its reorienta-tion towards Bucharest and the disappearance of Hungarianlandowners through land reform had a negative effect onsome local industries. The Moti population continued toincrease although employment opportunities were limited.As poverty drove the peasantry into making the fullest useof resources, handicrafts sustained an itinerant commerce(‘comert ambulant’) in the surrounding lowlands (Hungaryand Yugoslavia as well as Romania) (Florescu 1942). Thiswas part ofo mare mobilitate geograficawhich Apolzan(1987, p.181) saw as characteristic of the region in the inter-war years. Unfortunately the population pressure which ledto the terracing of some of the hill slopes also led to over-grazing and erosion manifested through the lower stockinglevels evident by the 1930s. But much greater concern was

289

expressed in local journals - published in Alba Iulia, Clujand Deva - over the low standard of living manifest throughinadequate education, housing, health and sanitation (Zologand Prodan, 1937).

Mining provided for some diversification. It has beenimportant since Roman times at least in the area of Abrud(Abruttus) and neighbouring places like Rosia Montana (Al-burnus Maior) which celebrated a 2,000 year existence in1991 and was important enough to warrant a second-thirdcentury defence system. Abrud gained the status of a freemining town in 1491. Romanians seem to have been prepon-derant and there was some assimilation of the foreign miners(many of whom were German), judging by the prominenceof Romanian toponyms like ‘curatura’, ‘runc’ and ‘sacatura’which refer to the basic processes involved in the mining in-dustry. Slavonic elements (such as ‘certej’, ‘iaz’ and ‘poina’)and the few that emerge in Hungarian (like ‘oas’) arise onlyin the marginal areas (Vesa et al., 1991 pp.88–9). It was insmall industrial colonies like Rosia Montana that De Mar-tonne (1922, p.86) found traditional water-powered crushingmills still operating in the 1920s:tous les 50 mètres aumoins une ou deux batteries de marteaux (‘steampuri’) fontentendre leur tic-tac. Le plupart des familles de paysanspossèdent une mine par la force hydraulique. . . Pendant laguerre beaucoup d’exploitations des paysans ont été ruines,n’étant pas entretenues et leurs propriétaires: n’ayant pasle moyen de les reparer, les ont abandonnés. However, alarger scale of working was possible when the narrow gaugeTurda-Abrud ‘Mocanita’ railway - named after Mocanime,as the Aries valley was known - reached Gura Rosiei in1912 where there is now a large flotation complex. Com-mercial scale activity also occurred at Criscior/Gura Barzawhere a narrow gauge railway arrived in 1894. Once again,a modern flotation complex now operates in this location,which was endowed with the ‘Mica’ power station in 1925and extensive prospecting in the 1930s. After 1929 the priceof gold was raised to the world level and this sparked off anew wave of prospecting in the area by the company whichwas responsible for 60 percent of the gold production in the1930s (Matley, 1971, pp.124–5).

By contrast it is only in modern times that there has beena commercial woodland economy linked with the estates.Comparatively little is known prior to the railway age whensawmills were located at the railheads. However, such werethe distances that processing also developed closer to theforests since it was more efficient to transport sawn tim-ber by cart to the railway stations rather than whole treestems (‘busteni’). There was intensive commercial exploita-tion of woods around Beius before the First World Warwhen several forest railways were built to connect with thestandard-gauge state railway from Oradea to Vascau: Beiusto Stana de Vale and Sudrigiu to Chiscau/Pietroasa. The lat-ter was closed after the First World War when the timberindustry was damaged by land reform which broke-up theformer Hungarian estates. Varied arrangements were madefor transport in the upper valleys: timber dams were retainedwhere forest railway construction was not feasible, and therewas a wooden incline and boardway above Pietroasa, while

horse-traction/gravity working was used above Chiscau. An-other forest railway operated from Finis into the TarcaitaValley as far as Zacatorea Baleanului, but it was closed bythe Second World War (oral evidence suggests that aban-doned track was observable above Tarcaia just after the war).Seven to ten wagons of timber were sent daily to Hungaryin the inter-war years but in the communist period a wood-processing unit was built locally at Ioanis and a new forestrailway built in the Finis valley. There is also a history ofglassmaking linked with the local wood and sand resources.Slovaks were once involved but they were assimilated eitherby the Hungarians or Romanians.

Whereas these projects exploited forests that were clos-est to Hungary, the rail network also opened up the less-accessible areas, though relatively slowly. An Italian com-pany built a sawmill at Belis (Hungarian Iosika) based ona concession from the estate owner Baron Urmantzi. Afterwartime damage the business was taken over by ‘SocietateaForestieri’ and a narrow-gauge railway was built along theDraganul Valley. Again, the narrow-gauge state railway toCampeni and Abrud (already referred to) provided a stim-ulus for the timber industry in the area, but it was only in1934 that a mechanised sawmill started at Campeni. Thereis a description (Rosu, 1942) of timber floating down theAries with the help of temporary dams which could impoundsufficient water to carry a consignment of logs through shal-low waters. Such a facility (‘opust’) was provided in theupper reaches at Galbena and Lapus in 1941, with a thirdinstallation under construction at Garda. A barrier (‘stavila’)at Campeni directed the logs along a ‘canal de plutire’ tothe sawmill. Reference was made to the problem of winterice damage to the wooden ‘grebla’ which regulated the flowof logs upstream of the main barrier and use of a tempo-rary structure (which could be removed each winter) wasproposed.

Meanwhile, Campeni was also one of the key servicecentres for the mountains, although it was a small settle-ment and the few historic buildings were lost in major firein 1904; leading to a redevelopment phase from 1906 to theFirst World War. Campeni acquired an electricity generatorin 1924 which gave a boost to small businesses and a tradeor professional school (‘Scoala de Meserii’) opened in 1928.But places like Campeni also played a cultural role throughthe work of the schools and development organisations(Herbay, 1946). When the ‘Astra’ association was set up in1861 - to organise cultural events like music festivals and toprovide support for women, teachers and craftsmen - it drewmuch support from Campeni where the local branch coveredsome 18 communes (including Bucium, Ponorel and So-hodol where agencies were provided). Libraries which werefirst opened in Abrud and Campeni later appeared elsewherein the valleys at Bistra, Poiana Vadului and Vidra, and twomobile libraries were inaugurated in 1889 through publicdonations.

Astra’s work continued after the First World War anda major event was convened in 1924 to commemorate 100years since the birth of Avram Iancu. By this time there werehigh schools, gymnasiums, mining or professional schools

290

in Abrud, Baia de Aries, Beius, Brad and Zlatna (as wellas Campeni), quite apart from the institutions in the maintowns on the edge of the mountains: Alba Iulia, Cluj, Deva,Oradea and Turda. However, there was no progress towardshigher education within the mountain area and although auniversity or faculty was sought, progress was restrictedto professional schooling. Meanwhile, there were centralschools in the communes, along with a number of othersin outlying settlements: the result of a substantial effort fol-lowing the 1848 revolution (Cucu and Chira, 1997). But atthe end of the inter-war period there were 204,993 childrenof school age of whom 169,346 attended school and 148,532finished their courses. Since schools were poorly equippedand sparsely distributed, Astra campaigned for better educa-tion linked with forest management (a Silvicultural Inspectorfor Apuseni and attention to the raising of seedlings in localnurseries), diversification of agriculture into fruit growingand textile plants with the use of chemical fertilisers anda growth of tourism that might follow from a better trans-port system (Ciomac and Popa Necsa, 1936). Their Abrudcongress in 1938 called for a special status for the area asa cultural zone (‘Zona Culturala’) to ensure provision ofmore primary schools outside the main village cores andbetter arrangements (including concessionary railway tar-iffs) for the marketing of handicrafts (Florescu, 1938; Iancu,1992). But despite a continuing flurry of publications therewas little progress before war intervened and the partitionof Transylvania imposed an international frontier along aneast- west line running just to the south of Cluj and Oradeawhich reverted to Hungarian administration between 1940and 1944.

The Communist period: Drive for consolidation

After the wanderings of the past, there was nowun procesinverswith greater stability, although the strengthening oflocal functional systems though urbanisation hastened adis-paritia unor aspecte etnografice de mare traditie(Apolzan,1987, p.181; Butura, 1964). The central places attractedmuch attention and a big effort was made in the Aries valleywhere Campeni (head of a district or ‘plasa’ in the 1930s)now became the centre of a larger ‘raion’ within an ex-tensive administrative region based on Cluj (Iordan, 1958).However, during 1956–1966 the Campeni raion did not ex-tent beyond Albac and Horea because Arieseni, Garda andScarisoara communes were transferred into the Vascau raionof the Crisana (Oradea) region, when much labour was re-cruited into the uranium mining at Baita - organised fromthe new towns of Nucet (near the mine) and Petru Groza (thenearest available railhead). Campeni, which became a townat the time of the 1966 census, saw a major enlargement ofits sawmill as the 1934 installation was modernised in 1961–2 as a ‘Sector de Mecanizare si Transporturi Forestiere’, theforerunner of CEPL (‘Complex de Exploatare si Prelucrarea Lemnului’): a large sawmilling complex built during the1966–70 Five Year Plan. A branch line to Campeni stationopened in 1970 and over 250 km of forest roads were builtto extend the collecting area. The old floating system was

given up in favour of road transport throughout. A knitwearfactory was opened in 1979 and consumer facilities includeda modern bakery (1963) and shopping complex (‘ComplexMestesugaresc’) opened in 1969 (Vasile et al., 1971). Thiswas a time of rapid change, for a lycee opened under the1966–1970 Five Year Plan and the construction of apart-ment blocks started in the early 1970s, although by this time(1968) further administrative reform had done away with theregions and districts and restored the counties. An improvedelectricity supply was very necessary and the local generator(enlarged to 1.17 MW capacity in 1970) distributed power asfar as the mines of Rosia Montana (1954). The total popula-tion of the district was 27.6th in 1860 and rose continuouslyto 28.8 (1880), 34.2 (1910), 41.1 (1941) and 43.3 (1966).Since then there has been decline to 38.4 in 1977 and 37.6(estimated) in 1984. Meanwhile the population of the townincreased both absolutely and as a share of the total popula-tion of the district: 3.5th (12.0%) in 1880, 4.2 (12.2) in 1910;5.1 (12.3) in 1941, 7.2 (16.6) in 1966, 7.7 (20.0) in 1977 and8.4 (22.3) in 1984.

Further afield a spinning mill opened at Abrud (wherethe enlarged lycee was relocated on the Alba Iulia road)with a clothing factory at Baia de Aries. In both cases theaim was to provide employment for women and complementthe male employment in mining in Baia de Aries and RosiaMontana (Surd and Cocean, 1981). However an additionalmining complex was opened at Rosia Poieni, reported in1982 as the biggest investment in Alba in the current FiveYear Plan. Development started in 1977 and after five years4,000 people had moved 23 mln. t of overburden and taken30 m off the peak of a 1,255 m mountain to get down to thelevel of copper deposits at 1,035– 1,040 m (Talanga, 1991–2). The desire to reduce trade dependence on Comecon drovethe decision to work low grade domestic copper instead ofimport from Poland (a similar strategy to that adopted for thesulphur industry in the Caliman Mountains in the north ofthe country). A flotation complex was opened at the quarry,but the concentrate was taken by road for smelting by ‘Am-pellum’ in Zlatna. This long-established processing centre(started in 1747) was much extended in 1980 to cope withore from Baia de Aries, Gura Barza, Hanes and Rosia Mon-tana as well as Rosia Poieni. The narrow gauge railway fromAlba Iulia was converted to standard gauge in order to copewith the heavier traffic, but no through rail link to the quarrywas seriously contemplated.

Maximising the potential of the extractive industries alsoled to a network of small industrial centres which, while notrecognised as towns, were given the elevated status of ‘cen-tre muncitoresti’ and ‘localitati asimilate urbanului’ for thecensuses of 1956 and 1966 respectively (Onisor and Susan,1966; Susan, 1967). Apart from the places that were even-tually promoted to urban status (Campeni, Ineu, Zlatna andmost recently Teius), these small (mostly peripheral) mining,processing and service centres included: Aghiresu, Astileu,Baia de Aries, Bratca, Budureasa, Criscior, Geoagiu, Lunca,Moneasa, Rosia Montana, Santana, Sincraiu, Tileagd, Tinca,Vadu Crisului and Vata. Young people are happy to com-mute to jobs in town and obtain a flat eventually (especially

291

with the higher costs in villages for food, transport and tele-phones) (Susan, 1971). There were some smaller centres forwood exploitation (like Bratca, Bulz, Lazuri, Remeti andSuncuius) but they also tended to be on the edge of the mainmountain block and only a few small traditional branches -such as the lime industry - remained in the core. Central-isation was allied with the building of forest roads (someas forest railway replacements) which provided useful linksbetween places on the original network (Maier, 1987). Apartfrom the main roads between Campeni and Vascau and be-tween Brad, Valisoara and Deva over the Muntii Metaliferi,there were few roads across watersheds before the SecondWorld War. But the situation was transformed under centralplanning as Figure 1 indicates.

At the local level, the outlying villages remained rela-tively isolated, but all commune centres were endowed withbetter facilities. In addition to their primary schools, eachhad a dispensary and a maternity unit that child-bearingwomen were obliged to use: formerly deliveries were madeat home with the help of amateur midwives or the few nurseswho were available e.g., a nurse in Albac served the uppervalleys in the pre- World War Two period. Small timber unitswere established at Avram Iancu, Garda de Sus and Vidra(making staves and barrels), but there was all too little workavailable locally and not all improvements in commune cen-tres were successful. When the Somes Valley was dammedfor hydro-electricity and the old village of Belis flooded, thenew centre was situated on land that was too damp and ex-posed to be good for agriculture, despite the provision of ashelter belt. Calls for the new centre to be located at Balcestiwith a better microclimate were not heeded. At the sametime, the economic base of the commune was undermined.Meanwhile, there were increasing disparities between thecore and periphery regions of the mountain area. Question-naires by Aluas and Rotariu (1989) in Cluj villages showsubstantial differences in levels of modernisation. Thesearose in part between the more modern cooperativised vil-lages and those that retained individual farms but mainly onthe basis of the non-agricultural employment available.

Villages that relied heavily on agriculture found them-selves seriously disadvantaged. The cooperative in Tarcaianear Beius made ‘local arrangements’ with is memberswhereby they could contract to work land on their own ac-count where it was not profitable for the cooperative to doso: the peasants paid either money (per hectare) or a shareof the produce, but generally the former since more producecould be advantageously sold on the free market. And thevillage of Nimaiesti (Curatele Commune) gained fame as‘Chicago’ when the local political network (the party chiefconnected with police and security) managed to bypass an-imal registration procedures and generate a black marketmeat supply: useful, like plum brandy (‘tuica’) and Kentcigarettes for ‘fixing’ deals. Meanwhile the mountain peas-ants, although spared the trauma of collectivisation, werelimited to a small scale of farming which gave only modestreturns. Crop land yielded less (the peasants would exclaimin despair that “the soil has become angry with us”) whilethe livestock sector was constrained by controls on grazing

Plate 1. The urban-rural fringe of Cluj showing the industrial zone par-allel to the railway, the intensively-cultivated private plots and formercooperative and state farms in the distance.

in the forests and lack of recognised professional status forshepherds. Livestock numbers tended to decrease owing tofodder shortages (for the state did not always honour itsobligation to supply cattle feed in part exchange for animalsdelivered). Small agricultural machines were not generallyavailable and heavy taxes were imposed on local privately-owned industrial ventures. Open discussion of agriculturalimprovement remained a forbidden topic because of thegovernment’s ideological commitment in principle to the co-operatives even though they were inefficient and particularlyunpopular in Transylvania.

Despite bus services, commuting distances were lim-ited by the time taken to reach the remoter hamlets towhich vehicle access was often impossible. The youngerpeople tended to leave, perhaps when the completion ofa hydropower project (bringing good salaries on a tempo-rary basis) brought on an overwhelming stimulus to leavein order to retain an enhanced income level (Pop, 1992).Meanwhile the older people - usually with responsibilityfor a small farm - and tied to whatever salaries might beavailable locally, would not fail to notice growing dispari-ties in living conditions: poor public transport, difficulties inchanging gas bottles and water supply problems in some vil-lages in the karst region (Ocoale in Garda de Sus Communefor example). Farms were extremely small for 734 farmsin Albac commune averaged 1.91 ha: only 23.0 percentwere larger than 3.0 ha and 5.2 greater than 5.0 (Samochis,1985). With no prospects of viability and limited scope forpluriactivity, some land was abandoned. Better roads andmedical services, as well as more electrification, were con-sidered necessary (Ibid.). But the authorities took the viewthat depopulation of the core should be actively encour-aged in favour of resettlement on the periphery, especiallywhere an expanding urban system could be underpinnedby industrial development that could relieve congestion inlarge cities. Current migration trends became a model forfurther phases of uneven development that were central tothe state’s ‘sistematizare’ programme for rural settlementconsolidation.

292

Sistematizare in Cluj County

Aluas (1977) and his collaborators used demographic, occu-pational and infrastructural data to classify rural settlementsin Cluj County into five categories regarding their poten-tial. Priority was given to the containment of the city ofCluj-Napoca through the development of new towns in thevicinity, aligned along the Aries, Cris and Somes Corridors(Beuran, 1973) (Figure 3) (Plate 1). The three areas of highground would be able to maintain their population levelswith resettlement in new towns at Iara (Apuseni Moun-tains), Panticeu (Somes Plateau) and Mociu (TransylvanianPlateau). Some 25 villages in the lowest Class E were tobe denied investment (including private house building andstructural repairs to existing property). Following an actualdecline in the rural population of−1.18 p.a. during 1966–77the rate was to increase slightly to−1.30 for 1977–90 (butonly−0.33 for Group 1;−1.42 Group 2; and−5.80 Group3) and then moderate to−0.87 during 1990–2000. The su-perior growth prospects for the corridor zones is brought outby recent trends. While the loss of population by migrationbetween 1966 and 1977 was heavy in all rural districts, thepercentage was much higher in the hill and mountain country(−27.5) than in the corridor zones (−10.8) (Tables 1-2). Thevillage classification in the corridor zones is also revealingin the sense that exactly 50% of the villages in the corri-dor zones had good potential for development (Class A andClass B) whereas the proportion is only 27.1% in the hilland mountain country. The shares for the villages with thelowest potential (Class D and Class E) were 25.9 and 53.8,respectively. And in the interests of efficiency, building inviable settlements was to be restricted to the official build-ing perimeters. But even more radical reorganisation wasenvisaged in Alba County. Over 200 settlements were dueto be eliminated: 90% of them in the Apuseni Mountains,including the Aries valley (Susan and Susan, 1979).

Concentration of services in the commune centres canbe well- seen in the case of Tureni commune. The cen-tral village of Tureni, situated on the main Cluj-Napoca -Turda road, has a ten year school, an administrative cen-tre (‘primaria’), a medical and veterinary dispensary, postoffice and telephone, police station, general store and fourchurches (including Orthodox, Catholic and Reformed) fora mixed Hungarian and Romanian population. The fouroutlying villages of Ceanu Mic, Comsesti, Martinesti andMicesti (all Romanian, but with some Hungarians at Com-sesti and Martinesti and some Gypsies at the latter) all havean Orthodox Church (Catholic also at Comsesti), while allexcept Martinesti have a four year school and store. Thereare several private shops at Tureni and two each in the othervillages except Martinesti (Surd, 1993). The commune cen-tre is well-placed to retain a significant commuter populationwhereas the outlying villages - typically accessible by unsur-faced roads - have poorer transport and services. This maycontribute to greater retention of the active population foragricultural work, but in the longer term this ensures thatmost young people will leave.

Micesti in Tureni Commune may be taken as an exam-ple. Although only 12 km from Cluj-Napoca by straight line

distance, the track leading directly through the forest to Fe-leacu is not accessible to conventional motor vehicles androad access is therefore through Tureni, which results in a27km journey into the city. Once an independent farmingcommunity, commuting began with collectivisation in 1962as unskilled workers were taken by lorry for weekly stints onbuilding sites. The journey was eased with the surfacing ofthe main road in 1970 though the connecting road remainsunsurfaced. Bus services to both Cluj and Turda enableddaily commuting; affecting 87 people in 1972 comparedwith only 31 in 1965. There were good wages for skilled,qualified workers but it meant getting up by 04:00 a.m. andreturning at around 17:00 p.m. with agricultural work on pri-vate plots still to be done: hence only four to five hours wereavailable for sleep during the summer! Some 200 people leftthe village permanently between 1965 and 1985, includingall those graduating from the eight year middle school. Chil-dren were urged by their parents to move to the towns wheretheir ‘worker’ status (appreciated by the Communist Party)secured an apartment as well as a steady job: more comfort-able and hygienic living conditions and higher earnings thanwere possible from hard work in agriculture. By the time ofthe revolution labour for the cooperative farm was gettingquite scarce: the tactics of the cooperative farm managementin discouraging road modernisation and improved bus ser-vices as a means of retaining agricultural labour had largelybackfired.

Thus it seemed that the communist state was veering to-wards an authoritarian and radical solution, with pressurefrom the party to ‘solve’ the Moti problem through ‘sistem-atizare’, allied with the drive to secure an annual industrialoutput worth 10 milliard lei by 1980. This accentuated thedesire of the planners to come up with schemes to increaselabour productivity which could be presented to the pub-lic as a policy to improve material conditions through theconsolidation of settlement. The threats to the Apuseni wereextremely serious for the localism of the ‘raion’ phase andcollectivisation drive was replaced by national project fromwhich there was no escape and once foreign debts had beenpaid off the ideological drive for ‘sistematizare’ was rein-forced (Surd, 1993, pp.47–51). There could be no guaranteethat nucleated villages on the lower ground would be ableto offer a wide range of employments except through com-muting into the towns, although resettlement in such placeswould certainly frustrate the efficient use of resources onthe high ground where the integration of several interrelatedactivities could support small viable communities, backedup by improved local roads, more electrification and mobileservices.

Misgivings were expressed both by ‘old’ communistswho believed that mountain communities deserved supporton economic and social grounds and by conservationists andsome social scientists who not only objected to coercion butmaintained a vision of a long-term future for mountain com-munities and who valued the ethnographical heritage (Rey,1979). Rather than concentration of population on placeslike Gilau (lying astride the Cluj-Oradea road, with urbanpretensions), mountain communes like Marisel merited re-

293

. Figure 3. Sistematizare in Cluj County. Source: Aluas, 1977.Note: Class 1 – villages with population over 1,000Class 2 – balance from categories A-D in Table 1Class 3 – category E in Table 1

294

Table 1. Population change and potential by sub-regions.

Region Population ’000s Village Potential A= high

Total Rural Change 1966–77 A B C D E Total

1966 1977 1966 1977 a b c

1 Apuseni 48.0 40.6 48.0 40.6 −7.4 +5.2 −12.6 6 13 18 22 16 75

2 Aries Valley 106.0 121.1 44.2 43.6 −0.6 +4.5 −5.1 8 13 7 5 3 36

3 Cris Valley 27.6 27.5 21.1 20.0 −1.1 +0.8 −1.9 6 3 8 3 1 21

4 Somes Plateau 46.1 37.2 46.1 37.2 −8.9 +6.4 −15.3 8 13 16 33 12 82

5 Somes Valley 334.5 428.0 117.5 119.9 +2.4 +15.1 −12.7 28 23 24 20 10 105

6 Trans. Plateau 67.6 61.0 67.4 61.0 −6.4 +10.2 −16.6 9 15 22 19 24 79

Total 629.7 715.4 344.3 322.2 −22.0 +42.1 −64.1 65 80 85 102 66 398

a: total change; b: natural increase; c: inferred migration.

Source: Census and Aluas et al., 1977.

Table 2. Apuseni communes in Cluj County: Plans and actuality

Main Village+ Other Villages

1966∗ 1977∗ 1990# 1992∗ 2000# 1966∗ 1977∗ 1990# 1992∗ 2000#

Baisoara 1213 1190 1162 1146 1140 2433 1854 1296 1367 1278

Belis 815 747 668 600 597 2125 1897 1632 946 1398

Calatele 1583 1537 1484 1236 1436 2506 2273 1942 1670 1663

Iara 1616 1845 2112 2113 2339 4672 3809 2844 3077 2210

Maguri-Racatau+ 3106 2588 1983 1922 1468 968 858 730 645 619

Manastireni 1169 1003 808 780 651 2216 1983 1711 1447 1496

Margau+ 3150 2501 1736 1517 1172 2006 1202 286 595 .

Marisel 2473 2817 3220 1951 3551 . . . . .

Petrestii de Jos+ 1782 1529 1224 1123 1097 2254 1615 861 1043 385

Rasca 1458 1488 1523 1233 1550 1114 1173 1240 876 1296

Sacuieu+ 2081 1761 1385 1536 1083 781 641 476 481 344

Valea Ierii 1193 910 579 856 302 596 480 390 316 300

Total 21639 19916 17884 16013 16386 21671 17785 13408 12463 10989

Group 1 18743 17408 15831 13877 14706 2440 2120 1745 1327 1433

Group 2 2896 2508 2053 2136 1680 14778 13103 11172 9624 9556

Group 3 . . . . . 4453 2562 491 1512 .

Group 1 villages were considered viable; with population over 1000 in 1966

Group 2 villages were the other viable settlementsGroup 3 villages were scheduled for abandonment (officially 12 in all but Margau and Petrestii de Sus are included inthe central settlements for these communes)

+ Single villages except for Maguri-Racatau (Maguri and Maguri-Racatau); Margau (Margau and Rachitele); Petrestii deJos (Petrestii de Jos, Petrestii de Mijloc and Petrestii de Sus); Sacuieu (Rogogel and Sacuieu)67–55 villages 1966-2000, but with grouping 63–53)∗ census# estimateSource: Census and Aluas et al., 1977.

tention with an economic base in agriculture, tourism andlight manufacturing (electronics and textiles). The issueswere debated widely with a feature appearing in the pop-ular magazine ‘Flacara’ in 1981. Some depopulation wasconsidered inevitable, due to the opportunities in Cluj andthe scope for agricultural resettlement in Banat (compensat-ing for emigration by German families) but encouraging thetrend through promotion of holding points in the valleys atAghiresu, Gilau and Poieni was highly controversial. Dis-crimination was highlighted by the relocation of the Beliswood processing industry in Poieni and the failure of a Clujelectronics enterprise to establish a branch factory in thevillage.

Transition: flexibility

After the revolution rural planning pressures were relaxedand so people living in places that lacked a building perime-ter were now free to maintain and improve their propertyas they wished. But since public money was very scarcethere was little that could be done in the short term to rem-edy the inadequacies of local services and priorities tendedto focus attention once again on the key centres. However,people are remaining in the remoter places, reinforced bythe land restitution measures of 1991. When the 1992 cen-sus data is compared with the 1990 targets calculated underthe 1977 plan for the Apuseni section of Cluj county, ittranspires that population has declined more rapidly than

295

was expected:−1.635 per annum instead of−1.31. How-ever, there are contrasts between the larger of the viablesettlements (Group 1, with over 1,000 inhabitants in 1977),the other viable settlements (Group 2, representing the bal-ance from Categories A-D in Table 1) and those scheduledfor depopulation (Group 3) (Table 2). Group 3 settlementsdeclined most rapidly (−2.73% per annum), but less thanwas forecast (−6.22); while Group B settlements declinedby −1.64, somewhat more than was expected (−1.18), andGroup A settlements declined rather less sharply (−1.48),but at double the rate anticipated (−0.77). In other words,the redistribution within the area in favour of the larger of theviable settlements did not take place on the scale expected.This can also be seen when the rate for all the communecentres (−1.31) is compared favourably with the rate forother villages (−1.99) but relatively unfavourably with theestimates of−0.78 and 1.89 respectively. Belis and Mariselcommunes were expected to act as polarising centres andachieve a small growth of+0.08% per annum but they ac-tually lost population at a rate of−2.40. Calatele and Rascadeclined by 1.50% per annum, much faster than the rate of−0.34 anticipated when the planned consolidation failed tooccur. On the other hand Baisoara, Iara, Margau, Petrestii deJos, Sacueiu and Valea Ierii lost quite heavily (−1.44) butnot to the extent envisaged (−1.98).

There should be more scope for enterprise at the grassroots linked with a hierarchy of rural centres. Describing thesettlement system in the mountains at the end of commu-nism, Surd (1992) referred to small towns like Alesd andHuedin and several substantially urbanised ‘supracommunalcentres’ with the potential for urban status (Baia de Aries,Gilau, Gurahont, Ilia, Savarsin and Tileagd). Less developed‘supracommunal centres’ (Albac, Baia de Cris, Barzava,Calatele, Ciucea, Dobresti, Halmagiu, Iara and Suncuius)had a significant role in commerce and in educational andmedical services; while tourism was of some importance atsmall spas like Geoagiu, Moneasa and Vata de Jos. Com-mune centres were to be safeguarded, while sub-communecentres might serve groups of three to four small settlementswith eight-year schools and some commercial functions: ex-amples would include Carpinis (Rosia Montana Commune),Ghetar (Garda de Sus), Izbita (Bucium), Salciua de Sus (Sal-ciua) and Tarsa (Avram Iancu). Some smaller sub-communalcentres could serve one to three villages through a four-year school and shop: Cobles (Arieseni), Garda Goiesti andPoieni (Vidra), Seaca (Garda), Valea Verde (Sohodol), VarsiiMari (Bistra) and Vidrisoara (Avram Iancu). These placeswere considered more appropriate for consolidation thancommunal or supracommunal centres in the Aries valley.The remotest places could be helped through boarding facil-ities at local schools and by mobile services (albeit at highper capita cost) while promotion as holiday villages (‘sate devacanta’) might strengthen their economies.

The Cluj city region

Contrasts may be drawn even more strongly than beforebetween villages within easy commuting distance of largetowns like Cluj-Napoca and others which are relatively re-

mote. As already noted, commune centres are particularlyattractive. In the case of Feleacu, eight kilometers to thesouth, 489 of the 658 families are involved in urban em-ployment as cleaners, cooks and porters; and since they areengaged predominantly in the tertiary sector - which hascontracted less than manufacturing - the number of com-muters has declined only moderately from the level of 601families enumerated in 1985 to 489 in 1997. The commu-nity is relatively prosperous and the total of 399 cars worksout at one per 1.65 families. However some people havemoved into Cluj as apartments became available and thisavoids the need to drive down the steep hill into the city:the sharp bends are dangerous in winter weather. 12 housesin the village are used as country residences by city dwellers.The agricultural resources available to the village are modestbecause under communism much of the land was taken bythe state farm based in Cluj and used for apple growing. Thevillagers were left with only 420 ha of poorer land (14.7% ofthe total) which means 0.64 ha per family and income fromagriculture is less than a quarter of the total.

Meanwhile the smaller villages have more limited humancapital. In Micesti (already referred to) the population ofthe village declined from 1,571 in 1956 and 1,229 in 1966to 428 in 1998. As the average age increased the numberof school pupils decreased three to four times more rapidlythan the population as whole. Now there are now just 11pupils in the four year school in Micesti while another ninecommute to the eight year school in Tureni. People becamemore reluctant to live in Micesti and commute daily to workbecause the road as far as Tureni is so poorly maintained.So the value of property in the village is very low, althoughmuch of housing is relatively new because the village wasrebuilt after wartime destruction along the German-Russianfront in 1944. Private farms have now been re-established:212 families own 1,675 ha (7.9 ha each) of which 955 ha ispotentially arable (4.5 ha each) and slightly more than halfof this (530–550 ha) is cultivated in any one year i.e. some2.5–2.6 ha per holding; fragmented into a dozen pieces ofsome 0.22 ha on average. Thus, most land is cultivated everyother year, alternating with fallow which was the traditionalpractice in the inter-war period. However only 84 families(39.6%) have even the basic equipment for working the landwhile 41 households consist only of elderly widows. Muchland is leased to people who have the equipment (61 horse-drawn carts, 22 tractors and four trucks) - though there areonly nine families which are particularly well- endowed withtractors and ploughs etc. However, it is also feasible for own-ers to pay for some of the routine operations and householdsnow based in the towns may combine this strategy with theirown weekend work as they travel in to the village by car.Farmers who have equipment are not usually prepared tocooperate because they value their independence and regardtheir colleagues as competitors. But they will do jobs forpeople who lack equipment: thus the 22 tractors will eachplough on average some 27.5 ha (though actually it will beless because some farmers use horses).

Cropping must be adjusted not only to climate but also tofinancial resources and market prices. Wheat and maize are

296

the main crops but results vary between as much as 1,000and 5,000 kg/ha according to the standard of cultivation andthe fertiliser applied (chemical fertilisers are too expensiveto be used in large quantities but manure can be applied bythose who have the necessary transport). With 258 cattle,488 pigs, 709 sheep and 2473 poultry it can be seen that theaverage farm consists of one cow, two pigs, three sheep and12 poultry. There is a balance between subsistence farmingand production for the market: one pig is sold and the otherkilled at Christmas time (those with three pigs can give oneto offspring in the towns). 96 families rely on income frommilk (1,500 lei/ US$ 0.15 per liter) which is collected by alocal business for sale in the town: though the town price istwo to three times it does not pay farmers to take their milkto market individually. Meanwhile the woodlands are beingeroded as local people have to cut wood illegally for fuelin the absence of natural gas supplies which would servean important ecological goal. At the same time, restitutionplots are being sold to people who clear the land for secondhomes on the Cluj side of the Faget forest which are soughtby people who profited from the Caritas pyramid investmentscheme prior to its collapse in 1994. However, the ecologicalcase for protecting the forest is submerged by the irresistiblepolitical imperative for restitution.

The Aries Valley

The situation is much more difficult in the more remotemountain districts with much more limited public transportat distances beyond 30 km, not to mention rugged terrain andthe prominence of small hamlets inaccessible to vehiculartraffic. Journeys to work (for those working outside agri-culture) are difficult, especially when wet weather makesthe steep mountain footpaths treacherous. Equally, accessto schools, dispensaries and the whole range of services iscomplicated. Depopulation has been rapid especially in theremoter parts without the public transport to facilitate dailycommuting to work. The poor infrastructure also meansthat many children are reluctant to contemplate living per-manently in their home villages once they have to stay inboarding accommodation at secondary school. Sociologi-cal studies continue to reveal wide differences in standardsof living within the rural areas and there is an ongoingprocess of spontaneous abandonment (‘dezafectarea spon-tana’) which the planners assumed was inevitable (Cocean,1987). Since 1989, matters have been complicated by amassive reorganisation in the mining industry. This is astate-owned industry which has been placed under the au-tonomous management of Regie Autonoma a Cuprului inDeva. Mounting losses combined with the failure, so far, toprivatise precipitated the reorganisation programme of 1998which led to widespread redundancies (Table 3). Althoughby no means all the workers are from rural areas, they havebeen significantly affected.

Annual figures for population change, grouped into fiveyear bands show a steady loss by migration varying from10.1 to 16.9 per thousand per annum (12.2 to 21.3 fromthe rural areas). The towns have lost relatively few sincethe late 1960s and were registering net in-migration during

the 1980s, mainly due to the settlement of people in Abrudconcerned with the Rosia Poieni copper mining complex(Table 4). During 1966–1992 population has declined by18.2 percent. In settlements of 500+ there has been growthby 31.2% while other categories have lost equally heavily,though this is very much an urban phenomenon for the largervillages have declined in the Albac district. Overall the verysmallest settlements have declined most rapidly (below 100−36.0) compared with−35.5 for 100–199 and−29.3 for200–499. This progressive trend is very clear in the Albacand Campeni districts but only partially in Avram Iancu.while roles are reversed in Albac: 200–499 villages havedeclined by 38.2, more than in 100–199−37.4 and below100−34.4 (Table 5).

The demographic transition is also reflected in chang-ing age structures. Very little change is evident from 1900to 1930 but the reduced weight of young people and theincrease in the elderly over the following 60 years is verynoticeable, even allowing for slight differences in the agebands (Table 6). There is a gradation in age structure whenpopulation below 30 is calculated as a multiple of populationover 60: 1.16 for the below 50 category; 1.73 for the 50–99category; 2.03 for 100– 249; 3.14 for 250–499; and 4.00 for500+ (2.50 overall) (Table 7). Meanwhile the active popu-lation is broadly constant (though slightly higher for 500+(37.9 percent) compared with 35.8–36.2 for the other cate-gories (36.6 being the average overall: 19,777 active personsout a total of 54,053). The picture applies in individual com-munes although not always with a regular progression: theremay be a dip in one category before resuming the predomi-nant trend. However in Arieseni the ‘below 50’ settlementshave a ratio of 2.21 compared with, 1.91 for 50–99 and 2.13for 100–249; and at Lupsa the progression reached 3.31 for100-249 before falling back to 2.37 for 250– 499 and 2.47for 500+.

Apolzan (1987, pp.353–63) noted 7,871 households anda total population of 41,100 in the Aries above Bistra andCampeni in 1941: an average of 5.22 persons per household.In 1992 the population was down to 32,869 (a decrease of20.0 percent) while households increased by 18.8 percent to9,354: 3.51 persons per household. Interestingly the house-holds increased in Bistra and Campeni - and also in Gardaand Arieseni; suggesting some new settlement close to themargins (Table 8). The prominence of the female populationmay be considered a factor in the survival of certain cate-gories of settlement, but this does not appear to be an issue inthe Apuseni. For the population aged 60 and over women arein a majority in all settlement categories in all areas: urbanand rural. But where the active population is concerned thereis a deficit which is greatest (though only slightly) in thesmallest settlement bands in both rural and urban areas. Andfor young people, the presence of females is slightly greaterin the smallest settlements (though they are always in a mi-nority - except in 200–499 population group - in rural areasand particularly in Albac) (Table 9). However, it is signifi-cant that some settlement categories have limited access tonon-agricultural employment. The role of agriculture is gen-erally strong as 41.5% - but the level falls progressively from

297

Table 3. Contraction of the mining industry: RA Cupru.

Installations in the Apuseni: Other installations:

Location A B C D E Location A B C D E

Abrud c 1766 1047 719 377 Altantepe c 230 226 4 258

Baia de Aries gp 1287 1147 140 473 Baia de Arama c 281 . 281 281

Baita mp 520 310 210 23 Balan c 2350 2095 255 1203

Brad g 2274 966 1308 1283 Bocsa i 259 197 62 259

Certej gp 987 584 403 341 Hateg p 210 14 196 210

Deva agp 983 675 308 1265 Moldova Noua c 2303 1844 459 1274

Iara is 534 83 451 82 Poiana Rusca i 1348 1137 211 1036

Mintia cgp 488 376 112 332 Ruschita ip 451 . 451 451

Rosia Montana g 930 641 289 141 Sasca c 311 . 311 311

Zlatna cp 710 559 151 337

Total 10479 6388 4091 4654 7743 5513 2230 5283

A profile: a administration; c copper; g gold; p ‘polymetal’; i iron; m molybdenum; s silica sandB Workers retained in October 1998C Ditto, living in townsD Ditto, living in villagesE Workers leaving the IndustryNote: Since the layoffs began in July 1997 it is possible for the figures in column E to exceed those in column B.Source: Cupru, Deva.

Table 4. Demographic change in the Upper Aries Valley 1965–1994.

Period Urban Change: Rural Change: Total Change:

Natural Increase Migration Natural Increase Migration Natural Increase Migration

Abs. ptp Abs. ptp Abs. ptp Abs. ptp Abs. ptp Abs. ptp

1965-69 +557 +9.1 −613 −10.0 +3514 +13.2 −4239 −15.9 +4061 +12.4 −4852 −14.8

1970-74 +617 +9.9 −367 −5.9 +2580 +9.7 −3250 −12.2 +3197 +9.7 −3617 −11.0

1975-79 +489 +7.7 −309 −4.9 +1416 +5.5 −5103 −19.9 +1905 +5.9 −5412 −16.9

1980-84 +409 +6.1 +750 +11.3 +774 +3.2 −4417 −18.6 +1183 +3.9 −3667 −12.0

1985-89 +566 +7.7 +562 +7.7 +674 +3.0 −3550 −16.0 +1240 +4.2 −2988 −10.1

1990-94 +330 +4.3 −61 −0.8 +23 v+0.1 −4220 −21.3 +353 +1.3 −4281 −15.6

ptp: per thousand of the populationSource: Institut de Geografie, Bucharest.

Table 5. Population trends by settlement size groups for districts of the Upper Aries Valley 1966–1992.

District Settlement Size 1966

500+ 200–499 100–199 Below 100 Total

1966 1992 1966 1992 1966 1992 1966 1992 1966 1992

Abrud 6922 8349 4032 3311 2249 1753 1671 1176 14874 14589

4 +20.6 14 −17.9 15 −20.1 26 −29.6 59 −1.9

Albac 2179 1779 9018 5575 4522 2829 1356 890 17075 11073

3 −18.4 29 −38.2 31 −37.4 17 −34.4 80 −35.2

Avram . . 4605 3063 4580 2615 3397 2083 12582 7761

Iancu . . 18 −33.5 33 −42.9 44 −38.7 95 −38.3

Campeni 5775 9388 6990 5479 6237 4158 2566 1605 21568 20630

5 +62.6 26 −21.6 46 −33.4 34 −37.5 111 −4.3

Total 14876 19516 24645 17428 17588 11355 8990 5754 66099 54053

12 +31.2 87 −29.3 135 −35.5 121 −36.0 345 −18.2

First line: population 1966, 1992 (same settlements)Second line: number of settlements in class and percentage changeSource: Census.

298

Table 6. Age structure in selected areas of the Upper Aries Valley.

Area 1900 1930 1992

Popn. Percentages Popn. Percentages Popn. Percentages

A B C A B C A B C

Abrud-Campeni 11848 44.5 47.1 8.4 11595 44.2 50.1 5.7 15607 24.6 63.0 12.4

Bistra 14627 42.0 47.9 10.1 15288 44.3 49.3 6.4 5361 24.4 61.2 14.4

Albac 11437 48.2 43.4 8.4 15739 53.8 40.9 5.3 2403 20.2 56.8 23.0

Vidra 12341 45.9 44.8 9.3 17719 47.3 46.7 6.0 2444 18.1 56.4 25.5

A 0-19 years (0-14 1992); B 20-59 (20-64 in 1930; 15-59 1992); C 60 and over (65 and over 1930).

Source: Census.

Table 7. Upper Aries Valley: settlement size and age structure 1992.

Town/ Village Population Size Group :

Commune Below 50 50–99 100–249 250–499 500+Abrud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-554-198 2-6175-2238

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.42 35.7 4.44 36.2

Albac 3-124-37 4-295-96 6-879-285 2-581-208 1-524-193

1.14 29.8 1.79 32.5 1.53 32.4 2.75 35.8 2.83 36.8

Arieseni 2-71-26 8-598-226 8-1348-528 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.21 36.6 1.91 37.8 2.13 39.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Avram Iancu 14-401-131 13-844-294 5-614-238 1-358-117 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.76 32.7 1.30 34.8 1.24 38.8 2.49 32.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bistra 9-241-83 11-723-252 10-1492-502 4-1308-455 1-1597-582

1.19 34.4 2.18 34.9 2.93 33.6 5.27 34.8 5.17 37.1

Bucium 17-508-190 5-400-163 8-1207-465 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.50 37.4 1.86 40.7 2.02 38.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Campeni 1-35-12 4-339-125 14-2103-720 2-697-266 1-5704-2268

0.92 34.3 2.15 36.9 2.18 34.2 3.31 38.2 6.07 39.8

Ciruleasa 1-37-15 1-57-15 6-887-319 1-618-221 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.44 40.5 1.00 2.63 1.63 36.0 3.18 35.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Garda 3-95-33 4-299-117 8-995-364 2-741-302 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.70 34.7 1.60 39.1 1.98 36.6 2.69 40.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Horea 1-45-20 7-550-227 4-606-197 3-1135-413 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.08 44.4 1.71 41.3 2.41 32.5 2.76 36.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lupsa 9-238-94 6-476-160 3-505-181 2-714-259 3-087-787

1.18 39.5 1.82 33.6 3.31 35.8 2.37 36.3 2.47 37.7

Poiana Vadului 2-94-28 1-96-27 8-1276-408 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.61 30.9 1.87 28.1 2.47 32.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rosia Montana 2-82-34 1-54-20 9-1293-506 3-1161-385 1-1556-616

1.09 41.5 1.43 37.0 1.96 39.1 4.07 33.2 2.16 39.6

Scarisoara 3-107-40 2-132-44 8-1157-424 .. . . . . . . . . . . 1-791-302

1.68 37.4 1.44 33.3 1.42 36.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.52 38.2

Sohodol 9-239-99 15-970-355 7-1162-457 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.73 41.4 1.38 36.6 2.46 39.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vadu M 2-97-33 2-128-45 7-1138-392 1-271-90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.78 34.0 1.59 35.2 1.98 34.4 2.12 33.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vidra 14-388-138 21-1518-510 4-538-191 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.05 35.6 1.72 33.6 1.63 35.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total 92-2802-1014 105-7479-2676 115 17200 6177 22-7520-2693 11-19052-7217

1.16 36.2 1.73 35.8 2.03 35.9 3.14 35.8 4.00 37.9

Line 1: number of villages in the category-total population- population aged 30–59Line 2: population aged below 30 as a multiple of the population over 60 and population aged 30–59 as a percent-age of the total.Source: Census

299

Table 8. Upper Aries Valley : population and households 1941–1992.

District and 1941 1992 Trend

Commune A B C A B C D E

ALBAC 9937 1869 5.32 6328 1771 3.57 −36.3 −5.2

Albac 3526 654 5.39 2372 640 3.71−32.7 −2.1

Horea 4138 778 5.32 2322 677 3.43−43.9 −13.0

Vadu Motilor 2273 437 5.20 1634 454 3.60−28.1 +3.9

AVRAM IANCU 11436 2218 5.16 6128 1814 3.38 −46.4 −18.2

Avram Iancu 4110 813 5.06 2212 737 3.00−46.2 −9.3

Poiana Vadului 2188 429 5.10 1463 375 3.90−33.1 −12.6

Vidra 5138 976 5.26 2453 702 3.49 −52.3 −28.1

CAMPENI 10138 2109 4.80 14093 4014 3.51+39.0 +90.3

Bistra 5029 1049 4.79 5356 1428 3.75 +6.5 +36.1

Campeni 5109 1060 4.82 8737 2586 3.38+71.0 +144.0

SCARISOARA 9589 1675 5.72 6320 1755 3.60−34.1 +4.8

Arieseni 2352 378 6.22 2003 524 3.82−14.8 +38.6

Garda de Sus 3103 365 5.49 2128 579 3.68−31.4 +2.5

Scarisoara 4134 732 5.65 2189 652 3.36−47.0 −10.9

TOTAL 41100 7871 5.22 32869 9354 3.51−20.0 +18.8

A PopulationB HouseholdsC Population per householdD Percentage change in populationE Percentage change in householdsSource: Census.

Plate 2. Market day at Arieseni.

the smallest settlements of below 50 persons (66.1%) to 50–99 (61.3), 100– 199 (55.0), 200–499 (45.7) and 500+ (12.3)(Table 10). In all districts the critical break is between 200–499 and 500+: within the other four categories the range is9.7 for Albac, 11.7 for Abrud but 20.2 for Avram Iancu and35.1 for Campeni where the crucial issue is clearly not somuch size as accessibility.

Safeguarding the future

Although all parts of Romania are suffering stress the po-sition is better in the surroundings of cities than in remoterrural areas. In the former case, the villages have their agri-culture through restituted private farms and also commutingopportunities. Improved roads could help the outlying vil-lages and make for more decentralised city regions. In the

Plate 3. The village of Muntele Baisorii with the core in the valley anddispersed farms on the slopes. A tourist complex is emerging on the highground to provide winter sports.

case of Micesti, a new tourist route from Cluj to the CheileTurzii, passing through the village, would transform thesituation. But for the remoter areas of the Apuseni it is ev-ident that most of the growth potential lies on the edge ofthe mountains. Extractive industries concerned with baux-ite, refractory sand, building materials and mineral waterscould bring further growth to places like Dobresti, Mon-easa and Suncuius where villages might even attain urbanstatus (Cocean, 1984). But in the core, non-agricultural em-ployment is harder to come by and the deficiencies in theinfrastructure are more numerous, affecting especially theoutlying hamlets as well as the commune centres (Plates 2–4). This dispersed settlement pattern is an essential part ofthe Apuseni landscape which merits conservation: both the

300

Table 9. Upper Aries Valley: population by gender 1992.

District Total Age 0-15 Age 16-59 Age 60Plus

Male Female ∗ Male Female ∗ Male Female ∗ Male Female ∗Abrud a 7208 7381 1.02 1730 1542 0.89 4547 4390 0.97 931 1449 1.56

b 3490 3504 1.00 983 796 0.81 2196 2184 0.99 311 524 1.68

c 1175 1208 1.03 275 265 0.96 760 691 0.90 140 252 1.80

d 2543 2669 1.05 472 481 1.02 1591 1515 0.95 480 673 1.40

Albac a 5733 5340 0.93 1169 1131 0.97 3478 3027 0.87 1086 1182 1.08

b 653 662 1.01 148 161 1.09 402 386 0.96 103 115 1.12

c 1644 1518 0.92 346 344 0.99 1011 864 0.85 287 310 1.08

d 3436 3160 0.92 675 626 0.93 2065 1777 0.86 696 757 1.09

Avram a 3937 3824 0.97 749 735 0.98 2294 2068 0.90 894 1021 1.14

Iancu b . . . . . . . . . . . .

c 548 503 0.92 134 117 0.87 311 260 0.83 103 126 1.22

d 389 3321 0.98 615 618 1.00 1983 1808 0.91 791 895 1.13

Campeni a 10389 10241 0.99 2393 2285 0.95 6590 6182 0.94 1406 1774 1.26

b 4662 4726 1.01 1225 1164 0.95 2985 2990 1.00 452 572 1.27

c 1822 1750 0.96 444 417 0.94 1175 1050 0.89 203 283 1.39

d 3905 3765 0.96 724 704 0.97 2430 2142 0.88 751 919 1.22

Total a 27267 26786 0.98 6041 5693 0.94 16909 15667 0.93 4317 5426 1.26

b 8805 8892 1.01 2356 2121 0.90 5583 5560 1.00 866 1211 1.40

c 5189 4979 0.96 1199 1143 0.95 3257 2865 0.88 733 971 1.32

d 13273 12915 0.97 2486 2429 0.98 8069 7242 0.90 2718 3244 1.19

Urban a 7828 7779 0.99 2057 1781 0.87 4941 4899 0.99 830 1099 1.32

b 5252 5272 1.00 1550 1305 0.84 3319 3422 1.03 383 545 1.42

c 634 617 0.97 141 132 0.94 408 366 0.90 85 119 1.40

d 1942 1890 0.97 366 344 0.94 1214 1111 0.92 362 435 1.20

Rural a 19439 19007 0.98 3984 3912 0.98 11968 10768 0.90 3487 4327 1.24

b 3553 3620 1.02 806 816 1.01 2264 2138 0.94 483 666 1.38

c 4555 4362 0.96 1058 1011 0.96 2849 2499 0.88 648 852 1.31

d 11331 11025 0.97 2120 2085 0.98 6855 6131 0.89 2356 2809 1.19

∗females per one malea: Settlements over 500 populationb: Settlements 200–499 populationc: Settlements 100–199 populationd: Other settlementsSource: Census.

permanent settlements and the temporary habitations: theindividual ‘salas’ and groups of 20–30 houses in ‘mutatora’.Resettlement is by definition destructive and although someconsolidation of dispersed settlement outside commune cen-tres may be possible by fusion, excessive restructuringwould defeat the objective (Surd, 1997).

Assistance for the mountains was initially provided in1991 by a Commission (later Agency) for Mountainous Re-gions, but reorganisation in 1996 restricted the initiativeto an NGO (‘Federatia Romana pentru Dezvoltare Mon-tana’) concerned with local development including ruraltourism, marketing and the transfer of relevant experiencefrom abroad. However, although less-favoured areas are nowidentified countrywide, without specific bias to the moun-tains, the work of the early 1990s drew attention to theimportance of pluriactivity and the case for restoring to thepeople of the Apuseni travel concessions to local traders thatwere made available during the inter-war years. Moreover,in recognition of the inadequate infrastructure - and seriousflood damage which occurred in 1995 - a ‘Program Spe-cial pentru Sprijinirea Dezvoltarii Economico-Sociale a unor

Localitati din Muntii Apuseni’ was launched in 1996. Thiscovered the core of the region, including parts of the countiesof Alba, Arad, Bihor, Cluj and Hunedoara, and built on thework carried out by the Ministry of Public Works & Physi-cal Planning in 1994: ‘Studiu privind Planul de Amenajarea Teritoriului National’. 8,000 bln lei has been allocatedfor an eight year period (to 2004) to deal with roads andbridges; the consolidation of river banks; electricity and gassupply; and education and health. There is also a stimu-lus to economic development: encouraging handicrafts andother small businesses with five year investment allowances,backed by PHARE and other international assistance for an-imal breeding, meat processing, fish farming and forest fruitcollection.

But environment is now a priority, with part of theApuseni designated as a national park. This has created ten-sions over grazing between Romsilva and local authoritiesin areas surrounding the Padis Plateau. However, a possibleway forward lies in the compromise, first outlined in 1997,for a ‘natural park’, appropriate in an area with a signif-icant population where local economic development must

301

Table 10.Upper Aries Valley: active and agricultural population.

District Settlement Size:

500+ 200–499 100–199 50–99 Below 50 Total

A B A B A B A B A B A B

Abrud 3827 185 1094 359 1182 385 230 100 299 130 6632 1159

45.8 4.8 45.9 32.8 43.5 32.6 44.8 43.5 47.7 43.5 45.4 17.5

Albac 621 213 2092 1281 2165 1577 1088 817 247 175 6213 4063

47.2 34.3 55.9 61.2 58.5 72.8 58.1 75.1 55.9 70.9 56.1 65.4

Avram . . 482 260 1884 1228 1432 832 587 435 4385 2755

Iancu . . 45.9 53.9 59.9 65.2 55.4 58.1 59.9 74.1 56.5 62.8

Campeni 4019 643 1776 586 2305 955 1445 823 432 294 9977 3301

42.8 16.0 49.7 33.0 52.3 41.4 57.6 57.0 57.4 68.1 48.4 33.1

TOTAL 8467 1041 5444 2486 7536 4145 4195 2572 1565 1034 27207 11278

44.4 12.3 50.6 45.7 53.9 55.0 58.1 61.3 55.8 66.1 50.3 41.5

Line I A Active population; B Agricultural population.Line II A Active population as percentage of Total population; B Agricultural population as percentage of Active popula-tion.Source: Census.

Plate 4. The ‘mutatura’ of Vartop: a temporary summer grazing settlementat the head of the Aries valley.

be allowed but where resource management must aim atsustainability (Chauvin, 1997, p.35). There is a danger offalling between two stools with the local inhabitants feelingunduly constrained without significant progress over thanconservation. Yet if the two sets of interests are properly rep-resented and meaningful dialogue can proceed then effectivecompromises may be possible. Alba County Council is keento see inter-communal associations and in 1997 the group‘Izvoarele Ariesului’ was set up to cover the five communesof Albac, Arieseni, Garda de Sus, Horea and Scarisoara. Anatural park would not rule out the possibility of small indus-tries in each commune, such as the timber industry whichoperates at Garda de Sus, while rural tourism can supportpresent rural economy if the outlying hamlets are able tobenefit along with the commune centres (Plates 5–7).

Meanwhile, Cluj County Council has revised the com-munist strategy of 1977 and has identified a number ofpolarising communes where land has been made availablefor small industrial development. The list includes severalcommunes in the Apuseni: Aghiresu, Baisoara, Belis, Ca-latele, Ciucea- Poieni, Gilau, Iara, Marisel, Rasca and Valea

Plate 5. Tourist information by the NGO ‘Izvoarele Ariesului’ at Arieseni.

Plate 6. The hamlet of Patrahaitesti where the local woodworkers are nowpart of the rural tourist circuit and communication is maintained across themeadows by ‘telefon’.

Ierii (Figure 4). This goes along with a desire to containgrowth in the cities and reduce commuting by stabilisingpopulation within local cells, but local roads will need im-provement if new businesses are going to start up and therewill to be good conditions for travel into the rural centres

302

Figure 4. Plannning strategy for Cluj Country. Source: Vrabete and Popse, 1999, p.262.

Plate 7. The private collection of the Flutur family of Chiscau is a signifi-cant element in the local tourist effort, along with the campsite and ‘Bear’sCave’.

from the outlying villages. Such a strategy might well re-ceive some support though the latest round of EU cohesionfunding: SAPARD (Special Action for Pre-Accession Mea-sures for Agricultural & Rural Development). For example,local food processing could help to boost the efficiency ofthe farming sector. It is also important for regional planningthat there should be some coordination of policy for the re-

gion which is now split between the Central, North West andWest regions.

Tourism will be of major concern in the future. The po-tential was widely appreciated before the revolution (Cianga,1986), though it tended to be tied more to the scenery (Co-cean, 1984), enhanced by hydropower projects (Zegreanu,1983), than the cultural attractions. Certainly the physicalpotential is compelling and a larger scale of provision forwinter sports at Galbena-Vartop (north of Arieseni) couldwell be reconciled with the concept of a natural park. Butthe cultural aspects are now being more widely discussed asa basis for rural tourism (Borca, 1992; Dragulescu, 1997).Groundwork has been carried out in collaboration with theWest European programme ‘Operation Villages Roumains’and the Romanian National Association for Rural & Eco-logical Tourism (ANTREC). There is now a local touristnetwork (‘retea touristica’) in the Albac district, includ-ing some of the remoter hamlets like Patrahaitesti aboveArieseni, and the local NGO ‘Izvoarele Ariesului’ is nowproviding a better information service. The attractions aremulti- cultural in nature, given the significant stake in thearea by Hungarians, especially in the ‘Kalotaszeg’ of Clujcounty. Thus, Hungarians make pilgrimages and appreciatethe local ‘irasos’ embroidery: drawn or written because thedesigns are drawn on to cloth, traditionally with a mixtureof milk and soot before embroidering. Of particular inter-

303

est are the costumes worn at Calata (Nagykalota) - also atRimetea (Torocko), south of Buru - and carvings on thehouses at Calatele (Kiskalota) and Valeni (Magyarvalko).While recording folk music on phonographic cylinders atthe beginning of the century, Bela Bartok and Z. Kodalycollected local handicrafts: a collection from Izvoru Crisului(Korosfo) is displayed at Bartok’s home and products fromthe village are still eagerly sought by visitors who pause inthe village which is situated to the east of Huedin on themain road from Oradea to Cluj (Richardson and Burford,1995, p.189).

Hotel accommodation is provided in the main centres:Campeni (with its ‘Tulnic’ Hotel), Huedin (‘Vladeasa’),Poieni and Stei/Vascau. And around the edge of the moun-tains accommodation is available at the resorts of BoghisBai, Felix, Geoagiu and Moneasa; also Cheile Turzii, Intre-galde, Rimet and Sloboda. But there is also dispersal in smallcentres within the core: for example the inn (‘han’) at Albacand similar facilities at the stopping places (‘popasurile’)of Alesd, Brad, Fantanele (Belis), Gilau, Izvoru Crisului,Lupsa and Vata de Jos (Iacob and Ianos, 1987). There isa small hostel/pension (‘cabana’) at Arieseni with 44 beds.Similar facilities are found on the karst at Padis (Cocean,1984) and at Muntele Baisorii which is accessible from Clujor from Ocolis through Runcu Gorge. Others are at Bucea,Intregalde, Lesu-Bulz, Lupsa, Meziad, Somesul Rece, VaduCrisului and Valea Frumoasa (Cocean, 1992). Campsites asat Belis, Garda (with 12 small cabins or ‘bungalows’). But awider range of accommodation is needed, including farms,pensions and tourist hostels on the mountains. However, in-vestment seems to be flowing mainly to larger centres. ThusEU assistance is helping to build up the industry, particularlyaround Poieni which is a centre for the Draganul Valley andthe massif of Vladeasa, already noted for its rich flora andfauna. And there is also pressure at Muntele Baisorii andRemetea-Buru (Barbieri, 1998).

Planning is needed to manage development in such targetareas where too much building is going on without heedto the consequences in terms of pollution and landscapedamage. Cluj County Council has produced its ‘Documen-tatie de Atestare a Statunii Muntele Baisoarii: ZonificareaFunctionale a Teritoriului’ (1998) with phasing for buildingzones and ski routes to minimise forest damage and to ensurecompensation for any woodland that is lost. Meanwhile the‘Plan Urbanistic de Zona Protejata Somesu Rece’ regulatesnew building around the hotel and camping complex of atPoienita. There is also zoning plan which separates an eco-logical zone to the east of Valea Draganului with a touristzone polarised on the axis Rasca-Valea Ierii-Baisoara-Iaraon the western side of Cluj-Napoca. The boundary runsnorth-south immediately west of Maguri-Racatau but thetourist zone includes Rasca. The northern limit with theSomes Corridor is through Gilau and Rasca. However whathas not yet been produced is a system whereby the smallhamlets which are fundamental to the Apuseni cultural land-scape can benefit substantially from the industry to whichit supplies a key resources. Access must be improved sothat motor vehicles can reach the hamlets without difficulty

and income gained from provision of tourist services maybe further augmented by payments for conservation workin keeping with the West European conception of ‘environ-mentally sensitive areas’. The momentum being created bythe present Apuseni plan should be maintained as the bestopportunity yet to place the rural settlements of the area ona sustainable footing.

References

Abrudan I. and Turnock D., 1999: A rural development strategy for theApuseni Mountains, Romania.GeoJournal, 46: 319–336.

Aluas I. and Rotariu T., 1989: Familii rurale si mod de trai. In: ZamfirC. and Rebeden I. (eds),Stiluri de viata : dinamica lor in societateacontemporana. Editura Academiei RSR, Bucharest, pp. 116–135.

Aluas I., 1977: Sinteza reteaua de localitati urbane a judetului Cluj.Universitatea Babes-Bolyai, Cluj-Napoca, In: Flaviu B., 1977:Studiiprivind sistematizarea teritoriului si localitatilor din judetul Cluj.ICP/Universitatea Babes-Bolyai, Cluj-Napoca.

Apolzan L., 1987: Carpatii - tezaur de istorie: perenitatea asezarilorrisipite pe inaltimi. Editura Stiintifica si Enciclopedica, Bucharest.

Barbieri M., 1998: Plan de amenajare a teritoriului zona Remetea-Buru.Capitel Proiect, Alba Iulia.

Beuran N., 1973: Perespectivele urbanizarii judetului Cluj.Viitorul Social,2: 652–662.

Butura V., 1958: Adaposturile temporar in sud-estul Munti Apuseni.Anuarul Muzeului Etnografic al Transilvaniei, 2: 95–134.

Butura V., 1964: Contributii la studiul instalatiilor tehnice taranesti dinMuntii Apuseni (mori prese de ulei si steze).Revista de Etnografie siFolclor, 9(6): 597–613.

Bleahu M.D. and Bordea S., 1982:Muntii Apuseni. Editura Sport-Turism,Bucharest.

Borca A., 1992: Arhitectura traditionale pe Valea Ariesului.Revista Monu-mentelor Istorice, 61(1): 61–76.

Chauvin P., 1997: La protection de la nature au service du developpmentlocal: l’exemple de la haute vallee de l’Aries dans les Monts Apuseni. In-stitut Universitaire Professionalise: Amenagemenet de DeveloppementTerritorial, Universite de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour.

Cianga N., 1986: Turismul in Muntii Apuseni.Studii Universitatis Babes-Bolyai: Geographia, 31(3): 67–73.

Ciomac I.L. and Popa Necsa V., 1936: Cercetari asupra economia dinMuntii Apuseni. Universul, Bucharest.

Cocean P., 1984: Potentialul economic al carstului din Muntii Apuseni.Editura Academiei RSR, Bucharest.

Cocean P., 1987: Probleme de asezarilor din carstul Muntilor Apuseni.Buletinul SSG din RSR, 7: 111–115.

Cocean P., 1992: Modele de amenajare turistica a unor regiuni muntoase dinRomania.Studii Universitatis Babes-Bolyai: Geographia, 37: 39–48.

Cucu C. and Chira E., 1997: La situation generale de l’eneignement dans la‘Pays de Moti’ XIX et XX siecles: le developpement de l’enseignementdes sciences naturelles. In: Cristea V. (ed.),L’espace rural: approchepluridisciplinaire. Editura Risoprint, Cluj-Napoca, pp. 98–105.

Dragulescu C., 1997: Les stryges: protectrices de la nature dans lesMonts Apuseni. In: Cristea V. (ed.), 1997:L’espace rural: approchepluridisciplinaire. Editura Risoprint, Cluj-Napoca, pp. 146–160.

Florescu F., 1937: Targul de pe Muntele Gaina.Sociologie Romaneasca,2(9–10): 418–430.

Florescu F., 1938: Problema Motilor la Congresul Astrei.SociologieRomaneasca, 3(7–9): 395–397.

Florescu F., 1942: Vidra: un sat de Moti negustori si mestesugari ambu-lanti. In: Golopentia A. and Georgescu D.C. (eds),60 sate romanesti:contributii la tipologia satelor romanesti. Institut de Stiinte Sociale alRomaniei, Bucharest, pp. 86–172.

Giurcaneanu C., 1988: Populatia si asezarile din Carpatii romanesti. EdituraStiintifica si Enciclopedica, Bucharest.

Herbay A., 1946: Tirgurile din bazinul Ariesului.Revista Geografica, 3:108–133.

Iacob G. and Ianos I., 1987: Potentialul turistic al Muntilor Apuseni sivalorificarea acestuia.Terra, 19(4): 27–30.

304

Iancu G., 1992: Adunarea generala a Astrei tinuta a Abrud in Septembrie1938. In: Tara Motilor: Studii Articole si Comunicari. Editura AtlasClusium SRL Cluj, Cluj, pp. 6: 123–132.

Iordan I., 1958: Economia agrara a raionului Vidra.Probleme de Geografie,5: 339–354.

Knappe E. and Benedek J., 1995: Der Wandel des landlichen Raumes imGebiet um Cluj-Napoca.Euuropa-Regional, 3(4): 1–14.

Maier A., 1987: Reteaua cailor rutiere si transporturile auto din muntiiApuseni.Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai: Geographia, 32(3): 42–51.

Martonne de Emm., 1922: Le massif du Bihor. Lucrarile Institutului deGeografie at Universitatii din Cluj. Vol. 1, 47–114 (1922).

Matley I.M., 1971: Human geography of the Western Carpathians.ScottishGeographical Magazine, 87: 116–127.

Onisor T. and Susan A., 1966: Asezari asimilate urbanului.Studia Univer-sitatis Babes-Bolyai: Geologia-Geografia, 11(1): 115–125.

Pacurar A., 1997: Un aspect du passe de l’agriculture en Roumanie: les ter-rasses agricoles.Studia Universitatis Babes- Bolyai: Seria Geographia,42: 207–209.

Pop G.P., 1985: Padurile din Muntii Apuseni: aspecte geografico-economice.Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai: Geologia-Geographia,30: 56–66.

Pop G.P., 1992: Amenajari hidroenergetice din bazinul Crisului Repede.Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai: Geographia, 37: 61–72.

Richardson D. and Burford T., 1995:Romania: The rough guide. RoughGuides, london.

Rey R., 1979:Viitor in Carpati. Editura Scrisul Romanesc, Craiova.Rosu D., 1942: Grebla opritoare de la Campeni.Revista Padurilor, 54: 437–

449.Samochis B., 1985: Resursele funciare agricole din ecosistemul zonei

muntilor Apuseni.Viitorul Social, 18: 435–444.Savu A., 1984: Un tip de asezari din muntii Apuseni: roirile pastorale.

Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai: Geologia- Geographia, 29: 70–75.Surd V., 1992: Sistemele de asezari din Muntii Apuseni.Studia Universi-

tatis Babes-Bolyai: Geographia, 37: 92–100.

Surd V., 1993: Introducere in geografia rurala. Ed. Interferente, Cluj-Napoca.

Surd V., 1997: Les caracteres generaux des etablissements humains dans LePays de Moti In: Cristea V. (ed.),L’espace rural: approche pluridisci-plinaire. Editura Risoprint, Cluj-Napoca, pp. 91–97.

Surd V. and Cocean P., 1981: Les profils economiques des habitats desMonts Apuseni.Revue Roumaine: Geographie, 29: 59–63.

Susan A., 1967: Consideratii asupra retelei de asezari din regiunea Crisana.Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai: Geologia- Geographia, 12(2): 292–297.

Susan A., 1971: Miscarile pendulare ale fortei de munca spre orasul Oradea.Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai: Geologia- Geographia, 16(1): 69–74.

Susan I. and Susan A., 1979: Contributii geografice la studiul asezarilorrurale din judetul Alba.Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai: Geologie-Geographia, 24(1): 71–74.

Talanga C., 1991–2: Quarrying at Rosia-Poieni: Geographical implications.Analele Universitatii din Bucuresti: Geografie, 40–41: 73–79.

Vasile B. et al., 1971: Judetul Alba - Orasele noastre : Cimpeni. ComitetulJudetean Alba al PCR, Alba Iulia.

Vesa I.I., 1991:Tara Abrudului. Primarie, Abrud.Vrabete M. and Popse C., 1999: Strategical appraoch for the valuation of

potential at the county level: county of Cluj case. In: Surd V. (ed.),Ruralspace and regional development. Editura Studia, Cluj-Napoca, pp. 258–265.

Vuia R., 1975:Studii de etnografie si folclor. Minerva, Bucharest.Zegreanu D., 1983: Valorificarea turistica a zonei sistemului hidroenergetic

Somesul Mic.Terra, 15(2): 40–44.Zolog M. and Prodan I., 1937: Plasa sanitara model Gilau: raport de

activitate pe anii 1931–1936.Buletin Eugenic si Biopolitic (Cluj), 8:3–42.