New perspectives on the process of urbanization in medieval Moldavia

27

Colloquia, volume XVIII, 2011

Cities on the Plain, Cities of the Hills

New Perspectives on the Process of Urbanization

in Medieval Moldavia1

Laurenþiu RÃDVAN

This study attempts to identify the elements connecting towns in the Moldavian area to those in Central Europe, especially Poland and Hungary. Our research will follow several directions: 1. the presence of large groups of colonists (German, Hungarian, Armenian) settled by the representatives of the Hungarian king (during 1345/1347 – cca. 1364) or by the first rulers of Moldovia (after cca. 1364) in or around older local settlements; 2. the way these colonists settled, as well as the privileges they were granted; 3. the traces left by settlers in the administrative bodies of towns (�oltuz, voit, pârgar); 4. elements which favoured the adoption of ‘German law’ in Moldavian towns. The transition to this ‘law’ did not only imply the adoption of legal norms, but was a part of the elaborate process of locatio civitatis, which made provisions for the foundation of towns on new principles (where colonists settled). We believe that the rulers of Moldavia set into motion the transition of their towns to the ‘German law’, but failed to complete it. This was because of unfavourable historical conditions (especially in the fifteenth century), when Moldavia became the theatre of internal political conflict and a target for forays from abroad (Mongol, Ottoman).

KEY WORDS: Moldavia, towns, urbanization, colonist, trade.

Romanian historiography has shown relatively little interest in how towns emerged in medieval Moldavia. Aside from several historians,

only few investigated the directions which these centres followed, and even less scrutiny was given to the possible influences from the surround-ing areas or to the way urbanization can be fitted into the larger context of Moldavia arising as a principality. Those who focused on this subject include Constantin C. Giurescu, Mircea D. Matei, Nicolae Grigora� or Victor Spinei2 who have tried, by adopting different perspectives and based on the few sources available, to explain this complex historic process. When con-sidering the emergence and organization of towns east of the Carpathians,

Colloquia, Volume XVIII, 2011

28

historians have followed two major avenues of interpretation: 1. the cre-ation of towns as predominantly commercial centres based on the part played by foreign elements; 2. the emergence of towns, as set against the medieval Romanian society reaching maturity, after ‘the division of labour’, specifically, the separation of crafts and agriculture. The last perspective sees towns as manufacturers of goods, unlike the first, which considers them trade centres. In the past few decades, research into the urbanization of Moldavia has been neglected; this is why, in the following text, we will try to approach this matter in a different light. Our insights will promote a careful interpretation of sources and the identification of possible connec-tions between how towns in Moldavia evolved and the Central-European ‘urban model’, especially since this area came under influences from the western and northern parts of the continent, especially from Hungary and Poland (ever since the latter half of the fourteenth century). In addition, the medieval principality of Moldavia arose exactly as the previously men-tioned kingdoms began their political, religious, and economic expansion eastward, which left a substantial mark here, on the first towns of the country. Sources leave much to be desired. Several exceptions aside (in late fourteenth century),3 internal contemporary documents are missing, so we will use later sources or narrative ones.4 Archaeological findings do, however, complement this picture, even though they were undertaken in an organized fashion in but a few cases (for instance, in Baia, Trotu� (now-adays Târgul Trotu�) or Adjud (nowadays Adjudul Vechi), towns which later degraded into simple villages).5

*

Research into Moldavian medieval towns cannot be undertaken with-out an insight into the political, economic, and religious background

of the area. The region between the Carpathians and the Dniester was uncommon in its political status. At the turn of the thirteenth century, it had come under the influence of the Cumans, who had extended the scope of their vast empire by foraying, pillaging and collecting taxes from their various subjects. Archaeological research and the study of place or river names has brought to light the presence of Cuman populations in Southern Moldavia, in the Wallachian Plain, but also on inland river val-leys that the Turkics used to get to richer pastures.6 After 1204, the king of Hungary made a decisive move in the North-Danubian area, serving the political and economic purposes of his dominion. He extended his influ-ence beyond the mountains with the help of Teutonic Knights. Sources do not share any factual data on how the Knights’ presence affected the realms east of the Carpathians (1211–1225).7 The foundation of the bish-opric of Cumania in 1227 indicates that Hungarian kings did reap some of the benefits of Teutonic actions. The messages exchanged by Pope Gregory IX and Béla IV, future king, do not provide any clue as to the exact location of some valahi in the area, who had their own pseudoepiscopis;8 Civitas Milcoviae was somewhere in Southern Moldavia, on the Milcov river. The


29

Mongol invasion in 1241–1242 had direct consequences on the area east of the Carpathians. It is believed that at least two Mongol armies crossed Moldavia from east to west while aiming for Transylvania and Hungary.9 The region that would become the state of Moldavia was in the grasp of the Golden Horde, which set up its capital on the Volga, at Sarai. The Cuman domination was superseded by the rigours of Mongol control. As Giovanni di Plano Carpini would note, the Mongols divided their influence in two different areas: one that was under the direct rule of Mongol leaders, and one under hegemony, which covered various states and populations. The rulers of these states were forced to travel regularly to the khan’s court, to pay tribute, to offer compensations by labour and to provide military sup-port when requested to do so.10

Most likely, the Romanians outside the Carpathians, especially those to the east, fell under direct rule or the hegemony of the Mongols. Later documents capture the existence of Mongol slaves (robi t�tari) east of the Carpathians. They are probably the inheritors of Mongols who settled here when the khan’s rule extended over this land, but may also have been prisoners of war. For almost one century, the East-Carpathian area was obviously influenced by events in the Mongol world. If we were to look at neighbouring states, from the Galician Rus’ to Bulgaria and Serbia, whose princes became Mongol vassals, we would have to admit that in most Romanian-inhabited areas, the Mongols allowed local rulers free exercise of their power, provided they bowed to the khan’s superior authority, by providing military support in times of need and tribute. Geographically, the most exposed areas were those between the Prut, the Dniester, and the Danube Delta, and they came under full Mongol control. The Mongols are famous for the highly efficient political and economic system they brought to their dominions, so they thought it more ‘lucrative’ to leave the rest of the area that spanned between the Danube, the Prut, and the Carpathians to the control of local rulers, who acknowledged themselves as vassals.11 The final decades of the thirteenth century and early four-teenth are the peak of Mongol domination in South-Eastern Europe. The Hungarian kingdom was under the constant threat of a Mongol attack and was wavering in its foreign politics, since Bulgarian rulers were at the khan’s behest, while the Serbs sought his protection.12 The death of Nogai, an important Mongol general, in 1299, led to a brief period of power strug-gles; however, the Mongols bolstered their control of the area under Khan Uzbeg (1313–1342). It was only after his death that the political climate in Eastern Europe saw change, and, despite fierce Mongol opposition, the Christian kingdoms of Hungary and Poland pushed eastward.13

The birth of the principality of Moldavia is symbolically set in the year 1342. This is the year the Khan Uzbeg dies, and King Louis of Hungary rises to power. The new Hungarian king, a devout Christian, was also a steadfast proponent of the ideals of chivalry. He was poised to extend his rule beyond the Carpathians, but also to carry along the influence of the Church. After


30

ensuring the vassal status and military support from Basarab I, ruler of Wallachia, Louis prepared a series of expeditions to the east, meant to weaken and ultimately drive away the Mongols from these lands. The bulk of the information on this matter is relayed by a chronicler of Louis’ reign, John of Küküll�, who wrote his work shortly after the king passed away, after 1382.14 The chronicler states that Louis dispatched an army to Moldavia soon after commencing his reign; this army was headed by the Szekler comes, Andrew Lackfi. The outcome is unclear, and this expedi-tion is not accurately dated.15 Another source mentions the year 1345 for a Szekler and Hungarian incursion into the ‘land of the Tatars’ (possibly that of Andrew Lackfi).16 Not before long, results were manifest. In 1347, the old Cumania bishopric was reactivated, borrowing the name of Milcovia, since the old name no longer agreed with the political climate in the area. Even so, the designated bishop did not come to claim his seat, since he lacked the means to do so.17 The bishopric could not reclaim its domains, and, having no places of worship and no income left, most bishops did not even bother to come to Moldavia. Since it was designed with conversion in mind, the bishopric was subordinated directly to the Pope. This deprived it of constant support from the archbishop of Esztergom and the bishop of Transylvania.18 Even so, the area was not short of missionaries.19

The first Hungarian forays match the onset of a massive crisis that swept through the Golden Horde. The centralized system of the great khan gave cause for discontent among some local subjects, who sought more autonomy. Since it ruled over various populations, with different degrees of social and economic development, the Mongol empire lacked cohesion.20 Christian victories over the Mongols were spurred on by an unexpected contributor: the plague. In 1346, there was an outbreak in Sarai, and it extended towards Crimea and to the rest of Europe.21 The Mongols began to slacken their grip over the Western parts of their vast dominion: in 1349 and 1353, they agreed to a peace treaty with Poland, practically giving over the Galician Rus’, in exchange for a tribute paid by the Poles.22 The death of Khan Janibeg, in 1357, threw the Golden Horde into disarray, and over 20 khans rose to power and fell in the next two decades. Along with Poland and Hungary, Lithuania, not yet officially converted to Christianity, was among the states that reaped the benefits of the Mongol decline. The Grand Duke Algirdas (1345–1377) gained control over the successor states of Kievan Rus’ and had come under Mongol hegemony. However, in the struggle over Galician Rus’, Algirdas only reluctantly gave in to Poland.23 As Mongol authority slowly crumbled, a power vacuum opened up east of the Carpathians, which led to two major shifts on the political map of the area. The first one to take advantage of the Mongol crisis was King Louis I who, after 1345–1347, brought under his command the Subcarpathian realm, at least up to the Siret river.24 We cannot rule out a possible initial collaboration between Hungarian and Wallachian armies, at least for the lands south of the Trotu�.25 Southern Moldavia would shortly afterwards


31

(from 1375 on, probably), come under the control of the Wallachian rul-ers.26 Otherwise, it is hard to explain why the southern part of the land between the Dniester and the Prut was named Basarabia. Only a several decades long rule of the Basarab family, who also controlled Wallachia, could have changed the name of this region.27

The Hungarian king sought to extend and reinforce his authority up to the mouths of the Danube, an action that was part of the vast plan to bring his dominion from the Adriatic to the Black Sea.28 A new expedi-tion east of the Carpathians also included an army led by a Romanian from Maramure�, Drago�.29 His arrival assumed mythical proportions in the oldest Moldavian chronicles: “In 6867 (1359) came Drago� voivode from the Hungarian Country, from Maramure�, to hunt an auroch, and he ruled for two years.”30 Oral and written tradition would record this event under the Romanian term of desc�lecat, even though sources show this concept to branch out even further, as we will later reveal.31 The date of Drago� crossing the mountains is also vastly debated (1347, 1352 or 1359)32. Leaving all controversy aside, historians are in agreement when describing Drago� as a representative of the Hungarian king. Following his military incursion, Drago� became the ruler of a new political structure in North-Western Moldavia, which was meant to defend the kingdom from the east and was also a foothold towards the Galician Rus’.33 Drago� died and was buried in Moldavia. The king consented to let his son, Sas, take the rule. The authority of royal representatives, gained by force, did not fail to stir opposition among the local aristocracy.34 One of their revolts created the opportunity for one of the king’s opponents, Bogdan of Cuhea, former voivode of Maramure�, to cross the mountains alongside his allies. Following some fierce battles, Balc, son of Sas, was defeated and chased away, with Bogdan becoming the new Moldavian ruler and the founder of a new dynasty (cca. 1363–1364).35

*

Towns emerged in Moldavia only wh en the economic and political condi-tions were right. Despite the general insecurity in the vast lands that

spread east of the Carpathians, and up to the steppes north of the Black Sea, trade was still practiced, and it was not overlooked under Cuman rule either. The rivers that crossed the area, from the Danube and up to the Dnieper, were the commercial axes along which trading was carried out. Weapons, tools, religious items, fine cloth, pepper and other luxury items were brought from the Levant in exchange for local products, such as livestock, fish, skins, furs, and wax. The Chersonesos harbour was very much active in this regard.36 What’s more, the persistence of ceramic as technique, shape, and ornament in the entire East-Carpathian area, can only be explained by its circulation, also suggesting craftsmanship within the same bounds.37 Evidence to the involvement of the local communities in this trade is given by the discovered coins. A good many of them were Byzantine, indicating that, until the end of the twelfth century, part of the


32

above-mentioned goods went the way of the Constantinople Empire. Coins issued by the Arpadian Kings were only sparsely discovered. A unique dis-covery, however, is the Hotin treasure trove, with 850 Central-European coins issued in a vast period (latter half of the twelfth century – c. 1230). The presence of a merchant or local ruler with so many coins in Northern Moldavia shows the area to have been appealing to merchants even before the Mongol invasion.38 Travellers followed a road linking the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea, the future via tartarica or ‘the Mongol road’. Even though the short-term effects of the 1241 Mongol invasion were negative, due to material and human losses, the long-term one was a certain stability in the area, which also impacted the economics of this region and its trade. The Mongols sought to derive profit from trade, so they encouraged merchants to use the trade routes which crossed the lands of the Golden Horde.39 Along with Central-Asian Muslim merchants, Eastern Europe also had very active Italian traders in Crimea and in other harbours by the Black Sea, as well as Russian traders from Novgorod, Tver, Pskov or Moscow. Novgorod was an outpost of the German Hansa, so the Mongol world had the Russians to mediate its trade with Central Europe. In the fourteenth century, this trade brought even more under its scope the merchants in Poland, Bohemia, Moravia, and even Hungary.40 This was the climate whereby merchant traf-fic on ‘the Mongol road’ increased. This route began in Poland, from Cracow or Sandomierz, crossed Lviv and the Galician Rus’, followed the Dniester valley through Podolia, and led towards the Crimean harbours.

In the hierarchy of European roads, the ‘Mongol road’ was among those of continental significance, just like the one linking Buda to Constantinople via Belgrade. The only route linking the European inland to the East, along with the two roads, was the Danube. The road from Buda to the Black Sea, that crossed Transylvania and Wallachia, was a regional one. In Moldavia, before mid fourteenth century, there were numerous local roads, which linked the major centres that had local rulers or intense trading. As with Wallachia, these roads followed the river valleys. Between the Carpathians and the Dniester, two rivers were followed by ancient roads: the Prut and the Siret. Our claim is supported by the fact that the natural flow of the river facilitates communication between Northern and Southern Moldavia. The traveler would have had to follow one of these routes to reach the Danube from Northern Moldavia, since the geography of the area did not allow for any easy passage west to east. Constantin C. Giurescu even went so far as to suggest that the road from the Danube towards the north, probably on the Siret river, had been used by Byzantine, Arab, and Russian mer-chants. The presence of Byzantine coins in Moldavia supports this claim, but we have no true measure of the intensity of the trade practiced by these merchants.41

Moldavia’s emergence as a state led to changes in the status and the path followed by the ‘Mongol road’. Its alternate route on the middle and lower Dniester valley would gradually shift its centre of gravity on the upper


33

reaches of the Siret river.42 This road gained significance when Polish mer-chants began using it, specifically when the Polish king granted support to a town on the other end of the road, Lviv. The town existed on medi-eval maps even before its integration into Poland, indicating that it was already actively involved in regional trade.43 Casimir III rebuilt it in 1356 based on ‘German law’ and then granted the merchants in Nuremberg the right to do business in Poland, up to Lviv. Western products that German tradesmen brought could thus be exchanged for goods brought by Eastern merchants on a route alternative to that of the Mediterranean.44 The road probably became more stable and safer after 1366–1367, when Polish con-trol over the former Galician Rus’ consolidated. In 1380, King Louis I, now ruler of Poland as well (1370–1382) granted Lviv staple right, so the town began controlling the goods transported through its territory.45 The grant-ing of staple rights to Lviv confirms that the road leading to the Black Sea through Moldavia was a major road. �tefan Andreescu recently questioned the Moldavian connection, specifying that the 1380 staple right made no mention of the road crossing it, but only that leading to Tartaria. We believe that his assertion is not exclusive of any alternate route through Moldavia, as it does not exclude other possibilities as well. It was exactly this heightened trade towards the Black Sea that determined the Lvivans to demand and obtain staple rights. Several years had to pass for the new route to attract more merchants, as Andreescu himself agrees.46

We do not know which ruler is credited with the first measures that attracted foreign merchants from Lviv to the road within Moldavia. We cannot rule out La�cu, who inaugurated a Catholic bishopric in Siret, a town located on this road. The Siret customs house is mentioned under his follower, Petru I, in 1384, which indicates that a well thought-out cus-toms system already was in place.47 In 1386, another document mentions some German merchants from Lviv and Cracow that had been robbed in Moldavia.48 Another clue that merchants followed this road during Petru’s reign is provided by the large amount of money he lent to King Wladyslaw Jagiello in 1388.49 The Moldavian prince could not afford to lend 3000 silver rubles (equivalent of 600.000 asprons), probably a small part of his income, had he not cashed in on major customs duties.50 A very important treasure trove of 336 silver coins, partly issued by Bohemian kings, was buried in Siret at the end of the fourteenth century, and shows that trade here already required significant amounts of money.51 No data on possible customs exemptions granted by rulers to foreign merchants exist until the 1408 privilege, which is the first detailed reference to the roads merchants followed in Moldavia.

*

Local settlements with economic and political purposes do not feature in sources before mid fourteenth century, after King Louis I extended

his dominion east of the Carpathians. Colonization played a major part in urbanizing the area. The process of colonization was – as everywhere


34

in Central and Eastern Europe – complex and had effects on the future development of lands where it occurred. Colonists from Transylvania (Hungarian for the most, but German as well) or from Poland (German) came to Moldavia mainly for economic and political reasons.52 Local cen-tres were appealing, had promising potential for development and allowed colonists to profit from their crafts or trade. While in control of this ter-ritory, the king of Hungary sought to reinforce his authority and provide incentive for the passage of Hungarians, Saxons, and Romanians in lands west of the mountains. Romanian historiography has mostly emphasized political and religious reasons that determined the Romanians to leave, while the Saxons and the Hungarians supposedly left because their legal and religious autonomy was threatened or because they were discontent with the kings’ tax policy.53 This is partly true. Hungarian kings had their agenda continued by the first Moldavian rulers. The arrival of new colo-nists increased income, but also the growth rate of the country as a whole (a true melioratio terrae).

It seems that the first Catholic groups entered Moldavia after the bish-opric of Cumania was founded, as Pope Gregory IX 1234 letter indicates: “some, both Hungarian, and Teutonic, together with other believers of righteous faith in the kingdom of Hungary, cross towards them [beyond the mountains] to dwell there”.54 Giurescu claimed that this bishopric, except for the main residence in the stronghold of Milcovia, did have sev-eral ‘noteworthy centres’, around the town of Trotu� or in Adjud.55 This is only an assumption that this historian ventured, but he did not have any arguments for it. Had these centres existed, the Mongol invasion destroyed them, as it did in Milcovia. A papal document in 1278 claims that those of Catholic faith left the area after 1241 (its claims are a bit too far-fetched).56 Other settlers crossed the mountains after the bishopric was reactivated in 1347, when the Mongol threat was eliminated by Hungarian armies.57 In 1359, as Petru and �tefan waged war on each other (the battle of the Plonini woods), the so-called provinciales Hungarorum are mentioned.58 Victor Spinei believed them to be “officials from eastern states of the Anjou state”, while �erban Papacostea said they were probably from Maramure�.59 Since one of the main meanings of the Latin provinciales was that of “inhabitant of a province/dependent of a jurisdiction”,60 Jan Dlugosz’s chronicle prob-ably records Hungarians settled in Moldavia.

Catholics were accompanied by missionaries, since the Pope and the Hungarian authorities also sought to convert the locals to Catholicism. Ever since 1310, Hotin seems to have had a Catholic bishop in temporary residence, an information which only adds to the questions concerning this town’s status in early fourteenth century.61 In 1345, Siret (locum Cereth), together with Baia (locum Moldaviae), Cetatea Alb� (locum Albi Castri), Licostomo (locum Licosconii) and other settlements with names that do not lend themselves so easily to identification feature among the custodies of the Franciscan vicariate of Russia (Red Russia).62 Victor Spinei and others


35

believed that 1345 could not be accepted as a date, since the Russian vicar-iate was only later created. Even so, the source must not be completely dis-carded, since the foundation date for this vicariate has not yet been com-pletely clarified.63 Missionary activity heightened both in Moldavia, and in the former Galician Rus’, especially after the latter entered in 1372 under zealous Wladyslaw of Opole’s control, a representative for King Louis I of Hungary, who had taken over the province after King Casimir III died. In Siret, the Dominicans also arrived and built a monastery, where miracles would be worked later on.64 After the bishopric of Siret was created (1371), Annales minorum mention the 1378 martyrdom of two Franciscans in this town, probably during a local riot, indicating that the Romanians opposed the missionary propaganda.65 The large number of Catholics in the heart-land of Moldavia, but also the wish to continue the conversion efforts here had Pope John XXIII accept King Wladyslaw Jagiello’s request of creating a Catholic bishopric in Baia. The first bishop, John of Ryza, was officially appointed in c. 1413–1420.66 Many Saxons were to settle in Baia, Suceava, Neam�, Hârl�u and Ia�i. John, archbishop of Sultanieh, visited Moldavia prior to 1404 and noted the large numbers of Germans: “and we have many Germans living in these parts”.67 Later sources mention Catholics in the villages and towns of the counties of Bac�u, Roman and Trotu�. Compared to the northern area, Hungarians were in larger numbers than Saxons here.68 The Catholics in this part of Moldavia had the Bac�u bish-opric created for them (c. 1391–1392).69 A final wave of Hungarians, the Hussites, entered Moldavia in the fifteenth century.70

Moldavian towns were not only host to Saxons and Hungarians, but also to numerous Armenians. Nicolae Iorga and Constantin C. Giurescu claimed that the first Armenians had come to Moldavia in the former half of the fourteenth century, after crossing the Black Sea. The short-est path would have been from Trebizond to Caffa and Cetatea Alb�, where Armenian coins issued at the end of the thirteenth century were found.71 From here, it is believed the Armenians had left to Kilia, where an Armenian was recorded in 1360 and 1361,72 and then on to other towns in Moldavia. Giurescu admitted that another wave accompanied this one, from Poland.73 Armenians were to play a significant economic part in eastern Polish towns. When Lviv was granted ‘the Magdeburg law’, the Armenians already had a large community in this town, and this was why the Polish kings allowed them to preserve their structures. Other commu-nities dwelled in Lutsk, but also in Kamieniec (Podolski) and Sniatyn, on the boundary with Moldavia, where they certainly crossed further down south.74 They were granted rights in the Moldavian towns where they set-tled and built churches: Suceava, Roman, Ia�i, Boto�ani, Hotin, Siret and Vaslui. The Armenian tradition and a series of late inscriptions relay infor-mation on each of these churches. In Boto�ani, their first church sup-posedly existed in 1350, in Roman, the Armenians bought a place of wor-ship from the Saxons in 1355, and in Ia�i, an inscription in the Armenian


36

church includes the year 1395.75 Despite the unreliability of these dates, they do tell us that Armenian communities in Moldavia emerged in the lat-ter half of the fourteenth century. Their ever-growing numbers determined Petru I (1384) and Alexandru the Good (1401) to consent to the bishop of Armenians in Poland extending his authority over Moldavian Armenians as well, with a temporary residence in Suceava.76 Ruthenians also settled in towns; they came from the former Galician Rus’ and Podolia. They seem to be of lesser importance. Ruthenians had a church, a priest and their own street in Suceava. In Ia�i, late sources mention a street called Uli�a Ruseasc�.77

Moldavian chronicles recorded the arrival of these groups of foreign-ers, which they associated with the emergence of the state. Letopise�ul ��rii Moldovei, by Grigore Ureche, credits Saxons and Hungarians with the foundation of the oldest of towns:

“E�co the beekeeper, when he heard word of those in Maramure�, he did not tarry in going to the Polish Country, and brought many Russians and settled them on the Suceava river to the north, and on the Siret river to Boto�ani”; “Likewise was the târg at Baia built by Saxons that were potters, and Suceava was built by Hungarian furriers”; “[Voivode Iuga] founded towns throughout the country, in good places, with villages and domains around them”; “[�tefan the Great] built the târg in Ia�i”.78

The ideas of Ureche or of those bringing additions to his chronicle were continued by Miron Costin, who, in Poema polon�, claimed that Drago� had brought Saxon craftsmen into Moldavia, whereas towns were: “the towns, most of them, were founded by Saxons. It was them who also planted the vineyards”.79 The old chronicles, as well as many internal documents use the word desc�lecat, which means ‘founding’ or ‘organizing’.80 As with Wallachia, written texts recorded what tradition had only been transmitted orally up to then. As �erban Papacostea argued, it was not the chronicle that created tradition, but the other way around.81 Despite their lack of knowledge concerning urbanization, the people at the end of the Middle Ages were aware of the major contribution by foreigners to town develop-ment. When claiming this, they took into account the large number of colo-nists in towns and on the rights they enjoyed. The word desc�lecat used for the foundation of towns shows that the people of that age believed these settlements had not existed before the country emerged and only surfaced as a result of political action, the decision of the first princes. This perspec-tive places the term desc�lecat on the same interpretive venue as locatio, which we will discuss later on.

The significance and role of settlers in the early days of Moldavian towns were understood in a different, even fallacious manner by many Romanian historians. They believe that a Romanian majority created the towns, whereas colonists only arrived later, in small numbers.82 The main evi-dence to support this view is provided by the journals of various travellers that crossed Moldavia providing information about Catholic communities.


37

Their writings are of substantial value, but they only paint a late picture of the state of things, almost 200 years after groups of settlers began pour-ing into Moldavia. Of all the ancient Saxon, Hungarian, and Armenian communities, only a few traces had remained. A specific event drastically changed the ethnic make-up of towns in the area: the religious Reform.

Ever since the latter half of the sixteenth century, the Catholic Church dispatched missionaries to look into the state of Catholic communities in Moldavia. They complained that the few Saxons and Hungarians still dwelling there had turned Protestant. This conversion had occurred due to strong ties between the townspeople here and those in Transylvania, which had earlier on turned to Luther and Calvin.83 The first ones to formalize the divorce from the Church of Rome were the Bra�ov Saxons, who, in 1541 – 1542, decided to convert to Lutheranism. They were followed by the Saxons in the rest of Transylvania, their clergy choosing a bishop in 1553. Lutheranism was initially successful with the Hungarians as well (1554), who were ultimately won over by Gaspar Heltai’s Calvinism (the Diet in Turda, 1564). From Transylvania, the Reform crossed the mountains. Around 1540, the Catholics in Moldavia had largely turned Protestant. For reasons related to external affairs, Petru Rare� (1527–1538, 1541–1546) took a liberal stance in the matter of religion, and let Protestant ideas be circulated among his Catholic subjects. His followers, �tefan Rare� (1551–1552), Alexandru L�pu�neanu (1552–1561 and 1564–1568), and �tefan Tom�a (1563–1564), persecuted with great prejudice the ‘her-etics’, as Protestants were seen. One anonymous author mentions �tefan Rare�’s attempt at forceful conversion of the Hungarians to Orthodoxy, while Alexandru L�pu�neanu is believed to have had a similar initiative which targeted all those of Protestant faith.84 Instead, Despot (1561–1563) decided to appoint a bishop for Moldavian Protestants, who was charged with “restoring the damaged churches”.85 Aggravated persecutions, the struggles for power among various challengers to the throne, the uncer-tainty of life as a whole led to the departure of Germans and Hungarians from Moldavia into Transylvania or Poland.86 The Armenians were also affected. In 1551, they were forced to convert to Orthodoxy and many of their churches in towns were brought down.87 The Armenian chronicle in Kamieniec even mentions the killing of the Armenian voit in Suceava.88 One 1597 document records these events, also explaining why Armenians left Moldavia: “[Armenian] Dragan Danovac, a townsman of Suceava, see-ing that these were times of war, turmoil, and bloodshed in Moldavia, took all his wealth and goods and withdrew forth from Moldavia into Poland.”89 Finding themselves in a crossfire, these communities decreased in impor-tance and gradually merged into the dominant culture. Their place in towns was taken over by Romanians, but also by new groups of settlers, coming from south of the Danube. Therefore, we cannot compare the status and the number of colonists’ communities prior to 1400 and in the fifteenth century with those after 1550 and in the seventeenth century.


38

Romanian historians have yet to agree on whether the newcomers from Moldavia followed ‘German law’ in their organization. Few have supported this theory (among them, Iorga),90 but many others disclaimed or ignored this aspect, stating that we have no evidence and that the settlers’ presence was as insignificant as it was the result of chance. One of the arguments of those challenging the theory is the fact that provisions of municipal laws in force in towns have not been kept.91 The adoption of the ‘German law’ did not entail only an adoption of legal provisions. This was only a compo-nent in the complex process of locatio civitatis, which indicated the founda-tion of towns on new grounds (especially those where colonists settled).92 While we can only assume that locatio was applied at least in Câmpulung in Wallachia, we believe that we have reason to claim that this process involved several other Moldavian towns as well, with their local specif-ics. Sources limit our arguments to topography and legal structure, since these were two of the main components in the locatio civitatis.

*

All over Central Europe, the settlers were invited by the monarchs. To settle the colonists and acknowledge their new legal status, Moldavian

rulers could draw mostly on the colonization experience of their neighbours, especially the ones further north. The move to adapt to the principles of the ‘German Law’ in towns of former Galicia had begun shortly before the towns in Moldavia began emerging. For example, Kolomyia, a royal town, received the Magdeburg law under Casimir III, but the original document was lost to time. At the end of the fourteenth century, the town had an advocatus. The community in a nearby royal town, Sniatyn, was granted its new rights in the same period (in 1423, an advocatus is mentioned).93 The Moldavian princes could directly examine how the new system functioned near their country, since they held temporary dominion over several towns north of the border. The loan granted in 1388 by Petru I to the King Wladyslaw Jagiello stated that, in case it was not refunded in three years, the prince would seize the land acting as guarantee, namely the stronghold at Halych and its surrounding territory.94 Later data confirms that Petru I’s inheritor, Roman I, took over one part of the guarantee, Pokuttya more specifically.95 The strongholds and the towns of Kolomyia and Sniatyn were here, and they were already recipients of the Magdeburg law. Most likely, the so-called ‘list of Kiev’ refers to Roman I’s dominion, since it places Kolomyia together with his possessions in Baia, �e�ina or Hotin.96 �tefan I relinquished his claims over these towns (1395),97 as did Alexandru the Good, but only in the early parts of his rule.98 The Pokuttya area would still be a bone of contention between Moldavia and Poland until the sixteenth century.99

Following a model they adopted from their neighbours, the first rulers of Moldavia encouraged the settling of expert craftsmen and merchants, as they consolidated their rule. Their presence and activity not only had effects on settlement, but also on the economy of the state and the ruler’s income. The newcomers did not arrive here by accident, since it is hard


39

to believe they would have exchanged a climate of relative political and economic stability for a new, precarious land. Therefore, we may consider an organized and thorough colonization for Moldavia as well.100 Official documents make only cursory mention of how the settlers were brought here. The reason for the scarcity of data has to do with most of these com-munities being assimilated or leaving the country, especially in a sixteenth century that was fraught with turmoil. The few remaining or those replac-ing them (the Greeks) saw no reason to preserve their documents.

Colonization was both urban, and rural. Documents often refer to places ‘in the wild’, where villages were to be founded, with people from neighbouring states but also from within the country.101 Archaeological research shows that, under Mongol domination, the number of settlements decreased in Moldavia, and repopulation had only intensified after 1350. Almost all settlements discovered in the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries are located in the northern half of Moldavia, where the first settlements clustered, but by no accident. It was only at the turn of the fifteenth century and throughout that colonisation reached southward.102 Urban coloniza-tion is backed by other circumstantial evidence, indicating that the rulers encouraged foreigners to settle in the country. They received the right to organize following their own rules, bowing to the authority of the ruler. Colonists were first of all granted the power to elect a representative, who had the right to hold trial over his community, a major component in the ‘German Law’.103 This was true for Saxons, Hungarians, and for Armenians as well, each group having its first original leader. The name of these rep-resentatives is derived from German. The communities of townspeople are represented by the �oltuz, a derivative of the German Schultheiss (Lat. scultetus), a name which had a somewhat altered form in Poland, so�tys /syoltys. The fact that this name finally gained the upper hand in entire Moldavia shows that, among the first colonists, the Saxons weighed signifi-cantly. Instead, the Armenians called their leader voit, from German Vogt (Lat. advocatus), which derived from the Polish version wójt.104 This name found only secondary use in towns, so Armenians come second to Saxons among the colonists. Hungarians called the leader of their community a bíró, but this name was only used locally.105 Regardless of their ethnic-ity, settlers used the experience already gleaned in their lands of origin to introduce new institutions where they arrived. In Moldavia, a dominantly Orthodox country, they also received the right to practice religion and erect their own places of worship.106 Only the presence of newcomers can explain the vast numbers of old Catholic and Armenian churches in the towns of the country. Settlers also garnered the right to inherit lands within the towns. All combined, these rights set apart communities in Moldavia and created privileges that may be associated with the ‘German Law’. Some historians deny the existence of these documents on the grounds that none was preserved, while others accept that towns had ‘a right of their own’, which supposedly reunited local and foreign legal elements.107 It is


40

not our belief that settlers would have entered an unknown territory on the outskirts of Europe, with a prevailing Orthodox population, had they not received the documents acknowledging their rights. In Germany, Poland, or Hungary, settlers were granted certification of their status, especially after towns entered their ‘modernization’ stage, following their adherence to the ‘German law’.108 Moldavia has preserved two privileges, for Vaslui and Bârlad, which include only a part of townspeople’s rights.109

In Moldavia, Germans received the same name they had in Transylvania, Wallachia or Serbia, namely that of sa�i. The ruler of Moldavia addresses the ‘sa�i of Baia’ twice in 1453, indicating they were seen as a commu-nity.110 Their presence left tangible marks in the structure of the towns, as well as on the place and water names in the north-western part of the country: there is a Sas creek, a Sas valley, a settlement and a river by the name of Sasca, etc. 111 Hungarians are no less visible in their influence. In the salt mines near Trotu�, the salt cutters were called �ang�i, �alg�i, a derivative of the Hungarian sóvágó.112 The Hungarian name of some towns in mid Moldavia is another argument for the contribution of these settlers to urbanization. Had they been mostly inhabited by Romanians, these towns would not have had foreign names. Documents mention Baia as Bani or Bania, from the Hungarian word for mine, bánya, a word adopted as such and understood in the entire area of Romanian habitation.113 There are set-tlements called Baia in Transylvania as well (Baia Mare, Baia Sprie, Baia de Arie�) and Wallachia (Baia de Fier, Baia de Aram�).114 Most of them had settlers moving in. The name of the town of Bac�u comes from a person’s name, Bako,115 and the name of Adjud has a similar provenance, from a certain Egyed.116 The towns of Trotu� and Boto�ani are also Hungarian in origin. Suceava, whose name chroniclers attributed to the Hungarian sz�cs (= ‘furrier’), can also complete this list.117 Some settlements in the Prut-Dniester area are a special case: the name of the town of Orhei comes from Hungarian várhely (‘place of the stronghold’), as does the name of future Chi�in�u (from Kisjen� – Jen� the Small).118 The easternmost point where Hungarians settled in Moldavia is on the Dniester, in Cioburciu (from the person name of Csobor).119

*

Our research does not rule out the presence of the Romanian element in towns. On the contrary, this is documented by sources, in the

Northern-Moldavian towns. In other areas, such as Poland and Galicia, the local population was included in the process of legal and economic transformation of towns, following the Magdeburg law.120 It is also pos-sible Romanians were a part of this process. Evidence to support this is the acceptance of new elements in urban organization, with the �oltuz and the 12 pârgari in all urban settlements in Moldavia. The system was first applied to newcomers, but was later extended to all towns in the country.

The emergence of towns in Moldavia did not follow a coherent path, but varied across the specifics of its area. Colonists played a major part in


41

urbanization. There are several stages on the timeline of this process. In Subcarpathian settlements, German colonists (especially in Baia, Neam�) and Hungarian ones (in Piatra lui Cr�ciun, Bac�u, Trotu�, Adjud) began arriving from Transylvania, after 1345–1347, when the area was under the control of the king of Hungary. Northern settlements (Hotin, Siret) had mostly German settlers moving in from Poland in mid fourteenth century, approximately. As the leadership of the country consolidated, the first rul-ers of Moldavia took over colonization, encouraging the arrival of Germans and Armenians in all towns. Germans settled in Suceava, Hârl�u, Cotnari and Ia�i, where they were joined by Hungarians, who dealt with crafts and viticulture.121 Finally, other settlers arrived in Hu�i, Vaslui, Bârlad and, probably, Tecuci and Orhei in the first part of the fifteenth century. Armenians settled in almost all towns, but they concentrated in Suceava, Ia�i and Roman.

Settlers introduced a new way of organization, copied from the similar structures in Poland or Transylvania. The tradition of the desc�lecat for towns, urban terminology, institutions, topography, toponymy, as well as archaeological traces (ceramic) show how important colonization was for the beginnings and evolution of towns in the fourteenth century and in the first part of the next one. We should state here that, by supporting the role of the colonists, we do not deny or downplay the contribution and the numbers of local population and institutions. Towns would have emerged in Moldavia without colonists as well, but would have probably followed a different path. We have noted some specifics for the Lower Country, which also have to do with one part of this territory later coming under the con-trol of the Moldavian rulers. There were already several towns here, before the principality of Moldavia finished developing. Cetatea Alb� and Kilia had developed on older, Byzantine foundations, and later evolved under Mongol rule, with Genovese contributions. When coming under the rule of Moldavia, the two harbours kept their autonomy. Further south, new towns emerged as well and followed the pattern of development of towns in the Upper Country, but here, the number of colonists decreases as we move from north to south and from west to east. The area between the Prut and the Dniester, more exposed to Mongol attacks, had a lower population density. In the end, these towns received the same institutional structures as the rest of the country.

However, we must ask ourselves why the Moldavian towns shunned the path taken by their counterparts in Poland and Hungary and did not consolidate their status? We have found evidence to support their granting of rights according to the ‘German law’, and yet, they did not follow suit. We believe that the way Moldavia emerged, the policies of the rulers and the overall climate can provide an answer. The fact that urbanization over-lapped the end of Moldavia’s emergence as a state had both a positive and a negative influence on the townspeople’s rights. The first rulers were inter-ested in supporting the arrival of some colonists, skilled artisans, traders,


42

or maybe even warriors. At the same time, but indirectly, these rulers took no further their support for the new communities. This had to do with control over the state they were about to strengthen. The state was young, and the rulers obviously had their share of challengers, even though official sources rarely mentioned them. To reinforce their control, the rulers needed the institutions and the people that would serve their interests. This is how we may explain the presence of those grand local boyars, in Siret, Hârl�u, Bârlad etc. or of judges residing in towns, who would later be replaced by other officials, more specialized. There were limits to the liberties granted to the townspeople. As everywhere in Central Europe, towns continued to rely on their lord, and in this case, the lord was the prince. Wishing to have stable sources of income or even workers in their residence, the rulers con-tinued forcing the inhabitants to labour for them, as older customs had it. We are not aware of any communities that paid the rulers, as they did in Transylvania, duties in a single amount. By that same token, we will not find any large town councils, even though some historians tried to identify them without any just cause for their attempts.122 The rulers of Moldavia began the process of adopting the ‘German law’ in their towns, but fell short of completing it. All this is compounded by Moldavia’s political evolution. We believe the time between Petru’s reign and 1432 to have been one of continuous growth for towns. At that time, urbanization in Moldavia was complete, and the most important centres had already been certified. The end of the long and prosperous reign of Alexandru the Good set the stage for a violent succession struggle, which took a heavy toll on Moldavia until 1457. �tefan the Great’s rule was one of development both for Moldavia, and for the towns, as far as economy was concerned. The regional power that Moldavia’s ruler strived for, as well as the expansionist agenda of the country’s neighbours periodically had negative consequence on the towns. The Hungarian attack of 1467, the two large Ottoman invasions of 1475 and 1476, the loss of its harbours in 1484, the Polish attack of 1497 and the numerous waves of Mongol attacks dramatically affected the towns of the country, which were set on fire and devastated on numerous occasions. This is why the towns in the Romanian Principalities are among the last (one century later, compared to towns in Poland and Hungary) to emerge in the urban landscape of Europe.

�

NOTES

1 This research was funded by the project: Socio-humanities sciences in the context of globalization – development and implementation of the program of studies and postdoctoral research, contract code: POSDRU/89/1.5/S/61104, project co-financed by European Social Fund through Operational Program Human Resources Development, 2007–2013.

2 Constantin C. Giurescu, Târguri sau orase �i cet��i moldovene din secolul al X-lea pân� la mijlocul secolului al XVI-lea [Marketplaces, Towns and Strongholds in Moldavia from the


43

Tenth Century to mid Sixteenth Century] (Bucure�ti: Enciclopedic�, 1997²); Mircea D. Matei, Contribu�ii arheologice la istoria ora�ului Suceava [Archaeological Contributions to the History of Suceava] (Bucure�ti: Academiei, 1963); Mircea D. Matei, Civiliza�ie urban� medieval� româneasc�. Contribu�ii (Suceava pân� la mijlocul secolului al XVI-lea) [Medieval Romanian Urban Civilization. Contributions (Suceava until mid Sixteenth Century)] (Bucure�ti: Academiei, 1989); Mircea D. Matei, Genez� �i evolu�ie urban� în Moldova �i �ara Româneasc� pân� în secolul al XVII-lea [Emergence and Urban Evolution in Moldavia and Wallachia up to the Seventeenth Century] (Ia�i: Helios, 1997); Nicolae Grigora�, ‘Despre ora�ul moldovenesc în epoca de formare a statului feudal’ [On the Moldavian Town During the Emergence of the Feudal State], Studii �i cercet�ri �tiin�ifice, 11/1 (1960): 83–95; Victor Spinei, ‘Comer�ul �i geneza ora�elor din sud-estul Moldovei (secolele XIII–XIV)’ [The Trade and the Emergence of Towns in South-East Moldavia (Thirteenth–Fourteenth Century)], Analele Br�ilei, new series, 1/1 (1993): 171–236.

3 Published in Documenta Romaniae Historica. Series A, Moldova (13 vols., Bucure�ti: Academiei, 1975–2008), vol. 1, or in Mihai Cost�chescu, in Documentele moldovene�ti înainte de �tefan cel Mare [Moldavian Documents Before �tefan the Great] (2 vols., Ia�i: Editura Via�a Românesc�, 1932), see vol. 2.

4 Grigore Ureche, Letopise�ul ��rii Moldovei [The Chronicle of Moldavia], ed. Petre P. Panaitescu (Bucure�ti: Editura de Stat pentru Literatur� �i Art�, 1958); Miron Costin, Letopise�ul ��rii Moldovei, Cronica polon�, Poema polon� and De neamul moldovenilor [The Chronicle of Moldavia, The Polish Chronicle, The Polish Poem and On the Moldavian People], ed. Petre P. Panaitescu (Bucure�ti: Editura de Stat pentru Literatur� �i Art�, 1958).

5 See Vasile Neam�u – Eugenia Neam�u – Stela Cheptea, Ora�ul medieval Baia în secolele XIV–XVII [The Medieval Town of Baia in the Fourteenth – Seventeenth Centuries], vol. 1–2 (Ia�i: Junimea, 1980–1984); Vasile Neam�u, Istoria ora�ului medieval Baia (Civitas Moldaviensis) [The History of the Medieval Town of Baia (Civitas Moldaviensis)] (Ia�i: Universit��ii “Al. I. Cuza”, 1997); Alexandru Artimon, Civiliza�ia medieval� urban� din secolele XIV–XVII (Bac�u, Tg. Trotu�, Adjud) [Medieval Urban Civilization, Fourteenth–Sixteenth Century (Bac�u, Tg. Trotu�, Adjud)] (Ia�i: Documentis, 1998).

6 Victor Spinei, Realit��i etnice �i politice în Moldova meridional� în secolele X–XIII. Români �i turanici [Ethnic and Political Context in Southern Moldavia in the Tenth–Thirteenth Centuries] (Ia�i: Junimea, 1985), pp. 149–155.

7 �erban Papacostea, Românii în secolul al XIII-lea între cruciat� �i imperiul mongol [Between the Crusades and the Mongol Empire: Romanians in the Thirteenth Century] (Bucure�ti: Enciclopedic�, 1993), pp. 31–35.

8 Documente privitoare la istoria romnilor culese de Eudoxiu de Hurmuzaki [Documents on Romanians History as Collected by Eudoxiu de Hurmuzaki] (21 vols., Bucure�ti: 1887–1942), vol. 1/1, p. 108, doc. 83; Documenta, D, 1, p. 20, doc. 9.

9 Victor Spinei, Marile migra�ii din estul �i sud-estul Europei în secolele IX–XIII [The Great Migrations in the East and South East of Europe, Ninth–Thirteenth Century] (Ia�i: Institutul European, 1999), pp. 404–408.

10 The Story of the Mongols by Giovanni di Plano Carpini in Christopher Dawson, Mission to Asia (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980), pp. 38–43.

11 Victor Spinei, Moldova în secolele XI–XIV [Moldavia in the Eleventh–Fourteenth Century] (Chi�in�u: Universitas, 1994), p. 209; Spinei, Marile migra�ii, pp. 437–439.

12 Papacostea, Românii, pp. 122–125.

13 George Vernadsky, The Mongols and Russia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), pp. 195–208; Spinei, Moldova, pp. 208–217.


44

14 John of Küküll�’s chronicle has not been preserved. Fragments of it were inserted in Chronicon Budense, Chronicon Dubnicense or Chronica Hungarorum by Johannes of Thurocz (Pál Engel, The Realm of St Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526 (London: Tauris, 2001), p. 158; Spinei, Moldova, p. 311).

15 �erban Papacostea, Geneza statului în evul mediu românesc. Studii critice [The Emergence of the State in the Romanian Middle Ages. Critical Studies] (Bucure�ti: Corint, 1999²), pp. 72–75.

16 The chronicle of John the Franciscan, inserted as well in Chronicon Dubnicense (Spinei, Moldova, pp. 311–317; �tefan S. Gorovei, Întemeierea Moldovei. Probleme controversate [The Foundation of Moldavia. Debated Issues] (Ia�i: Universit��ii “Al. I. Cuza”, 1997), pp. 80–83).

17 Documenta, D, 1, p. 45, doc. 22; p. 63, doc. 34.

18 Spinei, Moldova, pp. 318–319; Ioan C. Filitti, Din arhivele Vaticanului [From the Archives of Vatican], vol. 1 (Bucure�ti: 1913), p. 42, doc. XXIX; Papacostea, Geneza statului, p. 132.

19 Carol Auner, ‘Episcopia Milcoviei în veacul al XIV-lea’ [The Bishopric of Milcovia in the Fourteenth Century], Revista Catolic�, 3 (1914): 68–70; Gheorghe I. Moisescu, Catolicismul în Moldova pân� la sfâr�itul veacului XIV [Catholicism in Moldavia until the End of the Fourteenth Century] (Bucure�ti: 1942), pp. 32–38, 44–50.

20 Vernadsky, The Mongols, pp. 130–137.

21 Vernadsky, The Mongols, pp. 204–205; Robert S. Gottfried, The Black Death. Natural and Human Disaster in Medieval Europe (New York: The Free Press, 1983), pp. 33–53.

22 Paul W. Knoll, The Rise of the Polish Monarchy. Piast Poland in East Central Europe, 1320–1370 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1972), pp. 140, 156–157.

23 Zigmas Kiaupa, The History of Lithuania (Vilnius: Baltos Lankos, 2002), pp. 53–58, 66–70.

24 Papacostea, Geneza statului, pp. 48–49; Gorovei, Întemeierea Moldovei, pp. 78–85. Giurescu believes that the land under Hungarian rule spread towards the Prut (Giurescu, Târguri, p. 64).

25 Papacostea, Geneza statului, p. 30.

26 Papacostea, Geneza statului, pp. 128–132; �erban Papacostea, ‘Politica extern� a lui �tefan cel Mare: op�iunea polon� (1459–1472)’ [The Foreign Policy of �tefan the Great: the Polish Option (1459–1472)], Studii �i Materiale de Istorie Medie, 25 (2007): 18–19.

27 Costin, Poema polon�, p. 223; Nicolae Iorga, Studii istorice asupra Chiliei �i Cet��ii Albe [Historical Studies on Kilia and Cetatea Alb�] (Bucure�ti: Institutul de Arte Grafice Carol Göbl, 1899), pp. 75–76; Constantin C. Giurescu, Istoria românilor [The History of the Romanians], vol. 1, ed. by Dinu C. Giurescu (Bucure�ti: All, 2000²), p. 298.

28 Engel, The Realm of St Stephen, pp. 159–167.

29 Radu Popa, �ara Maramure�ului în veacul al XIV-lea [The Land of Maramure� in the Fourteenth Century], ed. by Adrian Ioni�� (Bucure�ti: Enciclopedic�, 1997²), pp. 154, 225; Marius Diaconescu, ‘Drago� “desc�lec�torul” Moldovei, între legend� �i realitate’ [Drago�, the Founder of Moldavia, Between Legend and Reality], in Marius Diaconescu (ed.), Nobilimea româneasc� din Transilvania (Satu Mare: Muzeului S�tm�rean, 1997), pp. 80–87.

30 Cronicile slavo-române din sec. XV–XVI publicate de Ioan Bogdan [Fifteenth–Sixteenth Century Old Slavonic-Romanian Chronicles Published by Ioan Bogdan], ed. Petre P. Panaitescu (Bucure�ti: Academiei, 1959), pp. 6, 14.


45

31 Detailed interpretations of the meanings of the term desc�lecat (‘foundation’, ‘organization’, ‘colonization’, ‘conquest’) in Gorovei, Întemeierea Moldovei, pp. 45–68. See also Gheorghe I. Br�tianu, Tradi�ia istoric� despre întemeierea statelor române�ti [Historical Tradition and the Foundation of the Romanian States], ed. Valeriu Râpeanu (Bucure�ti: Eminescu, 1980), pp. 119–152.

32 Spinei, Moldova, pp. 349–358; Papacostea, Geneza statului, pp. 53–56; Gorovei, Întemeierea Moldovei, pp. 89–92; Giurescu, Istoria românilor, vol. 1, pp. 310–311; Petre P. Panaitescu, Introducere la istoria culturii române�ti. Problemele istoriografiei române [Introduction to the History of Romanian Culture. Issues of Romanian Historiography], ed. by Dan Horia Mazilu (Bucure�ti: Minerva, 2000²), pp. 301–302; Constantin Rezachevici, Cronologia critic� a domnilor din �ara Româneasc� �i Moldova. a. 1324–1881, I. Secolele XIV–XVI [A Critical Timeline of the Rulers in Wallachia and Moldavia 1324–1881, I. Fourteenth–Sixteenth Centuries] (Bucure�ti: Enciclopedic�, 2001), pp. 414–415.

33 Papacostea, Geneza statului, p. 49; Drago� Moldovanu, ‘Toponimia Moldovei în cartografia european� veche (cca. 1395–1789)’ [Moldavian Toponymy in Ancient European Cartography], in Idem, Tezaurul toponimic al României. Moldova, vol. 1/4 (Ia�i: Universit��ii “Al. I. Cuza”, 2005), pp. XXXVIII–XXXIX.

34 Documenta, D, 1, p. 75, doc. 41.


36 Spinei, Realit��i etnice, pp. 133–134.

37 Spinei, Moldova, pp. 120–121.

38 Spinei, Moldova, pp. 122–126.

39 Matei, Genez� �i evolu�ie, pp. 79–84; Virgil Ciocîltan, Mongolii �i Marea Neagr� în secolele XIII–XIV. Contribu�ia Cinghizanizilor la transformarea bazinului pontic în plac� turnant� a comer�ului euro-asiatic [Mongols and the Black Sea in the Thirteenth–Fourteenth Centuries. The Contribution of the Cinghizanids to Turning the Pontic Basin into the Mainstay of Trade Between Europe and Asia] (Bucure�ti: Enciclopedic�, 1998), pp. 22–48.

40 Vernadsky, The Mongols, pp. 342–344.

41 Giurescu, Târguri, pp. 32, 58–60.

42 Petre P. Panaitescu, ‘Drumul comercial al Poloniei la Marea Neagr� în evul mediu’ [Poland’s Trade Route to the Black Sea in the Middle Ages], in Idem, Interpret�ri române�ti, ed. by �tefan S. Gorovei – Maria-Magdalena Székely (Bucure�ti: Enciclopedic�, 1994²), p. 83; Gorovei, Întemeierea Moldovei, pp. 187, 200.

43 Michel Mollat du Jourdin et al (eds.), Sea Charts of the Early Explorers, 13th to 17th Century (Fribourg: Thames and Hudson, 1984), map 7.

44 Eleonora Nadel-Golobi�, ‘Armenians and Jews in Medieval Lvov. Their Role in Oriental Trade, 1400–1600’, Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique, 20/3–4 (1979): 354–355; Balázs Nagy, ‘Transcontinental Trade from East-Central Europe to Western Europe (14th and 15th Centuries)’, in Balázs Nagy – Marcell Seb�k (eds.), The Man of Many Devices, who Wandered Full Many Ways. Festschrift in Honor of János M. Bak (Budapest: CEU Press, 1999), pp. 349–350.

45 Akta grodzkie i ziemskie z Czasów rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z archivum tak zwanego bernardyskiego we Lwowie [Town and Land Deeds from the Times of the Polish Republic in the so-called Bernardine Archives in Lviv] (25 vols., Lviv: W Drukarni Zakladu Narod. Im. Ossoli�skich, 1868–1935), vol. 3, p. 148, doc. LXXVI; Constantin Racovi��, ‘Începuturile suzeranit��ii polone asupra Moldovei (1387–1432)’ [The Early Days of Polish Sovereignty over Moldavia (1387–1432)], Revista Istoric� Român�, 10 (1940): 307–308; Panaitescu, ‘Drumul comercial’, p. 86.


46

46 �tefan Andreescu, Din istoria M�rii Negre (genovezi, români �i t�tari în spa�iul pontic în secolele XIV–XVII) [From the History of the Black Sea (Genovese, Romanians, and Tatars in the Pontic Area Between the Fourteenth and the Seventeenth Centuries)] (Bucure�ti: Enciclopedic�, 2001), pp. 16–18; Papacostea, Geneza statului, pp. 199–200.

47 Documenta, A, 1, p. 1, doc. 1.

48 Petre P. Panaitescu, Mircea cel B�trân [Mircea the Old], ed. by Gheorghe Laz�r (Bucure�ti: Corint, 2000²), pp. 284–285.

49 Cost�chescu, Documentele moldovene�ti înainte, vol. 2, pp. 603–605, doc. 164.

50 Panaitescu, ‘Drumul comercial’, pp. 90–91.

51 Spinei, Moldova, p. 261.

52 Hugo Weczerka, ‘Die Stellung der Rumänischen Stadt des Mittelalters im Europäischen Städtewesen’, in Heinz Stoob (ed.), Die Mittelalterliche Städtebildung im Südöstlichen Europa (Köln – Wien: Böhlau, 1977), p. 235.

53 �tefan Mete�, Emigr�ri române�ti din Transilvania în secolele XIII–XX [Romanian Emigration from Transylvania in the Thirteenth–Twentieth Centuries] (Bucure�ti: �tiin�ific� �i Enciclopedic�, 1977²), pp. 71–79.


55 Giurescu, Târguri, p. 44.



58 Ioannis Dlugossi, Annales seu cronicae incliti regni Poloniae, vol. 9, ed. S. Budkowa et al (Warsaw: Pa�stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978), pp. 299–301. Details in Matei Cazacu, ‘Lucius Apronianus = Roman Ier, prince de Moldavie? À propos de l’expedition polonaise de 1359 en Moldavie et de son écho en Pologne au XVe siècle’, Buletinul Bibliotecii Române, 8 (1980–1981): 257–272.

59 Spinei, Moldova, p. 358; Papacostea, Geneza statului, p. 55.

60 Jan Frederik Niermeyer, Mediae latinitatis lexicon minus, ed. C. Van de Kieft (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), pp. 867–868.

61 Nicolae Iorga, Studii �i documente cu privire la istoria românilor [Studies and Documents on the History of the Romanians] (31 vols., Bucure�ti: 1901–1916), vol. 1–2, p. XXV; Giurescu, Târguri, p. 242.

62 Moisescu, Catolicismul în Moldova, pp. 87–88; Renate Möhlenkamp, ‘Die Enstehung und Entwicklung der mittelalterlichen moldauischen Städte bis Ende des XVI. Jahrhundert’, in I[on] Agrigoroaiei et al (eds.), Românii în istoria universal� [The Romanians în the Universal History] (Ia�i: Universitatea “Al. I. Cuza”, 1988), vol. 3/1, p. 931 and 963, note 112.

63 Spinei, Moldova, p. 286; Viorel Achim, ‘Ordinul franciscan în ��rile române în secolele XIV–XV. Aspectele teritoriale’ [The Franciscan Order in the Romanian Principalities, Fourteenth–Fifteenth Century. Territorial Matters], Revista Istoric�, 7/5–6 (1996): 405–406.

64 Documenta, A, 1, p. 1, doc. 1; Raymond-Joseph Loenertz, ‘Le Société de Frères Pérégrinants et les convents dominicains de Ruthénie et de Moldo-Valachie (2)’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 4 (1934): 33.

65 Annales minorum seu trium ordinum a S. Francisco institutorum, ed. Luca Waddingo (29 vols., Florentia: Ad Claras Aquas, 1932), vol. 9, p. 20.


47

66 Auner, ‘Episcopia de Baia’, Revista Catolic�, 4 (1915): 94–101.

67 Maria Holban – Paul Cernovodeanu (eds.), C�l�tori str�ini despre ��rile române [The Accounts of Foreign Travelers in the Romanian Principalities] (10 vols., Bucure�ti: �tiin�ific�, 1968–2000), vol. 1, p. 39.

68 Documenta, A, 2, p. 119, doc. 84; C�l�tori str�ini, vol. 4, p. 38; Marco Bandini, Codex. Vizitarea general� a tuturor bisericilor catolice de rit roman din Provincia Moldova, 1646–1648 [Codex. A Visit to all Roman Catholic Churches in the Province of Moldavia, 1646–1648], ed. Traian Diaconescu (Ia�i: Presa Bun�, 2006), pp. 114–126, 134–144, 196–202; see also Robin Baker, ‘Magyras, Mongols, Romanians and Saxons: Population Mix and Density in Moldavia, from 1230 to 1365’, Balkan Studies, 37/1 (1996): 63–76.

69 Radu Rosetti, ‘Despre unguri �i episcopiile catolice din Moldova’ [On Hungarians and Catholic Bishoprics in Moldavia], Analele Academiei Române. Memoriile Sec�iunii Istorice, 2nd series, 27 (1904–1905): 297–301; Gorovei, Întemeierea Moldovei, pp. 121–123.

70 C�l�tori str�ini, vol. 1, pp. 64–65; Mihail P. Dan, Cehi, slovaci �i români în veacurile XIII–XVI [Czechs, Slovaks, and Romanians in the Thirteenth–Sixteenth Centuries] (Sibiu: Tiparul Tipografiei “Progresul”, 1944), pp. 84–88, 99–104, 196–206; �erban Papacostea, ‘�tiri noi cu privire la istoria husitismului în Moldova în timpul lui Alexandru cel Bun’ [New Data on the History of the Hussite Movement in Moldavia under Alexandru the Good], in Idem, Evul mediu românesc. Realit��i politice �i curente spirituale [Romanian Middle Ages. Political Realities and Spiritual Trends] (Bucure�ti: Corint, 2001), pp. 279–286.

71 Nicolae Iorga, ‘Armenii �i românii: o paralel� istoric�’ [Armenians and Romanians: A Historical Parallel], in Idem, Scrieri istorice despre armeni, ed. Emanuel Actarian (Bucure�ti: Ararat, 1999), pp. 199–205; Giurescu, Târguri, p. 212.

72 Geo Pistarino (ed.), Notai Genovesi in Oltremare: atti rogati a Chilia da Antonio di Ponzò (1360–1361) (Bordighera: Istituto internazionale di studi liguri, 1971), p. 30, doc. 19; p. 57, doc. 35.

73 Giurescu, Târguri, pp. 92–93.

74 Nadel-Golobi�, ‘Armenians and Jews’, pp. 360–365.

75 Grigore M. Buiucliu, Cânt de j�lire asupra armenilor din �ara vlahilor de diaconul Minas Tokat�i [A Chant of Grief for the Armenians in Vlah Country by Deacon Minas Tokat�i] (Bucure�ti: 1895), pp. 31–44; H[agop] Dj[ololian] Siruni, ‘Bisericile armene din ��rile Române’ [The Armenian Churches in the Romanian Principalities], Ani. Anuar de cultur� armean�, 1942–1943: 491–493; Grigore Goilav, ‘Armenii ca întemeietori de ora�e în partea de r�s�rit a Europei’ [The Armenians as Founders of Towns in the Eastern Reaches of Europe], Revista pentru Istorie, Arheologie �i Filologie, 10 (1909): 245, 248; Dan B�d�r�u – Ioan Capro�u, Ia�ii vechilor zidiri pân� la 1821 [The Ia�i of Ancient Edifice Until 1821] (Ia�i: Junimea, 1974), pp. 45–48.

76 Documenta, A, 1, p. 21, doc. 14; Petre P. Panaitescu, ‘Hrisovul lui Alexandru cel Bun pentru episcopia armean� din Suceava (30 iulie 1401)’ [Alexandru the Good’s Document for the Armenian Bishopric in Suceava (July 30, 1401)], Revista Istoric� Român�, 4 (1934): 46–48.

77 Documenta, A, 2, p. 142, doc. 100; Gheorghe Bal�, Bisericile �i m�n�stirile moldovene�ti din veacurile al XVII-lea �i al XVIII-lea [Moldavian Churches and Monasteries in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries] (Bucure�ti: Funda�ia “Regele Ferdinand I”, 1933), p. 535.

78 Ureche, Letopise�ul, pp. 65, 68, 94.

79 Costin, Poema polon�, p. 233; Adolf Armbruster, Dacoromano-Saxonica. Cronicari români despre sa�i. Români în cronica s�seasc� [Dacoromano-Saxonica. Romanian Chroniclers


48

on Saxons. Romanians in the Saxon Chronicles] (Bucure�ti: �tiin�ific� �i Enciclopedic�, 1980), p. 162.

80 Gorovei, Întemeierea Moldovei, pp. 54–56; Stela Cheptea – Mircea D. Matei, ‘On the Relation Between the Political Factor and the Cities in the Middle Ages’, Historia Urbana, 14/2 (2006): 230.

81 Papacostea, Geneza statului, p. 15.

82 Giurescu, Târguri, pp. 82–85.

83 �erban Papacostea, ‘Moldova în epoca Reformei. Contribu�ie la istoria societ��ii moldovene�ti în veacul al XVI-lea’ [Moldavia in the Age of the Reform. A Contribution to the History of Moldavian Society in the Sixteenth Century], Studii. Revista de Istorie, 11/4 (1958): 61–63.

84 C�l�tori str�ini, vol. 2, pp. 99, 131–132, 140–141, 266–267; vol. 5, pp. 25, 81.

85 C�l�tori str�ini, vol. 2, pp. 140–141; vol. 5, p. 25.

86 Papacostea, ‘Moldova în epoca’, pp. 69–76; Maria Cr�ciun, Protestantism �i ortodoxie în Moldova secolului al XVI-lea [Protestantism and Orthodoxy in Sixteenth Century Moldavia] (Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitar� Clujan�, 1996), pp. 38–40.

87 Buiucliu, Cânt de j�lire, pp. 31–44; Cronicile slavo-române, pp. 90, 105; Ureche, Letopise�ul, p. 157.

88 H[agop] Dj[ololian] Siruni, ‘M�rturii armene�ti despre România extrase din Cronica armenilor din Cameni�a’ [Armenian Testimonies on Romania from the Chronicles of Armenians in Kamieniec], Analele Academiei Române. Memoriile Sec�iunii Istorice, 3rd series, 17 (1935–1936): 271–277.

89 Vasile Gh. Miron et al (eds.), Suceava. File de istorie. Documente privitoare la istoria ora�ului, 1388–1918 [Suceava. Fragments of History. Documents on the Town’s History, 1388–1918] (Bucure�ti: Direc�ia General� a Arhivelor Statului, 1989), vol. 1, p. 208, doc. 81.

90 Nicolae Iorga, Istoria românilor prin c�l�tori [The History of the Romanians as Seen by Travelers], ed. Adrian Anghelescu (Bucure�ti: Eminescu, 1981), p. 115; Nicolae Iorga, Nego�ul �i me�te�ugurile în trecutul românesc [Trade and Crafts in Romania’s Past], ed. Georgeta Penelea (Bucure�ti: �tiin�ific� �i Enciclopedic�, 1982), pp. 83–84.

91 Panaitescu, ‘Comunele medievale în Principatele Române’ [Medieval Communes in Romanian Principalities], in Idem, Interpret�ri române�ti, pp. 137–138; Giurescu, Târguri, pp. 169–170. See also Dimitrie Ciurea, ‘Noi considera�ii privind ora�ele �i târgurile din Moldova în secolele XIV–XIX’ [New Considerations on Towns and Marketplaces in Moldavia, Fourteenth–Nineteenth Centuries], Anuarul Institutului de Istorie �i Arheologie Ia�i, 7 (1970): 25; Nicolae Grigora�, Institu�ii feudale din Moldova, I. Organizarea de stat pân� la mijlocul sec. al XVIII-lea [Feudal Institutions in Moldavia. I. State Organization up to mid Eighteenth Century] (Bucure�ti: Academiei, 1971), p. 319.

92 Benedykt Zientara, ‘Socio-Economic and Spatial Transformation of Polish Towns During the Period of Location’, Acta Poloniae Historica, 34 (1976): 62–66; Paul W. Knoll, ‘The Urban Development of Medieval Poland, with Particular Reference to Kraków’, in Bariša Krekic (ed.), Urban Society of Eastern Europe (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), pp. 71–73, 78–80.

93 Olha Kozubska-Andrusiv, Urban Development and German Law in Galician Rus’ during the Thirteenth – Fifteenth Centuries, PhD Dissertation, Manuscript, Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, 2007, pp. 140–142.

94 Cost�chescu, Documentele moldovene�ti înainte, vol. 2, pp. 603–605, doc. 164.


49

95 Cost�chescu, Documentele moldovene�ti înainte, vol. 2, p. 609, doc. 166.

96 The Novgorod First Chronicle, with its Synodal version, the oldest one, probably written in 1387–1396 in Kiev, includes a list of 358 strongholds and towns in Russia and its surroundings, Moldavia included (Novgorodskaia pervaia letopisi star�ego i mlad�ego izvodov [The Novgorod First Chronicle], eds. A. N. Nasonov – M. N. Tihomirov (Moscva – Leningrad: 1950), p. 475; Alexandru Andronic, ‘Ora�e moldovene�ti în secolul al XIV-lea în lumina celor mai vechi izvoare ruse�ti’ [Moldavian Towns in the Fourteenth Century as Seen by the Oldest Russian Sources], Romanoslavica, Istorie series, 11 (1965): 210, 214.

97 Cost�chescu, Documentele moldovene�ti înainte, vol. 2, p. 609, doc. 166.

98 Alexandru the Good lays to waste Pokuttya in 1431; his son, �tefan, regulates the border with Poland in 1433 (Cost�chescu, Documentele moldovene�ti înainte, vol. 2, p. 660, doc. 183-C; Petre P. Panaitescu, ‘Leg�turile moldo-polone în secolul XV �i problema Chiliei’ [Moldavian-Polish Relations in the Fifteenth Century and the Issue of Kilia], Romanoslavica, 3 (1958): 102–103).

99 �tefan the Great occupies Pokuttya in 1502, towards the end of his reign (Ioan Bogdan, Documentele lui �tefan cel Mare [The Documents of �tefan the Great] (2 vols., Bucure�ti: Socec, 1913), vol. 2 p. 463, doc. CLXXXV).

100 Teodor Octavian Gheorghiu, ‘Urbanizarea medieval� româneasc� extracarpatic� – gest oficial major sau pur� întâmplare?’ [Romanian Medieval Urbanization outside the Carpathians – a Major Official Action or the Product of Chance?], Historia Urbana, 14/2 (2006): 233–251.

101 Documenta, A, 1, p. 91, doc. 63; p. 104, doc. 71; p. 107, doc. 73.

102 Nicolae Zaharia – Mircea Petrescu-Dîmbovi�a – Emilia Zaharia, A�ez�ri din Moldova de la paleolitic pân� în secolul al XVIII-lea [Moldavian Settlements from the Palaeolithic Until the Eighteenth Century] (Bucure�ti: Academiei, 1970), pp. 141–143, 148.

103 Kozubska-Andrusiv, Urban Development, pp. 206–207.

104 Grigora�, Institu�ii, pp. 320–321; Kozubska-Andrusiv, Urban Development, pp. 210–213.

105 Documente Hurmuzaki, vol. 15/1, p. 751, doc. 1454.

106 In the eighteenth century, it was still known in Moldavia that Catholic churches date back to “the foundation of the country” (Ioan Capro�u (ed.), Documente privitoare la istoria ora�ului Ia�i [Documents Regarding the History of the Town of Ia�i] (10 vols., Ia�i: Dosoftei, 1999–2008), vol. 5, p. 499, doc. 765).

107 Matei, Genez� �i evolu�ie, pp. 249–250; Grigora�, Institu�ii, p. 319.

108 The Polish case is discussed by Anna Adamska, ‘From Memory to Written Record in the Periphery of Medieval Latinitas: the Case of Poland in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries’, in Karl Heidecker (ed.), Charters and the Use of the Written Word in Medieval Society (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), pp. 83–100.

109 Documenta, A, 3, p. 188, doc. 96; p. 279, doc. 151.

110 Documenta, A, 2, p. 34, doc. 26; p. 57, doc. 41.

111 George Ioan Lahovari et al (eds.), Marele dic�ionar geografic al României [The Great Geographic Dictionary of Romania] (Bucure�ti: 1902), vol. 5, pp. 319–320.

112 Dic�ionarul limbii române [Dictionary of the Romanian Language] (Bucure�ti: Academiei, 1978), vol. XI/1, p. 13; Nicolae Iorga, ‘Privilegiile �ang�ilor de la Târgu Ocna’ [Privileges of the �ang�i in Târgu Ocna], Analele Academiei Române. Memoriile Sec�iunii Istorice, 2nd series, 37 (1914–1915), pp. 245–263.


50

113 Documenta, A, 1, p. 61, doc. 42; p. 80, doc. 55; p. 343, doc. 242.

114 Iorgu Iordan, Toponimia româneasc� [Romanian Toponymy] (Bucure�ti: Academiei, 1963), p. 52.

115 Giurescu, Târguri, p. 187; Documente Hurmuzaki, vol. 15/1, p. 117, doc. CCXI; Documenta, A, 1, p. 34, doc. 24; p. 195, doc. 141.

116 Documenta, C, 10, p. 48, doc. 53; p. 63, doc. 65; p. 81, doc. 80.

117 Ureche, Letopise�ul, p. 65; Nicolae Dr�ganu, Toponimie �i istorie [Toponymy and History] (Cluj: Institutul de Arte Grafice “Ardealul”, 1928), p. 69.

118 Iordan, Toponimia, p. 310.

119 C�l�tori str�ini, vol. 5, pp. 22, 284–285, 508; Bandini, Codex, p. 422.

120 Andrzek Janeczek, ‘Ethnicity, Religious Disparity and the Formation of the Multicultural Society of Red Ruthenia in the Late Middle Ages’, in Thomas Wünsch – Andrzej Janeczek (eds.), On the Frontier of Latin Europe. Integration and Segregation in Red Ruthenia, 1350–1600 (Warsaw: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, 2004), pp. 39–40; Kozubska-Andrusiv, Urban Development, p. 169.

121 C�l�tori str�ini, vol. 5, p. 329.

122 See different views at Panaitescu, Introducere la istoria culturii, p. 273 and Giurescu, Târguri, pp. 135–136.

New perspectives on the process of urbanization in medieval Moldavia

Documents

Transcript of New perspectives on the process of urbanization in medieval Moldavia