Slavery in Romania

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Part of a series on
Slavery
Shackles
Contemporary
Historical
Antiquity
Medieval Europe
Muslim world
Atlantic slave trade
Topics and practice
Naval
By country or region
Sub-Saharan Africa
North and South America
East, Southeast, and South Asia
Australia and Oceania
Europe and North Asia
North Africa and West Asia
Religion
Opposition and resistance
Related

Slavery existed on the territory of present-day

Nogai and Crimean Tatars.[1][2]

Romani slaves belonged to boyars (aristocrats), Orthodox monasteries, or the state. They were used as blacksmiths, goldsmiths and agricultural workers, but when the principalities were urbanized, they also served as servants.

The abolition of slavery was achieved at the end of a campaign by young revolutionaries influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment. Mihail Kogălniceanu, who drafted the legislation on the abolition of slavery in Moldova, remains the name associated with the abolition. In 1843, the Wallachian state freed its slaves, and in 1856, in both principalities, slaves of all classes were freed. Many formerly enslaved Romani people in Romania went to the United States and became the Romani Americans.[3]

After the abolition, there were attempts (both by the state and by private individuals) to settle the nomads and to integrate the Roma into Romanian society, but their success was limited.

Origins

Further information: Slavery in Dacia

The exact origins of slavery in the Danubian Principalities are not known. Historian Nicolae Iorga associated the Roma people's arrival with the 1241 Mongol invasion of Europe and through the Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe, taking the Roma from the Mongols as slaves and preserving their status.[4] Other historians consider that they were enslaved while captured during the battles with the Tatars.[4] The practice of enslaving prisoners may also have been taken from the Mongols.[4] The ethnic identity of the "Tatar slaves" is unknown, they could have been captured Tatars of the Golden Horde,[5] Cumans, or the slaves of Tatars and Cumans.[4]

While it is possible that some Romani people were slaves or auxiliary troops of the Mongols or Tatars, the bulk of them came from south of the

foundation of Wallachia. By then, the institution of slavery was already established in Moldavia, at the time enslaving the rumani,[6] but the arrival of the Roma made slavery a widespread practice. The Tatar slaves, smaller in numbers, were eventually merged into the Roma population.[7]

Roma historian Viorel Achim also explained that "slavery was not a phenomenon characteristic only of Wallachia and Moldavia. In the Middle Ages there were slaves in neighboring countries: the Byzantine Empire, and in the Ottoman Empire, and in the Slavic countries south of the Danube. Moreover, slavery in our country is older than the arrival of gypsies. It is known about Tatar slaves, for example, who are older than Gypsy slaves, and for a time there were two well-defined categories even from a legal point of view: Tatar slaves, Gypsy slaves. But there were also Romanians who had the status of slaves."[8][full citation needed]

Slavery was a common practice in

serfs.[9]

Christians from Eastern Europe were enslaved by the Crimean Tatar Khanate, the Ottoman Empire and the Nogai Horde.

There is some debate over whether the Romani people came to Wallachia and Moldavia as slaves or not. In the

P. P. Panaitescu, was that following the Crusades, an important east–west trade route passed through the Romanian states and the local feudal lords enslaved the Roma for economic gain for lack of other craftsmen. However, this theory is undermined by the fact that slavery was present before the trade route gained importance.[10]

A legend tells that the Roma came to the Romanian Principalities at the invitation of Moldavian ruler Alexander the Good, who granted in a 1417 charter "land and air to live, and fire and iron to work", but the earliest reference to it is found in Mihail Kogălniceanu's writings and no charter was ever found.

Historian Djuvara argues forward hypotheses concerning the origin of the Romanians, such as advancing the theory that the vast majority of the nobility in the medieval states that made up the territory of modern-day Romania was of Cuman origin and not Romanian: "Romanians were called the black cumans".[11]

The very first document attesting the presence of Roma people in Wallachia dates back to 1385, and refers to the group as aţigani (from

Jagiellon Poland.[14]

Anthropologist Sam Beck argues that the origins of Roma slavery can be most easily explained in the practice of taking prisoners of war as slaves, a Mongol practice with a long history in the region, and that, initially, free and enslaved Roma coexisted on what became Romanian territory.[15]

There are some accounts according to which some of the Roma slaves had been captured during wars. For instance, in 1445,

Vlad Dracul took by force from Bulgaria to Wallachia around 11,000–12,000 people "who looked like Egyptians", presumably Roma.[15]

Nomadic Roma family traveling in Moldavia, Auguste Raffet, 1837

Condition of the slaves

General characteristics and slave categories

The Danubian Principalities were for most of their history the only territory in Eastern and Central Europe where Roma slavery was legislated, and the place where this was most extended.[16] As a consequence of this, British sociologist Will Guy describes Romania as a "unique case", and one of the fort main "patterns of development" in what concerns the Roma groups of the region (alongside those present in countries that have in the recent past belonged to the Ottomans, Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire).[16]

Traditionally, Roma slaves were divided into three categories. The smallest was owned by the hospodars, and went by the Romanian-language name of țigani domnești ("Gypsies belonging to the lord").[11] The two other categories comprised țigani mănăstirești ("Gypsies belonging to the monasteries"), who were the property of Romanian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox monasteries, and țigani boierești ("Gypsies belonging to the boyars"), who were enslaved by landowners.[17] The status of the țigani domneşti was better than the one of the slaves held by boyars or the monasteries and many slaves given by the Prince to private owners or to monasteries ran away and joined the communities of the Prince's slaves.[18]

A Roma smith and his forge in Wallachia, Dieudonné Lancelot, 1860
Roma gold miners (Boyash, Aurari or Rudari) at work, gold panning

Each of the slave categories was divided into two groups: vătrași and lăieși; the former was a

salt mines.[13]

Another category was the Aurari or

gold miners), who were slaves of the Prince who panned for gold during the warm season in the mountain rivers of the Carpathians, while staying in the plains during the winter, carving wooden utensils. The gold miners, through their yield of gold, brought much more income to the treasury than the other types of slaves and initially they were in large numbers, but as the deposits became exhausted, their number dropped. By 1810, there were only 400 Aurari panning for gold in Wallachia.[24]

During the 14th and 15th centuries very few slaves were found in the cities. Only since the beginning of the 16th century, monasteries began opening in the cities and they brought with them the Roma slaves and soon boyars and even townfolks began to use them for various tasks.[25] The sălașe of Roma slaves were settled in the outskirts, and soon, almost all cities had such a district, with the largest being in the largest cities, including Târgoviște, Râmnic or Bucharest.[25]

Medieval society allowed a certain degree of social mobility, as attested by the career of

Ștefan Răzvan, a Wallachian Roma slave who was able to rise to the rank of boyar, was sent on official duty to the Ottoman Empire, and, after allying himself with the Poles and Cossack groups, became Moldavian Prince (April–August 1595).[26]

Status and obligations

The Roma were considered personal property of the boyar,[27] who was allowed to put them to work, selling them or exchanging them for other goods and the possessions of the slaves were also at the discretion of the master, this form of slavery distinguishing itself from the rumâni, who could only be sold together with the land. The boyar was allowed to punish his slaves physically, through beatings or imprisonment, but he or she did not have power of life and death over them, the only obligation of the master being to clothe and feed the slaves who worked at his manor.[28]

Stephen III of Moldavia
donates a number of sălașe of Roma slaves to the Rădăuţi bishopric

The social prestige of a slave master was often proportional to the number and kinds of skilled slaves in his possession, outstanding cooks and embroiderers being used to symbolically demonstrate the high status of the boyar families.[29] Good musicians, embroiderers or cooks were prized and fetched higher prices: for instance, in the first half of the 18th century, a regular slave was valued at around 20–30 lei, a cook would be 40 lei.[30]

However, Djuvara, who bases his argument on a number of contemporary sources, also notes that the slaves were exceptionally cheap by any standard: in 1832, a contract involving the

Turkish kuruş.[31] According to Djuvara's estimate, lăieși could be worth only half the sum attested by Wilkinson.[31]

In the Principalities, the slaves were governed by common law.[14] By the 17th century, the earliest written laws to mention slavery appeared. The Wallachian Pravila de la Govora (1640) and Pravila lui Matei Basarab (1652) and the Moldavian Carte Românească de Învățătură (1646), which, among other things, regulated slavery, were based on the Byzantine law on slavery and on the common law then in use. However, customary law (obiceiul pământului) was almost always used in practice.[14]

If a slave owned property, one would have to pay the same taxes as the free men. Usually, there was no tax on privately owned slaves, excepting for a short period in Moldavia: between 1711 and 1714,

Phanariote Prince Nicholas Mavrocordatos introduced the țigănit ("Gypsy tax"), a tax of two galbeni (standard gold coins) on each slave owned.[32] It was not unusual for both boyars and monasteries to register their serfs as "Gypsies" so that they would not pay the taxes that were imposed on the serfs.[18]

The domnești slaves (some of whom were itinerant artisans), would have to pay a yearly tax named dajdie.

Saint Demetrius[23] (presently coinciding with the October 26 celebrations in the Orthodox calendar). On the occasion, each individual over the age of 15 was required to pay a sum of between thirty and forty piastres.[23]

A slaveowner had the power to free his slaves for good service, either during his lifetime or in his will, but these cases were rather rare. The other way around also happened: free Roma sold themselves to monasteries or boyars in order to make a living.[33]

Legal disputes and disruption of the traditional lifestyles

A shatra (village) founded by Roma slaves, as depicted in an 1860 engraving by Dieudonné Lancelot

Initially, and down to the 15th century, Roma and Tatar slaves were all grouped into self-administrating sălaşe (

juzi or vătămani, and, in addition to sorting legal disputes, collected taxes and organised labour for the owners.[13] With time, disputes between two Roma slaves were usually dealt by the community leaders, who became known as bulibaşi.[35] Occasionally, the larger slave communities elected themselves a başbulibaşa, who was superior to the bulibaşi and charged with solving the more divisive or complicated conflicts within the respective group.[36] The system went unregulated, often leading to violent conflicts between slaves, which, in one such case attested for the 19th century, led to boyar intervention and the foot whipping of those deemed guilty of insubordination.[36]

The disputes with non-slaves and the manslaughter cases were dealt by the state judiciary system.[32] Slaves were not allowed to defend themselves or bear witness in front of a court,[37] but they were also not responsible to damage done to free men, the owner being accountable for any such damages, the compensation being sometimes the renunciation of the ownership of the slave to the other party.[32] A slave who killed another slave was sentenced to death, but they could also be given to the owner of the dead slave. A freeman killing a slave was also liable for death penalty and a boyar was not allowed to kill his own slaves, but no such sentencing is attested.[32] It is, however, believed that such killings did occur in significant numbers.[38]

The Orthodox Church (

Prince Constantine Ypsilantis to discourage his servants from harassing a young Roma girl named Domniţa.[41] The young woman was referred to as one of the domneşti slaves, although she had been freed by that moment.[42]

Like many of the

King of Poland to ask for the return of 13 sălaşe of slaves.[44]

In the 16th century, the duties of collecting wartime tithes and of retrieving runaways were performed by a category called globnici, many of whom were also slaves.[13] Beginning in the 17th century, much of the Kalderash population left the region to settle south into the Balkans, and later also moved into other regions of Europe.[45]

A small section of the native Roma population managed to evade the system (either by not having been originally enslaved as a group, or by regrouping runaway slaves).[36] They lived in isolation on the margin of society, and tended to settle in places where access was a problem. They were known to locals as netoţi (lit. "incomplete ones", a dismissive term generally used to designate people with mental disorders or who display poor judgment).[36] Around 1830, they became the target of regular manhunts, those captured being turned into ţigani domneşti.[36]

A particular problem regarded the vătraşi, whose lifestyle was heavily disrupted by forced settlement and the requirement that they perform menial labour.[46] Traditionally, this category made efforts to avoid agricultural work in service of their masters. Djuvara argues that this was because their economic patterns were at a hunter-gatherer stage.[11] Christine Reinhard, an early 19th-century intellectual and wife of French diplomat Charles-Frédéric Reinhard, recorded that, in 1806, a member of the Moldavian Sturdza family employed a group of vătraşi at his factory. The project was reputedly abandoned after Sturdza realised he was inflicting intense suffering on his employees.[11]

Roma artisans were occasionally allowed to practice their trade outside the boyar household, in exchange for their own revenue. This was the case of Lăutari, who were routinely present at fairs and in public houses as independent tarafs.[23] Slaves could own a number of bovines, but part of their other forms of revenue was collected by the master.[38] In parallel, the lăieşi are believed to have often resorted to stealing the property of peasants.[23] According to Djuvara, Roma housemaids were often spared hard work, especially in cases where the number of slaves per household ensured a fairer division of labour.[23]

Marriage regulations

Marriage between two slaves was only allowed with the approval of the two owners, usually through a financial agreement which resulted in the selling of one slave to the other owner or through an exchange.[47] When no agreement was reached, the couple was split and the children resulting from the marriage were divided between the two slaveholders.[47] Slave owners kept strict records of their lăieşi slaves, and, according to Djuvara, were particularly anxious because the parents of slave children could sell their offspring to other masters.[23]

The slaveowners separated Roma couples when selling one of the spouses. This practice was banned by Constantine Mavrocordatos in 1763 and discouraged by the Orthodox Church, which decreed in 1766 that "although they are called gypsies [i.e. slaves], the Lord created them and it is indecent to separate them like cattle".[48] Nevertheless, splitting married spouses was still common in the 19th century.[49]

Marriage between a free person and a slave was initially possible only by the free person becoming a slave,[50] although later on, it was possible for a free person to keep one's social status and that the children resulting from the marriage to be free people.[51]

During several periods in history, this kind of intercourse was explicitly forbidden:

In Moldavia, in 1774, prince

chrysobull was decreed by Alexandru Mavrocordat Firaris in 1785, which not only banned such marriages, but invalidated any such existing marriage.[52]

In Wallachia, Alexander Ypsilantis (1774–1782) banned mixed marriages in his law code, but the children resulting from such marriages were to be born free.[48] In 1804, Constantine Ypsilantis ordered the forceful divorce of one such couple, and issued an order to have priests sealing this type of unions to be punished by their superiors.[53]

Marital relations between Roma people and the majority ethnic Romanian population were rare, due to the difference in status and, as Djuvara notes, to an emerging form of racial prejudice.[42] Nevertheless, extra-marital relationships between male slave owners and female slaves, as well as the rape of Roma women by their owners, were widespread, and the illegitimate children were themselves kept as slaves on the estate.[54]

Transylvania, Bukovina and Bessarabia

A Roma family, Sibiu, Transylvania, c. 1862, photo by Theodor Glatz

The slavery of the Roma in bordering

Prince Michael I Apafi.[55]

The estates belonging to the

Bistriţa and that other boyars also bought slaves from Transylvania.[56] However, only a minority of the Transylvanian Roma were slaves, most of them being "royal serfs", under the direct authority of the King, being only required to pay certain taxes and perform some services for the state, some groups of Roma being given the permission to travel freely throughout the country.[57]

In 1775,

Galicia, arguing that the banning of slavery was a transgression against the autonomy and traditions of the province, that bondage is the appropriate state for the Roma and that it was for their own good.[59] It took a few more years until the order was fully implemented, but toward the end of the 1780s, the slaves officially joined the ranks of the landless peasantry. Many of the "new peasants" (as they were called in some documents) remained to work for the estates for which they were slaves, the liberation bringing little immediate change in their life.[59]

After the eastern half of Moldavia, known as

serfs of the state. Two villages were created in Southern Bessarabia, Cair and Faraonovca (now both in Ukraine) by settling 752 Roma families. However, things did not go as expected, the state of the villages "sank to deplorable levels" and their inhabitants refused to pay any taxes.[61] According to the 1858 census, in Bessarabia, there were 11,074 Roma slaves, of which 5,615 belonged to the state and 5,459 to the boyars. Slavery, together with serfdom, was only abolished by the emancipation laws of 1861. As a consequence, the slaves became peasants, continuing to work for their former masters or joining the nomadic Roma craftsmen and musicians.[61]

Estimates for the slave population

The Roma slaves were not included in the tax censuses and as such, there are no reliable statistics about them, the exception being the slaves owned by the state. Nevertheless, there were several 19th century estimates. According to Djuvara, the estimates for the slave population tended to gravitate around 150,000–200,000 persons, which he notes was equivalent to 10% of the two countries' population.[31] At the time of the abolition of slavery, in the two principalities there were between 200,000 and 250,000 Roma, representing 7% of the total population.[62]

Year Source Moldavia Wallachia
1819 Dionisie Fotino – 120,000[63]
1837 Mihail Kogălniceanu 200,000[64]
1838 Félix Colson 139,255[62] 119,910[62]
1844 Ferdinand Neigebaur – 180,000[62]
1849 Paul Bataillard 250,000[62]
1857 Jean Alexandre Vaillant 137,000[62] 125,000[62]
1857 Jean Henri Abdolonyme Ubicini 100,000[62] 150,000[62]
1859 census (emancipated slaves) 250,000[65]

Emergence of the abolitionist movement

The moral and social problems posed by Roma slavery were first acknowledged during the Age of Enlightenment, firstly by Western European visitors to the two countries.

The evolution of Romanian society and the abolition of

Phanariote regime was changed, soon after 1821, that Romanian society began to modernise itself and various reforms were implemented (see Regulamentul Organic). However, the slavery of the Roma was not considered a priority and it was ignored by most reformers.[66]

Nevertheless, the administration in the Danubian Principalities did try to change the status of the state Romas, by attempting the sedentarization of the nomads. Two annexes to Regulamentul Organic were drafted, "Regulation for Improving the Condition of State Gypsies" in Wallachia in April 1831, and "Regulation for the Settlement of Gypsies" in Moldavia. The regulations attempted to sedenterize the Romas and train them till the land, encouraging them to settle on private estates.[67]

By the late 1830s,

Ştefan Golescu, emancipated all his slave retinue,[68] while boyar Emanoil Bălăceanu freed his slaves and organized for them the Scăieni Phalanstery, an utopian socialist community.[69] In 1836, Wallachian Prince Alexandru II Ghica freed 4,000 domneşti slaves and had a group of landowners sign them up as paid workforce, while instigating a policy through which the state purchased privately owned slaves and set them free.[68]

The emancipation of slaves owned by the state and Romanian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox monasteries was mentioned in the programme of the 1839 confederative conspiracy of Leonte Radu in Moldavia, giving them equal rights with the Romanians. In Wallachia, a memorandum written by Mitică Filipescu proposed to put an end to slavery by allowing the slaves to buy their own freedom.[70] The 1848 generation, which studied in Western Europe, particularly in Paris, returned to their countries with progressive views and a wish to modernize them following the West as an example. Slavery had been abolished in most of the "civilized world" and, as such, the liberal Romanian intelligentsia viewed its slavery as a barbaric practice, with a feeling of shame.[71]

In 1837, Mihail Kogălniceanu published a book on the Roma people, in which he expressed the hope that it will serve the abolitionists. During the 1840s, the intellectuals began a campaign aimed at convincing the slaveholders to free their slaves. The Wallachian Cezar Bolliac published in his Foaie pentru Minte, Inimă şi Literatură an appeal to intellectuals to support the cause of the abolitionist movement.[70] From just a few voices advocating abolitionism in the 1830s, in the 1840s, it became a subject of great debate in Romanian society.[70] The political power was in the hand of the conservative boyars, who were also owners of large numbers of slaves and as such disagreed to any reforms that might affect them.[70]

Abolition by category of slaves[72]
Country State
slaves 		Church
slaves 		Private
slaves
Wallachia 1843 1847 1856
Moldavia 1844 1844 1855

Laws on abolition

Slave liberation certificate issued during the Wallachian Revolution of 1848
Allegory of the abolition of slavery during the Wallachian Revolution of 1848, drawing by Theodor Aman

The earliest law which freed a category of slaves was in March 1843 in Wallachia, which transferred the control of the state slaves owned by the prison authority to the local authorities, leading to their sedentarizing and becoming peasants. A year later, in 1844, Moldavian Prince Mihail Sturdza proposed a law on the freeing of slaves owned by the church and state.[73] In 1847, in Wallachia, a law of Prince Gheorghe Bibescu adopted by the Divan freed the slaves owned by the church and the rest of the slaves owned by the state institutions.[73]

During the

Ioasaf Znagoveanu, and Petrache Poenaru), which was intended to implement the decree. Some boyars freed their slaves without asking for compensation, while others strongly fought against the idea of abolition. Nevertheless, after the revolution was quelled by Ottoman and Imperial Russian troops, the slaves returned to their previous status.[75]

By the 1850s, after its tenets were intensely popularized, the movement gained support from almost the whole of Romanian society, the issues of contention being the exact date of Roma freedom, and whether their owners would receive any form of compensation (a measure which the abolitionists considered "immoral").[76]

In Moldavia, in December 1855, following a proposal by Prince

lingurari and vătraşi and 4 galbeni for lăieşi, the money being provided by the taxes paid by previously freed slaves.[78]

In Wallachia, only two months later, in February 1856, a similar law was adopted by the

National Assembly,[79] paying a compensation of 10 galbeni for each slave, in stages over a number of years.[80] The freed slaves had to settle to a town or village and stay there for at least two censuses and they would pay their taxes to the compensation fund.[80]

The condition of the Roma after the abolition

A Roma village in Romania after the abolition of slavery, 1884

The Romanian abolitionists debated on the future of the former slaves both before and after the laws were passed. This issue became interconnected with the "peasantry issue", an important goal of the being eliminating the corvée and turning bondsmen into small landowners.[81] The Ursari (nomadic bear handlers) were the most reticent to the idea of settling down because they saw settling down as becoming slaves again on the owner of the land where they settled.[81] The abolitionists themselves saw turning the former slaves into bondsmen as not something desirable, as they were bound to become dependent again. Nevertheless, the dispute ended after the Romanian Principalities adopted a liberal capitalist property legislation, the corvée being eliminated and the land being divided between the former boyars and the peasants.[82]

Many abolitionists supported the assimilation of the Roma in the Romanian nation, Kogălniceanu noting that there were settled Roma slaves who abandoned their customs and language and they could not be told apart from the Romanians.[83] Among the social engineering techniques proposed for assimilation were: the Roma to be scattered across Romanian villages (within the village and not on the fringes), encouraging inter-ethnical marriages, banning the usage of Romany language and compulsory education for their children.[84] After the emancipation, the state institutions initially avoided the usage of the word țigan (gypsy), when needed (such as in the case of tax privileges), the official term being emancipat.[84]

Despite the good will of many abolitionists, the social integration of the former slaves was carried out only for a part of them, many of the Roma remaining outside the social organization of the Wallachian, Moldavian and later, Romanian society. The social integration policies were generally left to be implemented by the local authorities. In some parts of the country, the nomadic Roma were settled in villages under the supervision of the local police, but across the country, Roma nomadism was not eliminated.[85]

Legacy

Support for the abolitionists was reflected in

Ştefan Răzvan was the inspiration for Răzvan şi Vidra ("Răzvan and Vidra", 1867), a play by Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu. The topic of Roma slavery was taken up again by the arts in the early 21st century, being a subject explored by Radu Jude's 2015 film Aferim!, set in early 19th-century Wallachia.[88]

The Romanian abolitionist movement was also influenced by the much larger movement against

Iaşi in 1853, under the name Coliba lui Moşu Toma sau Viaţa negrilor în sudul Statelor Unite din America (which translates back as "Uncle Toma's Cabin or the Life of Blacks in the Southern United States of America"), it was the first American novel to be published in Romanian, and it included a foreword study on slavery by Mihail Kogălniceanu.[71] Beecher Stowe's text was also the main inspiration behind Urechia's 1855 novel.[87]

The impact of slavery on Romanian society became a theme of historiographic interest in the decades after the Romanian state coup of 1989. In 2007, Prime Minister Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu approved the creation of Comisia pentru Studierea Robiei Romilor ("Commission for the Study of Roma Slavery"), which will present its findings in a report and will make recommendations for the Romanian education system and on promoting the history and culture of the Roma.[89] The commission, presided upon by Neagu Djuvara, will also recommend the creation of a museum of the Roma, a research center, a Roma slavery commemoration day and the building of a memorial dedicated to Roma slavery.[90]

See also

References

  1. ISBN 9789004470897 – via Google Books
    .
  2. ^ Beck 1989, pp. 53–61.
  3. ^ "Roma slavery in Romania - a history". 7 July 2021.
  4. ^ a b c d Achim 2004, pp. 27–28.
  5. ^ Achim (2004), pp. 27–28; Ştefănescu (1991), p. 42
  6. ^ Achim (2004), p. 29; Ştefănescu (1991), pp. 41, 42
  7. ^ Achim 2004, p. 29.
  8. ^ Historia.ro
  9. ^ Achim 2004, p. 28.
  10. ^ a b Achim 2004, pp. 29–30.
  11. ^ a b c d Istodor & Djuvara 2007, p. 267.
  12. ^ Istodor & Djuvara (2007), p. 267; Ştefănescu (1991), p. 42
  13. ^ a b c d e f Ştefănescu 1991, p. 42.
  14. ^ a b c Achim 2004, p. 36.
  15. ^ a b Beck 1989, p. 56.
  16. ^ a b Guy 2001, p. 44.
  17. ^ Istodor & Djuvara (2007), p. 267; Guy (2001), pp. 43–44
  18. ^ a b Marushiakova and Vesselin, p. 103
  19. ^ Istodor & Djuvara (2007), pp. 267–268; Guy (2001), pp. 43–44
  20. ^ Istodor & Djuvara 2007, pp. 267–268.
  21. ^ Istodor & Djuvara (2007), p. 268; Ştefănescu (1991), p. 42
  22. ^ Marushiakova and Vesselin, p. 105
  23. ^ a b c d e f g Istodor & Djuvara 2007, p. 268.
  24. ^ Marushiakova and Vesselin, p. 107
  25. ^
    ISBN 9789004180109
    .
  26. ^ Achim 2004, p. 41.
  27. ^ Achim (2004), p. 35; Istodor & Djuvara (2007), pp. 270, 272; Guy (2001), p. 44; Ştefănescu (1991), p. 42
  28. ^ Achim (2004), p. 35; Istodor & Djuvara (2007), pp. 270, 272; Ştefănescu (1991), p. 43
  29. ^ Beck (1989), p. 60; Istodor & Djuvara (2007), p. 268
  30. ^ Beck 1989, p. 60.
  31. ^ a b c Istodor & Djuvara 2007, p. 270.
  32. ^ a b c d e Achim 2004, p. 37.
  33. ^ Marushiakova and Vesselin, p. 97-98
  34. ^ Costăchel, Panaitescu & Cazacu (1957), p. 143. See also Ştefănescu (1991), p. 42
  35. ^ Achim (2004), p. 37; Istodor & Djuvara (2007), pp. 268–269
  36. ^ a b c d e Istodor & Djuvara 2007, p. 269.
  37. ^ Costăchel, Panaitescu & Cazacu 1957, p. 159.
  38. ^ a b Ştefănescu 1991, p. 43.
  39. ^ Achim (2004), p. 97; Istodor & Djuvara (2007), pp. 270–271
  40. ^ Achim 2004, p. 97.
  41. ^ Istodor & Djuvara 2007, pp. 270–271.
  42. ^ a b Istodor & Djuvara 2007, p. 271.
  43. ^ Ştefănescu 1991, p. 42, 43.
  44. ^ a b Costăchel, Panaitescu & Cazacu 1957, p. 162.
  45. ^ Guy 2001, pp. 43–44.
  46. ^ Istodor & Djuvara 2007, pp. 267, 272.
  47. ^ a b Achim (2004), pp. 38–39; Istodor & Djuvara (2007), p. 268
  48. ^ a b Marushiakova and Vesselin, p. 99
  49. ^ Mihail Kogălniceanu, wikisource:ro:Dezrobirea țiganilor, ștergerea privilegiilor boierești, emanciparea țăranilor
  50. ^ Achim (2004), pp. 38–39; Istodor & Djuvara (2007), p. 271
  51. ^ Achim 2004, pp. 38–39.
  52. ^ Marushiakova and Vesselin, p. 99-100
  53. ^ Istodor & Djuvara 2007, pp. 271–272.
  54. ^ Istodor & Djuvara 2007, pp. 272–275.
  55. ^ a b Achim 2004, p. 42.
  56. ^ a b Achim 2004, p. 43.
  57. ^ Achim 2004, pp. 43–44.
  58. ^ Achim 2004, pp. 127–128.
  59. ^ a b Achim 2004, p. 128.
  60. ^ Achim 2004, p. 130.
  61. ^ a b Achim 2004, p. 131.
  62. ^ a b c d e f g h i Achim 2004, pp. 94–95.
  63. ^ Achim (2004), pp. 94–95; Istodor & Djuvara (2007), p. 269
  64. ^ Achim (2004), pp. 94–95; Istodor & Djuvara (2007), p. 269–270
  65. ^ Achim 2004, p. 23.
  66. ^ Achim 2004, p. 96.
  67. ^ a b Achim 2004, p. 24.
  68. ^ a b Istodor & Djuvara 2007, p. 275.
  69. ^ Marushiakova and Vesselin, p.22
  70. ^ a b c d Achim 2004, pp. 99–100.
  71. ^ a b Achim 2004, p. 98.
  72. ^ Raluca Toma, "Aboliţionismul românesc la 1848. Influenţe, trăsături", in Revista istorică, t. XX, 2009, nr. 1–2, p. 47–61.
  73. ^ a b Achim (2004), pp. 108–109; Istodor & Djuvara (2007), p. 275
  74. ^ Achim (2004), pp. 96, 110; Istodor & Djuvara (2007), p. 275
  75. ^ Achim (2004), p. 110; Istodor & Djuvara (2007), p. 275
  76. ^ Achim 2004, pp. 101–102.
  77. ^ Istodor & Djuvara 2007, pp. 275–278.
  78. ^ Achim 2004, p. 111.
  79. ^ Achim (2004), p. 110; Istodor & Djuvara (2007), p. 278
  80. ^ a b Achim 2004, p. 110.
  81. ^ a b Achim 2004, p. 27.
  82. ^ Achim 2004, pp. 27–29.
  83. ^ Achim 2004, p. 30.
  84. ^ a b Achim 2004, pp. 31–32.
  85. ^ Achim 2004, p. 34.
  86. ^ Achim 2004, pp. 100–101.
  87. ^
    ISBN 90-272-3452-3
  88. ISSN 0362-4331
    . Retrieved 5 September 2016.
  89. ^ (in Romanian) "Tăriceanu face comisie pentru studierea robiei romilor", in Gândul, 21 February 2007
  90. ^ (in Romanian) "Comisia pentru Studierea Robiei Romilor – la prima întâlnire, în faţă abordării unui subiect controversat", press release of the National Agency for the Roma, 28 August 2007

Bibliography

Sources

  • Viorel Achim, "Romanian Abolitionists on the Future of the Emancipated Gypsies", in Transylvanian Review, Vol. XIX, Supplement no. 4 (2010) p. 22-36
  • ISBN 9783039118830 p. 89-124. [1]
  • ISBN 973-28-0523-4
    .

External links

Media related to Slavery in Romania at Wikimedia Commons

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavery_in_Romania&oldid=1216342423"