175  Download (0)

Full text









E D I T U R A U N I V E R S I T A R I A 2 0 1 0





Dan BĂLTEANU - Institute of Geography, Bucharest, Romania

Nicolae BOBOC - Institute of Ecology and Geography of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova, Chişinău, Moldova Rep.

George ERDELI - University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania B. ESWARAPPA - Bangalore University, Bangalore, India

Sergey GOVORUSKO - Pacific Geographical Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok, Russia

Meryem HAYIR - University of Sakarya, Sakarya, Turkey Ioan IANOŞ - University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania Maria RĂDOANE - Ştefan cel Mare University, Suceava, Romania Vasile SURD - University Babeş-Bolyai, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Petru URDEA - West University, Timişoara, Romania

Antonin VAISHAR - Mendel University of Agriculture and Foresty, Brno, Czech Republic

Editor in chief: Costela IORDACHE Editor in charge: Mihaela LICURICI EDITORIAL BOARD: Sorin AVRAM, Sandu BOENGIU,


Review approved by CNCSIS

We exchange similar publications with similar institutions of our country and from abroad Address:

University of Craiova, Faculty of Social Sciences,

Department of Geography, Al. I. Cuza Street, no. 13, 200585, Craiova, Romania Tel. 0251/414548, 419503, Int. 4110, Fax: 0251418515,

e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] website: http:// cis01.central.ucv.ro/geography/




Răsvan STROE, Emm. de Martonne’s Work 'La Valachie' and Its Influence upon the Romanian Geographical School………... 5


Ion MARINICĂ, Victor Viorel VATAMANU, Elena MATEESCU, Andreea Floriana MARINICĂ, Climatic and Agroclimatic Features of the Summer 2010 within Oltenia ………... 30 George Laurenţiu MERCIU, Analysis of Bioclimatic Indicators in White Dominant Area. Case Study: The Northern Sector of the Parâng

Mountains………... 47


Mihaela LICURICI, Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development in the Danube Floodplain, the Drobeta Turnu-Severin –

Bechet Sector……… 55

Oana IONUŞ, Water Quality Index - Assessment Method of the Motru River Water Quality (Oltenia, Romania) …...…... 74 Alina CONSTANTIN, Draught Impact on Agriculture. Case Study:

Teleorman County…...…... 84 GEOGRAPHY OF POPULATION

Florentina-Cristina MERCIU (IANCU), Ilinca-Valentina STOICA, The Qualitative Analysis of the Workforce from the Perspective of Professional Disease Incidence in the Petroşani Depression ……….. 94 Ilinca-Valentina STOICA, Florentina-Cristina MERCIU (IANCU), Andreea-Loreta CERCLEUX (CEPOIU), The Evolution of Population Structure in Terms of Age Groups and Gender. Case Study: the Sărăţel Drainage Basin (the Buzău Subcarpathians)………... 105



Mohamed ANIS, L’habitat insalubre au Maroc à la fin du XX-ème siècle ... 113 Cristina ŞOŞEA (MARA), Historical Landmarks Regarding the Spatial Evolution of Craiova Municipality... 125 Hajnalka GÁTAI, City Types in the Former Inca Empire: Ceremonial Centers, Capitals, Mining Towns and Ports... 136


Nada VIDIC, Possible Paths for the Development of Tourism in Sremski

Karlovci ………... 154

Mihaela OGLINDOIU, The Tourism in the Bălăciţa Piedmont ………. 163



Vol. 13 (new series) – 2010 Vol. 13 (serie nouă) – 2010



Răsvan STROE1

Abstract: The work La Valachie belongs to Emm. de Martonne’s early period, the author being the most prestigious geographer at global level in the first half of the 20th century. The book represents a synthetic treatise on a part of Romania, to which, besides the data supplied by Romanian naturalists, the most important contribution is offered by the author himself through his direct field research, choosing and valorising the itineraries that were the most promising from the scientific viewpoint. At present, this work presents geographical and historical relevance at the same time. If the chapters on population and economy can help exploring the realities corresponding to more than a century ago, the physical geography part opened the road and the research directions for the generations of Romanian geographers of the last century. The French scholar is the first geographer to realize modern scientific studies in Romania and, directly knowing the Romanian space, he will proceed to the first division on regions of the southern Romanian relief, which is mostly admitted by the later researches.

This article realises a review in a time arch with an opening of more than one hundred years, aiming to catch de Martonne’s influences on the evolution of the Romanian geography, with a special view on geomorphology, the final regional table emphasizing the present limits and denominations of the relief units and subunits, where most of the registrations of the great French geographer are confirmed.

Key-words: geographical division on regions, limits of relief units, influence of the classical French geography

Cuvinte cheie: regionare geografică, limitele unităţilor de relief, influenţa geografiei clasice franceze

The illustrious French geographer Emmanuel de Martonne (1873 – 1955), being less than 30 years and experiencing about 10 years of geographical activity, published and brought in front of that time’s scientific criticism one of the most valuable regional synthesis concerning a part of the Central Europe. Study field approached mostly by the German geography, Mitteleuropa, in its south-eastern part, became thus the research space of a French geographer who was to become the most prominent scientific authority during the first decades of the 20th century.


The author of the present paper holds in the personal library an exemplary of this valuable geography book (Fig. 1) from the beginning of the 20th century and he considered that the writing and publishing of this paper is more than a duty: a pious homage brought to the precursors, among whom de Martonne is the first and the most important foreign geographer that dealt with Romania.

Fig. 1. Emmanuel de Martonne’s La Valachie. Essai de monographie géographique The following lines of the present paper aim at recalling his work La Valachie, because few copies still exist at present and, generally, the paper is forgotten or it is quoted from...quotes. The influence of the French geographical thinking on the activity of the Romanian researchers from the first half of the past century is mostly evoked in the last part, after a table presented at the end of his work, which will be also commented in the finishing part of this paper.

Research model for the regional geography during decades, La Valachie was defended at the Paris Faculty of Letters and it was printed during the same year, 1902. The other work, which also dealt with a part of the Romanian land, The


Transylvanian Alps, was presented in 1905 at the Paris Faculty of Sciences, but it was published two years later.

In the Preface of the work, the author states: This book is the result of the work conducted during more years devoted to Wallachia and it represents a complete study, at the level allowed by the Romanian and the foreign sources.

From the map sketch that shows the itineraries of the author, it results that he used the train to travel in different parts of the southern Romania. He insisted on certain areas considered as key-ones. The author was mostly interested in the mountain massifs, the sub-mountainous regions, the Danube Valley, the Bărăgan, as well as in the capital of the Old Kingdom.

In the same Preface, the author says that he always tried to combine the analytical method (detailed study of every geographical element) that was so characteristic to the German school at the beginning of the past century, with the synthesis of the geographical space, the only one able to offer the veridical picture of a land and its unique originality.

The thanks addressed to the Romanian part are directed towards the naturalist scholars of the time: C. Alimăneşteanu, Gr. Antipa, S. Haret, St. Hepites, G. Iannescu, L. Mrazec, but he also names the political figure Take Ionescu. The readers are warned about the Romanian orthography (used during the epoch), the author preserving all Romanian names in the official writing, with the exception of the name of Bucharest (Romanian Bucureşti, but written Bucarest in French).

The first chapter deals with the general features of the relief, the resemblances and the differences as compared to Moldavia and Bulgaria (connected to the orientation of the hydrographical network, the age and the geological evolution). Based on the hypsometrical analysis, he notes that 25.2 percent of the Wallachian surface is located below 50 meters absolute altitude, 44 percent – below 100 meters and 65 percent – below 200 meters; only 3.6 percent of the surface is located above 1,000 meters, while 0.2 percent is situated above 2,000 meters of altitude.

If this represents the lowest of the three Romanian countries, then what is the origin of the name Muntenia? The answer is also given by the author in the chapter about population, underlining the fact that the space located under the eaves of the mountains was always the most densely populated one and, from there, the population went massively towards the Danube Plain, especially during the last centuries.

The climate and the biogeography represent the subjects of the second chapter, which completes the physical-geographical individuality of Wallachia.

The author fully benefited of the meteorological data from the last decades of the 19th century, but also of the papers written by the first Romanian botanists. In fact, this is the first regional correlative synthesis concerning the climate and the biogeography of the southern Romania, which ends with global assessments:

transition region between the continental and the Mediterranean climates, between the forest domain within the Central Europe, the Russian steppe and the vegetal


world of the Eastern Mediterranean. Wallachia ows its specific character to this position and to its relief.

The Wallachian divisions, namely the third chapter, represent, as the author admits, the first attempt of natural division and show the difficulties generated by the specification of the extension of different areas.

The division and the identification of the relief units and subunits within the southern Romania represent the first general geomorphologic division on regions, followed at more that 35 years later by the similar exhaustive preoccupations, materialised in a number of maps of the relief units in the whole country, which were realised by Vintilă Mihăilescu. On their basis there were conducted the divisions on regions, with the needed corrections, during the last four decades of the 20th century, following the complex geographical studies that were mostly connected to the PhD thesis. In the final part of the chapter, the author approaches the popular division into Oltenia and Muntenia and its relations with the history, the relief, the climate and the biogeography.

The fourth chapter analyses the Carpathian Arch, namely its relief that is closely connected to tectonics. The author reaches the conclusion that towards the end of the primary times, a series of dislocations already marked the directory lines of the present Carpathian relief. The staccato movements continued during the entire Tertiary and the author states that, judging by the amplitude of the seismicity noticed in the last centuries, the rising movements also occur at present.

The contribution of the erosion to the Carpathian relief modelling is described in the following chapter. The longitudinal valleys are tectonically marked, but the transverse valleys demonstrate the amplitude of the erosion, in connection with the mass raising of the Carpathians.

The subject would be retaken in The Transylvanian Alps (1907), with new observations, arguments and conclusions, nevertheless remaining in the dominant conception of the time: the catchment, generally placed at the beginning of the Quaternary, after the last Wallachian raisings and the subsidence of the Getic basin.

In 1899, de Martonne had published the article Asupra istoriei Văii Jiului in Paris and in 1902 he also approached in the same manner the issue of the Olt Valley less wild, less narrow, but just as uncommon.

For de Martonne, the Carpathians are in an advanced erosion stage, but the natural forces that contributed to the display of the present aspects did not always work to the present extent and in the present rhythm. If the action of the watercourses modelled the ensemble of the mountainous mass, the Quaternary exareaction cut the high ridges and gave them the characteristic crenellated shapes.

Although he minutely studied and mapped some mountainous areas (the Parâng and the central Făgăraş), paradoxically he did not noticed the levelling surfaces (as it descends, the ridge looks like a kind of flat and rounded saddle and, at the same time, the view opens). This is the only allusion to the Borăscu, Râu Şes and Gornoviţa surfaces, which became classical after the releasing of the study concerning The Transylvanian Alps. It is surprising the fact that around 1900, de


around 1905, by applying the Davisisan theory. Thus, the dictum of Immanuel Kant becomes true again: the idea is architectonical, it creates the science.

The 6th chapter deals with the climate of the Carpathians, on the basis of the few stationary observations and even on certain personal assessments, trying a brief classification of the types of time within the mountainous area.

The vegetal and animal life forms within the Carpathians represent the object of a well-structured chapter, on the basis of the Romanian references from the end of the 19th century.

In the 8th chapter, which bears the title The human life in the Wallachian Carpathians, the focus is laid on the life of the mountain people, on the shepherd’s shelters and practices and the author reveals the amplitude and the ethno-historical importance of the transhumance. The following is a relevant quote (p. 117): During their periodical migrations from the mountain to the plain, the Romanian shepherds, most of which are Transylvanian ones, seem to show us the symbol of the long evolution that led to the population of the entire Wallachia by Romanian people. By consulting the Romanian and the foreign references concerning the shepherd occupation at the Romanian population, de Martonne also gives us the first cartoscheme of the sheep paths in the southern Romania, which will be retaken, profoundly studied and developed by some Romanian geographers (Mara Popp, 1942).

In the following chapter, the author states again the presence of a number of mountain blocks that make up The natural divisions of the Wallachian Carpathians, for which he specifies the limits and the general tectonic-structural relations with the relief.

All issues concerning the Carpathian relief, which were presented in La Valachie, would be retaken after the field campaigns conducted during the summers of 1903 and 1906, in de Martonne’s great work The Transylvanian Alps.

Seen after the passing of more that 100 years, this work does not display decreases, only certain lacks signalled by the author himself and they are caused by the topographical maps of the time, by the totally insufficient geological research and by the geographical conceptions of the time (Gr. Posea & R. Stroe, 1987). In the concluding part of this study, de Martonne considers the Southern Carpathians as a mountain chain that is older that it had been thought for a long time, namely they represent a false Alpine chain.

Chapter 10 deals with the geography of Oltenia, namely of that part of Wallachia that was known under this name after 1800 but was noted on the foreign maps of the time (even today) as the Small Wallachia. The author considers that Oltenia is more harmoniously shaped than Muntenia, the hilly region occupying here proportionally a much wider surface.

The hillocks of Muntenia represent the subject of the next chapter. In 1899, within the article entitled On the evolution of the Jiu Valley, de Martonne formulated the theory on the basis of which the Subcarpathian depressions have tectonic origin and date back to the end of the Tertiary. This idea was entirely confirmed in 1901 through the geological study of L. Mrazec on the surroundings


of Tismana and Câmpulung. For de Martonne, in 1902, the Subcarpathian depressions are discontinuously lined, as they are missing westwards of Dâmboviţa, between Costeşti on the Bistriţa and west of the town on the Apa Târgului.

It is significant the fact that after only a few years he recognises an entire Subcarpathian area at the southern border of the Carpathians, from Baia de Aramă to the land of Vrancea. Although the morphological and geological local studies were at the beginning, his genial intuition, undoubtedly expressed in the two chapters dedicated to the Subcarpathians in The Transylvanian Alps, was to be confirmed by the generation of the Romanian geographers from the first half of the 20th century. As N. Popp (1939) finished his geomorphologic study on the Subcarpathians between the Dâmboviţa and the Prahova: The Subcarpathians mean instability, erosion, accumulation, all these three element at the paroxysm and the paroxysm in the Quaternary.

In 1902, in La Valachie, de Martonne stated: The hillocks of Muntenia represent a troubled region, sometimes even bearing mountainous aspect, difficult to be set apart from the Carpathians proper (p. 160). It is important to recall the fact that at the middle of the ’60s, the geographer Vintilă Mihăilescu differentiated a Carpathian – Precarpathian interference region between the Slănic of the Buzău and the Prahova, located on the last fingerings of the Paleogene flysch.

In any case, the Subcarpathians represent a complex and interfering land, being one of the most original Romanian regions, a result of the foredeep movements during the last folding waves, in which the hills alternate with the depressions; they get individualised through a dense population and a complementary economy.

The 12th chapter deals with the field of Muntenia (the denomination consists of contradictory terms, knowing that the mountain and the field are geographically opposed; probably this is the reason for which it was not accredited by the Romanian geographers, starting with G. Vâlsan). On the other hand, the French geographer does not refer to the entire plain of the Lower Danube, but merely at the part located eastwards of the Olt, this delimitation being taken and sustained with arguments 13 years later by G. Vâlsan.

The first divisions on regions of the Wallachian relief are interesting, in the framework in which the plain occupies almost half of the area (more than 35,000 sq. km of the total surface – 78,000 sq. km). Thus, in 1883, Gr. Cobălcescu differentiated four regions: the mountains, the hillocks, the plain area and the Danubian terrace, while Sabba Ştefănescu, in the paper Memoriu relativ la geologia judeţului Dolj (1883), incorporates to the plain the last two regions differentiated by Cobălcescu, under the general denomination of the plain region.

For de Martonne, the plain really is only a plateau, which is a little lower than that located westward of the Olt and is made up of gravels covered by loess and crossed by a number of wide valleys (tributary to the Danube). Also, he does not accept this denomination in the chapter La Roumanie from the Central Europe


’30s of the 20th century, which represented one of the works of the shining pleiad of the French geographers of the time.

In the last mentioned paper, he argues that this region is rather a couloir than a plain (probably comparing it with other European plains). In reality, it cannot be asserted that the unit is entirely a creation of the Danube, as, through downstream wedging out, at Brăila there is maintained only one fluvial bridge of the 5 – 7 terrace levels in Oltenia. In fact, not even one fifth of the Plain of Muntenia is made up of the Danube terraces and the morphological situation differs in comparison with that of the Plain of Aragon, for example, where there appears only one couloir (of the Ebro) that is strictly connected to the bilateral development of the Plio-Quaternary terrace system. We briefly mention that the issue gets more complicated if we take into account the fact that the Bulgarian geographers denote the calcareous plate located in the north of the neighbouring country with the name of the Danube Plain (Dunavska Ravnina); this unit really is a structural (erosional- structural, to be exact) plain, as compared to the plain situated north of the Danube – an alluvial plain that is morphogenetically different. Nevertheless, in a wider geographical context, there can be spoken about the Lower Danube Plain, with the two component regions. We also mention that for many of the European geographical schools, the upper limit of the plains can surpass 300 meters of altitude.

Chapter 13 is dedicated to the (lower) Danube Valley and it begins by evoking the importance of the great river in the life of the Romanian people, for whom the Danube is a kind of divinity. The author dwells on the formation of the Defile, finally conceived as a result of the eastern catchment (the Cerna and another river that discharged into the Getic Lake deviated a watercourse that discharged into the Pannonian lake). The thalweg swells that the navigation fights here represent the last runs of these prehistorical Niagaras.

Downstream of the Porţile de Fier (Iron Gates), from Severin to Calafat, the Danube left traces of a remarkable erosion, because a real water trombe would have flooded the defile (through the drainage of the Pannonian Lake). The escarpment between Rogova and Pătulele, under which the Blahniţa (stream that slowly carries its water from swamp to swamp) flows, represents the effect of this erosion and the proof of a Danube course on this route.

This movement of a powerful river that carves its riverbed into inconsistent rocks (mostly sand and marls here) would be, in de Martonne’s opinion, the true meaning of the law of Locz, according to whom a river deepens its thalweg into hard rocks because once engaged in this type of rock, the river carves in place. We can add that this is exactly the case of the Danube in the defile and, if a catchment did exist, it would have been possible only at the eastern end of the defile, at the Porţile de Fier (English the Iron Gates). Concerning the present route of the great river downstream of the Porţile de Fier, besides the explanation offered by de Martonne, apparently the tectonic component (faults, neotectonic movements, see D. Paraschiv, 1961) played an important part in the movement of the Danube towards west and in the appearance of the eastern branches from Ostrovul Corbului


and Ostrovul Mare, sectors which were abandoned by the Danube and were subsequently weakened.

Between the settlements of Bistreţu and Giurgiu, de Martonne states, the Danube strongly erodes and accumulates at the present, just as it did downstream of the Porţile de Fier during the diluvial period (the glacial epoch). The side motion of the fluvial current described meanders towards north or south, deviations from the general west-east line of the river, which were increased by braidings that marked isles and branches. The enlargement of the main branch often led to the transformation of the isle into a swamp, flooded during flash flows. All big rivers that discharge into the Danube show the tendency of forming alluvial banks, which can change the position of the river mouth. Thus, in 1879, the Jiu moved its confluence 15 kilometres eastwards, carving a new valley that it still uses to flow into the Danube. On the other hand, the small watercourses, such as the Călmăţui, get lost in the micro-depressions of the floodplain, which discretely shows old small branches of the Danube; this is the origin of the Suhaia lake.

In the next chapter, the author informs about the regime of the Lower Danube and that of its tributaries, on the basis of the few data existing at the time, and realises a number of charts.

The chapter dedicated to the ethnography of Valahia is captivating and it is admiratively and accurately written. The author shows that the allochthonous elements (Jews, Greeks, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Gipsies) are to be found only sporadically, because a compact mass of foreign language speakers does not appear anywhere, as it happens in other parts inhabited by Romanians (Transylvania, Moldavia, Dobrudja). Can it be said that the Romanian population is pure, safe of any mixing? – the French scholar asks himself. He also responds that no people ever got round the mixing occurred during the historical periods. This corresponds to the present scientifically demonstrated conception, according to which the somatic differences among people are not significant, only those related to culture and mentalities being dominant and persistent.

Nevertheless, the language remains; it descends from the Latin, which is a miracle in the Eastern Europe, and has its origins in the west of the continent, being carefully preserved and representing the vehicle of the new modern culture that develops between the Carpathians and the Danube. At the end of the chapter, there is discussed the geographical origin of the inhabitants, because of the circulation of certain theories related to the supposed no man’s land remained northwards of the Danube after the Roman withdrawal until the arrival of the Hungarians in Ardeal or to the multitude of Slavic, Greek and Turkish words in Romanian (but the author who was learning the Romanian language remarked that their frequency is reduced as compared to the Latin originated ones).

An important part in the persistence and the homogeneity of the old Dacian- Romanised population was played by the transhumant shepherding, coming from the heart of Transylvania to the Danube, the Sea and the Dniester. The Romanians, as shepherds, are mentioned only in the 12th and 13th centuries, but their presence


Fig. 2. The population grouping in Wallachia (Source: Emm. De Martonne, La Valachie) Two dense chapters are dedicated to the southern Romanian village and peasant. According to the author, in Wallachia there were two main types of rural settlements: the hamlet (Rom. cătun) (up to an average of 200 – 300 inhabitants), specific to the mountainous areas, to those characterised by the presence of forest and vineyards and the village proper (more than 300 inhabitants), mostly present in the plain areas.

There are explained certain particular types of settlements (the târlă type) within the low areas, as well as the huts (Rom. bordei) and the types of houses.

Two cartoschemes reproduced after D. G. Crăiniceanu reflect the very low presence of the huts in the west (Mehedinţi) and the high occurrence in Bărăgan, while the wooden houses had an inverse complementary repartition (the maximum being reached in Oltenia). In 1892, the huts were numerous (50,000), 15,762 of them being located only in the Dolj district. The image of the Romanian peasant from 1900 is mentioned with focus on his material life (property, food, and costumes), the moral life (family), the birth, the wedding, the funeral, the folklore and the popular literature.

The material life of the peasant in Wallachia is generally rather wretched, the author says. However, the wealth of the oral literature and the fidelity to the old costumes within the Romanian lands prove an interesting and rich spiritual life.

These last chapters, as well as those that end the monograph, prove that the author analysed all geographical aspects, among which the relief and the human geography receive ample approaches. All very good French geographers who activated until after the half of the 20th century excelled in these two specialities.


Chapter 19 presents the Wallachian economic life, this characteristic accentuating at present the historical importance of the book, along with the geographical one. We shall not insist on the sub-chapters that it comprises, but they offer the image of an economy in full expansion, with one of the most important cereal productions in Europe and with oil exploitations of global importance.

The repartition of the domestic animals (horses, cattle, sheep, pigs), on the basis of the statistical data published in 1989, is caught in four chartoschemes that contour every county, framed in one of the seven groups of animal density (from 1 to 7 heads/animal owner). The cereal culture is rendered by analysing on counties at 100 ha of the total surface how many are cultivated with cereals, then at 100 ha of cereals how many are seeded with wheat and how many with maize. The scale of the percentage starts at less than 10 percent and ends at mote than 70 percent.

The analysis underlines a dominance of the surfaces occupied by wheat in the plain and of those cultivated with maize in the hilly area, from Mehedinţi to Prahova. The Phylloxera invasion occurred between 1884 and 1898 reduced the vineyard production to a sixth. There was created a viticulture service that started to remove the damages by planting certain strong Mediterranean varieties.

Chapter 20, the industry, starts with the so-called spontaneous, household industry (furrier’s trade, wood processing etc.). The underground resources that were known and exploited at that time are briefly dealt with, the author dwelling more on the oil extraction and processing. The other industries are shortly presented in only one page – the great modern industry was, however, in statu nascendi.

The last chapter is dedicated to the Romanian towns. The French author differentiates: Carpathian towns, Danubian towns and villes – carrefour (towns located at the crossing of the circulation lines) in the plain. In 1900, Wallachia had a population of 3.8 million inhabitants and held 15 towns with more than 10,000 inhabitants, 6 towns with more than 20,000 inhabitants, 5 towns with over 40,000 inhabitants and just one town with about 300,000 inhabitants (Bucharest – 282,071 inhabitants in 1899). Taking into account only the settlements with more than 10,000 inhabitants, the urban population was estimated at 19 percent of the total.

The geographical classification realised by de Martonne is accompanied by another one concerning the evolution of the historic generations of towns, many of them starting with the Middle Ages, from the market-town or fair stage, when they served as appeal centres for the neighbouring settlements.

Bucharest astonishes the author through its rapid growth after the union of the Principalities and through its occidental style buildings from the last decades of the 19th century, while its cultural importance was known up to the middle of the Balkan Peninsula.

The conclusions of the French scholar underline again the mixing of the natural and human particular features that render the geographical personality of the southern Romania.

The illustrative material of La Valachie comprises 21 photo reproductions of


worked by the author. One hundred ninety-five papers in Romanian, French, German and Hungarian made up the References of Wallachia, along with the author’s travels and experience, to which there are to be added the consulting and the valorisation of 16 general and thematic different maps.

In Observations on the maps that were annexed at the end of the volume, de Martonne comments the sources and the aims of every thematic map realised by him. The first colour map, Wallachia and the southern Carpathian Arch, contains numerous geographical data, despite the fact that it is a general and hypsometric map, scale 1:1,200,000. Thus, if the hydrographical network and the railways were drown after the map of Romania at the same scale, by G. Iannescu, on the other hand, the schematised hypsometric curves were realised after maps at large scales 1:50,000 and 1:200,000, while, in the areas for which they had not appeared, after the German and the Austrian maps at scale 1:300,000. On this map there are represented 10 hypsometric levels from dark green (0-50 meters) to brown and dark brown (1,500 – 2,000 meters) and white (more than 2,000 meters). The settlements are mapped after the conventional signs selected by the author, according to the 1899 census. The names of the relief units, such as they were considered by de Martonne, are applied in the respective spaces.

Apparently this map laid at the basis of the plates no. 95 and 97 (Central Europe, respectively the Danubian States) of the Atlas realised by Paul Vidal de la Blache in 1902 (with whom the university geographical education starts in France;

he was de Martonne’s father in law).

The geological map was realised by the author and he considered it a sort of inset of the previous map. This map schematically shows in black and white the main characteristics of the geology of the southern Romania. For this map there were used the international geological map of Europe, of Hungary and the large scale maps for certain mountain massifs, which were realised by Romanian geologists.

The precipitation map is based of the map realised by S. Hepites – The pluviometric regime in Romania, 1900, but the author analysed all values registered between 1884 and 1898.

The botanical and forest map is inspired by two principles: the extension of the vegetal formations is more representative than that of the floristic limits and the phyto-formations are often well characterised by one or two species that are dominant. The basis of this map was represented by the beginning of the publishing of the forest map, scale 1:200,000. The author differentiates for the first time the transition steppe (the sylvo-steppe) from the steppe proper, but the proposed limits are not those accepted today (at de Martonne, the foresteppe/Rom. antestepa and the steppe covered almost the entire plain in the southern Romania).

Realised at scale 1:2,500,000, just as the other two previous maps, the population density map (Fig. 3) is really a bicolour reproduction of the colour map, scale 1:1,200,000, which was published in the same year (1902) in B.S.R.R.G., according to the data of the census that had been realised three years earlier. The mentioned colour map is attached to a less-known study 161 pages long, which


entirely occupies the quoted bulletin, under the name of Researches on the geographical distribution of the population in Wallachia (text entirely in French).

As the French geographer mentions, this map has the same topographical sources as the first mentioned colour map (from La Valachie) and it is realised at the same scale. The author also used the Official guide of the urban and rural communes, as well as the geographical dictionaries on counties (those published by the Geographical Society). The inset expresses the average number of inhabitants of the rural settlements (villages; an oversight of the author explains the use of the term hamlet/Rom. cătun).

Fig. 3. Population density in Wallachia (Source: Emm. de Martonne, La Valachie)

As de Martonne shows in the study published in B.S.R.R.G. (1902), for him, the research of the population repartition is the most important part of the human geography and, consequently, he enumerates the principles and the manner in which the population density is approached in more European countries, materialised in the profile maps. The author concludes that, from the geographical point of view, the best computation does not refer to the report of the population number to the surface of a district or of an administrative region, but to the natural units. The division of Wallachia into natural units is the fundament of our work, the geographer scholar states. There follows a new theoretical incursion in the meaning of the natural region and the author starts from the large relief units, which he subsequently divides and subdivides. The paper displays a manner of mixing the research of the relief with its population pattern and its exploitation, which is likely


The population density map shows, at least for the beginning of the 20th century, two large areas of maximum density (above 80 inhabitants/sq km, with smaller areas characterised by more than 200 inhabitants/sq km): under the eaves of the mountain (the main maximum in the Muntenia Hillocks) and along the Danube, downstream of the Jiu river mouth.

At the same time, there were two areas of minimum population density (under 10 inhabitants/sq. km.): the mountains and the steppe plain.

At less than a decade and a half, G. Vâlsan delimitates the natural units of the Romanian Plain, but, as the author himself states, the dominant criterion was the morphologic one. Still, the Romanian researcher started from the delimitations of the units offered by de Martonne and put in circulation a series of local popular denominations.

To conclude, even after more than a century from the appearance of La Valachie, the lecture of de Martonne’s work can represent a remarkable information source, both for geographers and for the large public and it still remains a model of regional geographical monograph.

Annex Statistical Table: The regions, the surface, the population

The surface The population No. The region Sq. km. %

Forest ratio %


no. %

Population density inhab./sq. km. Average inhab. no. / rural settlement 1 THE CARPATHIAN

MOUNTAINS 8,659.4 11.10 74.0 41,409 1.30 4.7 373 2 The Buzău Mountains 2,047.8 2.60 75.0 18,737 0.60 9.0 312 3 The Buzău valleys 55.3 - - 7,382 - 133.5 0 4 The Prahova valley 42.5 - - 6,871 - 161.7 0 5 Between the Prahova and

the Buzău

1,290.8 - - 4,484 - 3.6 0 6 Eastwards of the Buzău 649.2 - - 0 - 0.0 0 7 The Bucegi Mountains 950.5 1.20 70.0 6,865 0.20 7.0 980 8 The Făgăraş Mountains 2,262.8 2.90 - 10,123 0.20 4.6 310 9 The Brezoi – Titeşti Basin 140.0 - 25.0 7,646 - 54.6 297 10 The Făgăraş Mountains 2,202.8 - 81.0 2,477 - 1.2 353 11 The Lotru Mountains 1,458.6 1.80 87.0 1,771 0.40 1.1 354 12 The Parâng Mountains 590.8 0.70 61.0 0 - 0.0 0 13 The Vâlcan Mountains 747.7 0.90 87.0 2,100 0.05 2.8 700 14 The Cerna Mountains 681.2 0.80 48.0 1,813 0.04 2.6 604 15 THE HILLOK AREA 23,825.9 30.70 21.0 1.314.20 43.00 55.1 424 16 THE HILLS OF

MUNTENIA 10,616.1 13.00 28.5 672,020 24.90 63.2 390 17 The Hills of Râmnic 1,180.6 1.50 32.9 53,707 1.40 45.6 488

18 The Subcarpathian

escarpment 402.2 - - 34,629 - 86.1 587 19 The Râmnic hills, stricto

senso 778.4 - - 19,078 - 24.5 374


20 The Hills of Buzău 2,165.0 2.70 20.7 157,157 4.10 72.1 369

21 The Subcarpathian


414.4 - - 46,013 - 111.1 511 22 The Buzău valley 119.6 - - 20,720 - 173.3 23 Northwards of the


845 - - 38,318 - 39.5 24 Southwards of the


414.4 - - 46,013 - 111.1 267

25 The Prahova – Teleajen Hills

907.6 1.20 17.2 92,660 2.40 102.2 718 26 The Prahova valley 52 - - 19,303 - 371.2 0 27 The Teleajen valley 82.4 - - 21,036 - 267.3 0 28 Între Prahova şi Teleajen 430.1 - - 26,243 - 61.2 0

29 Westwards of the


178.6 - - 7,546 - 42.1 0 30 Eastwards of the


166.1 - - 19,432 - 117.5 0 31 The Ploieşti Hills 653.4 0.80 20.0 47,099 1.20 72.0 448 32 The Ialomiţa and the

Dâmboviţa Hills

1,486.3 1.90 36.5 82,393 2.10 55.4 505 33 The Ialomiţa valley 88.8 - - 20,744 - 239.0 0 34 Eastwards of the Ialomiţa 494.9 - - 25,637 - 52.0 0 35 Westwards of the Ialomiţa 904.6 - - 38,997 - 43.2 0 36 The high Hills of the


3,006.5 3.80 46.5 188,154 4.90 60.0 406

37 The Subcarpathian


141.8 - - 15,222 - 107.

2 38 The high hills, stricto senso 2,644.5 - - 120,984 - 45.7

363 39 The escarpment of the

Argeş hills

220.2 - - 52,130 - 236.9 840 40 The low hills of the


1,216.9 1.60 25.0 50,850 1.30 41.7 250 41 THE OLTENIAN


13,209.6 17.40 18.3 652,180 21.30 49.3 463 42 The Subcarpathian


1,308.9 1.70 16.0 96,061 2.50 73.4 495 43 The Subcarpathian terraces 244.0 - 8.0 21,018 - 86.2 488

44 The Subcarpathian


1,064.9 - 17.0 75,043 - 70.4 495 45 The high hills of Vâlcea 3,299.3 4.20 - 168,066 4.40 50.9 388 46 The Olt valley 608.3 - 9.0 35,058 - 57.6 394 47 The high hills, stricto

senso 2,691.0 - 29.9 131,691 - 48.9 380 48 The high Mehedinţi


741.4 0.90 22.0 14,985 0.40 20.2 227 49 The Amaradia – the

Olteţ low hills 1,808.0 2.30 18.0 97,421 2.50 53.8 388 50 The high hills of Gorj 2,186.0 2.80 25.0 96,462 2.50 44.1 417 51 The low hills of Dolj 3,866.0 4.90 8.8 179,185 4.60 46.3 775 52 THE PLAIN AREA 35,973.5 46.50 - 1,428,572 46.80 39.6 651 53 THE MUNTENIAN 31,240.1 40.30 6.5 1,185,934 39.00 38.1 622


54 The high terraces of the Buzău

3,165.6 4.00 1.5 103,190 2.70 32.5 648 55 The Râmnic valley 60.8 - - 16,482 - 268.7 0 56 The Buzău valley 126.0 - - 14,715 - 116.7 0

57 Northwards of the


413.6 - - 10,140 - 24.5 0 58 Between the Râmnic and

the Buzău

700.0 - - 11,343 - 16.2 0 59 Southwards of the


1,865.2 - - 60,680 - 26.9 0 60 The low terraces of the


5,909.8 7.60 3.6 165,000 4.30 29.8 527 61 The Buzău valley 215.4 - - 17,052 - 79.3 0 62 The Ialomiţ valley 535.6 - - 63,112 - 117.9 0 63 Between the Buzău and

the Ialomiţa 4,349.6 - - 71,742 - 16.5 0 64 Northwards of the

Buzău 809.2 - - 13,094 - 16.2 0 65 The Bărăgan 4,260.6 5.40 2.0 45,358 1.20 10.3 482.5 66 The Mostiştea valley 155.0 - - 19,904 - 128.4 0

67 Eastwards of the


3,161.0 - - 18,381 - 5.8 0 68 Westwards of the


944.0 - - 7,073 - 7.0 0 69 The high terrace of the


2,852.7 3.60 13.0 0 4.00 54.0 545 70 The low terrace of the


1,812.1 2.30 7.0 9,7608 2.50 53.8 734 71 The high terrace of the


3,184.4 4.10 11.2 234,631 6.10 73.8 557 72 The low terrace of the


4,817.0 6.20 4.5 149,749 3.90 31.0 1,218 73 The high terrace of the

Vedea 5,257.7 6.70 9.0 238,552 6.20 45.4 607 74 THE OLTENIAN

PLAIN 4,713.6 6.10 5.2 240,589 7.90 53.2 755 75 The Olt valley 931.6 1.20 10.0 97,785 2.30 105.1 664 76 The upper part 499.2 - - 51,409 - 104.5 565 77 The lower part 439.4 - - 46,376 - 105.6 824 78 The Oltenian terrace 3,782.0 - 4.0 142,804 3.90 37.8 840 79 THE DANUBE


9,155.4 11.70 8.7 268,688 8.80 29.2 820 80 The Severin basin 131.6 0.02 2.0 12,418 0.03 94.0 823 81 The Danube terrace in


3,276.8 4.30 4.0 110,280 2.90 33.6 1,040 82 The Danube valley,

upper section

1,411.8 1.80 6.6 93,807 2.40 66.4 1,750 83 The middle section 1,569.5 2.00 12.0 88,639 2.30 56.5 1,022 84 The lower section 2,725.7 3.50 8.0 65,544 1.70 24.0 969 85 The pond 1,635.7 10.00 11.0 0 - 0.0 0 86 The Danube terrace 1,090.0 1.40 5.0 65,544 1.70 58.3 969



The surface The population No. The region

Sq. km. %

Forest ratio % Inhab. no. %

Population density inhab./sq. km. Average inhab. no. / rural settlement 1 THE CARPATHIAN


8,659.4 11.10 74.0 41,409 1.3 4.7 373 2 MUNTENIA REGION 41,856.2 54.00 12.2 1,857,954 60.5 44.2 511 3 The hills of Muntenia 10,616.1 13.00 28.5 672,020 21.9 63.2 390 4 The plain of Muntenia 31,240.1 40.30 6.5 1,185,934 39.0 38.1 622 5 OLTENIA REGION 17,923.2 23.10 15.6 892,769 29.2 49.6 517 6 The hills of Oltenia 13,209.6 17.40 18.3 652,180 21.3 49.3 463 7 The plain of Oltenia 4,713.6 6.10 5.2 240,589 7.9 53.2 755 8 THE DANUBE VALLEY 9,115.4 11.70 8.7 268,688 8.8 29.2 820 9 TOTAL WALLACHIA 77,554.2 99.90 23.0 3,061,020 99.8 39.5 520


There was translated the table from the work La Valachie, from pages 366- 368. Moreover, every area, relief unit and sub-unit was given a number in a raw, in order to be able to discuss about them again and find the equivalent from the present geomorphologic divisions. The numbers that mark the areas are the result of the assiduous work of the author to measure on different types of maps and then calculate in sq km. It is the first and the most important numbering of the areas and number of inhabitants on relief units in Romania. However, there are reasons for doubt regarding the veracity of the data regarding the above-mentioned areas. If, on the whole, we can accept the rough numbers, there is still the issue of the limits of each subunits, in many cases being transitory subunits, without a clear delineation up to the last sq km. With respect to the number of inhabitants and population density, if in general the estimations could be twice or three times bigger today, there are still subunits where the number of inhabitants was larger in 1899 (for instance the low Hills of Dolj, the High Hills of Vâlcea stricto senso, Amaradia- Olteţ low Hills and most probably other too). Moreover, the mean number of inhabitants of the villages in the subunits dropped in many cases, except for the umland of the municipalities, as a result of the social and historical detour from the communist period (collectivisation and forced industrialization with their effects, deserted and old villages).

1. THE CARPATHIANS refer in this case only to the Romanian territory of that time, the border with the Austrian-Hungarian Empire of that time ‘running over’ the Carpathian ridge; here, as well as in the work The Transylvania Alps, the author avoids the last name, although it is present in the title of the book that was printed in 1907.

2. The Buzău Mountains include, in the author’s opinion, the entire area


Moldova Principality); today, it means the Ciucaş Mountains, the Buzău Mountains and the southern third of the Vrancea Mountains.

3. The Buzău - the Bâsca valleys refer to the transversal valley of the Buzău, from the border to the north of Pătârlagele (where it flows out of the mountainous area) and the Bâsca downstream of Gura Teghii.

4. The Prahova valley, from Predeal to Comarnic.

5. Between the Prahova and the Buzău, including today the Ciucaş and Siriu mountains.

6. Eastwards of the Buzău, i.e. beginning with the Podul Calului Mountains, it also includes the Penteleu and Vrancea Mountains south-east from the Bârsa - the Buzău confluence, up to the vicinity of Zăbala valley.

7. The Bucegi Mountains, which in the author’s opinion, include the entire area between the Dâmboviţa and the Prahova, including the upper valley of the Dâmboviţa, which was not considered as a subunit.

8. The Făgăraş Mountains with the border along the highest peaks, just like the other massifs, did not take into account a vast mountainous area; hence, the mountainous units are not figured with their real surface.

9. The Brezoi-Titeşti basin, with broader limits than those accepted today, elongated on the north-south direction (correct it is south-west – north-east).

10. The Făgăraş Mountains, stricto senso are not divided into the main northern ridge, oriented on a west-east direction, and the southern lower summits, oriented on a north-south direction.

11. The Lotru Mountains (name given by G. Murgoci in 1898, from the homonymous river), includes the present day Lotru Mountains (Ştefleşti) and Căpăţânii.

12. The Parâng Mountains, between the Olteţ and the Jiu, and only to the ridge (the remaining northern area belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire – meaning that in reality, it covered a larger area).

13. The Vulcan (Vâlcan) Mountains are represented only to the border along the ridge.

14. The Cerna Mountains: not what we understand today, i.e. the mountains westwards of the homonymous valley (including Dobra Peak, 1929 meters), are in fact the Mehedinţi Mountains, including the eastern half of the Godeanu Mountains (Godeanu Peak, 2,229 meters).

15. THE HILLY AREA is divided in two main regions: Muntenia Hills and Oltenia Hills; if the limits of the hills towards the mountains and the plain are generally the ones proposed by de Martonne, today the entire area is divided according to the present conceptions into various geomorphologic regions: the Subcarpathians, the Getic Piedmont, the Mehedinţi Plateau.

16. MUNTENIA HILLS stand, in the author’s opinion, the entire hilly area of Muntenia, broader in the western part of Muntenia and shrinking gradually towards the east.


17. The Râmnic Hills, between the Câlnău and Milcov valleys, with Deleanu Peak (664 meters) and Dumitreşti Depression – along the Râmnicul Sărat, not marked by the French author.

18. The Subcarpathian embankment is in fact a piedmont glacis, densely populated, as the author notes.

19. The Râmnic Hills, stricto senso are in fact complex Subcarpathian hills, with a raw of foothill depressions, interior hills, depressions within hills and external hills.

20. The Buzău Hills cover the entire hilly area westwards of the Buzău (from Sângeru settlement, in the upper basin of the Cricovul Sărat), over the Buzău and the Slănic valley up to the Câlnău; the sub-units proposed by de Martonne were not used by the Romanian geographers.

21. The Subcarpathian slope begins at the Tohaneanca valley (the right tributary of the Sărata) and stretches up to the Câlnău valley, Zilişteanca settlement; of course, it is also a piedmont glacis.

22. The Buzău valley, north of Pătârlagele and up the confluence with the Slănic (north-westwards from Buzau) is, in the author’s opinion, a particular sub- unit, densely populated.

23. North from Buzău, it is an area with the same structural and morphological structure as the one in the Râmnic Hills, peaking in Bisoca Hill, 970 meters and Dâlma Hill, 819 meters.

24. South from Buzău, there is a complicated structural and morphological subunit, with only one depression – the one along the Nişcov valley (acting as a depression among hills); it includes Ciolanu, 563 meters and Istrita Hills, 749 meters.

25. Prahova – Teleajen Hills, according to de Martonne, begin at the springs of the Cricovul Sărat and are delineated in the south by a parallel that passed north of Măgurele; they are characterised by three structural elements: two Paleogene dikes, that sinks towards south-west (Homorâciu and Văleni) and the Neogene basin from Drajna.

26. The Prahova Valley, delineated by the author between Comarnic and Campina, based mostly on the higher population density.

27. The Teleajen Valley, between Maneciu and Văleni.

28. Between the Prahova and the Teleajen valleys, mostly a hilly subunit (with no depressions), reaching the maximum height in Măceşu Hill, near Slănic town (815 m).

29. Westwards from the Prahova (originally, it was mistakenly assumed as eastwards), there is the Proviţa Valley and the hills that surround it; this sub-units was not naturally obvious, and it could have been included to the unit no. 32.

30. Eastwards from the Teleajen, there are two hills in the central part of the Ivăneţ – Văleni Dike (Predeal-Sărari area).

31. Ploieşti Hills are the last Subcarpathian hills, partially sunk, from Măgurele up to north of Ploieşti, between the Prahova and Tohaneanca valleys.


32. The Ialomiţa and the Dâmboviţa Hills, between the Proviţa (a tributary of the Cricovul Dulce), over the two mentioned valleys and the springs of the Potopu (Sabar), include, according to the present divisions, the Subcarpathian hills between the Dâmboviţa and the Prahova, but they also include in the south-west the eastern extremity of the Getic Piedmont (the Cândeşti Piedmont).

33. The Ialomiţa valley is the axis of the unit no. 32 and is detached as a subunit between Pietroşiţa and north of Târgovişte.

34. Eastwards of the Ialomiţa, there are the hills stretching on the eastern side of this valley, dominated by Ruşeţu Hill (602 meters).

35. Westwards of the Ialomiţa, stretching much more in the north (Stoieneşti on the Dâmboviţa, at the mountain foot), and in the south (up to Găieşti), absolutely artificially, but having as axis the entire Dâmboviţa valley within the hilly area.

36. The Argeş High Hills include both the Subcarpathian hills and the north-eastern part of the Getic Piedmont, lying eastwards from the Olt.

37. The Subcarpathian depressions are, according to de Martonne: Arefu (along the Argeş valley) and Câmpulung; although it was later proven that the folds structure is not present on the line that connects the west of the town with Slătioara Hill (west of the Olt), it is considered now as a Subcarpathian area, at least due to its position, general morphology and economic function.

38. The High Hills, stricto senso include what we are calling today the Argeş Piedmont, the western part of the Cândeşti Piedmont (Cândeşti Platform according to George Vâlsan) and the northern half of the Cotmeana Piedmont (up to Piteşti parallel), while in the north they come into contact with the Făgăraş Mountains, according to the author.

39. The talus of the Argeş Hills refers to the Argeş valley between Piteşti and Găieşti (especially the left bank), with dense population, vineyards and orchards.

40. The lower hills of the Vedea, southwards of the Drăgăşani-Spineni- Piteşti line, roughly delineated in the central part by what is now called the Cotmeana Piedmont (Cotmeana Platform according to George Vâlsan).

41. OLTENIA HILLS cover, according to the author, almost two thirds of the region lying westwards from the Olt.

42. The Subcarpathian depressions include the entire area in the north of Oltenia, between the Motru and the Bistriţa, the Olt tributary.

43. The Subcarpathian terraces are placed by the author eastwards of the Gilort, from Novaci to Costeşti, as a narrow succession of small depressions (of areolar erosion in softer rocks, exerted by the rivers that exit the mountain) and separating hills on the same west-east alignment.

44. The Subcarpathian depressions, stricto senso (in the northern part of Gorj), with two well-shaped depressions: Tismana (sub-mountainous) and another one between hills, at Târgu Jiu, the lowest depression (under 200 meters) in all Subcarpathian system.


45. The high hills of Vâlcea, generally comprising the northern half of what we call the Olteţ Piedmont, but, at the French geographer, it also includes the eastern half of the Amaradia – the Gilort interfluve.

46. The Olt valley, between Călimăneşti and north of Drăgăşani, forms, according to the author, a separate subunit.

47. The high hills of Vâlcea, stricto senso come in direct contact with the Carpathians between Costeşti and Călimăneşti, the southern limit being drawn north of the Drăgăşani parallel.

48. The high plateau of Mehedinţi, well delimited by de Martonne, considered by the author as a high hillock region, but really a crystalline and calcareous plateau logically belonging to the Southern Carpathians, as the local inhabitants, which use the expression to the mountain, also see it; the hillock region classification used by the French author influenced the Romanian geographers because of the lower altitude (400 – 700 meters) as compared to the Carpathian areas and of the existence of permanent settlements network.

Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that a classic of the Romanian geography, Vintilă Mihăilescu, exegete of the Romanian relief, never shared this idea.

49. The Amaradia – the Olteţ low hills, detached by the French geographer, correspond to the southern half of the Olteţ Piedmont and the limit towards the plain is unanimously accepted (the Craiova – Balş – Slatina line).

50. The high hills of Gorj would define the hills between the Coşuştea Valley across the Motru and the Jiu until eastwards of the Gilort.

51. The low hills of Dolj comprise a little more than what we now call the Bălăciţa Piedmont, unit that, according to the author, extends towards south-west of Pleniţa, not far from Cetate.

52. THE PLAIN AREA is generally that accepted at present, more precisely it generally has the northern limits established by the French author.

53. THE PLAIN OF MUNTENIA, between the Olt and the Danube, is what G. Vâlsan (1915) would call the Romanian Plain, which does not includ the Oltenian Plain.

54. The high terraces of the Buzău comprise for G. Vâlsan the Plateau of the Râmnic (north of the river) and the western part of the Buzău Plain, denominations which define subunits with certain limit variations from an author to the other, but still preserved to the present date.

55. The Râmnic Valley is arbitrarily detached by the French scholar from Râmnicu Sărat to Ciorăşti.

56. The Buzău Valley, between the Buzău and west of Făurei, with no other justification, just as the previous one, than the higher population density as compared to the surrounding fields; at Vâlsan, both valleys belong to the Buzău Plain.

57. Northwards of the Râmnic, presently known as a relatively narrow piedmont plain.




Related subjects :