Talk:History of Transnistria

Date of Romanian control

the image caption here says the date that transnistria was annexed by romania was August 19, 1941, but this article [1] says that it was October 8, 1941 --Astrokey44 04:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria was never formally annexed by Romania (in the sense that there was never a formal act of annexation or attempt to incorporate it into a Greater Romania.) The word "annexation" and its derivatives should be changed as it has a legal connoctation which doesn't fit in this case. For the Romanians during World War II, Transnistria served the double purpose of killing fields, primarily for Jews, and also a buffer against the Soviets.
As regards the actual date, since there was never a formal annexation, it is hard to speak of a precise date. The taking of Transnistria was a gradual affair in late summer of 1941; starting with Tiraspol. Most of the advances took place during August. The correct quote would be: "At the end of summer 1941 Transnistria came under Romanian control".
Source: Alexander Dallin, Odessa, 1941-1944: "A Case Study of Soviet Territory under Foreign Rule", rev. ed. (published Iasi: Center for Romanian Studies, 1998), page 59. - Mauco 06:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the "biased info"

The source was written by a Norwegian guy, how does that make it biased? If it was written by some Ukranian, then I would understand. But please, don't delete sourced material. —Khoikhoi 16:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It`s written in 1992, in full war of Transnistria, by a Norwegian, and a Russian dude, who`se basically an anonymous historian wannabe. The work doesn`t provide any sources for the claims (read the content, it so biased that they even say that Bessarabia, not Transnistria, was inhabited by Slavs too) and it`s causing contradiction with the rest of what`s sayd in the article. It`s bassicaly an amatorial subjective view. When tens of sources (even the Russian censuses) say that as early as the 16th century, the land between the Dniester and Southern Bug (not only Trasndiester) were inhabited primarily by Romanians and Tatars, and also by Turks, Armenians, Greeks, and other (and not mention of any Russia or Ukrainian), how can you totally dismiss that? When on the walls of citadels of cities like Otchkov, Cetatea Alba and others trones the coat of arms of Moldavia from as early as the 14th century, when Italian travelers Niccolo Barsi da Luca and Niccolo Barsi say in the 16th century that the land is inhabited mainly by Moldavians, when Gianni Lorenzo D’Anania and Giovani Botero in their cartographic works (Relazzioni universali” (1596 Venetia) describes most of the cities (Ochackov for example) as being Moldavian, when in 1709 Daniel Krmannhow, a member of kings Charles XII of Sweden retinue, when retreated with the swedish king and his army, aslo says that the land is inhabited by Romanians, how can this dude nobody has ever heard of, before and after his masterpiece, say such things, based on nothing greier 16:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Kolstoe is one of the most frequently cited scholars on Moldova-Transnistrian issues, and his research is generally considered unbiased (by both sides). This is rare in debates over contemporary Transnistria where one paper from one side is generally not accepted by the other side. Kolstoe's research has been published by official mediators like OSCE. It is the first time that I have seen anyone contest his findings...
Charles King, author of "The Moldovans" (currently the most authorative review of Moldavian history in English) backs up what Kolstoe says. He adds that the region was a traditional borderland, with not just Moldavians and Ukrainians but an influx of many other nationalities as well. In fact, before the Romanian invasion in World War II, it was heavily Jewish. For instance, more than 1/4th of Tiraspol's population was Jewish. This percentage only changed with the systematic extermination of Jews by Romania in collaboration with its wartime ally; Nazi Germany.
I am including this in the discussion to make the point that 1) Transnistria has always been heterogeneous, 2) that the relative proportions of the various ethnic groups have always been fluid, and 3) that the no single ethnic group has ever had a monopoly claim on the territory. Moldavians have certainly always played a role in Transnistria's history, alongside other ethnic groups, but not to the point of excluding them or somehow validating the argument put forward by radicals that the land is part of Moldavia and was somehow taken from Moldavia from "invading foreigners". That would be a revisionism which does not match the historical facts. - Mauco 17:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Completely off the point! greier 10:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes ... and no. I made the point, knowing that the last half was unrelated. But I also explained why, and the reason why is absolutely related to where you are coming from, Greir. Reading your edit history, I can see that you are pushing a NPOV fork of the typical advocate of Greater Romania. There is nothing wrong with that, and you are certainly entitled to your viewpoint, but just not on Wikipedia. You have had troubles for that reason on other edits, and it is sad that you are now taking this POV to the History of Wikipedia. I made my point on the Jews above to give you the hint, in a subtle way, that since no single ethnic group has ever had a monopoly claim on the territory, that includes Romanians too. Romania was involved in some of the worst ethnic cleansing precisely in Transnistria, but they never accomplished making the region majority-Romanian (or majority Moldavian, if you prefer that term). Please do rewrite history to make the facts fit your point of view, and please do not cast doubt on the impartiality of Pal Kolstoe from Oslo University in Norway and Charles King from the Hoover Institute in the United States. If they are good enough for OSCE then they are certainly good enough for us. - Mauco 13:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The removal of that part has nothing to do with any jews, Greater Romania, or ethnic cleaning. The fact is that today, only in Transnistria (I don`t want to speak now about Ukranie) there is a population of 40% Moldavians, native to the area, and all sources say that in the past the population, indeed mixed, had as natives Moldavians, Tatars, and others. Never, until the Soviet Union, had the Russians and Ukrainians been the majoritary there. It`s gettig ridiculous: has it now turned into a battle between slavs and nonslavs? Pal Kolstoe should add references to his claims if he wants to be taken serious. Most scholary works have at the bottom a list of references, linked to every paragraph from the article... greier 13:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not a slav, so this is not "a battle between slavs and nonslavs". Nor shall I defend Kolstoe, other than what I have stated above: He is one of the most cited sources, his information is backed up by other Western historians also (among others Charles King). If you read their books, you will see that they are certainly not biased in favor of Transnistria. I would like the info on Ukrainian peasants to remain, please, until Western historians agree otherwise (in published materials). We should try not to rely solely on the writings of Romanian historians or purveyors of a Greater Romania POV. - Mauco 14:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you keep mentioning Greater Romania. Honestly, I don`t see the point for relating it to the paragraph we`re disputing, nor (as I presume you want/assume) has anything to do with me and my edits. greier 15:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And honestly, the part about the history of the region is sooooo amatorial, so full of errors, that it looks like it`s made by a highschool kid. Want to continue to discuss about the history of the area? greier 13:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The article was created by simply moving the history subsection from the main Transnistria article where it was created with the collaboration of roughly a dozen active editors over a period of two years. Contrary to other parts of that article, it was never a major source of edit wars. - Mauco 14:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the history part from Kolstoes article. Man, if Kolstoe is an expert in Transnistria, than I am a genius!!!! The dude is tataly wasted!!! How could he put that shit (the history part) in his article??? God, looks like it`s made by a kid... greier 15:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And if you consider that a scholary work, than you too are wasted. It`s so shitty... Paragraph by paragraph... is pure shit, unworthy of such waste of time... greier 15:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Kolstoe from Oslo is not the only source on how Ukrainians outnumbered Moldovans in the 18th century, and in fact even more recently too. Another quote from http://ivantoc.org/moldova.htm which refers to the 1920's: "only some 30 percent of them were Romanians." - Mauco 21:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Tipic misleading comment, I recognize the style of Nikolai Babilunga, a falsifier of history from Tiraspol. 30% was the proportion of Romanians in the entire former teritorry of Moldavian ASSR. Actual Transnistria include only 6 of the former rayons of MASSR, other 8 rayons (with a bigger proportion of Slavs) are now in Ukraine. Kolstoe wrote about the entire teritorry between Dniester and Bug, not only about the sliver of land on the left bank of Dniester which is today Transnistria. So, you can have a Slav majority in the entire Dniester-Bug teritorry, but a Romanian majority in the 6 rayons of today Transnistria (and I believe this was the truth).--MariusM 22:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not from Nikolai Babilunga. The quote is from a Romanian historian: Nicholas Dima. His history of Moldova was published in 1991 by East European Monographs, Boulder, as part of an imprint by Columbia University Press, New York. Now, if you have any sources which state that there was ever a Romanian majority in what is today Transnistria, please post them here. We have several sources that say the opposite (that Romanians were always a minority) and so far none, that I know of, which succesfully demonstrate that there was ever a Romanian majority for the area as whole. - Mauco 07:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I quote Dima's words: "The new Moldavian autonomous republic was formed in southwest Ukraine along the Dnestr and bordering Romania. Its surface area was 8,300 square kilometers and its population over 500,000 people, but only some 30 percent of them were Romanians". Is obviously he is reffering at entire MASSR, not at present day Transnistria, which is less than half of former MASSR but include Bender which was not part of MASSR. I didn't confuse Babilunga with Dima, I remarked the syle of comparing apples with oranges, which is one of Babilunga caracteristics, is used also by you.--MariusM 10:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a personal attack on my record as a researcher. Please back this up with DIFF's if you want anyone to take your accusations seriously, or else please avoid making personal attacks in the future. - Mauco 17:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I would not call it personal attack but criticism on your edits (but if you like Babilunga, you can consider my words as favourable). For example, in this edit you compared apples with oranges. Both your sources (Kolstoe and ivantoc.org) are reffering to a bigger teritorry than today Transnistria when saying that Ukrainians outnumbered Moldovans. You misused their words in order to pretend that in today Transnistria Slavs were a majority. For a researcher, misusing the sources is not a good thing, but I doubt you are a real researcher.--MariusM 21:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In answer to "You misused their words in order to pretend that in today Transnistria Slavs were a majority" I would merely say, to keep the polemic to a minimum, that there is absolutely no need to pretend that in today, in Transnistria, the Slavs represent an absolutely majority. They do, and that is a fact. No pretending is needed. - Mauco 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A new misused of my words. We are talking about "History of Transnistria" and about population before 1792 (Russian conquest). Through "Today Transnistria" I meant the teritorry of actual secessionist region of Moldova: rayons of Camenca, Rîbniţa, Dubăsari, Grigoriopol, Slobozia, cities of Tiraspol and Tighina. I was pointing to the fact that in this region Moldovans were a majority in 18th century, and Kolstoe don't deny it, as he reffered to a broader region (same with Dima). I was using past tense. Today, in the same region, Moldovans have a plurality, while Ukrainians and Russians, if counted together, are a small majority as result of colonisation done in Soviet period. They are in majority at cities (where population came from other part of the Soviet Union, is not a "historical" population), while in the rural area Moldovans are a majority.--MariusM 23:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a sweeping generalization. Before we just take your word for it, let me ask: Do you have a real source to backup the claim that Moldovans form a majority outside the cities? Can we see this source and review the numbers? (Not, please, another propaganda source published in Chisinau at the height of war, in order to convince people that this is old Moldovan land). - Mauco 23:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My data regarding 1989 census results are from Nedelciuc book published in 1992. It shows total population 39,9% Moldovans, 28,3% Ukrainians and 25,4% Russians for mostly left bank rayons. For rural areas data are 60% Moldovans, 22% Ukrainians and 12,6% Russians. In urban area data are 25,6% Moldovans, 32,7% Ukrainians and 34,6% Russians. Not included in above are data for Tighina: 29,9% Moldovans, 18,2% Ukrainians and 41,9% Russians. I am not aware of anybody doubting those data. Same data are in Wikipedia at 1989 Census in Transnistria and it was you who wrote that article (I couldn't make any correction to it, one of the moments I totally agreed with you)--MariusM 23:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Later edit: of course you were wrong on that article too, and I should correct you, as you didn't include data for Tighina. I'm losing so much time at Wikipedia correcting Mauco!--MariusM 00:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

None of this shows any distinction between the "historical" population of Moldovans (as you would have it) and that Slavs, as a majority, are newcomers to the area (post-1920 "colonisation", to quote you). If you have any sources for this truly exceptional claim, please post them. Surely you are aware by now that historically, Transnistria was never part of Moldova prior to 1940. - Mauco 00:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You asked me to prove that "the claim that Moldovans form a majority outside the cities". As I proved that claim, you changed your demand, you ask to prove that Slavs, as a majority, are post-1920 colonisation. You doubt that cities are growing through attracting population from other region? This is not an exceptional claim, is a worldwide trend, especially when ethnic composition in cities is different than in neighbouring area. If Transnistria was not part of Moldova, that mean no Moldovan government organised colonisation in that region, the presence of Moldovans is a natural one. You confuse administrative borders with ethnic borders.--MariusM 00:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not at all. I am just curious as to where you get the idea that Slavs arrived after 1920 (your "Soviet colonisation", as you call it) and where you get the idea that only Moldovans inhabited the area before that time (your "historical" population, as you call it). You don't even have to distinguish between countryside and cities. Population density in Transnistria is very high, so you may treat the area as a whole if that will make it easier to find your data. It is quite a unique and exceptional claim for anyone who knows about Transnistria. - Mauco 00:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Again you put in my mouth words I didn't use. I didn't say that Slavs arrived after 1920, I am sure they arrived in 1792 when Russian conquest was made. However, during Soviet period when industrialisation was done, Slav proportion in Transnistria's population increased most.--MariusM 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Friendly advice: You ought to get some sleep, buddy. Just an hour ago, you said: "Today, in the same region, Moldovans have a plurality, while Ukrainians and Russians, if counted together, are a small majority as result of colonisation done in Soviet period. They are in majority at cities (where population came from other part of the Soviet Union, is not a "historical" population), while in the rural area Moldovans are a majority". These are your words.

You refer to "Today". That is now, i.e. 2006. Moldovans make up 31.9%. Slavs make up 59.2%. Hardly a "small majority", but I will let that distortion pass. What I can not refrain to comment on, however, is your claim that this majority resulted from " colonisation done in Soviet period" (in other words, after 1920 ... Or did Soviets exist in 1792?).

You say that the Slav population "is not a "historical" population", inferring by comparison that the Moldovans are the rightful owners of Transnistria, i.e. the "historical" population to use your words. Again, I am very curious as to where you get those ideas. They are very exceptional claims, as you surely must know. Sources, please, for the following:

• Slav majority came after 1920, as a result of Soviet colonisation.
  
• Moldovans are the "historical" population. - Mauco 00:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are not exceptional claims. Greier already gave the refference: Charles Upson Clark: “Russia and Roumania on the Black Sea”: “Frequent mention has been made of the Moldavian Soviet Republic. It is not generally known that the lower Dniester is an almost purely Roumanian stream. The villages along its left bank, from Movilau down to Ovidiopol, opposite Akkerman, are as Moldavian as those on the Bessarabian bank. And this Moldavian peasantry stretches as far east as the Bug, beyond Elisavetgrad, and down to within a few miles of Odessa (see Draghicesco). This is due to a very early immigration of Roumanian shepherds and traders along the streams of the black-earth district east of the Dniester-so early that we find here some Roumanian place-names on the Reichersdorf map of 1541. Further extensive colonization took place in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Polish princes of Podolia encouraging the creation of large farms by Moldavian boyars; and in the eighteenth century, Russian generals took back with them from their campaigns against the Turks, enormous numbers of Roumanian peasants. In 1739, Gen. Munnich carried back with him 100,000 Roumanian peasants, according to the memoirs of Trenck, his companion; and_ in 1792, another great immigration took place. As a result, it is reckoned that there are probably half a million Roumanian peasants in Russia east of the Dniester.” Ch. XXIX. Upson Clark was reffering at actual Transnistria, not at the entire Dniester-Bug teritorry as Kolstoe.--MariusM 00:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This text does not demonstrate that a Slav majority only came after 1920, as a result of Soviet colonisation. As for the "historical" population, you are leaving out the preceeding nine hundred years: Don't forget that the early East Slavs came to the area in 600 AD, far earlier than any Romanians. This Slav heritage was reinforced with one thousand years of almost uninterrupted Slavic rule: Kievan Rus rule (Slavic), the 80-some years of Halych-Volhynia rule (Slavic), Polish rule (Slavic) and rule under Imperial Russia (Slavic). Historically, Moldavia or Romania never ruled Transnistria. Even while in the MSSR, which nominally Moldovan, the Soviet Union (Slavic ruled) was firmly in charge, like it or not. MSSR (taking its orders from Moscow) was never an independent country, as you well know. - Mauco 01:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Source claim that lower Dniester is an almost purely Roumanian stream. When was this? Not today, as we know that in Tiraspol, Rîbniţa, Tighina is a Slav majority. It was in the past and situation change in time, as result of Russian political domination. I am sure that Soviet censuses prove my point, but I don't have the data. I am talking about the census results in actual Transnistria teritory (the strip on left bank of Dniester) not about the entire Dniester-Bug teritory.--MariusM 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Now we are closer to reaching agreement (I hope). Fact: This is a classic border area. Historically, and even today, with the latest census listing 35 or 36 different nationalities. Now, in a classic border area, you have inflows of different ethnic groups. Fact: Over centuries, in such an area, it can be expected that you have ebbs and flows of who is the majority or the correlations between the individual minorities. This happened even in the past one hundred years. There is no reason to be surprised at why it also happened earlier. It is even more true when the 'ownership' of the area changes hands, as happened over and over again in the case of Transnistria. At one point, the population of area was completely Slav. Then - if we believe Upson Clark - at a later time in history, it became an "almost purely Roumanian stream". Yet, this does still not support any claim that the "historical" population was Romanian. History did not start in 1541 or in 1739. The land was populated before then, in fact a thousand years earlier as many sources on this page show. And not by Romanians. - Mauco 01:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't have any sources that "At one point, the population of area was completely Slav". Even if you disregard Magocsi and believe that Kievan Rus ruled the area, that is no indication that population was completely Slav. When did Moldovans replace the Slavs as we don't have data about a war between Moldovans and Slavs. The fact that area was not under Moldovan political domination exclude any forced replacement of Slavs by Moldovans in this area. Between cossacks were many ethnic Moldovans, I already gave the example of Dănilă Apostol. In middle ages, Slavonic was the prestige language used in church and administration also by Romanians, Slavs and Romanians were both Orthodox, I would say that is possible that some Romanians accepted at that time the rule of Kievan Rus. In Romanian language words like "voievod" (king), "boyar" (noble), "cneaz" (ruler) are of Slav origin. Some historians consider this as an indication that Slavs conquered the Romanians and, at the begining, the upper class of Romanians was composed by ethnic Slavs, who latter were assimilated (as French Normands were assimilated by Anglo-Saxons or Turkic Bulgarians were assimilated by Slav Bulgarians). First "official language" of Romanian kingdoms (both Moldavia and Walachia) was Slavonic, but population was Romanian.--MariusM 01:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Short and to the point: Who lived in Transnistria around 600 AD, or even 1000 AD, besides Slavs? No one. - Mauco 02:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Romanians lives there, besides migratory tribes as petchenegs, cumans etc.--MariusM 14:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Romanians, really? How so? Not in this early time period, sorry. One of the best sources, incidentally, is Charles Upson Clark who vividly documents the expansion and immigration of Romanians into Transnsnistria. He confirms, on page after page, that they are newcomers in comparison to the earlier Slav population. - Mauco 04:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote, please.--MariusM 08:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You haven't even read this Upson Clark book, have you? Well, let me help you: All chapters and illustrations can be accessed from the University of Washington, here - Mauco 17:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

History

Current state and my comments:

In the early Middle Ages, Transnistria was populated by Slavic tribes of Ulichs and Tivertsy, Actually, it wasn`t populated. This claim is based on a mention is the Primary Chronicle by Nestor where he enumerates tribes (plus that other sources, when speaking about Ulichs and Tivertsi, give them the epithet of talmac, that is "translator", or something like that (hence this has lead scholars to belive that the tribes were not purely slavonic). But let`s asume all is correct. How come it doesn`t specify that the Ulichs lived on the Dnieper (see map), not on the Dniester, and how come doesn`t it mention that these population had fleed to the north during the centuries of eurasian nomad invasions?

The Ulichs did NOT live on the Dnieper. Actually, the Polianians (west of) and Severians (east of) lived along the Dnieper. The Ulichians straddled the Southern Bug and down to the Dniester. The Tivertsians inhabited between the Dneister and the Prut. These are not exact boundaries, so there are overlaps regarding the Dniester. The quote about "Transnistria was populated by Slavic tribes of Ulichs and Tivertsy" is completely correct. Let's not use Wiki as an "authoritative" source. There's something terribly mentally incestuous about doing so. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

as well as by Turkic nomads such as Pechenegs and the Cumans. True, and this is of importance, as you shall see.

From the 10th century, Vlachs (Bolohoveni) are mentioned in the area. True.

It was part of Kievan Rus' at times Speculations. The millitary power was held either by Petchenegs (8-10th century), Cumans (10-12th century), and...

and a formal part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 15th century. partially true. The duchy of Lithuania never had reached so far south. At that time, as it was earlier (13-15th century), the land was under Tatar control (Nogai Horde, Khanat of the Golden Horde)

Incorrect, the Lithuanians took over Kievan Rus territory, drove out the Golden Horde, and took all the territory to the Black Sea. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Northern Transnistria was part of the historical region of Podolia This is like saying that it was part of Europe, or part of Terra. Podolia is just a name, but more importantly: Podolia was way, waaaay to the norht.

while the southern area, which came under the control of the Ottoman Empire in 1504, was part of what came to be known as Yedisan. True.

The Ottoman portion was eventually ceded to the Russian Empire in 1792. True. That is when the Russians ever set foot here (at that time there were no "ukranians", just Russians. and don`t confuse cossak with ukrainian: the cossaks were a multiethnic mix of poles, muscovites, romanians, tatars, and other people who fleed prosecution in their native lands. and anyway, cossaks lived to the north, not here. here lived Moldavians, as I shown you how dozens of sources say so). The Russian Empire reached the Bug in 1772, and Dniester in 1792.

At that time, the population was sparse and mostly Romanian/Moldavian and Ukrainian, but also included a nomadic Nogai Tatar population. True (this is the contradiction I was talking about).

The end of the 18th century marked the Russian Empire's colonization of the region, as a result of which large migrations were encouraged into the region, including people of Ukrainian, Russian, and German ethnicity. True.

At that time, the population was sparse and mostly Romanian/Moldavian and Ukrainian, but also included a nomadic Nogai Tatar population. Not necessarily a contradiction although it would be good to have 1750 "census" figures, even if they are only approximate. For instance: Kolstoe's statement would fit with the above if at the time the population was 55% Ukrainian peasants, 40% Romanian/Moldavian and 5% Nogai Tatar; thus no contradiction. - Mauco 15:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fuck Kolstoe, he`s an idiot! i`m sick of discussing this. In 1782, 40% Moldavians, 2006 (after years of colonisation and russification) still 40%... What an idiot... greier 15:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The dork colaborated with two russians, freshly avortated from the SSSR, and want`s to be taken seriously... greier 15:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing the significance of Russian history in the region (which in the 10th century belonged to Kievan Rus, the precursor to the modern Russian state) it is not a disqualification for someone to collaborate with Russian historians. But if you want a strictly Romanian/Moldovan account of the regions history, free from any Russian "contamination", please see Nicolas Dima's Moldovan history here http://ivantoc.org/moldova.htm (which was originally published by Columbia University Press, New York). It confirms everything that Kolstoe is saying. - Mauco 21:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Maucov, I saw the page. It doesn`t approve Kolstoe. On the contrary, it proves the colonisation. So sorry mister Maucov. greier 21:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not. Read it, please, instead of giving POV blanket statements which are not supported by the best known scholars in this field. - Mauco 18:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, your estimation "55% Ukrainian peasants, 40% Romanian/Moldavian and 5% Nogai Tatar" can be true for the entire Dniester-Bug teritorry, but Romanian population was more concentrated near Dniester. Near Dniester, where is actual Transnistria, could have been 90% Romanians (as 1989 census for rural part of Dubbosarry rayon), while near Bug could have been 90% Ukrainians.--MariusM 22:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, my estimate was of current-day Transnistria (not extending to the Bug). Of course, it is easy in any multi-ethnic area, like Transnistria, to find individual town- or village level results which fit the data which someone is trying to produce. Just like there is a rural community near Dubossary which had 90% Romanians in 1989, there was also an urban area (Tiraspol) which had only 14%. The interesting part is to look at results for the whole of Transnistria. Not individual parts, as that will skew the data. And also not a larger area (such as Dniester to Dnieper) as that will equally skew the data. Just Transnistria, but all of Transnsnistria, and over time: 1750, 1900, 1924, 1940, 1989, etc. - Mauco 07:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction to myself: Tiraspol actually only had an ethnic Moldovan population of just 13% in 1989; not 14%. I just checked the data. (This figure is taken from a report which was written by a former presidential advisor in Moldova and published by the United Nations.) - Mauco 08:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Tiraspol had >17% Moldovans, per 1989 census. As long as we have official data, we don't need misterious reports. Tiraspol was founded after Russian conquest of 1792, we were talking about historical population before Russian conquest. As any urban area, it atracted population from other parts. Your estimation is not relevant, relevant can be Kolstoe's estimation. And is obviously he was reffering at entire area between Dniester and Bug, not at present day Transnistria.--MariusM 10:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please provide the official source stating that more than 17% of Tiraspol were ethnic Moldovan in 1989. I have Oazu Nantoi saying 13%, in a report written for the United Nations (UNHCR, no less). Hardly a "misterious report" so stop with the negative comments and let us all just try to do good work here, please. - Mauco 17:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

With pleasure. V. Nedelciuc - "Republica Moldova", Universitas, Chişinău, 1992, page 21 is quoting data from 1989 census. For Tiraspol, data are: Total population (thousands) 199,6. Moldovans 35,4; Ukrainians 64,2; Russians 82,4; Gagauzs 2,1; Bulgarians 2,5; Others 13,0. In percentages: Moldovans 17,7%, Ukrainians 32,2%, Russians 41,3%; Gagauzs 1,1%; Bulgarians 1,2%; Others 6,5%.--MariusM 21:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So on one hand, we have a MOLDOVAN text, published in Chisinau in 1992 at the time of the War of Transnistria where both sides fight at dying over linguistic issues closely related to ethnicity. Overstating the true number of Moldovans would be easy, as in the time of war, the truth is always the first victim. Then, on the other hand, we have a text published by the UNITED NATIONS in 1999, seven years removed from the heat of war. Which one should we rather trust as an official or authorative source? - Mauco 23:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The source I gave quote from the official data of 1989 census (you didn't give any source; you just pretended that you have a source, but no link). In 1989 it was still peace and nobody (not even Transnistrian authorities) raised doubts about the results of 1989 census. I saw those results, same as in Nedelciuc book (but without details such as data only for Tiraspol) at pridnestrovie.net.--MariusM 23:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nantoi, too, refers to the same 1989 census. He gives 13% for Tiraspol. This is in a report published by the UNHCR of the United Nations. I am no fan of Nantoi, but even so, I much prefer his work and the UN report over a partisan Chisinau publication from the same year when it was at war with Transnistria. At any rate, this discussion should be moved to Talk:1989 Census in Transnistria as it doesn't have too much to do with the history and much more to do with that year's census. - Mauco 00:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see Nantoi data (is it online? - you didn't provide links), it may be a typing error.--MariusM 01:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is online at the United Nations[2]. It was commissioned by UNHCR to survey internally displaced persons. The problem was that most of the refugees had fled to Russia, not to Moldova (and in fact, there weren't that many to begin with. Most people had voluntarily decided just to stay in Transnistria). So: Nantoi was left with not too much of a case, but he made the best of it and used the occasion to get a few digs in against his sworn arch-enemies, the leadership of Transnistria. This old report is flawed, biased, outdated, extremely unsourced, not professional and not useful at all, but at least Nantoi's stats on Tiraspol match what I have found elsewhere, too. It is 13%, not 17%. - Mauco 01:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you so kind to tell the page and chapter of the report where is the data? You have the habit of giving me long texts, which is consuming my time. Anyhow, why you believe is a forgery in Nedelciuc book? Moldova's right to own Tiraspol is not proved because Moldovans are 17% instead of 13% in this city.--MariusM 17:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Come now, surely I can't be expected to do all of your work for you... The United Nations report is there, and the full source has been provided by me. If the task of reference running and fact checking the research consumes too much of your time, then maybe you are in the wrong profession. I support all the statements which get included in mainspace with full citations, and in this case (where we have a mere Talk-page argument), I have already exceeded this duty by far. - Mauco 17:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, I made searches in the document you gave with the words "census", "Tiraspol" and "13%" and I didn't find the information you claim. In other situations you gave me long documents to read, claiming that there are the proofs for your statements, and I founded after I lose long time that documents didn't support your statements. I suspect in this case is the same situation.--MariusM 22:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly as I expected, you just confirmed my expectations. I fear that you do not possess professional research skills. In my entry of 01:35, 31 October 2006, I gave you all the hints which you needed: Including the link of where to start, the info on Nantoi and so on. If you had searched on that, you would have found (in the report) a URL in blue. Click on it. That would have taken you to the UNHCR page of the United Nations, with Nantoi's name on it and an extract of his work. From that page, you could have downloaded the files named 'IdpReport' and 'IdpAnnex' and what you are looking for would then have been uncovered in the first of these two. It is on the page 10, under the heading "Migration Processes" and the keywords are "1989, only 13% of the population of Tiraspol were Moldovans". I am now truly appalled at your lack of research ability, and I am thus forced to ask with which authority you repeatedly question the contributions of experts to this project. You may want to also read this. [3] - Mauco 05:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wiki "co-founder" op-eds--once again you take great efforts to chastize MariusM. Your references are not always as obvious/easy to confirm as you make them out to be. For example, elsewhere, your "here it is, in Russian" and an entire paragraph of text. Your deprecating comments directed at MariusM are getting quite old. As for "expert" credentials, frankly, I do not see any NPOV academic contributors, although I do see some POV people positioning themselves as "experts" using personal experiences to dispute what is reported in citeable sources.

If you do have credentials, I'd be interested in knowing what they are.

Unfortunately, it might be a couple more weeks before I have a chance to write up a chronology of inhabitants along the Dniester (i.e., suitable for article, not "talk"). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your feelings are not relevant here. Don't pretend you are an expert. Your style, instead of giving exact link to the source that support your affirmations to give an other link from where people have to dig to find the source, is not abiding Wikipedia standards. You did this before in conversations with me, is one of your patterns.--MariusM 10:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean: "Not abiding Wikipedia standard". Please show me the link to the policy that says this. I continue to fear that you do not possess professional research skills, even when given all the right information to help you find the source. If I am in breach of Wikipedia policy, show me the link that says so. Otherwise, don't claim that this is the case when it isn't. - Mauco 16:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Historically: Mostly Polish / Other Slav, with Moldovans a minority

Any comments on this? http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol45-10-06.htm I specifically found this part to be of interest:

В 60-е годы XIV в. северная часть левобережья Днестра было включено в состав Великого княжества Литовского, оно было частью исторического региона Подолия, а в 1569 году, после объединения Польши и Литвы — вошло в состав объединенного польско-литовского государства Речь Посполи́та (официальное название Респу́блика Обо́их Наро́дов — польск. Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów, лит. Abiejų Tautų Respublika). Территорию в основном населяли поляки, украинцы и другие славянские группы и в меньшем количестве — евреи, армяне, молдавские и немецкие иммигранты. Днестр служил границей с Молдавией, то есть с Османской Империей.

Please don't say "it is not valid, because it is from Olvia." This is not the case. It is part of their "Along the Channels" series (which means it comes from somewhere else, and is not Olvia's work.) In this case, they provide the author, Abraham Shmulevich, and the original source: Источник «АПН». Any criticism should be based on the historical accuracy of the statements put forth and not on who wrote it. - Mauco 15:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't studied the history of the region during that time period, nevertheless, there are some aspects of the passage that I am not fully comfortable with. Were Poles really one of the main ethnic groups in the region? And if so, are the data for Podolia as a whole, or just the part that's now in Transnistria? Also, I find it odd that Moldavians are called immigrants, alongside the Germans, as there is no reason why the settlement of the Moldavians should not have naturally extended into the eastern region contiguous to Moldavia for centuries. It's odd how the author puts the Moldavians deep in the list, although they probably formed a large segment of the population and labels them as foreigners, as though the other groups such as the Ruthenians had not also slowly entered the region due to a natural expansion. I cannot help but feel that the author was trying to make a political statement through his presentation of the data (e.g. Moldovans were immigrants in the region, just like the Jews and Armenians, unlike the Slavs who were always there). In any case, some of the distinctions made here are anachronistic to a great extent, as notions of ethnicity in the modern sense did not even exist yet, and labeling part of the population as Ukrainian only makes (some) sense from a modern perspective. TSO1D 15:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I put Moldovans first actually. Who is this Abraham Shmulevich and how does he compare with other researchers (like Kolstoe) who are respected, and who reach the same general conclusion? The implication of the sentence is for Northern Transnistria (the Podolia part), with "Tartar hordes" in South ("hordes" not used disparingly, but as an implication that they were not stationary.) I will begin some more research of this and see what I can find. If you wish to keep my edit off until then, that is OK, too. - Mauco

But http://pridnestrovie.net/node/415/ claims the Moldavians were present in Transnistria in the 14th century. :-) bogdan 16:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

TSO1D, yes and no to your statement that notions of ethnicity weren't at the forefront. True, but: Languages were. This was how Imperial Russia often did their census work. They would typically classify someone as Romanian if that was the first language he spoke, Ukrainian if that was his lingua, and so on. - Mauco 16:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but not during the XVI century, especially since the area was not yet under Russian control. The linguistic identity of the people of the region was still developing during this period, and the concept of true language and dialect was virtually non-existent, thus the differentiation of the subjects of the PLC into the four or so Slavic disticntions we would use today in the region (such as the Poles, Russians, White Russians, Ukrainians), especially in regions such as Podolia or Galicia did not exist during that period. TSO1D 16:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is something which you know more about than I do, so I will cede to your judgment. Meanwhile, your comments made me revisit the article and look for signs of the author trying to make a political statement. And, looking at it that way, I found something which is fairly obviously a political statement in a parenthesis: "(Тут возникает интересная путаница названий — в зависимости от того, с какого берега Днестра смотрят на эти земли: румыны и молдаване именовали их “Заднестровье”, русские и украинцы “Приднестровье”, “Заднестровьем” именуя как раз территории румын и молдаван)." Not a disqualifier in itself, but enough to get me started my research started on the need for better sources, especially on the Polish data. - Mauco

It is not valid, because it is from Olvia. :-)

The claim is based on a misunderstanding: just because part of Transnistria was in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, doesn't mean that it was inhabitants were Polish.

If there were so many Poles, how come there are no Polish placenames? From what I've seen, they are around 10-20% Turkic (Tatar), 40% Ukrainian , 40% Romanian. bogdan 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, does he bring any source or at least of justification of why he believes there were Poles in there? It appears that politics of this area are not his speciality, so, I think we should take any claim of his cum grano salis. bogdan 20:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, yes. I started working on this today, and am becoming less convinced of this Abraham Shmulevich, too. Looking for Polish influences from other sources turn up a blank or almost a blank. This even goes for Râşcov (home to Polish administration in the area at the time) where the name itself shows that the town predates Polish rule. - Mauco 03:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Shmulevich's quote is along the lines of (to save others the work of machine or other translations):

• "In the 14th century the northern part of the left bank of Dniester incorporated into the territory of the great principality of Lithuanian. This was part of the historical region Podolia, while in 1569 it became Polish after the union of Poland and Lithuania. . . . In essence Poles populated territory, Ukrainians and other Slav groups and in a smaller quantity - Jews, Armenians, Moldavian and German immigrants. Dniester served as boundary with Moldavia, i.e., with the Ottoman Empire."

Abraham (Avrom) Shmulevich is an Israeli rabbi, historian, Jewish mystic, supporter of Russia, and sometimes pundit offering his advice and commentary to the Russians, and head of the self-described "International Hyper-Zionist Movement "BEAD ARTSEYNU" ("FOR THE NATIVE LAND!") movement. Saying that since the territory came under Poland/Lithuania it was therefore predominantly then inhabited by Poles is a bit silly. In any event, Podolia was within the boundaries of the old Galicia, that is, somewhere else. But this error of geography is no surprise because Shmulevich is pro-PMR. From his own organization's website (www.zarodinu.org)...

• the book (novel) "Gospel from the Extremist" ships from the publishing house "Politica" because of the "personal assistance and with the financial support of the friend of the Transniestrian republic, Judaic rabbi and leader of the Hyper-Zionist movement "Bead Artseynu" (For the Native Land!) Abraham Shmulevich, and also the group of Pridnestrovie owners." The page goes on to say that though a novel, it documents anti-PMR Moldovan "provocations": the formation of ultra-Fascist Moldovan youth groups, etc. — with the book's launching happening in Tiraspol.

Once again, let's not perpetuate the hope-springs-eternal notion that Olvia ever cites "objective sources." Shmulevich is a self-described friend of the PMR from his own website. And the Pridnestrovie reference is right on his home page. Might I request more due diligence before we post for comments? Better yet, let's just eliminate Olvia from the list of sources except when quoting it as the position of the PMR authorities. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And, P.S., it was not the Poles but the Lithuanians who appropriated the Kievan Rus territories and drove out the Golden Horde (which, incidentally, was collecting tributes from Kievan Rus). Reference is Magocsi. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Middle Ages population

From the article:

"This region was mostly populated by Ukrainians and other Slavs"

Who were these other Slavs?

AFAIK, there were no Russians until it was included in the Russian Empire in late 18th century. Note that the contemporary Romanian documents used "Russians" for "Ukrainians", the real Russians being named "Muscali", from Muscovy.

The Bulgarians came also later, in the early 1800s, due to the Ottoman-Russian wars. bogdan 07:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Could the "other Slavs", in the meaning of the above sentence, have been Poles? - Mauco 07:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Romanians in the text

I changed the word Moldavians to Romanians in the text, because Romanian is an ethnic term, whereas the term Moldavian would have refered to a subject of Moldavia which would not have made sense since the population discussed did not live in Moldavia. One alternative would be Moldovan, but using that term to describe something during the Middle Ages is extreme POV. TSO1D 11:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A belated thanks. Just for the record, there is no such thing as an ethnic Moldavian. It's all Romanians. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Kievan Rus

In reference to the fact that Transnistria was part of Kievan Rus, top Moldova historian Charles King confirms it. Transnistria (but not Moldova) was part of Kievan Rus. The border was the River Dniester for most of that time. There is a section called Territory and History on page 179 of his book "The Moldovans" where he writes the following: "Unlike the rest of the Republic of Moldova, Transnistria was never considered part of the traditional lands of Romanian settlement. The territory east of the Dnestr River belonged to Kievan Rus' and the kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia from the ninth to the fourteenth centuries." Published by Hoover Press, Studies of Nationalities series (Stanford University, the year 2000).

Another reference which also states that Transnistria belonged to Kievan Rus at the time is Andrew Wilson, "The Ukrainians: Engaging the Eastern Diaspora", published in Nations Abroad: Diaspora Politics and International Relations in the Former Soviet Union. (Boulder, Colorada: Westview Press, 1998), page 116. - Mauco 19:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Transnistria, PMR territory belonging to Kievan Rus disproven. References cited above have been misinterpreted. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the discussion in Talk:Transnistria, and in fact, being one of the major participants there. However, I would not say that "disproven" is the right word. The source provided says that a sliver of Transnistria was part of Kievan Rus. While I highly respect the source provided, some other also-highly-respected sources say otherwise (including the ones listed above). The best thing to do is to look for more sources. Later, if no definitive conclusion can be reached, we can clarify that in the text. There are several ways to do that. We can present both views, or we can mention that there are indications or claims that it belonged to Kievan Rus. - Mauco 12:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sliver was the wrong word, the correct term should have been a single point, which I will go back and further research to clarify, as every large scale map conclusively shows that Kievan Rus never extended downriver past Moldova (that is, stopped at that little "crick" in the Dniester at the upriver boundary of present-day Moldova). Unfortunately, your interpretation of, for example, the Hoover Press reference is not based on a knowledge of Balkan geopolitical and ethnic boundaries. "The administrative border of Moldavia never crossed the Dniester, ergo it was Kievan Rus on the opposite bank. Q.E.D." is completely wrong. Please feel free to present each reference and I will validate against Magocsi. As I exhaustively indicated in Talk:Transnistria, your last reference there (numbered points) which you cited in "support of" the Kievan Rus position actually supports the absence of Kievan Rus along the Trans-Dniester and supports Romanian ethnic inhabitation/dominance back to at least 1,400 A.D. Let me be clear: I am not disputing your source; my source agrees with your source. The issue is that your interpretation is completely incorrect. So let's not propagate the fiction that sources which we would otherwise consider reputable are in disagrement and that we may just have to "note both viewpoints."—Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate this discussion. By the way, THIS is the right place to do it, rather than in Talk:Transnistria. The way we handle the subarticles (like "History of Transnistria") is that we do all the major work here, and then - when completed - bring a summary of the key points into the main Transnistria article. That way, we avoid content forking. - Mauco 13:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reputable sources "point/counter-point" # 1

No one is disputing that Transnistria had Romanian settlements at various times throughout history. This is an inevitable feature of being a borderland. Who was there first? Does it even matter? Well, it matters to some Romanians (like perma-banned Bonaparte and often-banned User:Greier) who want to make Romania appear larger than it ever was, and want to show that half of the world was Dacia. But to put some balance into the overall interpretation of history, I would - once again - like to call attention to the following historic notes, written from a Romanian point of view and generally accepted by all mainstream Romanian historians:

1. "The eastern boundary of Moldavia as well as the extent of the Romanian mass settlements remained, however, along the Dnestr river."

2. "During the fourteenth century, Prince Bogdan and his successors established their sovereignty over most of the land between the Carpathian mountains and the Dnestr river already populated by Romanians."

3. "Then, Prince Alexandre the Good (1400- 1432) drove the Tatars (remnants of the last great Asian invasion into Europe) beyond the Dnestr and established his boundary along the river. At the beginning, however, in the course of repopulating the new lands and extending state authority, the region between the Prut and Dnestr rivers adjacent to the Danube and the Black Sea, belonged to the Wallachian dynasty Basarab, after whom the entire province was later named."

4. "As a matter of fact, the northern and eastern boundaries of the Principality were fixed by the Prince of Moldavia and the King of Poland as early as 1433. The boundary followed the Ceremus river in the north and the Dnestr in the east, unquestionably including within Moldavia what later came to be known as Bukovina and Bessarabia. Soon after, the Moldavian princes began to fortify the Dnestr against the Tatars and built several fortresses which stand to this day. No fortress was ever built along the Prut River which flowed through the middle of the country."

5. "advancing from the west beyond Dnestr, the Romanian natural expansion encountered the Slavic colonization and the two cultures collided."

6. "1792: For the first time in history, Russia established its boundary along the Dnestr in the immediate vicinity of Moldavia. At that time, Moldavia had been in existence for almost five hundred years and her eastern boundary had been the Dnestr for all this time."

All quotes are from NICHOLAS DIMA 1991: East European Monographs, Boulder, Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, and can be seen online at http://ivantoc.org/moldova.htm This is a Romanian source. Other historians and sources (which I can also quote) are even more clear on the matter, and emphasize that the role of the Romanians in Transnistria has always been relatively limited and always as a minority compared to other groups. - Mauco 17:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

---

In response to the above by Mauco: I have scrupulously re-read Magocsi's maps and all pertinent text. The Kievan Rus province of Galicia extended west to Hungary but did not extend any further downriver, speaking of the Dniester, than the furthest upriver border of present-day Moldova. With respect to your quotes:

1. "The eastern boundary of Moldavia as well as the extent of the Romanian mass settlements remained, however, along the Dnestr river."

This only indicates Moldavia did not cross the Dniester and does not imply Kievan Rus east of the Dniester opposite, facing, Moldavia. Sources not in conflict.

2. "During the fourteenth century, Prince Bogdan and his successors established their sovereignty over most of the land between the Carpathian mountains and the Dnestr river already populated by Romanians."

In the 14th-15th centuries, Moldavia occupied the entire west/right bank of the Dniester all the way to the Black Sea and was not under Kievan Rus, it was a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire. The Carpathian mountains were already the western border of Kievan Rus, in central east central Europe. Your reference speaks of the Dniester upriver beyond Moldavia's border. Sources not in conflict.

The fact that the territory between the Carpathian mountains and the Dnestr river was already populated by Romanians does not mean that East of Dniester river were not Romanians also.--MariusM 01:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

3. "Then, Prince Alexandre the Good (1400- 1432) drove the Tatars (remnants of the last great Asian invasion into Europe) beyond the Dnestr and established his boundary along the river. At the beginning, however, in the course of repopulating the new lands and extending state authority, the region between the Prut and Dnestr rivers adjacent to the Danube and the Black Sea, belonged to the Wallachian dynasty Basarab, after whom the entire province was later named."

Moldavia remained in control of its territory through to the Dniester as part of the Ottoman Empire through to the end of the 18th century (1792), after which Bessarabia was split off from Moldavia in the Napoleonic era (by 1795). Bessarabia, the territory between the Prut and the Dniester is not the same territory as Walachia (Basaraba being the oligarch circa 1308). Walachia lay along the western border of Moldavia, as part of Hungary, and did not reach to the Black Sea (that territory being controlled by Bulgaria. I repeat: Walachia/Besaraba and Bessarabia are two completely different territories. Subsequently, Walachia became a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire (as did Moldavia). Prince Alexandru I (the Good) was a prince of Walachia (not Bessarabia); during his reign Moldova, nevertheless, had its own ruler, and, most importantly, Alexandru had absolutely nothing to do with Kievan Rus, as he was a Romanian coming from the opposite direction!! A total, and grossly inaccurate, misinterpretation.

South of actual Basarabia was at the begining ruled by Walachian king Basarab (source is Mihail Eminescu, who is a Romanian poet and journalist from 19th century). Moldova took this land from Walachia. In 1812 Russians extended the name Basarabia to the entire region between Prut and Dniester, when they convinced Turkey to cede this region (calling it "Basarabia" gave the impression it is a smaller region than it really was). No Kievan Rus around. Romanian historical tradition talk about Polish neighbours at North and Tatar neighbours at East.--MariusM 01:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

4. "As a matter of fact, the northern and eastern boundaries of the Principality were fixed by the Prince of Moldavia and the King of Poland as early as 1433. The boundary followed the Ceremus river in the north and the Dnestr in the east, unquestionably including within Moldavia what later came to be known as Bukovina and Bessarabia. Soon after, the Moldavian princes began to fortify the Dnestr against the Tatars and built several fortresses which stand to this day. No fortress was ever built along the Prut River which flowed through the middle of the country."

I am unclear as to if the source stated "unquestionably" or it's your interpretation. Your geography is still wrong, thinking that Basaraba/Walachia is Bessarabia. Of course it would be silly to build a fortress along a river flowing right through the middle of a country and for no reason! Yes, the Dniester was the border between Poland/Lithuania and Moldavia, as I've already stated.

5. "advancing from the west beyond Dnestr, the Romanian natural expansion encountered the Slavic colonization and the two cultures collided."

That is, after the Romanians crossed the Dniester, inhabited the left bank, and moved further east then, and only then, did they encounter the Slavs. My earlier point on ethnic settlement of the left bank (and beyond) by Romanians, exactly. And no change in the border of Moldavia, which remained along the Dniester while the left bank administratively now belonged to Poland/Lithuania. My earlier point about "if anyone has historical claim, it's Poland/Lithuania." Kievan Rus was never in the territory of the current PMR.

I would add that some Romanian scattered villages are founded even East of Bug. During centuries, is probable that many Romanians were slavicized, as Church Slavonic was a prestige language used by all Romanians (who shared Orthodox faith with Slavs) in curch and administration until 16th century and at a certain degree even after it (some books in Church Slavonic were still printed in Walachia and Moldova as late as 18th century). Source: Petre Panaitescu - "Începuturile şi biruinţa scrierii în limba română" (The begining and the victory of writing in Romanian language), Romanian Academy Publishing House 1965.--MariusM 01:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

6. "1792: For the first time in history, Russia established its boundary along the Dnestr in the immediate vicinity of Moldavia. At that time, Moldavia had been in existence for almost five hundred years and her eastern boundary had been the Dnestr for all this time."

Actually, Russia established that boundary along the left bank of the Dniester for the very first time in 1793 as part of the partitions of Poland (the first of which was in 1772). This only represented the carving up of Poland (Austria trying to insure its own safety by "giving" Poland to Russia), so a change in political administration, nothing more—and this is the first Russian presence. Again, proving my point exactly, since Romanians remained on the left bank and eastward of the Dniester.

There's nothing worse than making a case by spewing a mountain of seemingly incontrovertible facts driving them home with bolded sledgehammers and having it all totally wrong. I suppose that now you realize what you're quoting not only totally invalidates your position but proves that of the "opposition," you'll dismiss Romanian historians as "biased." You have just proven that Kievan Rus never controlled Transnistria/PMR; that Romanians have been the primary inhabitants of left bank of the Dniester and eastward, i.e., the territory of the current PMR and beyond, since at least the 1400's; and that Russian influence only arrived with the partition of Poland and did not affect the ethnic demographics of the Romanian population on the Dniester's left bank and beyond. So-called "historical Russian claims to the territory of the PMR" completely (and thank you for your emphasis) disproven.

Oops! Feeling the need to quote some other sources? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As I responded in Talk:History of Transnistria, the issue at hand is not the sources, they agree. It is your interpretation which is wrong, and it is wrong based an incomplete understanding of Balkan geopolitics and then jumping to conclusions which the sources plainly do not state. There's no "disagreement among reputable sources" that would require "both viewpoints to be noted." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Illythr for moving over! —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Pēters, I'd like to point out (from a logical point of view, as I'm no historian (but I did read the ivantoc.org source)), that the last six the points presented by Mauco do not appear to be an attempt to confirm any Russian historical claims (except, perhaps, point 5, although he probably should state his intent more clearly). The citations limit the Romanian presence to the Dnestr, and no mention of Kievan Rus is made at all. In fact, the original dispute about Kievan Rus dealt with the time period of the X-XI centuries, not the XIII-XVIII centuries mentioned in 2. - 6. Here are my comments for your comments, as to avoid cluttering the text above:

1. Yes, that is the idea. It comes into conflict with Moldavia's borders extending beyond Dnestr, though.

3. I think you missed the ...was later named. part. Also, what's the matter with Alexandru cel Bun? Did anyone assume that he's Russian or something? Of course he came from the west, pushing the Tatars to the east! The stress of the point was again, the Moldavian border.

4. Again, you missed the ...what later came to be known as... part that came with Bessarabia. After all, the whole source text mostly focuses on this land.

5. Well, that part is open to interpretation, due to its poor syntactic structure. It could be (origin: advancing from the west) (dest: beyond Dnestr) or (origin: advancing from the west beyond Dnestr) (dest: further east is implied).

I also think that the last part (before "Oops!") was rather offensive and not really necessary for a civil discussion. Besides, that text is indeed biased, but using it to point out the Dnestr as an eastern border for the proto-Romanian states is a good idea, IMHO.

PS: As for my personal "two bani", I believe that any kind of "historical claims" for any expanse of land are pointless from a legal point of view, and all they do is provoking someone to forcefully attempt to "revert the edits" made during the last several wars by starting a new one. All that matters to me here is that Transnistria was the part of the Soviet Union that was used to "magnet" Bessarabia into the USSR. After the fall of the SU, the place is torn between its current (de jure) and former owners. --Illythr 02:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Which parts in particular are you saying are torn which way and who are you saying are the current "de jure" owners of which parts (versus former "de jure" owners)? Just trying to clarify your position. (On the other, unless I misread earlier, Walachia was interchanged with Bessarabia. And I thought the point was we were discussing Kievan Rus claims--which have nothing to do with Moldavia not extending beyond the Dniester because--my point--Kievan Rus never controlled the territory opposite Moldavia so being emphatic about the Moldavian border is a total red herring.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your two cents. This was (and is) a historic borderland so it is normal to expect a mix of cultures and races and a mixed history, too, with a rich tapestry of participants. You suggested that I explain the intent behind 5. Well, I didn't really have an intent but merely quoted directly from a Romanian view of the history of the region (without deleting anything, nor adding anything). As for 5, I took it as an example of a Romanian version of lebensraum (the "natural expansion" wording - why "natural"?) but that was my own interpretation. And yes, hopefully the future of the area will be decided on what the people really want, and not on someone believing that they have an old (or even recent) title to the land. - Mauco 03:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder: we are not here to establish the future of Transnistria, but to write an encyclopedia. And we should focus on writing factually correct things, not propaganda.--MariusM 14:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Thanks. - Mauco 17:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I also think that you ought to either address Pēters' arguments directly, or at least agree with my assesment of the situation - that you did not make any "So-called "historical Russian claims to the territory of the PMR"" with those refs - so that he can reply to something "from you". ;-) --Illythr 04:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I already wrote to him directly that I am a bit busy these next couple of days but that I will certainly get back to him in some more detail when I can sit down and get the proper research done. - Mauco 05:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

All... I have never said Moldova's administrative borders went past the Dniester. I have said the Romanians did. (But, let's debate that point elsewhere!) For now let's stick to Kievan Rus. I have gone through ALL the centuries, from the inception of Keivan Rus to its demise and there is no historical basis for any claim of ancient Rusisa in Transnistria (with, as I noted, an 80-year exception of control when Galicia-Volhynia was at the peak of its powers), and that was basically cutting through Moldavia and west of it. My hope is that from an "encyclopedic" standpoint, we can come to an agreement that the Russian presence in the territory east of the Dniester, to the Black Sea shore, only came into being with the 1793 partition of Poland, and that there is no support of the "ancient Russian claim" that has been suggested (in particular, Wiki map showing Kievan Rus controlling the entire Black Sea coast down to the Dniester. Never happened.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you.--MariusM 02:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast. This use of "Never happened" is way too categorical and won't settle the argument. It all depends on how we define Russians. If we use the narrow definition of Imperial Russia, then they 1783 is the first year where we see Russia in Transnistria. This was with the annexation of the Crimean Khanate, transferring Yedisan (which then ruled the southern part of Transnistria, up to the Polish border) to Russia. It was formalized in the 1792 Treaty of Jassy although it happened nine years prior.

However, Imperial Russia only existed from 1721 onwards. So to look at an 'ancient' claim, it is necessary to evaluate to which extent any of its forerunners had a presence in Transnistria. And here we discover that several of them did, in fact dating all the way back to the Early East Slavs. Historically speaking, this is a classic borderland and lots of sides have a "claim" to past influence in the area. Going back in time and looking at who ruled what, and when, Poland, Ukraine and Russia are 3 examples of countries which have a much stronger historical claim than Romania or Moldova. This is history we are talking about. Don't be glib. - Mauco 03:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't troll, Mauco. We are talking here about Kievan Rus. It was very clear from the begining that this is the subject of the paragraph.--MariusM 03:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll is a bit, shall we say, rude. I doubt that you read my comment in the context of an answer to the previous statement. But since you insist on getting back to the strict and narrow of Kievan, here is what I have to say on the matter:

Kievan Rus' did include Transnistria (and all of it, too - not just a sliver). For sources, see the Cassell Atlas of World History by John Haywood and the Penguin Atlas of Russian History (Puffin, 1995). Transnistria was apparently not formally included in the Kievan Rus' when Sviatoslav I of Kiev got coronated, but fell under his conquests 962-972. The area of conquest is described in detail in David Christian's A History of Russia, Mongolia and Central Asia, Vol. 1, Blackwell, 1999. I am familiar with Magocsi, and respect this work, but in this case it does not invalidate the work of the other historians. The historical surveys of Charles King and of Andrew Wilson confirm the following statement, too: That Transnistria was part of Kievan Rus'. - Mauco 03:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Pēters, please comment on this article. "Never happened"? --Illythr

Gladly. But first, once again Mauco quotes Charles King as stating that Transnistria was part of Kievan Rus. King does not state that, this is Mauco's (flawed) interpretation of King (which is how this section all started).

But on to Illythr's excellent question:

• Magocsi notes that during the reign of Prince Oleg (880-912), limited control of territory along the Dnieper was expanded, joining Kiev with Novogrod via Smolensk. Next reference is that by the onset of the 11th century, Kievan Rus had extended its control to Poland's eastern border (central/northern central east-central Europe), as I've also already indicated. As the Pereyaslavets stub indicates, Kievan Rus had an interest in the Byzantine and Bulgarian lands farther south (lucrative trade). Magocsi notes specifically that "it was Kievan Rus's raids on Bulgaria in the 960's and 970's that contributed to the weakening of that empire and its eventual decline in the face of subsequent Byzantine attacks."
• So raids on Bulgaria over two decades, but not historical Kievan Rus rule of vast territories which included Transnistria.

Mauco states Magocsi is not "invalidating other historians." Let me be clear once again: it's not Magocsi "versus" Mauco's historians, it's Magocsi "versus" Mauco's interpretations of historians and specifically his interpretations which indicate a tradition of Kievan Rus rule over the Transnistrian territory. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The interpretation is easy, not just for me but for anyone who bothers to take a look at these sources: Just see the maps and notice to where they extend, at different times in history. You can leave out historian Charles King, if you prefer, but that still does not invalidate anything. There are several other sources that are clear on the same (and it should be noted that King, obviously, trusted the Wilson source more than Magocsi on this matter). Additional sources even include John Haywood: Cassell Atlas of World History, the Penguin Atlas of Russian History, and David Christian's highly regarded "A History of Russia, Mongolia and Central Asia, Vol. 1." These sources, individually and jointly, all support the simple eight-word statement that "...It was part of Kievan Rus at times". - Mauco 12:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess you'll need to provide citations, I don't think Peters will buy this just like that. --Illythr 14:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean online citations (hyperlinks)? There aren't any. These are all paper-based sources, just like Magocsi. However, Pēters J. Vecrumba has shown himself to be a good researcher and he has access to a large public library. With the exception of possibly Wilson, these are not obscure sources and they are fairly easy to locate. Less easy will be to get agreement on the interpretation of them, of course. - Mauco 15:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As for raids - from what I was able to gather from Wikipedia pages on the various participants, the chain of events was as follows: The Byzantine Empire bid Svyatoslav to raid the Bulgarian Empire. He did, and was quite successful at that. However, after the Balkan campaign was over, he proclaimed himself the ruler of the captured lands, instead of relinquishing control to the Byzantuim as was agreed. He moved the capital of Rus' to Pereyaslavets and called it "the center of his lands". This led to a fallout with his Byzantian allies, to the loss of the territories and eventually to his death. I'd say this qualifies as "rule", albeit a brief one. This does not invalidate the Magocsi quotes above, as Svyatoslav conquered only a part of the Bulgarian Empire in his raids. See also (here. --Illythr 14:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I read it more as the Danube was the most lucrative place to be (that is, after Constantinople), and who wouldn't want their capital there? Kiev was already in its descendency as the center of power--for the next century or so Galicia/Volhynia was the principality calling the shots. (Wasn't just after another another generation of Kievan Rus rulers that it fell apart and the principalities essentially went their own way?)

And, of course, the problem is that the mouth of the Danube is nowhere near Transnistria, so there is still no qualification as "rule" with regard to the article. Every time Slav presence or some dig is mentioned, there's the immediate jump to Kievan Rus ruling the entire territory along the Black Sea. One does not follow from the other. Pereyaslavets, which lasted (by Wiki accounts) all of two years as the capital, does not confer rule of the surrounding territories nor of Transnistria.

Obviously, I'm happy to respond regardless, but because of the controversial aspects of this topic, we have tried to source away from Wikipedia. And we'll continue to plough through the paper sources, obviously, to (eventually) arrive at some common interpretation. (And to Mauco once again, I am not saying to leave King out; I just don't believe your reading of King is accurate. I suppose I'll have to see if King's book is available to borrow at the library--not easy when commuting 4-5 hours a day, unfortunately!) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'll add Svyatoslav's campaign to my list of items to research (outside of Wikipedia). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know just how, precisely, anyone can say that "my reading of King is accurate." The sentence is short and to the point, and I quote from Charles King: " The territory east of the Dnestr River belonged to Kievan Rus' and the kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia from the ninth to the fourteenth centuries. " What, exactly, is there to misunderstand? You can argue that King is wrong (if you have the sources to prove that), but you can not say that Mauco's reading of King is wrong. It is a very clear, direct and unambigious sentence. - Mauco 06:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reputable sources point/counter-point #2

Let's make sure that the interpretations of words match the realities of maps. Confusing the territory of the ruler Besaraba with the later territory of Bessarabia is quite understandable if you don't have a map showing Besaraba ruled Walachia (some place completely different) in 1308. I sectioned this off so it can be edited/commented without needing to sift through endless screens of text. I invite Mauco (or anyone else, obviously!) to post another source for discussion. (One source at a time, please!) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I already gave an explanation above based on my knowledge of history (I don't have Magocsi book, but this is common knowledge in Romania for people interested in history): Basarab, king of Walachia, ruled South of actual Basarabia (and also other teritories - Muntenia, Oltenia and Dobrodja). Afterwards, Moldova, the second Romanian state, took this land from Walachia. In 1812, Russia extended the name "Basarabia" to the entire teritorry between Prut and Dniester. Russia sought a quick peace with Turkey as it was atacked by Napoleon (Turkey didn't knew what Napoleon had in mind). Russia bribe a Turkish diplomat to achieve peace, and, in order to create the impression that its territorial claims are smaller than in the reality, deliberately misused the word "Basarabia" giving it a broader interpretation.--MariusM 01:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to disagree but just to clarify: Was 'Basarabia' (or Bessarabia in English) not named after Basarabi, a village in Dolj County, south-western Romania? (Which is nowadays an administrative component of the Calafat municipality). - Mauco 05:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I can probably correct myself: Basarabia comes from House of Basarab and it seems that the Basarabi village got its name from Basarab I, the first ruler. - Mauco 06:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that in Dolj county exist a village name Basarabi.--MariusM 14:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Древнерусского государства ?!?

My Russian is too rusty to fully understand what is meant by "Древнерусского государства" in the following context: "В X – XI веках территория, ныне именуемая Приднестровьем, входила в состав Древнерусского государства" - can someone with better Russian than me please help. (By the way, it is from this page: http://www.obnovlenie.info/text.php?cat=34 ) - Mauco 01:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I remember my Russian lessons now. "Ancient Rus'" (the Russian term) is just another name for Kievan Rus' (the mostly Ukrainian term). - Mauco 01:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The term is somewhat broader, it also includes the Pre-Oleg period. Hmm, that page doen't cite its sources... --Illythr 02:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a scientific work, but from the largest of the opposition parties in Transnistria. I would certainly not rely on it solely, but merely as a confirmation of other, less-biased sources. With regards to the time before prince Oleg of Kiev, did you see the inclusion of "В X – XI" in the sentence above and wouldn't that limit the reference to the Kievan Rus' period (i.e., after 880)? Not a leading question. I am genuinely asking for someone to shed more light in this. - Mauco 03:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Basically, it says: During the X-XI centuries the territory that is now called Pridnestrovie was part of the Ancient Rus'. My remark above was only about the general usage of the term. --Illythr 04:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, we are on the same page then. I was actually asking for clarification of the term, to see if I understand it correctly, because Russian is not my native tongue. - Mauco 04:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Magocsi, Kievan Rus in 912 falls about 100km short of (i.e., east of) the Western and Southern Bug, reaching west past the Dnieper only upriver from Roden. East of Southern Bug to the Dniester was Etelköz. In 1050, Kievan Rus stretched to (but not including) Carpathian Rus, however, all along the Black Sea were the Pechenegs (Turks), down to the Danube/Bulgaria. Relative to the Dniester, Kievan Rus extended no more than 50km south east (as the crow flies) of the point where the Zbruch joins the Dniester. So, this is another source I would dispute based on Magocsi. In fact, I would consider Magocsi infinitely more authoritative than the web site of the Republican Party "Renewal" of Pridnestrovie. You may classify it an "opposition" party, but it's not advocating the dissolution of the PMR and union with Moldova, so that classification doesn't lend it any credence as a historical source whatsoever. If 10¹⁰ Russian-PMR sources say "A" and Magocsi says "B", relying on objective sources demands we take "B" every time. Anyone can put anything they like on a website. Come now, we can cite something a bit less obviously pro-PMR. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Year 981: Volodymyr the Great of Kievan Rus took an area known as Ruś Czerwona. The name is recorded, translated as "Red Ruthenia" ("Czerwień" means the color red in Slavic languages, or it is possibly from the Polish village Czermno), and applied to a territory extended up to the Dniester River. This areas was of course much larger than Transnistria but included part of Transnistria. It had priority gradually transferred to Przemyśl. I quote: Since the times of Władyslaw Jagiełło, the Przemyśl Voivodeship was called the Ruthenian Voivodeship ("województwo ruskie"). - Mauco 07:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I would not consider a "source" something that was written by a political party of Transnistria (is relevant only for a study about Transnistrian propaganda). How you established that "Red Ruthenia" included present day Transnistria or part of it?--MariusM 14:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ruthenia aka many things, academically "Subcarpathian Rus" was the territory better known to us today as the eastern end of the former Czechoslovakia, considerably inland, and west of the Dniester. That was nothing more than the southwestern end of the Galicia-Volhynia province, already noted. Sorry, absolutely not even close to Transnistria. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, like I implied in my reply to Illythr above, the political party can only be used as a corrobarative (is that the word?) source, and not as a main source for anything. Of course, they don't gain anything from lying in public either. If they say that their unrecognized country was part of Kievan Rus', then at least that provides a hint that should tell us to look for others who say the same. With regards to "Red Ruthenia" that was not part of the opposition party's webpage. It came from Wikipedia so it will be fairly easy to go back to the original author of that entry and ask for his sources. - Mauco 17:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not source itself. Regarding political parties, I assure you that many of them are gaining from lying in public.--MariusM 18:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The solution? Refer to the primary sources! The article should write what the contemporany chronicles are saying. I'm certain that for each interpretation of the primary sources, there'd be an exactly opposite interpretion by another historian. This is a disputed matter, so writing "Transnistria was part of the Kievan Rus" is POV. There's no such consensus. Writing "Transnistria was not part of the Kievan Rus" is also POV.

BTW, both Nicolae Iorga and Ion Nistor wrote histories of the "Romanians from beyond the Nistru" and I'm almost certain that the histories written by them and the history from that site conflict. :-) bogdan 20:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

My citing Magocsi is not POV in disputing the "Kievan Rus" contingent. And I should note I obtained that source quite some years ago for a completely different purpose, I didn't run out to find something to support my POV. If Magocsi said otherwise, that would be fine. For the sake of completeness, there was Galician-Volhynian influence to the Black Sea from 1160 to 1240 (roughly from the Siret to the Dniester) at the height of that province's power, but then surplanted by the Golden Horde (Galicia-Volhynia returning to its traditional border). So, still no historical tradition of Kievan Rus. I suppose writing the moon is not made of cheese, no the moon IS made of cheese would be two competing POV viewpoints by the logic just stated. Sources MUST be outside of Wikipedia and MUST be more credible than blurb sites. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I still believe there is something called historical truth which should guide us. In Transnistria talk page (now archive 7) I commented a book of Alexandr Soljenitsyn, who shows that Transnistria became Russian teritory only at 1792. He wrote that in the time of Bogdan Hmelnitsky Ukraine was a fifth of what is today. If we don't have clear data about Kievan Rus we should not mention it at all. (somebody says this, somebody the opposite is not a way Wiki articles should be written)--MariusM 21:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

We do have clear data on the extent of Kievan Rus over time. This is why we should mention it. Of course, not using 'blurb sites' as sources but using reputable sources and well-renowned historians and academic publications. Here are a number of sources which all support the statement that Transnistria was a part of Kievan Rus':

* John Haywood: Cassell Atlas of World History;

* Penguin Atlas of Russian History (Puffin, 1995);

* David Christian: A History of Russia, Mongolia and Central Asia, Vol. 1 (Blackwell, 1999);

* Charles King: The Moldovans (Hoover Press, Studies of Nationalities series (Stanford University, 2000);

* Andrew Wilson: "The Ukrainians: Engaging the Eastern Diaspora" (Westview Press, 1998). - Mauco 03:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on the issue. In most maps of Kievan Rus I was able to check, the area of Transnistria is shown as the dependency of Kiev. It was settled by the Slavic tribe of Tivertsi, who (according to the Laurentian Codex) settled all along the Dniester down to the Danube delta. They are mentioned in the chronicle twice: when they sided with Oleg of Novgorod and Igor I of Kiev during their campaigns against Tsargrad in 907 and 944. During the reign of Svyatoslav I, they most certainly were subjugated by the Rus: the capital of this prince was Pereyaslavets in Bulgaria. The late (and not very reliable) Voskresensk chronicle lists among the Russian cities "Belgorod in the mouth of the Dniester, above the sea". That's about all written evidence we have; all the rest is speculation. Soviet archaeologists excavated several settlements of the Tivertsi. Those in the Raionul Rezina include Alchedar (6th-12th cent.) and Ekimauzi (reconstruction). Some Moldavian authors dispute the attribution of these settlements to Slavs. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This settles it, then. Ghirla's sources support my own five sources: Transnistria was part of Kievan Rus. This does not contradict Magocsi, where Kievan Rus in 912 falls about 100km short of Transnistria. Transnistria became part of Kievan Rus later, under Svyatoslav I of Kiev. Moreover, there were Slavic inhabitants of Transnistria even prior to Kievan Rus. This confirms other sources which put the Early East Slavs in Transnistria around 600 AD. - Mauco 23:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Russian sources on the extent of Kievan Rus consistently overstate its span as compared to non-Russian sources. I also see Charles King requoted as a source, for example, although reading the text did not support Kievan Rus in Transnistria based on earlier discussion.

The Tiverstians were primarily situated on the west bank of the Dniester and westward (toward the Prut), the Ulichians east of the Dniester (600's-800's). So ancient Slavs, yes.

However even in the 800's, Kievan Rus did not extend much west beyond the Dnieper (and only to the Dnieper downstream of Roden). By 1050 Kievan Rus extended into central east-central Europe (Galicia/Volhynia), but again, not anywhere in the territory of Transnistria (which at that time was under the control of the Pechenegs, later surplanted by the Golden Horde). Who settled does not imply Kievan Rus actually had domain over the territory. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, I would send you my older Magocsi (I just bought the latest edition), but I already promised it to someone. And you are contradicting Kievan Rus falling short of the present PMR. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(Mauco) Feel free to add "although latest scholarship disputes Russian control of territory prior to the partition of Poland. (ref. Magocsi "Historical Atlas of Eastern Central Europe, 1993 and 2002, University of Washington Press)" until we can complete discussing the interpretation of your sources. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Goths actually have the most ancient claim. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm, "claim"? What claim? The actual disputed sentence part is "...It was part of Kievan Rus at times". That is all. I understand that it was a relatively brief period of time around the X century. --Illythr 00:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

10th century was raids on Bulgaria, nothing to do with Transnistria being part of Kievan Rus. (See my answer to yours regarding Pereyaslavets.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So, we can agree that they were there, is that correct? (And went further south as well, to Bulgaria). And the disagreement thus now centers on the issue of in which capacity they were there, namely either as rulers or as marauders. Is that a fair interpretation? If they were rulers, it was obviously "part of Kievan Rus at times" but if they were raiders, that sentence would not necessary be true. Please let me know if I am understanding your position and your interpretation of Magocsi correctly so we can build toward consensus. - Mauco 12:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Danube is a long way from Tiraspol, I'm afraid. Actually, with Galicia/Volhinya becoming the power in Kievan Rus, actions like the raids on Bulgaria in the south would have been the norm--that is, attempts at expansion of power and influence south and west of the Dniester. (The Prut and the Siret both originated well within Galicia/Volhynia and flowed to the mouth of the Danube). Neither Magocsi nor my reading of your King quotes indicates Kievan Rus in Transnistria. As I indicated (elsewhere), I'll probably see if I can get my hands on the King reference some time in the next week or so for a more thorough analysis. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I can offer to scan the page and send it to you by email if you want me to. It is only one page (page 179) of the book, The Moldovans. In Chapter 9, in the chapter called "The Transnistrian Conundrum", Charles King starts a section which is headed "Territory and History" with the following sentence: "The Transnistrian war was in no sense about ancient hatreds between eastern Latinity and Slavdom, but history did play an important role. Unlike the rest of the Republic of Moldova, Transnistria was never considered part of the traditional lands of Romanian settlement. The territory east of the Dnestr River belonged to Kievan Rus' and the kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia from the ninth to the fourteenth centuries. The expansion of the Moldovan principality from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries stopped at the Dnestr, and the expansion of Russia from the east in the eighteenth century moved the empire up to the Dnestr's eastern bank." That is all. - Mauco 06:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Romanian bibliography on history of Transnistria

I did some searches and here's what I found:

Some pre-WWII books:

• Romînii de peste Nistru : lamuriri pentru a-i ajuta în lupta lor / Nicolae Iorga / Iasi : Tipografia Ziarului "Neamul Românesc", 1918
• Românii transnistrieni / Ion Nistor / Codrul Cosminului : buletinul "Institutului de Istorie si Limba", 1924
• Granita rosie : ancheta mea la Nistru / Mihail Condrus ; cu o pref. de Geo London / Bucuresti : Imprimeriile Independenta, 1932
• Românii de peste Nistru / de Vasile Harea / Bucuresti : Cartea Româneasca, 1934
• Transnistria: tribuna românilor de peste Nistru si Bug / red. I. Zaftur / Cluj : Tip.Fondul Cartilor Funduare, 1935-1938
• Vechimea asezarilor românesti dincolo de Nistru / Ion Nistor / Bucuresti : Monitorul Oficial si Imprimeriile Statului, Imprimeria Nationala, 1939
• Românii de pestre Nistru / Nichita P. Smochina / Bucuresti : Tip. Ziarului "Universul", 1941
• Documente moldovenesti privitoare la românii de peste Nistru : (1574-1829) / Aurel V. Sava / Bucuresti : Bucovina, I. E. Toroutiu, 1942
• Românii din rasarit-Transnistria / Emil Diaconescu ; / Iasi : Institutul de Arte Grafice si Editura Ath.Gheorghiu, 1942
• Transnistria : încercare de monografie regionala / Nicolae M. Popp / Bucuresti : [Imprimeriile Soc. Nationale de Editura si Arte Grafice "Dacia Traiana"], 1943
• Românii si stramosii lor în istoria Transnistriei / Alexandru V. Boldur / Iasi : Tipografia "Liga Culturala", 1943

(no books on this subject were published during the communist era, for obvious reasons)

and some after 1990:

• Moldova de peste Nistru-vechi pamînt stramosesc / Nicolae Dabija / Chisinau : Hyperion, 1990
• Din istoria arheologiei Moldovei: (Basarabia si Transnistria) / de Nicolae Chetraru / Chisinau : Stiinta, 1994
• Istoria românilor din Transnistria : organizarea, cultura si jertfa lor / Ioan Silviu Nistor / [Bucuresti] : Editura Eminescu, 1995
• Românitatea transnistriana : antologie / ed. îngijita, note si comentarii de Florin Rotaru / Bucuresti : Semne, 1996

bogdan 11:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Bogdan, THANKS for a truly useful contribution that I am sure will help many researchers here. - Mauco 17:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of Romanians (i.e. Moldavians) in the Russian Empire

Something interesting: some population figures from early 19th century. Source: "The native races of the Russian empire", by Robert Gordon Latham (1854)

• Podolia 7,429;
• Ekaterinoslav: 9,858;
• Kherson: 75,000; -- Transnistria was part of this province.
• Bessarabia: 406,182

This population figure tells us that there were quite a number of Moldavians beyond the Dniester. (almost a quarter of the population of Moldavians in Bessarabia) bogdan 12:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Language misinformation

I must say, pridnestrovie.net has hired a lot of people who know English really well, good English always gives an air of authority. Sadly, the content itself would make Stalin weep with joy.

From pridnestrovie.net...

"Why does Pridnestrovie prefer the cyrillic alphabet?

"For 700 years, ever since the first ethnic Moldavians arrived on the Pridnestrovie side of the river in the 14th century, they have been writing their language in cyrillic. The renegade Moldovan schools wanted to teach Moldavian in the latin script. They were allowed to do so, but from a strictly educational viewpoint, Pridnestrovie does not consider this to be a correct decision. However, as a tolerant, multiethnic country which respects the right of the parents to choose, Pridnestrovie allows the individual parents to decide this issue.

"Is the choice of one alphabet over the other a case of "discrimination", as Moldova was quick to claim? Not in the least. In fact, Romania itself used the Cyrillic alphabet for most of its history. As did Moldova. And as top scholars from the state university in Bucharest, Romania will point out, the cyrillic alphabet is much better suited for Romanian than the currently used latin alphabet. Due to the nature of the language the use of latin script sometimes impairs full written use of Romanian/Moldavian. This debate is well known among language scholars in Romania who lament that country's switch to latin script. But now the mistake is made and neither Moldova nor Romania can turn back the clock. Pridnestrovie, however, decided early on that it would not commit the same mistake. So as official policy, it simply teaches Moldavian in the alphabet most naturally suited to that language.

"In Romania itself, Latin script was introduced in 1860 by outside Francophone elites following a nearly thousand year history of Cyrillic script in the region. In Moldova, Latin script was introduced in 1991. Pridnestrovie maintains the historical use of Cyrillic for Moldavian, as that is what works best for that particular language.

"Pridnestrovie respects the human rights of all its children, regardless of language or ethnic background. There is no discrimination in Pridnestrovie but only a concern that legal and educational standards are always followed and adhered to."

Stalin is not dead. He is alive and well and writing for pridnestrovie.net. witness: "Moldavian being taught in its native alphabet."

The Romanian language finds its roots in Dacian, with a strong element of Latinization (that is, the real Latin from the Romans), later, adopting terms from the Slavic languages (the Slavs picking up Latinized terms in return). There was a re-Latinization in the 1800's, but having nothing to do with outside elites, rather, it was the literary intelligencia looking to undo the Slavic influences which had come into Romanian. The Cyrillic used prior to 1860 is, in fact, quite different from the Russian Cyrillic introduced by the Soviet Union to create the fiction that there is a "Moldovan" language, and does not reflect all the original features (diacritics, etc.) of the original Cyrillic. Romanian today in Cyrillic form in Transnistria is no more than a poor transliteration of the Latin script adopted in 1860. As with many other assertions by Transnistrian "sources" regarding Moldavia, etc., something which on its surface appears perfectly plausible but, with just a slight knowledge of circumstances, is an outright lie. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This part of transnistrian propaganda was already discussed in Talk:Moldovan_schools_in_Transnistria ("fallacies of Transnistrian side" part)--MariusM 11:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco's edit

Mauco insist to add in the article: "the area was always predominantly Slavic. At no time in history did ethnic Moldovans ever constitute a majority". However, from the discussions above was showed that all sources which claim a Slavic majority (Kolstoe, Dima etc.) reffered at entire Dniester-Bug territorry or at least at the teritorry of Moldavian ASSR created in 1924, which was significantly bigger than actual PMR (this is the meaning of Transnistria for this article; we have separate articles about entire Dniester-Bug teritorry Transnistria (WWII) and about Moldavian ASSR). For the territorry of actual PMR there are no sources to show that was ever a Slavic majority, except recent propaganda of PMR regime. In fact, even PMR from the begining recognized Moldovans as native ethnic group, including the name "Moldovan" in the name of the republic ("Pridnestrovie Moldovan Republic"). They didn't name it Pridnestrovie Slavic Republic (while this is more close with the reality of PMR regime). Totally bogus is Mauco's claim that Upson Clark is the only who wrote about a Moldovan majority. We already discussed in Transnistria talk page (now archived) about the book of Dabija. Mauco took part at this discussion, so, is difficult for me to assume good faith on him.--MariusM 13:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Dabija's book is called "Transnistria - our rightful land"! It was published in Chisinau right before the 1992 war. Reliable source? Naaah! Hmm, I wonder if I can find it online...

On the territory issue: When you speak about the population (ethnic composition, size etc) of Romania in the historical period of 1918-1940, or during the Middle Ages (or any other country, that, at some time, posessed more territory than it does now), do you include the population of Bessarabia, Bukovina etc or are you only considering Romania within its current borders at any time of its history (in population issues)?

Perhaps a compromise may still be achieved. Here, my proposition:

Along with a nomadic Nogai Tatar population, the area between the Dniester and Bug rivers, that later came to be known as Transnistria, was always predominantly Slavic. However, the ethnic composition of the lower Dniester area, which constitutes the current teritorry of Transnistria, is still a disputed matter. According to Charles Upson Clark, the territory was an almost purely Romanian stream. A later research made by Paul Kolstoe {hm, no article yet?} states, that the largest group on the left bank of the Dniester in the 18th century was made up of Slavs, primarily Ukrainian peasants. --Illythr 14:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Illythr, is not only Dabija and Upson Clark with those conclusions. Vecrumba mentioned Magocsi and Mauco told "I am familiar with Magocsi, and respect this work" (see this talk page). I have to admit I am not familiar with Magocsi and didn't read anything written by him, but I trust Mauco and Vecrumba about the seriousness of this source. Dabija is claiming more than Upson Clark, he is claiming that entire Dniester-Bug teritorry was with Moldovan majority before 1792. Dniester-Bug teritorry was never a country on its own, it make no sense to show ethnic data about it in this article. As Transnistria was once part of Poland, why not telling "Transnistria was part of Poland, where Moldovans where outnumbered by Slavs? Regarding Romania between 1918-1940, do you feel apropiate to write in the article about Basarabia that "Basarabia was part of Romania. Russians were only 3% of population" (misleading the readers, who will believe you are reffering at basarabian population, while you are referring at total interwar romanian population)? My opinion: no comment about ethnic data for entire Dniester-Bug teritorry belong to this article. We should focus at actual PMR teritorry.--MariusM 15:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to get a hold of that Magocsi's work as well. The idea is not to include countries of which Transnistria was part, but rather, territories that were considered part of Transnistria themselves. You see, "Transnistria" was originally named so by Romanians and was that bigger territory between the two rivers. As for defining the land before that point, things become rather vague... Of course, whenever a historical population estimation is made, the territory needs to be stated explicitly. I think that my proposal reflects that necessity. --Illythr 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Magocsi doesn't talk about the Slavic majority, so it is irrevelant to this edit. He deals with conquests, such as the Kievan Rus' and others. I have read the entire work by Upson Clark as well (in fact, MariusM was unaware of it and I provided him with the link). It is very unscientific and dated. It is a travelogue, more than anything, and a lot of what he writes smacks of rumors that he has heard and which he is merely passing on. There is no evidence (other than Upson Clark's word) for what he says, and he does not say how he reach the conclusion or what data he bases it on. There are several other fallacies in the old book, which have been proven wrong by later historians, and it is not unreasonable to believe that this is one of them. I would prefer not to include it, for that reason alone, but if we include it, then it must at least be countered with the later research. AND with common sense: it is a bit wild to imagine that an area which was never part of Moldova should have a Moldovan majority. Hmmmm... - Mauco 20:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Illythr, can you come up with a second compromise version? Besides, by "lower Dniester area", historians usually refer to the Akkerman area. This is NOT the same as the current Transnistria, whatever MariusM will have us believe. - Mauco 20:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the general idea was that the area that was later know as "Transnistria" was predominantly Slavic, yada-yada, whereas the ethnic composition of the strip of land known as "Transnistria" today was rather vague and still remains a disputed matter. --Illythr 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Mauco's appeal to common sense: Transylvania and Banat were regions which were not under Romanian control before 1918, however they had a Romanian majority. Transnistria was under Turkish/Tatar rule before 1792, is a bit wild to imagine that it had a Slavic majority. Hmmm... Illythr: compromise should not start with predominantly Slavic Dniester-Bug teritorry (even this is disputed - see Dabija, who is giving a lot of sources; see Danylo Apostol, the Moldavian who was hetman of Ukraine or Petru Movilă, from the rulling family of Moldavia, who was metropolitan of Kiev). We should jump directly at the actual strip of land. Else, we mislead the ordinary readers.--MariusM 21:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: it was not Mauco, but Greier who provided the link at Upson Clark book. And "Magocsi doesn't talk about the Slavic majority", probabily because it was not any Slavic majority. For Mauco, every source which doesn't talk about Slavic majority is irrelevant.--MariusM 22:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, what can I see with Apostol and Movilă? Transnistria was cut down to the narrow strip of land it is now only during Soviet times. If its historical borders were Dniester and Bug before that event, we should refer to the greater territory in that historical context. This territorial difference must be clarified to avoid confusion, of course. --Illythr 22:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Illythr. 100% in agreement. Anyone can prove anything if we are comparing apples and oranges. In a book from the 1920's, it is not clear what Upson Clark is referring to, or if he even set foot in Transnistria. His book is a chatty travelogue which doesn't give any sources for his extraordinary claim, and no other serious, peer-reviewed researcher has ever said the same: Neither before Upson Clark or after. In contrast, Pal Kolstoe (from Oslo University) deals specifically about Transnistria, is peer reviewed, and has been published by the OSCE. - Mauco 00:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

Okay guys, you don't agree on stuff. I move that stuff over here, so that you can duke it out on the talk page, instead of reverting each other in the mainspace. Please don't re-introduce any one of the versions until you/we can reach some kind of consensus with the data. --Illythr 21:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco's version

Along with a nomadic Nogai Tatar population, the area was always predominantly Slavic. At no time in history did ethnic Moldovans ever constitute a majority. Only one source, Charles Upson Clark, claims that the lower Dniester, in 1792 was "an almost purely Romanian stream". Subsequent research, however, state that the largest group on the left bank of the Dniester in the 18th century was made up of Slavs, primarily Ukrainian peasants.

Full story here, with the authorative source given the primary weight as per WP:NPOV. - Mauco 00:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the At no time in history... sentence should go, IMHO, because it's redundant in the context of the previous one. If Slavs were always a majority, then it's not necessary to say that Moldovans weren't. Only one source... is not a good idea either: There will always be more, reputable or not, to repeat it. It probably should be either just One source..., or, as I proposed above According to.... --Illythr 02:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that makes sense. Why can't all editors be like you, Illythr: Constructive instead of destructive... - Mauco 05:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem with me is that I can dispute the form, but not the actual content here (which is the main cause of this revert war), as I have no sources of my own to verify/debunk it. I can make it look better (from my POV, of course), but content issues you have to settle with Marius and others, I'm afraid. --Illythr 13:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The source is biased: has russian authors, the very article is labeled by the authors as "encorrected", and it hasn`t got a single reference. I would like to know what the hell is with that "1792"? Pure sophistry from Mauco... Also, regarding the "subsequent research", please explain how, by whome, and when was the research done. Also, explain how much you get payd Mauco for doing this, just for curisity... Whas it you life dream to be a prostitute for the Smirnovs... oups, a... a... how was that??? ahh, yes, "an independent scholar and researcher" hah ha hahaha... Greier 16:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

MariusM's version

According Charles Upson Clark, in 1792 there were already half a million Romanian peasants in Russia, mostly in the teritorry between Dniester and Bug, while the lower Dniester, which is the actual teritorry of Transnistria, was an almost purely Romanian stream.

Highly biased POV. This edit removes all sources which does not agree with the flawed premise of an author whose data is dubious, to say the least, and does not match the general view of today's academics on this issue. If he should be mentioned at all, it should be done in context, without omitting the other view. - Mauco 00:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)