
If the saying is true that a language is a dialect with an army and a navy, then landlocked, frigate-less Moldova is only halfway there. The Eastern European republic, celebrated for its obscurity, has struggled with its national identity ever since breaking free of the Soviet bear-hug in the early 1990s.
Formerly known as the Soviet republic of Moldavia, Moldova shares its language with neighbouring Romania (1), but insists on calling it Moldovan rather than Romanian. This doesn’t half annoy the Romanians, who would like to see the matter rectified before Moldova joins them in the European Union (2).
But while the Moldovans were busy maintaining that they are not Romanian, some of their countrymen were keen to stress that they are not Moldovan. As with most post-soviet national identities, Moldova’s was based on the dominant ethnicity, leaving minorities wondering what they were doing in a state run by Moldovans and for Moldovans. This spurred two separate autonomist movements.
The mainly Russian region of Transnistria has seceded with support of the Russian army, and is maintained by it in in a state of phantom-nationhood. Its obscure history – and especially its strange shape – has been described on entry #311 of this blog. Another, more amicable path towards autonomy was achieved by the Gagauz, a tribe of Turkish-speaking orthodox Christians whose homeland, in the south of Moldova, received a degree of autonomy – and the promise of independence, if Moldova chooses to (re)unite with Romania.
Where the Gagauz came from, is unclear. Local historians have listed over 20 different theories on their origins. There is even uncertainty about the origin of the ethnonym itself. ‘Gagauz’ might mean ’straight nose’, it possibly refers to the Oghuz tribe, or it could be a reference to Kaykaus II, a Seljuk Sultan who settled in the area. Wrapping this riddle in a mystery is the fact that, before they migrated from Bulgaria to areas vacated by the Nogai tribe in present-day Moldova, Gagauz referred to themselves as “old Bulgars” or “true Bulgars”. The question whether the Gagauz are turkified Bulgars or christianised Turks is hardly trivial – we are, after all, in the Balkans – but very difficult to answer.
During the 20th century, the Gagauz have been independent twice, albeit very briefly. In 1906, a peasant uprising led to the Republic of Komrat, which collapsed after either 5 or 15 days (sources vary). In August 1990, Gagauzia proclaimed its autonomy, mainly in reaction to Moldova’s adoption of Moldovan as its official language. On 18 August 1991, the day of the Moscow coup attempt against Mikhail Gorbachev, Gagauzia proclaimed its independence. Transnistria would follow its example in September 1991. Both declarations were annulled by the Moldovan government.
While Transnistria and Moldova are still at odds with each other, Gagauzia came back into the fold. On 23 December 1994, the Moldovan parliament approved Gagauzia’s current special status. The size of the region was determined by referendum, three towns and 27 villages wanting to be included. The Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia (3) consists of four separate areas in the southern part of Moldova, near the border tripoint with Romania and Ukraine. The largest, northern area contains the region’s capital, Komrat.
The names of all localities on this map are marked in the region’s three official languages, Romanian/Moldovan, Gagauz and Russian (here transcribed in the Latin alphabet), and to some comic effect when the names are exactly the same (Avdarma/Avdarma/Avdarma). The region’s official names are Găgăuzia (in Moldovan/Romanian), Gagauz-Yeri (in Gagauz) and Гагаузия (in Russian).
Information about Gagauzia is scarce, apart from the most basic statistics. The area’s total surface is 1,832 km2, its population hovers around the 150,000 mark, 83% of which is Gagauz. The capital Komrat is home to 23,000 people, and its main industries are rugs, butter and wine. A National Museum of Gagauz People and History is located in the town of Besalma (“Five Apples”). About 40% of the Gagauz are city-dwellers, and of those, 18% has a phone (in comparison to only 8% of rural Gagauz). The Gagauz elect their own Governor (Guvernator in Moldovan/Romanian, Bashkan in Gagauz), at present Mihail Formuzal.
This map found here on Wikipedia.
(1) Itself formerly known under the slightly more menacing-sounding moniker of Rumania. See also Belarus, formerly known as Belorussia. These countries not only dropped ‘Soviet’ and/or ‘socialist’ from their titulature, but found it necessary to modify their proper name. The implied critique is that the communists couldn’t even get the spelling of their countries right – the ultimate insult of a failed utopian project. (Update: commenters point out a better explanation for the Rumania/Romania word pair. So there goes that theory).
(2) A dispute reminiscent of the one between Greece, which sees itself as the sole custodian of all matters Macedonian, and the Former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, which on Greece’s intransigent insistence still has to circumspectly describe itself on international fora with the acronym FYROM. It might yet catch on, and the proud Fyromans will then have a toponym all of their own to defend.
(3) Or ATUG. Cf sup.


Komrad! Affurmativ… Reminds me of the way the Soviets talked in Red Alert – Command & Conquer-games.
Comment by Carlitos — October 10, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
“The question whether the Gagauz are turkified Bulgars or christianised Turks is hardly trivial – we are, after all, in the Balkans – but very difficult to answer.
Are we, after all, in the Balkans? Sensu stricto – no; sensu lato – yes.
See Wikipedia “Balkans” for discussion.
BTW, if your ad blocker is more efficient than mine, you may be missing out on “Ads by Google
Marry Woman from Moldova
100s Beautiful Women Profiles Find Your Beauty Queen from Moldova” right above the map.
Comment by Dan Milton — October 10, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
“Itself formerly known under the slightly more menacing-sounding moniker of Rumania. See also Belarus, formerly known as Belorussia. These countries not only dropped ‘Soviet’ and/or ‘socialist’ from their titulature, but found it necessary to modify their proper name. The implied critique is that the communists couldn’t even get the spelling of their countries right – the ultimate insult of a failed utopian project.”
Actually, it was Ceausescu who changed the spelling from Rumania to Romania in the mid-1960s, shortly after coming to power, as part of his efforts to promote Romanian nationalism. Many Romanians claim to be descended from the ancient Romans who came to the area with Caesar a couple of millennia ago. This origin story ostensibly explains why the Romanians speak a Romance language, but it also allows them to claim to be ethnically distinct from the Slavs (and Magyars) who abut Romania. In accord with this view, Ceausescu changed the spelling to emphasize further the connection between ROMANia and the ancient Romans.
Comment by scootage81 — October 10, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
Actually the term Rumania was never used to denote a Romanian national state in Romanian language. Before the communist rule the country was officially called Regatul Romaniei (The Kingdom of Romania), or Romania for short.
The term Rumania/roman did exist and it was the archaic version of Romania/Romanian. However by the early 19 century it was largely phased out. When the name Roumanie entered the French language in the mid 1800s it was subsequently borrowed in English as Rumania.
So the communist really had nothing to do with it. However they did change the country’s name to The People’s Republic of Romania shortly after seizing power, and then to The Socialist Republic of Romania in 1965.
Comment by Mihai — October 10, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
“[...] Gagauz referred to themselves as “old Bulgars” or “true Bulgars”. The question whether the Gagauz are turkified Bulgars or christianised Turks is hardly trivial [...]”
The Bulgars appear to have been a Turkic people in the first place. They are partly the ancestors of modern-day Bulgarians, who took their name, but Bulgarians also have Slavic and other ancestry.
Comment by Marc — October 10, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
They may be a eastern remnant of the old Volga Bulgars who were pushed westward by the Mongols. The rest going farther west.
Comment by David — October 10, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
“(2) A dispute reminiscent of the one between Greece, which sees itself as the sole custodian of all matters Macedonian, and the Former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia”
There are some similarities, but it’s important (for some) to note, that, whereas (Fyro)Macedonians are slavic, and greeks…well greek, the difference between moldovans and romanians are as between austrians and germans. Austrians could, in fact, call their official language “austrian”, but it would still be virtually indistinguishable from “german”.
Comment by Bezbojnicul — October 10, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
Fascinating stuff. This sort of post is why I have this weblog in my RSS feed.
To confirm Mihai’s comment: I have just had a look through a stamp catalogue I have lying around. The first Romanian postage stamps to include the name of the country, in 1865, were marked “Posta Romana”. Since then “Posta Romana” and “Romania” have been used, together a few other small variations, none of which used a ‘u’.
Comment by Stephen — October 11, 2009 @ 9:48 am
Just a little sidenote to scootage81 (n°3): the “Ceasar” who is mentionned is not Caius Julius Ceasar (the “original” one, to be precise), who never arrived to the Dacia (today Romania), but Caesar Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus Augustus, known as Trajan (“Ceasar” means emperor).
Comment by P.F.R. — October 11, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
FYROM? Where’s that acronym to be found?
USA, China, Russia, Great Britain, India, and about 4/5 of Earth Population has no problem with our name. I might say, 99,99% of the people on Earth can choose its name and language – why shouldn’t we have that right? Just read UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights and you will understand that the fact that Macedonia has been divided in 1913 does not annihilate my people’s right to self-determination…
Kiro Velkovski
Skopje, Macedonia
P.S. If you check the UN legal archives, you will see that Macedonia applied under its constitutional name. It has been accepted under that name, but protested the fact that it will be specially temporarily referenced under “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” WITHIN UNITED NATIONS only. And again, there’s no acronym… Don’t believe the Athens’ propaganda.
Comment by Kiro Velkovski — October 11, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
Are the Volga Bulgars the most euphemistically named people on earth?
Comment by johnrimmer — October 11, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
@scootage81: There were some people who spelled Romania with an “o” in English before Ceaucescu took power, as you can see if you look through the NG Magazine Classic Map Collection online (they appear to have switched between 1932 and 1935). However, it does appear that “Rumania” was still predominant in English-language materials in the WW2 era, as you can see if you Google other period maps.
The variation reminds me of the old English name “Servia” for Serbia, although that one went out of fasion decades before “Rumania” did.
Comment by Lazar — October 12, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
I have to confess to being a bit old-fashioned* when it comes to the spelling of Rumania. They can spell it however they like in Rumanian, but I don’t see why we can’t spell it in English in a way that corresponds to how we pronounce it. If they can persuade us to pronounce it Romania then doubtless the spelling will follow, but for the moment I don’t know of anyone who pronounces the first vowel like an o. Maybe we can make a deal: if they will agree to change the name in Rumanian of the country they call Anglia to Englia, we can maybe accept their spelling of Rumania.
The 2nd (1958) edition of the Concise Oxford Atlas confirms that the Romanaia spelling is much older in English than Ceaucescu’s rule, and is the spelling the atlas prefers. However, the index recognizes both Rumania and Roumania, saying “see Romania” for both.
*Actually I’m even more old-fashioned than that, as normally I write it as Roumania. Whether that is because I now live in France I don’t know, but I suspect I spelled it like that long before I lived in France.
Comment by athel — October 12, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
I wrote “that the Romanaia spelling is much older”.
I mean, of course, “that the Romania spelling is much older”
Comment by athel — October 12, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
I got extra credit in a college geography class for determining that Moldovan and Romanian were two languages that were really the same language.
Comment by Gus Snarp — October 12, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
This spelling of the name of a country/language thing got me thinking. Most country and language names get rendered fairly similarly across other languages (e.g. French, Franzosisch, francais). Apparently this holds for Romania (at least in Romanian and English). Why is that German doesn’t fit this pattern? (i.e. Deutsch, German, Tedesco, Allemagne).
Comment by Gus Snarp — October 12, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
@Athel: You’re mistaken. I pronounce it with an /o/ sound, that’s the only way I’ve ever heard it pronounced in English, and it’s the only pronunciation attested at dictionary.com
Comment by Lazar — October 12, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
Bezbojnicul: “the difference between moldovans and romanians are as between austrians and germans.”
maybe closer to difference between West and East Germanies.
My understanding is that younger Moldavians think of themselves as Romanians and older as Moldavians. So it’d just question of time when Romania and Moldova will reunite.
Comment by L — October 12, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
The english article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gagauzia
Comment by a — October 12, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
@Gus:
It has to do with the long and convoluted history of Germany, but it comes down to the fact that there was no nation called Germany until around 1871. Prior to that, the language and people of the area were generally named either a) based on the ethnonym of a particular Germanic tribe which the namers’ ancestors were most closely familiar with (Allemagne), b) based on a word which originally meant something like “foreign neighbors” (Germany), or in the case of the people themselves, c) based on a word that originally meant “people like us” in early Germanic (Deutsch, Tedesco).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Germany
Comment by clamshell — October 13, 2009 @ 4:18 am
@Carlitos
I thought I am the only one knows about this map regarding RA. It’s really compplicated.
Comment by denparser — October 13, 2009 @ 7:26 am
@Kiro, comment n° 10: “FYROM? Where’s that acronym to be found?”
Well, for one, it was used by both the UEFA and FIFA when drawing the groups that would make up the preliminaries of European and World Championships football: the ballot always showed “FYROM” instead of just “Macedonia”. Though naturally they said the full name “Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia” instead of Fyrom. (I must admit the first time I saw “Fyrom” in such a live drawing on TV I was wondering what country that the hell was – it took a few seconds to dawn on me)
But I agree with you completely that that is utter nonsense, and you should just be known as “Macedonia”.
Comment by Ludwig — October 13, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Before beeing a republic, Gagauzia was known as the Kingdom of Disko, ruled by the Queen Lady Gaga…
Comment by lp — October 13, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
strangely enough
your 2 strange coverages of the gagauzian exclaves & the pridnestrovian phantom country
neglected to mention the strangest bits of all
amidst all the intrinsic strangeness of that area
which are
3 rump moldovan exclaves on the far side of the dniester
separated from their motherland not just by the river but by a ribbon or 2 of intervening pridnestrovian territory
the nearer couple of these bits are entirely enclaved within pridnestrovie
& one is a steppingstone to a farther out one
which is in fact on the far side of pridnestrovie & actually opens a third rump moldovan frontier with ukraine
besides the obvious 2 that lie north & south of pridnestrovie
& this farthest out exclave of all even tacks on a couple of bonus tripoints of pridnestrovie with rump moldova & ukraine
look for all these strange features roughly smack in the middle of this strange map
which is in fact stranger than both the present gagauzia map & the map in blog 311 combined
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Naddniestrze.png
if you dont mind my saying so
just for that alone
but moreover
you can also find on this same map
farther south
a couple of bits of pridnestrovie on the wrong side of the dniester too
these latter dont quite match up to their wrongsided rump moldovan counterparts since they are not really exclaves in the topological sense
but they do exaggerate the aberration & travesty of the phantom country name
the net of all this too is that
pridnestrovie
above & beyond the true enclaves it enfolds
is practically cut in half
& remains contiguous with what is left of its phantom self only thanx to a couple of ribbons of road corridor territory
now
t h a t
all in all is what i would call strange
Comment by aletheia kallos — October 13, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
@Ludwig, cute, next time when I want an authoritative info on football, I will ask in International Monetary Fund as you quote UEFA/FIFA as authorities on the Greek problem with our name. FYI, just check UN archives or just search the UN site to see that FYROM is not an acronym agreed by Republic of Macedonia, neither by UN, but it is an interesting attempt of Athens to muddy the waters…
Comment by Kiro Velkovski — October 13, 2009 @ 11:29 pm
[...] over at Strange Maps there’s a good post laying out the fine differences separating Moldova from its close neighbors. There’s also some commentary on the somewhat [...]
Pingback by Scandinavian vs. Nordic, Romanian vs. Moldovan at Circumference — October 14, 2009 @ 3:03 am
But didn’t the Romanian communist regime change the accented “a” to “i” as part of their “language reforms”. Whilst they kept the name “Romania” as an exception to their new rule, I do have a document refering to the “Partidul Comunist Romin”.
Comment by White Horse Pilgrim — October 14, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
Hey there, love the site!
I just wanted to mention that I came accross this website today and thought of Stange Maps. handmaps.org
Comment by Molliewobbles — October 15, 2009 @ 3:26 am
I’m still trying to figure out what the separate green, orange and purple fills represent. There’s some separation, but of what?
Comment by strad77 — October 15, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
hey strad
looks like 3 major civil divisions or counties so to say
each seated in 1 of the 3 largest communities
& into which all the lesser or communal subdivisions shown with yellow circles are distributed
Comment by aletheia kallos — October 15, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
maoldavian language doesn`t exists
you know,it`s romanian language called so because of political reasons
Comment by razvan — October 18, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
oh, and by the way PCR doesn`t exists since 1989
Comment by razvan — October 18, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
you know,because of those revolutions in eastern urpe
Comment by razvan — October 18, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
europe
Comment by razvan — October 18, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
This blog shows a very different view on history. I like that.
Comment by nariz — October 19, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
With very few exceptions, they are linguistically and culturally the same people!
“But while the Moldovans were busy maintaining that they are not Romanian….”
“But while the Canadians were busy maintaining that they are not American….”
Comment by Bourgoise Pig — October 19, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
I’m sorry… THE PROUD FYROMANS???
What are you talking about? We will have a toponym for ourselves to defend?
That’s pure blasphemy. We already have a toponym and demonym for ourselves, that we already strongly defend! We are MACEDONIANS!
Comment by Aleksandar — October 20, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
@3,4
This is probably not technically accurate, but I’ve always liked to believe that Romania’s spelling changed with its shape; it was called “Rumania” pre -1918 when it had a vaguely “u” shape(before it annexed Transylvania and Banat), and Romania post 1945, when it took on its rounder shape. The interwar period? Roumania, when it was at its largest modern extent. Like I said, probably not accurate, but a fun little theory.
Comment by Kochevnik — October 20, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
Throughout Moldova I heard, saw more signs and read more Russian than Moldovan/Romanian. Even at the border of Mold/Rom signs were in Russian as the locals smuggled $.15 cigarettes across the border to the fixed prices of EU run Romania. The most beautiful women I’ve ever seen were in Moldova.
Comment by Dan — October 21, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
@ 27 White Horse Pilgrim
The spelling Romînia was used for a few years in the 1950s. Those years marked the high time of Soviet de-nationalizing policies in Romania. Because the name Romania was a symbol of Romanians’ Latin origin, the Stalinists tried to change the name of the country, to make it “less Latin” i.e. less different from its Slavic neighbors. They also increased the role of the Slavs in the history of the formation of the Romanian people and other made many other falsifications of history.
During the same years Moldovan intellectuals were sent to Siberia and the uneducated population was brainwashed into believing that they are a different people from the Romanians. The border was closed, there were no Romanian books allowed into Moldova so the brainwashing worked for many of them.
@38 Kochevnik
Your theory is funny and silly at the same time :-)
I agree with comment no 18 made by L
Romanians-Moldovans are somewhere in-between the Germans-Austrians and West Germans-East Germans situations.
Only half of the the old principality of Moldavia is in the Republic of Moldova; the other half with all its former capitals lies in Romania and all Moldovans from there declare themselves to be Romanian with Moldovan being only a regional identity.
In the case of the R of Moldova the Russians/Soviets tried to transform a regional identity into an ethnic/national one and thus you now have all those Moldovans (from the R of Moldova) having identity crises.
btw. I’m Romanian
Comment by Paul — October 21, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
what’s the origin of the expression “and I’m Marie of Roumania” to convey skepticism, anyone know?
@Bourgoise Pig: I’m Canadian, and we are not Americans … we do have our own distinct history and culture, you know … just look at the political climate.
Comment by Jen Dawes — October 22, 2009 @ 1:21 am
@41 Jen Dawes
I never heard the expressions but I guess it is related to Queen Marie of Romania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Marie_of_Romania
Why Marie and not some other European queen? I don’t know. Might be do to the fact that she was quite well known in the West in those times.
Comment by Paul — October 22, 2009 @ 8:52 am