Next Article in Journal
Digital Competencies as Predictors of Academic Self-Efficacy: Correlations and Implications for Educational Development
Previous Article in Journal
Reclaiming Being: Applying a Decolonial Lens to Gendered Violence, Indigenous Motherhood, and Community Wellbeing
Previous Article in Special Issue
Hospitality and Tourism Demand: Exploring Industry Shifts, Themes, and Trends
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Land of Maramureș (Romania) Identity Valences: Perceptions, Promotion and Potential for Valorisation

by
Cristian-Nicolae Boțan
,
Viorel Gligor
*,
Silviu-Florin Fonogea
,
Ion-Horațiu Pavel
and
Csaba Horvath
*
Faculty of Geography, Babeș-Bolyai University, 5-7 Clinicilor Street, Cluj-Napoca 400006, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Societies 2024, 14(11), 225; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14110225
Submission received: 10 June 2024 / Revised: 31 July 2024 / Accepted: 15 October 2024 / Published: 1 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tourism, Urban Culture and Local Development)

Abstract

:
The territorial personality of a region is defined by its diverse elements and complex interrelations, evolving over time. This scientific endeavour, particularly prevalent in regional geography, aims to understand and leverage these identity elements for regional branding and development. Such studies focus on areas known as “lands”, among which the Land of Maramureș in Romania is notable for its historical depth and cross-border nature with Ukraine. Characterized by its unique culture and the intricate relationships between its people and the land, Maramureș showcases significant multiculturalism. This paper investigates the key elements that constitute the regional identity of Maramureș, ranking them by their perceived importance among local residents. By identifying and understanding these elements, the research seeks to enhance their recognition and utility as drivers of regional development. The findings aim to serve both academic readers and local government authorities, guiding investments in identity-aligned initiatives to foster regional growth and improve community well-being. This approach underscores the critical role of territorial identity in shaping regional strategies and enhancing the quality of life for inhabitants.

1. Introduction

Regional identity is a valuable resource in the context of globalization and regional brands are increasingly becoming essential tools for development around the world [1,2]. Geographic analyses based on assessing elements defining territorial identity and highlighting their role in the functionality of territorial systems are essential aspects in establishing and promoting regional identity [3,4,5]. By adopting a comprehensive approach and involving local communities, regions can develop strong brand identities [6,7], thus contributing to development based on strategic regional plans for internal cohesion [8,9,10].
Brand identities are not just rooted in history that is interesting to know; rather, the past is a key feature of a brand’s identity and positioning [11]. The regional identity is challenging to quantify and is best analysed through the methodology and perspectives of the social sciences [12]. In this context, defining regional identity involves understanding the types of regions [13]. The territorial identity is constructed from an ideology that embraces diversity and unity, recognizing different elements such as the origin of regional communities, language, religion, living standards, activities, ethnographic possibilities and citizens’ aspirations.
The Land of Maramureș in Romania is notable for its historical depth and multiculturalism. This paper investigates the key elements that constitute the regional identity of Maramureș, ranking them by their perceived importance among local residents. By identifying and understanding these elements, the research aims to enhance their recognition and utility as drivers of regional development.
The concept of regional identity and the value of brands in regional development are key themes in the process of defining and promoting a region’s uniqueness. Numerous specialist studies record a series of conceptual particularities that are more or less congruent with the issues under analysis.
In this respect, we can consider studies that address the concept of regional identity and analyse the challenges of systemic and functional problems of regional development that have emerged as a result of multiple processes of socio-economic transformation [14,15,16,17]. Regional analysis allows for a detailed understanding of all the factors (natural, socio-cultural, economic, historical, ethnic and political) that define the systemic territorial particularities; however, the dynamics of regional identity depend on an attractive image of the territory and its uniqueness [18,19]. Studying the identity of a regional system, such as the Land of Maramureș, is not just a matter of academic curiosity, but it has a number of socio-administrative, cultural-historical and economic implications. A deep understanding of the Maramureș identity and its associated perceptions can offer valuable solutions for sustainable development, tourism promotion and the sustainable preservation of traditions and cultural values, in the face of growing challenges brought about by the socio-economic changes triggered by new modern world development paradigms.
Moreover, in an increasingly globalised and ever-changing world, where regional identities are facing ever-growing pressure, the process of redefining identity values and promoting local authenticity becomes more pertinent than ever [20,21].
The present research continues and completes the series of studies that address regional “land”-type entities in Romania, such as The Land of Moților [22], Land of Năsăudului [23], Land of Hațegului [4] and Land of Oașului [5], through the lens of identifying territorial-identity values and the possibilities of transforming them into regional brands. The relevance of this research lies, first and foremost, in providing an opportunity to bring to the forefront the voice of the local community (Maramureș), and to present their perspectives and concerns regarding regional identity. Secondly, it provides useful information for local and regional decision-makers to promote and develop the region. Finally, it contributes to a deeper understanding of identity construction and representation in the context of contemporary social and cultural changes. Therefore, this research has the potential to have a significant impact on the development and promotion of the Land of Maramureș, as well as on the wider understanding of the phenomenon of identity in a regional and global context. Beyond the beauty of its landscapes and traditional architecture, the Maramureș identity is made up of a series of intangible elements, such as traditions, folklore, customs and specific language [24]. These local identity components not only define the Maramureș community, but also play a crucial role in the promotion and development of the region.
The novelty of this research lies in its focus on a niche analysis that has been under-explored until now. It uses various parameters for territorial definition and synthesis, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the subject. Among the most important ones are those related to regional authenticity and relevance, the correlation of theory with practical experience, community engagement in resilience building, along with a more contextualised understanding of identity through establishing a “sense of place” [25] and the reinforcement of values through the application of sustainability principles [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. More recently, research focusing on regional systems resilience has expanded its thematic scope, as both the magnitude of impact phenomena and the dynamics of local and global changes have greatly intensified. The degree of vulnerability shows an increase directly proportional with the effects of globalisation, socio-demographic transformations, economic restructuring and the decline of traditional activities such as crafts, agriculture and mining [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42].
The perspectives and theories drawn from scientific research and documented observations in specialized literature form the basis for a comparative analysis, offering valuable contrasts aligned with residents’ perceptions. This helps validate or challenge existing theories and identify areas that require further research. Additionally, comparative analysis provides valuable information and guidance for the development of policies and practical interventions related to the preservation and promotion of territorial identity.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 1 and Section 2 present the detailed findings from our literature review and content analysis, highlighting the key elements defining the territorial identity of Maramureș. Section 3 presents the chosen case area, Section 4 focuses on the survey results, providing an in-depth analysis of how local residents perceive and rank these identity elements. This is followed by Section 5, which discusses the implications of our findings and proposes strategic considerations for leveraging the identified identity elements, concluding the paper with a summary of the main findings and suggestions for future research.

2. Aim, Objectives and Methodology

The present research is aimed primarily at gaining a deeper understanding of the identity of the Land of Maramureș and how it is perceived, promoted and capitalised on. Analysing the perception of the region’s identity facilitated the identification of discrepancies or convergences between how Maramureș residents define their own identity and the way they are perceived by those living outside the region. Furthermore, by exploring promotional strategies and opportunities to enhance the identity of Maramureș, we can identify the most effective ways to strengthen and promote it, benefiting the local community.
The main objective of this research is to investigate and analyse the identity values of the Land of Maramureș, focusing on the existing perceptions, promotion strategies and opportunities to utilise them. More specifically, the present research is grounded in an interdisciplinary approach across the following tiers: (1) finding the identity elements of the Land of Maramureș as defined by the most relevant scientific literature in the field; (2) evaluation of the community’s perceptions of its own identity and how these influence the local region awareness; (3) ranking the elements with which the local Maramureș community identifies itself and conducting a comparative analysis on their authenticity based on multidisciplinary research carried out by consulting 15 representative scientific works; (4) identification of the best opportunities for capitalizing on the region’s tourism potential in order to stimulate sustainable development and more effective preservation of local identity.
To achieve these objectives, a mixed methodology of a holistic regional approach was employed in the research, which allowed for the combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches throughout the whole research process. Consequently, techniques and procedures based on transdisciplinary analysis of scientific documentation, questionnaire surveys and participatory observation were used. Qualitative methods such as content analysis and individual interviews were employed to explore participants’ perceptions and perspectives in depth. At the same time, quantitative methods, such as questionnaire surveys and statistical analysis provided a range of data and useful information on current identity perceptions and specific behaviour of the Maramureș community. Conducting such applied research has allowed a comprehensive understanding of multiple identity aspects in the area under analysis and how they are currently perceived, promoted and capitalised upon.
The sampling criteria used to ensure the representativeness of the research by surveying the resident population of the Land of Maramureș facilitated the collection of relevant and valid data that accurately reflect the varied perceptions and opinions of the local community. Adhering strictly to criteria of rigorous sampling, we surveyed 800 people from across Maramureș. The respondents were randomly selected from different public places (town halls, schools, streets, parks, shops, companies’ offices, etc.) or at the respondents’ homes. The key sampling criteria applied throughout the preparatory phase and during data collection considered the following aspects: selection of target group, demographic diversity, proportional geographical coverage, sample size, urban–rural balance, representation of ethnic and cultural groups and quality control of responses. Thus, the target population was represented by the residents of the Land of Maramureș, including both people born and raised in the region and those who have lived in this geographical area for a significant period of time (more than 20 years) and consider the Land of Maramureș as their place of origin or current residence. From the original 800 surveys, we discarded 80 (10%) due to inconsistencies in their responses. Additionally, as in all surveys, using repetitive questions, we identified respondents who did not take the survey seriously. Additionally, we found some responses where all answers were the same so the respondents where straightlining, indicating a lack of serious engagement with the survey.
In order to obtain a representative sample, we have selected an appropriate proportion of the target population to participate in the questionnaire survey, ensuring a most accurate representation of the population. We followed the structuring of the respondents according to the following variables: gender structure (an equal number of questionnaires—360 women and 360 men); age group structure (250 questionnaires applied to the age group 0–19 years, 240 questionnaires applied to the age group 20–59 years and 230 questionnaires applied to the age group 60 years and above), educational level (242 questionnaires applied to respondents with a maximum of eight classes completed, 260 questionnaires applied to respondents with high school studies and 218 questionnaires applied to respondents with higher education) and residence (an equal number of questionnaires—urban and rural). The selection was made using random sampling methods (simple and stratified) according to different demographic criteria (age, gender, education, place of residence, etc.), so that each inhabitant of the region had equal chances of being included in the sample. In terms of ensuring proportionality in the geographical coverage of the population, the sample size was calculated taking into account the distribution of an equal number of completed questionnaires (20th) at the level of each administrative-territorial unit (LAU2 level), out of the 36 units making up the analysed region. Given that the territory of the Land of Maramureș includes five cities and 31 municipalities, the stratification of the sample was conducted taking into account the diversity and complexity of this region. Each existing ethnic and cultural group was also appropriately represented in the sample and reflected the population characteristics; to ensure data validity, the questionnaire had to be structured in such a way as to minimize ambiguity and provide clearly defined response options. By adhering to the sampling criteria, the data collection methodology and the processing and interpretation of the information in line with the research objectives, a comprehensive and representative picture of the locals’ perception on the importance of identity elements in defining the regional personality of the Land of Maramureș resulted. This information can serve as a basis for developing an integrated strategy for sustainable development, as well as for tourism promotion and sustainable capitalization of the whole identity heritage of the region.
To ensure ethical compliance, we obtained informed consent from all participants and protected the confidentiality and anonymity of the respondents by securely storing and anonymizing personal data.

3. Case Area

The Maramureș region is probably the best known and most famous settled “land” region in Romania, while also being the largest of all in terms of territorial expanse. Its identity structure is a complex one, with a wide range of elements contributing decisively to its configuration, such as its long history, the fact that it is a region that has always enjoyed a relative degree of autonomy when compared with other Romanian regions today (e.g., the existence of ‘free Dacians’ in this area, the lack of collectivisation etc.), the role of certain historical personalities from Maramureș as ‘pioneers’ and founders of the “land” (e.g., Voivode Bogdan, Voivode Dragoș), the cultural personalities, the Maramureș gates, the famous wooden monasteries and churches, the Memorial to the Victims of Communism and Resistance, the “Merry Cemetery” in Săpânța, the “Mocănița” on the Vaser Valley, the pottery, folk costumes, songs and dances from Maramureș or legendary local outlaws.
The regional system of the Land of Maramureș stands out as a distinct presence in the northern part of the Eastern Carpathians of Romania. It is delimited by the line of the highest peaks of the Gutâi–Țibleș–Rodnei–Maramureșului mountain range (with a few exceptions), to which the course of the Tisza River from the Vișeu Valley to Teceu is added [43]. The morphological element with a central and polarizing function of the mass, energy and information conveyed in this complex geographical system is the Maramureș Depression (Figure 1).
From an administrative-territorial perspective, the Maramureș region comprises of 36 local authorities, including a municipality (Sighetu Marmației), four towns (Borșa, Dragomirești, Săliștea de Sus, Vișeu de Sus) and 31 communes (Bârsana, Bistra, Bocicoiu Mare, Bogdan Voda, Botiza, Budești, Călinești, Câmpulung la Tisa, Desești, Giulești, Ieud, Leordina, Moisei, Ocna Șugatag, Oncești, Petrova, Poienile de sub Munte, Poienile Izei, Remeți, Repedea, Rona de Jos, Rona de Sus, Rozavlea, Ruscova, Sarasău, Săcel, Săpânța, Strâmtura, Șieu, Vadu Izei and Vișeu de Jos).

4. Results

In order to identify the main elements defining the territorial personality of the Land of Maramureș and argue their importance in this regard, we have analysed a reasonable number of scholarly works belonging to various scientific fields. The analysed publications belong to well-regarded researchers in their fields, focusing on various interpretation angles and analysing the territorial personality of the region in question, namely [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57].
Based on the content they convey, the aforementioned works can be classified into two distinct categories: (1) works from the field of regional geography, with a general and synthetic character, which address a diverse range of aspects relevant to the Land of Maramureș (e.g., [43,48,52]) and (2) works focused on specific elements (e.g., the Maramureș gate; wooden sculptures; wooden churches; mountain morphology; regional tourism; the narrow-gauge railway and its specific carriages and steam locomotives; folk costumes; pottery; communism and the destruction of cultural and political elites; or the uniqueness of a famous cemetery), in which the level of analysis and detail are substantial (e.g., [49,55,56,57]). All these works were instrumental to our endeavour, as they provided us with relevant information about the identity load of the Land of Maramureș and the importance of each element at local, regional, national and international levels.
Therefore, the existence of a large number of scientific studies that have focused on various elements within the analysed area (some highly detailed) facilitated our approach to identifying the main vectors defining the personality of the Land of Maramureș. While several elements contribute to the construction of the region’s identity, we consider the ones listed and argued in this study to play a decisive role in this regard, namely (Table 1): the Maramureș Gate; the Rodna Mountains; the Wooden Churches; the “Mocănița” railway in the Vaser Valley; the Maramureș Mountains; the Merry Cemetery in Săpânța; Bârsana Monastery; the Memorial to the Victims of Communism Resistance; the Maramureș folk costume; Outstanding Historical and Cultural Individuals; and the unique Pottery from Săcel.
The analysis of the mentioned works aims to quantify the importance each element has in shaping the territorial identity of the Land of Maramureș, as perceived by each of the authors of the cited works, in no particular ranking order. In any similar study, a certain amount of subjectivism can be noticed in the argumentation of the importance of regional identity elements, depending on the research nature and the objectives set forth [5]. Consequently, the main elements of territorial identity for the Land of Maramureș, derived from analysing the mentioned scientific works and presented in Table 1, are ranked (from the perspective of their perceived importance and relevance in shaping territorial personality) exclusively by the inhabitants in the region, through the responses of the 720 subjects surveyed.
A complex territorial entity, the Land of Maramureș is defined by a set of elements (Figure 2) which belong to different fields such as tectonics and morphology (Maramureș and Rodna Mountains), religion (wooden churches, Bârsana Monastery, Săpânța Merry Cemetery), traditional folk architecture, folklore and ethnography (the Maramureș Gate and traditional folk costumes), history and culture (outstanding historical and cultural individuals and the Memorial to the Victims of Communism and Resistance), tourism and industry (“Mocănița” from the Vaser Valley).
The elements mentioned here are by no means the only ones that make up the territorial identity of the Land of Maramureș, but, based on our research findings, we consider them the most representative ones. With a complementary role in this regard, other elements could also be considered, such as protected natural areas, tourist resorts, the Maramureș people mindset, their hospitality, shepherding, etc.
We ranked the Land of Maramureș regional identity elements (detected after analysing the scientific papers presented above) in the second part of the present paper. This ranking was based on 720 survey responses given by Maramureș residents to a questionnaire designed to assess the locals’ perception regarding the importance of particular elements in defining the identity of their native land.
The answers provided confirm the fact that the Land of Maramureș identity is decisively shaped by the eleven elements previously mentioned, thus highlighting the existence of a real correlation between the conclusions drawn by the academia and the perceptions of local respondents.
One aspect certainly worth mentioning here is that the identity elements of the region were presented in the questionnaire randomly, the respondents having to rank them according to how important they felt they were and also to argue their hierarchical position. The distribution of the questionnaires strictly followed the rigors that we assumed in the methodological part of the paper. We note that all respondents acknowledge that the eleven elements clearly construct the identity of the Land of Maramureș, some of them adding a few more, but entirely by chance (e.g., shepherding, logging, Maramureș mindset, locals’ hospitality, tourist resorts of local interest, etc.).
As such, the respondents confirmed that the eleven identity elements of the region clearly define its personality; the analysis of the received answers resulted in the following ranking as per their importance (see data in Table 2, Figure 3).
The above ranking reflects the importance of the eleven elements making up the identity of the Land of Maramureș. Out of these eleven elements, the first four stand out as the most representative for the brand, namely wooden churches, outstanding historical and cultural individuals, the Maramureș gates and the traditional folk costumes. These four elements each received a significant number of responses which place them on the first three places in the hierarchy (see data in Table 2). Of these four regarded as most important, the first one, the wooden churches, emerges clearly as the main brand identity, acknowledged by the inhabitants of the Land of Maramureș and promoted at a national and international level.
The last four elements in this hierarchy (“Mocănița” from the Vaser Valley, Maramureș Mountains, Săcel Pottery and Rodnei Mountains), despite their complex and clear identity value, are considered of lesser importance in shaping the region’s identity. Therefore, in their case, emphasis should be placed on more efficient tourist promotion, as they can enhance the regional identity brand and contribute to the local community development by attracting a higher number of potential tourists.
We, the authors of this material, appreciate the fact that at the top of the hierarchy, there are four identity elements belonging to the religious, ethnographic and cultural domains, because these are the main values through which the Land of Maramureș has established itself at a national and international level during its long existence. The wooden churches (Figure 4.), unique in the world, along with the architecture [64] and distinctive features of the Maramureș gates as well as the unparalleled beauty of the traditional folk costumes are recognized worldwide, valued as such in the literature and cared for accordingly in the restoration and preservation process. These elements are significantly complemented by the memory of outstanding historical and cultural individuals native to this land who made famous the region itself and Transylvania as a whole.
The wooden churches of Maramureș are not surprisingly considered to be the main element of regional identity because of their inestimable value. This value is a result of their special architectonics, building technique, longevity, global appreciation [64] (seven of them are included on the UNESCO World Heritage List [58]) and the special connection they mediate with the Divine, as the locals see themselves and are considered by others extremely religious.
Thus, the fact that 199 of the 720 respondents place this identity element first in the present hierarchy comes as no surprise (Figure 5). Another 97 award the wooden churches the second place, while a further 107 respondents consider them third most important. So, all in all, we have a number of 403 participants in the survey who credit the wooden churches as extremely important/the most important element in shaping the regional identity of the Land of Maramureș. At the other end of the scale, there are only 10 respondents who consider these worship places of lesser importance or the least important ones. The fact that those who place the wooden churches on the first place in the hierarchy come from all walks of life, age and gender groups is in itself not surprising: the Land of Maramureș community has a deeply rooted connection with the church, most of the locals being fully aware of the special international status their wooden churches hold. Among those who view the wooden churches as less or the least important, we have either representatives of other religions than the Orthodox (which predominates in Maramureș) or younger people who tend to be less religious. No matter how differently various local community representatives perceive them, the wooden churches in Maramureș remain indisputably of worldwide value and are recognized as such. Therefore, these places of worship must be permanently promoted and preserved intact as they are beyond any doubt major tourist attractions bringing significant benefits to the local community. Last but not least, the wooden churches in the Land of Maramureș are a primary brand identity representative for the whole national ethos and an invaluable asset for Romania.
Outstanding historical and cultural individuals originating from the Land of Maramureș constitute another strong brand identity for the region. Their impact on building the region’s personality is a major one and it is recognized as such by the inhabitants of the land. Whether we are discussing country founders (Bogdan Voivode, Dragoș Voivode), advocates for the rights of Maramureș and Transylvanian Romanians (Vasile Lucaciu, George Pop de Băsești, Ioan Mihaly de Apșa, Ilie Lazăr), renowned outlaws (Pintea the Brave), Nobel Prize recipients (Elie Wiesel), well-known folk music artists (The Petreuș Brothers, Gheorghe Turda), or arts innovators (Stan Ioan Pătraș), each of these individuals has consistently contributed to the recognition of this region, both nationally and internationally.
For all this, the inhabitants of the Land of Maramureș are deeply grateful to them and regard them as second most important regional brand identity. Thus, 129 respondents place them as first place in the hierarchy of regional identity elements with 113 more attributing them second place (Figure 6). Only 11 respondents believe these personalities should come last, with none of these 11 being able to justify their rating. The territorial distribution of respondents shows a generalized uniformity like the first identity element, the wooden churches. This is considered normal by us, as these personalities are well-known throughout the region.
In addition, respondents’ gender and educational level do not seem to have a significant impact, as responses have a rather uniform spread. It is worth noting though that a large proportion of respondents who rank these outstanding historical and cultural individuals in the last two places belong to ethnic minority groups; this may explain the lower importance they attribute to this identity element. However, regardless of these prominent personalities’ position in the hierarchy, it is the duty of the region’s inhabitants and administrative authorities to ensure that their memory is not forgotten and that the elements associated with them (memorial houses, heritage items, folk costumes, folk songs, etc.) are preserved and promoted as such. We propose their inclusion in a thematic tourist circuit, which we consider of paramount importance for the Land of Maramureș.
This region is also highly reputed for the age, special architecture, symbolism and considerable value of the carved wooden gates. Beside the practical value (household safety and protection), the Maramureș Gate (Figure 7) has always represented an element of local pride, its size and carving complexity indicative of a certain social status a family would hold within the community. The value locals place on this regional identity element is obvious, with 127 respondents ranking it third in the hierarchy, 110 placing it second and a further 110 even listing it as their first preference (Figure 8). An altogether different perception is displayed by 15 respondents for whom the Maramureș Gate only holds a minimal role in shaping the local identity, coming therefore at the bottom of the hierarchical order. With this element, a clear division of responses can be noticed: those respondents considering the Maramureș Gate of top importance in shaping regional identity overwhelmingly come either from rural areas (gates are better cared for there as they perform an important role in households) or from older respondents. Additionally, a good segment of well-educated people (high school and/or college graduates) share the same view. Among the respondents who attribute a low identity value to the Maramureș Gate, those belonging to the younger population group and living in urban areas stand out in particular. They are joined by a similar age group from rural zones. In other words, even though the inhabitants of the region have for a long time recognised (and to a certain extent still do) the special value of this architectural element, the case might be that in the near future, the current group of young people might no longer perceive it as particularly valuable, as the referentials will be different for a social class that considers itself more emancipated.
In order to preserve the invaluable value and symbolism of wooden gates for future generations, we propose the establishment of a Maramureș Gate museum, where the most valuable examples from the entire region will be kept in best conditions. We would also like to see as many workshops as possible where young people can learn how to build these gates.
The Maramureș folk costume is considered by experts in the field as one of the most valuable, beautiful and authentic folk costumes in our national area, with certain elements such as the hat and the vest being unique. The vast majority of people living in the Land of Maramureș (be them children, adults or old, men or women) wear it with pride on Sundays, religious holidays or all other important events (e.g., weddings, baptisms, funerals, cultural and artistic events), displaying distinctive elements for each of these occasions. There is also an everyday Maramureș folk costume, worn mainly by elderly people living in rural areas. However, it only ranks fourth in this hierarchy, as it is deeply engrained into Maramureș people’s daily routine. It is so closely linked to the very core of their being that they consider it indispensable.
As such, the traditional folk costume is largely perceived as a banal element with which they coexist in their daily life or special occasions. This invaluable element of identity ranks fourth (Figure 9) in the opinion of 118 respondents, while another 86, considering it to be the main identity and image vector, give it the first place; in stark contrast, 15 respondents see it as insignificant, consequently rating it last in the hierarchy. Those respondents attributing a higher value to the traditional folk costume and therefore placing it in the top three places come from all areas of the region and from all categories of respondents, which confirms the intrinsic connection between the inhabitants of the Land of Maramureș and their folk costumes. At the other end of the scale, young respondents from urban areas are not aware of the particular value of folk costume, considering it of lesser importance. We deem it necessary to implement multiple actions that promote the uniqueness of the Maramureș folk costume, both nationally and internationally, on various specialized fairs and symposiums.
The fifth place in the hierarchy is given to the Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance from Sighetu Marmației (Figure 10). This is an element of high emotional intensity and significant impact on the whole of Maramureș as well as the entire country. The severe communism censorship led to the imprisonment and killing of a large number of religious, scientific, political and cultural personalities from Romania. It is therefore our sacred duty to make sure that their memory will never be forgotten. In our view, ranking this element only fifth in the hierarchy is certainly unjust, given the supreme sacrifice these personalities and their families made for our country. This ranking is the result of 116 respondents seeing it in the fifth place. It is regarded as the main identity element for the Land of Maramureș by only 26 respondents, while another 19 see it as the least important and therefore rank it last in the hierarchy. Unfortunately, most respondents viewing the Memorial as a vital element in shaping the regional identity of the Land of Maramureș, are representatives of a highly educated group of adults and senior citizens. The younger respondents, regardless of their place of residence and territorial distribution, attribute too little importance to this element, which is a worrying fact for the future, as the memory of all those who were incarcerated in Sighetu Marmatiei Penitentiary or were buried in the nearby cemetery must not be forgotten. At the very least, it would be necessary to establish an optional course in Romanian high schools to educate about the atrocities that occurred during the communist period and the locations where they occurred. This education is vital to ensure that such events are known and to prevent their recurrence due to ignorance in the future.
The sixth place in the present hierarchy is occupied by Bârsana Monastery (Figure 11). Due to its architectural originality and the scale and diversity of the events hosted here, the monastery is the main monastic religious compound in the Land of Maramureș. All places of worship in the region, whether parish churches or monasteries, are perceived as highly important by the locals. The importance of some of them is recognized worldwide, through their inclusion on the UNESCO World Heritage Site List [54], but in addition to that, Bârsana Monastery has also become the main pilgrimage site in the area. Consequently, 106 respondents rank the monastery sixth in terms of importance and representativity, 20 of them regard it as the most important brand identity for the Land of Maramureș, while 39 people give it last place. (Figure 12). There are two distinct groups of respondents who attribute more importance to this identity element, as follows: (1) Orthodox elderly population aged 65 and above as well as a sizeable segment of the adult population; (2) residents of Bârsana and neighbouring villages on Iza Valley (e.g., Strâmtura, Rozavlea, Vadu Izei). Most of the first category respondents are motivated in their choices by the importance they bestow on the institution of church and, for them, Bârsana Monastery is a beacon of Orthodoxy in the area. Moreover, Bârsana residents as well as locals from Iza Valley benefited directly from the increased reputation of the monastery as they were able to start some small local businesses such as B&Bs, restaurants, souvenir shops, flower shops, etc. At the other end of the scale, those considering the monastery of lesser importance or not important at all have motivations such as they belong to different religions than Orthodoxy; the majority are young and religion does not come at the top of their priority list; they reside farther away from the monastery; out of local patriotism, prefer to avail of the services of the closer religious sites, or simply they are not interested in religion at all. The management of the monastery is very efficient, with the site constantly hosting events as diverse as religious conferences, charity actions, religious services as well as events promoting religious tourism.
Few places exist in the world to mock death and treat it in such an amusing manner as the Merry Cemetery of Săpânța (Figure 13), in the Land of Maramureș (perhaps only one other place in Mexico can come close to it). The whole credit for establishing this place goes to craftsman Stan Ioan Pătraș, the creator of funeral crosses inscribed with mocking texts that depict the most important moments in the life of the deceased and the impact their behaviour had on local community. The amusing epitaphs quite often contain advice for the visitors to heed. This ‘Merry Cemetery’ represents one of the region’s most important brands, perceived and valued as such especially by people from other regions of the country and foreigners who have heard of it and frequently visit it. At a local and regional level, this element of identity ranks seventh in the hierarchy. A total of 126 respondents give it this place, while 42 rank it first and 39 attribute it the last position (Figure 14). The Merry Cemetery is the most important element for all the inhabitants of Săpânța, regardless of their respondent category (age, religion, gender, etc.). They view it this way either because of a local pride sentiment (no other region in Romania has anything like it) or for economic reasons. The cemetery brings certain economic benefits to the locals, as some of them own accommodation businesses in the area and some others benefit indirectly from tourism (e.g., public catering, souvenirs or other products). To these should be added a good proportion of respondents with higher education who are aware that an element of such importance is an opportunity for local and regional development. Respondents from more remote parts of the region do not give the Merry Cemetery of Săpânța a higher place in the hierarchy, saying that for them it is not an important element (there seems to be a certain envy factor noticed in their answers). Regardless of the respondents’ perceptions, the Merry Cemetery is an important element for the regional identity of the Land of Maramureș. Its intensive promotion (on social networks and in the media) as well as its maintenance in optimal visiting conditions should be constant actions, as it brings additional income for the community. We propose to create a virtual tour of this tourist attraction and upload it on a special website to increase its attractiveness among domestic and international tourists.
“Mocănița” from the Vaser Valley (Figure 15) has recently become one of the main tourist attractions for the region under our consideration. Narrow-gauge railways and their specific carriages and locomotives appear to be regaining popularity at a national level, given their diverse potential for economic capitalization particularly in rural communities. Arguably, the most famous of these steam trains is the “Mocănița” from the Land of Maramureș which operates on a narrow-gauge railway track starting from the town of Viseu de Sus and following the Vaser Valley. According to 162 survey respondents, this economic–tourist identity element comes eighth in the given hierarchy (Figure 16); 28 respondents see it as the primary regional identity element ranking it first, whereas some other 60 take exactly the opposite view placing it last. Those considering the “Mocanita” as representative/the most representative for the Land of Maramureș are generally young and come from all over the region, which is understandable given this group’s „appetite” for adventure and for an unusual tourist transport vehicle. Many of these youngsters say that a “Mocănița” trip can be a good opportunity to spend time outdoors while also taking pictures to share on various social platforms. They are joined in their ranking preferences by residents of Viseu de Sus and Viseu de Jos who, living in the “Mocănița” proximity, benefit directly or indirectly from it. People who do not attach any importance to this identity element mostly belong to the group of elderly respondents from all areas of the region, with less mobility, desire and opportunities for leisure tourism. However, the “Mocănița” is an important resource for the tourism in the region as it attracts a large number of visitors from other parts of the country and from abroad, and therefore investment is needed in improving the quality of transportation and services and in providing Belleview points, tourist dining facilities, souvenir shops, promotional elements and a specialised website.
Respondents attribute the last three places in the hierarchy of elements shaping the Land of Maramureș regional identity to two mountain ranges (Maramureș Mountains, ninth place, and Rodna Mountains, eleventh place) and a well-known craft, namely the Săcel pottery, tenth place. While the respondents’ answers suggest that the two mountain ranges play a certain role in shaping the regional identity, their precise relevance to it remains rather difficult to be expressed in concrete terms. A total of 169 respondents place the Maramureș Mountains in ninth position (Figure 17), while another 116 consider they should be ranked last. Regarding the Rodna Mountains, 160 responses rate them eleventh (Figure 18) while 134 consider they should come last. In total, 184 respondents position the Săcel pottery (Figure 19) in tenth place in the hierarchy (Figure 20), whereas 105 respondents rank it last. On the other hand, the number of those viewing these three identity elements as utterly important is really insignificant when compared to the total number of responses. In the case of the two mountain ranges, it is relatively straightforward to analyse, understand and explain the respondents’ perception regarding their significance (less common elements are less readily accessible; regarding the Rodna Mountains, they only partially belong to the analysed region; some peaks of the Maramureș Mountains face towards the neighbouring country, Ukraine, which is currently in conflict, etc.). However, when it comes to the Săcel pottery, a similar undertaking proves rather challenging as this pottery holds a unique status both nationally and across Europe, owing to its production technique, the antiquity of the phenomenon, the uniqueness of the kilns and the fact that very few producers remain.
Consequently, it is imperative for both Săcel and county authorities to implement a program aimed at the preservation, promotion and continuity of this unique pottery-producing technique. For instance, they could allocate funds for various pottery exhibitions and demonstrative workshops, provide support for participation in national and international pottery fairs, establish a Săcel pottery museum and integrate pottery classes into the vocational school curriculum, allowing younger generations interested in this craft to study and learn these techniques.
As for the two mountain ranges, it is essential to establish new tourist routes and promote these mountains on as many tourist platforms as possible, as these can potentially bring a significant number of visitors and help with developing local businesses.
Regardless of the identity element considered, the Land of Maramureș necessitates local or county-level legislation designed to enhance its visibility, both nationally and internationally. While brand identities may already exist within the public consciousness, their regional profitability requires revitalization. These brand identities are undoubtedly invaluable and have the potential to significantly contribute to the promotion of local and regional development.

5. Conclusions and Discussions

Based on the present research study, we can safely conclude that the Land of Maramureș is a regional entity with a complex personality defined by identity elements coming from fields as diverse as historical, cultural, ethnographical, tourist, geographical and architectural.
The eleven main elements of territorial identity are recognized as such by both the academic community (represented by the authors of the 15 analysed papers addressing various aspects of the area) and the local population (through the voices of the 720 respondents) who have embraced the territory in question as their physical and mental habitat. This dual acknowledgment of the identity elements enables us to assert that the Land of Maramureș is firmly embedded in the collective consciousness, with its regional identity elements being concrete and unequivocal.
While our study provides valuable insights into the identity elements of the Land of Maramureș, it has some limitations that should be acknowledged. Firstly, although our sample size is representative, it might not fully capture the diversity of opinions across different demographic groups within the region. Secondly, by focusing on specific identity elements, we may have overlooked some other factors that contribute to the region’s identity.
We believe that identifying, analysing and ranking the main identity elements of the Land of Maramureș is a crucial step for both scientific understanding and practical guidance for local and regional authorities. Understanding these key identity markers can significantly benefit regional development. Brands, regardless of their nature, drive development due to their public recognition and ability to mobilize resources and energies. With targeted and sustainable promotion and development projects, these identity elements can become better known, better preserved and more attractive to domestic and international tourists, as well as potential investors.
Equipped with this tool for identifying and ranking the main elements of regional identity, confirmed by the region’s inhabitants and scholarly works, public authorities have a moral obligation to preserve them and propose concrete development projects. We aim to empower local and county authorities to this end and promote this study to raise awareness among the regional public and authorities about the immense value of these identity elements for the Land of Maramureș. Our goal is to capitalize on these elements for the future.
To address this, we propose several strategies, including the creation of a tourist circuit that encompasses key landmarks and cultural zones, specifically highlighting significant cultural personalities. This circuit would provide a cohesive and immersive experience for visitors while creating synergistic benefits by placing these landmarks in proximity to each other. Additionally, we recommend promoting the Memorial of the Victims of Communism and of the Resistance in educational institutions to raise awareness about the atrocities that occurred during the communist era in this region. These strategies aim to enhance both the cultural and educational value of Maramureș, making it more attractive to a diverse range of visitors.
While our study provides a comprehensive analysis of the identity elements of Țara Maramureșului and their potential for branding and tourism development, several areas warrant further exploration. For example, exploring the historical forces and local evolution that continue to shape the identity of Țara Maramureșului can provide a richer context for branding efforts. Additionally, research on sustainable tourism practices, interactive and educational programs, and their effectiveness in promoting cultural awareness and conservation will be essential.
Ultimately, we consider that our proposed analytical model is comprehensive and complex, and can be applied as such to any other region. Attempts to identify and rank the identity elements of a region without comparing the scholarly perception of the region with the perception of its inhabitants may be incomplete and highly subjective.
In summary, the Land of Maramureș has a vast potential to strengthen its identity and benefit from a strong brand identity, both locally and regionally. Through sustainable resource management, consistent self-promotion and integration into a global context, this region can become a model for best practices in preserving, sustainably developing and capitalizing on its unique identity.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.-N.B. and V.G.; methodology, C.-N.B.; software, S.-F.F.; validation, S.-F.F., V.G., C.-N.B., I.-H.P. and C.H.; formal analysis, C.-N.B. and V.G.; investigation, C.-N.B.; resources, C.H.; data curation, S.-F.F.; writing—original draft preparation, C.-N.B.; writing—review and editing, C.-N.B. and V.G.; visualization, I.-H.P.; supervision, C.H.; project administration, C.-N.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The publication APC of this article was supported by the 2024–2025 Development Fund of the UBB.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Messely, L.; Dessein, J.; Lauwers, L. Regional Identity in Rural Development: Three Case Studies of Regional Branding. Appl. Stud. Agribus. Commer. 2010, 4, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ilieș, G.; Ilieș, M. Identity Based Geo- and Tourism Branding Strategies Derived from Rural Maramureș Land (Romania). Geoj. Tour. Geosites 2015, 16, 179–186. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ilieș, M.; Boar, N.; Hotea, M. Maramureș Touristic Development in a Crossborder Perspective. Geogr. Timisiensis 2004, 13, 127–133. [Google Scholar]
  4. Boțan, C.N.; Gligor, V.; Horváth, C.; Fonogea, S.F. Land of Hațeg Identity and Regional Brands. Transylv. Rev. 2019, 28, 183–198. [Google Scholar]
  5. Boțan, C.N.; Gligor, V.; Fonogea, S.F.; Pavel, I.H. Perceptions Regarding the Identity Elements of Oaș Land. Transylv. Rev. 2020, 29 (Suppl. S2), 183–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Alexandra, D.M.; Alexandru, C.; Adina, D.G. Exploratory Research Regarding Romanians’ Perception About The Regional Brand “Maramureș”. Ann. Univ. Oradea Econ. Sci. 2013, 22, 776–785. [Google Scholar]
  7. de Almeida, G.G.F.; Cardoso, L. Discussions between Place Branding and Territorial Brand in Regional Development—A Classification Model Proposal for a Territorial Brand. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Messely, L.; Dessein, J.; Lauwers, L.H. Branding regional identity as a driver for rural development. In Proceedings of the European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE) > 113th Seminar, Belgrade, Serbia, 9–11 December 2009; pp. 267–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Paasi, A. Regional Planning and the Mobilization of ‘Regional Identity’: From Bounded Spaces to Relational Complexity. Reg. Stud. 2013, 47, 1206–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Donner, M.I.M. Understanding Place Brands as Collective and Territorial Development Processes; Wageningen University: Wageningen, The Nederlands, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Brunninge, O. Invented Corporate Heritage Brands. J. Brand Manag. 2023, 30, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Brigitta, B.; Krisztina, B.; István, B.; Adrian, H. Identitate Europeană, Națională Și Regională. Teorie Și Practică; Partium: Oradea, Romania, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  13. Šifta, M.; Chromý, P. The Importance of Symbols in the Region Formation Process. Nor. Geogr. Tidsskr. 2017, 71, 98–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cocean, P. Regional Geography (Geografie Regională—Romanian Language); Presa Universitară Clujeană: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  15. Leukhova, M.; Gritskevich, T. Regional Identity in Strategy. Strateg. Theory Pract. 2022, 2/4, 500–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tokarev, G. Symbolary of Regional Identity: Research Issues. Vestnik. Volgogr. Gos. Universiteta. Ser. 2. Jazyk. 2022, 21/6, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. de Almeida, G.G.F. Territorial Brand in Regional Development: Interdisciplinary Discussions. Encyclopedia 2023, 3, 870–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tsvetkova, I.; Zhelnina, E.; Ivanova, T.; Gorbacheva, N. Factors of Regional Identity as a Dynamic Structure. In “Conflict-Free” Socio-Economic Systems; Emerald Publishing Limited: Leeds, UK, 2019; pp. 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mitina, E.; Kalkova, N.; Yarosh, O. Brand Identifiers as a Tool of Territorial Development. Reg. Ekonomika. Yug Ross. 2020, 8/1, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Volkov, Y.Y.; Guskov, I.; Gurba, V.N. Regional Identity in the Space of Social and Managerial Activity. Humanit. S. Russ. 2022, 11, 40–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Camacho Posada, M.F. Constructing Collective Identities within European and Latin American Integration Frameworks. Acad. Appl. Res. Mil. Public Manag. Sci. 2023, 22, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Boțan, C.N.; Gligor, V.; Pavel, I.H.; Fonogea, S.F. Regional Identities within the European Union. Case Study: Țara Moților (Romania). Transylv. Rev. 2015, 24, 285–306. [Google Scholar]
  23. Boțan, C.N.; Horváth, C.; Pavel, I.H.; Fonogea, S.F.; Gligor, V. Perceptions Regarding the Land of Năsăud Regional Identity. Transylv. Rev. 2016, 25, 235–248. [Google Scholar]
  24. Simion, S.-A.; Hotea, M.; Moisuc, D. Cultural heritage, identity and tourism development in Maramureș land. Geogr. Napoc. 2018, 12, 59–65. [Google Scholar]
  25. Relph, E. Place in Geography. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001; pp. 11448–11451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kutty, N.K. Cultural Authenticity and Regional Development. SSRN Electron. J. 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jones, D.S. Community Resilience, Climate Change, Sustainability & Engagement: Adventures in Creative Project-Based Education on the Eyre Peninsula. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Education, Sydney, Australia, 9–12 July 2010; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  28. Flint, R.W. Seeking Resiliency in the Development of Sustainable Communities. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2010, 17/1, 44–57. [Google Scholar]
  29. Butler, R. The Tourist Experience: Can Destinations Maintain Authenticity? Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2017, 9, 617–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Irwin, E.G.; Jaquet, T.; Faggian, A. Regional Sustainability and Resilience: Recent Progress and Future Directions. In Regional Research Frontiers; Jackson, R., Schaeffer, P., Eds.; Advances in Spatial Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 1, pp. 277–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bec, A.; Moyle, B.; Moyle, C. Resilient and Sustainable Communities. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Glass, J.; McMorran, R.; Currie, M.; McKee, A.; Pinker, A.; Reed, M.; Meador, E.; Markantoni, M. Translating Community Resilience Theory into Practice: A Deliberative Delphi Approach. Sociol. Rural. 2022, 62, 675–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kotradyová, V.; Ontkóc, M. Regional Identity and Its Contemporary Forms as Important Part of Social Sustainability. In AIP Conference Proceedings; AIP Publishing: Long Island, NY, USA, 2022; Volume 2574, pp. 100001-1–100001-8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Larionova, T.V. Social and Philosophic Aspects of Regional Sustainability in the Global World. J. Sib. Fed. Univ. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2015, 8, 1206–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Joseph, M. Cheer. Resilience in the Visitor Economy: Cultural Economy, Human Social Networks, and Slow Change in the Regional Periphery. In Tourism, Resilience and Sustainability Adapting to Social, Political and Economic Change; Cheer, J.M., Lew, A.A., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lundegård, I. Personal Authenticity and Political Subjectivity in Student Deliberation in Environmental and Sustainability Education. Env. Educ. Res. 2018, 24, 581–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fröhlich, K.; Hassink, R. Regional Resilience: A Stretched Concept? Eur. Plan. Stud. 2018, 26, 1763–1778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rizzi, P.; Graziano, P.; Dallara, A. A Capacity Approach to Territorial Resilience: The Case of European Regions. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2018, 60, 285–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zanotti, L.; Ma, Z.; Johnson, J.L.; Johnson, D.R.; Yu, D.J.; Burnham, M.; Carothers, C. Sustainability, Resilience, Adaptation, and Transformation: Tensions and Plural Approaches. Ecol. Soc. 2020, 25, art4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. van Aswegen, M.; Drewes, J.E.; van der Linde, E. Regional Resilience: An Urban Systems Approach; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Oliva, S.; Lazzeretti, L. Unravelling the Sustainable Resilient Region: Exploring Regional Resilience in Sustainable Transition; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Parusheva, T. Cultural Identity and Sustainable Cultural Tourism in the Context of Local and Global. Sci. Work. 2022, LXIV, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ilieș, G. Țara Maramureșului. Studiu de Geografie Regională; Cluj University Press: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  44. Coteț, P. Geomorfologia României; Editura Tehnică: Bucharest, Romania, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  45. Dăncuș, M. Zona Etnografică Maramureș; Editura Sport–Turism: Bucharest, Romania, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  46. Dăncuș, M. Evreii Din Maramureș. Muzeul Culturii Evreiești Din Maramureș. Casa Memorială Elie Wiesel; Muzeul Maramureșului: Sighetul Marmației, Romania, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  47. Dăncuș, M.; Cristea, G. Maramureșul Un Muzeu Viu În Centrul Europei; Editura Fundației Culturale Române: Bucharest, Romania, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  48. Hotea, M. Munții Maramureșului. Studiu de Geografie Umană; Cluj University Press: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ilieş, A.; Baias, I.C.; Deac, A.L.; Andreica, D. Crișana–Maramureș. Atlas Geografic al Patrimoniului Turistic. Geographical Atlas of Tourism Heritage; Alexandru, I., Ed.; Editura Universității din Oradea: Oradea, Romania, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  50. Vasile, M. Valea Vaserului. Vișeu de Sus. “Elveție” a Maramureșului; Editura Societății Culturale Pro Maramureș “Dragoș Vodă“: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  51. Moldovan, C. Baza de Date Privind Fundamentarea Înființării Rezervației Biosferei; Ichim: Sighetul Marmației, Romania, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  52. Morariu, T. Viața Pastorală În Munții Rodnei; Societatea Regala Romana de Geografie: Bucharest, Romania, 1937; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  53. Popa, R. Țara Maramureșului În Veacul al XIV-Lea; Editura Enciclopedică: Bucharest, Romania, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  54. Simion, S.A. Turismul Rural În Maramureș. Ph.D. Thesis, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sîrcu, I. Munții Rodnei. Studiu Morfogeografic; Academiei Republicii Socialiste România: Bucharest, Romania, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  56. Vana, V.M. Turismul Religios Și de Pelerinaj În Maramureș. Ph.D. Thesis, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  57. Porumb, M. Bisericile de Lemn Din Maramureș; Editura Academiei Române: Bucharest, Romania, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  58. UNESCO. The General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; World Heritage List; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1972; Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/ (accessed on 29 July 2024).
  59. Memorialul Victimelor Comunismului şi al Rezistenţei. Fundaţia “Academia Civică”. Available online: https://www.memorialsighet.ro/memorialul/ (accessed on 5 May 2024).
  60. Bogdan, I. Wikipedia. Available online: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdan_I (accessed on 20 December 2023).
  61. Dragoș, I. Wikipedia. Available online: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drago%C8%99_I (accessed on 4 May 2024).
  62. Personalități Maramureșene. Consiliul Judeţean Maramureş. Available online: https://www.1decembrie.maramures.ro/1-decembrie/personalitati (accessed on 5 May 2024).
  63. Gheorghe Turda. Wikipedia. Available online: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gheorghe_Turda (accessed on 4 May 2024).
  64. Babos, A. Tracing a Sacred Building Tradition. Wooden Churches, Carpenters and Founders in Maramureș Until the Turn of the 18th Century; History of Architecture, Lund University: Lund, Sweden, 2004; Available online: https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/21535 (accessed on 29 July 2024).
Figure 1. The Regional System of the Land of Maramureș.
Figure 1. The Regional System of the Land of Maramureș.
Societies 14 00225 g001
Figure 2. Spatial distribution of the main regional identity defining elements.
Figure 2. Spatial distribution of the main regional identity defining elements.
Societies 14 00225 g002
Figure 3. Hierarchy of the Elements which Define the Regional Identity of the Land of Maramureș. (in the local people’s assessment).
Figure 3. Hierarchy of the Elements which Define the Regional Identity of the Land of Maramureș. (in the local people’s assessment).
Societies 14 00225 g003
Figure 4. Wooden church Săpânța-Peri.
Figure 4. Wooden church Săpânța-Peri.
Societies 14 00225 g004
Figure 5. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the wooden churches identity element.
Figure 5. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the wooden churches identity element.
Societies 14 00225 g005
Figure 6. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the outstanding historical and cultural individuals identity element.
Figure 6. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the outstanding historical and cultural individuals identity element.
Societies 14 00225 g006
Figure 7. Maramureș Gate.
Figure 7. Maramureș Gate.
Societies 14 00225 g007
Figure 8. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Maramureș Gate identity element.
Figure 8. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Maramureș Gate identity element.
Societies 14 00225 g008
Figure 9. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding Maramureș traditional folk costumes identity element.
Figure 9. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding Maramureș traditional folk costumes identity element.
Societies 14 00225 g009
Figure 10. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Memorial to the Victims of Communism and Resistance identity element.
Figure 10. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Memorial to the Victims of Communism and Resistance identity element.
Societies 14 00225 g010
Figure 11. Bârsana Monastery.
Figure 11. Bârsana Monastery.
Societies 14 00225 g011
Figure 12. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Bârsana Monastery identity element.
Figure 12. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Bârsana Monastery identity element.
Societies 14 00225 g012
Figure 13. Merry Cemetery of Săpânța.
Figure 13. Merry Cemetery of Săpânța.
Societies 14 00225 g013
Figure 14. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Merry Cemetery in Săpânța identity element.
Figure 14. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Merry Cemetery in Săpânța identity element.
Societies 14 00225 g014
Figure 15. Mocănița” from the Vaser Valley (https://flic.kr/p/adW7Qp—accessed on 1 Iune 2024).
Figure 15. Mocănița” from the Vaser Valley (https://flic.kr/p/adW7Qp—accessed on 1 Iune 2024).
Societies 14 00225 g015
Figure 16. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the “Mocănița” from the Vaser Valley identity element.
Figure 16. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the “Mocănița” from the Vaser Valley identity element.
Societies 14 00225 g016
Figure 17. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Maramureș Mountains identity element.
Figure 17. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Maramureș Mountains identity element.
Societies 14 00225 g017
Figure 18. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Rodna Mountains identity element.
Figure 18. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Rodna Mountains identity element.
Societies 14 00225 g018
Figure 19. Săcel Pottery (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Ceramica_Sacel.JPG—accessed on 22 June 2024).
Figure 19. Săcel Pottery (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Ceramica_Sacel.JPG—accessed on 22 June 2024).
Societies 14 00225 g019
Figure 20. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Săcel Pottery identity element.
Figure 20. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Săcel Pottery identity element.
Societies 14 00225 g020
Table 1. A hierarchy of the elements that define the regional identity of the Land of Maramureș. (according to scholarly works).
Table 1. A hierarchy of the elements that define the regional identity of the Land of Maramureș. (according to scholarly works).
The Land of Maramureș Identity Elements Main Identity SubcomponentsContributions to the Construction of Regional Identity
The Maramureș
Gate
  • Ethnographic–symbolic identity element.
  • Carved motifs: the twisted rope, the Sun, the Moon, the Tree of Life, the crown, the wheel, the Greek Cross, the Roman Cross, the snake, flowers, horns etc. [43,47].
  • The Land of Maramureș is regarded as a true civilization of wood.
  • Three or five pillars.
  • The Cosău Valley.
  • These are monumental structures combining secular art with elements of religious nature. They are monumental buildings [43].
  • Their symbolism is diverse revealing aspects such as: infinity, life, wisdom, disease prevention, peace, joy, protection against enemies, evil warding, fertility, power, Christian house marking, eternal youth, etc. [43].
  • Gates are uniformly spread and can be found throughout the whole region.
  • They are built exclusively of oak wood in order to be durable.
  • Oak harvesting involved a distinct ritual in the past.
  • Gate size and the richness of its carving were in the past indicative of some nobility ascent, while these days they simply point to family wealth.
  • Traditional motifs are strictly observed even with most of the newly built gates.
  • The oldest representative gates are considered to be those in the villages of the Cosău Valley [43].
Rodna Mountains
  • Morphological identity element.
  • Crystalline schists and igneous rocks.
  • Crystalline limestone.
  • Peaks over 2000 m high: Pietrosu Rodnei, Rebra, Repedea, Puzdrele, Laptelui, Galațului, Ghergheleu, Ineu, Ineuț etc.
  • The Rodna fault.
  • Asymmetric horst
  • Alpine ridge.
  • Glacial cirques and lakes (e.g., Buhăiescu, Iezerul Pietrosului, Izvorul Cailor, Puzdrele).
  • Horses’ Waterfall.
  • Băile Borșa Resort.
  • They are mostly made up of crystalline rocks (the Bretila mesometamorphic series, the Paleozoic epimetamorphic series of Repedea and the Repedea mesometamorphic series) [55].
  • The northern fault (the Rodna Fault) came about closer to the main ridge than the southern fault (the Someșului Mare Fault), thus making the crystalline block of Rodna Mountains tilt and rise higher in the north than in the south [55].
  • Mountain ridges are crossed by a series of linear cracks of high amplitude (crevasses or gravity faults).
  • The presence of three main erosion surfaces (Nedeia, Bătrâna and the peripheral platform) and three secondary surfaces can be noted [52].
  • An alpine ridge, with glacial cirques and a long southern slope can be seen between the peaks of Pietrosu Rodnei and Ineu [44].
  • Simple glacial cirques predominate, in which glacial lakes were formed.
  • Glacial valleys have a U-shaped transversal profile (e.g., Pietroasa, Șarampin, Sforac).
  • In the areas made of crystalline limestone, there are unusual landforms (e.g., waterfalls, steep slopes, plateaus, lapiezes, sinkholes or valleys), some of which are attracting tourists (e.g., the Horses’ Waterfall)
The Wooden Churches
  • Architectural and cultural identity element.
  • “Sfântul Nicolae” Church in Bârsana.
  • “Sfântul Nicolae” Church in Josani, Comuna Budești.
  • “Cuvioasa Paraschiva” Church in Desești
  • “Din Deal” Church and “Nașterea Maicii Domnului” Church in Ieud.
  • “Sfinții Arhangheli Mihail și Gavril” Church in Plopiș, Plopis Commune.
  • “Cuvioasa Paraschiva” Church in Poienile Izei, Botiza Commune.
  • “Sfinții Arhangheli Mihail și Gavril” Church in Șurdești, Șișești Commune.
  • In the Land of Maramureș, there are some of the most representative wooden architecture monuments in our country, which can be regarded as genuine masterpieces of the genre [57].
  • Most of them were built in the 17th and 18th century.
  • Typically, they would be rebuilt on the site of an older church; later repair and restoration work was conducted gradually, replacing only the degraded elements, while preserving exactly the original architecture [57].
  • Almost all the worship places follow the medieval Romanian architecture and the characteristics of the Orthodox religion (altar, nave, narthex, porch).
  • They are built of thick wooden beams placed on a stone plinth.
  • Their main architectural features are the raised vaulting of the nave and the considerable elevation of the towers, the latter indicating Gothic influences [57].
  • The exterior is richly adorned with sculptural elements and notches.
  • The body of the worship place is frequently surrounded by a massive girdle in the shape of a twisted rope [57].
  • Inside, there are numerous parietal paintings and valuable old icons.
  • Some of these buildings (seven) have been included on the UNESCO World Heritage List [58], attesting to the significant Romanian contribution to the world cultural heritage.
  • The oldest church is Ieud Deal Church, in Ieud, established in 1364 [49].
“Mocănița” from the Vaser Valley
  • Tourist identity element
  • The Vaser stream.
  • The narrow-gauge railway track.
  • Mineral water springs.
  • Mosaic geology.
  • Vast forested areas.
  • Vișeu de Sus.
  • The Hawk Rock.
  • Glimboaca Valley.
  • Bardău Mountain.
  • Botiz Valley.
  • Mineral water from Suligau.
  • Făina railway station
  • Toroiaga massif
  • Știubei mineral spring.
  • The Vaser is the most important tributary to Viseu River.
  • The Vaser stream winds along a 42 km route starting with Novăț and continuing with Cozia–Novicior–Bardău–Botizu–Făina–Măcârlău–Comanu [50].
  • Between 1924 and 1932, a narrow-gauge railway was built alongside the Vaser stream. It has a narrow gauge of 0.76 m (2.5 feet) and operates with small passenger cars and freight cars for transporting timber [50].
  • Tourists can access various hiking trails in the Maramureș Mountains from each station on the railway.
  • The Vaser Basin area holds a large number of mineral water springs.
  • In the past, mineral water from this area was bottled into wooden barrels and exported to Vienna, where it received the gold medal for taste and quality [50].
  • A representative tourist attraction is the Hawk Rock, a monolithic rock with a volume of several hundred thousand cubic meters, covered in spruce forest [50].
  • The Glimboaca Valley is known for its manganese deposits.
  • The Botizu Valley holds deposits of high-purity graphite.
  • The mineral water from Șuligu is carbonated and ferruginous.
Maramureș Mountains
  • Morphological identity element.
  • Subdivisions: Pop Ivan, Cetina, Oloha, Micu, Farcău–Mihailecu, Vaser, Toroiaga, Cearcănu–Prislop, Pietrosu Bardăului (Hotea 2019).
  • Poienile de sub Munte Depression.
  • Viseu River Corridor.
  • Glacial cirques.
  • Vaser Valley.
  • Lake Vinderel.
  • The edelweiss (Leontopodium alpinum).
  • Ethnic diversity: Romanians, Germans, Ukrainians, Hungarians and Jews.
  • Shepherding
  • Iron, gold, copper and uranium ore.
  • Timber rafting.
  • ”Mocănița” from the Vaser Valley
  • Moisei Monastery.
  • The Moisei Commemorative Monument.
  • Geologically, they are divided into three structural domains: crystalline–mesozoic, flysch and sub-Carpathian [48,51].
  • They exhibit various types of relief: glacial (in the subdivisions of Farcău–Mihailecu and Bardăului), periglacial, developed on crystalline rocks, structural, karstic, volcanic (in the massifs of Farcău, Mihailecu and Rugașu.
  • Karst areas feature both exokarst and endokarst landforms (e.g., caves and sinkholes).
  • The main watercourse is the Vaser River, with a length of 42 km.
  • There are three protected natural areas in the Maramureș Mountains: Cornu Nedeii-Ciungii Bălăsânii, Farcău–Vinderel–Mihailecu and Tomnatic–Sehleanu Daffodil Meadow.
  • The mountainous area offers exceptional conditions for sheep grazing (transhumance to summer pastures called “loci estivales” or “descensus in alpibus” in documents) [48,53].
  • The genesis and evolution conditions of the Maramureș Mountains have led to the emergence of significant metalliferous and non-metalliferous resources, exploited over time through the extensive mining industry (e.g., Baia Borșa, Gura Băii, Burloaia etc.).
  • There is a large number of mineral springs, some exploited under well–known brands (e.g., Alpina Borșa or Aqua Nordica Borșa).
  • The Vaser Valley, which is mostly a gorge, is touristically exploited due to the existence of a narrow-gauge railway and the economically touristic steam train called Mocănița.
  • The existence of a large number of resources and tourist attractions has led to the development of various types and forms of tourism such as mountain hiking, cultural events, religious tourism, cave exploration, adventure tourism and hunting activities.
Merry Cemetery in Săpânța
  • Religious and cultural identity element.
  • Stan Ioan Pătraș.
  • ”Stan Ioan Pătraș” Memorial House.
  • 1000 vividly coloured crosses.
  • Humorous epitaphs.
  • Novelty element.
  • Meath.
  • Resurrection.
  • “The Blue of Săpânța”.
  • Religious and cultural tourism.
  • Rural tourism.
  • Global uniqueness.
  • It was created in 1935 by Stan Ioan Pătraș, a local poet, sculptor and painter.
  • The crosses bearing ludic inscriptions were carved by the master craftsman Stan Ioan Pătraș and his descendants.
  • The inscriptions on the crosses tell of the deceased’s vices, the sins they committed in everyday life, their relationship with other family members, or how they died.
  • The crosses are brightly coloured and carved, most of them decorated with naive paintings indicating the deceased’s profession or the main aspects that characterized him/her [56].
  • The predominant colour is blue.
  • The cemetery is the main religious tourist destination in the Land of Maramureș.
  • Săpânța is considered the heart of rural tourism in the Land of Maramureș [54].
Bârsana Monastery
  • Rural tourism.
  • Religious identity element.
  • Sacred space.
  • Modern monastic compound.
  • Glass painting workshop
  • Religious tourism.
  • Tourist villa.
  • Conference hall.
  • Faith and religion are very strong in Maramureș, the inhabitants being religious and steadfast believers, some seemingly descended from icons [56].
  • The Land of Maramureș is one of the cradles of authentic Romanian Orthodoxy.
  • The Land of Maramureș boasts a rich religious tourist heritage: Orthodox churches and monasteries, shrines, graves and cemeteries [56].
  • Bârsana Monastery was rebuilt in 1993.
  • It has a modern tourist villa and a multifunctional hall for various activities and conferences.
The Memorial to the Victims of Communism and Resistance
  • Historical identity element.
  • Prison.
  • Cultural elites.
  • “The paupers’ cemetery”.
  • Sighet Museum.
  • The International Center for Studies on Communism in Bucharest
  • Ana Blandiana.
  • Romulus Rusan.
  • Iuliu Maniu.
  • Ilie Lazăr.
  • Iuliu Hossu.
  • Gheorghe Brătianu.
  • It is located in Sighetu Marmației.
  • It was established in 1993, following an initiative by Romulus Rusan.
  • It is located in the building of the former prison and is dedicated to the victims of communism in Romania [49].
  • Its main purpose is to reconstruct and preserve the memory of certain peoples, particularly the Romanian people, who for half a century were subjected to a false history [59]
  • It is in this place that many Romanian cultural and political personalities from the interwar period were imprisoned and met their end.
  • Nearby is the “paupers’ cemetery”, where another monument with the same purpose was erected, marked by a map of Romania made of trees. Many personalities who died in this prison were buried here by the communists [49].
  • The Memorial consists of two institutions: the Museum in Sighet and the Bucharest-based International Center for Studies on Communism.
  • The framework project for its establishment was proposed to the Council of Europe by Ana Blandiana and Romulus Rusan.
  • It is considered one of the main sites for preserving the memory of the continent, alongside the Auschwitz Memorial and the Normandy Peace Memorial [59].
  • In 1950, over 100 dignitaries from across the country (former ministers, academics, economists, military personnel, historians, journalists, politicians) and 50 bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic Churches were imprisoned at the Sighet prison [59].
Traditional Maramureș Folk Costume
  • Ethnographic and cultural identity element.
  • Traditional Maramureș hat.
  • Embroidered apron.
  • Skirt.
  • Waistcoat.
  • Shirt.
  • Headscarf.
  • Wide pants (woollen tight pants and breeches).
  • Leather belt (girdle).
  • Fur cap (hat).
  • Woollen cloak (thick coat)
  • Boots.
  • Beaded necklace (string of beads).
  • Folk costume plays a particularly important role in the Land of Maramureș.
  • There are significant differences from village to village, depending on the shape and type of hat, the coat and waistcoat and the colours and designs of the embroidered aprons worn by women [56].
  • The most representative colours are red and black, but yellow (Ieud) and green (Moisei) are also used.
  • A woman’s place of origin was revealed by the way the stripes were arranged on the apron and the colour scheme; for men, the clue was the colour of their thick coat [54].
  • There is everyday traditional folk costume and festive traditional folk costume, each varying according to season and age [56].
  • Maramureș traditional folk costume is characterized by sobriety and elegance [54].
  • The shirt is considered the main element of Maramureș traditional folk costume, adorned with embroideries and ornaments.
  • The belt is richly decorated with polychrome embroidery and beads.
  • Men wear a short white shirt and very wide pants in summer and breeches in winter; on their head, they wear a traditional straw hat or a fur cap, depending on the season [54].
Outstanding Historical and Cultural Individuals
  • Boots.
  • Human identity element.
  • Voievode Bogdan
  • Voievode Dragoș.
  • Pintea the Brave.
  • ”Pintea the Brave” Museum Complex.
  • Vasile Lucaciu (“The Lion from Șișești”).
  • Dr. Vasile Lucaciu Museum and Monumental Ensemble.
  • George Pop de Băsești.
  • Ioan Mihalyi de Apșa.
  • Memorial House (“Ioan Mihalyi de Apșa”).
  • Ilie Lazăr.
  • Stan Ioan Pătraș.
  • Elie Wiesel.
  • Elie Wiesel Museum House.
  • Ion and Ștefan Petreuș (The Petreuș Brothers).
  • Gheorghe Turda.
  • Bogdan I (Bogdan the Founder) was the voivode (ruler) of Maramureș and the lord of Moldavia [60].
  • King Louis I of Hungary tasked Bogdan I with establishing a voivodeship (Voivodate of Maramureș) as a vassal of Hungary to defend against the Turks [54].
  • Having become undesirable in Maramureș, Bogdan left for Moldavia, together with his related and close families, and in 1359 he proclaimed himself an independent prince, Moldavia becoming a state in its own right [45].
  • Voivode Dragoș (Dragoș I) is known in some Moldavian chronicles as the founder and the first voivode of Moldova [61].
  • According to some chronicles, the Romanian voivode Dragoș, while hunting a bison, crossed from Maramureș to the Moldova River. He liked the place so much that he settled there and populated the country with Romanians from Maramureș [61].
  • Pintea the Brave (1670–1703), was the son of a nobleman from Lăpușului Land and the most famous outlaw in this region and throughout the entire northwest of the country.
  • The legendary figure of Pintea the Outlaw remains to this day in Maramureș folklore (e.g., “Pintea’s Ballad”, “Horea Pintii”, “Corinda Pintii”) and in toponymics such as “Pintii’s Camp”, “Pintea’s Fogodă”, “Pintea’s Stone”, “Pintea’s Grave”, “Pintea’s Fountain” [45].
  • “Pintea the Brave” Museum Complex was established in 2009 in Sighetu Marmației [49].
  • Vasile Lucaciu (1852–1922), a historical figure of conservative thinking from the locality of Șișești, was a great fighter for the rights of Romanians in Transylvania
  • The Museum and Monumental Ensemble “Dr. Vasile Lucaciu” in Șișești was inaugurated in 1968.
  • George Pop de Băsești was born in 1835 in the locality of Băsești, in Sălaj County [62].
  • In 1872, he became a deputy in the Parliament in Budapest, representing Cehu Silvaniei electoral district.
  • He was the second signatory of the official copy of the Memorandum of the Romanians of Transylvania and Hungary, and was also one of the organizers of the over 300 Romanian delegation travelling to Vienna [62].
  • Ioan Mihaly de Apșa was born in Ieud, in 1844.
  • He was the first doctor of law in Maramureș, a title obtained at the University of Budapest [62]
  • He fought for the identity and the rights of all Romanians in Maramureș and the whole of Transylvania.
  • Ilie Lazăr opposed three regimes: he fought in World War I freeing Cernauti, he participated in the Great National Union, was a deputy of Maramureș and is remembered in history as an example of integrity, bravery and patriotism. Ilie Lazăr is one of the legendary Maramureș people, unfortunately too-little known and promoted. A fascinating personality and an incredible life lived under the sign of love for country and dignity, he paid dearly for these principles with three detentions [62].
  • Stan Ioan Pătraș is the creator of the Merry Cemetery in Săpânța.
  • Elie Wiesel was a Romanian citizen of Jewish origin, Nobel Peace Prize laureate in 1986. He was born in Sighetu Marmației, deported to Poland, and later settled in France and the United States of America.
  • Elie Wiesel was awarded the Gold Medal (presented by President Ronald Reagan in 1986) and the Gold Medal of the American Congress (the highest distinction awarded by the United States of America). His name is engraved on the Statue of Liberty [46].
  • Elie Wiesel is Doctor Honorius Causa of 55 universities.
  • The Elie Wiesel Museum House is specific to the Transylvanian and Central European towns of the late 19th and early 20th centuries [46].
  • Ștefan and Ion Petreuș (The Petreus Brothers) were singers of traditional Romanian folk music, renowned for their songs from the Iza Valley in the Land of Maramureș.
  • They were made famous by their numerous instrumental and vocal recordings, the discographic materials they produced and the large number of national and international competitions they won.
  • Gheorghe Turda is a famous folk singer and retired general, born in Săpânța in 1948 [63]. He is a graduate of the “Gheorghe Dima” Music Academy in Cluj-Napoca, the first soloist of the “Rapsodia Română” artistic ensemble and former director of the “Ciocârlia” artistic ensemble.
Săcel Pottery
  • Craft identity element.
  • Red unglazed pottery.
  • Unique at national level.
  • Bronze Age.
  • Tănase Cocean.
  • Clay.
  • Functional and artistic clay pots.
  • It has its own specific style, distinct from the other pottery centres in Maramureș.
  • Pottery produced here is fired to a red colour and decorated using two techniques: polishing and painting [45].
  • Săcel is the only place to make red, unglazed pottery.
  • Săcel kilns are hemispheral ovoids similar to the ones from the Roman period [45].
  • Săcel pottery is fired only once in a very old kiln [49].
  • The shape of Săcel clay pots is almost identical to the one displayed by the old clay pots of Dacian origin.
  • Pottery making continues in Săcel through the work of the famous craftsman Tănase Cocean.
  • Many of his creations can be found exhibited in important museums such as Maramureș County Museum or the Village and Folk Art Museum.
Table 2. Number of answers and hierarchy of the elements which define the regional identity of the Land of Maramureș.
Table 2. Number of answers and hierarchy of the elements which define the regional identity of the Land of Maramureș.
Land of
Maramureș
Identity
Elements
Wooden ChurchesOutstanding Cultural and Historical Individuals Maramureș GatesMaramureș Traditional Folk CostumesThe Memorial to the Victims of Communism and ResistanceBârsana MonasteryMerry Cemetery in Sapanta“Mocănița” from the Vaser ValleyMaramureș MountainsSăcel PotteryRodna Mountains
Hierarchy
Based on
Respondents’
Answers
11991291238626204228121
29713311083425656326174
3107991278654725931898
469616811856896840141120
557377660116949842261323
6495580568010610056491873
739473858848212682805485
8355728751084886162118132100
9376736671115610101160175112
102124201624583686142184134
111011141519393960116105160
Total720720720720720720720720720720720
(The order of the elements is based on the hierarchy determined by the respondents’ answers—the first identity element is the most important according to the respondents, while the last one is the least important).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Boțan, C.-N.; Gligor, V.; Fonogea, S.-F.; Pavel, I.-H.; Horvath, C. Land of Maramureș (Romania) Identity Valences: Perceptions, Promotion and Potential for Valorisation. Societies 2024, 14, 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14110225

AMA Style

Boțan C-N, Gligor V, Fonogea S-F, Pavel I-H, Horvath C. Land of Maramureș (Romania) Identity Valences: Perceptions, Promotion and Potential for Valorisation. Societies. 2024; 14(11):225. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14110225

Chicago/Turabian Style

Boțan, Cristian-Nicolae, Viorel Gligor, Silviu-Florin Fonogea, Ion-Horațiu Pavel, and Csaba Horvath. 2024. "Land of Maramureș (Romania) Identity Valences: Perceptions, Promotion and Potential for Valorisation" Societies 14, no. 11: 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14110225

APA Style

Boțan, C. -N., Gligor, V., Fonogea, S. -F., Pavel, I. -H., & Horvath, C. (2024). Land of Maramureș (Romania) Identity Valences: Perceptions, Promotion and Potential for Valorisation. Societies, 14(11), 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14110225

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop