Content uploaded by Egemen Yılgür
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Egemen Yılgür on Feb 05, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Egemen Yılgür
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Egemen Yılgür on Nov 03, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
HRISTO KYUCHUKOV
SOFIYA ZAHOVA
ION DUMINICA
EDITORS
ROMANI HISTORY AND CULTURE
Festschrift in Honour of Prof. Dr. Vesselin Popov
Munich
Lincom
2021
2
“Roma” Series
Series Editors: Hristo Kyuchukov and Ian Hancock
№ 9
Editorial Board:
Peter Bakker (Aarhus University, Denmark), Thomas Acton (University of
Greenwich, London, UK), Nadezhda Demeter (Russian Academy of
Sciences, Moscow, Russia), Ian Hancock (University of Texas, Austin, TX,
USA), Encho Gerganov (New Bulgarian University, Sofia, Bulgaria), Lukasz
Kwadrans (University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland), Jean-Pierre Liégeois
(René Descartes University, Paris V, France), Elena Marushiakova
(University of St Andrews, UK), William New (Beloit College, Beloit, WI,
USA), Vesselin Popov (University of St Andrews, UK), Milan Samko
(Constantin the Philosopher University, Nitra, Slovakia), Barry van Driel
(International Association of Intercultural Education, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands).
Reviewers:
Prof. Dr. Elena Marushiakova, St Andrew University, Scotland
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lukasz Kwardans, University of Silesia, Poland
© H. Kyuchukov, S. Zahova, I. Duminica, editors, 2021
© authors of articles, 2021
© Mary Humphrey, photo
ISBN 9783969390719
3
Hristo Kyuchukov
University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
Sofiya Zahova
University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
Ion Duminica
Moldavian Academy of Sciences, Chisinau, Moldova
(Editors)
ROMANI HISTORY AND CULTURE
Festschrift in Honor of Prof. Dr. Vesselin Popov
Munich
Lincom
2021
5
VESSELIN POPOV
© Mary Humphrey
6
CONTENTS
pp.
Hristo Kyuchukov
Life and work of Vesselin Popov…………………………………………….8
Ion Duminica
Gypsy Slavery in the Medieval Moldavian Historical Documentary
Sources............................................................................................................36
Julieta Rotaru
Considerations about the ‘Turkish Gypsies’ as Crypto-Muslims
in Wallachia…………………………………………………………………75
Egemen Yılgür
Turkoman Gypsies in the Balkans: Just a Preferred Identity
or More?..........................................................................................................93
Emine Dingeç
Horse-dealers in the Ottoman State..............................................................120
Dragoljub Acković
Roma in Serbia during the “Great War”…………………………………...136
Sofiya Zahova
Romani Activism in Interwar Yugoslavia....................................................147
Valdemar Kalinin
Romani women in battles against fascism
in Soviet Union (1941-1945)………………………………………………164
Tamás Hajnáczky
Hungarian Gypsy Musician’s National Federation 1935–1940…………....180
Gheorghe Fieraru
The Deportation of the Roma from Romania to Transnistria.......................194
Viktor Shapoval
The Editor as a Co-author.............................................................................205
7
Hristo Kyuchukov
The Roma Family’s Oral Culture and Folklore and Language
Acquisition by Children………………………………………………...….217
Zoran Lapov
Roma, Schooling, and Language Valorisation in Italy: Intercultural
Experiences from Florence...........................................................................226
Tomasz Kamusella
Xenophobia, Anti-Semitism and Anti-Romism in the Concept of
Polish literature.............................................................................................245
Sanja Zlatanović
An Experience of (Not)belonging: Džorevci in Bulgaria.............................261
Kai Viljami Åberg
On Multi-Musicality – Collaborative Fieldwork via Musicality
Among the Roma in Finland and Elsewhere.................................................278
Marcos Toyansk
Romani Stateless Diaspora: Multiple Homelands, Mobility Inequality
and Precarious Citizenship…………………………………………………291
Lilyana Kovatcheva
Relations between Bulgarians and Roma community in Bulgaria…………302
93
TURKOMAN “GYPSIES” IN THE BALKANS: JUST A PREFERRED
IDENTITY OR MORE?
133
Egemen Yılgür
Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey
Muslim communities speaking primarily Turkish and identifying themselves
as Turks but called ‘Gypsy’ by the surrounding populations, including ethnic
Turks, has been a widespread Balkan phenomenon. The pioneer studies on
Balkan Roma explained such identity formations referring to the flexible
nature of self-identification, relying on significant historical and
ethnographic data. According to that, Turkish identity, primarily perceived to
be identical with one of the most long-lasting regional empires’ heritage, was
a preferred identity for Balkan Roma, demanding a more prestigious social
status. No doubt that explanation is accurate for the majority of observed
cases. However, two archival documents, recently discovered in the Ottoman
archives in Sofia and Istanbul, indicate another facet of the issues. According
to the one dated 1869, there was a sub-group among those registered as
Gypsy by the government in the Balkans, identified as Turkoman Gypsies
[Turkmān Ḳibṭīleri] and to the other dated 1708, the state saw such
communities as a branch of broader nomadic Turkoman people and was
aware of their tribal divisions. Recent studies documented that the Ottoman
state often registered non-Roma communities, such as Abdals and Tahtacıs,
who subsisted on service providing and craft production and were relatively
more mobile than the outsiders they engaged, ‘Gypsy’ in Anatolian Turkey.
The documents studied here prove that the Ottoman state was doing the same
in its European territory. Besides, at least a small minority among the people
whose preferred identity is Turkishness but called ‘Gypsy’ in the
contemporary Balkans might be the descendants of those indicated in the
documents.
Key words: The Ottoman Empire, Gypsies, Roma, Abdal, Balkans, Gurbet,
Crimea, Turkoman, Turkish, Varna
Introduction
The presence of communities called ‘Gypsy’ by the outsiders while claiming
a Turkish identity is a Balkan phenomenon, most visible in Eastern Bulgaria.
Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov proposed a convincing model to
explain the development of such identities. Although ethnic Turks in Bulgaria
133
I accidentally discovered the second document studied here during my research stay in
St. Cyril and Methodius National Library of Bulgaria in 2019. I appreciate Elena
Marushiakova, Vesselin Popov, Yelis Erolova, Milena Zvancharova, and Margarita
Dobreva for their kind invitation and hospitality. Besides, I want to thank my colleague Ali
Sipahi who reviewed the piece’s initial version and Burak Onaran, Ebru Aykut, and Faika
Çelik, who provided me with their invaluable suggestions on how to study the 18th and
19th-century Turkish texts.
94
have never been enthusiastic about removing once established boundaries
between those and themselves, adopting a Turkish identity has been more
practical for those Muslims called Gypsy due to the shared cultural traits.
Hence, at least some have tried the option to obtain a better social status,
originally belonging to a relatively more populous and prestigious ethnic
minority, inheritors of the Ottoman Empire (Marushiakova and Popov 1999,
85; 2021, 4). Unlike Xoraxane Roma, who were also Muslims, they do not
speak Romani, primarily identify themselves as Turks or Usta Millet
(craftsman people) when they preserved their discrete group identity
(Marushiakova and Popov 2021, 3), and even developed an independent
origin myth in case Ustas in the town of Dobritch (Marushiakova and Popov
2000, 86). The authors present such identity transformations as a long-term
process beginning in the Ottoman era, drawing on the population figures
reflecting the shift in religious belonging of those called Gypsy
(Marushiakova and Popov 2001, 56–57; 2016b, 28).
134
The analytical power of the above explanation is evident. Any visit to
Balkan Gypsy settlements would provide an observer with much data for
identity declarations’ flexibility. Many Roma groups, who had once been
established in ethnographic and archival records as Romani speakers but then
adopted a Turkish identity and lost their language, exemplify that situation
(Marushiakova and Popov 2016b, 31). However, the documents studied here
add an extra dimension to the relevant discussion. Both documents indicate
that the Ottoman state was assuming an inner diversity among those called
‘Gypsy’ and accepted some of them to be somehow related to Turkoman
pastoralists or Turkomans in general.
The Ottoman State classified some of its subjects as Gypsy (Ḳibṭī
135
and Çingāne or Çingene
136
) in population and tax records. The motive behind
that policy was not the Ottoman officials’ ethnological curiosity but the
necessities of taxation (Dündar 2015, 141; Ginio 2004). The state collected a
poll tax, often named cizye, from those registered as Gypsy. Cizye was
originally a canonical poll-tax collected from non-Muslims, but mandatory
for both Muslim and non-Muslim liable Gypsies (Altınöz 2013; Cantemir
134
For the contemporary developments regarding relevant communities in terms of
conversion, see Slavkova 2004.
135
Ḳibṭī is an Arabic loan word, ىطبق, for indigenous Egyptians (Hava 1890, 683) but
corresponds to Roma and the other communities sharing a similar lifestyle in the Ottoman
context (Çelik 2003, 65; Altınöz 2005, 10).
136
There is an on-going debate in terms of the word’s etymology (Paspati 1862, 188;
Yıldız 2007, 61–82; Matras, 2011, 256; 2015, 21–23).
95
1987[1722], 341–342; Çelik 2003; Çelik 2013; Ginio 2004; Hasluck 1948, 1–
12; Şerifgil 1981; Marushiakova and Popov 2001; Marsh 2006; Dingeç 2009;
Kasumović 2020). It is never easy to fix the criteria taken into consideration
by the Ottoman officials to decide whom they would register as Gypsy.
Nevertheless, archival records indicate an Ottoman attitude to classify as
many groups as possible under that category
(DAB.DH.MKT.1368.131.1.1.1886;DAB.NFS.D.3201.0-8;DAB. BEO.655.
49054.1.1,1895.Line_4;DAB.COA.DH.ID.63.39.2.1.1914.Line_1;Yılgür
2018; Çakılcı 2019).
They were communities whose primary subsistence was not agriculture
or pastoral nomadism but service providing and trade of specialised craft
productions. Some were travelling between client communities in warm
seasons. The others were attached to village or town settlements as far as
there was adequate and permanent demand for whatever they might offer (for
some attempts to conceptualise such groups, see Acton 1981; Nemeth 1986;
Gmelch 1986; Salo 1986; Lucassen, Willems and Cottaar 1998; Okely 2003;
Berland and Rao 2004). It seems like that the difficulties in the taxation of
such flexible communities forced the empire to develop a specific tax policy
(Yılgür 2018, 274–275),
137
or they might have inherited that from their
predecessors (Soulis 1961, 156–158; Ginio 2004, 131; Marsh 2006, 172).
One might find some additional appellations such as Abdal, Tahtacı
(DAB.NFS.d.3201; Karal 1997[1943], 116 / 122; Çakılcı 2019), Puşiyan
(DAB.ML.VRD.TMT.d.3247; DAB.NFS.d.830; DAB.ML.VRD.TMT.d.403;
DAB.NFS.d.3433; DAB.NFS.d.278.4; Karal 1997[1943], 185), or
Ġazġancıyan (DAB.ML.VRD.CMD.171.7; Dinç 2017, 163; Çakılcı 2019,
101), generally referring to specific Gypsy groups in the Ottoman tax, income
and population records. When the surrounding population or registered
communities explicitly used such titles, officials often mentioned them in the
archival texts. In many cases, such groups raised their objections against
cizye liability, emphasising local terms as proof that they were not Gypsy.
Therefore, incorporating alternative appellations into state registries might be
a pre-emptive strategy to prevent the expression of such demands
(DAB.SMST.III.200.15740.1.1; DAB.C.ML.718.29352.1.1;
C.ML.00070.3250.1.1). Recent studies documented the use of that practice in
the archival records belonging to Asian territory of the empire (Yılgür 2018;
Çakılcı 2019), and the documents studied here prove that the state did the
137
The Turkic pastoral nomads whom the state usually levied taxes on their herd size
(Lindner 1983, 56) were liable to pay a fixed amount if their sheep were less than 26
(İnalcık 2009, 42).
96
same in the Balkans. Moreover, the target groups’ identification as Turkoman
Gypsies [Turkmān Ḳibṭīleri] established them as a distinct branch within
those that the Ottomans called Gypsy.
The Document I: Those “Gypsies” of Nomadic Turkoman People (DAB.
A_{DVNSMHM.d.115.2859. Date: 1708, July)
This order is addressed to the Ustas
138
of Çatalca
139
and Yapaġıcı
140
Each band
141
of those Gypsies
142
of nomadic
143
Turkoman people;
144
called as
the Çobān
145
band, the Tarḫāneci
146
band, the Baṣdırmacı
147
band, the Miṣr
148
band; are of 40 or 50 males. Some of them are travelling by horse and a few
with carriages. They collect fodder and food from village people for free and
even graze animals where available. Besides, they enter the subjects’
149
houses and plunder their possessions and provisions and damage travellers.
138
Usta, which literally corresponds to a master of any craft (Redhouse 1890, 87), is also
an administrative and military term attached with multiple meanings in the Ottoman
context. Here it means the chief gardener (Bostancı) of royal farms (Sakaoğlu 2017, 705),
who was also responsible for punitive tasks and guarding the sultan (Pakalın 1971, 239;
Sakaoğlu 2017, 109). According to Evliya Çelebi, Usta was the most high-ranking security
official in Çatalca (Evliya Çelebi 2006, 631; Gürçay 2019, 140).
139
An administrative district (każa) related to Rumelia Province in the 18th-century (Bab
Court, No 197, v. 73, vr. 377, y. 1749-1750) and Edirne Province in the 19th century
(Sezen 2017, 175).
140
A village related to Silivri subdistrict (nahiye) around Çatalca (Eyüp Court Record, No:
138, v. 61, p. 117, y. 1717-1718; Majer 2016, 358).
141
Bölük in the original. It is a term corresponding to subdivisions of either any whole or
armies (Meninski 1680, 188; Redhouse 1890, 385; Pakalın 1971, 242; Tulum 2011, 454).
The Ottoman officials documented communities attached to the broader divisions of
Turkic nomads as bölük in many historical records (Altınay 1930, 24, 62, 86; Halaçoğlu
2009, 302, 398, 402, 518). Although it identifies what anthropology literature calls band
here (Steward 1937, 87–104; Lindner 1982, 689–711), the Ottoman officials used that for
diverse phenomena. Therefore, one has to rigorously comprehend the context before
arguing for what bölük means in particular texts.
142
Ḳibṭī in the original.
143
Göçer evlü in original (Redhouse 1890, 1583).
144
ṭā’ife in the original. That is a flexible term for diverse human groups, such as a nation,
a class, a sect, crew (Meninski 1680, 3080; Redhouse 1890, 1230).
145
Shepherd (Meninski 1680, 1672; Redhouse 1890, 733).
146
One who prepares a mixture of specific dried ingredients used in flavourings soups
(Meninski 1680, 1146; Redhouse 1890, 531).
147
One who makes or sells baṣdırma, meat, cured under pressure and flavoured with
spices along with garlic; bacon (Meninski 1680, 655–656; Redhouse 1890, 327).
148
A city; Egypt; Indian corn (Meninski 1680, 698–699; Redhouse 1890, 1877).
149
reᶜāyā in original (Redhouse 1890, 1611).
97
The judges
150
of Berġos,
151
Baba-yı ᶜAtīḳ,
152
and İnecik
153
and the assistant
judge
154
of Ḫayrabolı
155
complained that there is no end of their such
aggressions.
…
Çatalca ve yapaġıcı ustalarına hukm ki
Göçer evlü türkmān ṭā’ifesinden çobān bölügi tarḫāneci bölügi ve baṣdırmacı
bölügi ve Miṣr bölügi dėmekle maᶜrūf ḳibṭīleriñ her bölügi ḳırḳar ellişer nefer
olub (1) ve bir miḳdārı at ile birazı daḫi ᶜaraba ile gezüb ve muft ve meccānen
ehl-‘i ḳaryeden yem ve yėmeḳ alub ve ḫattā bulduḳları yerlerden ḥayvānāt (2)
sürdüklerinden māᶜadā baᶜżı reᶜāyā neferātınıñ daḫi evlerine girüb emvāl ve
erzāḳları nehb ü ġāret ve ebnā-i sebīle iṣāl-i mażarrat (3) ėdüb bu misillü
teᶜaddīleriniñ nihāyyeti olmaduġın Berġos ve Baba-yı ᶜAtīḳ ve İnecik ḳāḍīları
ve Ḫayrabolı nā’ibi ᶜarż ėdüb … (4)
…
Fī Evāḫir R sene 1120 (July 9 1708-July 18, 1708)
150
Ḳāḍī in original, see (Redhouse 1890, 1417; Şentop, 2008b). The tasks assigned to
those were primarily judicial. However, they also served as public notaries and played an
administrative role (Pakalın 1971, 119–125; Dávid 2008, 16).
151
Berġos. An administrative district (każa) related to Rumelia Province in the 17th-
century (Eyüb Court, No 37, v. 25, vr. 288, y. 1637-1638) and Eastern Rumelia Province
in the 19th-century (Sezen 2017, 15).
152
Baba-yı ᶜAtīḳ. An administrative district (każa) related to Rumelia Province in the 18th-
century (Bab Court, No 92, v. 60, vr. 505, y. 1709) and Edirne Province in the 19th-century
(Sezen 2017, 75).
153
İnecik. An administrative district (każa) related to Rumelia Province in the 17th-century
(Bab Court, No 46, v. 19, vr. 90, y. 1685-1686) and Edirne Province in the 19th-century
(Sezen 2017, 375).
154
Nā’ib in original, see Pakalın 1971, 126; Şentop 2008a.
155
Hayrabolı. An administrative district (każa) related to Rumelia Province in the 17th-
century (Rumeli Sadâreti Court, No 106, v. 50, vr. 650, y. 1656-1658) and Eastern
Rumelia Province in the 19th-century (Sezen 2017, 342).
98
The above document is an imperial order dated 1708, discovered in one of the
mühimme (‘important affairs’) collections.
156
The translated section,
introduction, is primarily essential as the sub-groups of Turkoman Gypsies
are presented here. The rest is the summary of alleged criminal activities and
measures taken for capturing the groups and the ultimate instructions for state
officials.
Band names mentioned in the document seem to be corresponding to
the services provided by the group members, except the Miṣr band. The
Tarḫāneci and the Baṣdırmacı bands might have initially been serving
Turkoman pastoralist in the preparation or the delivery of such food that
group names imply and pastoralists were often preferring as durable
provisions perfectly fitting mobile lives (Jenkins 2002, 8; Gueriguian 2004,
234; Lewicka 2011, 230; Çakıcı, Aksu and Erdemir 2015, 196–203; Jans,
Mulwa and Meile 2016, 600). The band names indicate that the emphasis on
their relation to nomadic Turkoman people was not accidental but based on
an assessment of particular groups’ history or self-identification. In this
respect, the Baṣdırmacı band, bacon makers, is worthy of further interest. As
Marushiakova and Popov indicate, there are 19th century ethnographic records
about a Gypsy group called “Gurbeti / Kurbeti,”
157
and sometimes “Turkmen”
in Crimea. They were horse dealers and producing horse bacon and other
foods out of horse meat (Marushiakova and Popov 2004, 150). In 1874,
Köppen introduced them as a group of horse dealers with “Truchmén” self-
identification. Although he collected some Romani phrases from the other
Gypsy communities in Crimea; what he might quote from the “Truchmén”
Gypsies were just three mysterious words except for Tatar expressions:
The Gurbét are engaged in trading in horses and fowls, especially by barter. They
live in proper houses, and the Gypsies of Simferopol, who call themselves
Truchmén, belong for the chief part to this category. The Gypsy language is quite
unknown to them, as I myself can clearly testify. They listened with interest
Gypsy words which I put to them, but they themselves only knew Tartar words
for the expressions. On the other hand, they at once laughingly translated for me
156
For mühimme collections, see Kütükoğlu 1994; 2006; Faroqhi 2004; Agoston 2008,
xxxiv; Faroqhi 2017, 197–20.
157
For a significant but seemingly controversial study on the etymology and scope of the
term, see Richardson 2020.
99
some words which I had previously learned from a Gypsy from Simferopol, and
which, so far as I know are not Tartar; e.g. “jeken bsan aschysna,” i.e. “Give the
gold back!” (Koppen 1890, 75; cf. the original text in Köppen 1874, 557).
Although it is hard to reconstruct the quoted phrase, the words remind some
of the most common elements in the secret languages (Bakker 2000, 106–
108; Matras 2008; Richardson 2017) of service-craft providers mostly called
Abdal, another appellation for similar communities in a broad territory from
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region to Turkey and in some cases,
ethnonym of those (Yıldırım 2011, 25–29; Hayasi 2012; Yılgür 2017, 9–13;
Gezicier 2019, 4 / 18-20). “Jeken,” no doubt /jɛcɛn/ (money or gold)
(Sarıkaya 2009, 268; Yıldırım 2011, 227), is present in many variants of
Abdal secret language. “bsan,” could be a corrupt form of /bɑjnɑ/ (to give)
(Yıldırım 2011, 50); and “aschysna,” most probably /ɑʃɯnnɑ/ (to take or
steal) (Yıldırım 2011, 45–46).
Ghurbet, seemingly related with ghārib and ghurabā (Mielke 2016,
261; Richardson 2020, 191–192), is a wide-spread appellation used for
diverse communities (Meyer 2004, 71); such as Roma (Mann 1933, 2; Bakker
1997, 2), Dom (Gezicier 1999, 1–2; Matras 1999, 1–2), Mugat
(Marushiakova and Popov 2016a, 17), Abdal (Ghurbet / Gharib) (Sakata
1976, 4; Baily 1980, 3; Erkan 2008; Erkan 2011, 233; Yıldırım 2012, 565–
578) or the speakers of Persian related secret languages (Rao 1995, 74). The
16th century Ottoman documents mention Ġaribān (Halaçoğlu 2009, 1138 /
1658) and Ġurbet (Halaçoğlu 2009, 891 / 914 / 915 / 920 / 921 / 950 / 1088 /
1093 / 1193 / 1238 / 1304 / 1317) groups. Some were registered among
Turkomans or Turkic pastoralists, often around the Southern Anatolia. It is
worth noting that the Ġurbet was one of 27 tribal units constituting the
“Dulkadirli” Turkoman confederacy’s Maraş branch at the beginning of 16th
century (Halaçoğlu 2009; Sarı 2018, 33). On the other hand, Ġurbet bands’
journeys to the empire’s European territory is also well-documented (Koç
2019).
Finally, members of the Baṣdırmacı band were using horses for
transportation and probably raising them according to the relevant emphases
on grazing their animals in the document. Therefore, the similarity between
them and those Crimean Gypsies is considerable, as both raise a claim of
engagement with Turkomans.
The Çobān band might be the same patrons’ shepherds according to the
literal meaning of their name. Another group identified as such was registered
100
as Gypsy in Bolu
158
and counted among Maraş
159
Yörüks, another term for
Turkoman pastoralists (Lindner 1983, 54; Kasaba 2009, 21), in the documents
respectively dated 1587-88 and 1563-64 (Halaçoğlu 2009, 555). It is hard to
speculate on the Miṣr band’s occupation as there is no clue for that in the
document. Nevertheless, the presence of tribal sub-groups with similar titles
such as Miṣr and Miṣrlü among Turkoman people in the earlier records is
worthy of consideration (Halaçoğlu 2009, 1571 / 1661).
The symbioses of pastoralists and service-craft providers (Rao 1987,
12; Smith 1998) is well-documented in different parts of the world such as
Iran (Barth 1961, 91–92), Niger (Casajus 1987), Somalia (Bollig 2004, 208),
Arabia (Dickson 1967, 515; Lancaster and Lancaster 1987, 314). Similarly,
one might find many such groups in flexible relations with Turkoman
pastoralists in ethnographic and historical records. At the beginning of the
20th century, Ali Rıza Yalman interviewed a man called Topal Abdal, who
mentioned a sub-group of Abdals: “Beydili Abdals are servants and assistants
of Turkomans.” (Yalman [Yalgın] 1977[1931], 18). The 19th century archival
records prove that some Abdal bands were travelling with broader Turkoman
tribes or tribal confederacies in the southern regions of Anatolia (Çakılcı
2019, 96). Yalman describes a miserable camp he visited, consisting of a few
tents belonging to the Köçekli community. He learned that they often travel
within Komarlı (Halaçoğlu 2009, 1485) tribe as their servants. They were
musicians whose males were performing local dances in female dresses
(Yalman [Yalgın] 1977[1931]a, 410; Erkan 2011, 230).
Similar to those between smaller divisions of pastoral units constituting
tribes and confederacies, the bonds between service-provider or artisan bands
and pastoral nomads have been fragile. Bands might leave the host
community for diverse reasons and move to different localities. Such spatial
movements would force groups to rapidly adapt to a new environment, and
thus, they might experience essentially provisional subsistence strategies for a
while, varying from begging to plundering. A wide range of factors, including
loss of herds, famine or drought, may cause artisan bands or pastoralists to
experience the same adaptive process (Rao 1987, 7; Vasjutin 2003, 53; Sinha
2008, 7; Burman 2010, 13; Deniz 2014, 192–193).
158
Bolu. A sub-province (sancaḳ) related to Anatolia province in the 16th century (Sezen
2017, 127).
159
Maraş. A sub-province (sancaḳ) related to Karaman province in the 16th century (Sezen
2017, 400).
101
In an imperial order dated 1613, Köçekli is counted among the
communities belonging to the Bozulus tribal confederacy (Halaçoğlu 2009,
XIX; Kasaba 2009, 21). Although they had usually been in Diyarbakır
province in winter and summer, they were surprisingly passing from
Anatolian province and plundering villagers. It is of interest that their
departure from the usual routes of seasonal mobility was seen as the account
for their harmful practices indicated in the document, as they were otherwise
peaceful communities (Altınay 1930, 68). The groups mentioned in the
document under study might be exemplifying the same situation. One might
see the referred cases of plundering in the text as their responses to the lack of
sustainable demand for services they used to provide.
Does the document say anything specific on the origin of the
mentioned bands? Not necessarily. What the phrase “those Gypsies of
nomadic Turkoman people; called the Çobān band, the Tarḫāneci band, the
Baṣdırmacı band, the Miṣr band” undoubtedly implies is that they once
engaged with one of the tribal organisations of Turkoman pastoralists. They
might be Turkic communities migrated from Central Asia with the host
society, or otherwise, a group that spun off from other peoples, such as
Indian, Afghan, Persian, Sogd, Armenian. If the latter was the case, their
engagement with the tribe or tribal confederacies of those Turkoman
pastoralists, which were sometimes multilingual and multicultural
agglomerations (Divitçioğlu 2005, 51–63; Kasaba 2009, 21) must be
relatively recent. However, emphasis on their belonging in the document
indicates that the state perceived them differently from other Gypsies in the
region.
What happened to the bands? In the rest of the document, local
authorities were assigned to pursue and capture them. So, both their expulsion
from Rumelia or their blending with the local population by dividing into
smaller units are possible scenarios for the rest of their story. However, the
latter can only be plausible if they could have found a local niche (Okely
1983, 49–65; Berland and Rao 2004, 3–4) for the services they had
specialised in or might have adopted new occupations. Plundering was not a
sustainable subsistence strategy while they were so close to the centre of the
empire.
102
The Document II: Turkoman Gypsies of Varna (НБВК, ОР, ФОНД 26 /
11705)
Huve
160
To the Sublime Province of Tuna
Your Exalted Personage of My Illustrious Master
Whenever the inheritors of Abdullah, who was one of those Turkoman
Gypsies [Turkmān Ḳibṭīleri] of the nomadic kind in Varna
161
sub-province
and murdered in a quarrel, come and demand the execution of their rights,
162
their religious defence would immediately be conducted.
…
Huve
Ṭuna vilāyet-i celīlesine
Devletlü efendim ḥażretleri
Varna sancaġında bulunan turkmān ḳibṭīleriniñ göçebe ṭā’ifesinden olub bi’l-
munāzaᶜa ḳatl ü itlāf olunan ᶜabdullāhıñ varisesi her ne vaḳt gelübde ḥuḳūḳ-ı
şaḫṣiyyelerini ṭaleb ėderler ise ol vaḳt mudāfaᶜa-‘i şerᶜiyyeleri ru’yet (1)
olunmaḳ üzere
…
Fī 18 rebīᶜu’l-evvel sene 286 ve fī 17 ḥazīrān sene 285 (29 Haziran 1869).
160
A standard element in many of the Ottoman documents, invocation (Reychman and
Zajączkowski 1968, 40; Kütükoğlu 1994, 100).
161
A sub-province (sancaḳ) in Tuna province (Sezen 2017, 787).
162
According to Islamic law, inheritors of the victim can demand retaliation or
compensation on blood money or pardon the perpetrator (Coulson 1964, 18; Heyd 1973,
261; Schacht 1982, 176; Peters 2005, 131–132).
103
The document above is an official correspondence addressing the governor of
Tuna province by the Ministry of Internal Affairs about punishing two
convicted murderers. First of all, it is a legal document that enlightens some
aspects of the Ottoman penal system’s development in the 19th century.
However, what is of crucial importance for the history of Balkan Gypsies is
the victim’s identity referred to in the first sentence, which established
Turkoman Gypsies (Ḳibṭī) as a community of nomads and settled, in Varna.
Who were Turkoman Gypsies? The available archival and
ethnographic records are not adequate to precisely answer that question.
However, we can trace the identity via respectively, ethnographic and
archival records. Bernard Gilliat-Smith, who studied on Roma in Bulgaria
and developed a well-detailed taxonomy of Romani language and tribal
organisation at the beginning of the 20th century, counts Üstalar (Usta with
Turkish suffix –lar) along with Yerlis (settled in Turkish) among the sub-
divisions of sedentary Muslim Blacksmiths (Gilliat-Smith 1915-16a, 4). One
of the Romani phrases he quoted presents them as a discrete tribal entity: “El
Üstadurjégge romajá inći sikájon, našen. The wives of the Tribe of Craftsmen
do not unveil before men, but they conceal themselves (lit. do not show
themselves, but run. The stricter Moslem women run when they see a man
coming).” (Gilliat-Smith 1915-16b, 91)
The above evidence is convincing enough that the Usta identity was a
long-lasting phenomenon than a contemporary construct. However, he argued
that while Yerlis were not Romani speakers, Ustas were (Gilliat-Smith 1915-
16a, 4). His experience with those was much limited (Ibid., 53), and he was
most probably confusing the two here. However, he counted elsewhere
Christian sedentary, who call themselves Yerliá, in Varna among the speakers
of one of the Vlach dialects and Yerlídes in Sofia non-Vlach dialects, but
never mentioned any variant of Romani spoken by Ustas (Gilliat-Smith 1915-
16b, 66–67).
The situation was mostly the same for sedentary Muslim drum and pipe
players, Dawuldjis or Mehters (Gilliat-Smith 1915-16a, 5). Moreover, Gilliat-
Smith portraits them as those least likely reminding Roma – “The Dawuldjis
cannot speak a word of Gypsy, at least this is the case with regard to those
inhabiting this district. They are a ragged, plebeian lot, with little of the
Gypsy about them, and are often hard to distinguish from the lowest class of
the Turkish population” (Ibid., 53).
A Romani phrase he quoted reflects Mehters as a tribal unit like Ustas
and implies one of the most probable results of the strong ties they had with
104
ethnic Turks: “But Mehtérja gelé Varnátar Stambolóste kána o Dasipé
kérdilo. Bikinalé po than, gelé-tar. Many of Drum and Pipe Tribe of Gypsies
went from Varna to Constantinople when Bulgaria was created independent
(lit. when Bulgardom was made). They sold their ground and departed”
(Gilliat-Smith 1915-16b, 91).
The contemporary ethnographic records prove that group boundaries
mentioned by Gilliat-Smith have survived to a degree. The groups who
identify themselves as Millet (People) in Bulgaria do not speak Romani but
Turkish and carry a strong consciousness of Turkishness. They consist of two
sub-groups, Mehter and Usta (Slavkova 2004, 89–90). Slavkova proposes
that Xoraxane Roma, coinhabiting with Millet, could have been adopting their
names as “an explanatory notion” (2004, 89). That claim is of importance as
the author occasionally describes Millet as a populous Turkish-speaking
group whose members do not speak the Romani language except for the
oldest generation (Slavkova 2004, 90). As the testimony of Gilliat-Smith
reflects at least Mehter as a group “cannot speak a word of Gypsy,” in the
early 20th century, the contemporary representatives of the group with a lost
Romani heritage must have recently adopted Usta or Millet identity wherever
beneficial (Marushiakova and Popov 1992, 97).
It is a matter of time and further research to investigate all the
population and tax registries prepared in Varna. However, even taking a small
sample might be enlightening in this respect. For example, in Aydos (Айтос)
district, related to Varna according to the 19th century Ottoman administrative
division;
163
the Ottoman officials registered some Gypsy males with Usta and
Mehter appellations in front of their names in cizye records dated 1843/1844
(DAB.ML.VRD.CMH.d.301.) and 1844/1845 (DAB.ML.VRD.CMH.d.383.),
population records dated 1841 (DAB.NFS.d. 6612), 1844 (DAB.NFS.d.
6613), 1845 (DAB.NFS.d. 6618) and the relevant income registries. It is not
sure if such use indicated internal divergence of local Gypsies or just
occupational expertise of those registered as Usta. However, the overlapping
of group identities mentioned in ethnographic records with that of archival is
unignorable. Many Turkic societies have used Usta for artisans
indiscriminately, and in some cases, for Gypsies. In the first half of the 19th
century, according to Dombrowsky (1855 as cited in Barannikov 1931, 144–
145; Black 1914, 49), Crimean Tatars identified two sub-groups of local
Gypsies as “ustalar”: Elekchis (sieve-makers) and Demorjis (blacksmiths).
163
In 1844, Aydos was an administrative district (każa) related to Varna ḳā’im-maḳāmlıġı
(Silistre Province) (DAB.NFS.d.6613).
105
Nothing is puzzling in such groups', who have been in long-lasting
relationship with Turkic communities, adopting the term as apparently less
derogatory and more inclusive than Çingāne.
The Appendix below lists all the settlements with some Gypsies
registered with usta appellation in at least one of the four mentioned
registries. Although the data is not always reliable, particularly in terms of
age variable, there is significant consistency in using the word usta for
particular persons or families in the records. Apart from exceptions such as
tinsmiths in Şeyḫler () (Раклица) village (DAB.ML.VRD.TMT.d.11845,
p. 15), the term seems to be confined to blacksmiths who adopted a lifestyle
of coinhabitation with village societies. However, not all the blacksmiths are
registered as such, and it is hard to see Usta identity identical with the
occupation. Records also prove that when the local niche for their
specialisation was not enough, some family members could move to other
villages, or a whole family could leave the locality seeking a more suitable
environment. Therefore, they were not entirely settled and still profiting from
the advantages of a flexible social organisation that allowed their dividing
into smaller units or re-gather when needed.
164
There were no Mehter in the central neighbourhoods in Aydos (Айтос),
except Mehter ᶜAlī, the son of Muṣṭafā, who stayed there for a short while
with his father-in-law Ḫalīl, the son of Ḥasan (DAB.ML.VRD.CMH.d.301, p.
2.). In 1845, the Ottoman clerks registered three Mehter families in Çalı
Maḥalle ( ) (Дъбравино). In Elmadere () (Ябълково) and Köpri
() (Приморско) villages, a few Mehter families were present between
1841 and 1845 according to the records.
165
Unlike Ustas, they were just a tiny
community less dispersed than the former in the region.
Can Turkoman Gypsies mentioned in the document be the ancestors of
Ustas and Mehters we met in the early 20th century records? Maybe.
Nevertheless, there are other options, as well. Varna sub-province included
some Southern Dobrudja
166
districts such as Balchik (Балчик) (Sālnāme-i
Vilāyet-i Ṭuna 1286[1869/1870], 96; Acaroğlu 2006, 86), Mangalia
164
For some examples of the relevant anthropological literature, see Bollig 1987, 210;
Berland 1987, 252; Berland and Rao 2004, 22.
165
Köpri: DAB.NFS.d.6612, p. 37; DAB.NFS.d.6613, p. 27; DAB.ML.VRD.CMH.d.286,
p. 6; DAB.ML.VRD.CMH.d.383, p. 4; DAB.NFS.d.6618, p. 22; Elmadere:
DAB.NFS.d.6612, p. 13; DAB.NFS.d.6613, p. 13; DAB.ML.VRD.CMH.d.286, p. 10;
DAB.ML.VRD.CMH.d.383, pp. 8-9; DAB.NFS.d.6618, p. 7.
166
For more details on Dobrudja see Hunt, 2015. For an early anthropometric study on
Turkoman Gypsies see Pittard 1902.
106
(Sālnāme-i Vilāyet-i Ṭuna 1286[1869/1870], 99; Acaroğlu 2006, 87; Efe
2009, 97; Sezen 2017, 85, 531), or Ḥācī oġlu Pazarcıġı (Добрич) (Sālnāme-i
Vilāyet-i Ṭuna 1286[1869/1870], 98); Acaroğlu 1988, 176; Sezen 2017, 321)
in the 19th century Ottoman administrative division. There was a long history
of migration from Crimea to Dobrudja, beginning from the 15th century. That
flow significantly accelerated after the annexation of Crimea by the Russian
Empire in 1783 and remained dense throughout the 19th century (Karpat
2002). There were Gypsies among these migrants (Marushiakova and Popov
2004, 149). In the first half of the 19th century, the Ottoman administration
registered those newly arrived Crimean Tatar tribes as discrete units (Karpat
2002, 207) and some artisan bands attached to them: “Gypsy people
registered in Tatar tribes’ population registry” (Ḳabāᶜil-i tatarān nufus
defterinde muḳayyed ḳibṭīyān ṭāᶜifesi) (1845 / 1846)
(DAB.ML.VRD.CMH.d.668) or “Gypsy peoples included and registered in
Tatar tribes’ population registry” (Ḳabāᶜil-i tatarān nufus defterinde dāḫil ve
muḳayyed bulunan ḳibṭīyān ṭāᶜifeleri) (1848 / 1849)
(DAB.ML.VRD.CMH.d.1038).
The sub-groups mentioned were “Muslim blacksmiths people” (Muslim
demirciyān ṭāᶜifesi), “Muslim goldsmiths people” (Muslim ḳuyumcuyān
ṭāᶜifesi), “Muslim Mehters People” (Muslim Mehterān ṭāᶜifesi), “Non-Muslim
subject horse-dealer people” (Ehl-i ẕimmet reᶜāyā cānbāz ṭāᶜifesi), “Non-
Muslim subject blacksmiths people” (Ehl-i ẕimmet reᶜāyā demirciyān ṭāᶜifesi)
in the above records (DAB.ML.VRD.CMH.d.668).
Although there is no trace of the aforementioned Muslim horse dealers
and horse bacon producers, Ġurbet, or the Turkoman Gypsies of Crimea, in
the registries, they might have migrated to Dobrudja during the previous
waves or their names might have been mentioned in the unavailable
registries. Alternatively, it is also possible to see both groups as the
descendants of the same ancestral community that branched into multiple
units; one may have proceeded to Crimea while the other to the Balkans. The
discovery of reliable evidence supporting one of those scenarios would
significantly contribute to identifying Turkoman Gypsies in Varna.
References
“Etnik Hoşgörü İki Günlük Seminerde Ana Konu Oldu [Ethnic Tolerance
was the Main Topic in the Two-days Seminar]”, Bizim Gazete (2020,
September 26).. http://www.bizimgazete.bg/b%C3%B6lge-
107
haberleri/etnik-ho%C5%9Fg%C3%B6r%C3%BC-iki-
g%C3%BCnl%C3%BCk-seminerde-ana-konu-
oldu#.YBqmpWQzZpQ, accessed February 3, 2021.
1286[1869/1870]. Sālnāme-i Vilāyet-i Ṭuna. Tuna: Tuna Vilāyet Maṭbaᶜası.
Acaroğlu, M. Türker. 1988. Bulgaristan’da Türkçe Yer Adları Kılavuzu [The
Guide for Turkish Toponyms in Bulgaria]. Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası.
Acaroğlu, M. Türker. 2006. Balkanlarda Türkçe Yer Adları Kılavuzu [The
Guide for Turkish Toponyms in Balkans]. İstanbul: IQ Kültür ve Sanat.
Acton, Thomas. 1981. “Gypsylorism in the Far East,” Newsletter of Gypsy
Lore Society, North American Chapter 4 (1): 2–6.
Agoston, Gabor. 2008. “Introduction.” In Encyclopedia of the Ottoman
Empire, edited by Gabor Agoston and Bruce Masters, xxv–xxxvi, New
York: Facts on File.
Altınay, Ahmet Refik. 1930. Anadolu’da Türk Aşiretleri [Turkic Tribes in
Anatolia]. İstanbul: Devlet Matbaası.
Altınöz, İsmail. 2005. Osmanlı Toplumunda Çingeneler [Gypsies in the
Ottoman Society]. PhD dissertation. İstanbul University.
Altınöz, İsmail. 2013. Osmanlı Toplumunda Çingeneler [Gypsies in the
Ottoman Society]. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.
Baily, John. 1980. “A Description of the Naqqarakhana of Herat,
Afghanistan.” Asian Music 11 (2): 1–10.
Bakker, Peter. 1997. “Athematic Morphology in Romani: the Borrowing of a
Borrowing Pattern.” In The Typology and Dialectology of Romani,
edited by Yaron Matras, Peter Bakker, Hristo Kyuchukov, 1–22.
Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bakker, Peter. 2000. “Social and Communicative Approaches to Mixed
Languages.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3 (2): 106–108.
Barannikov, Aleksei P. 1931. “W. I. Philonenko, ‘The Crimean Gypsies’
(Mémoires du Comité des Orientalistes V, pp. 329-342, Leningrad,
1930),” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society 10 (3): 144–146.
Barth, Fredrik 1961. Nomads of South Persia the Basseri Tribe of Khamseh
Confederacy. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.
108
Berland, Joseph C. 1987. “Kanjar Social Organization.” In The Other
Nomads: Peripatetic Minorities in Cross-Cultural Perspective, edited
by Aparna Rao, 247–266, Köln: Böhlau.
Berland, Joseph C. and Aparna Rao. 2004. “Unveiling the Stranger: A New
Look at Peripatetic Peoples.” In Customary Strangers: New
Perspectives on Peripatetic Peoples in the Middle East, Africa, and
Asia, edited by Joseph C. Berland and Aparna Rao, 1–30. Westport,
Connecticut, London: Praeger.
Black, George F. 1914. Gypsy Lore Society Monographs, No. 1: A Gypsy
Bibliography. London: The Edinburg University Press / Bernard
Quaritch.
Bollig, Michael. 1987. “Ethnic Relations and Spatial Mobility in Africa: a
Review of the Peripatetic Niche.” In The Other Nomads: Peripatetic
Minorities in Cross-Cultural Perspective, edited by Aparna Rao, 179–
228. Köln: Böhlau.
Bollig, Michael. 2004. “Hunters, Foragers, and Singing Smiths: The
Metamorphoses of Peripatetic Peoples in Africa.” In Customary
Strangers New Perspectives on Peripatetic Peoples in the Middle East,
Africa, and Asia, edited by Joseph C. Berland and Aparna Rao, 195–
232. Westport, Connecticut, London: Praeger.
Burman, J. J. Roy. 2010. Ethnography of a Denotified Tribe. New Delhi:
Mittal Publications.
Çakıcı, Neslihan, Muhammet İrfan Aksu and Ebru Erdemir. 2015. “A Survey
of the Physico-chemical and Microbiological Quality of Different
Pastırma Types: A Dry-cured Meat Product.” CyTA-Journal of Food 13
(2): 196–203.
Çakılcı, Diren. 2019. “Osmanlı Devleti'nde ‘Öteki’ Olmak: 19. Yüzyılda
Antalya Abdalla [Being the Other in the Ottoman Empire: Antalya
Abdals in the 19th-century].” In Antalya Kitabı Antalya’da Türk İslam
Medeniyetinin İzleri 2, edited by Bedia Koçakoğlu, Bahset Karslı and
Diren Çakılcı, 92–110. Konya: Palet.
Cantemir, Dimitri. 1987[1722]. Opere Complete. Vol. 3. Bucureşti: Editura
Academiei Republicii Socialiste România.
Casajus, Dominique. 1987. “Crafts and Ceremonies: The Inadan in Tuareg
Society.” In The Other Nomads: Peripatetic Minorities in Cross-
Cultural Perspective, edited by Aparna Rao, 291–310, Köln: Böhlau.
109
Çelik, Faika. 2003. Gypsies (Roma) in the Orbit of Islam. MA diss., McGill
University.
Çelik, Faika. 2013. Community in Motion. PhD dissertation. McGill
University.
Coulson, Noel. 1964. A History of Islamic Law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Dávid, Géza. 2008. “Administration, provincial.” In Encyclopedia of the
Ottoman Empire, edited by Gabor Agoston and Bruce Masters, 13–17.
New York: Facts on File.
Deniz, Dilşa. 2014. Yol / Rê: Dersim İnanç Sembolizmi Antropolojik Bir
Yaklaşım [The Path / Rê: The Belief Symbolism of Dersim An
Anthropological Approach]. İstanbul: İletişim.
Dickson, Harol Richard Patrick. 1967. The Arab of the Desert. London:
George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Dinç, Güven. 2017. “Tanzimat Dönemi Cizye Defterlerine Göre Antalya
Gayrimüslimleri.” Mediterranean Journal of Humanities 7 (2): 159–
181.
Dingeç, Emine. 2009. “XVI. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Ordusunda Çingeneler
[Gypsies in the Ottoman Army In the 16th-century].” SDÜ Fen
Edebiyat Fakültesi 20: 33–46.
Divitçioğlu, Sencer. 2005. Orta Asya Türk İmparatorluğu VI.-VIII. Yüzyıllar
[Central Asia Turkish Empire]. Ankara: İmge.
Dombrowsky, Frantz (Домбровский, Франц). 1855. “Крымские цыгане. О
жизни и занятиях цыган. По поводу повести Котляревского
‘Крымские цыгане’ [Crimean Gypsies. About the Life and
Occupations of the Gypsies. Concerning the Story of Kotlyarevsky
‘Crimean Gypsies’]” Санкт-Петербургские ведомости, 70.
Dündar, Fuat. 2015. “Empire of Taxonomy: Ethnic and Religious Identities in
the Ottoman Surveys and Censuses.” Middle Eastern Studies 51 (1):
136–158.
Efe, Ayla. 2009. “Tanzimat’ın Eyalet Reformları 1840-64 Silistre Örneği
[Provincial Reforms of Tanzimat 1840-64 the Case of Silistre].”
Karadeniz Araştırmaları 6 (22): 87–113.
110
Erkan, Serdar. 2008. Kırşehir Yöresi Halk Müziği Geleneğinde Abdallar [The
Abdals in Kırşehir Folk Music Tradition]. MA thesis. Hacettepe
University.
Erkan, Serkan. 2011. “Köçek Tipinin Uluslararası Kökeni Üzerine Bir
Deneme [An Essay on the International Origin of the Köçek
Character].” Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Dergisi 18 (1):
223–240.
Evliya Çelebi. 2006. Günümüz Türkçesiyle Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi
[Evliya Çelebi’s Seyahatname in the Modern Turkish]. Volume 3, book
2. İstanbul: YKY.
Farooqi, Naim. 2017. “An Overview of Ottoman Archival Documents and
Their Relevance for Medieval Indian History.” The Medieval History
Journal 20 (1): 192–229.
Faroqhi, Suraiya. 2004. Approaching Ottoman History. An Introduction to the
Sources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gezicier, Zuhal. 2019. Dom Toplumunda Toplumsal Cinsiyet Algısının
Dönüşümü [Transformation of Gender Perception in Dom Society].
MA thesis. Gaziantep University.
Gilliat-Smith, Bernard J. (Petulengro). 1915-16a. “Report on the Gypsy
Tribes of North-East Bulgaria.” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society 9
(1): 1–53.
Gilliat-Smith, Bernard J. (Petulengro). 1915-16b. “Report on the Gypsy
Tribes of North-East Bulgaria.” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society 9
(1): 65–110.
Ginio, Eyal. 2004. “Neither Muslim no Zimmis: The Gypsies (Roma) in the
Ottoman State.” Romani Studies 14 (2): 117–144.
Gmelch, Sharon Bohn. 1986. “Groups that don’t want in: Gypsies and Other
Artisan, Trader, and Entertainer Minorities.” Annual. Review of
Anthropology 15 (1): 307–330.
Gueriguian, John L. 2004. “Amirdovdlat Amasiatsi’ye Göre 15. Yüzyıl
Anadolu’sunda Hayvanlar, Bitkiler ve Besinler [Animals, Plants, and
Foods in the 15th-century Anatolia According to Amirdovdlat
Amasiatsi].” Kebikeç 17: 225–238.
111
Gürçay, Serdar. 2019. “Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi’nde Çatalca [Çatalca in
the Seyahatname [Book of Travel] of Evliya Çelebi].” Uluslararası
Halkbilimi Araştırmaları Dergisi 2(3): 135–145.
Halaçoğlu, Yusuf. 2009. Anadolu’da Aşiretler, Cemaatler, Oymaklar [Tribes,
Clans, and Bands in Anatolia]. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Hasluck, Margaret. 1948. “Firman of A.H. 1013-14 (A.D. 1604-5) Regarding
Gypsies in the Western Balkans.” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society 27
(1–2): 1–12.
Hava, Joseph G. 1890. Arabic-English Dictionary for the Use of Students.
Beyrut: Catholic Press.
Hayasi, Tooru. 2012. “Foreign and Indigenous Properties in the Vocabulary
of Eynu, a Secret Language Spoken in the South of Taklamakan.” In
Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology, edited by Lars
Johanson and Martine Robbeets, 381–394. Leiden: Brill.
Heyd, Uriel. 1973. Studies in the Old Ottoman Criminal Law. Oxford: The
Clarendon Press.
Hocaoğlu, Beycan. 2016. “Varna İlinde İsmi Değiştirilen Türkçe Yerleşme
Adları [The Changed Turkish Toponyms of Varna Province].”
Cihannüma Tarih ve Coğrafya Araştırmaları Dergisi 2 (1): 73–92.
Hunt, Catalina. 2015. Changing Identities at the Fringes of the Late Ottoman
Empire: The Muslims of Dobruca, 1839-1914. PhD dissertation. The
Ohio State University.
İnalcık, Halil. 2009. “Osmanlılar’da Raiyet Rüsumu [The Ottoman Raiyyet
Tax].” In Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Toplum ve Ekonomi, edited by Halil
İnalcık, 31–66. İstanbul: Eren.
Jans, Christoph, Daesel. W. Mulwa Kaindi, and Leo Meile. 2016.
“Innovations in Food Preservation in Pastoral Zones.” Revue
scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics) 35 (2):
597–610.
Jenkins, Nancy Harmon. 2002. “Department of Amplification: Tarhana
(Rumblings from the World of Food).” Gastronomica 2 (3): 1–10.
Karal, Enver Ziya. 1997[1943]. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda İlk Nüfus Sayımı
1831 [The First Census in the Ottoman Empire 1831]. Ankara: Devlet
İstatistik Enstitüsü.
112
Karpat, Kemal. 2002. “Ottoman Urbanism: The Crimean Emigration to
Dobruca and The Founding of Mecidiye, 1856-1878.” In Studies on
Ottoman Social and Political History, edited by Kemal H. Karpat, 202–
234. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill.
Kasaba, Reşat. 2009. A Moveable Empire: Ottoman Nomads, Migrants &
Refugees. Seattle, London: University of Washington Press.
Kasumović, Fahd. 2020. “The Changing Face of Financial Policy in the
Periphery of the World of Islam: The Gypsy Poll Tax in Ottoman
Bosnia, c. 1690s-1856.” Journal of the Faculty of Philosophy in
Sarajevo 7 (2): 95–144.
Koç, Yahya. 2019. “Rumeli’de Farklı Bir Göçerlik Tipi: Gurbet Taifesi [A
Different Type of Nomadism in Rumelia: Gurbet Taifesi].” In 7th
International Symposium on Balkan History Studies, edited by Zafer
Gölen and Abidin Temizer, 605–627. Ankara: Gece.
Köppen, Von Wladimir. 1874. “Die krimschen Zigeuner.” Russische Revue,
Band V, St. Petersburg: Verlag der Kaiserlichen Hofbuchhandlung H.
Schmitzdorff (Carl Röttger), 556–561.
Koppen, W. 1890. “Crimean Gypsies.” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society 2
(2): 74–79.
Kütükoğlu, Mübahat. 1994. Osmanlı Belgelerinin Dili [The Language of
Ottoman Documents]. İstanbul: Kubbealtı Akademisi Kültür ve San’at
Vakfı.
Kütükoğlu, Mübahat. 2006. “Mühimme Defteri [Important Affairs’
Collection].” In İslam Ansiklopedi (V. 38), 520–523. İstanbul: TDV.
Lancaster, William and Fidelity Lancaster. 1987. “The Function of
Peripatetics in Rwala Bedouin Society.” In The Other Nomads:
Peripatetic Minorities in Cross-Cultural Perspective, edited by Aparna
Rao, 311–321. Köln: Böhla.
Lewicka, Paulina B. 2011. Food and Foodways of Medieval Cairenes.
Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Lindner, Rudi Paul. 1982. “What was a Nomadic Tribe.” Comparative
Studies in Society and History 24 (4): 689–711.
Lindner, Rudi Paul. 1983. Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia.
Bloomington: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies.
113
Lucassen, Leo, Wim Willems and Anne-Marie Cottaar. 1998. Gypsies and
Other Itinerant Groups: A Socio-Historical Approach. London:
Macmillan Press.
Majer, Hans Georg. 2016. “Sultan Mustafa II in Istanbul.” Paper presented at
Ottoman Istanbul International Symposium, Instanbul, May 20, 2016.
Accessed April 24, 2021.
http://osmanliistanbulu.org/tr/images/osmanliistanbulu-
4/hans_georg_majer.pdf.
Mann, Stuart E. 1933. “Albanian Romani.” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society
12 (1): 1–32.
Marsh, Adrian. 2006. “Ottoman Gypsies & Taxation.” In Gypsies and the
Problem of Identities: Contextual, Constructed and Contested, edited
by Adrian Marsh and Elin Strand, 171–175. İstanbul: Swedish
Research Institute.
Marushiakova, Elena. 1992. “Ethnic Identity among Gypsy Groups in
Bulgaria,” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society 5 (2): 95–115.
Marushiakova, Elena and Vesselin Popov. 1999. “The Relations of Ethnic
and Confessional Consciousness of Gypsies in Bulgaria.” Philosophy
and Sociology 2 (6): 81–99.
Marushiakova, Elena and Vesselin Popov. 2000. “Myth as Process.” In
Scholarship and the Gypsy Struggle. Commitment in Romani Studies,
edited by Thomas Acton, 81–93. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire
Press.
Marushiakova, Elena and Vesselin Popov. 2004. “Segmentation vs.
Consolidation: The Example of Four Gypsy Groups in CIS.” Romani
Studies 14 (2): 145–191.
Marushiakova, Elena and Vesselin Popov. 2001. Gypsies in the Ottoman
Empire. Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press.
Marushiakova, Elena and Vesselin Popov. 2012. “Roma Muslims in the
Balkans.” Project Education of Roma Children in Europе. Council of
Europe.
Marushiakova, Elena and Vesselin Popov. 2016a. Gypsies in Central Asia
and the Caucasus Published Online: Springer International Publishing.
Marushiakova, Elena and Vesselin Popov. 2016b. “Identity and Language of
the Roma (Gypsies) in Central and Eastern Europe.” In The Palgrave
114
Handbook of Slavic Languages Identities and Borders, edited by
Thomas Kamusella, Motoki Nomachi and Catherine Gibson, 26–57.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Matras, Yaron. 1999. “The State of Present-day Domari in Jerusalem.”
Mediterranean Language Review 11: 1–58.
Matras, Yaron. 2008. “Mixed Languages: Re-examining the Structural
Prototype.” In The Mixed Language Debate, edited by Yaron Matras
and Peter Bakker, 151–176. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Matras, Yaron. 2011. “Romani.” In The Languages and Linguistics of
Europe. A Comprehensive Guide, edited by Bernd Kortmann and Johan
van der Auwera, 257–268. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Matras, Yaron. 2015. The Romani Gypsies. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Meninski, Francisci. 1680. Thesaurus Linguarum Orientalium Turcicae,
Arabicae, Persicae V. 1. Vienna.
Meyer, Frank. 2004. “Biography and Identity in Damascus: A Syrian Nawar
Chief.” In Customary Strangers: New Perspectives on Peripatetic
Peoples in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, edited by Joseph C.
Berland and Aparna Rao, 71–92. Westport, Connecticut, London:
Praeger.
Mielke, Katja. 2016. “Tracing Change: On the Positionality of Traditionally
Mobile Groups in Kabul’s Camps.” Internationales Asienforum/
International Quarterly for Asian Studies 47 (3–4): 245–271.
Nemeth, David. 1986. “Service Nomads: Interim Masters of Imperfect
Market.” Nomadic Peoples (21–22): 135–151.
Okely, Judith. 1983. The Traveller-Gypsies. Cambridge, New York,
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Okely, Judith. 2003. “Deterritorialised and Spatially Unbounded Cultures
within Other Regimes.” In Gypsy World: the Silence of Living and the
Voices of the Dead, edited by Patrick Williams, 151–164. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Özkılınç, Ahmet, Ali Coşkun and Abdullah Sivridağ. 2013. Osmanlı Yer
Adları I [The Ottoman Toponyms]. Ankara: Devlet Arşivleri Genel
Müdürlüğü.
115
Pakalın, Mehmet Zeki. 1971. Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüğü
[Dictionary of Ottoman Historical Expressions and Terms]. İstanbul:
Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
Paspati, Alexander. 1862. “Memoir on the Language of the Gypsies.” Journal
of the American Oriental Society 7: 143–271.
Peters, Rudolph. 2005. Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law Theory and
Practice from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First Century. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Pittard, Eugène. 1902. “Anthropologies de la Roumanie Contribution a
L’étude Anthropologie des Tsiganes Turkomans de Dobrodja.” Bulletin
de la Société des Sciences de Bucarest-Roumanie 11 (4): 457–468.
Rao, Aparna. 1987. “The Concept of Peripatetics: An Introduction.” In The
Other Nomads: Peripatetic Minorities in Cross-Cultural Perspective,
edited by Aparna Rao, 1–34. Köln: Böhlau.
Rao, Aparna. 1995. “Marginality and Language Use: The Example of
Peripatetics in Afghanistan.” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, fifth
series, 5 (2): 69–95.
Redhouse, James. 1890. A Turkish and English Lexicon. Istanbul: American
Mission.
Reychman, Jan and Ananiasz Zajączkowski. 1968. Handbook of Ottoman-
Turkish Diplomatics. Paris: The Hauge.
Richardson, Kristina. 2017. “Tracing a Gypsy Mixed Language through
Medieval and Early Modern Arabic and Persian Literature.” Der Islam
94 (1): 115–157.
Richardson, Kristina L. 2020. “Invisible Strangers, or Romani History
Reconsidered,” History of the Present a Journal of Critical History 10
(2): 187–207.
Sakaoğlu, Necdet. 2017. Osmanlı Tarih Sözlüğü [Ottoman Glossary of
History]. İstanbul: Alfa Tarih.
Sakata, Lorraine. 1976. “The Concept of Musician in Three Persian-Speaking
Areas of Afghanistan.” Asian Music 8 (1): 1–28.
Salo, Matt T. 1986. “Peripatetic Adaptation in Historical Perspective.”
Nomadic Peoples (21–22): 7–36.
116
Sarı, Arif. 2018. “Dulkadirli Türkmenlerinin Yurtları Hakkında [About the
Homeland of Dulkadirli Turkmens].” Türkbilig 35: 29–40.
Sarıkaya, Mahmut. 2009. “‘Gizli Dil’ve Abdal-Teber-Geygelli Kimliği
[“‘Secret Language’ and Abdal-Teber-Geygelli Identity].” In Kimlikler
Lütfen, edited by Gönül Pultar, 255–272. Ankara: ODTÜ.
Schacht, Joseph. 1982. An Introduction to Islamic Law. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Şentop, Mustafa. 2008a. “court of law.” In Encyclopedia of the Ottoman
Empire, edited by Gabor Agoston, Bruce Masters, 156. New York:
Facts on File.
Şentop, Mustafa. 2008b. “kadı.” In Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire,
edited by Gabor Agoston and Bruce Masters, 304–305. New York:
Facts on File.
Şerifgil, Enver. 1981. “XVI. Yüzyıl’da Rumeli Eyaletindeki Çingeneler
[Gypsies in Rumelian Province in the 16th-century].” Türk Dünyası
Araştırmaları 15: 117–144.
Sezen, Tahir. 2017. Osmanlı Yer Adları [Ottoman Topographic Names].
Ankara: T. C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
Sinha, Nitin. 2008. “Mobility, Control and Criminality in early Colonial
India, 1760s-1850s.” The Indian Economic and Social History Review
45 (1): 1–33.
Slavkova, Magdalena. 2004. “The ‘Turkish Gypsies’ in Bulgaria and their
New Religious Identity.” In Evangelization, Conversion, Proselytism,
edited by Dragan Todorović, 87–100. Niš: Yugoslav Society for
Scientific Study of Religion.
Smith, Andrew B. 1998. “Keeping People on the Periphery: The Ideology of
Social Hierarchies between Hunters and Herder.” Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 17: 201–215.
Soulis, George C. 1961. “The Gypsies in the Byzantine Empire and the
Balkans in the Late Middle Ages.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 15: 142–
165.
Steward, Julian. 1937. “Ecological Aspects of Southwestern Society.”
Anthropos 32 (1–2): 87–104.
117
Tulum, Mertol. 2011. 17. Yüzyıl Türkçesi Söz Varlığı [The 17th-Century
Turkish Vocabulary]. Ankara: TDK.
Vasjutin, Sergey A. 2003. “Typology of Pre-States and Statehood Systems of
Nomads.” In Nomadic Pathways in Social Evolution, edited by Nikolay
N. Kradin, Dmiti M. Bondarenko and Thomas J. Barfield, 50–62.
Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences.
Yalman (Yalgın), Ali Rıza. 1977[1931]. Cenupta Türkmen Oymakları I
[Turkoman Bands in the South]. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı.
Yalman (Yalgın), Ali Rıza. 1977[1931]a. Cenupta Türkmen Oymakları II
[Turkoman Bands in the South]. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı.
Yıldırım, Faruk. 2011. Abdal Gizli Dili [Abdal Secret Language]. Adana:
Karahan Kitabevi.
Yıldırım, Faruk. 2012. “Derleme Sözlüğündeki Gizli Dil Verileri Üzerine [On
the Data from Secret Languages in Derleme Sözlüğü].” Turkish Studies
7 (4): 565–578.
Yıldız, Hüseyin. 2007. “Türkçede Çingeneler İçin Kullanılan Kelimeler ve
Bunların Etimolojileri [The Term for Gypsies in Turkish and their
Etymologies].” Dil Araştırmaları Dergisi 1 (1): 61–82.
Yılgür, Egemen. 2017. “Türkiye’de Peripatetik Topluluklar: Jenerik Terimler
ve Öz Etnik Kategorizasyon Biçimleri [Peripatetic Groups in Turkey:
Generic Terms and the Self-Denomination Formation Forms].”
Nişantaşı Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 5 (1): 1–25.
Yılgür, Egemen. 2018. “Son Dönem Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Devlet ve
‘Çingeneler’ [The State and “Gypsies” in the Late Ottoman Empire].”
MSGSÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2 (18): 267–302.
Zelengora, Georgi. 2014. “Balkan Savaşı-Kitlesel Ölüm ve Etnik Temizlik
[Balkan War-Massive Death and Ethnic Cleansing].” Belleten LXXVIII
281: 315–342.
118
Annexe
Appendix to document 2
1- List of the settlements inhabited by Gypsies, registered with Usta
appellation in Aydos (Айтос) district in the 19th century.
1-Ṭuzcı Maḥallesi (Özkılınç, Coşkun and Sivridağ 2013, 801) () and
Kātib ᶜAlī Maḥallesi (Özkılınç, Coşkun and Sivridağ 2013, 452) () in
Aydos (Айтос) centre.
2-Ḥoṭal (Özkılınç, Coşkun and Sivridağ 2013, 351; Zelengora 2014, 324)
() (Подем).
3-Ġirĕmitlik (Acaroğlu 1988, 249) () (Люляково).
4-Rubca (Acaroğlu 1988, 314) () (Рупча).
5-Cepelce (Acaroğlu 1988, 118) () (Планица).
6-Tikenlik (Acaroğlu 1988, 140) () (Трънак).
7-Ṣandıḳcı (Acaroğlu 1988, 317) () (Цонево).
8-Lobuşna (Hocaoğlu 2016, 88) () (Лопушна).
9-Bekci (Acaroğlu 1988, 93) () (Поляците).
10-Pirece (Bizim Gazete 2020, September 26), () (Партизани).
11-Çenge-‘i Kebīr (Acaroğlu 1988, 118) (
) (Аспарухово).
12-Deli Ḥuseyin
167
() (Голямо Делчево).
13-Çalı Maḥalle (Acaroğlu 1988, 111) () (Дъбравино).
14-Köpri (Acaroğlu 1988, 259) () (Приморско).
15-Memiş Aġa Çiftligi ().
16-Ḳovanlıḳ (Acaroğlu 1988, 256) () (Пчелник).
17-Baṭı ().
18-Bayram Alanı Maḥalli Gümüş (Acaroğlu 1988, 92) ( )
(Добра Поляна).
19-Ṭoy (Acaroğlu 1988, 354) () (Дропла).
167
According to Hocaoğlu, the village that was once located around Debelets village does
not exist today (Acaroğlu 1988, 130; Hocaoğlu 2016, 81).
119
20-()
21-Ḳara ᶜAlīler (Acaroğlu 1988, 222) () (Листец).
22-Ḳara Tepe (Acaroğlu 1988, 218) () (Черна Могила).
23-Çenge-i Ṣaġīr (
) (Карагеоргиево).
24-Elmadere (Acaroğlu 1988, 152) () (Ябълково).
25-Göçenler (Acaroğlu 1988, 167) () (Зайчар).
26-Çiftlik Maḥalle (Acaroğlu 1988, 121) () (Билка).
27-Dereköy (Acaroğlu 1988, 137) () (Речица).
28-Marafta (Acaroğlu 1988, 279) () (Морава).
29-Ṣıraḳaya (Acaroğlu 1988, 326) () (Скалак).
30-Vaḳf-ı İçme (Acaroğlu 1988, 193) () (Черешаи).
31-Boġazdere (Acaroğlu 1988, 97) () (Шиварово).
32-Ḳısıḳlar
168
() (Струя)/(Емирово)/(Добромир).
33-Macarlar (Acaroğlu 1988, 275) () (Зетьово).
34-Şeyḫler (Acaroğlu 1988, 350) () (Раклица).
168
Acaroğlu 1998, 243; Nişanyan Yeradları (Nişanyan Toponyms).
https://nisanyanmap.com/?y=&t=Ruen&cry=BG&u=1&ua=0, accessed February 3, 2021.
