HRISTO KYUCHUKOV SOFIYA ZAHOVA ION DUMINICA EDITORS ROMANI HISTORY AND CULTURE Festschrift in Honour of Prof. Dr. Vesselin Popov Munich Lincom 2021 1 “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 2 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 3 VESSELIN POPOV © Mary Humphrey 5 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 6 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 7 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. 93 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 (Ḳibṭī135 and Çingāne or Çingene136) 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, ‫قبطى‬, 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). 94 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). 95 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 Ustas138 of Çatalca139 and Yapaġıcı140 Each band141 of those Gypsies142 of nomadic143 Turkoman people;144 called as the Çobān145 band, the Tarḫāneci146 band, the Baṣdırmacı147 band, the Miṣr148 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). 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). 146 96 The judges150 of Berġos,151 Baba-yı ᶜAtīḳ,152 and İnecik153 and the assistant judge154 of Ḫayrabolı155 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) ‫چتالجه ویپاغیجی اوسته لرینه حکم که‬ ‫كوچر اولو تركمان ﻃاﺋفه سندن چوبان بلوكى و ترخانه جى بلوكى و باصدرمه جى بلوكى و مصر‬ ‫بلوكى دیمكله معروف قبطیلرڭ هر بلوكى قرقر الّیشر نفر ولوب‬ ‫اهل قریه دن یم و ییمك الوب و‬ ‫و بر مقدارى ات ایله و برازى دخى عربه ایله كزوب مفت و م ّجانا ً ٴ‬ ‫حتى بولدقلرى یرلردن حیوانات‬ 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 17thcentury (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 18thcentury (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 17thcentury (Rumeli Sadâreti Court, No 106, v. 50, vr. 650, y. 1656-1658) and Eastern Rumelia Province in the 19th-century (Sezen 2017, 342). 150 97 ‫سوردكلرندن ماعدا بعضى رعایا نفرلرینڭ دخى اولرینه كروب اموال و ارزاقلري نهب و غارت و‬ ‫مضرت‬ ‫ابنائ سبیله ایصال‬ ّ ‫ایدوب بو مثلّلو تعدّیلرینڭ نهایّتى اولمدوغىن برغوس و باباى عتیق و اینه جك قاضیلرى و خیره‬ ‫بولى ناﺋبى عرض ایدوب‬ 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” selfidentification. 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 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. 156 98 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 99 as Gypsy in Bolu158 and counted among Maraş159 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). 100 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. 101 The Document II: Turkoman Gypsies of Varna (НБВК, ОР, ФОНД 26 / 11705) Huve160 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 Varna161 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’lmunāzaᶜa 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). ‫طونه والیت جلیله سنه‬ ‫دولتلو افندم حضرتلرى‬ ‫ورنه سنجاغنده بولنان تركمان قبطیلرینڭ كچبه طاﺋفه سندن اولوب بالمنازعه قتل واتالف اولنان‬ ‫عبداللهڭ ورثه سى هر نوقت كلوبده حقوق شخصیه لرینى طلب ایدرلر ایسه الوقت مدافعهٴ شرعیه‬ ‫لرى رﯘیت‬ ‫اولنمق اوزره‬ 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). 102 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 19 th 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 subdivisions 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 191516a, 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 191516b, 66–67). The situation was mostly the same for sedentary Muslim drum and pipe players, Dawuldjis or Mehters (Gilliat-Smith 1915-16a, 5). Moreover, GilliatSmith 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 103 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 19 th 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). In 1844, Aydos was an administrative district (każa) related to Varna ḳā’im-maḳāmlıġı (Silistre Province) (DAB.NFS.d.6613). 163 104 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 (‫( )شیخلر‬Раклица) 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 (‫( )محله چالى‬Дъбравино). In Elmadere (‫( )الما دره‬Ябълково) and Köpri (‫( )كوپرى‬Приморско) 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 Dobrudja166 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. 105 (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 15 th century. That flow significantly accelerated after the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire in 1783 and remained dense throughout the 19 th 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), “NonMuslim 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%B6lge106 haberleri/etnik-ho%C5%9Fg%C3%B6r%C3%BC-ikig%C3%BCnl%C3%BCk-seminerde-ana-konuoldu#.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. 107 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 CrossCultural Perspective, edited by Aparna Rao, 291–310, Köln: Böhlau. 108 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. 109 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. 110 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. 111 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. 112 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/osmanliistanbulu4/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 113 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. 114 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 OttomanTurkish 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. 115 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. 116 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. 117 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) (‫ )توزجى‬and Kātib ᶜAlī Maḥallesi (Özkılınç, Coşkun and Sivridağ 2013, 452) (‫ )كاتب على‬in Aydos (Айтос) centre. 2-Ḥoṭal (Özkılınç, Coşkun and Sivridağ 2013, 351; Zelengora 2014, 324) (‫( )حوطال‬Подем). 3-Ġirĕmitlik (Acaroğlu 1988, 249) (‫( )غیره متلك‬Люляково). 4-Rubca (Acaroğlu 1988, 314) (‫( )روبجه‬Рупча). 5-Cepelce (Acaroğlu 1988, 118) (‫( )جبلجه‬Планица). 6-Tikenlik (Acaroğlu 1988, 140) (‫( )تیكنلك‬Трънак). 7-Ṣandıḳcı (Acaroğlu 1988, 317) (‫( )صاندقجى‬Цонево). 8-Lobuşna (Hocaoğlu 2016, 88) (‫( )للبوشنه‬Лопушна). 9-Bekci (Acaroğlu 1988, 93) (‫( )بكجى‬Поляците). 10-Pirece (Bizim Gazete 2020, September 26), (‫( )پیره جه‬Партизани). 11-Çenge-‘i Kebīr (Acaroğlu 1988, 118) (‫( )چنكهٴ كبر‬Аспарухово). 12-Deli Ḥuseyin167 (‫( )دلى حسین‬Голямо Делчево). 13-Çalı Maḥalle (Acaroğlu 1988, 111) (‫( )چالى محله‬Дъбравино). 14-Köpri (Acaroğlu 1988, 259) (‫( )كوپرى‬Приморско). 15-Memiş Aġa Çiftligi (‫)چفتلك ممش اغا‬. 16-Ḳovanlıḳ (Acaroğlu 1988, 256) (‫( )قوانلق‬Пчелник). 17-Baṭı (‫)باطى‬. 18-Bayram Alanı Maḥalli Gümüş (Acaroğlu 1988, 92) (‫)بیرام االنى محلى كمش‬ (Добра Поляна). 19-Ṭoy (Acaroğlu 1988, 354) (‫( )طوى‬Дропла). According to Hocaoğlu, the village that was once located around Debelets village does not exist today (Acaroğlu 1988, 130; Hocaoğlu 2016, 81). 167 118 20-(‫)اقلمانلى‬ 21-Ḳara ᶜAlīler (Acaroğlu 1988, 222) (‫( )قره علیلر‬Листец). 22-Ḳara Tepe (Acaroğlu 1988, 218) (‫( )قره تپه‬Черна Могила). 23-Çenge-i Ṣaġīr (‫( )چنكهٴ صغیر‬Карагеоргиево). 24-Elmadere (Acaroğlu 1988, 152) (‫( )الما دره‬Ябълково). 25-Göçenler (Acaroğlu 1988, 167) (‫( )كچنلر‬Зайчар). 26-Çiftlik Maḥalle (Acaroğlu 1988, 121) (‫( )چفتلك محله‬Билка). 27-Dereköy (Acaroğlu 1988, 137) (‫( )دره كوى‬Речица). 28-Marafta (Acaroğlu 1988, 279) (‫( )مرافته‬Морава). 29-Ṣıraḳaya (Acaroğlu 1988, 326) (‫( )صیره قیا‬Скалак). 30-Vaḳf-ı İçme (Acaroğlu 1988, 193) (‫( )وقف ایجمه‬Черешаи). 31-Boġazdere (Acaroğlu 1988, 97) (‫( )بوغازدره‬Шиварово). 32-Ḳısıḳlar168 (‫( )قسیقلر‬Струя)/(Емирово)/(Добромир). 33-Macarlar (Acaroğlu 1988, 275) (‫( )مجارلر‬Зетьово). 34-Şeyḫler (Acaroğlu 1988, 350) (‫( )شیخلر‬Раклица). Acaroğlu 1998, 243; Nişanyan Yeradları (Nişanyan Toponyms). https://nisanyanmap.com/?y=&t=Ruen&cry=BG&u=1&ua=0, accessed February 3, 2021. 168 119