1 Introduction 1.1 Brief introduction to the history of manian-speaking areas and in some cases Roma, Boyash and Rudari migration mixed with Romanians, whether they live within or outside Romanian territory, to- “Gypsies” have been settled in Central day speak an archaic dialect of Romanian and Eastern Europe since the 14th cen- and call themselves băiaşi in the northern tury and, depending on the duration and part of their distribution area and ruda- intensity of contact, have been influenced ri in the southern part. Whether băiaşi by the Romanian culture and language to (Boyash) or rudari (Rudari), these groups different extents. A distinction is made have been classified historically and an- between groups, which have Romanian thropologically as being Gypsy or Roma. influences in their Romani due to their The Boyash and Rudari reject this de- dwelling in a Romanian-speaking en- nomination delivering arguments which vironment, and other groups who have differentiate them from the (other) Roma lived in a Romanian-speaking environ- groups. One of the strongest arguments ment for so long that they have been lin- supporting their otherness is their lan- guistically completely assimilated. The guage, which preserves no traces of members of the first group speak a Roma- Romani. This study seeks to provide a ni variant and describe themselves in their contrastive comparison of the two sub- own language as Roma (SG.M rom, SG.F groups of the Boyash in Hungary: the romni; M.PL roma, F.PL romnia). Their Munĉeni and Arĝeleni. Romani language has traces of Romanian, Economic circumstances resulted in not only in its vocabulary, but also in the the Roma being forced into slavery and morphology. Those who remained in Ro- serfdom, first of all in Wallachia and sub- 9 THE BOYASH IN HUNGARY sequently in Moldova and Transylvania. Hungary and in Transylvania and attemp- The majority of those Roma who did ted to persuade them to adopt a sedentary not fall into serfdom were declared robi lifestyle, convert to Roman Catholicism (bondsmen). The social status of the robi and to pay a Gypsy poll tax. Maria Theresia varied, depending on whether they worked (1740-1780) and Joseph II (1780-1790) for members of the lower nobility, great introduced further measures, including landowners or monasteries. As they be- the prohibition of marriages within the came increasingly dependent upon their group, the obligation to learn a trade and lords, they were also forced to adopt a recognition of eligibility for conscription sedentary way of life. The robi could be (WOlf 2004: 145). The more radical se- given away or sold at any time and most dentarization measures introduced in the of them were bitterly poor and experi- early 19th century finally led to greater enced oppression and exploitation on a sedentarization, although among certain daily basis. The diary of the German trav- segments of the population state pressure eller and hermit of Gauting (FONSecA to adopt a settled way of life tended to en- 1996: 248-249), as well as the childhood courage their nomadic lifestyle even more recollections of the Romanian writer (WOlf 2004: 145). Serfdom was gradually Mihail Kogălniceanu (HANcOck 1987: 16- abolished in two stages in 1837 and 1856 17), offer a valuable insight into the cruel (FRASeR 1998: 227-230). Direct exploita- conditions in which those Gypsies who tion was replaced by a system of day- were kept as slaves were forced to live, and labour contracts. In 1844 many of the Gyp- not only in the Danube Principalities and sies who had been owned by the church or Transylvania (for today’s antiziganism the Austro-Hungarian Crown were libera- see HAUPT 2006). ted and four years later the provisional For the robi, the 18th century was government decreed that all Gypsies were marked by extensive sedentarization mea- to be freed. However, it was only twelve sures. In 1724, Charles VI (1711-1740) years later that the Romanian landowners registered all Gypsies in the Kingdom of (Rom. boieri) gave their assent. 10 INTRODUCTION As a number of historical sources contain Following the liberation of slave Gyp- references to gold washers in the 18th sies in 1856 under the ruler of Wallachia, century (Feneşan 1967: 55-64; WIlSDORf Barbu Știrbei, who supported the eman- 1984), it may be presumed that the Boyash cipation of Gypsies belonging to pri - probably lived in the Apuseni Mountains vate persons, and after efforts made by (Rom. Munţii Apuseni), in particular in Alexandru Ioan Cuza as the ruler of the the Ore Mountains (Rom. Munţii Metal- United Romanian Principalities (1859) iferi, Hung. Erdélyi Érchegység), in the to remove the last traces of bondage, the Mühlbach Valley (Rom. Valea Sebeşului) situation of the former slaves deterio- and in areas of Little Wallachia (Vâlcea) rated, because, unable to ply their old or Greater Wallachia (Argeş) (WOlf 2004: goldsmiths’ trade, they had to change 145). Gold washers alone had the right to, their occupation. Being compelled to “pan the sands from the rivers and moun- abandon gold panning, the Romanian- tains for gold” (Kogălniceanu 1840: 17). speaking Roma took up basket weaving This brought the Rudari and Aurari a and woodworking (MIHOk 2000: 174), higher social status than other tax-paying occupations for which they are still Gypsies. As a consequence, the Rudari, known today. This was accompanied by Aurari and Lingurari advanced socially a migration movement, which has gone and were among the “most educated”, down in history as the “second wave with some of them already living in hous- of Gypsy migration” (ZAMfIR/ZAMfIR es during Kogălniceanu’s (1840: 18) life- 1993: 82-83), and which was initially time. Their specialist professions meant directed towards regions such as south- that they were in greater demand and ern Transylvania, followed by Central enjoyed greater respect than other Roma Europe, especially Hungary, eastern Slo- groups. However, as “gold production de- vakia (PAPP 1982: 4-5; LÁSzlÓ 2001), clined during the 18th century, workers Bulgaria, and eastern Serbia (Timok were no longer needed” (WeIGAND 1908: Valley). From here they moved on to 174). other regions further south such as 11 THE BOYASH IN HUNGARY Greece. Isolated cases of migration mungros, the Magyar- and Romani-spea- were also registered in Turkey, Bosnia, king Vlach Gypsies, and the Romanian- Ukraine and Russia, as well as southern and Magyar-speaking Boyash Gypsies. Poland. MARUSHIAkOvA (2004: 38-42) also identi- Once they arrived in Hungary, there fies three main Roma groups in Hungary. was no better fate in store for them. One The largest in number is roma ungrika of the most important documents revea- or romungro (71%), who settled on the ling the attitude of the authorities toward territory of Hungary as early as the 16th the Roma of Hungary at the time is a and 17th centuries, and who, with a few census initiated by Károly Hieronymi, exceptions, have lost their mother ton- the minister of the interior, on 19 Novem- gue, Romani, and now speak Hungarian. ber 1892. The census was undertaken They identify themselves as Hungarians with the purpose of putting an end to the or cziganyok (i.e. Gypsies). The second Gypsies’ way of life, as they were constant- group consists of olah roma (Vlach Roma, ly moving around the country. However, 21%), who emigrated during the 19th cen- the census was not confined to the noma- tury from the present-day territory of Ro- dic Gypsies, but also included those who mania and speak a variant of Romani with had already been assimilated into wider several Romanian (especially lexical) society (KÉMeNY 2000: 106). Language, influences. The third group (6 %) is the faith, family, and other aspects were also Boyash (Hung. beás), speakers of archaic surveyed. Romanian dialects, who today live in the Hungary occupies a special place in regions of Baranya, Tolna, Zala, Somogy, the configuration of Roma groups, their and in the vicinity of Budapest (KeMÉNY identity and group affiliation. Accor- 2005: 73-81). ding to KeMÉNYI (2000: 105), Hungarian The idea that the Boyash are a homo- Gypsies can be divided today into three geneous population can no longer be sus- main linguistic groups, each with its own tained. Like the Marburg ethnologist specific lifestyle: Magyar-speaking Ro- BlOck (1936: 110), we assume that they 12 INTRODUCTION are miscegenated descendants of the date and became monolingual speakers Gypsy miners and gold workers, the seden- of Romanian. tary (Romanian) population and escaped Today, the Boyash population is spread state and monastery slaves, although less over eastern Slovakia (around Košice), subject to state laws and probably with Ukrainian Transcarpathia (Verhnja Viž- the possibility of interethnic marriages. nicja, Poroškovo, Mirča), Hungary (the This would explain why the physiognomy southern Hungarian comitate along the of the Boyash on the whole differs from southern border), large parts of Romania that of other Roma groups and why mem- (with the main areas of settlement in the bers of the same family can be found with southern Romanian plains and southern lighter and darker complexions. In view Transylvania), the Republic of Moldova, of Maria Theresia’s prohibition of mar- Croatia (mainly Slavonia, Međimurje), riages within the group, the occurrence Serbia (eastern and central Serbia, the of this visible sign of miscegenation is Vojvodina, and there chiefly in the Bačka, hardly surprising. Both this miscegena- s. FlORA 1969: 14), Bosnia (eastern parts tion, as well as the migration of the of the country around Tuzla, Brčko Dis- Boyash and Rudari to many places in east trict, Sarajevo), north and northeast Bul- and southeast Europe, happened too long garia (e.g. Varna, Zlatarica), the Republic ago for people today to remember where of Macedonia (Bitola), Greece (especially their ancestors came from.