sign in sign up
<<
Home , Little Russia, Russian Empire, Southern Russia, State serf

Project Education of Roma | History Roma Children Council Conseil of de l´Europe in Europe Russian 3.2

Russian Empire Elena Marushiakova, Veselin Popov

Roma in | Strategic Aims of the State Policy towards “Gypsies” | The Practical Realisation of the State Policy | Roma in the New Territories | The and Southern | | Faraonovka and Kair | “Gypsy” Serfs | “Gypsies” after the Reform of 1861

The has exerted its influence over many peoples. Contrary to other countries in Europe the state policy of the Russian Empire towards the Roma initially and in the long term treated them as equal subjects of the Empire with the respective full civil rights. The administrative efforts of the state aimed to make the Roma meet their obligations as citizens. This policy was above all a “mainstream” policy; “Gypsies” were seen as an inseparable part of society, and in this way were subject to general legislation. In cases where there was a “special” policy directed at them, the aim was to overcome separation from society, without exercising pressure towards their assimilation.

Principa- kazan The Russian Empire lity of Sibirian MOSCOW The Russian Empire grew from the so- The Russian Empire called Muscovite Russia, which from Ill. 1 the 15th century (and particularly after Empire of all proclaiming Ivan IV the Terrible Tzar in

1547) onwards began to develop rapidly Uralian Cossacks and to expand, increasingly adding ter- Kingdom of Slobozhanshchina ritories and their populations to the Em- (Slobodska Ukraine)

pire. Although Russia is formally an em- pire only from 1721 (the of Peter Kiev Kharkov I the Great) onwards, this generalising Cossacks name can be used for earlier periods as Dniester Zaporozhian of the Don well. Roma, who had lived for centuries Cossacks AustrO-HUNGARIAN Empire Bug in the Russian Empire, were consider- Bess- ably influenced by the mainstream so- Arabia Taurida Cossacks cial and political conditions, and this Guberniya Principality of of Kuban is reflected in their contemporary ethnic (Little Tatary) Kuban and cultural characteristics. Crimea

Ill. 2 Principality of

Introduction solve all disputes among them”. Whether population of certain territories, including these territories, which were added to “Gypsies”. Not much later a new decree A charter dated 1501 be considered the Russian Empire only later, could be was adopted by the Senate of St. Peters- the first evidence of the arrival of Roma called a part of the Russian Empire is a burg, in answer to a petition by “Gypsies, in the Russian Empire. In this document subject of dispute. born in these lands”, which allowed them Kazimirovich, of the With certainty “Gypsies” in the to reside and with horses in the area of and of Russian Empire are mentioned for the around the capital St. , with allowed the “Senior voyt Vassil first time in 1733 in a decree issued by the obligation to register “wherever they and his Gypsies” full freedom of travel Empress Anna Ioanovna, which concerns wish”. The passus “born in these lands” in the lands of the duchy and gave their the settlement of the annuity of three re- points to an earlier settlement of Roma leader the right to “judge Gypsies and re- giments through taxes, gathered from the in the Russian Empire. [Ills. 1-4] Roma in Ukraine Strategic Aims of the State Policy towards “Gypsies” The Practical Realisation of the State Policy

Ill. 4

MIGRATION MOVEMENTs sT. pETERSBURG Ill. 3 A first period of immigration into the - sian Empire saw “Gypsies” move from the south into Ukraine and from the east into 1733 Today’s Country Borders and the Baltic countries in the 15th 1399 lithuaniA and 16th centuries. Today, these early im-

1501 migrants are known as the “Xaladitka” or RUSSIA “Ruska Roma”, the closely related “Polska Poland 1509 Roma” (also called “Xaladitka Roma”) in 1416 Lithuania and nowadays Poland, and “Li- Ukraine tovska Roma” in Lithuania and Belarus. The “Lotfika” (Latvian) Roma in the Baltic 1378 Moldavia area are also related to them. The “Servi/

? bosnia 1768-74 Servuria”, for instance, settled in and in the mid- wallachia th rome 16 century after migrating from Wallachia 1422 and Moldavia. 1348 byzantium

After 1654 Ukraine joined the by paying a certain sum of money. The Roma in Ukraine Russian Empire voluntarily, yet kept a “Gypsy” annual tax grew with the years, certain internal autonomy. “Gypsies” which is evidence of their growing well were included in separate tax registers, being – at the beginning of the 18th cen- The first written sources mentioning divided into “regiments”, led by their tury it amounted to 120 “karbovantsi” “Gypsies” in the present day territories “” (chieftains), who were nomi- (Ukraine currency) annually and in 1755 of Ukraine date back to the 15th century, nated by the “Gypsies” themselves for it reached 1,424 “karbovantsi”. for instance several marginal notes about these positions prior to their appoint- The special “Gypsy” regiments “Gypsies” in the registers of the towns of ment. This should not be understood in were abolished in 1765 and Roma then Sanok and Lvov for the period 1427/28- the literal sense of the word; the Roma registered in the existing “sotni” (Cos- 1445. During the 16th- the in the Ukraine were not actively serving sack squadrons) and regiments, thus presence of the Roma has left traces in in the army. In fact what the documents they were given civil rights like the rest documents from the Ukrainian “Slobo- show is that Roma were included in the of the population. All “Gypsy” affairs zhanshchina“ (territories on the left bank existing military and administrative were subject to the Kiev Civil-Military of the Dnieper) and the autonomous organisation of the day. The main - Commission, which directly linked their “Zaporozhskaya Sech” (of the so-called ligation of “Gypsy” “atamans” was to mandatory registration with the require- ). In the registers gather the annual tax (“obrok”) toge- ments for permanent residence. These of the whole Zaporozhian Army we find ther with appointed tax collectors (who measures, however, did not make it im- names such as Vasko Tsigan, Stepan Tsi- had bought the right to gather taxes at possible for the Roma to lead a semi-no- ganchuk, Dmitro Tsiganchuk (from “Tsi- an auction) and to present it to the Ge- madic (with a fixed winter residence) or gan”, Russian for “Gypsy”). Roma main- neral army office for the maintenance of nomadic way of life. Their main occu- ly served as smiths and armourers in the the army. The appointment of “Gypsy” pations were various types of ironwork, army regiments. “atamans” was determined by the state horse-trading and music playing.

ty. This did not mean, however, that they and received their respective civil rights Strategic aims of THE state were banned from settling in the capital. through a decree issued by Catharina II policy towards “Gypsies” In 1766 a decree of the senate regulated The Great in 1783. According to this de- the payment of taxes by nomadic “Gyp- cree all “Gypsies”, who had not yet been Comparatively soon after the settlement sies” in the Russian Empire, who mainly entered in the State Registers of Popu- of “Gypsies” in the Russian Empire spe- lived in the so-called Slobodska Ukraine lation, together with those listed in the cial measures were taken towards them. and the areas around Moscow and other registers as the property of land owners In 1759 the Empress issued a major cities in the Empire. (i.e. serfs) fell into the category of so- decree banning travelling “Gypsies” in Roma were finally included in the called state serfs and were obliged to pay the capital St. Petersburg and the vicini- social structure of the Russian Empire the respective taxes for this category.

  Council of Europe Roma | History Project Education of Roma Children in Europe

Russian 3.2 Empire

Ill. 5 The wife of Johan Dimitri Taikon, the famous story- teller, as a newly married bride in Russia around 1900. The Taikon family moved from Russia to by that time. (from Lundgren / Taikon 2003, p. 45)

Ill. 6 A Russian “Gypsy chief” of the . (from Clébert, Jean Paul (1964) Das Volk der . Wien: Paul Neff, p. 64b)

Catherine II’s decree actually re- a regular registration and keep to the re- te had a better status than serfs. presents a new approach towards “Gyp- quirements of the law. State peasants and on the other hand offered sies” – the end of the “special” state policy serfs were entitled to travel freely, paying the possibility to pay the annual “obrok” towards them and their inclusion in the a specific annual tax (the “obrok”). to the landed gentry, thus acquiring the mainstream legal norms. However, this The category of “state peasants” right to freedom of movement. Roma, prior does not mean that it was an attempt to included above all the Slavic speaking to being included in the category “state force Roma to become sedentary. The De- Orthodox population of the newly ac- peasants” availed themselves of this pos- cree deals with the status of state peasants quired territories – , Left-bank sibility and continued their nomadic way as a whole and reflects the aim of the sta- Ukraine, , etc, together with of life, nominally moving from one land te to gather taxes from them. The decree the various types of Cossacks (Cossacks owner to another (paying them for freedom speaks of settling “Gypsies” in “suitable from the Don, Kuban, , etc.). In the of movement). With her decree Catheri- places”, with the clarification “so that they complex bureaucratised social and estate ne the Great actually aimed at ending this shall not be given to ”, i.e. to have structure of the Russian Empire, the sta- practice.

tax registers should be accomplished as ding towns, provided they can carry out the The Practical RealiSation soon as possible. The decree notes that in respective civil obligations by 1812. of THE State Policy some “guberniyas” () “Gypsies” In 1839 a new decree was issued have settled in the and are used in obliging all nomadic “Gypsies” without Unlike in many other countries, “Gypsies” agriculture, and that elsewhere they have fixed abode to register as state peasants by in the Russian Empire have not been regar- settled in towns, have registered as mer- January 1, 1841. With this step Roma fell ded as a “problem”, hence the outcome of chants and as “meshchane” (small holders under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the state policy, which encouraged (but did and artisans). The decree further says that State Affairs, which was entrusted with the not enforce) their sedentarisation was in- this is not considered a breach of the laws, reform of the situation of state peasants. significant. In fact, this policy resulted in an provided they pay their taxes regularly. The new approach towards “Gyp- obligation for Roma to register in adminis- The process of mandatory civil and sies”, which aimed at the total abolition of trative registers and to regularly pay their (above all) tax registration of the Roma the differences in their social status com- taxes, which (at least nominally) required was obviously proceeding slowly which pared with the remaining population, is a fixed abode. Furthermore it was desired is illustrated by a number of Government also found in the decree of 1856 (the time (but not made obligatory) to cease, (or at papers from the early 19th century, for exa- of the ), when “Gypsies” were least limit) their nomadic way of life. mple decrees by Alexander I from 1803 and obliged to serve in the ranks “together with This is the line of all state measures 1809. In 1811, Alexander I issued a decree the remaining members of the estates they which followed the decree of 1783. In to complete the allocation of “Gypsies” into belong to”. In fact this meant that until that 1800, a decree of the senate promulga- separate estates, and to confirm their rights point “Gypsies” had been privileged in that ted that the registration of “Gypsies” in to register in an estate of their choice, inclu- they had been freed from .

  Roma in the New Territories The Crimea and Southern Russia Bessarabia / Faraonovka and Kair

Crafts and Ill. 7

The trades and the way of life of “Gypsy”-serfs are quite va- the rather high number of 100 smiths, 185 chobotari (makers ried. Many who were nominally “dvorovie” (i.e. domestic of a kind of ’s shoes), 46 cauldron-makers, 7 silver- serfs) were effectively nomadic artisans. They paid their an- smiths, 1 tailor, 1 barber, and 185 musicians and their fami- nual “obrok” and freely travelled not only in Bessarabia, but lies lived in the estate of Prince Kantakusin near the also beyond the borders of the , selling their goods and of Markoutsi, near the town of Khotin. offering their services. This way of could explain the fact that

ColoniSing the Steppe: The case of Faraonovka and Kair Ill. 8

Frequently an analogy is drawn between the creation of the it was the direct consequence of the main principle of the state two Roma villages Faraonovka and Kair and the state policy policy to colonise the steppe , with many new settlements of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Spain towards the Roma being founded according to the ethnic principle. The transiti- during the 18th and 19th century. Nevertheless there are essen- on towards a settled way of life was voluntary. No restrictive tial differences, which make this analogy groundless. The main measures were taken against the Roma, as was the case in the difference at Faraonovka and Kair was the fact that “Gypsies” Austro-Hungarian Empire and Spain. In contemporary termino- were not subject to any special policy, rather they were seen in logy, at Faraonovka and Kair there was no enforced sedentari- the context of the Russian Empire’s policy in the region. The es- sation and segregation, but rather positive discrimination. tablishment of Roma villages was no act of enforcement, rather

instance the steppes of Southern Rus- known as Taurida Guberniya), the ter- Roma in the new sia and , were spar- ritories between the Bug and Dniester territories sely inhabited, but others (the Crimea rivers, and the territories between the and Bessarabia) had their local Roma, Dniester and the Prut, then known as The overall resolution of the civil sta- whose status also had to be legally re- Bessarabia (including the present day tus of the Roma in the Russian Empire gulated according to the legislation of region of Bessarabia in Ukraine and during the second half of the 18th cen- the Russian Empire. the of ). The new tury and the first half of the 19th centu- In a series of wars against the territories became the basis of new ry was complicated by the fact that this , from 1774 to 1812 provinces (Novorussiya, Taurida, la- was also a period of active expansion the Russian Empire added several ter- ter on Bessarabia), and quickly a new of the empire through the accession ritories, such as the Crimean Khaga- population started to settle on these of new territories. Some of these, for nate (annexed as a Russian territory lands.

military register, were obliged to pay Another peculiarity of the Cri- The Crimea and military taxation “along with the re- mean Roma was the fact that most of Southern Russia maining estates”. them were Muslims, and that many Specific to the Crimea was of them had lost their language and Roma in the comparatively dense po- the fact that an enormous part of became Tatari-speaking. In fact they pulated Crimea peninsula were quick- the Roma having the status of state could be ascribed two civic statuses ly incorporated in the new social and peasants, were actually urban inhabi- – both as “Gypsies” and as Tartars. civil structure of the Russian Empire. tants. This is due to the fact that the This is why in 1855, at the height of In 1812 an annual tax of 2 roubles per northern – steppe – part of the penin- the Crimean war, when there was a capita was fixed for the “Gypsies” of sula was sparsely inhabited and only strong anti-Russian feeling among the the province of Taurida (the Crimea) gradually being settled by colonists Tatar population, Crimean Roma who as state peasants. Alongside this, they of various ethnic origins. Part of the had the status of state peasants, but were allowed to register in the tax re- Roma had settled in towns, but even were also members of the Tatar com- gister in the Cossack regiments of the travelling Roma spent the winter in munity (i.e. were Tatar speaking and Black Cossack Army. In 1852 all towns, and only spent shorter or lon- Muslims), were relieved of that status “Gypsies” of the guberniya of Tauri- ger periods travelling in the warm and were obliged to execute the same da, who had not yet registered in the season. obligations as .

  Council of Europe Roma | History Project Education of Roma Children in Europe

Russian 3.2 Empire

Settlement and Privileges d Map of Bessarabia

th During the first half of the 19 century Roma were Ill. 10 granted the right to settle in the steppe regions around the Kuban River and the Northern . This was accompanied by giving the Roma additional Bessarabia: a,b,d privileges. In 1832 54 Roma from Pyatigorsk in the Moldova: A,C Northern Caucasus were freed from military service and from taxes for 5 years. The taxes they had alrea- c today´s Ukraine dy paid were refunded, as they had been attacked by a

“brigands from beyond the Kuban” (meaning by that today´s various peoples of the Caucasus – Circasians, Che- chens, etc.), and were robbed and suffered damages to the sum of 13,659 rubbles and 50 kopeeks, a subs- tantial sum for the times; 6 people were killed and 22 Faraonovka (1829) kidnapped. In 1838 another 27 Roma families, living Region of Budzhak in the guberniya were freed from military service for another 5 years (they were already freed b from the service in 1832, when they were included in the local Cossack regiments). Ill. 9

In 1818, a Provisional Statute for sies of the Crown attempted to regulate Bessarabia Bessarabia was adopted, dealing with the the “Gypsies” ’ travelling, differentiating particular situation of “Gypsies” in the between several categories of nomadic region. Roma were divided into two main Roma (Laeshi, Lingurari, ). Re- The situation of the Roma in Bessa- categories, one directly under the rule of gardless of whether they were settled or rabia (the lands between the Dniester the state (the former “slaves of the prin- led a nomadic way of life, “the Gypsies and the Prut) was quite different from ce”, or “slaves of the Crown”), while the of the Crown” had to pay a per capita that in the remaining parts of the Rus- others belonged to monasteries and pri- tax, paid by every Roma family, which sian Empire. Most of them originally vate persons (the former “slaves of mo- was 10 roubles from the early on- fell under the Principality of Molda- nasteries” and “slaves of the ”). wards. via, where Roma lived under the status For Roma who had formerly been In Bessarabia the forms of auto- of slaves. The Budzhak region, inha- “slaves of the prince”, in 1818 a separate nomy for the Roma communities were bited by the Nogay Tatars is situated institution was established at the Bessa- also preserved as they were in the Prin- between the Danube estuary and the rabian Regional Government, namely the cipalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. Di- Dniester. After 1812, the Nogay Tatars Office of Gypsies of the Crown, which rectly under the Office of Gypsies of the from Budzhak were moved to the Cri- had to register them as “state peasants”, Crown were the so-called “buluk-bashi” mea and began to reclaim the steppes. regardless of their way of life (nomadic and “judi”, nominated by the “Gypsies” The Roma of Bessarabia had the op- or settled). The new office also assumed themselves, responsible for the gathering portunity to be integrated into the so- responsibilities for “Gypsies” who had of taxes. They enjoyed certain tax privi- cial structure of the Russian Empire in fled from their masters (noblemen or the leges and could act as mediators in dis- various ways and to a large extent they monasteries) in Bessarabia or who had putes between “Gypsies”, i.e. there was were free to choose how to integrate migrated from the Principalities of Wal- a certain judicial autonomy in the com- themselves. [Ill. 10] lachia and Moldavia. The Office of Gyp- munity.

Roma in the higher civil status of state allowed to choose which way of life they Faraonovka and Kair peasants was directly connected to the desired to lead (nomadic or sedentary), policy of reclaiming of steppe lands in the as well as their place of abode (in towns, southern part of the Budzhak region. In in settlements of the state colonists, or in The goal of the administration in Bessa- the course of the realisation of this policy new settlements which the Roma could rabia to ensure a quicker registration of in 1826 the “Gypsies of the Crown” were establish by themselves in the south).

  “Gypsy” Serfs “Gypsies” after the Reform of 1861

Roma choirs and Roma musical aristocracy

The beginning of the process of settling “Gypsies” in the big self-government – they elected their own “burmistr” (mayor), towns of the Russian Empire was closely related to the famous who was responsible to the municipal administration for the ga- “Gypsy choirs”. The first such mixed (men and women) choir was thering of taxes (Roma were registered as “meshchane”), main- founded by Count Alexei Orlov in 1775, in his estate at Pushkino, tained contact with the authorities, resolved petty conflicts within near Moscow. The conductor was Ivan Sokolov (succeeded by his the community etc. nephew Ilya Sokolov), and the members of the choir were serfs. After several generations Roma musicians and actors in large At the beginning of the 19th century the choir members were freed towns (chiefly Moscow and St. Petersburg) became special social from serfdom and moved to live and work in Moscow. In 1812, stratum (separated to a certain extent even from other Roma), they made big donations towards the needs of the army during the comprising famous artist , such as the Sokolov, Shish- war against , part of them were volunteers and took part kin, Panin, Khlebnikov, Dulkevich, Pankov families, with a high in army action (for instance at the ). social position. Roma musicians regularly met the highest circles Count Orlov’s Gypsy choir was very popular among the in the Russian Empire – the aristocracy, rich merchants, famous Russian aristocracy. Other similar choirs were founded, many poets, writers, musicians etc. There were even mixed marriages generations of famous “Gypsy” musicians grew up. “Gypsy” with the high society: Feodor Tolstoy, (a close relative of the wri- musicians began to move to Moscow, and subsequently to St. Pe- ter Lev Tolstoy), the brother of the writer Sergei Tolstoy and his tersburg and other larger towns. In Moscow, from 1807 to the son Lev L. Tolstoy, Prince F. P. Masalskii, Prince Witgenstein, the middle of the 19th century, “Gypsy” musicians enjoyed a kind of millionaire from the Ural Nechaev, Anenkov, the rich landowner,

The first settlements of Roma in the sibility of registering in a higher estate, sack Army and the two Roma villages steppes of Budzhak were established in the right to run their own markets, the became the corresponding Cossack “sta- 1829 and in 1831 two new villages, settled privilege of using certain natural resour- nitsas” (Cossack’s settlement). by Lingurari Roma – Faraonovka (164 ces etc. The state invested considerable The development of the two Roma families) and Kair (170 families) – were funds to allow new settlers to begin their villages, Faraonovka and Kair, together founded in the Akerman “uyesd” (admi- life at Budzhak, including the Roma in with the further settlement of “Gypsies” nistrative unit). The names of the villages Faraonovka and Kair. in the steppe regions, also ran into vari- were chosen by the authorities, based on However, matters among the co- ous problems. Roma from these villages the then prevailing opinion that “Gypsies” lonists of various ethnicities ran into dif- until then had led a nomadic or semi-no- originated from Egypt. The Roma settled ficulties and fairly soon new changes to madic way of life and had no agricultural there were granted 9,902 “desetini” lands their status were required. In 1836 the skills. In addition, a number of other dif- (1 desetina = 1.1 ha). However, about populations of some villages with state ficulties emerged: a new system of step- 800 Roma families in Bessarabia conti- colonists were included in the Danubian pe agriculture, several years of drought, a nued their nomadic way of life, in spite of Cossack Army. This new status meant corrupt administration, which embezzled more than 11,000 desetini lands they were new additional civil and above all eco- part of the state subsidies, etc. Frequently granted in the south. [Ill. 8] nomic privileges, in exchange for certain there is speculation about the inability of At first Roma were settled as military obligations. These changes also Roma settled at Faraonovka and Kair to state peasants, who however, like the affected the Roma and with a special su- support themselves through agriculture; remaining colonists, had additional pri- preme decree issued by Nicolai I on May records from 1839 on the possessions vileges – freeing them from some mi- 29, 1839, 1,538 Roma, men and women of Roma from the two villages, howe- litary obligations, the granting of free from Faraonovka and Kair, along with ver, show that there is no substantial dif- lands, supply of agricultural inventory, about 1,600 nomadic Roma from Bessa- ference in their property in comparison state subsidies, tax concessions, the pos- rabia were enlisted in the Danubian Cos- with other settlers in the region.

the Provisional Regulations for Bessara- landowners, was settled in 1828 by the “gypsy” serfs bia, adopted in 1818, the privileges of the decree of Tzar Nicolai I, through which from the Principality of Moldavia “Gypsy” slaves were freed, received ci- (now referred to as “pomeshchiki” – the vil rights and the status of serfs of private The situation of the Roma in Bessarabia class of landowners) and the privileges persons or monasteries. who had been slaves to the nobility and of monasteries, including the private ow- Gradually the status of “Gypsy” the monasteries in the past in the Princi- nership of “Gypsy” slaves were retained. serfs began to change. Some fled from their pality of Moldavia was quite different. In The situation of Roma, belonging to the owners and registered as state peasants

  Council of Europe Roma | History Project Education of Roma Children in Europe

Russian 3.2 Empire

Ill. 11

Ledwik, the publisher of “Borsovie vedomosti”, and others, all married Roma girls. The first complete “Gypsy” performances by “Gypsy” musicians and actors were staged towards the end of the 19th century. On March 20, 1888, the musical comedy “Chave adro vesha” (Children in the forest) was performed at the Malyi Theater in St. Petersburg. The music, primari- ly “Gypsy” songs and romances, was an arrangement by Nikolai Shishkin. The play was continously shown up to 1906. 1892 saw the premiere of N. Shishkin’s new operetta “Gypsy Ill. 12 Life”. Pre- “Gypsy”-choir. (from Lemon, Alaina (2000) Between two Fires. Durham / London: Duke University Press, p. 45)

(most often nomadic Roma), which led to possession over “Gypsies”, who had fled register as “meshchane”. According to a rather complicated situation, requiring from them. A new decree was issued in the logic of these two decrees, Roma serfs radical solutions. In 1847 Nico- the same year, according to which “Gyp- were granted a totally legal opportunity to lai I signed a decree banning landowners sies” from Bessarabia and the region of leave their owners and receive new regis- in Bessarabia from regaining the rights of Novorosiisk with an unclear status, could tration in a higher standing.

time were only one third of the popula- their nomadic way of life. This restriction “gypsies” after the tion. was not valid for “Gypsies”, registered in reform of 1861 Contrary to other provinces in the the merchant and the “meshchane” esta- Russian Empire, in Bessarabia “Gypsy”- te, who could travel freely together with In 1861, alongside with the manifesto serfs, after receiving their freedom from their families. Yet in practice these admi- of Tzar Alexander II for the liberation serfdom, did not receive land. Moreover, nistrative measures had the same result, of the serfs and the abolishment of ser- they were obliged to continue to pay their as all the previous policies of the Russian fdom, a commission was set up to work obligations to their earlier owners for two Empire in their attempt to limit the no- out a draft for activities to regulate and more years. After that time, Roma serfs madic way of life of the “Gypsies”: they improve the way of life of “Gypsies”, as well as Roma state peasants mostly re- were a total failure. who mostly became part of peasantry. gistered as “meshchane” in the towns of Actually the entire state policy of The commission did not yield any re- Bessarabia. Yet this did not mean a transi- the Russian Empire towards “Gypsies” in sults and eventually it was disbanded. tion towards a sedentary way of life. the course of more than one century can be The Danubian Cossack Army In this period, the state policy to- seen as a constant repetition of measures, was disbanded in 1868 and its Roma wards “Gypsies” in the Russian Empire which should lead them (however not by were given free land. Roma in Fara- came to an end and up to the October Re- force) to become “normal” subjects of onovka continued to live in the villa- volution in 1917 they were not subject to the Empire and taxpayers. Nevertheless ge, however most of the Roma in Kair any special legislation or administrative these measures were never at the focus sold their lands (about 190 plots) and acts. The only exception to this was the of the overall state policy, rather at its returned to their old settlements (in the mention of “Gypsies” in the regulations periphery. “Gypsies” were an insignifi- forests north of Kishinev), to their tradi- for issuing of 1880. According cant percentage (less than one percent) of tional trades (the production of wooden to these regulations “Gypsies”, registered the total population of the Empire, hence goods) and to a semi-nomadic way of in the peasant estate, could be granted they received attention more because of life. In 1877 in Faraonovka there were passports only with the permission of the their exotic features, as seen by the local 1,039 Roma, 150 Moldavians and 103 local authorities, and only for one mem- population, than they were considered as , while in Kair Roma at that ber of the family. The idea was to limit an important aim of the state policy.

  Council of Europe Project Education of Roma Children in Europe Roma | History

Russian 3.2 Empire

Demography Ill. 13 appear to be comparatively precise, when the population of the Russian Empire was about 125.7 million, and “Gypsies” officially Although demography usually lacks accuracy in the case of the were 44,584, 38,031 of them rural inhabitants and 6,551 living in Roma, the proportion of Roma in the overall population of the towns. The geographic distribution was uneven, 8,636 “Gypsies” Russian Empire is best seen in statistics. In 1834 out of 60 milli- lived in Bessarabia, 1,056 in Poland, 1,750 in and , on inhabitants of the Russian Empire, “Gypsies” accounted for 3,003 in Lithuania and Belarus, 3,177 in Little Russia, 14,300 in 48,247, 8,000 of them living in towns and 18,738 in Bessarabia. Novorussia, 2,138 in Southern Volga, 1,080 in Northern Volga, The figures about a quarter of a century later are similar (1862), 2,021 in Northern Russia, 2,784 in Central Russia, 3,223 in the when the “Gypsies” in the Russian Empire were thought to have Central Chernozem region, 1,433 in the Crimea, 2,829 in the Nor- been roughly 50,000, 17,000-18,000 of them in Bessarabia, and thern Caucasus, 212 in the Transcaucasus, 628 in Central , 7,500-8,000 in the Crimea. The data from the census of 1897 6,238 in Siberia and 143 in the steppes to the east of the Volga.

Conclusion and “meshchane”, some of them quite separately as a specific tribe, neither as wealthy, having become traders or ow- a specific social standing, nor are they The general picture of Roma in the Rus- ners of establishments. Socially close included into the category of ‘inorodtsi’ sian Empire on the eve of the October to them are Roma musicians and actors. (foreign born citizens).” Revolution of 1917 is quite varied. Most [Ills. 11, 12] For that reason, as a whole, the Roma continued to lead their traditio- There is no doubt that the social policy of the Russian Empire towards nal way of life (semi-nomadic, renting integration of Roma in the Russian Em- “Gypsies” was subordinated to the aim housing for the winter, and most often pire was much more successful than that of making them fully-fledged subjects with a fictitious tax registration in the of their compatriots in the , not of the Empire, enjoying full civil rights, rural regions). A comparatively small to mention Central and but also fulfilling their civil obligations. part of them had settled in the villages during the same period. In the literature Above all this was a mainstream poli- of North-West Russia, as well as in Uk- various interpretations have been of- cy: “Gypsies” were seen as an insepa- raine, without totally breaking with their fered for this particular social position rable part of society, thus falling under semi-nomadic way of life and traditional occupied by the Roma in the Russian the common laws of the country. In the crafts. The processes of sedentarisation Empire, yet none of them has drawn at- cases when there was a need for a spe- continued to run actively in Bessarabia tention to the brief and extremely precise cial policy towards “Gypsies”, the aim as well. A third, comparatively small part explanation given by N. Shchiber at the was to overcome their separation from of the Roma had established itself in the end of the 19th century: “Under our legis- society, which did not mean that they towns, registered chiefly as merchants lation Gypsies have never been treated were to be assimilated.

Bibliography

Barannikov, Aleksei P. (1931) Tsygany SSSR. Kratkii istoriko-etnograficheskii ocherk. Moskva | Bessonov, N. / Demeter, N. G. / Kutenkov, V. (2000) Istoriya tsygan. Novyi vsglyad. Voronezh: Rossiyskaya Akadyemiya Nauk | Crowe, David (1995) A History of the Gypsies of and Russia. London / New York: Tauris | German, Aleksander V. (1930) Bibliografiya o tsyganach. Ukasatel knig i statei s 1780 do 1930 gg. Moskva | Kalinin, Valdemar (2003) Zagadki baltiiskikh tsygan (Rossiya, Estoniya, Litva, Latviya, Polska). | Kenrick, Donald / Taylor, Gillian (1998) Historical Dictionary of the Gypsies (Romanies). Lanham: Scarecrow | Keppen, P. (1861) Khronologicheskii ukasatel materialov dlia istorii inorodtsev Evropeiskoi Rosii. Sankt-Petersburg | Lundgren, Gunilla / Taikon, Alyosha (2003) From Coppersmith to nurse. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press |Marushiakova, Elena / Popov, Veselin (2003) Social Position of the Gypsies in Contemporary Russia and the Countries of the former USSR. In: Dvorák, Tomás (ed.) Mily Bore ... Profesoru Ctiboru Necasovi k jeho sedmdesátým narozeninám venuj í prátelé, kolegové a záci. Brno: Historický ústav AV CR, pp. 237-244 | Marushiakova, E. / Mischek, U. / Popov, V. / Streck B. (2005) Dienstleistungsnomadismus am Schwarzen Meer. Zigeunergruppen zwischen Symbiose und Dissidenz. Halle-Wittenberg

© Council of Europe. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be project Education of translated, reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic Roma Children in Europe (CD-Rom, Internet, etc.) or mechanical, including photocopying, recording http://www.coe.int/education/roma or any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior permis- Council Conseil sion in writing from the Publishing , of Communica- of Europe de l´Europe http://romani.uni-graz.at/romani tion (F-67075, Strasbourg cedex or [email protected]) http://www.coe.int