Gypsies of Central Asia and Caucasus

GYPSIES IN
CENTRAL
ASIA AND THE
CAUCASUS
Elena Marushiakova
and Vesselin Popov
Gypsies in Central Asia and the Caucasus
Elena Marushiakova • Vesselin Popov
Gypsies in Central
Asia and the
Caucasus
Elena Marushiakova Vesselin Popov
University of St. Andrews University of St. Andrews
School of History, Scotland School of History, Scotland
ISBN 978-3-319-41056-2 ISBN 978-3-319-41057-9 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-41057-9
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016946973
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland
PREFACE
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the emergence of newly
independent states in Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan,
Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan) and the Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia, and
Azerbaijan), academic interest in these regions increased significantly.
Dozens of monographs, edited volumes, articles, and reports devoted to
the history and contemporary development of nations and ethnic commu-
nities there have already been published (see Smith 1996; Bremmer and
Tarras 1997; Roy 2000; Cornell 2001; King 2008; Hille 2010; Reeves
2011, 2014; Reeves et al. 2014; Wooden and Stefes 2014; Agadjanian
et al. 2014; Hohmann et al. 2014).
These numerous publications almost entirely lack any mention of the
many diverse groups living in Central Asia and the Caucasus who are gen-
erally gathered under the umbrella term ‘Gypsies’; if they are mentioned
it is only briefly and superficially. To some extent this neglect is surpris-
ing, especially when taking into account existing academic traditions and
the increasing popularity of the Roma issue in European research (topics
that are linked without overlapping completely) and in a post-Soviet mass
media.
When comparing studies of Central Asia and the Caucasus with Gypsy
studies (recently renamed Romani studies) focusing on same regions, we
can see they do not differ much. Despite the high achievements of indi-
vidual authors in the past—including Kerope Patkanov, Iosif Oransky, and
Khol Nazarov—current academic studies still remain quite limited, both
in number and topics. Other publications in this field are available, mainly
reports from international organizations (such as OSCE, UNDP, and IOM),
v
vi PREFACE
covering whole regions or individual countries, however they also pay only
very limited attention to communities called Gypsies.
Generally, the topic of Gypsies in Central Asia and the Caucasus has
remained, until now, undeservedly neglected and largely marginal in
modern scholarship. This book will certainly not fill this significant gap
in academic knowledge (hardly possible within the scope of a single pub-
lication), but the authors hope that it will at least be a first step in this
direction.
***
The book results from our study on Gypsies in Central Asia and the
Caucasus. We would like to express our gratitude to all who have contrib-
uted to making this study a reality. We owe particular thanks to our friend
of many years Andrzej Mirga, whose sincere support has been crucial to its
realization and publication.
We also wish to express our gratitude for the support of colleagues from
the Russian Federation, both through our meetings and ongoing corre-
spondence. In the first place we would like to thank the late Lev Cherenkov
who invited us to our first research trip in Russia and with whom we met
Central Asian Gypsies for the first time. Particular thanks are due to the free-
lance researcher and artist Nikolay Bessonov, and to Prof. ScDr Nadezhda
Demeter at the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology at the Russian
Academy of Sciences (RAS), who heads the Federal National Cultural
Autonomy of Russian Gypsies (Фeдepaльнaя нaциoнaльнaя культуpнaя
aвтoнoмия Poccийcкиx цыгaн). We also wish to express our special grati-
tude to Sergey Ryazantsev from the Institute of Socio-Political Research
at the RAS for his invaluable assistance in connection with our first trip
to Central Asia and enabling us to participate in the Migratory Bridges in
Eurasia annual conference series (from 2011 onwards).
Thanks, too, for the support of our colleagues from Central Asia
and Transcaucasia. In Tajikistan—Abdullodzhon Orifov and Nadezhda
Blinichkina from Tajik State University in Khujand, and Naim Hakimov,
Director of the Center for Art and Education Programs Sogd in Khujand;
in Armenia—Harutyun Marutyan and Armenak Khachatryan from the
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography at the Armenian Academy of
Sciences, and Tigran Matosyan from Yerevan State University.
Our special gratitude goes to Elena Yurenko-Proshikian and her par-
ents Ivan and Elena Yurenko, who helped us during our field research in
Georgia.
PREFACE vii
Last, but not least, we would like to thank all our numerous interlocu-
tors from different Gypsy communities for their time and hospitality, and
for their willingness to share information with us about their communities.
St. Andrews, Scotland Elena Marushiakova

Vesselin Popov
CONTENTS
1 Terminology and Methodology 1
2 Gypsies of Central Asia 9
3 Gypsies of the Caucasus 67
Conclusion 107
References 109
Media 127
Index of Gypsy and Gypsy-like Communities 133
Index of Settlements 137
ix
CHAPTER 1
Terminology and Methodology
Abstract This chapter defines the term Gypsies and charts the area of
study—the countries, settlements and regions where field research was
conducted—and the methodology.
Keywords Gypsies • Roma • Definition
There are many diverse groups living in Central Asia and the Caucasus,
who use a wide variety of names identify themselves, as indeed do others.
The first task is to explaining the selection of groups included, given the
numerous differences between them. We also outline the spatial and tem-
poral frames of the study.
The focus is on those communities designated for centuries by the
umbrella term Gypsies (Цыгане in Russian). This designation was used
in statistics, censuses and other official state documents by the Russian
Empire, by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and is still
used, not only in the Russian Federation but also in the newly indepen-
dent states of Central Asia and the Caucasus. Only rarely do documents
add a clarification, such as Armenian Gypsies (Цыгане армянские) or
Central Asian Gypsies (Цыгане среднeазиатские). The umbrella designa-
tion is used by the surrounding population and even by the communities
themselves.
The reasons for this are to be found in the history of Central Asia
and the Caucasus over the last several centuries. The Russian Empire’s
© The Author(s) 2016 1

E. Marushiakova, V. Popov, Gypsies in Central Asia
and the Caucasus, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-41057-9_1
2 E. MARUSHIAKOVA AND V. POPOV
penetration of the Caucasus began at the turn of the seventeenth century

and of Central Asia a century later. In the nineteenth century these regions
were attached to the Russian Empire, with only the Emirate of Bukhara
and the Khanate of Khiva retaining some autonomy as states “under the
protection” of the Russian Empire. Later, both Central Asia and the
Caucasus were incorporated into the USSR. After the breakup and the
emergence of newly independent states in 1991, they remained bound to
a common post-Soviet space. Therefore, our study does not include the
whole of Central Asia in a geographical sense, but only Russian/Soviet/
post-Soviet Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan,
and Turkmenistan) and the Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and
part of the Russian Federation).
The Russian designation Цыгане (Gypsies) is currently used not only
in the Russian Federation but also in Central Asia and Southern Caucasus
(or Transcaucasia), where the Russian language continues to be widely
used in everyday communication, in the media and academia. In most of
the countries in the region it has had official status as the “language of
transnational communication” at different periods and even nowadays.
The new independent states, which lack their own designation for these
communities, are using the Russian term Цыгане for administrative pur-
poses, sometimes modified and adapted to the local language form, as for
example Cығандар in Kazakhstan (Ведомственный 2004).
The designation Цыгане is from the perspective of a Russian-speaking
public and a cultural discourse within the, so-called, Russian world (not
in its modern geopolitical interpretation, but from a historical perspec-
tive). In translating this designation into English, which is nowadays a
lingua franca in academia, serious problems arise. The word Цыгане is
usually translated into English as Gypsies, but in the English-speaking
world, including in scholarly jargon, this term is used to signify diverse
nomadic communities, regardless of their ethnic origins and identity
(Hancock 2010: 95–96). We do translate the Russian word Цыгане as
Gypsies with the proviso that this is to be understood as what Matras
(2004: 55–56) terms Gypsy 2 (an umbrella term reflecting the common
origins and underlying unity of the heterogeneous communities whose
ancestors migrated from the Indian subcontinent) as opposed to Gypsy 1,
a far looser term repeatedly used in academic texts to describe the social
phenomenon of service nomads regardless of their origins or identity,
including, for example, the so-called Sea Gypsies of Southeast Asia (White
1922; Ivanoff et al. 1997).
TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY 3
The content of the designation Gypsies is constantly changing. Over the

past two decades in common European (and global) political and public
discourse this centuries-old exonym (and its analogues in other languages)
was considered pejorative and the word Roma gained dominance in its
place, as a term considered more politically correct. However, it is obvious
that this designation is also problematic, thus gradually more and more
international institutions (first in Europe) start by clarifiying what is meant
by the politically correct term Roma, then each institution usually offers
its own interpretation. This terminological switch also impacts academia.
The best illustration of the terminological development can be found
in the publications of the European institutions (primarily the Council
of Europe and later the European Commission). In 1987 the Council of
Europe published the book by Jean-Pierre Liégeois entitled Gypsies and
Travellers; in 1994 a second edition was published under the title Roma,
Gypsies, Travellers; the third edition appeared in 2007, now under the
name Roma in Europe (Liégeois 1987, 1994, 2007).
Thus today we see a mechanical replacement of the previously used desig-
nations with the term Roma and the issue of the appropriateness or inappro-
priateness of the politically correct terminology is not on the agenda. Instead,
at policy level, there are attempts to bring together the different communities
once all labelled as Gypsies, under one umbrella term. It is enough to quote
some of the current “official” definitions for an idea of the lack of relevance to
the objective existing realities and accordingly to academic knowledge.
For instance, the Fundamental Rights Agency in 2010 uses the defini-
tion: “The term ‘Roma’ is used as an umbrella term including groups of
people who share more or less similar cultural characteristics, such as the
Roma, Sinti, Travellers, Ashkali, and Kalé. These groups also share a his-
tory of persistent marginalization in European societies” (FRA 2010). On
the basis of this definition the European Framework of National Roma
Inclusion Strategies from 2011 postulates: “The term ‘Roma’ is used—
similarly to other political documents of the European Parliament and
the European Council—as an umbrella which includes groups of peo-
ple who have more or less similar cultural characteristics, such as Roma,
Sinti, Travellers, Kalé, Gens du voyage, etc. whether sedentary or not”
(European Commission 2011). This definition is misleading because, for
example, the Roma living in central, southeast and eastern Europe have
many “more or less similar cultural characteristics” with the surrounding
population in their respective countries than with the Sinti and Kale in
Western Europe or even fewer when compared with the Irish and Scottish
Travellers or the Gens de voyage in France. It is also unclear why no other

nation in Europe is defined according to its cultural characteristics (one
criterion that opens the door to free interpretation and dispute); and why
it is only used for Roma (whatever is meant by this term in this case).
In 2012 the European Commission started the process of implement-
ing the European Framework of National Roma Inclusion Strategies and
provided a new definition:
The term ‘Roma’ is used here, as well as by a number of international orga-

nizations and representatives of Roma groups in Europe, to refer to a num-
ber of different groups (such as Roma, Sinti, Kale, Gypsies, Romanichels,
Boyash, Ashkali, Egyptians, Yenish, Dom, Lom) and also includes Travellers,
without denying the specificities and varieties of lifestyles and situations of
these groups (European Commission 2012).
This definition includes even more communities, such as the Dom and
Lom who live outside Europe, and adds no more accuracy to the issue,
on the contrary, it only further complicates it. Neither better nor more
precise is the definition in the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers
on the Rise of Anti-Gypsyism and Racist Violence against Roma in Europe,
adopted on February 1, 2012:
The term ‘Roma’ used at the Council of Europe refers to Roma, Sinti, Kale
and related groups in Europe, including Travellers and the Eastern groups
(Dom and Lom), and covers the wide diversity of the groups concerned,
including persons who identify themselves as ‘Gypsies’ (Declaration 2012).
This definition is misleading because it not only puts European Gypsies

under the cover term Roma, but also even more non-European communi-
ties; at same time it directly excludes large groups of European people who
do not identify themselves as Gypsies, but whose surrounding population
considers them (and refers to them) as such.
The extensive scope of available designations of Roma does not
end here. In 2015 the Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Roma Issues
(CAHROM) adopted a new definition:
The terms ‘Roma and Travellers’ are being used at the Council of Europe
to encompass the wide diversity of the groups covered by the work of
the Council of Europe in this field: on the one hand a) Roma, Sinti/
Manush, Calé, Kaale, Romanichals, Boyash/Rudari; b) Balkan Egyptians
(Egyptians and Ashkali); c) Eastern groups (Dom, Lom and Abdal); and,
on the other hand, groups such as Travellers, Yenish, and the populations
designated under the administrative term ‘Gens du voyage’, as well as per-
sons who identify themselves as Gypsies (CAHROM 2015).
As can be seen, the number of communities included under the term

Roma continues to grow. In the case of the Abdal from Asia Minor, the
non-Roma identity of this community is not taken into account. The two
main criteria for defining somebody as Roma continue to be used simulta-
neously: the Indian origin of the communities in question; and the nomadic
way of life (current or as led in the past). If the application of the second
criteria continues to expand it is logical to expect that we will be obliged to
also call Roma such communities as the Burakumin from Japan, the Batwa/
Abathwa from Rwanda, and the Midgaan/Madhiban from Somalia—as
already proposed by some Roma activists (Çingenelerin 2009–2010)—as
well as many other nomadic and peripatetic populations across the world.
Other international institutions have created their own definitions of the
term Roma, as recently offered by the United Nations:
The term ‘Roma’ refers to heterogeneous groups, the members of which live
in various countries under different social, economic, cultural and other con-
ditions. The term ‘Roma’ thus does not denote a specific group but rather
refers to the multifaceted Roma universe, which is comprised of groups and
subgroups that overlap but are united by common historical roots, linguis-
tic commonalities and a shared experience of discrimination in relation to
majority groups. ‘Roma’ is therefore a multidimensional term that corre-
sponds to the multiple and fluid nature of Roma identity (Report 2015: 2).
Based on this definition, the cover term Roma includes even more com-
munities: “Roma groups are also present in Central Asian countries, where
they are known collectively as Lyuli. While those groups are distinct from
American and European Roma, they share the experience of exclusion
and marginalization from local majority populations” (Report 2015: 3).
Adding to the criterion “shared experience of exclusion and marginaliza-
tion” in this definition opens up new horizons for expanding the scope
of the term Roma and only the future will show how many communities
(ethnic, religious, racial, sexual, etc.) will be covered by this umbrella term.
Official reaction was interesting after this definition of Roma became
known. Several months after issuing the Report on the Human Dimension
Implementation Meeting of the Organization for Security and Co-operation
in Europe, the Director of the National Centre for Human Rights of the
Republic of Uzbekistan replaced the hitherto officially used term Цыгане

with the designation Roma in his speech, with the explanation “Roma,
known among local population as ‘Lyuly’”, and he underlined that “Roma
in Uzbekistan” have no problems with regard to their human rights and
did not experience discrimination in any sphere (Выступление 2015).
According to this, however, they have not “shared experience of exclusion
and marginalization” and thus should not be considered Roma.
We will not analyze now whether all these definitions are accurate and
adequate, when used in academic discourse or from the point of view of
the communities in question (e.g. how to proceed in cases where a com-
munity designated as Roma not only does not want to be defined as such,
but does not even know what the word means). The current domination
of political over academic discourse is accepted as a norm by the modern
academic community, so the term Roma is gradually replacing the old
designations of communities who used all to be, and equally incorrectly,
labeled Gypsies. For us a much more important question is which dis-
course should be the leading and decisive one, the political or the aca-
demic? But each author should give his own answer.
In the context of this book, we are guided by the principle that aca-
demic terminology should be based on existing historical and contem-
porary, social and cultural realities and not on terms imposed by political
institutions, which are not adequate to these realities (and to the academic
knowledge that reflects these realities).
In practice, this means that we will not use the designation Gypsies
for communities living and migrating in the post-Soviet space in politi-
cal discourse, but only in the academic one. In other words, we will not
replace the term Gypsies with Roma. For us, Gypsies is an umbrella term;
a generic concept which incorporates various types of ethnic communities,
most of which (and perhaps all) are of common origin; in this case the
Roma are a division in the composition of the more general designation
Gypsies. As for specific ethnic communities, we will designate them in
the first place by their self-appellations, and in some cases with the names
given to them by their surrounding population.
***
This book is based on research conducted in Central Asia and
the Caucasus; in particular in Tajikistan (2011), Kyrgyzstan (2012),
Uzbekistan (2013), Kazakhstan (2013, 2014), Armenia (2012), Georgia
(2011, 2013), Azerbaijan (2014), and in the Russian Federation (2011,
2012, 2013, 2015). We had previously carried out research in the Russian
Federation and Ukraine (2001, 2002, 2003), where we also met Gypsy
migrants from Central Asia. Unfortunately, we were unable to visit
Turkmenistan due to the complicated visa regime, but from the available
evidence is not clear if any Gypsies remained in the country after it declared
its independence.
Our field research comprised of relatively short (up to several weeks)
trips during which we collected information using ethnographic methods,
based on the methodological principles of multi-sided ethnography
(Marcus 1995; Falzon and Hall 2009; Coleman and Hellermann 2011).
We were able to visit the homes of Gypsies and the majority population
and to interact with Gypsies in various public places (markets, parks, in
front of mosques, etc.). We spoke in Russian with Gypsies from different
communities and with the majority population, and in Romanes (or the
Romani language) with Roma and Sinti, sporadically switching to Russian.
We visited many cities and agglomerations, such as: Moscow, Saint
Petersburg, Astrakhan, Stavropol, and Krasnodar in the Russian Federation;
Kiev and Odessa in Ukraine; Dushanbe, Khujand, Chkalovsk, Gafurov, Hisor,
and Kulob in Tajikistan; Tashkent, Andijan, Kokand, Samarkand, Bukhara,
and Qarshi in Uzbekistan; Bishkek, Jalal-Abad and Osh in Kyrgyzstan;
Astana, Almaty, and Shimkent in Kazakhstan; Tbilisi, Dedoplistsqaro, Telavi,
Rustavi, Kutaisi, Akhalkalaki, Kobuleti, and Batumi in Georgia; Yerevan and
Gyumri in Armenia; Baku and Yevlakh in Azerbaijan. In the markets and
other public spaces in the cities we visited we also talked with Gypsies from
other towns and villages in nearby regions.
In addition to the meetings with local Gypsies in different countries, we
had the chance to communicate with migrants: Mughat from Tajikistan
and Uzbekistan in the Russian Federation and Ukraine; Dom from
Azerbaijan in Georgia; Roma from Georgia in Azerbaijan. So, in fact, our
field research covered a wider area.
The collected information was supplemented and enriched through
communications with local scholars and experts from international orga-
nizations and local NGOs working either on the topic of the Gypsies, or
on ethnicity issues in Central Asia and Caucasus, and contemporary trans-
border migration in the post-Soviet space (i.e. the Russian Federation and
the newly independent countries which formerly comprised the USSR).
During the course of our research we familiarized ourselves with the
existing scholarly literature and media information of relevance to the
Gypsies living in Central Asia and Caucasus, resulting in the comprehen-
sive, state-of-the-art bibliography included at the end of the book.
CHAPTER 2
Gypsies of Central Asia
Abstract This chapter defines the main communities in Central Asia cov-
ered by the designations Gypsy, Gypsy-like and Intermediate Communities.
Historic and demographic data is presented, which reveals the current fea-
tures of the two studied communities (Mughat and Roma) in Uzbekistan,
Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan, as well as their migration in the
post-Soviet era.
Keywords Central Asia • Gypsies • Lyuli/Jughi • Mughat • Mazang •

Tavoktarosh • Agha • Kavol • Chistoni • Parya • Balyuj • Roma •
Census • Identities • Migrations
2.1 GYPSY AND GYPSY-LIKE COMMUNITIES

Generally speaking, the communities called Central Asian Gypsies fall into
one category because of their distinctiveness (according to their lifestyle,
main occupation, ethno-social structure, certain ethno-cultural character-
istics, and so on) and their marginal social position throughout the whole
of Central Asia. There are other ethnic and/or social and professional
groups in a similar position who are nevertheless not labeled as Gypsies.
To specify who is covered by this chapter we should answer the question
“Who are the Central Asian Gypsies?”

The aggregation Central Asian Gypsies includes different (in origin,

language, identity, lifestyle, main occupations, etc.) communities. They are
often grouped together by their surrounding population or by research-
ers, though they set themselves apart. This set of different communities is
presented schematically in the following table, which is based on academic
literature, verified by and supplemented with data from our field research
in Central Asia. Use of the latter is particularly important because the pic-
ture described in the sources (even from a few decades ago) can often be
quite different today.
Gypsy communities Lyuli / Jughi / Multoni / Ghurbat / Ghorbat

(self-appellation Mughat)
Tavoktarosh / Agha /
Intermediate Mazang Sogutarosh / Kashgar Lyuli
communities
Kosatarosh
Gypsy-like Kavol Chistoni Parya Balyuj

communities
The data in this table should not be perceived as definitive and unchange-
able, nor as ahistorical and frozen in time. Just the opposite, these commu-
nities are undergoing constant ethnic development, in the process of which
they can change (modify, transform, extend, etc.) their ethnic identity.
The group boundaries (in the sense of Fredrik Barth 1969) are drawn
primarily from the perspective of the perceptions of their representatives.
Relations and distances between communities (both to each other and
to their surrounding population) are best illustrated by the eligibility (or
ineligibility) of mixed marriages. From this perspective, the groups’ tradi-
tional occupations are also important, as in the past each community has
used them for self-identification and for differentiation from “others”.
Tradition, however, is a conditional concept, because it is neither inher-
ent nor invariable, but is changed, modified, invented, and transformed
again and again over time. In our case, traditional means related to a fixed
(at least approximately) historical period—from the last few decades of the
nineteenth century to the first two decades of the twentieth century. This
is the period from which most of the available historical data originates and
GYPSIES OF CENTRAL ASIA 11
of which descriptions and memories are preserved in the communities’

oral history. Even more, this period is considered by the communities
themselves as a time when “tradition was a rule”, after which the turbu-
lence of the new era resulted in it being downgraded and obliterated.
The picture is further complicated by the fact that sometimes the same
appellation can be used by and for different communities. For example,
the designation Mazang (translated as dark, dark-faced) often leads to
confusion, because the Parya and the Jughi, living in Hissar valley, call
each other by this same name (Оранский 1971a: 202–207), which makes
it necessary to distinguish clearly between these two communities and the
“real” Mazang. The same problem arises when the Parya and the Kavol call
each other Chachgarak/Shashgorak (Оранский 1977: 27). Nevertheless,
the proposed table reflects the current situation and can be used as a basis
for further research, with appropriate remarks on each case.
Furthest away from the Mughat are the Gypsy-like communities of the
Chistoni, Kavol, Parya, and Balyuj. They largely live in Tajikistan, and are
defined by some scholars as closely related to, or even as part of, the local
Gypsies (Jughi/Lyuli), and are also perceived in this way by their surround-
ing population. The Kavol, Chistoni, Parya, and Balyuj are relative newcom-
ers to the region of Central Asia. Their ancestors migrated from Afghanistan
and India in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and they are obviously
distinct from the local Jughi/Lyuli. All these communities maintain their
differentiation (including through the practice of endogamy) and may even
strongly oppose being classed under the Jughi/Lyuli heading.
The community of the Balyuj was described for the first time in the late
nineteenth century by the Russian researcher Alexander Vilkins (Вилькинс
1882: 436–461). He was an official of the Turkestan general governorship
and sent a representative of the Balyuj to the Anthropological Exhibition,
held in 1879 in Moscow (Вилькинс 1879: 232). The Balyuj lived in
Fergana and Tashkent and earned a living by busking trained bears, mon-
keys and goats. Their wives begged and sold homemade cosmetics and
a “medicine” made of ground beetles and flowers. This medicine was
believed to help pregnant women influence the gender of their baby. The
Balyuj told the researcher that they had arrived in Central Asia from India
through Balochistan (to which the community’s appellation probably
refers) and Afghanistan and their migration continued until the 1970s.
The Balyuj distinguish themselves quite clearly from the “true Baloch” or
Baluch, some of whom had migrated from Baluchistan to Central Asia at
the same time. Balyuj spoke a language that Alexander Vilkins described
with many examples, and linked to Punjabi (from the Indo-Aryan group of
languages) without finding any borrowings from Balochi and Pashto (the
Iranian language group). The local population called them Hindustoni-
Lyuli, Augon-Lyuli (Afghan Lyuli), as well as Kara-Lyuli (Black Lyuli)
and Maymuny-Lyuli (Monkey Lyuli).
After the first description of Balyuj in Alexander Vilkins’s writings they
are mentioned only sporadically up to the end of the nineteenth century,
for example the Kara-Lyuli living in the Fergana Valley (Кушелевский
1891: II, 158), after that they completely disappear. Gabbasov (Габбасов
2008a) suggested that direct descendants of the Balyuj are the 150 fami-
lies of Indian Gypsies, called Pokaroch/Pokoroch, mentioned by Khol
Nazarov in his dissertation (Назаров 1970). The Pokaroch lived in the
1960s in the Samarkand region, in Bukhara and Shahrisabz, they pro-
duced jewelry and their speech “differed significantly from the language of
local Gypsies.” This remains a hypothesis, unsupported by any evidence.
Similarly, without proof, it can be assumed that the Balyuj melted into the
local population or migrated outside the region to Southern Afghanistan
or Iran. In any case, during our field-research in Central Asia we were
unable to find a single person who had ever heard of Gypsies called Balyuj
(or Pokaroch/Pokoroch).
The Gypsy-like community of the Balyuj should not be confused
with “true” Baloch (or Baluch) people, who speak a language from the
group of Iranian languages, and who live mainly in Afghanistan, Iran and
Pakistan and only in small diasporas in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Of
particular interest from our point of view is the non-confirmed informa-
tion about Baloch Gypsies, called Luri, in Turkmenistan (Гаффербергер
1969: 17–18). It remains unclear how these Luri relate to Gypsy-like
communities in Central Asia (and in particular to the vanished community
of Balyuj).
The Parya group was discovered and described in detail by the academic
Iosif Oransky in the 1950s (Оранский 1956a, b, 1960, 1963, 1964a,
1967, 1977, 183: 186–231; Oransky 1960), and others (Габбасов 2008a;
Хакимов 2010: 51–53). The Parya lead a settled life in the rural areas
of the Hissar Valley in Tajikistan and in some parts of the Surxondaryo
region of Uzbekistan.
In the past, they made their living largely from agriculture, as hired
seasonal workers or renting small plots of land. This is still the basic occu-
pation of community, often combined with temporary shorter or longer
labor migration, predominantly within their own countries.
According to the Parya themselves their ancestors migrated from

India through Afghanistan around the turn of the nineteenth century
(Оранский 1983: 23–34). In the past the surrounding population has
most often denoted them as Afghon (Afghans), an appellation still wide-
spread today. The same label—along with the names Hindustoni-Lyuli,
Afgon-Lyuli and Chingar/Changar—is given to other ethnic communi-
ties in the region, such as the Kavol and Chistoni (Хакимов 2010: 51–53),
who migrated to the territories of modern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan from
Afghanistan in the same period. The local population is unaware of their
distinctiveness and perceives the Parya, Kavol and Chistoni as one and the
same community.
The Kavol (probably from “city of Kabul”) live in Hissar Valley and in
region of the city of Kulob (there was a neighbourhood Guzar-i Kavolo),
in the province of Khatlon in Tajikistan (Писарчик & Кармышева 1953:
88; Колпаков 1954: 75). The Chistoni (probably from the Sistan region
in Iran and Afghanistan) live in Tajikistan (in the region of Tursunzoda
in the Hissar Valley) and in Uzbekistan, in the Surxondaryo region (in
the districts of Denau, Uzun, Shurchi, and Sariosiyo), with separate fami-
lies also in Bukhara and Samarkand (Хакимов 2010: 48–51). Both com-
munities are Tajik speaking, but also preserve a specific argot (Оранский
1961, 1971b, 1983: 49–102; 148–175). The Kavol and Chistoni had
been semi-nomadic, with winter settlements and longer or shorter trav-
els during the warm season. The Kavol made a living by peddling small
wares and cosmetics and producing and selling homemade jewelry. The
Chistoni’s livelihood depended on various occupations, including begging
and basket-making (Хакимов 2010: 49).
Today both communities commonly declare a Tajik identity (as nation-
als in Tajikistan and as a Tajik minority in Uzbekistan) and in rarer cases
they use the ethnically neutral category of Afghon. They feel a need to dis-
tinguish themselves strongly from the Parya and the Jughi/Lyuli because
the surrounding population regards them as one whole. This relationship
between communities is also evident in their marriage patterns: they do
not object to intermarriage between themselves; they categorically reject
marital relations with the Jughi/Lyuli and Parya; and accept the rare
cases of selective mixed marriages with Tajiks and Uzbeks, from whom
they agree to take (but not to give) brides and integrate them into their
communities.
The Agha community is also designated Kashgar Lyuli (Lyuli from
Kashgar, in today's China). The first evidence of their presence in the
Fergana Valley is in legend. According to which, in the sixteenth century

captured Persians received women for marriage from the Kashgar Gypsies,
called Agha (Наливкин 1886: 23; Гейер 1909: 253). There are also some
references to the “little people of Agha” in the late nineteenth century
(Кушелевский 1891: II, 158), but the real “discovery” of the Agha in aca-
demia comes at the end of the twentieth century (Губаева 1992, 2012).
According to preserved memories in the community, their ancestors
settled in the Fergana Valley at the beginning of nineteenth century, com-
ing with Uyghurs fleeing the Chinese conquerors of Xinjiang. The Khan
of Kokand allowed them to settle near the town of Asaka (near Andijan)
in a locality where many willows and poplars grow for making baskets and
wood products.
Nowadays the Agha live mainly in Uzbekistan: in several villages near
Andijan (about 100 families in Akbura and about 80 families in Kizil-
Ayak); near Kokand (about 60 families); several families near Turakurgan;
and about 50 families in the Tashkent region (Губаева 2012: 201–202).
In Kyrgyzstan the Agha live in the town of Kara-Balta near Bishkek (about
20 families) and near Bazar Korgon (Atakhanov and Asankanov 2002: 10;
Özkan and Polat 2005: 471; Губаева 2012: 202).
The Agha community is divided into two clearly defined subdivisions,
Ayakchi and Povon, who have previously led a semi-nomadic lifestyle.
According to the legends these appellations reflect their main occupations.
In the past (and still in Kashgar), their ancestors presented as gifts to the
famous religious and political figure Afaq Khoja (1626–1694) icy water
in a wooden bowl (ayak) and a necklace (from which comes the name
Povon). Therefore the Ayakachi made their living by making and selling
woven or wooden household items and the Pavon by manufacturing and
peddling homemade jewelry and other small wares (Губаева 2012: 200).
Nowadays the division between the two branches of the Agha is preserved,
even if they live together in a common place, and in Akbura there are even
two separate neighborhoods (called respectively Ayakchi and Povon),
although their population is mixed.
The native language of the Agha is a dialect of the Uyghur language and
they consider themselves to be an internal division of the Uyghurs—only
in rare cases (in the area of Bazar Korgon in Kyrgyzstan) are they found
using the native Uzbek language and with an Uzbek identity. Although
Uyghurs tend to distance themselves from the Kashgarlyk (Kashgars),
the Uzbek population perceives Uyghurs and Kashgars as one whole.
The Agha are confined by rules of endogamy (with some exceptions in
recent decades of taking Uzbek brides and integrating them into the
Agha community); the most strictly observed is a ban on mixed marriages
between Ayakchi and Povon (Губаева 2012: 206–207).
Another intermediate community, known under different names, is that
of the Tavoktarosh (or Sogutarosh, or Kosatarosh). These group names
reflect the main occupation of the community, the making of wooden
kitchen utensils: tavok (different types of plates); sogu (storage containers);
kosa (bowls). In the past, they led a semi-nomadic way of life; in winter
they lived in villages and in the warm season arranged their camps along
rivers with lots of trees, which were used for producing the utensils sold
afterwards in nearby villages. Their surrounding population saw them as
Central Asian Gypsies, but now they live scattered among the majority,
which often does not recognize them as a separate ethnicity.
Currently, they live mainly in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, with indi-
vidual families migrating to other countries. In Tajikistan the names of
the community are Kosatarosh in the north, Sogutarosh in the south
and Sogutarosh-Hisori in the Hissar Valley. They live in the districts
of Spitamen and Ayni, and in the towns of Khujand, Gafurov, Isfisor,
Panjakent in Sughd province, and in the south in and around the cities
of Vahdat, Hisor, Tursunzoda, and Qabodiyon. In Uzbekistan, the com-
munity is known as Tavoktarosh, and they live mainly in the neighbor-
ing Tajikistan regions of Samarkand and Surxondaryo (Nazarov 1982: 9;
Оранский 1983: 176–182; Габбасов 2008a; Хакимов 2010: 6, 40–42).
Their mother tongue is a dialect of Tajik, and they deny having own argot.
In the past they had an identity as an individual community, detached
from the Jughi/Lyuli. Today their identity is that of Tajiks, and the past
endogamy and separate ethnic identity are almost completely lost. What is
remembered are individual clans and past occupations. Thus the commu-
nity is almost entirely merged into the surrounding Tajik majority popula-
tion in Tajikistan and the Tajik minority in Uzbekistan.
The community of the Mazang was in the first historical accounts
and is also now assigned to Central Asian Gypsies. According to evi-
dence from 1820–1821 the Gypsies in the Emirate of Bukhara are called
Mazane (Мейендорф 1975: 104–105). Two decades later another author
writes that the Emirate’s Gypsies are called “Jughi, Myazang and Lyuli”
(Ханыков 1843: 73). In the past Mazang lived in villages and cities. Near
Samarkand there were two kishlaks (rural settlements in Central Asia, in
the past the winter settlements of nomads) inhabited by Mazang, some
of whom moved to the city at the end of the nineteenth century. They
made their living primarily in agriculture and peddling fabrics, utensils,

paints, cosmetics, and other goods produced by women, who “did not
cover their faces and therefore had a bad reputation” (Гребенкин 1872:
116; Хорохошин 1874: 323–324; Соболев 1874: 310; Schuyler 1877:
111; Вилькинс 1882: 436; Мейендорф 1975: 108). Mazang were mobile
and often changed their residence; for example, in the second half of the
nineteenth century some migrated from Bukhara in the Fergana Valley
(Гребенкин 1872: 116).
Nowadays the Mazang live scattered in many places across Central Asia,
in the cities and surrounding areas of Bukhara, Samarkand, Kattakurgan,
Shahrisabz, Tashkent, Kokand, Zarafshan, Namangan, Rishton in
Uzbekistan, and also in the regions around Khujand, Isfara, Nov, Gafurov,
Konibodom, and Panjakent in Tajikistan (Жукова 2002: 243; Хакимов
2010: 44–47). Their mother tongue is Tajik, and they deny having their
own secret language. Although some researchers (Назаров 1970; Хакимов
2010: 46), have noted the existence of such, there is no evidence for it.
Their publicly declared identity is Tajik, but their community identity is
preserved. They strongly distance themselves from the Lyuli/Jughi, and
consider mixed marriages with them inadmissible. However, mixed mar-
riages with the majority are eligible and occur increasingly often.
The difference between the two categories of intermediate and Gypsy-
like communities is somewhat arbitrary and changes over the time, but it
still exists.
The most important distinction is the time of settlement. Gypsy-like
communities migrated into the region about two to two and a half centu-
ries ago, while intermediate communities are likely to have settled in these
lands at least two to three centuries earlier (that is, four to five and a half
centuries ago). On this basis, there is a clearly visible distinction according
to the degree of social integration and identity change. A strongly pre-
ferred ethnic identity is observed in intermediate communities—this is an
identity of belonging to the surrounding majority or minority population,
and should not be confused with national identity, which is a conscious-
ness of belonging to a civic nation. In Gypsy-like communities however
the preferred identity is present to a much less extent.
The majority of studies focus on the community of Central Asian
Gypsies who call themselves Mughat, from an Arabic term meaning fire
cult followers or heathens, applied in the past to Zoroastrians; this has
persisted, despite the fact that they have been Sunni Muslims for cen-
turies. They are commonly called Lyuli by the surrounding population,
also as Jughi in Tajikistan and in some regions of Uzbekistan, as Multoni
or Multani in some regions of Uzbekistan and in past in Samarkand and

Surkhandarya region (from the city of Multan in medieval India, now
in Pakistan), and sporadically also Gurbath or Gurvath (from Arabic; in
Central Asia it is used with the meaning “strangers, aliens”). In the past,
the Mughat were divided into Kasib or Kosib, who lived sedentary lives
and had their own crafts, and Multoni or Multani, who were nomads and
made their livelihood by begging. Today this division is almost completely
forgotten.
The Mughat have been an integral part of Central Asian life since the
Middle Ages. They live in towns and villages primarily in Uzbekistan and
Tajikistan, with smaller populations in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan; there
is also possibly a small presence in Turkmenistan. The Mughat are sub-
divided according to the towns and regions with which they are histori-
cally associated – Samarkandi(ho) (from Samarkand), Bukhorogi/Bukhori
(from Bukhara), Toshkant (from Tashkent), Karshigikho (from Qarshi),
Kulobi (from Kulob), and so on. These subdivisions include various clans
(tupar), whose names may be on patronymic basis or different nicknames
(for numerous examples see Bessonov 2008), which, in turn, represent
separate extended families (avlod).
The Mughat are even nowadays strictly endogamic, the cases of mixed
marriage are rare and occur mostly with representatives of their surround-
ing populations (and mainly through taking brides from them and inte-
grating them into the community). Prohibitions on mixed marriages are
much more strictly observed with regard to the Gypsy-like and intermedi-
ate communities.
The mother tongue of the Mughat is a specific dialect of Tajik. They
also speak lavzi Mughat or zaboni Mughat (a Mughat language formed on
the base of Turkic and Iranian languages), and also arapcha (which means
Arabian, because the Mughat were wrongly perceived as being associated
with Arabs living in Central Asia), defined by researchers as a secret lan-
guage or argot (Оранский 1964b; 1983: 103–147; Pstrusińska 2013: 8–9),
in which the majority of foreign lexical borrowings are from Abdoltili—or
the secret language of the guild of religious storytellers (maddoh) and beg-
ging dervishes (qalandar) in medieval Persia and Central Asia (Троицкая
1948a). Today the Mughat are multilingual, commonly having a mastery
also of Uzbek and Russian, which retains the status of a language of trans-
national communication.
The traditional way of life for the Mughat was service nomadism,
which is different from other types of nomadism. It is typically a constant
intertwining between nomadic and settled life forms and of service nomads
depend on the resources created by the settled population. The mobility
of service nomads is expressed through continuous cyclical wandering,
searching for economic niches, where it is possible to pursue their vari-
ous servicing occupations (Hayden 1979: 297–309). Even the sedentary
Kasib/Kosib did not have their own shops, they carried their produce into
clients’ homes, including far from their settlements.
Generally, the nomadic traditions of the Mughat fitted at least partially
within the widespread, in Central Asia, forms of pastoral nomadism, char-
acterized by permanent winter settlements (kishlak) and summer pastures
(yaylak). In winter they lived in rented homes in kishlaks, sometimes they
even had their own homes (as in the Multon-i kishlak near Samarkand).
Instead of permanent summer pastures however they repeatedly arranged
temporary camps in the vicinity of cities and villages where there was mar-
ket for their products and services. At these camps, they did not used
yurts (like pastoral nomads), but tents (chodyr; chodyri zimiston, the winter
tent; and chodyri garm, summer tent, sunshed). It is worth noting that
intermediate communities (Mazang, Tavoktarosh, and Agha) instead of
chodyr built huts (chayla) from wood branches, and remained longer in
their summer camps near rivers with many trees and shrubs to be used for
manufacturing wooden wares and baskets.
The Mughat earned their living through diverse means. The main
occupation of women was begging and throughout the year they toured,
with small children, the homes of local people wearing begging bags
(khurdzhin) and sticks (aso) against dogs. Sometimes begging was com-
bined with peddling, or fortune telling (using mirrors or glasses of water),
and divination. Men’s occupations were much more diverse; they traded
in domestic animals (horses, donkeys), making sieves and grids for wom-
en’s head covers (chachvan) from horsehair, making and repairing jewelry,
wooden and metal utensils, treatment by bloodletting, breeding of sight-
hounds and horses for the ancient game of buzkashi (literally goat drag-
ging in Tajik), hiring out for agricultural work, and many others. There
are even data on “spectacles” with trained bears and musical accompani-
ment performed by “Louli” in Qarshi in 1880 (Bonvalot 1884).
Nowadays the Mughat live in many places in Central Asia. In Uzbekistan
they mainly inhabit the towns and villages of Andijan, Fergana (especially
in city of Kokand), Namangan, Jizzakh, Samarkand, Qashqadaryo (in
Qarshi), Bukhara, Navoiy, and Surxondaryo (in Termez and Sherabad)
regions (viloyat), in the autonomous Republic of Karakalpakstan (in
Nukus and Khoyjayli), and in the capital Tashkent and satellite settlements
(Назаров 1970; Комитет 2014). In Tajikistan the Mughat live mainly in
the settlements of agglomeration of the capitals Dushanbe and Khujand,
in the Hissar Valley (in the cities of Vahdat, Rudaki, Hisor, Shahrinav,
and Tursunzida), and in districts of Isfara, Spitamen, Panjakent, Varzob,
Qurgonteppa, Kulob and Vose, and Kolkhozabad (Хакимов 2010: 5).
In Kazakhstan the local Mughat live in the southern regions, mostly
in the cities of Turkistan, Shymkent (Zabadam and Voroshilovka neigh-
borhoods) and Taraz. It is understandable why they are living there; the
majority of today’s Kazakhstan was historically the steppes, semi-deserts
and deserts where nomads lived, and the Syr Darya Valley is the only
region with urban centers and a mixed population, created since the
Middle Ages. Mughat settled permanently there mainly during the Russian
Empire (Подушкин & Подушкин 2003) and the USSR (since 1920).
In Kyrgyzstan there is only one Mughat village, the Zhany Kyshtak
(kyshtak is the Kyrgyz form of the word kishlak) in the Osh region of the
Fergana Valley. The settlement arose in the 1950s, and there are living
descendants of Lyuli, who migrated from neighboring Uzbekistan (prob-
ably after the 1956 Decree on Sedentarization) to work in the local Lenin
kolkhoz (collective farm).
The identity of the Mughat today is multidimensional and contextual.
Most important is community identity, seen in various combinations, with
a publicly declared national identity in different countries of the region—
for example, self-declaring as a Tajik subdivision, which is particularly elo-
quent in the current conditions of cross-border migration (mostly in the
Russian Federation).
In the quest for an answer to “Who are the Central Asian Gypsies?”
it is particularly important to find out when and how these communi-
ties started to be considered as one with the category of Gypsies in the
European sense of the word (i.e. communities, whose ancestors migrated
from the Indian subcontinent, such as Roma, Sinti, Manush, Calé, Kaale,
Romanichals, etc.). An officer from the General Staff of the Russian army,
Baron Meyendorff, who visited the Emirate of Bukhara in 1820–1821
with a diplomatic mission, wrote: “The origin of Gypsies, or Zingari,
called in Bukhara ‘Mazane’ is not reliably known. You can meet them in
all corners of the country; as elsewhere, they foretell and deal with the sale
of horses; united in camps they lead a miserable existence” (Мейендорф
1975: 104–105). Two decades later, according to another author: “Gypsies
in the Khanate of Bukhara are three types of tribes and they should be
assigned to Gypsies, both in the outline of their faces and the way of
life; they call them Jughi, Mazang and Lyuli” (Ханыков 1843: 73). Not
only Russian but also Western European authors write about “Bohémiens
Louli et des Bohémiens Mazangs” (de Ujfalvy de Mező-kövesd 1878: 70).
As becomes quite clear from the quotations, there is a typical example
of orientalism (in the sense of Edward Said 1995), those communities cat-
egorized by notions that relate to other social and cultural realities. Here
Lyuli/Jughi and Mazang are equated with European Gypsies (Roma,
Sinti, etc.) on the basis of their nomadic way of life and low social position,
a marginal lifestyle at the periphery of society. This orientalist approach,
despite numerous changes in the dominant social and political ideology,
has been preserved over the centuries, up to the present day.
In the USSR the leading colonial paradigm of the Russian Empire
towards Central Asian Gypsies is kept and in this category are still included
the communities of Lyuli/Jughi and Mazang (Троицкая 1937: 65;
Снесарев 1960: 24–29; Снесарев & Троицкая 1963: 597–609; Жукова
2002: 242–247), some authors add the Tavoktarosh (Назаров 1968a,
1969a; 1980; Nazarov 1975, 1982). This paradigm remained in the con-
temporary postcolonial era, when a number of international institutions
(UN, OSCE, CoE, EC, etc.), revived it by replacing the word Gypsies with
the, considered politically correct, umbrella term Roma, which includes
the Central Asian Lyuli. The reasons for this new labeling remain de facto
the same (a nomadic lifestyle in the past and/or present, a marginal social
position and discrimination by the macro-society). The self-identity of the
targeted communities is still disregarded.
The only alternative to this leading orientalistic paradigm remains (both
in the past and nowadays) the academic field from where come ideas for
its re-consideration and correction. The very first scholar of Central Asian
Gypsies, Alexander Vilkins, had expressed doubts about the reasonability of
linking Lyuli with Gypsies and preferred to designated them as Богема (in
analogy with Bohémiens, which is what the Gypsies were called in medieval
France), or Gypsy-like (Вилькинс 1882). The same position was lucidly
expressed by the renowned linguist Iosif Oransky: “The legitimacy of uni-
fication of all such groups, that often do not have anything in common,
neither by origin nor by language, under a single term, as well as the legiti-
macy of the use of the very term Central Asian Gypsy cannot be proven”
(Оранский 1983), and he also uses the category Gypsy-like. Other authors
use the concept of Central Asian Gypsies and inscribe them as a separate
division in the comprehensive ethnic union with other Gypsies in the world
(Roma, Sinti, and others, categorized on the basis of their Indian ori-
gin) (Деметр 1980; Деметер et al. 2000; Бессонов 2008; Ozierski 2014).
Interpretations regarding Central Asian Gypsies and Gypsy-like commu-
nities by other contemporary scholars (Rao 1983; Crowe 1993; Payne
1997; Akiner 2003; Абашин 2004; Атаханов 2005; Габбасов 2008a, b;
Габбасов & Черенков 2008; Курбанов 2009; Хакимов 2010; Marszewski
2011; Pstrusińska 2013) vary between these two poles.
Outside of this coordinate system comes the concept of Gypsies as a
specific category of communities living in the Zwischenraum (in-between
or liminal space) without considering their ethnic belonging (Streck 2005;
2008). In this approach, the category Gypsies includes many diverse com-
munities around the world, bounded on the basis of their ability to live
according to “optio tsigana” on “social pasture”, including the Mughat in
post-Soviet Central Asia and Afghanistan (Günther 2007, 2008, 2016).
There is no need to explore in detail all the options and interpretations
in this direction. In this book we stick to the principle that the category
of Central Asian Gypsies can be attributed only to communities that have
such an identity (even if it’s only expressed by its individual representa-
tives), or who are ready to accept, at least on an abstract theoretical level,
the inclusion into the general category of Gypsies. In the countries of
Central Asia the Central Asian Gypsies are called Цыгане by the majority
when speaking Russian, but in recent years almost everywhere also uses
the term Lyuli; including in Tajikistan, where the proper name is Jughi.
The name Lyuli became an umbrella appellation for all Central Asian
Gypsies and sometimes a synonym of the word Gypsy, so for example
in Uzbekistan this name (linguistically adapted as Lo’lilar) can be used
not only for Mughat, but also Roma (Lo’lilar 2016). However only some
Mughat accept this appellation (although more often with some clarifica-
tions: “We are Gypsies, but others, not like the Russian ones”). This is
not a new or modern phenomenon as it has historical roots. The Mughat
themselves began to accept the Gypsy discourse when it entered the public
domain, and in the late nineteenth century cases were described (Patkanov
1887) of some Lyuli who self-defined as Сиган (Gypsy in broken Russian).
Even in cases when Mughat reject the label of Gypsy, they usually do it by
comparison and differentiation from Roma. This shows that nevertheless
Mughat are influenced (at least to some extent) by the Gypsy paradigm
imposed on them by outsiders.
The relations between the Mughat (usually labeled as Central Asian
Gypsies) and the Roma (usually labeled as European Gypsies or Russian
Gypsies by the majority in Central Asia) are, in fact, ambiguous. Mughat
may accept the idea of unity with other Gypsies on an abstract level, but in
practice they avoid mutual contact and close relations with them. During
our field research in the region we came across different cases of mixed
marriages in these two communities with representatives of their sur-
rounding population, but have not found a single case (neither in the past
nor nowadays) of a mixed marriage between Mughat and Roma. This does
not preclude the presence of a consciousness of belonging to a common
community of the two categories of Gypsies (Asian and European, in this
case between Mughat and Roma) because such relationships are (and to
a much higher degree have been in the past) typical for various Roma
groups in Eastern Europe, which does not deny the existence of Roma as
one (though internally heterogeneous) ethnic whole (Marushiakova and
Popov 2016a).
To speak, however, about complete unity between European and
Central Asian Gypsies is too early, because such awareness is still nebulous
and exists only in a limited number of representatives in both parts of the
world. Since the process of constructing a feeling of unity among the com-
munities is still unfinished, and the end result also remains unpredictable
for academia, the legitimacy of the very category Central Asian Gypsies is
still under the question.
To be correct and with a full consciousness of all the contradictions
included in the very term Central Asian Gypsies, we decided to focus our
book primarily on the communities of Mughat, who could be included
in this obfuscated category, at least conditionally. The data on intermedi-
ate and Gypsy-like communities will only be included in cases when it is
impossible to distinguish them from the Mughat (in statistics, government
acts, academic literature and media).
From a formal geographic perspective, the category of Central
Asian Gypsies should also include Gypsy (and perhaps also at least part
of the Gypsy-like) communities who nowadays can also be found in
Afghanistan. Small groups descended from the Mughat migrated in the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries from what was then Russian
Turkestan to Afghanistan, where they are called Ghorbat and continue
to use self-appellations such as Kulobi, Bukhori, Samarkandi, and so on
(Günther 2007, 2011, 2016). There are numerous Gypsy or Gypsy-like
Communities with different, most often local and regional names (Rao
1986; Pstrusińska 1986). A significant number, as is clearly evident from
their names (Jogi, Luli, Mogat/Magat or Haydary, Mazang, Kawal,
Kouli, Sheikh Mohammadi, Changar, etc.), were apparently linked in the
past with many of the above communities in Russian/Soviet Central Asia.

The establishment of the modern country borders in the region in the late
nineteenth century, following the end of the “Great Game” between the
Russian and British empires, and their complete closure during the Soviet
era and especially during the Cold War, started and developed processes
of autonomous development of different parts of the formerly cohesive
communities. Today the relations between them are definitely interrupted
and now they form detached communities.
Quite similar is the situation of Gypsy and Gypsy-like communities
in China (in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region). In 1858–1859
Shoqan Walikhanov mentioned “Gypsies (Multani and Lulu)” living in
Dzungaria (Валиханов 1861: 40), that are comparable to the Lyuli liv-
ing in Russian Turkestan (one of whose names is Multani); in 1878 the
“Bohémiens-Louli”, living in the region of Kashgar were referred to (de
Ujfalvy de Mező-kövesd 1878: 155); in 1889–1890 Mikhail Pevtsov com-
municated about 300 families of Gypsies, 270 of whom lived in Kashgar
oasis and 30 in Yarkant oasis, and mainly dealt with basket weaving
(Певцов 1895: 57). “Louli” who lived in this region since the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries, from the time of the Yuan Dynasty (Yang 2004;
Stankowich 2005), and begging Abdal (Äynu), who speak a secret lan-
guage (based on Uyghur with many Iranian loanwords), are described
by some contemporary authors (Tietze and Ladstätter 1994; Lee-Smith
1996), but any detailed description and examination of their relationship
with Central Asian Gypsies remains a task for future research.
2.2 HISTORY AND DEMOGRAPHY

The origin and early history of the Central Asian Gypsies is not yet fully
clarified. The earliest studies attempted to justify their categorization of
Gypsies with their Indian origin. However, this proved a difficult task
because the secret language of Mughat contains only a limited number of
lexical borrowings with an Indian origin (Оранский 1983: 103–147), as
many of these borrowings are also found in the languages, or argots, of
many other communities in the region. Others strived to find confirma-
tion of the Indian link in the custom of tattooing foreheads encountered
in some subdivisions of the Mughat, predominantly in the Qarshi region
of Uzbekistan (Снесарев & Троицкая 1963; Жукова 2002; Бессонов
2008). The most numerous are the attempts to justify the likely origin of
Central Asian Gypsies from India with historical data, but these are open
to various, sometimes even contradictory, interpretations.
When it comes to the Indian origin of both the European and Central
Asian Gypsies the same historical source is used as a starting point. This is
a story, told for the first time by Hamzah al-Isfahani (died circa 961) in his
Tarikh fi Muluk al-ard (History of the Kings of the Earth) and repeated by
the famous Persian poet Hakim Abu ʾl-Qasim Ferdowsi Tusi (935–1020)
in his epic poem Shahnameh (Shâh-Nâmé, The Book of Kings) and today
quoted in almost every comprehensive publication on Gypsies. According
to this legend the Sasanian King of Persia Bahram V Gōr/Gūr (420–438)
invited entertainers from India to settle in his kingdom. Following this
invitation 12,000 Zott (according to Hamzah al-Isfahani) or 10,000 Luri
(according to Ferdowsi) arrived with their wives and children in Persia and
settled in different regions. Each received a bag of wheat, a bullock and a
donkey to work on the land from the Persian King and in their free time
they were to play and entertain the people. A year later the King discov-
ered that they had neglected their lands and instead of working spent most
of their time singing and dancing. Bahram Gūr chased them on to the
roads with their donkeys and belongings, and since then they have been
roaming the roads of the world.
Connecting the Luri with the Central Asian Lyuli and with European
Gypsies (Barannikov 1931: 369–370), and not with the Lurs from today’s
Iran, has an academic tradition and is considered legitimate (Minorsky 1931,
1936). Moreover, the very name Luli is derived from the name of an ancient
Indian city, Arora (in Arabic sources Ar-ror, today Rohri in Pakistan); and
the other name of the community, the Jughi (meaning hermit, pauper),
from the Indian languages (ibidem). Today, this connection is taken for
granted by most researchers writing about the Mughat. It is not questioned,
however, whether a legend of events that happened half a millennium before
their recording, can be considered credible historical evidence and irrefut-
able proof of the Indian origin of the Central Asian Gypsies.
After the first introduction of Bahram Gūr’s legend at the end of tenth
century, brief and nebulous mentions of Lyuli in medieval Persian and
Arabic sources increase. Al-Tha’alibi (eleventh century) retells the legend,
adding in new details about “black Luli” sent by Indian “king Shengil”,
playing the flute and lute. Mojmal al-Tawarikh wa al-Qasas (twelfth cen-
tury) also confirmed the Indian origin of Luli and famous Persian poets
of that era—Abu Najm Ahmad ibn Ahmad ibn Qaus Manuchehri or
Manuchehri Damghan (eleventh century), Djamal-al-din Abd al-Razzak
(twelfth century), Kamal al-Din Esfahani (thirteenth century), and

Khwaja Shams-ud-Din Muhammad Hafez-e Shirazi or Hafez (fourteenth
century)—repeatedly mentioned Luli in their poems (Gatelier 2004: 272).
The first direct evidence of Lyuli living in Central Asia, is found in the
autobiography Baburnama by Zahir-ud-Din Muhammad (1483–1530),
known as Babur, founder of the Mughal/Mogul Empire. There is
mention among the artists and musicians of his entourage of Ramzan
(Ramadan) Luri from Fergana (The Bābur-nāma 1922: I, 386). In the
seventeenth century Lyuli are mentioned by Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur
(1603–1664) who in his famous book “Shajare-i Türk” (The Genealogy
of the Türks) tells the story of Nur Muhammad called “Lyuli-bacheh”
(child of Lyuli) because he was the son of Abdul-han and a Gypsy woman
(Троицкая 1948b: 78). During the eighteenth century Muhammed
Amin-i Bukhari mentioned the name Jughi for the first time (Назаров
1970: 25). Mir Abdul Kerim from Bukhara, in his book The Reign of
Timur Shah, tells that the commandant of the fortress Merv kidnapped
a beautiful Lyuli woman and after she was taken away from him, he was
deeply offended and that is why he surrendered the fortress in 1790 to
the Shah Murad from Bukhara (Бухарский 1938: 198).
Summarizing data from historical sources up until the beginning of
the Russian invasion in Central Asia one can say that the Indian origin of
Central Asian Gypsies is very likely, yet not sufficiently documented (unlike
the origin of the European Gypsies). As for their historical presence in the
region, apparently it dates from the Middle Ages (surely at least from the
fifteenth, and most probably even from tenth and eleventh centuries).
Considering the data and the history of Central Asia in general, it is
clear that the Central Asian Gypsies lived mainly in the territories of the
Khanate of Bukhara (created in 1500; from the late eighteenth century
Emirate of Bukhara) and the Khanate of Kokand (created in 1709), and
a limited number in the Khanate of Khiva (created in 1512). This choice
of territory is logical as within the first two Khanates are located most
of the medieval city centers in the valleys of the rivers Amu Darya and
Syr Darya, where was (and still is) concentrated the majority sedentary
(urban and agricultural) population in the region. After the establishment
of the Russian hegemony in Central Asia in the nineteenth century, some
became subjects of the Russian Empire and others remained within the
semi-dependent Khanates of Bukhara and Kokand. There were no specific
policies towards Central Asian Gypsies in the territories that became part
of the Russian Empire (General-Governorship of Russian Turkestan), and
they remained on the periphery of society.
The next historical period started with the October Revolution in

1917, which brought the Communists to power and was followed by the
formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The Soviet
state's main principle was the right of individual nationalities (the term
used at the time) to express their identity freely and to establish their own
national territorial formations of different hierarchies; it was constituted as
a complex structure of national and ethnic state administrative formations
at various levels: Soviet republics; autonomous republics; and regions. At
the same time a considerable number of peoples were not granted the
right to establish a state or administrative unit, but only socio-political and
cultural organizations. Among them were the Gypsies, who were scattered
throughout the huge country and led a largely nomadic way of life.
Overall changes in social and economic life began after the October
Revolution and the incorporation of Central Asia into the composition of
the USSR started an accelerated process of modernization of the entire
region, which affected local people, including local Gypsies. Becoming
an integral part of the “new Soviet society” the Central Asian Gypsies
simultaneously became de-jure fully fledged Soviet citizens. Together with
locals they shared all the major perturbations of the time in full measure
and experienced the whole complicated period of radical changes in the
overall social structure. As they were still viewed under the Gypsy para-
digm they were also exposed to a series of inconsistent and sometimes
conflicting measures of Soviet policy. The USSR became the first, and
at that time the only, country in the world that realized state policies on
Gypsy integration.
Within the broader framework of the policy of korenizatsiia (nativisa-
tion), the paramount aim of the new Soviet state with regard to Gypsies
was their “inclusion into labor for the benefit of society” and their trans-
formation into “conscientious Soviet citizens.” To achieve this aim, in the
spirit of the new national policy, a number of measures were taken, such
as establishing Gypsy organizations (in 1925 the All-Russian Union of
Gypsies/Всероссийский союз цыган was created) and adopting a series
of administrative acts, which provided state support for the creation of
Gypsy kolhozes (co-operative farms, that included between two and three
percent of the total Gypsy population in the USSR) and Gypsy artels
(co-operative artisan workshops), alphabetizing the native language and
publishing textbooks and brochures (up to 1938, 292 titles were pub-
lished in the Romanes language with the use of Cyrillic letters), teacher
training for Roma and opening Gypsy schools (86 Gypsy schools with
Romanes of instruction existed until 1938), the creation of Gypsy Theatre

Romen (opened in 1931 as a studio for Indo-Romen (Gypsy) theatre) in
Moscow and various music and dance ensembles under different cultural
institutions (Друц & Гесслер 1990; Crowe 1994; Demeter et al. 2000;
O’Keeffe 2013).
Although the Central Asian Gypsies were brought under the common
denominator Цыгане, not all the envisaged measures were accomplished
in Central Asia. The reason for this was not the unwillingness of local
authorities but the objectively existing realities. So, no Gypsy organiza-
tions were created in Central Asia because of a much lower degree of social
integration of the local Gypsies (compared with Roma in the European
part of the USSR) and a lack of an educated Gypsy elite. As Central Asian
Gypsies do not speak Romanes, and do not have their own distinct mother
tongue, it was not possible to pursue mother tongue education or to pro-
duce publications in their language. It was also impossible to create Gypsy
musical ensembles, because it was quite rare for Central Asian Gypsies at
that time to exercise these professions.
Central Asian Gypsies however were included in the socialist way of
life. The process of sedentarization was a natural consequence of mass
industrialization and the collectivization of agriculture in the USSR. In
Central Asia the mass shift of Gypsies to a permanently sedentary life
was to be seen specifically during the years of the, so-called, building
of socialism. It was specifically during those years that a considerable
number of Gypsy settlements came into being in the towns and kish-
laks of the region (in Bekabad, Chirchik, Jizzakh, Kattakurgan, Kogon,
and elsewhere), and the old areas of settlement expanded considerably
(Назаров 1970).
At the same time, many Lyuli began to engage in productive labor. In
1926 hundreds of Samarkand Gypsies went to work in industrial enter-
prises (tanneries, distilleries, brickyards, and so on), craft co-operatives,
and construction enterprises; in 1927 more than 30 Gypsies started work
in the Khudjum Silk-Winding Mill from the very first days of its estab-
lishment. In 1928 the first Gypsy scrap-collecting co-operative was orga-
nized in Samarkand, called Mekhnatkash Lyulilar (Working Gypsies) it
employed 61 Gypsies. Members of other nationalities (Russians, Tajiks,
Tatars, Jews) also worked there, and the organizer and head of that artel
was “an advanced Gypsy”, Mirzonazar Makhmanazarov (Nazarov 1982).
Artels for manufacturing wood products existed in Kokand and Bukhara,
and an artel for making wooden toys in Tashkent. Gypsy artels also existed
in Tajikistan (Назаров 1968b, 1969b, 1970; Абашин 2004; Первая 2013)

and Kyrgyzstan where, in 1935, the New Way artel in Frunze (today
Bishkek) employed 35 people (Бугай 2015: 56).
In rural localities Central Asian Gypsies eagerly joined the Koshchi (from
Rusian Kombedy, “committees of the poor”) organizations and kolk-
hozes. As early as 1924 the first Gypsy co-operative farm in Central Asia,
Mukhtozh (The Needy), consisting of 50 farm-laborer families, headed by
the Communist Mizrab Makhmudov, came into being in Kokand uyezd
(administrative subdivision). Makhmudov was an important organizer of
the collective farm movement among the Gypsies; he was elected a mem-
ber of the Central Executive Committee of the Uzbek SSR in 1925, and
a member of the republic government’s committee to place Lyuli on the
land. He was a delegate to the first USSR Congress of Collective-Farm
Shock-Workers in 1933 (Назаров 1968b, 1969b, 1970; Абашин 2004).
In 1927 in Kyrgyzstan kolkhoz Национал (National) was established with
27 Roma families; in 1931 and 1936 this kolkhoz was replaced twice in
Ukraine (Бугай 2015: 56).
During the years of mass collectivization in the 1930s two Gypsy
kolkhozes were established in Uzbekistan – the Makhmudov kolkhoz
in Fergana region and Yangi Turmush (New Life) in Tashkent region –
which brought together over 300 formerly nomadic and semi-nomadic
Gypsies. At the end of the 1930s 13 Gypsy kolkhozes were created in
Central Asia, in most of them Gypsies were in fact mixed with representa-
tives of the local population (Абашин 2004). A considerable number of
Gypsies joined kolkhozes, which were not divided along ethnic lines. In
1936 in Kazakhstan, in the Shieli district The Road of Stalin kolkhoz was
established, where all 145 Gypsy families living at that time in Kazakh SSR
were gathered (Бугай 2015: 57).
Schools for Gypsy children were established at the Gypsy kolkhozes
(with Uzbek or Tajik as the language of instruction, in Uzbekistan and
Tajikistan respectively). Although education in the USSR became compul-
sory for all, there were difficulties in attracting Gypsy children to schools.
Because of which special propaganda campaigns were organized. In addi-
tion, the adults underwent illiteracy liquidation courses and courses for
combating “religious prejudices” and for equal position of women.
A radical change in Soviet national policy began with the new
Constitution of the USSR, adopted in 1936, which affected the Gypsies.
Gypsy schools and classes were closed and pupils moved into mainstream
education, the mass publication of texts in Romanes ceased. The Gypsy
artels and kolkhozes were dissolved, and those engaged in them redirected
towards existing collective farms in rural areas and towards factories and
enterprises; the process was a slow one, and a number of Gypsies renewed
their nomadic or semi-nomadic way of life.
It should be noted that this change in state policy towards Gypsies was
a marginal outcome of the development of the overall nationalities state
policy in the USSR. This was a considerable turn in the policy for Gypsy
inclusion in the Soviet Union. Up to 1938 the policy towards Gypsies was
based on their treatment as a separate people who should develop above all
as an ethnic community. After 1938 the paradigm was changed, the special
element in state policy gave way to a mainstream one, and Gypsies were
seen above all as an integral part of Soviet society, without special separa-
tion in the main social spheres; as an ethnic community their development
was supported only in an ethno-cultural plan, mainly in the field of music,
dance, and performing arts (Marushiakova and Popov 2008a: 8).
The only exception to this leading paradigm was in the case of the sed-
entarization of Gypsies, which is a typical example of the combination of
common and specific policies. On October 5, 1956 this policy was given
increased impetus by the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet
of the USSR No. 1373 On the Admission to Labor of Gypsy Vagrants
(О приобщении к труду цыган, занимающихся бродяжничеством), fol-
lowed by Ordinance No. 685 of the Council of Ministers of the USSR
on October 12 the same year (О приобщении 1956). The latter prohib-
ited the nomadic way of life and criminalized those who tried to avoid
sedentarization, simultaneously obliging local authorities to assist those
affected by offering them housing, employment, and schooling. This pol-
icy is seen in many publications as the peak of the repressive policies of
the Communist party towards Gypsies (e.g. Crowe 1994; Lemon 2000;
Barany 2002), although the data show an ambivalent picture. The ban on
Gypsy nomadism happened more than three decades later than the state
regulation of other nomadic communities (Zhdanko 1966) and this delay
can be viewed as a specific preference for them. The sedentarization of
Gypsies was conducted when a serious crisis affected their nomadic way of
life, and the chances of continuing with this way of life were increasingly
exhausted in the new social and economic conditions across the USSR. The
nomads themselves began to seek chances to settle and new strategies
for economic realization. The active interference of the state came at an
appropriate historical moment and substantially assisted the constitutive
development of the community and its social integration (Marushiakova
and Popov 2008b: 3). The process of sedentarization was not so smooth,
for example, in the 1950s Mughat from the kolkhoz Communism in the
Narimanov district of Samarkand settled four times and left the kolkhoz
four times (Первая 2013).
The overall analysis of state policies towards Gypsies in USSR
throughout the, so-called, period of socialism requires some clarification
in principle. On the whole we can summarize that state policies, regardless
of the aims set, eventually achieved quite varied results for the Gypsies. As
a result of these policies, the Central Asian Gypsies gradually adopted an
almost entirely sedentary lifestyle and became an integral part of Soviet
society (though generally at its periphery). They all were fully fledged
Soviet citizens, had personal documents and address registrations, all had
homes and employment, and all received at least a minimal education.
Some individuals even went on to higher education, including university
degrees, and achieved decent social positions.
The relatively high degree of social integration achieved by the Central
Asian Gypsies during the Soviet era proved unstable and superficial in
its aftermath. From 1991, as the USSR fragmented, the situation in the
region changed radically. Severe economic crises deprived the vast major-
ity of Central Asian Gypsies of their jobs, leaving them with no means of
subsistence, while the ensuing social climate exacerbated ethnic tensions,
reviving and intensifying negative attitudes accumulated over centuries.
Simultaneously, as newly independent Central Asian countries engaged
in intensive nation building, the Central Asian Gypsies found themselves
pushed from the, so-called, titular nation (титульная нация is a Russian
term used in the region to designate a given country’s dominant popula-
tion) and, in most countries, were once again being perceived as “aliens”.
A bad economic situation, armed conflicts, negative attitudes towards
them and worsening inter-ethnic relations were, in combination with their
generally low level of education, the main factors behind the rapid dete-
rioration in their overall circumstances. The situation continues unabated
and, to date, there have been no significant efforts to improve it.
***
Of particular importance is the tricky question of the number of Central
Asian Gypsies at different times. The first historical evidence is from the
1820s when, according to estimates by Baron Meyendorf, about 2,000
Gypsies lived in Bukhara and the surrounding area, with the entire popu-
lation of the Emirate of Bukhara estimated at about 2.5 million people
(Мейендорф 1975: 98).
According to the population census of the Russian Empire from

1897 in Central Asia (meaning only the Governor-general or Russian
Turkestan without the Emirate of Bukhara and the Khanate of Khiva)
643 people were noted as Gypsies (Crowe 1994: 170), without indicat-
ing, however, how many of them were Central Asian Gypsies and how
many Roma who had moved to these new territories of the Empire. The
Population Census from 1897 is in fact the first one in the modern his-
tory of the Russian Empire. During its preparation a special explanatory
list of peoples living in the empire was issued to assist the “accurate”
assignment of different peoples (Алфавитный 1895). The Gypsies on the
list were marked as “people of Aryan tribe; Orthodox religion; mainly
in the province of Bessarabia; some groups are found in all provinces”
(ibid.). Therefore it can be assumed that the data from this Census really
reflects only the number of Roma who had migrated relatively recently
in Central Asia.
The approximate number of Central Asian Gypsies at this time may be
assessed using other historical evidence. According to data from the super-
intendent of the chancellery of the General-Governorship of Turkestan of
January 13, 1902, approximately 4,268 Gypsies were living in Turkestan
(including the Emirate of Bukhara and Khanate of Kokand), including:
280 in the city of Tashkent; in the uyezds there were 37 in Tashkent, 2 in
Shymkent, 23 in Taraz, 220 in Margilan, 466 in Kokand, 76 in Namangan,
50 in Andijan, l4 in Osh; in the Emirate of Bukhara approximately 3,000;
in southeastern Kazakhstan (region of Семиречье/Zhetysu, i.e. the land
of the Seven rivers/Seven waters) were 100 (Atakhanov and Asankanov
2002: 9). In 1907 in the Fergana valley 781 were registered as Gypsies,
living in the cities (195 in Andijan, 150 in Kokand, 146 in Fergana, 12 in
Osh, 6 in Margilan), and in the villages (in the uyezds: 93 in Namangan,
69 in Andijan, 48 in Kokand, 38 in Osh, 24 in Margilan) (Губаева 1992:
22, 2012: 199). In the early twentieth century in the villages near Sariosiyo
and Shurchi (Surxondaryo Region in Uzbekistan) 1,418 Lyuli were regis-
tered (Материалы 1926: 267).
The first Soviet censuses raised the question of the veracity of a clearly
reduced numbers of Gypsies, an issue which has not been resolved until
now. The main reasons for the unreliability of census data on Gypsies are
similar worldwide. They are based mainly on the phenomenon of ethnic
mimicry (a public declaration of a non-Gypsy identity, mainly due to the
negative public image of the Gypsies) and the preferred ethnic identity
(the unfinished process of experiencing of another ethnic identity due to a
refusal to be accepted by the preferred community).
The paradigm of a macro-society through which the Central Asian Gypsies

were included in the censuses is also important. As mentioned, ever since
their inclusion within the Russian Empire, they were placed in the Gypsy cat-
egory although they did not know it, and naturally did not experience them-
selves as such. In the Soviet state the very principle of conducting censuses
was changed; while in the Empire the determination of somebody belong-
ing to a particular ethnic community was the task of the census officials, in
the USSR this belonging had to be personally declared. In the USSR the
census was a powerful tool for introducing ethnic self-consciousness to the
masses and to determine ethno-national allegiances. The categories listed in
the censuses throw a light on the dominant paradigm, which predetermines
the “free” choice. Among the different nationalities (official terms used in
Soviet times for different ethnic communities, and currently in use in the
post-Soviet space) included in the censuses we see the category of Gypsies
among those inherited from Imperial times.
Sometimes the state gave more options for self-determination through
a list of subcategories incorporated into the larger categories. In the
Glossary of nationalities for elaboration of the All-Union Census, published
in 1937 just before the census, in the category Gypsies were included the
options: Dom, Rom, Servi and also Gypsies with Tajik mother tongue
and Gypsies with Uzbek mother tongue. The instruction was to move the
two in the category Tajik concomitant with Central Asian Gypsies, Jughi,
Kashkari, Lyuli, Mazang, Moltani with the explanation “Tajik speaking”
and in the category Uzbek all these variants were repeated with the expla-
nation “Uzbek speaking” (Словарь 1937).
Just a few days after the 1937 Census, however, it was declared “wreck-
ing” (вредительство), and the obtained results unreliable, and a new
Census was scheduled for 1939. A new glossary of nationalities was
published, where the variants under the category Gypsies were: Roma
and Rom, Central Asian Gypsies, Mazang, Jughi, Lyuli and Kashkari
(Всесоюзная 1939).
This approach to Gypsies was maintained in the following USSR cen-
suses, while irregular changes in the listed names occurred. In the 1959
glossary of nationalities and languages, under the heading Gypsies were
listed Rom, Roma, Lom, Bosha, Karachi, Mazang, Jughi, Lyuli, Dom
(Словари 1959). In the 1988 glossary the general category of Gypsies was
split into several distinct divisions. Central Asian Gypsies were divided into
two entries, in one were included Mughat, Lyuli, Jughi, Mazang, Gurbat,
and Tavoktarosh and in the second were Multoni. The language of both
divisions was designated as Gypsy, the former were given other options—
Lavzi, Mughat (as two separate names), and Arabcha (Словари 1988). It
is important to note that the category Gypsies was included in the general
heading of Nationalities in the USSR, not in the secondary heading of
Nationalities living mainly outside the USSR (ibid).
In sum the results regarding the number of Central Asian Gypsies in
the USSR, according to the censuses were:
• In 1926: 3,710 in Uzbek SSR (which then included also today’s

Tajik SSR);
• In 1939: 5,487 in Uzbek SSR, 1,193 in Tajik SSR, 4,257 in Kazakh
SSR, 644 in Kyrgyz SSR, and 190 in Turkmen SSR;
SSR, 1,927 in Kyrgyz SSR, and 357 in Turkmen SSR;
• In 1989: 16,397 in Uzbek SSR, 1,791 in the Tajik SSR, 7,165 in
the Kazakh SSR, 990 in Kyrgyz SSR, and 119 in Turkmen SSR
(Переписи 2012).
The newly independent states in Central Asia that have emerged in the
region since the collapse of the USSR conduct censuses on a regular basis
(with the exception of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan), but the available
data are incomplete, fragmented, and approximate.
According to expert assessments 5,000 Gypsies lived in Uzbekistan in
2000 (Жукова 2002: 242). In 2014 the Uzbek state officially reported
to the UNHCR Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,
that 50,000 Gypsies lived in the country (CERD 2014). It is clear that
these figures are approximate, and the sharp jump in the number does
not reflect demographic or identity changes but is the result of a politi-
cal decision. According to data from the census in 2000, 4,249 Gypsies
lived in Tajikistan, and 2,334 in 2010 (Тульский 2005; Агентство 2012).
According to various unofficial expert estimates, however, the number
is actually much higher. According to data from the census in 1999,
1,000 Gypsies lived in Kyrgyzstan, and 600 in 2009 (Population 2009),
this number includes both European Gypsies (Roma) and Central Asian
Gypsies (Mughat).
According to data from the 1999 census, 5,130 Gypsies lived in

Kazakhstan, and 4,065 in 2009 (Национальный 2010). This number
includes European Gypsies (Roma and Sinti) and Central Asian Gypsies
(Mughat), and the decrease in the number of Gypsies in comparison with
the previous census was the result of “repatriation” of many Roma in the
Russian Federation.
As shown by the data provided, the number of Central Asian Gypsies still
remains unclear. This is even more valid for the intermediate and Gypsy-
like communities who are not reflected in the censuses. Yet, based on above
data, combined (and corrected) with data from the literature, expert assess-
ments, and our field observation, we can at least tentatively make some very
preliminary and summary estimations. The number of Gypsy-like commu-
nities of Kavol, Chistoni and Parya (without Balyuj, who had already disap-
peared as a community) is relatively small, and can be estimated at about
3,000–4,000, and up to 5,000–6,000 of each of them.
Comparable to them in numbers are the intermediate communities of
Mazang, Tavoktarosh/Sogutarosh/Kosatarosh, and Agha. An assessment
of their number, however, is more difficult because of their preferred eth-
nic identity, and because the fact that some of them (mostly Tavoktarosh)
live scattered among the local population. So it is highly possible that
their number is larger than the Gypsy-like communities, and we guess that
there is a maximum of 10,000 in each community, which is more or less
exact for Mazang, about whom there is more historical evidence.
As for the Mughat, their number could be very roughly guesstimated at
60,000–80,000, up to 100,000–120,000, but it is quite possible that this
figure is in reality much larger. Currently, the majority of Mughat live in
contemporary Uzbekistan, secondarily in Tajikistan, with only relatively few
living in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, the Turkmenistan situation remains
unclear. As a result of migration to the Russian Federation there are already
cases of Mughat who received new citizenship and remained there.
2.3 GYPSIES IN TAJIKISTAN, UZBEKISTAN, KYRGYZSTAN

AND KAZAKHSTAN
2.3.1 Mughat
In the cities of Central Asia Mughat mostly live in ethnic separated set-
tlements, called by their inhabitants mughat-hona, and by the majority
lyuli-mahalla (in Turkic), jughi-hona (hona from the Tajik, home, place
of residence), or in detached parts of other settlements called jughi-gyoshe

(gyoshe from the Turkic for corner). Historically a mahalla in the Middle
East and Central Asia is a separate urban neighborhood, formed along
religious, ethnic, clan, and professional lines, with its own religious center
and forms of local self-government. During the times of socialism mahalla
lost their official administrative status, but remained a relevant social entity
and the designation was kept by tradition. After the end of the Soviet era
these terms continued to be used, sometimes with altered content, for
example in modern Uzbekistan the mahalla is de-jure a major form of
local government. Booming urban development in Soviet times, with the
building of blocks of flats led to the partial resettlement of some Mughat
in new neighborhoods.
Another significant number of Mughat live in kishlaks, or in settle-
ments built during the Soviet times in the frames of kolkhozes. Following
de-collectivization from the 1990s, the Soviet form of kolkhozes does not
exist anymore, still the settlements remain, but Mughat living there are
deprived of land ownership.
The oldest known historical Mughat settlements are found in Uzbekistan
and some of them still exist. The mahalla Ochavat, inhabited by Lyuli, has
been in Tashkent since the Middle Ages (Глозман 1928; Жукова 2002:
393). In modern Tashkent the majority of Mughat were concentrated on
Sagban street in this neighborhood until several years ago, but due to the
reconstruction of urban infrastructure, many of them have received new
homes and resettled to other places around the city. Currently they are
living together or dispersed among surrounding populations in the Old
Town and in new city neighborhoods (Vodnik, Kuylyuk, Sergeli, Sputnik).
Since the Middle Ages in Samarkand the Jughi-hona was in the Old
Town, near Siab bazaar and Bibi-Khanym Mosque (Абрамов 1989:
8–9; Hassanova 2007). This neighborhood existed until a few decades
ago as a single territorial unit, but gradually its residents resettled, they
bought their new homes (mainly from emigrating Jews in the nearby
Jewish neighborhood). Other Lyuli began to settle gradually in the towns
from the late nineteenth century, when they led a semi-nomadic lifestyle
throughout most of the year, and in winter rented houses or outbuildings
from local residents (Zhukova 2002). Currently Mughat in Samarkand
live for the most part scattered in the Old Town, and the rest in other parts
of city and in the surrounding settlements.
Bukhara is also known for its old Lyuli settlements. There is a preserved
a copy of a decree from 1863 (1217) which mentions a local guild of
Lyuli musicians and a description of a Lyuli settlement under the name

of Kafirabad (meaning neighbourhood of infidels) from 1830 (Günther
2016: 148–149). Sedentary living Lyuli in Bukhara are noted several
decades later (Маев 1876). Bukhara’s local Mughat until recently lived
in the Jughi-gyoshe near the big Samoni Retail Farmers’ Market. The dis-
trict is near the center (the Old Town), the land there become much too
expensive, so most sold their homes, left Bukhara and made their new
houses in the emerging settlement of Tut-Kunda near the satellite city of
Kogon, where ethnic Uzbeks from rural areas settled beside them (the
homes of the Mughat are partially detached from the rest).
Such settlement patterns are broadly typical for other regions in
Uzbekistan. For example, in the city of Kokand, not far from the old city
center and the market, there is still a large Lyuli neighborhood, called
by the local population “Bombay”, according to some authors it has
3,000–5,000 inhabitants (Günther 2016: 191); in the city of Namangan
the Mughat live compactly in a single neighborhood called Gulistan; in
the settlement of Shaihaly, near the city of Qarshi (Qashqadaryo Province)
Mughat live in a separate kishlak, Oltinkul, which the local population call
Lyuligrad (the city of Lyuli). Clearly visible is the tendency to move the
Mughat from old parts of medieval towns to the suburbs, where they set-
tle among other Mughat who were nomads for longer. Others settled into
more or less delimited parts of already existing villages (keeping the old
appellation kishlak) and so eventually appear ethnically distinct Mughat
settlements.
Similar are the settlements of Mughat across Tajikistan. The capital city
of Dushanbe was a kishlak until the 1920s, which had never before served
as a cultural or administrative center and only later did it develop into a
Soviet city. That is why Mughat settled in kishlaks in Dushanbe’s suburbs
of Stroitelnoe, Chagatay and Abduloobod. In the greater Khujand area are
two Lyuli settlements. One, the so-called Stalin settlement, is in the town
of Gafurov; the other is near the train station, where Mughat migrants
from Panjakent are living. Other Mughat kishlaks are Tundara (Vahdat
district), Sohutmoftien and Afgonobad (Hisor district), Somonieyn and
Barnoobod (Rudaki district), Besharik, Navobod, Polvonobod, Tugarak,
and Guliston (Vose district).
Housing conditions for the Mughat in Central Asian cities do not
differ significantly from that of the majority population. In 2008 in
Uzbekistan, 92% of Mughal lived in their own private houses and only
8% in their own apartments; in 2013 the figures are 98% and 2% (CERD
2013; Информация 2015). The situation is similar in other countries in

the region. Lyuli neighborhoods, which are usually in the old parts of the
cities, can be determined according to local standards as inhabited by the
lower middle class. The majority of dwellings are of a Central Asian type
(high fences, no windows to the street). The home furnishings do not
differ significantly from that of the majority population. Naturally, the
housing and living conditions of Mughat in rural parts are relatively poor,
but this is typical for the whole rural population throughout the country.
There are villages where conditions are worse, as in the medialized Zhany
Kyshtak in Kyrgyzstan. Located near the city dump, the infrastructure
consists of only a run-down primary school, a couple of stalls selling basic
goods, a mosque, and two public taps as the only sources of water (АДЦ
2010: 43).
The main occupations attached to the image of the Mughat for cen-
turies is begging. After the time of socialism was over, they returned to
old types of jobs to secure their livelihood. All over the region Mughat
describe the turning point with similar words:
And then our elders gathered, took counsel among them what to do and
blessed us to return to the craft of begging, and since then we are begging
all the time. (cf. also Омаров 2012)
In most of the big (and not so big) cities across Central Asia, women,
often with children, beg in front of religious institutions, on markets (big
and small, central and local, in the districts and on the fringe of cities), on
the streets outside the busy city centers, and also knock on the doors of
homes of the local population. Begging Mughat are met, for example, in
Samarkand near the busiest tourist attractions of Registan Ensemble, Bibi-
Khanym Mosque and Gur-e Amir complex (the Mausoleum of Timur/
Tamerlane), in front of Shah-i-Zinda Ensemble, on the exit of the cem-
etery to Khuja Khidr Mosque, and in the large urban market of Siyob
Bazaar; in Bukhara across the Old Town, in Samonids Recreation Park,
and the large Samoni Retail Farmers’ Market, as well as in the new big reli-
gious complex of Saif ed-Din Bokharzi and Bayan-Quli Khan Mausoleums
outside the city; in Tashkent over the past few years local governments
have tried to limit begging and the Mughat had disappeared from the new
center of the city, but they are present in front of Madrassah Kukeldash,
on Chorsu bazaar and Alay bazaar, and at the big Qo’ylik bazaar (the
Korean market) on the outskirts of the city; in Dushanbe in the big
markets of Shahmansur bozor, Sultoni Kabir bozor, Sakhovat bozor and

the wholesale market Korvon bozor; in Khujand on the square in front of
the Mausoleum of Sheik Muslihiddin and Panjshanbe Bozor; in Almaty on
the central pedestrian zone (Zhibek Zholy street), on the Kok Bazaar, and
in front of central mosques and Orthodox churches; in Bishkek at the Osh
Bazaar in the city and the Dordoy bazaar on the outskirts (known as the
largest market in the post-Soviet space); and in many other places.
Closely related and similar (at least in its results) to begging is another
major Mughat’s women occupation. Every morning they go to the mar-
kets and round the stalls and offer burning smoking herbs (locally known
as isryk or adraspan [Peganum harmala]) for a small price. According to
common belief across Central Asia they serve as a ritual purification and to
repel evil forces and attract trade success. For example, in the huge whole-
sale market, called Barakholka (Flea market) in Almaty, which is a large
complex on the outskirts of the city, including a dozen separate markets
(Rahat, Evropeyka, Bolashak, Kulager, etc.) Mughat women are around
early in the morning, ritually burning incense on the market stalls. This
ceremony can be seen in almost all markets in the region as well as in
migration. Mughat women also fumigate for purification visitors exiting
the local cemeteries.
Another key traditional occupation of Mughat women is fortune tell-
ing combined with healing with herbs and magical rituals, however today
it is not so widespread. The places where they gather and look for cus-
tomers are, for example, the Bibi-Khanym Mosque in Samarkand, and
the Samonids Recreation Park in Bukhara. Some Mughat women in
the Sughd region in Tajikistan have another trade—they buy hair from
the surrounding population and sell them for wigs (Меликшоев 2011;
Günther 2016: 105).
Despite the widespread belief that Mughat men do not work at all, the
opposite is true. The Mughat men all over the region deal in quite varied
work activities. In many places they collect recyclables, mostly scrap metal,
old glass and plastics (both women and older children are often included
in these activities). They are hired for diverse temporary jobs (mainly in
construction) and in the market they carry goods for buyers and sellers.
Owners of horses or donkeys are hired to carry various loads. Some men
also work as peddlers and, in many cases, sell among other things, a sort of
chewing tobacco, known as nasvai in Kyrgyz or nosi in Tajik (a mixture of
tobacco and other components of plant origin, slaked lime, ash and vari-
ous adulterants, including animal manure). Popular throughout Central
Asia (where it is known as “the hookah of the poor”) it is banned in

Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan (and from 2013 in Russia), but considered
a soft drug and freely available in all markets in other countries of the
region (Alieva 2006; Recknagel 2013).
In Tajikistan there is even a small elite group of Mughat men who are
outstanding musicians. One of these is Mazbut Norkulov, a famous singer
in the State musical ensemble, who dreams of gathering talented Mughat
musicians and singers from all over the country to create Tajikistan’s first
folk ensemble, to be called Lyuliën (Расул-заде 2010). However, such
occupations are rather exceptional and today the Mughat do not hold
good positions in the field of musical services (neither in traditional nor in
contemporary musical spheres).
For Mughat who are rural residents it is more difficult to earn a living;
collective farms were dissolved, the land is already privatized, and they do
not own land, and can rely only on temporary hiring for seasonal work
(harvesting of cotton, tobacco, fruits, and vegetables), which employs
entire families, including older children. Especially in south Kazakhstan
the Mughat are mainly hired for temporary low-skilled jobs in agriculture.
Those Mughat who have more profitable occupations are relatively few
(e.g. small scale producers of jewelry, wood and metal products, and other
goods) or who have developed businesses with their own stalls in the local
market, or are successfully active in their own trade and supplying services.
Among their occupations Mughat men proudly mention individual cases
of breeding horses for participation in the traditional, regional ancient
sport of Buzkashi or Kokpar/Kupkari, which brings big rewards for the
winners, along with breeding fighting cocks.
The main problem facing the Mughat in Central Asia today is unem-
ployment. There are no statistics which could give us precise figures, but in
some cases, as already mentioned above for Zhany Kyshtak in Kyrgyzstan,
the average rate of unemployment is about 90% (Özkan and Polat 2005;
Sershen 2007), and this is not an exception.
Hard times began in the immediate aftermath of independence, since
when Mughat families have made their living almost entirely through
women and children begging. Finding a permanent job for Mughat in
their home countries appears an almost impossible task (as well as for the
large parts of the rest of the population). So, begging allows them not
only to survive but also to maintain if not a good, then at least a not too
low standard of living. In most places we visited, the life of the Mughat in
general is not too different from the majority.
It is difficult to estimate the real profitability of begging. There are com-

mon widespread public stereotypes fueled actively by media; according
to them begging brings an extremely high profit, and that these activi-
ties are controlled by the local bosses, called барон (“Baron”, whatever
that means) or even by the mafia. In reality, according our interlocutors,
income from begging in Tajikistan’s capital city brings in less than one
dollar per day, while earnings in Kazakhstan are more profitable. So, for
example, a Mughat woman from Samarkand who begs in Almaty, told us
that she is able to earn per day on average KZT400–600 (about $2–$3),
while others said even more on better days. Without doubt the amount
is too small, as they also have to pay for accommodation, meals, travel to
Almaty and back home.
It should not be thought, however, that the Mughat are a people with-
out any means of existence, without property, without education, with
low social skills. On the contrary, all our interlocutors have their own
house, they may not be rich, but they are not very poor, they have house-
hold items (including TVs) and often also domestic animals. The main
problem is that they have no work and no prospects of any (even irregular)
employment. All the adults we met had received education in Soviet times,
had completed at least primary education, one even completed secondary
education. This is however not case for their children, who often remain
without schooling. They consider begging as “normal”, it hass been their
traditional occupation for centuries. As confirmation of this they told us
the following legend: “When God handed the people their prosperity, he
gave our part to others, and that is why he allows us to beg. When beg-
ging, we are doing nothing bad, we only take what is rightfully ours.” (cf.
also Арипов & Исамов 2015).
Some authors suggest that Mughat begging has a sacral character and
canonized ritual forms and is an expression of the cult of ancestors; beg-
ging is mandatory and should be done for at least a few days during the
holy month of Ramadan, when all Mughat have to beg regardless of their
financial prosperity and social standing (Günther 2016: 107–108). In fact,
ritualized begging during Ramadan was practiced by majorities in Central
Asia in the past, and its relicts are preserved even today in the form of
children’s groups who go around the streets and houses with songs and
music on major Islamic holidays and ask for small change and gifts. As for
the Mughat, their begging is instrumental, aimed at earning a living, even
when performed on holidays or at Islamic shrines and concomitant with
imitations of Islamic or pre-Islamic forms (as in the case of fumigation).
Sometimes the Mughat themselves tell outsiders that they beg because of
religion and respect to forefathers, but these are secondary explanations
for the current situation of the community in an attempt to justify their
begging. Actually, they would prefer to have regular employment, and the
same way of life as under the USSR, when everyone had a job, regular
income and social security. Here we would like to quote in full one piece
of evidence from the field in this regard:
I still remember how the chairman of the kolkhoz congratulated us [on the
wedding]. Then he said that the Gypsies-Lyuli have always been beggars,
but the Soviet regime did what have failed to do hundreds of kings … When
the collapse of the Soviet Union began … the collective farms were closed
overnight, life became hard. They took from us the land allotments, we were
on the verge of starvation … And then the elders bless those who decided
to return to the craft, which we have done at all times. You may understand,
we do it for the family. At home in Tajikistan we eat only wheat, boiled in
water. … Sometimes I dream to return to the bygone time. I remember
how my father made fun of his grandfather that he was once a beggar. And
the grandfather said that he washed away with blood the shame of the age-
old ancestors. Father in fact fought in the Great Patriotic War (the WWII).
I still keep his military awards. Sometimes I dream: my grandchildren went to
school, and I sit at home and knit them warm clothes. My daughters-in-law
does not know how it is not to be a beggar. I remember the first time I went
to beg, how I tried not to look into the eyes of people. (Омаров 2012)
From this perspective, it is understandable why the Mughat recall the

time of socialism as a lost golden age when everyone had the opportunity
to work (similar attitudes to the Soviet past is not unique to the Mughat, a
general nostalgia for Soviet times is very strong among broad layers of the
population of the newly independent countries in Central Asia).
Things changed surprisingly quickly following the collapse of the Soviet
system. Many of its achievements have disappeared and today are almost
forgotten. In their place appeared new problems, some unknown until now,
others which were forgotten long ago. One such problem is often high-
lighted as a major one, this is the lack of personal documents among many
Mughat. The situation varies across states and localities, in some cases prob-
lems can be severe, as in the already mentioned Zhany Kyshtak, where about
60% of adults do not have personal identity documents, and 30% do not
possess birth certificates for their own children (Ибраимов 2011).
In the past, after the introduction of a compulsory passport system in

the USSR in 1932, the process for obtaining personal documents from
Mughat stretches in time and was finalized in the 1950s after their full
sedentarization. Today, it looks like the time reversed its current and
many Mughat are again, as in pre-Soviet times, without personal docu-
ments. The cost of maternity hospitals leads many Mughat to give birth
at home, meaning their children are often not registered, and have no
personal identification papers (cf. Erkinov 2009; Кенжеева & Ашуров
2012). Lack of money coupled with bureaucracy is another reason for lack
of documents, and Mughat often lack the social literacy skills to acquire
the necessary documents and fill in the forms.
The Mughat themselves are often ambivalent about their lack of per-
sonal documents. On the one hand, getting a job and trans-border migra-
tion are much more difficult without them. On the other, it is considered
to be good for the boys, because being outside the system means they will
not be called up for compulsory military service. Although the surround-
ing population believes that Lyuli have never done military service, this
is contested by our older interlocutors, many of whom proudly told us
how they had served in the Soviet army in various locations in USSR. In
independent Tajikistan Mughat draft dodging is seen as a sufficiently seri-
ous problem to have merited action. In 2010 an initiative by the Khatlon
region District Military Committee, concerned by the fact that despite
there being over 2,000 Mughat living in the area, not one was serving in
the army, 40 Mughat were recruited by assuring them that they would
get personal documents and assistance in finding a job on completing
their service. Other members of the community have expressed a willing-
ness to serve in the army on condition they are stationed in Dushanbe
(Таджикские 2010).
Another serious problem, also cited by the Mughat themselves, is an
enormous decrease in their level of education. During the socialist era,
as a result of an unprecedented spread of general education, all Mughat
acquired at least basic literacy skills. Quite a few graduated during the
Soviet era, by 1938 several of them had successfully finished a university
education (Жукова 2002: 246). Today almost all Mughat with higher
education live outside the community (often in mixed marriages) and are
practically no longer a part of it. Perhaps the only exception is the retired
Professor Khol Nazarov. Born in 1920 in a family of nomadic Mughat
who settled in Samarkand in the 1920s, he was a participant in World
War II (started as an ordinary soldier, demobilized as Lieutenant) and was
awarded many orders and medals (Бессонов 2010: 65–67). He gradu-

ated from Samarkand University Alisher Navoi, and in 1970 he success-
fully defended a thesis on the influence of the October Revolution on the
situation and life of Central Asian Gypsies (Назаров 1970) and received
a scientific degree “candidate of historical sciences” (now equivalent to a
PhD). He has worked for many years as a professor at a local institute for
pedagogical sport training, written numerous articles and given papers at
conferences on the history and traditional culture of Central Asian Gypsies
(see Bibliography).
Literacy today is rapidly disappearing among the younger generations.
The educational level of the Mughat is much lower compared to that of the
surrounding population, however, neither exact nor approximate data are
available. The only exception in this regard is Uzbekistan from where we
have at least some data from 2014: in mainstream schools it was thought
there were 3,389 Lyuli children; in schools with Uzbek language train-
ing 3,103 students (1,189 in the Samarkand region, 854 in the Andijan
region, 262 in the Bukhara region, 576 in the Kashkadariya region, 78 in
the Surkhandarya region, 31 in the Tashkent region, 116 in the city of
Tashkent); in schools with instruction in Russian language 138 students
(47 in the Samarkand region, 34 in the Andijan region, 3 in the Tashkent
region, 54 in city of Tashkent); in schools with Tajik language teaching 148
students (4 in the Samarkand region, 141 in the Surkhandarya region, 3 in
the city of Tashkent) (Национальный 2014). The date from 2015 data were
fairly similar: 113 schools enrolled 3,262 Roma students (including 1,424
girls); of which 2,981 students were taught in Uzbek, 136 in Russian and
145 in Tajik (Информация 2015). At a subsequent level of education, how-
ever, the presence of Lyuli is sharply reduced, out of a total of 1,688,283
students in secondary schools, only 76 students were Lyuli, and no data
about Lyuli in universities. (Национальный 2014). So it appears that the
community does not have now its own intellectual elite.
Under the Soviet system (preserved, for a large part, in the newly
independent states of Central Asia) schooling was through the main
local language, which today is the official language of individual coun-
tries. In contrast to other Central Asian States, the Mughat children in
Tajikistan who are educated in mainstream schools are in the best position,
because there is no discrepancy between their home and school languages.
Outside Tajikistan Mughat children often encounter language difficulties
in schools, where the language of instruction is the national language, and
even more in cases when the regional language of intercommunication

and the state language do not match. Such is the case in the Osh region
in Kyrgyzstan, where the Mughat mother tongue is Tajik, but the regional
language and language of school education is Uzbek. Relatively recently
four experimental classes teaching in the national Kyrgyz language have
been set up, but this makes the education even more difficult for the
Mughat. The biggest problem however is not the language, but that many
Mughat children are not enrolled in the school system at all, and there is a
large number of dropouts (due to long periods of migration).
In some places with compact Mughat settlements attempts were made
to establish separate, Mughat-only schools. One such school is in the vil-
lage of Besharik near the town of Khatlon in southern Tajikistan claiming
to be the “only school for Gypsies in Central Asia.” It is a grant-aided
school built in 2006 by the National Investment Fund. It provides instruc-
tion only to fourth grade level and even with two shifts can only cater for
100 children (about 20% of those living in the village). Many Mughat
children there lack birth certificates, so their age on enrolment has to
be assessed by eye (Ахмади 2011). Another similar case is the school in
village of Abduloobod (about 30 kilometers from Dushanbe), which offi-
cially is not a special school for Mughat children, but in practice appears to
be such. Only 45 pupils are enrolled in the school, which is an insignificant
part of the total number of children in the village, and it's single teacher
and director, Berdier Sharipov, is Mughat (Таджикские 2013).
Another case, also known as the “only school for Gypsies in Central
Asia” is in Kyrgyzstan, in the already mentioned village Zhany Kyshtak.
The establishment of this school dates back to Soviet times. Small and
in poor repair, with outdated equipment and a shortage of teachers, it is
attended by only about a quarter of the village children, partly because
the school has no room for more and also because some children simply
do not go there. In 2007 Tursunbay Bakir Uulu, then Ombudsman of
Kyrgyzstan, made the following plea through the media, “If we want to
think about an unified Kyrgyzstan, supporting the only Gypsy school in
Central Asia is a necessity” (Киргизский 2007). According to him, Zhany
Kyshtak must have a separate school for Lyuli because of the group’s mass
illiteracy; when Lyuli children attend Kyrgyz schools outside their village,
other children beat and mock them; many parents do not send their chil-
dren (especially girls, who have to beg in the markets) to school. The
Ombudsman personally donated a number of computers to the school
and called on the business community to follow suit, later condemning
their failure to do so as an expression of prejudice. It should be added

that, despite the bleakness of the general picture, Zhany Kyshtak has pro-
duced some educated people, for example Tulandzhon Kadyrov who now
teaches there, and four young men who applied to continue their studies
at Osh State University (Урумбаев & Хамидов 2004).
Also in Zhany Kyshtak was established the first (and so far the only) Mughat
civil organization in Central Asia. Although in recent years the NGO sector in
Central Asia has sporadically shown an interest in the Lyuli, there have been
no real projects to address their problems. The only exception is Kyrgyzstan.
As early as 2002, Bahodir Narmyrzaev set up The Osh Region Lyuli Public
Fund with the stated twin objectives of ensuring school provision for Lyuli
children through their Tajik mother tongue, and assisting the children in
acquiring the Kyrgyz State language. The organization also stressed the need
to restore and establish marital ties with Lyuli from Uzbekistan, Tajikistan,
Kazakhstan, and even India (Урумбаев & Хамидов 2004). In practice, how-
ever, the organization has failed to develop almost any real activity.
In Uzbekistan our Mughat interlocutors said that if they wanted to cre-
ate ethnic organizations they would not be prevented by the authorities,
but everybody was unanimous that it did not make sense for them to do
so. Broadly speaking, in Uzbekistan, as in other Central Asian countries,
a central issue for the Mughat is not whether ethnic discrimination exists
or not, but whether they are able to perceive and rationalize existing com-
munity problems in this discourse.
When talking about social position and overall attitudes of the major-
ity population towards the Mughat in Central Asia it should be borne in
mind that they are largely determined by existing prejudices and stereo-
types about them. Despite the real situation with the living standards of
Mughat all over Central Asia the local population attribute great wealth
to them. It is widely suspected that they only pretend to be poor, but are
actually extremely rich, with “a big house and luxury cars.” In Bukhara,
for example, the locals jealously told us how large and rich the Lyuli wed-
dings were, which are not conducted in the special halls in town, but
outdoors in their settlements. These weddings supposedly gather up to a
thousand guests, the celebration lasts for several days and the most famous
and expensive musicians from Tashkent are invited, rams and cockfights,
and traditional kurash (wrestling) are organized and victors receive big
prizes—large sums of money, rams, sometimes even a camel (cf. Расул-
заде 2010). This indeed is not a description of the reality, but a picture of
a perfect wedding, dreamt up by the local population.
The most common stereotype about Lyuli, constantly mentioned in all

countries in the region, is that the real reason they beg is not poverty but
ethnic tradition: “No matter how rich they are, they will still beg.” The local
population is convinced that during the wedding the bride gets hurdzhin
(a carrying bag woven from wool and used for begging) and at a ceremony
she vows that from now on she would feed her husband and the whole fam-
ily (Абашин 2004)—a claim strongly denied by the Mughat with whom
we spoke. In a number of media publications this custom is even decorated
with additional details, such as “the bride promises that she would give all
the money to her husband and will be obedient and not a shrew, and finally
she cuts her hand and takes an oath on her blood” (Жапаров 2012). Some
journalists offer an even a more elaborate description:
“in the middle of the room stood blankets in an elevated position sur-
rounded by a curtain, on which lies the bridegroom facing down; the bride
comes in, kneels down and starts begging him to marry her and prom-
ises: ‘I’ll feed you with butter, lamb, will not let you to wet your hands in
cold water, your hands of gold.’ The bride’s plea is prepared and trained in
advance and is extended until the bridegroom remains pleased with the sol-
emn promise and agrees to have a wedding night and only then the wedding
celebration continues” (Жакибаева 2012).
A direct continuation of this stereotype is the belief that there is

widespread polygamy among the Mughat, and that it has undergone a
resurgence (although polygamy is officially banned in all new indepen-
dent states of Central Asia). Now, when the main source of livelihood for
Mughat is once again the begging by women and children, more women
ensure more income for the family (bishtar sanan, bishtar rafah, “more
women, more prosperity”) and the men stay at home and do not work.
This polygamy is a topic with wide media coverage, sometimes Mughat
are quoted who confirm and explain it with tradition and poverty (Расул-
заде 2010; Жакибаева 2012).
The whole range of these stereotypes does not correspond to the actual
state of affairs. Of course, there are cases of more affluent Mughat, but
they are the exception and their wealth is not so big. At weddings we
attended and heard about, the customs described above were not per-
formed. Similarly, we repeatedly heard stories about polygamy, but they
were all secondhand, and only in one case did our interlocutor confirm
that she personally knows a fifty-year-old man with three wives, aged
twenty-six, twenty-one, and eighteen. In fact, the problem with polygamy
is common to the whole of Central Asia, and not only to Mughat.
In this case, however, what is much more important is the paradoxical

phenomenon of the Mughat themselves reproducing the stereotypes of
the majority population towards them (especially in front of the media).
This is a phenomenon of a double mirror, also well known among the
Roma in Eastern Europe, through which stereotypes are presented as
genuine characteristics of the community by the representatives of the
community (Marushiakova and Popov 2012).
Moreover, in Central Asia Mughat can present as their own character-
istics the stereotypes about Roma from the post-Soviet space, for example
the myths of the powerful headmen, the “Gypsy Barons”, who govern
with an iron hand the whole life of the Gypsies. This is a further confirma-
tion about some degree of linkage between the two communities (Roma
and Mughat) achieved by their common labeling as Gypsies. As for the
Gypsy Barons, among the Mughat this designation refers to the leaders
(kalontar) of nomadic groups, who performed in the past a kind of opera-
tional management, representing the group in relations with authorities,
negotiating for camping places and so on. Such nomadism in traditional
forms, however, are an exception today. The current nomadism of the
Mughat (often within their cross-border migration) is conducted in mod-
ernized forms (traveling with trains and buses, renting housing, and so
on). Nowadays the nomadic groups may be quite large, from five or six to
20 to 30 families. They are called tupar (as in the past) though now they
include not just relatives, but also neighborly and friendly families. Ruling
of local Mughat communities continues to be the task of a Council of
Elders (aqsaqal, literally white-bearded), which is also a widespread form
of traditional self-government for other peoples in Central Asia.
The majority population in Central Asia has no clear and precise
idea about Lyuli religion. They are not considered “true Muslims”, but
pagans with a dishonest and opportunistic attitude towards the religion.
In response to this local Mughat in Tajikistan pointed out that in recent
years some members of their community have made the Hajj to Mecca to
demonstrate their adherence to the Islamic faith. Some authors even write
about their “own Islam” among the Mughat (Габбасов 2008c), though it
is really more about everyday Islam, characterized by a limited knowledge
and weak observance of religious dogma, compensated by norms, customs
and traditions (similar to those of the local population). In many cases
when begging the Mughat use only a limited set of Islamic religious for-
mulas (B-ismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥı̄mi, Subḥān Allāh, Al-ḥamdu lillāh,
Insha’Allah). In private their prayers are in Tajik, requesting health, hap-

piness, and success for themselves and their loved ones.
In many places (especially in villages) the Mughat build their own
mosques (quite modest as buildings, as for example in Zhany Kyshtak)
and have their own mullah (Islamic clerics). These mullahs often do
not have a special religious education, for example, in the settlement of
Chagatay near Dushanbe the local mullah introduced himself as “warrior-
internationalist from Afghanistan” (which means that he served in the
Soviet army during its invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s).
The Mughat celebrate Nowrus and major Muslim holidays, keep the
Muslim fasting (ruza in Tajik), conduct circumcision of boys sunnat-toy,
women cover their hair (but now, as in the past, have an unveiled face).
Their wedding must be attended by a mullah, who performs the ceremony
in accordance with Islamic traditions. Mughat weddings generally do not
differ from those of the surrounding Muslim population. Traditionally
kalym is paid (bride price, also called shirpuli, literally “milk price”, for the
mother who raised the bride). Usually the wedding is held in the home
of the bride, whose parents should give her dowry, but the costs for the
wedding are borne by the groom’s family.
There are also some differences from local customs, for example,
Mughat still preserve a tradition in which married couples avoid using
their personal names, instead the husband turns to his wife with Mughat
zan (literally Mughat woman), and the woman approaches her husband
using the name of their first child (the father of X), while Tajik spouses
name each other after the name of their first child (Father of X, Mother
of X).
The existing stereotypes about the Mughat do not usually create too
big a problem for them, but there are some exceptions. The widespread
belief that they are not “true Muslims” not only offends them but also
affects their funerals. Mughat bury their deceased in Muslim cemeteries,
but their graves are clearly separated, as seen in the old Muslim cemetery
in Samarkand (just off the Shah-i-Zinda Ensemble); at the end, detached
by a line of empty space is the cemetery where Mughat are buried and
next to it, but separated by a large wall, is the Jewish Cemetery. They are
examples of different solutions too, for example in Tashkent the burial
place of the Mughat is detached in the same way but it is located in the
Chigatay cemetery of the Bukhara Jews in the Old Town. In some places
there are also separate cemeteries only for Mughat. For example, in the
Hissar valley, near the ruins of Hissar fortress, there is still an old Mughat
clan cemetery, called Pushti Goziyon, created about ten generations ago.
In this cemetery only Hissari Jughi are buried, while in-married Jughi
from elsewhere, are buried in the cemetery of Qavoqbashi, located five
kilometers from Tursunzoda, near a Muslim cemetery for he local popula-
tion (сf. Оранский 1983: 103–106).
Nowadays, because of the perception of Mughat as insincere Muslims,
the local population is confident that the Lyuli/Jughi do not bury their
deceased in Muslim cemeteries, but in the yards of their homes. This
concept is not new, in the mid-1950s it was documented in Tajikistan.
Sometimes it creates curious situations, such as in Zarkhok village in the
Bobojonghafurov district after the local authorities provided homesteads
for the Mughat. Then the village ran rife with rumors that the Gypsies
bury their relatives in their garden plots. The head of the local Mughat
community responded to it by instructing all his people to carry out their
burial rituals publicly visible, to allay locals fears. Thus the bodies of the
deceased were first carried to the market, where everyone could see them,
and then to the common Muslim cemetery. This was repeated until the
leaders of the local population, the aqsaqals, forbade it (Расул-заде 2010).
In Kyrgyzstan the tradition is for every ethnic and religious community,
and in the countryside often even for individual clans, to have their own
cemeteries. Despite their shared Muslim faith, neither Uzbek nor Kyrgyz
cemeteries willingly accept Lyuli deceased and the explanation used is the
stereotype regarding their religion and burial traditions. According to
our Mughat interlocutors, an article appeared in the local press in 2011
(which we could not trace) repeating these allegations. It exacerbated eth-
nic tensions and years after a Mughat’s first words when meeting someone
from outside were, “We have our own cemeteries,” and they categorically
refused to talk to anyone suspected of being a journalist.
In Uzbekistan the stereotypes about Lyuli burial traditions are the
same as in neighboring countries, but the authorities there take measures
against it. On June 3, 2010 in the newspaper Bekazhon (№ 43/853)
appeared articles entitled “Do the Gypsies have a cemetery?” and “The
Gypsies have no mercy for betrayals.” The Ombudsman of Uzbekistan
received a collective complaint against the offensive character of these
press publications. After investigation the Ombudsman obliged the edito-
rial office of the newspaper Bekazhon to apologize to the “Gypsy citizens
of Uzbekistan” (Уполномоченный 2014).
A traditional pattern of attitudes towards the Mughat in Central Asia
is also expressed in marital relations. Marriages of the “old” local popula-
tion (Uzbek, Tajik, Kyrgyz, etc.) with Mughat are not only seen as unac-
ceptable, but neither side can even conceive the possibility. None of our
interlocutors (neither Mughat nor non-Mughat) could think of even one
example of such a marriage. Although the Mughat do allow mixed mar-
riage, it is with other Central Asian minorities, for example, ethnic Russians,
Ukrainians, Armenians, Koreans, both Muslims and non-Muslims. Even
in such cases the Mughat refuse to give their girls out of the community,
which could weaken it, therefore they integrate brides from outside. Such
complicated ethnic and religious relations are reflected in their argot. All
non-Mughats are called generally havrig; the local Tajik and Uzbek major-
ities (i.e. the Muslims) are designated as degho; non-Muslims (or Russians)
are called lugor/laghror (Оранский 1983: 124, 130; Günther 2008: 12,
2016: 230).
In the post-Soviet reality of the new independent states, created on an
ethno-national basis, traditional inter-ethnic attitudes have changed and
visible differences appeared. In Tajikistan and Uzbekistan the Mughat
are perceived by the local population as co-citizens, who may be on
the periphery and may not be accepted as equal, but are still “ours.” In
Kazakhstan, although a limited number of Mughat are local, the commu-
nity as a whole is regarded as “foreign” and unwanted. In Kyrgyzstan the
situation is more complicated because the local Mughat (in the region of
Osh) are relatively new migrants (two to three generations) and are linked
to the local Uzbeks, so amid conflicts between Kyrgyz and Uzbek they are
beginning to be considered more as “ours”. All these nuances in relation-
ships with the Mughat do not change general attitudes towards them on
an everyday level, which can be dismissive, if not directly negative.
The migration of the Mughat within Central Asia is part of the over-
all migration flows following the collapse of the USSR. Kyrgyzstan and
Tajikistan are most affected by outgoing migration; these states are now
among the poorest countries in the world. Moreover, both are character-
ized by political instability and increased ethnic tension, including armed
conflict. The migration is most intensive towards an economically stron-
ger Kazakhstan, whose economy is growing in leaps and bounds. It is
experiencing an acute workforce shortage, not only of qualified experts in
developing economies, but also in agriculture, where special educational
and occupational qualifications are not needed. Therefore Kazakhstan
attracts more and more migrant workers, including Mughat.
For the most part these labor migrants work illegally and pay no taxes.
To regulate this, a new regime was introduced in February 2014, now
every citizen of Kazakhstan (along with established norms for firms in the
economy, construction, and trade) can employ up to five migrants, who
must pay a minimum monthly fee to the state of 3,074 tenge (about $20)
for labor authorization (С 1 февраля 2014; В Казахстане 2014). Mughat
migrants in Kazakhstan are typically a combination of women begging and
seasonal agricultural labor, with those from Uzbekistan mainly involved
in the harvesting of cotton, while those from Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan
generally work with tobacco (Marushiakova and Popov 2015a: 10).
The mass influx of Mughat to Kazakhstan is met with strong disap-
proval by the local population because of the women and children begging
in the streets and markets. This is reflected in the media (press, television,
websites) that continuously feed public discontent. The Government of
Kazakhstan is trying to solve the problem, but the only way to get rid
of unwanted migrants is organized deportation, which is most strictly
enforced in the capital, Astana. During the first six months of 2008 a
total of 943 Lyuli, citizens of Uzbekistan, including 314 children were
deported from there (Терентьева 2008); in 2011 Kazakh law enforce-
ment agencies detained and escorted to the Uzbek borders a group of 125
people (Красиенко 2011); in 2012 Kazakh Police reported the detention
of Lyuli children who had been begging—114 from Uzbekistan, 26 from
Kyrgyzstan, and 1 from Tajikistan—and were taken to an adaptation cen-
ter and later returned to their parents (Каримова 2012). Deportations
happen elsewhere, for example from Kyzylordy in 2008, where in only
one action (reported as “traditional”) 30 Lyuli (26 adults and 4 children)
from Uzbekistan were put on a special bus and taken to the settlement of
Chernyaevka on the borders (30 человек 2008).
The migration of the Mughat in Kazakhstan had already started in the
first half of the 1990s, when they claimed to be refugees from the civil war
in Tajikistan (though most of them came from neighboring Uzbekistan).
At that time, they migrated mainly for the warm season. Up until now
the Mughat have generally adhered to this model of seasonal migrations,
in three main directions. Chronologically the first was to the western
regions of Kazakhstan, and especially to the old capital city of Almaty
(until 1997), which continues to be a major economic center and attracts
many migrants. The second main direction is to Kyzylorda, a large urban
center closest to the border of Uzbekistan, and continues to the eastern
provinces in Kazakhstan and via Astrakhan to the Russian Federation. The
third main direction is to the north, to the new capital, Astana, and its
neighboring provinces; this direction is increasing in importance due to
the rapid development of the region. Some Mughat continue from there
towards Siberia and Southern Ural in the Russian Federation.
There are already two models of migration. The first one started in the
1990s and is still the more frequent. It is the migration of whole families;
the women beg with the younger children, the men are hired for work
(mostly illegally in the past) in the construction of private homes or in
agriculture with the big boys, and the other children stay in rented accom-
modation. The second model, which is increasingly spreading, is when
only women migrate with their small children, and the husbands remain
home with the older children and take care of the household, domestic
animals, and production.
As an example of this model comes from one of our interlocutors from
Samarkand (a majority of the begging Mughat in Almaty we met are tempo-
rary migrants from Uzbekistan, mainly from Samarkand and the surround-
ing region; living in rented accommodation in the satellite cities, mostly in
Kaskelen and surrounding villages, where rents are much cheaper than in
Almaty). She arrived in Almaty for the sacred Muslim month of Ramadan,
during which Muslims give alms to fulfill their religious duty. Her husband
stayed at home to take care of the household – they have a cow, ten sheep
and a donkey, which is a pretty decent standard for the majority of the
population of the Central Asian countries. She begged with her two-year-
old son and her other two children remained in her rented home on the
outskirts of Almaty under the care of an ethnic Russian woman hired to
look after them and teach them Russian. As a woman and the main money
earner in the family this Mughat woman was very self-confident.
The problems of the Mughat who migrate from Uzbekistan, Tajikistan
and Kyrgyzstan to Kazakhstan come from their unclear legal status. The
overwhelming majority are nationals of their respective countries, they
have all the necessary documents for traveling abroad, but some of them
prefer to enter Kazakhstan illegally. According to them, if their passport
has a date of entry, they cannot stay more than three months and will have
to leave the country and come back. As illegal migrants (or as migrants
who overstay the period of residence), they are under constant danger of
being deported, and are completely defenseless against extortion by local
authorities and law enforcement. Illegal workers encounter exploitation,
work in harsh conditions without any security or insurance, and they are
paid less than locals or migrants with legal status. The police are not con-
sistent in how they deal with them and, on occasion, they are detained
and deported.
Surprisingly it is not only rich Kazakhstan which is attracting Mughat

migrants, but the much poorer Kyrgyzstan is also a destination for some.
The first Mughat migrants arrived in the 1990s and made a big tent camp
near the village of Maevka on the outskirts of the capital city of Bishkek.
Initially they lived in temporary camps, but gradually move to rented
accommodation, mostly in the poor northern or western parts of the
city. Most Mughat in Bishkek are migrants from the southern regions of
Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Before the events of 2010 (the clashes between
ethnic Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in Osh and Jalal-Abad), seasonal migration to
Bishkek was a common phenomenon; it decreased for a few years, but as
the situation becomes more stable the numbers are rising again. Migrants
from Uzbekistan come mainly from Bukhara and Samarkand, others (circa
ten families) are migrants from Northern Tajikistan. All migrant Mughat
make their living by begging in the markets, on the streets, and in restau-
rants, as well as by collecting alms from Muslim organizations, and all of
them return to their homelands in the autumn. They are also several large
Mughat families who arrived in Bishkek more than ten years ago from
Samarkand and remained there. They live in rented, overcrowded accom-
modation behind the Osh Market (on average ten persons, usually mem-
bers of one large or several related families per dwelling). They explained
that they needed to migrate because Mughat families in Samarkand had
become too numerous and there was not enough food for everyone.
The identity of the Mughat in the new situation in Central Asia is mul-
tilayered, multidimensional, hierarchically structured, and contextual.
Depending on the social environment and specific situation, different
aspects of identity (which appear often as different identities) emerge in a
leading position.
In Central Asia the Mughat are a separate community with their own
palpable ethnic identity, clearly distinguished from the surrounding popu-
lation, but sharing with them a regional consciousness and national iden-
tification as citizens of their respective countries.
On the first level of their community identity is a feeling of belonging to
their own family and group (avlod and tupar) and place of settlement. On
the second level they feel attached to the Tajiks, on the basis of a common
language and historical contacts. On the third level comes their previous
self-perception as a Soviet people, which is now starting to become a civic
national identity of belonging to the country of their citizenship. There
are however some nuances in this general model. In Tajikistan the pic-
ture is the most uncomplicated. The Mughat are clearly detached by their
Jughi ethnicity from the surrounding population but are united with them
through citizenship. In other Central Asian countries, the picture is more
diverse. The Mughat mostly publicly declare themselves only as “Tajiks”,
or “a kind of Tajik”, though locals generally do not perceive them as such.
In Tajikistan they do not make such claims, as there is no one they can
convince that they are Tajiks. The situation is similar in Uzbekistan, as the
majority of regions where the Mughat live are also inhabited by the local
Tajik-speaking population, which is sharply distinguished from them. In
Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, however, the Mughat usually reject the desig-
nation of Lyuli and strongly oppose the designation Цыгане (in the sense
of Roma) because of its association throughout the former Soviet Union
with criminal activity, especially drug dealing. Their preferred declared
identity is therefore as Mughat, which they often try to explain as an inter-
nal division of Tajiks (although they know very well that this is not the
case). These ethnic dimensions of their identity are not in contradiction
with their national citizens’ identity, which occurs at a higher level, and
hence the two identity levels do not replace, but complement each other.
Other concomitant levels of identity can be outlined by observing their
marital circles. Mughat marriages take place between people from the
same historical and cultural regions of origin, which may cross national
boundaries. So, according to our interlocutors:
If you are from the Fergana Valley [the Fergana Valley runs between
Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan], it doesn’t matter what country
you’re from, you will marry someone from Fergana, but if you’re from the
Zeravshan Valley [the Zeravshan Valley, in which Samarkand and Bukhara
are situated, is partly in Tajikistan but mainly in Uzbekistan] you’ll marry
somebody from there.
In addition to these broad geographical lines, marriages are often con-

cluded within individual subdivisions, for instance, members of the Saghboz
tupar from the Qurgonteppa region of Tajikistan prefer marriage partners
from the same subdivision, although these may be living around Dushanbe
or Sherabad in neighboring Uzbekistan (Бесссонов 2008: 28–29).
Maintaining internal subdivisions does not mean an absence of con-
sciousness of a feeling of unity with other Mughat across different coun-
tries and regions in Central Asia. This is reflected in their myths of common
origin. In the absence of an official narrative, the Mughat are receptive to
folklore based myths. They are broadly familiar with an old legend which
is repeatedly presented in the academic literature and media. It has a num-

ber of variants; this is the one we listened to in Bishkek:
Once upon a time there were poor parents. They had two children, Lyu and
Li, a brother and sister. The country was overrun by basmachi [used in its
Soviet era sense of armed bandits because the middle-aged storyteller was
socialized in the Soviet system]. The family fled and got separated. The par-
ents went looking for the children, taking different paths, but did not find
them. Years later Lyu and Li met and, without knowing who they were, they
married and had children, whose descendants today are called Lyuli. When
the truth came out, a mullah cursed the couple, and that curse follows the
descendants of Lyu and Li to this day.
Of course, as with most such folk motifs, this legend expresses a pseudo-
historical knowledge. The same folk legend of the origin of the Turkish
speaking Roma (known locally as Çingene), as the result of incest between
Chin and his sister Gene, is also to be found in Turkey and the Balkans.
Other myths about the history of their community are widespread
among Mughat. One such story illustrates their ties with Central Asia:
In the past, Lyuli were musicians who entertained the Padishahs in their
palaces. When they became old and unable to continue this job they were
expelled, and because they had no other occupation, they started to travel
through the whole of Central Asia, making their living from begging.
(Расул-заде 2010)
The Mughat in Samarkand are convinced that they had already settled
in the city in the time of Timur/Tamerlane. It is still possible to hear
legends containing the myth of an Egyptian origin, supplemented and
explained by modern concepts and values:
Our ancestors lived in Egypt. There was a call among the Jughi tribe “Seek
the spirituality throughout the world”. And the word Jughi means “a look-
ing man”. Our ancestors came out of Egypt, to find their spirit. It was the
spirit of freedom. The spirit of non-attachment to a particular place and
things. (Жусупалиев 2005)
Another legend where old traditional forms are filled with new con-
tent pinpoints the community’s origin and incorporates modern historical
knowledge (for a similar legend combining the incest motif with the Indian
origin see Жапаров 2012):
The Lyuli have spread around the world from the Indian people; they came
to Central Asia in the fifth and sixth centuries, and dispersed in different
regions.
The interest shown by the Mughat across Central Asia in their origin
and history is constantly and contradictorily combined with the efforts
to belong to their surrounding population through preferred (or at least
demonstrated) ethnic identity. This is a reflection of their place in Central
Asian societies they are “others”, “different”, “alien”, and at the same
time “ours”, “familiar”, and even “natives” (unlike the later immigrants
to the region who arrived in Soviet times).
2.3.2 Roma and Sinti

Roma are a specific heterogeneous, inter-group ethnic formation
(Marushiakova and Popov 2016a: 24), which includes separate groups
speaking different dialects of the Romani language, or Romanes (Matras
2002). Roma are not “native” to Central Asia, they arrived in this territory
only relatively recently from European parts of the former USSR. Roma
settled there for various reasons, such as a quest for a proper place to live
and conduct specific economic activities, to escape hardship, as part of a
general movement of Soviet people, and as a result of Stalin’s “deporta-
tions of peoples.”
The first arrival of just a few Roma (mostly from the group of Ruska
Roma) in Central Asia happened in the nineteenth century in the
northern provinces of present-day Kazakhstan, which were then part of
the Southern Ural and Siberia, an administrative division of the Russian
Empire. A small number of Roma also settled at this time in the Turkestan
General-Governorship where, according to the 1897 census, 628 Gypsies
lived (Crowe 1994: 170), and at least some were probably Roma.
Another entry of Roma to the region took place in the 1930s, from
the group of Ukrainian Servi who ran away from the terror famine (geno-
cide), called the Holodomor [‘dead by starvation’ in Ukrainian), in their
home places. They settled in different cities of Central Asia, such as
Dushanbe, Khujand (Tajikistan), Tashkent, Andijan, Samarkand, Kokand
(Uzbekistan), and Osh (Kyrgyzstan). They continued to keep relationships
(including in marital issues) among themselves and with a wide network

of relatives in southern Russia and Ukraine (Мадамиджанова 1999: 27).
Servi lived in Central Asia till end of the USSR, but only a few are now in
Kazakhstan and none remain in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.
The next, relatively big, wave of Roma entered the lands of Central Asia
as part of other “deported peoples.” A number of Sinti were deported
to Kazakhstan, together with Germans from the Volga region, as early as
1941. In 1944 Crimean Tatar speaking Gypsies were also deported. The
Crimean Tatars called them Chingene, but they used to self-identify as
Urumchel/Urmachel or as Trukmen (in the sense of true Turks), and are des-
ignated today as Dayfa/Tayfa (according to various Tatar dialects, meaning
clan or family). Ancestors of these Roma migrated to the Crimea from Asia
Minor, probably in seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They led a seden-
tary way of life for centuries and are Muslims. The Dayfa/Tayfa communities
lost Romanes at some point around the turn of the twentieth century and
most speak Crimean Tatar, thus opting for a Crimean Tatar identity. They
were perceived as Gypsies, which is why they were predetermined for annihi-
lation from the Nazis during World War II but, according to Soviet statistics,
they were defined as Tatars and so they were deported by the Soviet authori-
ties, alongside the Crimean Tatars, to Central Asia, mostly to Uzbekistan and
adjacent areas of Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. The deportation was based on
accusations of collective collaboration between the Crimean Tatars and the
Nazis during the Nazi occupation of the Crimea in 1941–1944. Together
with the Crimean Tatars and the Dayfa/Tayfa a smaller number of a Romanes
speaking group of Krymurya were also deported. They were never counted
as Tatars and succeeded in proving that they were Roma and not Tatars, and
during the first years were exempted from deportation. Several families of
Krymurya appeared again in Central Asia in later years searching for a place
to live in the context of a general movement of Soviet people (Marushiakova
and Popov 2004: 150–152, 2005: 425–444).
The next wave of Roma to settle in Central Asia was directed to
Kazakhstan between 1954 and 1960. Then, during the “virgin land cam-
paign” for plowing and cultivating previously uncultivated land in south-
ern Siberia and northern Kazakhstan, new settlements and collective
farms were established and many settlers were attracted (including Roma,
especially after the decree for sedentarization in 1956). Roma migra-
tion to Central Asia continued as part of broader migration flows during
the Soviet era. Over the decades after World War II smaller and larger
groups of Roma settled in many cities of the then booming Central Asia
(Marushiakova and Popov 2003).
The moving in to Central Asia by Roma was interrupted by the col-
lapse of the Soviet Union and they started moving out. By the first half of
the 1990s significant parts of the Russian and Slavic speaking population
emigrated from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (and to a lesser extent from
Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan) to the Russian Federation, and with them
went a significant number of Roma.
The return of Dayfa/Tayfa with Crimean Tatars from Uzbekistan and
Kazakhstan to their homeland started in 1989, immediately after the
first law On the rehabilitation of repressed people was issued by Supreme
Soviet and continued in the following decades. Very few now remain in
Uzbekistan, mostly in mixed marriages with the local population.
After the moving out there was no new influx of Roma to Central Asia
for a relatively long time. However, nowadays there are attempts by new
Roma families to settle in Kazakhstan, in the context of economic success
and stability and increased migration to the country, but till now this has
been rather unsuccessful. In 2012, for violating immigration legislation,
23 Roma (15 adults and 8 children) were deported from Kazakhstan. They
rented rooms in the town of Zyryanovsk (near the border with China),
were citizens of the Republic of Moldova, and had arrived in Kazakhstan
from Siberia (Из Казахстана 2012; Миграционная 2012).
The total number of Roma and Sinti in Kazakhstan is determined very
approximately from 5,000 to 6,000 to a maximum of 10,000. Today, as
in Soviet times, Roma and Sinti continue to live in the major urban cen-
ters of Kazakhstan. In the first place, in the former capital city of Almaty.
Some communities live in the two northern provinces of Kazakhstan (with
Petropavl as the center) and Akmola (Kokshetau as its center), and in
the new capital Astana (a separate administrative unit). Roma and Sinti
also live in the cities of Karaganda, Pavlodar, Aktobe, Taraz, Kyzylorda,
Atyrau, Oral, Kostanay, and others.
From the perspective of Roma internal divisions in Kazakhstan, the
most numerous are the representatives of the groups of Ruska Roma and
of Krymurya. They live in the former capital city of Almaty and in the
country as a whole. There are also some Servi, mainly in the northern
regions, and Vlakhi in western regions and Plashchuny and Kishinyovtsi
(mainly in mixed marriages). Sometimes Kelderari come for a season,
but they live in the Russian Federation (Siberia). Roma in Kazakhstan
maintain regular contact with their relatives abroad, primarily in the Russian
Federation, and also in Uzbekistan (Tashkent) and Kyrgyzstan (Bishkek).
The Sinti in Kazakhstan are few, perhaps only some dozen families, and
almost all have been mixed (with Roma) through marriage. They have
mainly Polish family names, some of them German, and their dialect is
only preserved among the older generation. They do not consider them-
selves as another community different from the Roma, but as a separate
group within the community.
In Almaty live mainly Roma from the groups of Ruska Roma and
Krymurya in some detached parts of neighborhoods, such as Tatarka,
Nizhnyaya Petiletka, Nakhalovka (in the residential complex Zhuldyz),
and others, each with 30 to 40 houses, although today some non-Roma
also inhabit these settlements. Many other Roma live scattered through
the city in the surrounding population (mainly among ethnic Russians) in
their own houses or apartments.
Relations between Roma groups in Almaty are preserved largely within
the standards typical across the post-Soviet space. Only the Krymurya and
Kelderari behave in a distinct way from other Roma groups and avoid mixed
marriages with them. Such are relations among different Roma groups else-
where in Kazakhstan and are visible even with regard to the, so-called, “Gypsy
Court,” known among different groups as Sendo/Syndo, Zhudikate, Daviya,
Kris (Marushiakova and Popov 2007). It continues to function actively as an
institution for conflict resolution and reconciliation, but only in the frame of
individual Roma groups. The practice of “mixed courts,” in which problems
are solved between representatives of different groups, and which has been
an effective mechanism for the regulation of across-group relations in the
past, has already ceased to exist, because in a few controversial cases in recent
years it has been unable to reach a mutually acceptable, consensual solution.
The main occupations of Roma (and Sinti) in Kazakhstan remain
largely the same as they were in the last decade of the Soviet era, retail
trade combined with fortune telling by women. Or, to quote a proverb
repeatedly told us all over Central Asia: “Gypsy life. You know it is a rail-
way station, market, police, jail”—in the USSR, and now in the post-
Soviet space, railway stations are where Roma fortune tellers gather and
“work”. In the Soviet Union the retail trade (with many everyday goods
scarce) was illegal and was considered a criminal offense (called specula-
tion), although in practice this has not been seriously pursued, thus Roma
all around Kazakhstan, reached the most remote and excluded settlements
without any hindrance from local authorities and, in fact, have served as
mobile shops. In the new conditions of transition to a market economy

after the collapse of the USSR all trade is now completely legal and takes
place in huge markets that are dispersed across post-Soviet space, with all
kinds of goods. Under these conditions, competition for Roma became
very strong and their leading position was lost, especially in recent years
when more and more “normal” shops are appearing.
In Almaty in 2013 (during our field research) there were a total of 74
markets. A majority of local Roma maintain (or rent) their own shelves in
the largest optovoy rynok (wholesale market in Russian), called Barakholka
(flea market in Russian), a large complex on the outskirts of the city, as
well as in the central city market Kok bazaar (green market). The Ruska
Roma mainly sell expensive fur coats, and the Krymurya buy and sell gold
and gold products. Other Roma deal in a versatile range of products for
everyday needs, which they buy from wholesale markets and sell on in local
markets round the country. In Astana Roma work mostly in the Central
market. There Ruska Roma women trade in fur coats, while Krymurya,
who used to deal in gold, are now looking for other deals. Irregularly and
for a short period of time Astana is visited by the Kelderari, whose women
mostly offer fortune telling to the local Russian speaking population.
Another traditional activity, music and dance, is preserved among the
Roma in Kazakhstan. There are several Gypsy music and dance ensembles,
the most famous of which is Yagori (little fire, in Romanes) in Almaty.
There are similar ensembles in at least a dozen other cities that operate on
a semi-professional basis, as those involved have other basic occupations.
They offer their services in different ways (including advertising through
websites) and are commissioned by the local population for various occa-
sions (weddings, family celebrations, etc.).
The overall standard of living for Roma and Sinti in Kazakhstan is rela-
tively good. They live mostly in their own houses, fewer in flats. According
to our interlocutors their income is lower now in comparison with the
Soviet era, but in comparison with the surrounding population it is still
decent. Cases of sudden impoverishment and marginalization are an
exception, and these are usually individuals and families who drop out of
the community.
The attitude of the surrounding population to them can be defined
as passively negative; the main part of the macro-society has a negative
opinion of Roma, based on prejudices and stereotypes. There is no mass
rejection and discrimination towards them on the basis of their ethnic
origin or religion (with the exception of the Krymurya who are Muslims,
the other Roma are Orthodox Christians). However, the media in the last
two decades have formed a public image of Roma as drug dealers (a situ-
ation typical in most countries in the post-Soviet space). Another prob-
lem indicated by our interlocutors, is the invasion of Central Asian Lyuli,
whom the surrounding society mix up with Roma (the majority see both
communities as Gypsies, and they are only very rarely differentiated). The
Roma distinguish themselves strongly on every occasion from the Lyuli,
whom they do not consider as Gypsies or that their way of life is proper for
a Gypsy. Roma have an especially negative approach to Lyuli’s begging,
they underline: “We do not consider them Gypsies,” “They have nothing
to do with us,” “Real Gypsies cannot beg from Gadzhe [non-Roma].”
Roma participation in public and political life in Kazakhstan is quite
limited. This is not caused by government policy, but by the Roma them-
selves, who prefer to remain closed in traditional boundaries within their
communities, and are not interested in public recognition and positions
but prefer a low level of social activity. On several occasions attempts were
made to create Roma organizations (by the state and by foreign donors),
but these organizations proved non-viable. In 2003 on the initiative and
with the support of the Foundation Soros-Kazakhstan, an Association of
Gypsies Romen was created in Almaty and headed by Ivan Barvalovsky.
This association took part in the founding of the International Union of
the Roma of the CIS and Baltics, Amaro Drom (Our Road, in Romanes),
but the organization has never carried out any activity and de-facto no
longer exists. A similar situation occurred with the announced creation in
2007 of the Republican Public Association of Gypsies in the Republic of
Kazakhstan headed by Alexander Lavrentyev from Karaganda.
In 2011, it became known through the media that representatives of
Roma from Aktobe and Karaganda (Elena Dmitrieva and Olga Dunaeva)
intended to nominate representatives of the Roma community to the
Kazakhstan People’s Assembly. This is an advisory body to the President,
whose membership is formed from representatives of national, cultural
and other public associations, with branches in each administrative area of
the country. Representatives of the assembly expressed consent to Roma
representation. It was only necessary to fulfil the required administrative
procedures, but the Roma remained only at the level of expressing the
wish and did not conduct any steps for its implementation. Moreover, our
interlocutors told us that local authorities in Almaty made a special invita-
tion to the Roma to nominate their representatives in the city House of
Friendship (cultural center of many nationalities), but that the Roma did
not respond.
Similar to the situation in the civic sector was the attitude of Roma in
Kazakhstan towards new evangelical churches. There was not a mass conver-
sion of Roma, which could lead to the creation of their “own” Roma churches
(as elsewhere in Europe). In 2001 Rene Zanelato, head of the Gypsies and
Travellers International Evangelical Fellowship connected to Mission Life
And Light, visited Almaty and tried to conduct evangelization, but met little
interest from local Roma. Similar was the outcome of the mission of a Roma
pastor from Soroca (Republic of Moldova) in the summer of 2013, who
organised a meeting with a concert of gospel songs. In Kazakhstan currently
there are no Roma churches, and if any individual Roma have converted,
they are members of the churches of the surrounding population.
The overall situation of the Roma in Kazakhstan can be assessed as
relatively good as seen against the background of the situation elsewhere
in the post-Soviet Central Asian space. This does not mean that there are
no real problems, but most of these problems are not perceived as ethnic
by the Roma and Sinti.
Apart from Kazakhstan, in other parts of Central Asia the number of
Roma is either too small or there are none. In Tajikistan there are no Roma
at all. There is no evidence of the presence of Roma in Turkmenistan. In
Kyrgyzstan some Roma families live in Bishkek, some are quite wealthy, and
maintain marital and economic relations with their relatives in Kazakhstan
and in the Russian Federation. Approximately a dozen families trade in
Dordoy bazaar (Ruska Roma with fur clothing, Krymurya with gold), and
some women tell fortunes in the city's central park.
In Uzbekistan the Roma today live only in the capital city of Tashkent.
During the Soviet era русские цыгане (Russian Gypsies, as the locals call
all Roma) lived in Samarkand, they toured the markets and tourist sites,
traded in gold and honey, their women predicted the future, but they all
emigrated to the Russian Federation. Roma have never lived permanently
in Bukhara, they arrived only for short periods of time, but they have
not been for years now. In Tashkent Roma live in two small settlements;
in the, so-called, Tsygansky prigorodok (Gypsy suburb) in Mirabadskiy
area, also called Sarakulka, and in the residential area of Kara-Su, in Amir
Temir mahalla. The first settlement was inhabited by a Roma group of
Krymurya, the second, at least initially, was inhabited by Servi, but in
fact there lived representatives of various Roma groups or persons who
concluded mixed or intergroup marriages (and only very few of them live
there now). A number of Roma in mixed marriages live scattered among

the surrounding population in the city, but most of them stay in touch
with their communities.
The distinction between Roma groups in Tashkent is reflected in their
funerals. Rich and impressive monuments of Servi and other Roma can be seen
at the central Christian Botkinskoe cemetery. The tombstones of Krymurya
(who are at least nominally Muslims) are in the Christian Dombrabatskoe
cemetery. Tombstones and graves at both cemeteries are maintained by the
relatives of the deceased, who in most cases no longer live in Uzbekistan, but
visit them at least once a year, around Easter in the spring.
In the past, in the city of Yangiyuly, located close to Tashkent, there was
a little Roma settlement called Nakhalovka (a settlement of the impudent, in
Russian). The Krymurya, who lived there in the past, have now all departed.
There lived also, so-called, “Gypsy-Turks”, probably Tatar-speaking Dayfa/
Tayfa. They have also emigrated from the country (Жукова 2002).
The Roma community in Uzbekistan (de-facto in Tashkent) is quite
small, a maximum of 300 to 400 people all together. Not all of them live
permanently in the country, and some are getting ready to emigrate to
Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation. Their main occupation is petty
trading in the markets of Tashkent, many women are also fortune tell-
ers, their advertisements regularly appear in the local media and special-
ized websites. There are also several semi-professional Gypsy music and
dance ensembles (however the majority of their members are non-Roma)
that offer services for weddings and other family celebrations, but their
business is not very profitable. The standard of living for the Roma as a
whole is good, they live in their own houses or flats, and their income,
though reduced in comparison with the Soviet era, remains decent.
The Roma who still live in Tashkent are citizens of Uzbekistan and have
no problems with personal documents. Relations with the surrounding
population are characterized by them as “normal” and “good.” Unlike in
other countries in the post-Soviet space (Russian Federation, Ukraine and
Kazakhstan) the local media are almost completely lacking in anti-Gypsy
material. The Roma are virtually “invisible” to the vast majority of the
population of Uzbekistan and they prefer it to stay that way, which is why
they have no interest in creating of their own organizations.
2.4 GYPSY MIGRATION IN THE POST-SOVIET SPACE

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 resulted in a severe social
and economic crisis, with increased unemployment and impoverishment
in most of the new independent states. One outcome of these difficulties
was trans-border migration within and outside the Central Asian region.
These migrations are not unique to the Mughat, but are part of the total
outflows of Tajik, Uzbek, and Kyrgyz citizens in the post-Soviet space
(Marushiakova and Popov 2015a: 1–22).
The Mughat were the first to discover the near abroad (umbrella term
in the Russian Federation for the countries of the former USSR) in search
of survival. They were soon followed by their compatriots from the major-
ity and relatively quickly migration from Central Asian countries grew
into a phenomenon unprecedented in its scale. It attracts considerable
attention from academia and different organizations (Tishkov et al. 2005;
ICMPD 2005; Ивахнюк 2009; Ryazantsev et al. 2010; Rahmonova-
Schwarz 2012; Mukomel 2013; Abashin 2014; UNDP 2014, 2015; IOM
2015), but the pioneers who started and predicted this mass movement
were overlooked.
Large scale Mughat migration directed towards the Russian Federation
began in the early 1990s and continues to the present day. The Mughat
migration is impressive in both scale and scope. They made their way to
cities from Arkhangelsk and Murmansk on the shores of the Arctic Ocean
in the extreme northwest to Vladivostok on the Pacific coast in the far east
(Marushiakova and Popov 2015a: 9–10).
In the time of the USSR such migration was impossible because
Chapter 209 of the Criminal Code provided for criminal persecution
of the, so-called, тунеядство (social parasitism). This chapter reflected
Soviet thinking, in which unemployment was ideologically unacceptable
and incompatible with a “socialist way of life.” In 1991 Chapter 209 was
repealed, and begging was no longer a criminal offence, thus migration to
conduct begging became legal.
The Mughat’s quest for new economic spaces went beyond the bound-
aries of the Russian Federation. In the early 1990s they were relatively
common on the streets of major cities in Ukraine and Belarus. Tighter
border controls have curtailed and gradually redirected Mughat migra-
tion, which is now, by and large, confined to the Russian Federation.
As citizens of their countries of origin the Mughat are entitled to visa-
free entry to the Russian Federation and to remain there for up to three
months. They are, however, required to register their domicile within

three days of arriving in the country. In the 1990s few did so, preferring to
set up temporary camps on the outskirts of population centers, preferably
in forests (cf. Бессонов 2008: 27–39). Mughat in the Russian Federation
constantly face the threat of deportation, which may be carried out on the
grounds of a lack of proper work permits, illegal accommodation, suspi-
cion of spreading infectious disease, complaints from citizens, and public
nuisance (usually a euphemism for begging).
One can observe a gradual but steady improvement in the situation of
Lyuli (as the Mughat are called in the Russian media) migrants over the
years. In the last decade the Russian State has experienced rapid economic
growth, which, despite recent economic crises, resulted in greater stability.
These developments have dramatically transformed the lives of Mughat
migrants. This is highlighted in relation to accommodation, with a transi-
tion from forest camps to living in urban or village conditions. We heard
numerous statements from our interlocutors like: “Don’t believe in the
romance of the nomadic life. Of course it is much better to live in a house
than a tent in the forest!”
The change can also be observed in the nature of basic work activities
for the Mughat, from subsistence for their large families from the beg-
ging of women and children, to more or less regular employment for men
(e.g. as janitors, construction workers, and other unskilled labor, involved
in collecting scrap and other secondary raw materials, or in agricultural
work in the fields). Begging by women and children continues, but nowa-
days it is concentrated in front of churches, monasteries and mosques on
religious holidays, and in markets (e.g. early in the morning in Moscow
Mughat women burn incense on the market stalls of their compatriots
from Central Asia).
The Russian State is trying to control and facilitate migration and this
is the reason for the constant changes to Federal Law from July 2002
N 115-FZ On the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the Russian
Federation. The most significant change for the Mughat was that they
could receive a migrant's patent, introduced in 2010 as a way to regularise
migrants’ legal status and today most of them, even living in camps or
makeshift settlements, own a work patent.
Attitudes within Russian society towards Lyuli migrants are ambivalent
and oscillate between the two extremes of hatred and compassion and
mercy. The Mughat have even been victims of cruel racist and nationalistic
attacks (ERRC 2005); in some cases being burnt out of temporary camps
as in the woods near the Saint Petersburg suburb of Gorelovo in 2009, or

in 2013 in Yekaterinburg; and of pogroms, as in 2003 in Lyuli camp near
Saint Petersburg, when skinheads murdered six-year-old Nilufar Sangoeva
(Memorial & FIDH 2005).
The members of migrant diasporas from separate Central Asian States
also have ambivalent attitudes towards Mughat. Tajiks and Uzbeks espe-
cially state that, in principle, Lyuli are part of their compatriots, thus also
part of their diaspora. However, they are not present in their organizations,
and do not take part in common initiatives and events. Tajiks and Uzbeks
told us that they presume that if Lyuli come to them they will not be
rejected, but such a situation has not yet happened.
The migration of the Mughat in the Russian Federation has revealed
new dimensions of their identity. Their Tajik mother tongue determines
their preferred Tajik (or “a kind of Tajik”) identity, regardless of their
country of origin. In terms of migration Mughat come into increased con-
tact with local Gypsies (Roma), and they are therefore compelled to seek
ways of differentiating themselves (“We are not like them”). The Lyuli
label is also rejected, out of fear that it could be seen as coming under the
Gypsies heading.
The rejection of an affiliation with local Gypsies in the Russian
Federation is reciprocal. The attitudes of Roma towards migrating Mughat
are generally negative, and they strongly distinguish themselves from them
and from other non-Romanes but Hungarian-speaking, begging Gypsies
called Madyari coming from Transcarpathia. According to the Roma way
of thinking, the Mughat cannot be considered “true Gypsies,” partly
because they are poor and live by begging, and also because they do not
speak Romanes and are Muslims. This opinion is rarely expressed publicly
by Roma activists, but there are such cases, as for example: “Lyuli – they
are not Roma, they are not Gypsies … We do not communicate with
them.” (Главатских 2014).
The exact number of Mughat in the Russian Federation is extremely
difficult to determine due to a constant movement between Russia and
their homelands. The data from censuses (which take into account only
those with Russian citizenship) are: in the 2002 census 486 persons
declared themselves as Central Asian Gypsies, and from this category
152 as Lyuli, 45 as Mughat, 1 as Multoni, 1 as Tavoktarosh, and 5 as
Dom (Всероссийская 2002); the 2010 census recorded 49 Central Asian
Gypsies (Всероссийская 2010). This brings us again to the phenomenon
of a preferred ethnic identity of the Mughat, who wish to remain publicly
“invisible” in their new home country.
CHAPTER 3
Gypsies of the Caucasus
Abstract This chapter defines the main communities included under the
designation of Gypsies (Dom, Lom and Roma) in the Caucasus area and
presents historical and demographic data. It looks at the current features
of the three communities studied in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and the
Russian Federation, as well as their migration in the post-Soviet Space.
Keywords Northern Caucasus • Southern Caucasus • Gypsies • Dom

• Lom • Roma • Census • Identities • Migrations
3.1 GYPSY COMMUNITIES

For long time it was considered that after leaving the Indian subconti-
nent the ancestors of today’s Gypsies split into three different migration
waves, the Dom, the Lom, and the Rom; designations eventually adopted
as ethnonyms (Sampson 1923: 156–169). Some authors believe that the
Lom separated from the Dom and Rom several centuries earlier (Дьячок
2002); according to others the Lom left India later than the Rom (Lesný
1916; Kutlík-Garudo 1993); a third group have expressed doubts about
the Dom–Lom–Rom link (Kenrick 2004: 6; Hancock 2002: 6); and, most
recently, it has been argued that the differences between the Dom and
Rom had appeared before they left India (Matras 2012).

In any case, whenever this fundamental delimitation actually occurred

the three main Gypsy divisions of Dom, Lom, and Rom are present today
in the Caucasus.
The Caucasus includes two regions, the northern Caucasus (today’s
Krasnodar Krai, Stavropol Krai, Republic of Adygea, Karachay-Cherkess
Republic, Kabardino-Balkar Republic, Republic of Northern Ossetia-
Alania, Republic of Ingushetia, Chechen Republic, and the Republic of
Dagestan in the Russian Federation) and the southern Caucasus (today’s
Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, with three republics not recognized
in international law: the Republic of Abkhazia; the Republic of Southern
Ossetia, and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic). In this area live three
divisions of Gypsies, known as Lom, Dom, and Roma.
3.1.1 The Dom

The Dom belong to the populations known collectively in the literature as
Middle Eastern Gypsies (Matras 2012: 27), their branch in the Caucasus area
is designated as part of the local Gypsies. They use the self-appellation of Dom
but are referred to by their neighbors as Garachi (Qaraçiler in Azerbaijani).
They are more or less related to the Qarachi in Iranian Azerbaijan (in the
region of Tabriz) and the Suzmani in Iranian Kurdistan, and also to the
Karaçi, Mıtrıp and Dom (or Domlar) in southeastern Turkey (Патканов 1887;
Patkanoff 1907–1908, 1909; Knapp 1909; Benninghaus 1991; Восканян
1998; Matthee 2000; Özkan 2000: 21–43; Kolukırık 2008: 145–153).
In Azerbaijan they live: in the capital city of Baku and in some vil-
lages of the Absheron Peninsula; in the cities and surroundings of Gazakh,
Aghstafa, Ganja, Barda, Agdash, Goychay, Yevlakh, Shamakhi, Agsu,
Shamakhi, Qobustan, Zaqatala, Balakan, Qakh, Quba, Khachmaz, and
Khudat; in the villages of Gyullyuk (Qakh district), Chobankël (Zaqatala
district), Shambulbina, Gyulyuzanbina, Melik-zade, Saribulak, Kazma,
and Chanlibel/Chardakhlu (Balakan district); a small number of Garachi
lived in Shusha/Shushi, Jabrayil/Jrakan, and Agdam/Akna up until the
Nagorno-Karabakh War of 1992–1994, after which they migrated from
there to other regions (cf. Исакызы 2001; ERRC 2004; Азербайджанские
2005; Али 2006, 2008; The ethnic 2011; Хапизов 2013).
In Georgia individual families of Dom live among the Azerbaijani pop-
ulation in the Marneuli, Bolnisi, and Dmanisi municipalities in the his-
toric province of Borchali, part of the present day region of Kvemo Kartli.
Following the collapse of the USSR small parts of this community migrate
for shorter or longer periods of time (with a tendency to stay permanently)
in the capital city of Tbilisi or in Kutaisi.
GYPSIES OF THE CAUCASUS 69
Several Dom families live in the Russian Federation (e.g. in

Belorechensk, northern Caucasus), and even in Central Asia (e.g. in
Tashkent, Uzbekistan).
The Dom language is known as Domari and is generally considered
an endangered, moribund language (cf. Matras 2012). The level of pres-
ervation of Domari dialects in the Caucasus is not being researched by
linguists. Dom in southern Caucasus are multilingual, to different extents
and in different combinations of Azerbaijani, Farsi (Persian), Kurmannji
(Kurdish) and Russian.
The Dom identity is complex, multidimensional and contextual.
On leading position is usually the preferred and publicly demonstrated
Kurdish ethnic identity, which however does not conflict with their aware-
ness of a separate Dom identity.
The Garachi community, living in the Qakh, Zaqatala, and Balakan
districts, deserves special attention. Their language is colloquially linked
to Persian and their public self-designation is Farsi (meaning Persians/
Iranians). According to some hypotheses their ancestors were resettled in
this region by Shah Abbas I (1588–1629), together with other Iranian pop-
ulations (The ethnic 2011). Additional, in particular linguistic, research is
needed to specify to what extent the Farsi are a territorially confined division
of the scattered Dom community in Azerbaijan (as they are according to the
locals) or whether they are another, separate branch of Dom.
Exogamic marriages are an unusual among the Dom, as such marriages
as a rule do not happen with ethnic Azerbaijanis, and only exceptionally
with representatives of other nationalities. This is because of the inadmis-
sibility of such marriages according to the norms of the Dom community,
and the low social prestige of the community as a whole in the eyes of the
majority population.
Descriptions of the Dom’s traditional occupations in Caucasus in the
literature of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are quite
limited (Патканов 1887). In the Caucasus their occupations were linked
to their semi-nomadic way of life, with rented winter accommodation in
villages and an active nomadic life during the warm season. Their main
sources of livelihood were: begging (often combined with fortune tell-
ing) by the women; producing sieves from horsehair by men; and busk-
ing with dancing bears and snakes. Men were also known as musicians
(including at weddings), and women have been highly valued as dancers
(also young boys who dance dressed in women’s clothes). According to
Patkanov, “without their [of Dom living on river Goychay in Baku gover-
norate] musicians (hokkabaz), good singers (chengchi) and dancing boys
(myutrif) does not go any one Tatar [i.e. Azerbaijani – authors note] wed-
ding” (Патканов 1887: 74–75).
3.1.2 The Lom

This division is represented in the Caucasus by the community with
self-appellation Lom (or Lomavtik, with the Armenian suffix for plural).
The Lom are also known by the names given them by the surrounding
Armenian population. In the past (until the nineteenth century) such a
designation was Gnchu (in western Armenian dialect) or Knchu (in eastern
Armenian dialect). Since then they are referred to as Bosha in Armenia and
Georgia and Posha in Turkey. In Georgia, because the Georgian language
does not have a word for Gypsy, they use the loan blended term Boshebi.
In Armenia the Bosha live in several towns and villages: in the capital city
of Yerevan (in the old Armenian neighborhood of Kond since the Middle
Ages, and also in the Sari-Tagh, Kanaker and Nork-Marash neighborhoods)
and the nearby village of Nor Adzhin. In the village of Nor Kharberd, near
to Yerevan, live the descendants of Bosha who—under the 1923 Treaty of
Lausanne, which regulated the exchange of Muslim and Christian popula-
tions between Turkey and Greece—moved from Asia Minor to Greece,
and were repatriated from there to Armenia in 1947–1948. Bosha also live
in the cities of Gyumri, Akhtala, Nor Hachen, Vanadzor, and Artashat; in
the villages of Gyulagarak (Lori province) and Jraber (Kotayk Province),
formerly known as “Bosha village” (cf. Kalika 1985; Hofmann 1987;
Марутян et al. 1999; Markossian 2002; Хачатарян 2003; Восканян 2011a;
Агаларян 2011; Marutyan 2011; Шуваева-Петросян 2013, 2015).
In Georgia the Bosha/Boshebi live mainly in the cities of Akhalkalaki
and Akhaltsikhe (in Samtskhe-Javakheti region, bordering Armenia,
with a majority Armenian population), and also in the cities of Tsalka,
Shulaveri, and Marneuli (in Kvemo Kartli region), in the villages of Dilipi
(Ninotsminda municipality) and Khizilkilisa/Ghzlkilisa (Tsalka municipal-
ity), and in the capital city of Tbilisi, in the old Armenian neighborhood
of Avlabari (ibidem).
In Azerbaijan the Bosha lived in the disputed region of Shahumyan,
bordering the former Nagorno-Karabakh region in Azerbaijan. According
to the stories we were told by our Lom interlocutors, they had relatives
who had lived in different cities (mainly in Baku and Sumqayit) and in the
countryside of Azerbaijan. Most of them had emigrated to Armenia after
the Nagorno-Karabakh War in 1992–1994, and currently in Azerbaijan
only single cases of Lom remain, living in mixed marriages.
In the nineteenth century, in the then Ottoman Empire, the Lom

lived scattered in different regions of Asia Minor. Most in the vilayet of
Sivas: about 6,000 Posha lived in the city of Boyabat; and in other cities
Merzifon (481 houses), Vezirköprü (280 houses), Bafra (290 houses),
Zile (92 houses); in Erzurum and surrounding villages there were about
300 Lom houses; with others in Kars, Sarıkamış, Oltu, and others places
(Paspati 1870; Папазьян 1901: 110–111).
Nowadays in Turkey the Posha live in small communities in the prov-
inces of Kars, Artvin, Ağrı, Van, Erzurum, Bayburt, Gümüşhane, Erzincan,
Sinop, Samsun, Sivas, Çankırı, Kastamonu, and Ankara (Lehmann-Haupt
1913, 1928; Veradzin 1931; Benninghaus 1991; Erkul 1998; Özkan 2000:
21–43; Seropyan 2000; Bozkurt 2006; Kolukırık 2008: 145–153; Çetin
2014). During the active nomadic season some bivouac near the Asian
side of Istanbul city. In Istanbul, in the old Armenian neighborhood in the
Kurtuluş district, live a small number of Posha families (Hadjian 2012).
The Lom in Armenia and Georgia (and also in Turkey) speak their
“own” language of Lomavren (Патканов 1887; Papaziants 1899; Папазян
1901; Finck 1905, 1907a, b; Patkanoff 1907–1908, 1909; Lehmann-
Haupt 1913, 1928; Dowsett 1973–1974; Voskanian 2002; Восканян
2011b; Scala 2014). It is an endangered language that functions as a
secret language (Voskanian 2002). The very first recordings of Lomavren
from the region of Erzurum were made in 1846 (Sargisyan 1864); the
next recordings were made by the teacher Ioakimov in Tsalka (also from
Lom from the region of Erzurum, who resettled in the Russian Empire
in 1829). They were included in a manuscript, prepared by Yevgeny
Weidenbaum (renowned historian and ethnographer of the Caucasus
region), which was used by Kerope Patkanov in his reference study of
Lomavren (Патканов 1887: 76–81).
The identity of the Lom is multidimensional, lead by the preferred
Armenian ethnic identity, which does not conflict with their awareness of
a separate Lom identity. The fact that the preferred Armenian community
has its own national state adds a new dimension to the identity of Lom and
their preferred (ethnic and national) identity overlap. They self-identify
and are perceived by others as a community included in the composition
of the Armenian nation (in Armenia) or as part of the Armenian national
minority (in Georgia).
Mixed marriages of Lom with Armenians are generally acceptable, but
not desirable. They prefer marriages with Armenian girls to incorporate
them into the Lom community.
Traditional occupations of the Lom were determined by their semi-

nomadic lifestyle (with rented winter dwellings in the villages and an active
nomadic season). Their main source of livelihood was horsehair sieves
(produced by men and sold by women in the homes of the local popula-
tion). There are several folk legends, “explaining” this main traditional
occupation. According to one legend (recorded in the region of Tsalka,
Georgia, from Bosha, refugees from the region of Erzurum) Jesus Christ
once found many impurities in a loaf of bread and became angry. He
plucked a few hairs from his head and gave them to one of his disciples
who did not know what to do with them, but Jesus blessed those hairs
and his disciple learned to make sieves from them. So the disciple became
the founder of the sievemakers guild of the Bosha, and since then the
Bosha cal themselves Makhagordz (sieve-makers in Armenian) (Патканов
1887: 80–81). This legend is still recounted, as seen from the remarks of
one Lom from Akhalkalaki: “If there were no Bosha, you would have to
eat mouse droppings. Bosha were clean people they produced sieves, so
that people can sift flour and are not eating mouse droppings” (Агаларян
2011).
According to another legend (recorded in the region of Tokat in Turkey
from local Posha, whose ancestors came from Persia) it was the biblical
Job who taught them to make sieves (Paspati 1870: 17). Some Lom were
famous for their male orchestras performing traditional Armenian music
at weddings and other feasts.
The main occupation of Lom women was begging. For this they toured
the homes of the local population begging for food. Among the Armenian
population is a widespread narrative that at a wedding the Bosha groom
hides in a tonir (Asian clay oven) and the bride promises him: “Get out
of there, my dear, and I will go round the world to nurture you,” and
only after this pledge does the bridegroom come out and they get mar-
ried (Ванциан 1901: 58); in other versions the bridegroom hides in a bag,
a chest or a cupboard (Папазьян 1901: 132). Today, however, the Lom
deny having such acustom.
3.1.3 The Rom

This division is represented in the Caucasus by communities with the
self-appellation Roma, designated by all their surrounding populations
with the Russian term Цыгане. The main Roma groups in northern and
southern Caucasus are Krymurya, Vlakhi, dispersed family aggregations of
Ruska Roma, a small group of Plashchuny, and some mixed families with
partners from Ruska Roma, Servi, Kishinyovtsi, or Lingurari (Деметер

et al. 2000; Marushiakova and Popov 2003; Sordia 2009; Кирей 2010;
Смирнова-Сеславинская 2014).
In the northern Caucasus Roma live in many administrative units of the
Russian Federation. In Krasnodar Krai they inhabit the cities of Krasnodar
(also in the nearby stanitsas of Elizavetinskaya and Starokorsunskaya),
Anapa and the nearby village of Supsekh, Novorossiysk and stanitsa
Natukhaevskaya, the cities of Gelendzhik, Sochi, Goryachy Klyuch,
Slavyansk-na-Kubani, and Armavir, the districts of Temryuksky (stan-
itsa Starotitarovskaya), Tuapsinsky, Krymsky, Apsheronsky, Mostovsky,
Seversky (stanitsa Severskaya), Slavyansky, Krasnoarmeysky (khutor
Trudobelikovsky), Ust-Labinsky (stanitsa Voronezhskaya), Shcherbinovsky
(stanitsa Staroshcherbinovskaya), Dinskoy, Otradnensky, and others. In
the Stavropol Krai the Roma live in the cities of Stavropol, Kislovodsk,
Essentuki, Pyatigorsk, Mineralnye Vody, Zheleznovodsk (and the satellite
city of Inozemtsevo), Budyonnovsk, and the districts of Alexandrovsky,
Blagodarnensky, Izobilnensky, Kochubeyevksy, Novoalexandrovsky,
Ipatovsky, Georgiyevsky (stanitsas Podgornaya and Nezlobnaya), Kirovsky
(the city of Novopavlovsk), Predgorny, Sovetsky, Trunovsky; in the
Republic of Adygea in the cities of Maykop, Yablonovsky, and Enem; in the
Karachay-Cherkess Republic in the cities of Cherkessk and Karachayevsk;
in Kabardino-Balkar Republic in the cities of Nalchik, Prokhladny, Maysky,
and stanitsa Aleksandrovskaya; in the Republic of Northern Ossetia-
Alania in the cities of Vladikavkaz, Mozdok, the stanitsas Pavlodolskaya
and Lukovskaya, and the villages of Elbaevo and Karashengel. In the past
a few Roma lived in the Republic of Ingushetia, the Chechen Republic
and the Republic of Dagestan, but they emigrated from there during the
Chechen wars of the 1990s, and only a few individual Roma families now
remain (cf. Торопов 2001, 2004; Бугай 2012; Переписи 2012; Белозеров
et al. 2014; Кодзаева 2014; Махотина & Панченко 2014).
In the southern Caucasus the Roma live: in Georgia in the capital city
of Tbilisi and in the cities of Kutaisi, Batumi, and Telavi, and in the vil-
lages of Gachiani (Kvemo Kartli region) and Choeti (Kakheti region); in
the unrecognized Republic of Abkhazia in the capital city of Sukhumi (cf.
Чихладзе 2008; Szakonyi 2008; Sordia 2009); in Azerbaijan they live in
the capital city of Baku (Nasimi и Surakhani neighborhoods) and in the
nearby city of Sumqayit; in Armenia after the collapse of the USSR only a
few Roma people remain from mixed families in Yerevan.
Like all other Gypsy communities in the post-Soviet space and else-
where, Roma identity is multidimensional. Unlike other Gypsies, however,
on leading position is their Roma community identity. The endonym

Roma is considered a full synonym of the exonym Цыгане, both terms
are used simultanously and indiscriminately. The phenomenon of a pre-
ferred identity is almost entirely absent among Roma in the Caucasus,
the only exception being a community in Tbilisi with the self-appellation
Moldovani (Moldavians).
Another phenomenon has been observed, the adoption by the Roma of
an awareness of belonging to a supra-ethnic identity. In the USSR the con-
cept of the Soviet people as a civil supranational identity was introduced in
the 1960s. After the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 and the proclama-
tion of new independent states this concept was preserved among a large
number of Roma. They often express this with the words: “We are the last
Soviet people.” Nowadays, this level of civic identity is gradually giving
way to the old-new supra-ethnic identity of россияне (rossiane, i.e. the all
peoples belonging to Russia, all Russian citizens; not to be confused with
русские, russkie, the ethnic Russians) (Marushiakova and Popov 2003).
The Roma also have a very strong group identity (at the level of sepa-
rate endogamous groups), therefore the ban on mixed marriages applies
almost equally with regard to both Gadzhe (non-Roma) and other Roma
groups.
Roma traditional occupations were also determined by their past semi-
nomadic lifestyle and were differentiated according to the group they
belonged to. The main source of livelihood for Krymurya and Vlakhi was
mobile blacksmith work and for Ruska Roma it was horse trading. The
women’s main occupation in all groups was fortune telling and begging.
***
After the Russian Empire annexed the southern Caucasus in the first
half of the nineteenth century, the Dom and Lom living in these lands
were placed in the Gypsies category. Unlike Central Asian Gypsies,
the justification for linking Dom (called Karachi by local Shia and
Myutryub/Myutryup by local Sunni Muslims) and Lom (called Bosha
by local Armenians) into one category with European Gypsies (Roma)
was not their similar nomadic lifestyles and traditional occupations, but
their common Indian origin (Шопен 1852; Патканов 1887; Patkanoff
1907–1908, 1909).
Placing Dom and Lom into one common category of Gypsies does not
mean denying the differences between the various units, on the contrary,
after the reference work of Kerope Patkanov (Патканов 1887) a whole
Armenian academic school was formed, the main focus of which was to
distinguish Armenian Gypsies (Lom/Bosha) from other Gypsies (Roma)

and to show that Bosha are not only different, but “better” (Papaziants
1899; Папазян 1901: 111–123).
Somewhat curious is the case of the Transcaucasian Dom, who seem
to be an overlooked community. Even Patkanov, author of the reference
work about Dom (1887) never met a Domari speaker. The background
data he used in his book were taken from a manuscript titled Materials for
learning the language of Asian Gypsies (dialect Karachi), written by Usub-
back Melik-Ahnazarov, a teacher in Elizavetopolsk [today Ganja]. Since
then Karachi has never been directly studied, and all following works use
the data first published by Patkanov.
The borders between the three main divisions of Gypsies (Dom, Lom,
and Roma) in southern Caucasus (Transcaucasia), where they (at least the-
oretically) could be in contact, are clearly delineated. Although they know
that in the eyes of outsiders they are often perceived as one whole and in
relations with surrounding populations to some extent some mutual soli-
darity can be observed, in everyday life they avoid any interaction. Dom
and Lom deny their affiliation with Gypsies on the basis of their preferred
identity. Roma in contrast, consider that only they are “true Gypsies” and
refuse to accept Dom and Lom as their equals; the best they can agree to
is that they are Gypsies, but assimilated, not true ones (so at least on an
abstract level a consciousness exists of some kind of unity). Usually Roma
refer to Dom as Kurds and to Lom as Armenians. Mixed marriages among
these three divisions are considered unacceptable. We came across only of
one case of intermarriage between Dom and Roma, which was pointed
out to us as an inadmissible exception.
3.2 HISTORY AND DEMOGRAPHY

Historical evidence of settlements and the presence of the Gypsies
(Dom, Lom and Roma) in Caucasus are relatively few and mostly quite
fragmented.
3.2.1 Dom History

Based on the approximate dates of the migration of Gypsies from the
Indian subcontinent to Europe, it can be assumed that Dom had settled
in the land of the southern Caucasus in the tenth to twelfth centuries, but
there is no written evidence for them before the nineteenth century, when
Karachi in the city of Tabriz in Iranian Azerbaijan were described (Ouseley
1823: 400–401). With a huge dose of confidence it may be assumed that

this community is related to Karachi living within the Russian Empire,
described by Patkanov, as there are no significant differences in the lan-
guage of both communities (Патканов 1887: 101–137).
The above mentioned manuscript prepared by Yevgeny Weidenbaum,
which was also used by Kerope Patkanov, contains a number of data about
Dom. According to which, in 1829–1832 in the region of Nakhichevan,
Yerevan gubernia, lived 43 Karachi families (217 people) and 14 Myutryup
families, all nomads. By the mid nineteenth century in Quba uyezd (pres-
ent Azerbaijan) of Baku gubernia a Karachi village existed, in which lived
21 Gypsy families, migrants from Persia or Shirvan (a historical province
in modern Azerbaijan), who were called Karachi by the local population.
In Shirvan lived 200 (according other data 500) Karachi “tents” (i.e. fami-
lies), who migrated from Persia and settled in Goychay uyezd. The total
number of Karachi in Baku and Yerevan governorates (the territories of
modern Azerbaijan and Armenia) in the mid nineteenth century, accord-
ing to Yevgeny Weidenbaum’s calculations, was 2,399 persons (Патканов
1887: 70–72).
After the establishment of the Soviet Union in the southern Caucasus,
the majority of Qarachi inhabited the Azerbaijani SSR. Although per-
ceived by the Soviet state as Цыгане they were not covered by Gypsy
policies of the Soviet state in the 1920s and 1930s. The reason for this
was probably the relatively small number of Dom and the indifference of
local authorities.
One highly questionable piece of information (not confirmed by
any other sources) is found in the literature about Hasan Kyamal Ogly
Niyazov, who was a Dom, an Islamic clergyman and a teacher (born in
1881), who published a primer, Mektubi, in 1939 for the education of
Dom children, written in Domari, in Latin script. The primer was suppos-
edly used until 1942, when the author was arrested and expelled to Iran
(Kalinin 2000: 145–146).
In contrast to some other Gypsy communities in the USSR, who
were only rarely victims of political repression in the 1930s and 1940s
(Marushiakova and Popov 2008a), the Dom in the southern Caucasus
became subject to targeted repressive actions of the Soviet state. As a
result of the Resolution of the Council of People’s Commissars of the
USSR number 2123–420ss of December 17, 1936, “persons repressed
in the past for counterrevolutionary crimes, smugglers, bandits and mem-
bers of their families” were deported from Azerbaijan and Armenia to the
Kazakh SSR. It is unclear what proportion of those deported were Dom,

because the documents speak about Armenians and Turks (568 families)
and Kurds (553 families), but it was especially noted that part of the dis-
placed “Turks (the Turkic Gypsies) and Kurds settle poorly, do not acquire
cattle, work badly … shirk from jobs … most of escapes are done by them”
(Поболь & Полян 2005: 77–79).
In 1944 two train coaches (about 40 to 60 families) with Цыгане
(palpable Dom) were deported from Tbilisi (1995a: 175) under the
Resolution of the State Defense Committee Nr. 6279ss of July 31,
1944 “on the resettlement from the border zone of the Georgian SSR
of Meskhetian Turks, Kurds and Hemshin peoples [Armenian Muslims]”
from Samtskhe-Javakheti region on border with Turkey to Uzbekistan,
Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan (Бугай 1995b). Also in 1944 the capital city
of Tbilisi was purified from “willfully settled Turks and Kurds” (palpable
among them were also Dom) who were “not engaged with socially use-
ful work” and they were deported to rural areas (Поболь & Полян 2005:
77–79).
According Dom oral history, after deportation they lived mainly in
Kazakhstan (in regions of Alma-Ata and southern Kazakhstan) and a few in
Uzbekistan. The Deportation Resolutions were revoked by 1956 (Полян
2001), but the Dom only returned to Azerbaijan (regardless of where they
had lived before) in 1963 (Садыгов 2008). The authorities settled them in
Yevlakh, in a separate neighborhood informally called garachylar mahal-
lasi. Only a few Dom families remain in Central Asia to this day.
3.2.2 Lom History

As in the case of the Dom, proceeding from the approximate dates of the
migration of Gypsies from the Indian subcontinent to Europe, it can be
assumed that Lom penetrated the lands of the southern Caucasus prob-
ably in the tenth to twelfth centuries. Their presence there is subsequently
confirmed by various historical sources, which clearly indicate that their
historic destiny has been closely linked with the Armenian people.
Under the Ottoman Empire the rights of non-Muslim communities
were regulated by the Millet System, aggregating the population into
various confessional millets, with a certain degree of autonomy, some
also including an ethnic dimension (Inalcık 1973; Braude 1982; Mentzel
2000). From preserved documents it is clear that Lom were included in
the Armenian millet (adhering to the Armenian Apostolic Church). That
the Armenians accepted this inclusion is evidenced by an informal note

written in the late 1870s by the Katholikos (the head of the Armenian
Apostolic Church) and applied to documents at the Berlin Conference in
1878, in which he states that “Kinchors” (i.e. Lom) should not be sepa-
rated in any way from other Armenians (Karpat 1985: 192).
The historical evidence attests that Lom fought side by side with
Armenians against the Ottoman Turks. The famous Armenian
Anonymous Chronicle 1722–1736 describes how, during the siege of
Yerevan by the Ottoman army in 1724, a hundred families of “rich
Christian Gypsies” from the Armenian Quarter Kond organized a
defense unit of 200 people led by Gazarosa Baturyana, Kylduza, Davida,
Bayrama, and Petros; they were joined by another 300 Gypsies from
other districts of the city, and all fought bravely in defense of the city
with the Armenians (Армянская 1988).
After the Russo-Turkish War (1828–1829) and the peace treaty of
Adrianople of 1829, Archbishop Karapet Bagratuni handed a memoran-
dum to the Chief of the Caucasian Corps of the Russian Army, General
Ivan Paskevich. The agreement provided for about 50,000 Armenians
(7,298 families) from the vilayet of Erzurum and the surrounding vil-
lages to move into territories within the Russian Empire. They settled in
the regions of the cities of Akhaltsikhe, Akhalkalaki and Tsalka (present-
day Georgia), and Aleksandropol (present-day Gyumri, Armenia). Among
them were Lom, who had previously lived with the Armenians (Патканов
1887; Papaziants 1899; Папазян 1901; Ванциян 1901). The Russian
Empire repeatedly gave a number of privileges (provision of land, loans,
release of tax expenses, etc.) to all new settlers (Армянская 2007).
In the new territories 25 families of Bosha settled in Akhaltsikhe, 16
families in Akhalkalaki, 40 families in Alexandropol (Gyumri), 8 families
in the village Akhtala, and 54 adult males in the villages of Mugaresh
and Zagilii (Akhalkalaki uyezd), 4 families in the village of Khizilkilisa/
Ghzlkilisa (Tsalka uyezd), and 20 families in the village of Damala (today
in Aspindza municipality in Georgia). After the Russo-Turkish War of
1877–78, some re-settled in the regions of Batumi and Kars (Патканов
1887: 69; Ванциян 1901: 45). Bosha also lived in Shamakhi, in the then
Baku Governorate, and in Kars, in the village of Zaim (called Bosha-Zaim)
in the Kars region (Папазьян 1901: 111).
In the then Erivan (Yerevan) Governorate (which largely coincides with
today’s Armenia) in 1829–1832 lived 46 “Armenian Bosha” families (195
people) and 4 “Tatar Bosha” families (17 people) (Шопен 1852: 539).
“Tatar Bosha” in this case is understood as Bosha Muslims. The process of

conversion to Islam by some Lom had already occurred in the Ottoman
Empire, where in 1868 some Posha in the region of Tokat (modern
Turkey) became Muslims (Патканов 1887: 81). Some Lom who used to
live in the Ottoman Empire and were Christians fled from the Armenian
Genocide (1915) together with their Armenian neighbors in the Russian
Empire. Memories of these events are still preserved in the family histories
of Lom living in Armenia.
After the establishment of the Soviet Union in the southern Caucasus
a majority of the Lom lived in the Armenian SSR and the Georgian
SSR. Although perceived as Цыгане, they were not covered by the Soviet
state Gypsy policies in the 1920s and 1930s. This is probably because of
their relatively small number and especially the reluctance of local authori-
ties to separate them from the Armenian people.
3.2.3 Rom History

The settling of Roma in the northern Caucasus cannot be accurately
dated. It probably happened during the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries,
when the coastal parts of the region were part of the Ottoman Empire.
The first reliable data are from 1782, when Ferhat Ali Pasha, ruler of the
city of Anapa, appointed their leader (a blacksmith) to the position of çeri-
başi, responsible for the collection of taxes from local Gypsies (Çingene),
who numbered about 1,000 (Веселовский 1914: 234–235). After the
capture of Anapa by the Russian army in 1821 all inhabitants of the city,
including Gypsies, were deported to Crimea (Новичихин 2003), where
they were incorporated into the local Gypsy community of Dayfa/Tayfa
(Marushiakova and Popov 2004).
During the first half of the nineteenth century the process of granting
Roma (designated in the sources as Цыгане) additional privileges began
to encourage them to settle in the steppe regions around the Kuban
River and in the northern Caucasus. They were given the opportunity to
register for tax purposes as “state peasants” in Cossack regiments of the
autonomous military community of the Black Sea Cossack Host, estab-
lished in the late eighteenth century. In 1832, 54 Gypsies from the village
of Nizhnepodgornoe (near to Pyatigorsk) were freed from the obliga-
tion of military service and taxes for five years, and the taxes they had
already paid were refunded, as they had been attacked by “brigands from
beyond the Kuban” (meaning by that various peoples of the Caucasus,
such as Circassians and Chechens), were robbed and suffered damages to

the amount of 13,659 rubles and 50 kopeykas, a substantial sum for that
time, with six people killed and 22 kidnapped. In 1838 another 27 Gypsy
families living in Stavropol guberniya were freed from another five years
of military service obligations, as in 1832, when they were included in the
local Cossack regiments (Герман 1930: 28–29).
In 1839 the office of General Gregory Rashpil, Ataman of the Black
Sea Cossack Host, decided to divide the nomadic Gypsies coming from
Novorossiya and Bessarabia into three parts and to settle them in three
Black Sea okrugs (Taman, Yeysk, and Ekaterinodar/Krasnodar). They
were settled in Cossack stanitsa (a Cossack village) with no fewer than five
but no more than ten families in one place. Those quotas were abolished
by a new directive of August 16, 1840 and the bureaucracy was simpli-
fied. According to an order of September 30, 1847 of the Committee of
Ministers 1,065 Gypsy families were registered in the Black Sea and Azov
Cossack Host (Кирей 2010).
Historical sources do not provide full information about Roma groups,
the first settlers in the region of the northern Caucasus. Among Gypsy set-
tlers coming from Bessarabia and Novorossiya the sources explicitly men-
tion Lingurari, Ursari, Lasgii (probably a misspelling of Laeshi), and the
special category of “Gypsies of the Crown” (Бондарь 1990). The 1860
sources also note a presence of Romanian Gypsies (likely from the Vlakhi
group) (Кирей 2010: 18), who probably migrated from Wallachia and
Moldova after the abolition of slavery of Gypsies. The first Krymurya set-
tled in the region of Kuban in the 1920s and 1930s (Marushiakova and
Popov 2003, 2004).
In the USSR, Roma in the northern Caucasus were encompassed
by official government policies concerning Gypsies. Especially signifi-
cant was the emergence of Gypsy kolkhozes, as until World War II 22
of them were established in Krasnodar Krai (Бугай 2009a: 12, 2015:
54). The most famous among the Gypsy kolkhozes mentioned repeat-
edly in the Soviet press were Nevo Drom (New Road) in the khutor
Novovelichkovsky (Dinskoy district), Krasniy Romanes (Red Roma) in
the stanitsa Staroshcherbinovskaya (Shcherbinovsky district) in Krasnodar
region, and Trud Romen (Roma labor) in the village of Kangly, near
the city of Mineralnye vody in Stavropol region. Particular attention
was paid to this last kolkhoz, created and developed with the direct
involvement of Gypsy leaders sent there by Всероссийский центральный
исполнительный комитет (the Department of Nationalities at the All-
Russian Central Executive Committee officially abbrevated ВЦИК, VTsIK,
the highest legislative, administrative, and control body of the Russian

Soviet Federative Socialist Republic). The newspaper Северо-Кавказский
большевик (Northern Caucasian Bolshevik, 20.10.1932) described Maxim
Bezlyudsky, one of the instructors sent from Moscow:
The Gypsy boy wandering about the vast expanse of Russian land after a
tilt-covered cart joined the Red Army as volunteer in 1919. He was trained
to become a commander. After seven years of service in the Red Army, he
became a writer and is one of the founders and contributors to the Nevo
Drom (New Way) magazine. An actor at the Romen Theater, he has pub-
lished 15 books and brochures in Romanes—poems, stories, short novels,
pamphlets. Two years ago the Department of Nationalities of VTSIK sent
Comrade Bezliudskiy to work at the kolkhoz Trud Romen—the only Gypsy
kolkhoz in the Northern Caucasus. (Друц & Гесслер 1990: 289)
Gypsy activists from Moscow arrived to work in the northern Caucasus

along other lines. This is evidenced in a letter to Nikolai Pankov written
by Lyuba Mikholazhina, who went, together with her husband Dmitry
Kambovich (both graduated from the Gypsy pedagogical courses), to
work in the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. What
makes this letter interesting are the thoughts of the newly-created Gypsy
intelligentsia and their social views on Soviet realities:
I managed to reach the level of the Russians and to prove that we do have abil-
ities too. Now I am working in Caucasus and not among my Gypsies … What
made me come here is that I wanted to learn about the life of the Caucasian
people. It is very difficult and dangerous to live here. For example, an inspec-
tor was murdered today up in the mountains on his way to our regional center
Vedeno. There are many such occurrences here: murders, robberies, raped
girls thrown down from the high banks into the river. Going out in the yard
at night … is dangerous because somebody may hit you on the head with a
stone. … [The local Chechens] hate the Russians and treat us as conquerors.
They have no idea about the existence of Gypsies and think that I am Russian.
(Друц & Гесслер 1990: 301–302)
In the 1930s the first migration of nomadic Krymurya began south-

ward, to Georgia. The first wave occured in 1933 due to famine in the
Kuban region. The second wave was that of the population who escaped
before the advancing German army in 1942. The third wave was caused
by the famine in 1946–1947. The Krymurya settled initially in Sukhumi,
creating a settlement, Stary, near the railway station; later they gradu-
ally resettled and built new houses in Kutaisi, Zugdidi, Kobuleti, and
Ochamchira (Торопов 2004: 12).
***
It is difficult to accurately estimate the numbers of Gypsies (Dom, Lom
and Roma) in the Caucasus in the past, and it is still a difficult task for vari-
ous reasons, including the methodology of the census.
In 1862 the number of Gypsies in the Russian Empire was approxi-
mately 50,000, of which 3,000 were classified as “Bosha and Karachi” liv-
ing in the southern Caucasus (Pauli 1862: 148–149; Святский: 4). More
accurate data comes from the 1897 census. In the northern Caucasus it
was indicated there were 2,829 Gypsies (Roma), and in southern Cacasus
212 (Crowe: 1994:170), although it is not clear whether they were Dom
and Lom, or Roma migrants.
The subsuming of Dom and Lom in the Gypsy category from Tsarist
times continued in the USSR censuses. Similarly with Central Asian
Gypsies, sometimes the state gave more options for self-determination
through a list of subcategories incorporated into the larger categories. In
this way it became possible for Dom and Lom to have their identities (eth-
nicities) recorded in the censuses.
The 1937 glossary of nationalities for elaboration of the All-Union
Census, published just before this census, the options of Dom and of
Gypsies with Armenian mother tongue were included in the category
of Gypsies; and in the category of Armenians together with other vari-
ants were included Bosha, Armenian Gypsies, Gnchu, Karachi and Lom
(Словарь 1937). In the new 1939 glossary of nationalities the variants
under the category Gypsies were: Roma and Rom; and among its dis-
tinct divisions were Caucasian Gypsies, Armenian (Transcaucasian)
Gypsies, Azerbaijanian Gypsies, Lom, Bosha, Ginchu, and Karachi (Dom)
(Всесоюзная 1939).
This approach to Gypsies was maintained in the subsequent Soviet
censuses, while irregular changes in the listed names occur. In the 1959
glossary of nationalities and languages, under the heading Gypsies
were listed Rom, Roma, Lom, Bosha, Karachi, Mazang, Jughi, Lyuli,
Dom; and as their languages were given the variants Gypsy and Bosha
(Словари 1959).
In the 1988 glossary the general category of Gypsies was split into sev-
eral distinct divisions. Gypsies in the southern Caucasus were divided into
two entries, in one were included Lom and Bosha, with Gypsy and Bosha
languages, and in the second were included Dom and Karachi, with the
Gypsy language.
In sum, the results regarding the number of Gypsies in the southern
Caucasus in the USSR according to the censuses were:
• In 1926: 405 in the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet

Republic (which split into the Georgian, Armenian and Azerbaijan
Soviet Socialist Republics in 1936); 31 self-declared as Bosha;
• In 1939: 7 in the Armenian SSR, 400 in Azerbaijan SSR, and 727 in
Georgian SSR;
• In 1959: 18 in Armenian SSR, 577 in Azerbaijan SSR, and 1,024 in
Georgian SSR;
• In 1970: 12 in Armenian SSR, 843 in Azerbaijan SSR and 1,224 in
Georgian SSR;
• In 1979: 59 in Armenian SSR, 121 in Azerbaijan SSR, and 1,223 in
Georgian SSR;
• In 1989: 48 in Armenian SSR, 145 in Azerbaijan SSR, 1,774 in
Georgian SSR (Переписи 2012).
After the collapse of the USSR and the emergence of the newly inde-
pendent states in southern Caucasus, censuses in Armenia, Georgia and
Azerbaijan have been irregular and incomplete, making it impossible
to determine the overall number of Gypsies, and the relative share of
Dom, Lom and Roma. The Armenian censuses of 2001 and 2011, and
Azerbaijan censuses in 1999 and 2009, did not include any such cate-
gories, so their members either self-declared as members of the titular
nation (Armenian or Azeri respectively) or were included in the category
“others” (Юнусов 2001; Armenia 2002; Нури 2004). The only excep-
tion was Georgia, where in 1989, according to a letter from the Georgian
State Department 1,744 Roma were counted: 53 lived in Tbilisi; 412 in
Abkhazia; 126 in the autonomous republic of Adjara; 251 in Kutaisi; and
32 in Rustavi (HRIDC 2003: 4; Elibegova 2009: 9). The 2002 census
included a separate Gypsy column, under which a total of 472 people
were inscribed (Georgia 2002). This figure actually refers to the number
of Roma in Georgia, because Lom were included as Armenian-Gypsies in
the general category of Armenians. The data from the last census of 2014
are not yet published.
The number of Gypsies (Roma) living in the northern Caucasus region

(within the Russian Federation) according to data from population cen-
suses is as follows:
• In 1989 (before the dissolution of the USSR): 9,320 in Krasnodar

Krai (including Adyghe Autonomous Oblast), 13,113 in Stavropol
Krai (including Karachay-Cherkessia Autonomous Oblast), 2,442 in
Kabardino-Balkar Autonomous SSR, 1,464 in Northern Ossetian
Autonomous SSR, 904 in Chechen-Ingush Autonomous SSR, and
516 in Dagestan Autonomous SSR, a total of 27,759;
• In 2002: 10,873 in Krasnodar Krai, 19,094 in Stavropol Krai,
1,844 in Republic of Adygea, 804 in Karachay-Cherkess Republic,
2,357 in Kabardino-Balkar Republic, 1,553 in Republic of Northern
Ossetia-Alania, 44 in Republic of Ingushetia, 11 in Chechen
Republic, and 93 in Republic of Dagestan, a total of 36,653;
• In 2010: 12,920 in Krasnodar Krai, 30,879 Stavropol Krai,
2,364 in Republic of Adygea, 1,684 in Karachay-Cherkess Republic,
2,874 in Kabardino-Balkar Republic, 896 in Republic of Northern
Ossetia -Alania, 75 in Republic of Ingushetia, 3 in Chechen Republic,
and 54 in Republic of Dagestan, a total of 51,749 (Переписи 2012).
Presumably the actual number of Gypsies (Dom, Lom and Roma) is

significantly higher than the official figures. The data from the population
censuses can be considered only as an indicator, because Dom often declare
their preferred ethnic identity (Kurds) or their civic identity (Azeris) in the
censuses, and for the Lom their ethnic and national identities overlap (in
Armenia they register as part of the titular nation and in Georgia as part of
the Armenian minority). In fact only Roma have no reason not to declare
their “true” identity (except for the general negative public image of the
community that often causes them to hide their ethnic belonging), thus
the census data in their case are nearest to the actual state.
Departing from available data, expert assessments, and field research
observations it is possible to guesstimate the size of Dom, Lom, and Roma
populations. For Dom it can be said that their number is between 3,000 and
6,000, up to a maximum of 10,000; the number of Lom can be determined
as 5,000 to 6,000 in Armenia, and 2,000 to 3,000 in Georgia, in total a
maximum of 10,000 to 12,000; the maximum number of Roma is 2,000
to 3,000 in Georgia, up to 1,000 in Azerbaijan, and up to 60,000 in the
northern Caucasus. Unlike Central Asia, migration is not a significant factor
regarding the number of Gypsies (Dom, Lom and Roma) in the Caucasus.
3.3 GYPSIES IN GEORGIA, ARMENIA, AZERBAIJAN,

AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
3.3.1 Dom
In Azerbaijan the Dom live in their own more or less detached aggrega-
tions in towns and villages. The biggest and most well known Dom settle-
ment is in the city of Yevlakh. There is a whole separate neighbourhood
the local population call garachylar mеhеllеsi. The quality of their accom-
modation differs according their location and level of isolation, which is
high in some places, as for example in case of Yevlakh garachylar mеhеllеsi,
which (at least according to the locals) is hardly ever visited by non-Doms.
This neighbourhood according to some (obviously inflated) guesstimates
is inhabited by 2,500 Dom (Евлах 2012), and has an extremely poor
infrastructure (e.g. there is only one shop), and housing is poor and with-
out yards. In other cases, especially in rural areas, the Dom houses are not
much worse than those of the surrounding population.
Attempts to create a permanent settlement of Dom from Azerbaijan in
Georgia began after the collapse of the Soviet Union and has become more
intense over the past decade. First, they attempted to settle in Batumi,
but were driven out by local authorities and moved to Kutaisi. For more
than three years, five families (about 70 people, including 30 children)
lived near the Chavchadze bridge on the river Rioni, in shacks, without
water and electricity (Szakonyi 2008: 8). Currently about 100 Dom live in
Kutaisi, settled in the abandoned, almost demolished houses in the neigh-
borhood of Avangard in the northern part of the city, and several families
live in the nearby railway junction city of Samtredia. The first 17 families
of Dom settled in Tbilisi around 2000 in the Navtlugi neighbourhood,
where currently about 30–40 families (about 200 people) are living. Their
number is not permanent, as some families travel seasonally or at certain
intervals to their domicile in Azerbaijan (mostly to the city of Gazakh
near the border). Some of them have lived and others continue to live in
abandoned wagons in the urban railway station, others succeed in renting
regular accommodation the city.
In Soviet times the Dom were guaranteed permanent jobs as the vil-
lage inhabitants in collective farms, while urban residents were mostly
employed as low-skilled workers. After the dissolution of the USSR and
the collapse of the socialist economy, the main, and often only, occupa-
tion of Dom in Azerbaijan and Georgia became begging (Stoltz 2014).
Women beg, often holding infants, together with little girls and boys,
rarely with adult women or men. If men or boys are begging they show
alleged or actual signs of disabilities of varying degrees. Usually they have
their “own” places for begging, for example, in central Tbilisi it is Shota
Rustaveli Avenue; at major junctions in the city, where they beg from pass-
ing cars; and urban markets. In Azerbaijan, in the capital city of Baku they
beg on central streets, markets and near train and bus stations, from where
they are often chased away by the police, who are trying to eliminate, or
at least limit, begging in the capital city.
In Azerbaijan Dom sometimes work as peddlers with household items,
dresses, and carpets. They also collect scrap and take various unqualified
seasonal jobs. In fact, in contrast to the mass stereotypes about fantastic
revenues from begging, their living standard is actually lower than that of
the surrounding population.
Many Dom, both in Azerbaijan and Georgia, lack identification papers,
and only the elders have old Soviet documents, which were valid long after
the collapse of the USSR, but no longer. Because of the lack of an ID many
Dom children are not enrolled in school; a lack of documents deprives the
majority of access to medical care and social security. Azerbaijan has not
adopted any state policy towards the Dom. The only actions by authori-
ties are the “cleaning” of the capital city from begging Dom (Али 2006,
2008), who arrive in Baku from the regions of Yevlakh, Agsu, Agdash,
Shamakhi, and Qobustan. Since there are no legal provisions for sanction-
ing begging, the begging Dom are detained, given an educational talk and
then released (Ибрагимхалилова 2010a, b).
The Georgian state is in a difficult political and economic situation
and is not paying any attention to the Dom and their problems, and
the Dom are satisfied with this state of affairs. So far, several attempts
have been made by non-governmental organizations (including Roma
organizations) to contact them with project initiatives, but the Dom
categorically reject such proposals, preferring not to be exposed in a
public space.
In Azerbaijan there are also no Dom NGOs and up until now the
Dom demonstrated no real interest in civic society activities, however they
started to attract the attention of non-Dom organizations. On September
20, 2013 a round table discussion on integration problems of Roma (used
as a politically correct umbrella term) in Azerbaijan was conducted at
the office of the Azerbaijan Lawyers Confederation and an intention was
announced to establish NGO integration to solve these problems. A proj-
ect for international donors was prepared, but it has not been supported so
far. The participants to the round table told us that no Dom representative
was present at the meeting.
To a large extent the Dom public image is negative, with high levels of
ethnic stereotypes and social hostility towards them, both in Azerbaijan and
Georgia. As for Georgia, it is stated that the hostility towards Dom is even
higher than to the Roma (Джавахишвили 2005: 107–112). According
to the outsiders’ point of view they have no serious problems with the
law enforcement authorities, who do not limit and persecute them, which
gives grounds to the local population (including the media) to talk about
a “mafia of beggars”, which corrupts local police. Many other stereotypes
are widespread, typical of Roma beggars elsewhere: about kidnapping
children and making them beg; intentionally breaking their arms and legs;
their exploitation by rich “bosses; an inherited inclination for begging.
With regard to the Dom, the local population in Azerbaijan believe the
same story as in Central Asia concerning the Lyuli; that Dom brides on
their wedding day publicly promise that they will beg to ensure a liveli-
hood for their family.
The local population in Georgia (not only ethnic Georgians, but also
Roma) is firmly convinced that the Dom are Kurds, and usually call them
that. The Dom usually identify themselves publicly as Kurds, and some-
times also as Azeri, but within their community their identity is that of
Dom, and they distinguished themselves from Kurds, including in their
language. They repeatedly said to us: “We are not the same,” “Our lan-
guage is more pure,” and they self-identified as Dom-Kurds (Курдские
Дом in Russian or Kürd domlar in Azerbaijani). No less categorically
they distinguish themselves from Roma: “They are different,” “They
speak another language,” “We do not want to have anything to do with
them.” In Georgia they do not want to be identified either as Цыгане (this
Russian term is for them the equivalent of Roma) nor to be approached
by the Azerbaijani term Garachi. Accordingly, local Roma do not consider
them Gypsies, because they do not speak their language (Romanes) but
Kurmanji, and avoid any contact with them; even Roma consider Dom
to be “wild and dangerous,” especially when it comes to competition for
begging (some of the local Roma also beg).
Despite the clear demarcation of Dom from other Gypsies, and par-
ticularly from Roma (and vice versa) with whom they share the terri-
tory in some cities (Baku, Tbilisi, Kutaisi), attempts have been made in
recent years to integrate Dom in common regional NGO projects target-
ing Roma. Such was the case with project Southern Caucasus Network
of Roma from the NGO Center for Democracy and Civil Integration,
presented at the regional conference in Tbilisi, April 8, 2014 (Dosta!
2014). This network should (at least according to the project descrip-
tion) also include Dom, who are considered to be Roma (as an umbrella
term imposed by Europe). Despite all efforts, however, not a single Dom
willing to work in the network was found. Nevertheless, as announced by
the conference organizers, the Southern Caucasus Roma Network is still
willing to host one Dom delegate, who will represent the Dom in Roma-
related projects in Europe.
The Dom prefer to marry endogamously, but because their community
is scattered in different countries marriages are often concluded locally
between more or less distant cousins. Sometimes the media claim that
Dom are matrilocal, and that after the wedding the young couple live in
the woman’s home (Азербайджанские 2005). Such cases do happen and
are not rare, but this is not a firmly established rule, and depends on the
specific situation.
In the southern Caucasus the population generally believe that all
Kurds are Yazidis (an ethno-religious Kurdish-speaking community in the
Middle East) by religion, so in many cases both the name of this com-
munity and the name of the religion are interconnected (Kurds-Yazidis)
and overlap. Therefore Dom in each of our conversations first emphasized
their distinction from Kurds with regard to religion. They self-determined
as “real Muslims, not Yazidis,” and stressed repeatedly that they go to
the mosque, observe Ramadan, celebrate Kurban Bayram (Eid) and main
Muslim (or those they consider to be Muslim) holidays, such as Navruz
and Hederlez. Nominally they belong to Shia Islam, however, not one of
our interlocutors was able to make any distinction between Shia and Sunni
Islam.
3.3.2 Lom
The Lom continue to live mainly in territories inhabited by ethnic
Armenians, not only in present-day Armenia but also in neighboring
Georgia. In the past there used to be separate Bosha(nnu) maylla but
now the tendency is to move out of them. Today, even in the capital city
of Yerevan (where over 200 families live, mostly in their own houses, but
some in flats), and also in smaller towns and villages Lom mostly live dis-
persed among Armenians. Home for the, relatively, largest community of
Lom (over 100 families) is Gyumri and Akhalkalaki, where they live in a
neighborhood which preserves the old name Bosha maylla (cf. Хачатрян
2003; Marutyan 2011). Elsewhere (for example in Akhaltsikhe) parts of
the old neighborhoods are still preserved, but are already included in new
mixed neighborhoods, but in most villages the Bosha maylla are only a
memory.
Lom living conditions do not particularly differ from those of ethnic
Armenians and Georgians. Their neighborhoods do not differ visually
from adjacent ones, are not separated, and strangers would not know at
a first glance that Gypsies live there. Furnishing of the houses and the
overall standard of living are also more or less on the same level as their
neighbors, higher in cities and lower in villages.
Present-day Lom in the southern Caucasus no longer continue their
semi-nomadic lifestyle, and they do not differ from other Armenians either
in appearance or clothing, nor in their occupations. Occasionally Lom
proudly said that some of Armenia’s most famous musicians belong to
their community but did not disclose their names, as they hide their origin
from the surrounding population.
The main occupation of Lom everywhere is currently trading. A typical
example is the city of Akhalkalaki, where in the city market the majority
of permanent employees are Lom, often defined by the local population
as “Lords of the market”. Many of them also travel frequently through-
out the region and beyond, buying agricultural produce from farmers and
various consumer goods from major markets and then reselling them at
the market or in remote villages. A relatively small number of Lom have
their own workshops in the market, producing and selling tin products
(including a modern version of traditional sieves), leather hats, shoes, and
other goods.
A large number of Lom in Georgia have recently become involved
in cross-border trade. Following the introduction of visa-free travel (up
to 90 days) for the citizens of Georgia (such are also the Bosha from
Akhalkalaki) to Turkey, some Lom travel to the markets of neighboring
provinces (Artvin and Rize) in Turkey, where they purchase various prod-
ucts for mass use at local markets. The goods are sold both in Georgia, at
the market in Alkalkalaki and in villages, and also in Armenia, mainly in the
cities of Gyumri and Yerevan.
The Lom in the southern Caucasus differ in nothing from local
Armenians. They confess the same religion, are citizens of their countries,
have similar levels of well-being, literacy, education and social standing.
Because of their almost full inclusion into Armenian society (or into the
Armenian minority in Georgia) they do not feel a need to establish their

own civic organizations. Even proposals for inclusion in projects targeting
Roma, received from representatives of the NGO-sector (e.g. Caucasus
Regional Office of European Centre for Minority Issues in Georgia),
which presupposed a certain financial support from the community, were
categorically rejected by them. In Armenia, where Lom comprise less than
one per cent of the overall population, they are generally so indiscernible
that their very existence is overlooked. Most ethnic Armenians sincerely
believe that there are no Bosha living in their country today. Armenian
scholars are unanimous in the view that, while there were Bosha in the
country in the past, they voluntarily assimilated into the Armenian nation;
they are now entirely integrated and can be described only as an eth-
nographic or subethnic group of the Armenian people (Marutyan et al.
1999; Григорьян 2002; Khachataryan 2003; Marutyan 2011).
This approach is also evident in the reports of various NGOs and human-
rights organizations (Asatryan and Arakelova 2002), and according to the
chairman of the Armenian Helsinki Committee, Avetik Ishkhanyan: “If
people do not want to declare themselves as a separate community, do not
want to be called Bosha, because it is very offensive, and when the society
does not segregate them, then there is no need to work in this direction.”
For similar reasons academic research on Lom was conducted mostly in
Georgia rather than in Armenia proper (Marutyan et al. 1999; Marutyan
2011). In some cases, even research on Lom done in Armenia is not pub-
lished (for example, the full doctoral thesis of Armenak Khachatryan,
Bosha: An Historical-Ethnographic Study), with the explanation that it
would be wrong to attract public attention to the Bosha.
In colloquial Armenian speech, Bosha is a pejorative term with differ-
ent, more or less negative, connotations. This is the rationale why in some
cases an ethnic neutral term is used, in order not to offend the community
(Petrosian 2003), as is the case with using the designations Махагорцы (in
Russian) or Maghagorts (in English) meaning sievemakers in Armenian,
in an edited volume of articles devoted to the Lom (National minorities
2005) that was also not published (at least not yet).
The attitude of the “others” to Bosha in Armenia is ambiguous. In
informal conversations the opinions of Armenians can vary between two
extremes—“They are Bosha, but Armenians” and “They are Armenians,
but Bosha”—the latter has a slightly pejorative meaning, but both rec-
ognize a certain level of unity between Lom and “other” Armenians.
The attitude of the “others” to Bosha in Georgia is also quite com-
plicated, and aggravated by strained attitudes between Armenians and

Georgians in the ethnically mixed region of Samtskhe-Javakheti, where
the Armenian minority predominated. The local Georgians do not sep-
arate Lom from the Armenians, on the contrary, it is often said “all
Armenians are Bosha” (a pejorative saying which pointed to their low
standing). Local Armenians however never publicly separate themselves
from Bosha and a publicly acceptable statement is: “They are part of
us.” This became especially strong in the 1990s when the Armenians
struggled for their minority and linguistic rights in an independent
Georgia. The identity of the Lom is multidimensional and contextual.
They (as all other Gypsy communities worldwide) exist in at least in two
dimensions, or in two co-ordinated plans. This fundamental principle is
based on the juxtaposition of community–society, as relations between
two simultaneously existing typological phenomena intertwine into one
inseparable unity (Marushiakova and Popov 2016a). In this case, the
community means the Lom as an ethnic community, and the society
means the Lom as part of the Armenian nation state, of which they
are citizens and an ethnically-based integral part (and they have been
part of an Armenian nation for centuries). The specific feature of Lom
identity is that it passed from national to ethnic, but the ethnic part is
not disappearing. Their identity is of community or a subethnic com-
munity of Armenians. In fact their identity exists on two levels—nation
and community—and which of them will lead depends on the specific
situational context.
On the one hand, the Lom always publicly declare and actually really
consider themselves to be part of the Armenians. As our interlocutors put
it: “I am Bosha, but my passport says ‘I am Armenian’ on the national-
ity line, so I am Armenian;” “Our grandparents were Bosha, but now we
are all Armenians;” “We are not traveling, we are not misers, thus we are
not Bosha, we are Armenians.” Lom belong to the Armenian Apostolic
Church and their customs and rituals are the same as those of Armenians.
And something more, often Lom are stricter about traditional Armenian
customs and rituals than the majority of Armenians. That is why they
often say: “We are more Armenian than the Armenians;” or “Only we
are the real Armenians—only we keep the old Armenian names and cus-
toms.” Even in Georgia they often identify themselves often as “true”
or “first” Armenians (Marutyan 2011: 300–301). In this way the Lom
self-perception seems to gel with the “official” attitude towards Bosha in
contemporary Armenian society.
On the other hand, however, the Lom also set themselves apart from
other Armenians. Usually they reject the designation Bosha and prefer
to be called Armenians, but in response to direct questioning, and after
showing insider competence by using their own designation “Lom’es?”
(Are you Lom, in Lomavren), one would receive the confirmation,
“Lom’en” (I am Lom, in Lomavren). Lom often compare (and in this way
also delimit) themselves from Armenians. They have a special designa-
tion for Armenians in Lomavren, in the past it was Klarav/Kalarav or
Gachut (Папазьян 1901: 116; Ванциан 1901: 60), and today it is Kachut
(Marutyan 2011: 116) or Kagut (Petrosian 2002: 19). These terms how-
ever designate only ethnic Armenians, and not all non-Lom, as is wrongly
considered by some authors (van Rheenen 2015), since for other nations
they have different names, such as Psu for Turks and Tatars and Sisorov for
Russians (Папазьян 1901: 116). Lom repeatedly say about Armenians:
“We’re not like them,” “We are different,” “We have our language,” (in
fact, for them it is definitely difficult to determine whether they speak a
separate language or dialect of the Armenian language, with some “own”
words), “We are honest people and we are supporting each other” (in
contrast to Armenians), “We have our own customs” (illustrated by: more
respect for adults; extended families; mass visiting the graves of deceased
relatives; etc.).
In any case, the Lom strongly distanced themselves from the Roma,
of whom they say: “We have a different language,” “We have a differ-
ent religion” (Bosha belong to the Armenian Apostolic Church, and
Roma can be Orthodox Christian or Muslim), “We are from a different
origin” (but without a clear idea of the origin of the community). The
Lom still show an interest in their ethnic peculiarity and origin, however
exclusively only in their own surroundings. They have preserved etiologi-
cal legends, some of them are new replicas of old patterns (e.g. many
legends tell about a Pasha, or as a variant, a village Armenian apostolic
priest, who gave their ancestors corn to sow, but they cooked and ate
it, and were therefore doomed to be nomadic), others are influenced by
modern scientific knowledge on Gypsies and derive the origin of Bosha
from India (including statements such as “I like watching Indian movies,
I understand everything they say”), while others highlight links with the
Armenian people, expressed in assertions like “Ours is actually the old-
est Armenian language.” The most pervasive way in which Lom’s ethnic
boundaries are preserved is in their preference for marrying within their
community, even when there is a need to search for a marriage partner in
distant places. Mixed marriages are still rare and selective; in such cases, it
is preferable to take Armenian girls (mostly from poorer families and from
the countryside) and incorporate them into the community. They avoid
giving Lom girls to Armenian families.
Our Lom interlocutors categorically denied having problems with their
ethnicity. Only some of them recalled encountering ethnic prejudices in
the past, when they were bullied at school, but today, as they insisted, the
situation is different. Currently all of them have passports as Armenian (or
Georgian) citizens, and at the censuses they self-declare as Armenians. In
Georgia they vote for representatives of the Armenian minority, their chil-
dren go to Armenian schools, and if they sometimes feel negative attitudes
(e.g. when crossing the border with Turkey during shopping tours), it is
not because of their Gypsy origin, but because of their Armenian names.
Along with this, some Lom in Armenia and Georgia told us that
they feel offended by the fact that in a show on Armenian TV (which
is also watched in Georgia) sometimes the designation Bosha is used
with negative connotations. By contrast, however, the song “Gnchu
of the famous Armenian star Lilit Hovhannisyan (2013) is perceived very
positively, although the TV clip is built entirely on stereotyped romantic
notions about Gypsies and has nothing to do with the image of the Lom.
This confirms that the idea of one community with other Gypsies in the
world still exists in the Lom.
Notwithstanding, at first glance it seems like the Lom are publicly invis-
ible, but they have not fully assimilated into the surrounding population,
nor have they disappeared as a community. In fact, the community is not
completely invisible everywhere in Armenia and Georgia. In their places
of living their close neighbors know who is Bosha and who not, though
they are reluctant to talk about it. As a rule, the Lom prefer not to be men-
tioned in the mass media, not to be studied, not to be photographed and
not to talk about their Bosha past at all. In spite of this general attitude,
as an exception there are some socially active people who do not publicly
deny their Lom identity, but, on the contrary, try to show their commu-
nity as an integral part of the Armenian nation, emphasizing their histori-
cal links with the Armenian people and that it was their own choice to
integrate into modern Armenian society. The most well known example of
such an approach are the messages widely distributed on YouTube video-
movies, signed by Zohrab, the Armenian Gypsy (2012).
It is worth noting that these video-movies start against the backdrop
of a collage of the Armenian and Roma national flags. There are serious
discrepancies between the Russian and English language version titles,

which are Мы армяне (We are Armenians) for the former and Who are
Armenian Gypsies? Bosha, for the latter. However, the content and main
message are identical: Bosha are Gypsies by origin, who voluntarily assimi-
lated into the Armenian nation. Whether the mysterious Zohrab is truly a
Lom (something we are not convinced of) or whether it is a hoax, is not so
important. In this case something elseis significant; Zohrab’s videos show
the real situation for the ethnic identity of the Lom, who do not see any
contradiction between their preferred Armenian and Lom identities, and
perceive them as two sides of one inseparable whole.
More than a century ago Vartan Papazian wrote:
And in the present circumstances—it will not pass even 50 years and there
will be niether trace of their [Lom’s] identity, nor even of their language. It
will be suppressed by the conditions of life that are stronger than it. It will
not merge, no, but it will disappear, leaving only a trace in history, only an
ethnographic term. (Папазьян 1901: 144)
From today’s perspective this forecast is not quite accurate, either with
regard to the language (which is still preserved, albeit with very limited
vocabulary and with strong Armenian influences) nor in terms of the
Lom’s existence as a distinct community.
Currently Lom are almost completely socially and culturally integrated
into the Armenian nation, and their ethnic identity is on the level of a sub-
ethnic or ethnographic group in the composition of the Armenian people.
This does not exclude an awareness of filiation and a common origin with
other Gypsies in the world, and does not predetermine their disappearance
as a separate, clearly defined community. Lom represent a unique case of
voluntary partial (or incomplete) assimilation of one Gypsy community in
the composition of another population, which could be called “apparent
assimilation.” Cases of preferred ethnic identity are something common
for other Gypsy communities, and especially for some Roma in eastern
Europe (Marushiakova and Popov 2015b). The unique thing in this case
is that, unlike other nations, who are preferred by Roma (such as Turks,
Romanians, Hungarians, etc.), and who refuse to accept them as their inte-
gral part, the Armenians (probably due to shared common tragic historical
destiny and common contemporary issues) accept Lom as part (detached,
but still part) of the Armenian people. Such an approach by Armenians
towards “their Gypsies” gives a completely different dimension to the pro-
cess of Lom integration when compared to other Gypsies.
3.3.3 Roma
In the northern Caucasus live the largest number of Roma in the Russian
Federation—in 2010 it was about a fourth (51,749) of the total (Переписи
2012). The administrative unit with most Roma inhabitants is Stavropol
region (30,879) and the settlement with the most numerous Roma popu-
lation (about 2,400 or 7.5%) is the city of Blagodarnoe (Белозеров et al.
2014).
As throughout Russia, so in the northern Caucasus, the Roma live in
the suburbs of big cities, or in the cities and villages in mixed settlements
(called poselki, literally hamlet in Russian) where Gypsy homes are side by
side on several adjacent streets. The Roma mostly live in their own houses,
which in many cases are distinguished by their impressiveness and wealth
compared with those of the majority population.
The main occupations of the Roma in the northern Caucasus in the
time of the USSR were the same as the majority of other Roma in this
vast country. All Roma remember the Brezhnev era (known as the time of
economic stagnation) as “the golden era for Gypsies.” This perception of
history is perfectly logical from the Roma point of view. The key term to
explain the economic, strategic, and social status of the Roma at that time
was “shortage.” The state was quite stable, the population had already
collected some financial resources, but there was a total shortage of life’s
bare necessities. In fact, the 1970s and the 1980s appear as a key period of
Roma well-being in the USSR. The shortages provided the highly mobile
Roma with a great opportunity to expand their legal, semi-legal and ille-
gal economic activities. The Soviet Union at that time was like one big
market for them. They had no rivals in some of the markets for goods and
services. They conducted trade over vast territories in practically all kinds
of goods—clothes, cosmetics, carpets, household items, dry fish, chewing
gum, digital watches, gold, foreign currency, and a lot of other things.
They would buy the goods in one place (or produce them at home) and
sell them in another. Some Roma would go all over the country, mainly
to the co-operative farms to offer their services as blacksmiths, builders,
repairmen, handymen. They were paid immediately in cash, thus ignoring
the strong and complex Soviet financial norms. The co-operative farms
would occasionally pay Roma in kind with their agricultural produce.
Since this produce was not available in the towns, the Gypsies were able to
make a profit from selling it there. Soviet laws defined all such activities as
“economic crimes” and “profiteering,” though they would usually ignore
them or not pursue them too strictly, because the Roma were satisfying
some needs of the population, thus reducing possible social tension.
The public image of the Gypsies in USSR was also influenced by
rumours of close connections with the Soviet party elite. These rumours
occasionally appeared to be true, such as the story of Боря Цыган (Borya
the Gypsy) Brezhnev’s daughter’s lover, who was involved in the dia-
mond trade. His full name was Boris Buryatse, he was an actor at the
Bolshoi Theatre in Moscow. In 1982 he was convicted in the notorious
diamond case. Soon after serving his sentence in the Siberian camps he
died in unclear circumstances in 1987, and is buried at the cemetery in the
Caucasian city of Krasnodar.
After the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the new social and eco-
nomic situation in the Russian Federation had a serious influence on
the Roma. The profiteering of the past was officially recognized as legal
commerce. This meant that a huge economic area was no longer avail-
able to the Roma, who were not competitive in the new environment.
There was no longer a shortage of goods and services, and people’s
financial means were depleted. The new social and economic environ-
ment was hard on the Roma who were searching for new economic
havens. They were used to a high economic standard and preferred to
engage in highly profitable activities to maintain their high standard
of living and prestigious and comfortable way of life. This was not
only a shady economy; they were also linked to various illegal activi-
ties, such as drug dealing. It was less often the case that they tried to
join the mafia (often collaborating with the police) or get involved in
blackmail for, if they did, the existing powerful mafia groups quickly
ousted them.
This crisis did not affect all Roma in the Russian Federation equally.
Many were still able to maintain their former trade activities. Some got
involved in the construction business and real estate. Many Roma, living in
the countryside, tried to develop modern agriculture and animal breeding.
Quite often the traditional craft of fortune telling would become the main
source of family income. Although in a modified form (in the restaurants
and not on a professional stage) the business of professional musicians was
still profitable. Thus, many Roma were able to maintain a decent standard
of living, higher than that of the average citizen. But the new standard of
living and social position lowered, and could no longer be compared to
that of the new political and economic elite in Russia.
In the northern Caucasus in recent years the illegal activities of the Roma
are severely limited. The majority now make their living from producing
and selling agricultural goods; trading on the markets with a variety of
goods for households and combining these activities with semi-professional
dance and music-making in restaurants and for various family celebrations
of the non-Roma. Their standard of living is relatively good, not too dis-
tinct from their surrounding populations. Relations of Roma with the local
population are complex and are changing over the years. In conditions of
severe social and economic crisis in the 1990s the anti-Gypsy public atti-
tudes became very strong and were reflected in the media and activities
of local authorities. Especially well known was a case from 2001, when
16 Kelderari families (about 100 people) were deported from Krasnodar
to Voronezh under the pretext of a lack of a permanent address registra-
tion (RFE/RL 2001; Indepent 2001). In recent years the situation in the
region as a whole has changed once again and the inter-ethnic relations
(including attitudes towards Roma) have improved, though anti-Gypsy
media publications still sporadically appear (cf. Бугай 2009b, 2012).
Attempts by foreign donors to initiate Roma civic organizations in the
Russian Federation in the 1990s and 2000s (Marushiakova and Popov
2016b) did not succeed in the northern Caucasus. Instead, Roma from
the region are actively involved in the process of creating the Federal
National Cultural Autonomy of the Gypsies in the Russian Federation,
which was officially registered in March 2000 and was one of the first
national cultural autonomies. In 1998 the Gypsy National Cultural
Autonomy of Krasnodar krai was created, headed by Vladimir Smailov. In
2004 it was joined by newly created divisions from the city of Krasnodar,
Novorossiysk, and Temryuk (Кирей 2010: 36). According to the Federal
Law on National Cultural Autonomy it is:
A form of national and cultural self-determination representing public

associations of citizens of the Russian Federation who consider themselves
belonging to certain ethnic groups on the basis of their voluntary self-orga-
nization in order to freely decide and preserve their ethnic traditions, devel-
opment of language, education and national culture (Федеральный 1996).
Representatives of Roma from the region are also actively involved in

the international Roma movement. In 2008 Vladimir Smailov took part in
the seventh congress of the International Romani Union (IRU), held on
September 23–25, 2008 in Zagreb, as a member of the delegation from
the Russian Federation (Кирей 2010: 35).
In contrast to the northern Caucasus, the number of Roma settlements

and their inhabitants in southern Caucasus were reduced drastically after
the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In Georgia, the capital city of Tbilisi with its relatively better economic
conditions, attracts Roma from the countryside and that is why it hosts,, in
aggregate probably the largest Roma community in the country (Szakonyi
2008; Sordia 2009). About 250 to 300 Roma live mostly in rented dwell-
ings (mainly houses) in the Samgori neighborhood, near the Navtlughi
farmers market. Some of them are refugees from Abkhazia, and others
settled there after migrating from Kutaisi in the 1980s. Some of them
(mainly those coming from Kutaisi) live there only seasonally or for a short
period of time. In Tbilisi there is also another little temporary settlement,
called Lilo, which is located near the airport, where mostly seasonal or
short duration Roma families live, who come from Abkhazia, Kutaisi, and
other regions.
In one specific case about 300 to 350 persons are perceived as Gypsies,
who live in the Svaneti district of Tbilisi, in the so-called Gypsy neighbor-
hood, on the street Imeni Lotkina. They strongly deny their Roma origin
(similar behavior is typical for communities of Lingurari and Vlakhiya in
the present-day Republic of Moldova) and in the censuses they declare as
Moldovani (Moldavians). Their native language is Moldavian, and they
publicly demonstrate Moldavian identity. Some of them claim they are
migrants from the region of Tiraspol in the 1930s, others date their arrival
from 1946 to 1948, and according to a third it was in the 1970s.
In Kutaisi, in the Avangard district, in their own houses in two separate
settlements and old flats live about 100 to 150 Roma. Their number is
unstable because many of them live seasonally or for shorter periods of
time in Tbilisi or Batumi.
In the former Adjarian Republic, which is now experiencing rapid eco-
nomic development, in Batumi, several Roma families live permanently on
Besiki street, and at least a dozen Roma families lodge during the summer
season in Kutaisi and Tbilisi and in Kobuleti about 100 to 120 Roma live
in a separate settlement in their own houses and shacks. According to
them, they settled there during World War II, coming from the Krasnodar
region in southern Russia.
On the outskirts of the city of Rustavi, in the province of Kvemo Kartli, sit-
uated a short distance from the capital Tbilisi, outside the bounds of the city
and close to the railway station is situated the Roma settlement of Gachiani,
with about 120 to 150 Roma in their own houses and shacks. According to
their oral stories, the settlement originated from around 1963–1965. Until
then about 100 Roma families had lived in another settlement near Rustavi,
in Tavaryarhi, but after a big internal quarrel and fighting the settlement
fall apart and some Roma living there moved to Gachiani and others settled
elsewhere in Georgia and in other Soviet republics.
In the village Choeti (old name Leninovka) in Dedoplistsqaro munici-
pality, in the region of Kakheti, eastern Georgia, live about 120 to 150
Roma. According to local Roma, in the Soviet times they lived in the
nearby cities of Gurjaani and Tsnori, but in 1993 they were expelled
from there by Georgians, supporters of Zviad Gamsakhurdia (the former
President), who plundered their property and destroyed their homes. In
the Soviet times in Leninovka ethnic Russians, namely the Old Believers
(so-called Molokani) lived. After the Soviet Union collapsed the Molokani
fled to the Russian Federation, and Roma settled in their abandoned
homes. Currently, the village is predominantly inhabited by Roma, and six
Russian and two Georgian families; all of them live in deep poverty.
Similar is the story of the Roma who lived in the time of the USSR
in the settlement of Mukuzani (Gurjaani Municipality), which was then
the largest Roma settlement in Georgia. It was plundered and partially
destroyed during the already mentioned civil war, and the last Roma left
Mukuzani in 2008. Some emigrated to the Russian Federation, others to
Leninovka, Gachiani, and several families now live in the city of Telavi.
Besides these compact Roma settlements, scattered among the sur-
rounding population also live a small number of Roma, in mixed mar-
riages with non-Roma, or descendants of ethnically mixed families.
Almost all Roma from Abkhazia (about 800 people) left the area after
the war from 1992–1993 and the 1994 declaration of independence.
Most of them emigrated to the Russian Federation, mainly in Krasnodar
krai, but others (about 200 people), along with ethnic Georgian refugees
turned to Georgia and lived mainly in Tbilisi (Samgori district) and now
they again migrated from Georgia. The Roma refugees in the Russian
Federation faced problems because of their ambiguous legal status, deni-
als by local authorities to provide them with Russian passports, and anti-
Gypsy sentiments on the ground, and so some of them (about 500)
returned after 2002 to Abkhazia, to their former homes in the northern
part of the capital city of Sukhumi (Чихладзе 2008: 7; Szakonyi 2008: 16;
Sordia 2009: 4–5).
The housing situation of the Roma in Georgia is ambiguous. In some
cases (Kutaisi, Kobuleti) they live a long time in one and the same place,
mostly in their own houses, in other cases they live in rented accommoda-
tion (Tbilisi, Sukhumi, some residents in Batumi). In Gachiani settlement
the houses of the Roma were built illegally but are partially legalized by
the supply of water and electricity (although with intermittent supply and
often disconnected). The situation is similar in Leninovka where some
Roma moved to abandoned houses and de facto became their owners
(although this is not legalized). In some places such as Lilo, Roma homes
(like shacks and temporary barracks) are totally illegal and devoid of all
kind of utilities. Problems with utilities (electricity and water) are every-
where, in all Roma settlements. In general, the living conditions of Roma
in Georgia are extremely hard and Roma settlements are visually distin-
guishable from those of the surrounding population.
Generally, in today’s independent Georgia the financial and economic
situation is bad, but it is more severe for the Roma. After the breakdown
of socialism the situation has radically changed and Roma not only lost
their regular jobs, but more importantly, in a free market economy they
were driven out by the surrounding population from their main economic
niches. Some Roma still live off the retail trade; buying goods for daily use
from the big wholesale market in Lilo, located near Tbilisi, and selling at
local markets or on the streets in cities (street trading is not prohibited), or
are carried by cars to remote villages to be sold there. Competition in this
area is huge, however, many Roma still receive enough money from this
trade for physical survival. Traditional occupations (mostly mobile black-
smithing by Vlakhi and Krymurya) are no longer suitable in the modern
era. The majority of Krymurya women keep trying to feed their families by
fortune telling on the streets of major cities (notably in Tbilisi). However,
the main occupation of Roma in Georgia today is begging (usually done
by women, accompanied by their small children).
These basic ways to make a living (plus searching for other casual earn-
ings) explain why, in practice, Roma settlements have more permanent
residents than are registered. During our visits to Leninovka and Gachiani
only three or four families were there, all the others had gone to Tbilisi
(and some to Azerbaijan), some for a few days, others for a few weeks, and
some even for months.
The main problem for the majority of Roma in Georgia are personal
documents (HRIDC 2003; Szakonyi 2008; Sordia 2009; Elibegova
2009). Formally, all Roma living in Georgia have the right to (and should)
obtain Georgian citizenship and IDs, but in practice they face a number
of difficulties in this bureaucratic procedure. Some of them are without
permanent address registration or have changed their residence, most of

them have not enough social literacy, do not know how to deal with admin-
istrative requirements and do not speak and write enough good Georgian
to fill out the necessary documents. The reluctance of local authorities to
commit efforts to solving the problem should also not be overlooked.
The problems with personal documents entail a number of other issues,
the main one being the impossibility of obtaining a pension or child wel-
fare, no matter how minor they are. Moreover, even when all required
documents are obtained, there are quite a few cases when local authorities
refuse to pay welfare to Roma under various pretexts. Lack of documents
deprives many Roma from free access to medical care, including pregnant
women, and a mass phenomenon in last two decades became giving birth
at home. Children born in such conditions are also not officially registered
and are not enrolled into the education system, so the problems continue
to multiply. The lack of a passport also does not allow many Roma to seek
an alternative livelihood abroad, which is a solution for many others.
Under these conditions it is obvious, that the educational level of the
Roma in Georgia is at a very low level. During the decades after the changes
a new generation has grown up with low literacy or completely illiterate,
and the older generation, educated in socialist times, display quite a low
level of functional literacy. This is a common problem for the countries of
the former Socialist camp, but is especially severe in independent Georgia,
where the only official language is Georgian, but many Roma were taught
in Russian schools and have no literacy skills in Georgian. Indeed, it is
exactly these low social skills, which are one of the main factors that pre-
vent Roma from Georgia from emigrating, and in fact retain a large num-
ber of the Roma in Georgia. On the whole, the situation of the Roma in
present-day Georgia can be assessed, without exaggeration, as extremely
severe, even in comparison with the problems of the Roma in the whole
of eastern Europe.
In this situation the lack of active Roma community organizations in
Georgia is palpable, and as far as there are any attempts to create them,
they are driven by non-Roma. The first such attempt was in 2002, when
the Human Rights Information and Documentation Center, with a grant
from the World Bank launched a project for a Protection Center for Roma
Community in Georgia, which envisaged the creation of a Georgian Roma
NGO (reported as established in 2008, but in fact only on paper, without
exercising any activity). In Georgia currently, are two official Roma
organizations: the Kakheti Gypsy organization “Roma” led by Venera
Martkoplishvili (a non-Roma woman) in Dedoplistskaro; and the Adjarian

Gypsy organization “Roma” in Kobuleti, led by Nargiz Dzhincharadzi
(also a non-Roma woman). All organizations had projects to support the
Roma in gaining their passports; similar projects created several other non-
Roma organizations in Georgia, but their effect was negligible. Among
the organizations involved in Roma issues until recently was the Caucasus
Regional Office of ECMI in Tbilisi with more diverse activities. All NGO
activities however are severely limited by the lack of funding opportuni-
ties. The Georgian state does not deny the existence of numerous Roma
problems and the need to work to overcome them, but in practice, in a
current difficult situation, neither state nor local governments are able to
target Roma issues (and often are reluctant to do it).
Another alternative for some Roma in Georgia are the new evangelical
churches (a picture well known in central and southeastern Europe). The
only one such church mission working among Roma in Georgia is the
Swedish Light for the People, which helped to establish a Roma church
in Kobuleti, with a Roma pastor, Roman Aslanov. This church is evange-
lizing among the Roma, attempts were made to extend the missions to
Batumi, but in general its overall activity is limited and highly controver-
sial (Chitanava 2013), thus social effects from it are still insignificant.
In independent Georgia, in conditions of civil war and armed conflicts,
with interethnic relations exacerbated, Georgian nationalism was directed
against “others”, including against the Roma. In the wake of the country’s
nationalist mobilization, militias swept through some of the small Roma
settlements in the 1990s, razing houses to the ground and indiscrimi-
nately seizing property (е.g. the above mentioned case of Mukuzani; cf.
Szakonyi 2008: 9).
Today, on the whole the attitude of Georgian society towards Roma
and their problems are slowly re returning to the old, traditional frames.
The public image of the Roma continues to be influenced by a high level of
ethnic stereotypes, negative attitudes, and social distance (Djavakhishvili
2005: 107–112), but now the situation is calmer, and there are even
attempts by some media to pay attention to the Roma issue (in a number
of articles in the press and documentaries) and to put samples of their
culture (songs and dances) in popular television shows.
The leading level of identity of Roma in Georgia is still based on their
group belonging. Internal divisions in the Roma community in Georgia
includes two main groups, Vlakhi and Krymurya. Territorial demarcation
between them is clearly expressed. Krymurya live in west Georgia, in
Kutaisi, Kobuleti (where there are also several Vlakhi families ) and in
Batumi (also several Vlakhi families live there seasonally) and in Sukhumi
in Abkhazia. Vlakhi (together with somePlashchuny families) are living in
Gachiani, Leninovka, and Telavi. The contact area between the two main
groups is the capital of Tbilisi. In spite of the chance of entering into con-
tact with each other, however, there is no tendency observed of building a
common identity of Georgian Roma.
Endogamy is still important for Roma in Georgia and mixed marriages
between members of different Roma groups are relatively few, more so
among the Vlakhi and Plashchuny, and also, but to a lesser extent of Vlakhi
with Ruska Roma. The distinction between Vlakhi and Krymurya remains.
They avoid entering into closer contact and intermarriage between the two
groups is almost non-existent. An additional separating factor is different
religions, as Vlakhi are Orthodox Christians and Krymurya are Muslims.
Within both groups the “Gypsy court” ceased to exist. The memory of its
existence is preserved among the Vlakhi (they call it sendo) and among the
Krymurya (they call it davia), but they admit that, in practice for at least
two decades, there was no single case to convene a court hearing for—
either within each group, much less between the two. The main reason for
this situation is the lack of respectable adults , following the departures to
the Russian Federation of a majority of Roma from Georgia, due to high
male mortality in recent decades, and the lack of financial means to invite
participation in court sessions by people “from outside” (i.e. respected
Roma living in Russia).
The links between Roma in Georgia and their closer or more distant
relatives abroad (mostly in the Russian Federation and Ukraine) were ter-
minated as a result of the country’s isolation and low living standards. The
transborder in-group marriages are currently non-existent, and now Roma
in Georgia exist as a small community, in practice almost entirely isolated
within the national borders.
Relations between Roma in Georgia and other communities, perceived
all together as Gypsies (that is Lom and Dom) by the surrounding popula-
tion, are virtually completely missing. Lom inhabit mainly regions where
Roma do not live and where Dom do not go, so the three communities
are deprived of the possibility of direct contact. The Dom from Azerbaijan
living in Tbilisi and Kutaisi have many occasion to meet Roma, particularly
given their common petty trade and begging occupations, but in spite
of this the Roma avoid any contact with them. So, at least at this stage,
the construction of any kind of unity or achieving at least some form of
co-operation and sense of common belonging between the three divisions

seems impossible.
In Azerbaijan there is no vital Roma community nowadays, only
some families (mainly Plashchuny, Vlakhi, Ruska Roma, and Lovari) live
scattered among the local population. Some of them lived in Baku and
Sumqayit from the time of the USSR and have preserved until now links
(including marital relations) with their own groups, whose members live
in the Russian Federation, others are labor migrants there. Although indi-
vidual groups are frequently in contact with each other, no tendency was
observed to build a common identity of Azerbaijan Roma.
The main occupation of the local Roma in Azerbaijan is trade in various
commodities in the markets, combined in many cases with work in semi-
professional Gypsy music and dance groups, serving weddings and other
celebrations of the surrounding population.
Their housing conditions and living standards are good according to
local standards and do not differ from those of the local population. Their
desire is not to be publicly visible, so attempts to include Roma in NGO
projects are still without success.
3.4 GYPSY MIGRATION IN THE POST-SOVIET SPACE

Unlike Central Asian Gypsies, for whom contemporary migration in the
post-Soviet space has become an extremely important factor in their over-
all life, for the Gypsies in the Caucasus, migration is not essential and is
quite limited. In fact, out of the three Roma communities whose homes
are on the Caucasus (Dom, Lom, and Roma) only among the Dom is
there a sustainable model of cross-border migration in the post-Soviet
space. Migration of Dom from Azerbaijan to Georgia, which could be
defined as a specific form of cross-border labor mobility, is only part of
their movements in the whole post-Soviet space. The migration of Dom,
however, has a much broader scope. Our interlocutors told us about
their trips to different cities in the Russian Federation: Moscow, Saint
Petersburg, Kasnodar, Grozny (the capital of Chechnya) and other major
cities (primarily in southern Russia). Some of them even went begging in
eastern Turkey, but were not satisfied with the conditions and amount of
money earned and the strong competition in begging from local Domlar.
The Dom from Caucasus mostly visited the city of Diyarbakır, where they
established contacts with local Kurdish speaking Dom. Basically, Dom
from Azerbaijan perceived Dom in Turkey as part of their community (and
vice versa) with whom marital relations are fully acceptable, but in practice
the links between the two communities do not deepen and develop, and
they remain detached one from another.
At the time of the USSR in Georgia lived representatives of other
Roma groups: Ruska Roma, Servi, Kishinyovtsi, and at least temporarily
Kelderari. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, almost all of them have
emigrated. Roma migration from southern Caucasus started soon after
the proclamation of Georgia as an independent state in 1991. The main
reason for this was the situation in Georgia after the declaration of inde-
pendence: the short rule of President Zviad Gamsakhurdia; the nation-
alist “Georgia for the Georgians” hysteria launched by the followers of
Gamsakhurdia; the civil war and armed conflicts in Abkhazia and Southern
Ossetia in the first half of the 1990s. In these conditions, combined with
a severe economic crisis and a plummeting standard of living, the majority
of Roma from Georgia managed to emigrate to the Russian Federation,
mainly in the Krasnodar region, Rostov and Volga regions, and only some
families returned back after the situation in Georgia calmed down. Those
who didn’t emigrate in the early years of independence, were confined to
Georgian territory with limited chances to migrate due to a lack of per-
sonal documents. After the military clashes in Southern Ossetia in 2008
an imposed visa regime with the Russian Federation limited further the
opportunities for migration, and practically the only country where Roma
from Georgia can migrate for interim earnings or trade is Azerbaijan.
We did not come across any information about contemporary migra-
tion of Lom to other countries neither in the literature nor the media. In
our talks with Lom in Armenia and Georgia only isolated cases of migra-
tion in the Russian Federation were mentioned as part of general labor
migration from modern Armenia. We can conclude that apart from some
individual cases we cannot speak about migration of Lom from Armenian
localities.
CONCLUSION
Abstract The conclusion looks at how the analysis of the history and
modern development of Gypsy communities in Central Asia and Caucasus,
directly relates to the development of Romani and area studies, and to
social practice and other disciplines.
This study of Gypsies in the areas of Central Asia and the Caucasus
clearly shows how separate communities with a common or close origin,
whose social position has been more or less similar in the relatively recent
past, come to be in very different situations – socially, politically, and eco-
nomically. Trends in the development of these communities can provide
insights of comparative import for other regions, especially in the case of
Gypsies (Roma, Sinti, and so on) in Europe. From this perspective, the
situation of the Gypsies in Central Asia and the Caucasus is inspiring on
two, at least, very important counts.
First, the case of the Central Asian Gypsies (Mughat), Intermediate
(Mazang, Tavoktarosh/Sogutarosh, Agha) and Gypsy-like communities
(Kavol, Chistoni, Parya, Balyuj) clearly demonstrates that all attempts to
subsume them into categories imposed from outside by state administra-
tion (that could be defined in turn as Colonial, Soviet, and Democratic)
proved ultimately unsuccessful. It turns out that the development of dif-
ferent Gypsy and Gypsy-like communities in Central Asia follows its own,
internal (in terms of the community) logic, and the processes are influ-
enced by a variety of historical and social factors. Therefore, it is not dif-
ficult to predict that modern attempts at social and ethnic engineering to

and the Caucasus, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-41057-9
108 CONCLUSION
attach the Roma label will have no noticeable impact on the indentifica-
tion processes in their different communities.
Second, the case of the Gypsies in the Caucasus (Dom and Lom) clearly
shows that the social integration of different Gypsy communities in differ-
ent historical and socio-political environments also runs according to their
internal (in terms of the community) logic—and the results achieved are
different in each community. The case of Roma and Dom in Transcaucasia
shows how rapid can process a marginalization of previously integrated
communities in unfavorable social and political conditions. The example
of the Lom, however, reveals a high level of social and ethnic integration
unknown among other Gypsy communities worldwide. It also shows that
fears of Gypsy assimilation as a result of social integration are unfounded,
because—despite their partial voluntary, ethnic assimilation (without
being subject to special policies)—their existence as a specific ethnic com-
munity is not threatened.
This study of Gypsies in the areas of Central Asia and the Caucasus
proves the need for new research on Gypsies worldwide. Not only to
enrich Romani and area studies, but also because it will be of use in social
practice and will contribute to the overall development of numerous other
disciplines.
REFERENCES
Abashin, Sergei. 2014. Migration from Central Asia to Russia in the new model of
world order. Russian Politics & Law 52(6): 8–23.
Agadjanian, Alexander, Ansgar Jödicke, and Evert van der Zweerde (eds.). 2014.
Religion, nation and democracy in the South Caucasus. London/New York:
Routledge.
Akiner, Shirin. 2003. Enduring strangers: Mughat, Lyuli, and other peripatetics in
the social fabric of Central Asia. In Customary strangers: New perspectives on
peripatetic peoples in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, ed. Joseph C. Berland
and Aparna Rao, 299–307. Westport: Praeger.
Armenia. 2001. Ethnic structure of the de jure population. Retrieved January 25,
2016, from http://www.armstat.am/file/doc/86.pdf.
Asatryan, Garnik, and Viktoria Arakelova. 2002. The ethnic minorities of Armenia.
Yerevan: Yerevan Press.
Atakhanov, Shavkat, and Ablaibek Asankanov. 2002. The Gypsies [Luli] of Central
Asia. Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia 41(1): 9–15.
Barany, Zoltan. 2002. The East European Gypsies: Regime change, marginality and
ethnopolitics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barth, Fredrik. 1969. Introduction. In Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social
organization of culture difference, ed. Fredrik Barth, 9–37. Bergen/Oslo/
London: Universitetsforlaget/George Allen.
Benninghaus, Rüdiger. 1991. Les tsiganes de la Turquie orientale. Études tsiganes
37(3): 47–53.
Black, George Ferdinand. 1913. The Gypsies of Armenia. Journal of the Gypsy Lore
Society (New Series) 6(4): 327–330.
Bonvalot, Pierre Gabriel Édouard. 1884. En Asie centrale: De Moscou en Bactriane.
Ouvrage enrichi d'une carte et de gravures. Paris: E. Plon Nourrit et cie.

110 REFERENCES
Bozkurt, Tülin. 2006. Poşalar örneğinde etnisite ve toplumsal cinsiyet ilişkisi. In

Artakalanlar: Anadolu’dan Etnik Manzaralar, ed. Çakır Ceyhan Suvari, Ayşe
Yıldırım, Tülin Bozkurt, and İlker M. İşoğlu, 283–355. Istanbul: e Yayınları.
Braude, Benjamin. 1982. Foundation myths of the millet system. In Christians and
Jews in the Ottoman empire: The functioning of a plural society, vol. 1, ed. Benjamin
Braude and Bernard Lewis, 69–88. New York/London: Holmes and Meier.
Bremmer, Ian, and Ray Tarras (eds.). 1997. New states, new politics: Building the
post-Soviet nations. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
CAHROM (2015) 16. Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Roma issues (CAHROM).
9 CAHROM Meeting. Strasbourg, 27–29 May 2015. Retrieved January 25,
2016, from https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/Displ
ayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016803061e5.
CERD. 2013. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Reports
submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention. Uzbekistan. 5
November 2012. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://docstore.ohchr.
org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2FPPRiCAqhKb7yhsj52m
zXcn4yORN%2FWhST9IA07bldUs%2FUoOtmfWSPm1u00EeCNILKYtH%
2FiRAdy17uB8kgmlRBvv33dPYJiioFegpDU5GhJOCxJ4Vrloi9bf%2F%2Fc.
CERD. 2014. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination considers
report of Uzbekistan. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.ohchr.
org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14247&LangID=E.
Çetin, Ensar. 2014. Çankırı Poşalarında Sosyal ve Dini Hayat. Atatürk Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 18(3): 85–102.
Chitanava, Ekaterine. 2013. Between sinful and righteous: Conversion to
Pentecostalism in a Roma community in Georgia. MA thesis. Budapest: Central
European University.
Çingenelerin Sitesi / The web page of Gypsies. Dünya 2009–2010. Retrieved
January 25, 2016, from http://cingeneyizenglishn.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/
dunya-2009-2010.html.
Coleman, Simon, and Pauline von Hellermann (eds.). 2011. Multi-sited ethnogra-
phy: Problems and possibilities in the translocation of research methods. New York:
Routledge.
Cornell, Svante E. 2001. Small nations and great powers: A study of ethnopolitical
conflict in the Caucasus. Richmond Surrey: Curzon Press.
Crowe, David. 1993. The Liuli (Gypsies) of Central Asia. Bulletin of the Association
for the Advancement of Central Asian Research 6(1): 2–6.
Crowe, David. 1994. A history of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia.
New York: St Martin’s Griffin.
de Pauli, Theodore. 1862. Description ethnographique des peuples de la Russie.
Saint-Pétersbourg: F. Bellizard.
Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on the Rise of Anti-Gypsyism and Racist
Violence against Roma in Europe. 2012. Adopted on 1 February 2012. Retrieved
January 25, 2015, from https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1902151.
REFERENCES 111
Dowsett, Charles J.F. 1973–1974. Some Gypsy-Armenian correspondences.

Revue des études Armeniennes (Nouvelle série) 10: 59–81.
Elibegova, Dea. 2009. Protection or isolation? On Georgia’s policy choice towards
Roma. In Georgian minorities: Roma, Qists, Assyrians, Ezids, ed. Dea Elibegova,
Libertas Paper 72: 7–26.
Erkul, Ali. 1998. Bir Alt Kültür Grubu Olarak Poşalar. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 20–21: 21–31.
ERRC (European Roma Rights Center). 2004. Transcaucasian region. Field mis-
sion conducted by ERRC to Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. April 2004
[Unpublished Report].
ERRC (European Roma Rights Center). 2005. In search of happy Gypsies:
Persecution of pariah minorities in Russia, Country Report Series 14. Budapest:
European Roma Right Centre.
European Commission. 2011. EU framework for National Roma Strategies up to
2020. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/poli-
cies/discrimination/docs/com_2011_173_en.pdf.
European Commission. 2012. National Roma Integration Strategies: A first step in
the implementation of the EU framework. Retrieved January 25, 2015, from
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/com2012_226_en.pdf.
Falzon, Mark-Anthony, and Clare Hall (eds.). 2009. Multi-sited ethnography:
Theory, praxis and locality in contemporary research. Farnham/Burlington:
Ashgate.
Finck, Franz Nicolaus. 1905. Die Stellung des Armenisch-Ziguenerischen im Kreise
der verwandten Mundarten. Halle a.d.S: Rudolf Haupt.
Finck, Franz Nicolaus. 1907a. Die Sprache der armenischen Zigeuner. Зaпиcки
Импepaтopcкoй Aкaдeмии нaук пo иcтopикo-филoлoгичecкoму oтдeлeнию
(Cepия 8) 8(5): 1–134.
Finck, Franz Nikolaus. 1907b. Die Grundzüge des Armenisch-Ziguenerischen
Sprachbaus. Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society (New Series) 1: 34–60.
FRA (Fundamental Rights Agency). 2010. The Fundamental Rights position of Roma
and Travellers in the European Union. Retrieved July 25, 2015, from http://fra.
europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/1012-roma-travellers-factsheet_en.
pdf.
Gatelier, Karine. 2004. La représentation des mugat dans les sources écrites: réalité
de leur mobilité et de la sédentarité. Les Cahiers d’Asie centrale 11–12: 269–289.
Georgia. Ethnic groups by major administrative-territorial units. 2002. Retrieved
January 25, 2016, from http://www.geostat.ge/cms/site_images/_files/eng-
lish/Census/2002/03%20Ethnic%20Composition.pdf.
Grenard, Fernand. 1898. J.-L. Dutreuil de Rhins: Mission scientifique dans la
Haute Asie. 1890–1895, vol. II. Paris: Ernest Leroux.
Günther, Olaf. 2007. Laissez faire und totale Erfassung. Die staatliche Verwaltung
zigeunerischer Gruppen in Mittelasien. Orientwissenschaftliche Hefte 25:
103–120.
112 REFERENCES
Günther, Olaf. 2008. Praktizierte Relationen. Das “Zigeunerische“ in

Ordungsvorstellungen bei Zigeunergruppen und der Mehrheitsbevölkerung
Mittelasiens. In Roma-/Zigeunerkulturen in neuen Perspektiven. Romani/Gypsy
cultures in new perspectives, ed. Fabian Jacobs and Johannes Ries, 71–90.
Leipzig: Leipzig University Press.
Günther, Olaf. 2011. Zigeunerkulturen im städtischen Zwischenraum. In Oase,
Zelt und Zwischenraum: 3 mal Afghanistan, Mike Jessat and Olaf Günther,
hrsg., 86–98. Mauritianum: Altenburg.
Günther, Olaf. 2016. Im Zwischenraum – Zigeuner in Zentralasien. Ein Vergleich
postsowjetischer und afghanischer mugat-Gruppen. Leipzig: Leipziger
Universitätsverlag.
Hancock, Ian. 2002. We are the Romani People / Ame Sam E Rromane Džene.
Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press.
Hancock, Ian. 2010. Danger! Educated Gypsy. Selected essays. Hatfield: University
of Hertfordshire Press.
Hille, Charlotte M.L. 2010. State building and conflict resolution in the Caucasus.
Leiden: Brill.
Hofmann, Tessa. 1987. Die Lom (Boscha) Armeniens. Pogrom: Zeitschrift für bed-
rohte Völker 18(130): 67–71.
Hohmann, Sophie, Claire Mouradian, Silvia Serrano, and Julien Thorez (eds.).
2014. Development in Central Asia and the Caucasus: Migration, democratisa-
tion and inequality in the post-Soviet era. London/New York: IB Tauris.
HRIDC (Human Rights Information and Documentation Center). 2003. People
without rights: Roma rights in Georgia. Report. Tbilisi: HRIDC.
ICMPD (International Centre for Migration Policy Development). 2005. Oбзop
мигpaциoнныx cиcтeм в cтpaнax CHГ: Apмeния, Aзepбaйджaн, Бeлapуcь, Гpузия,
Кaзaxcтaн, Кыpгызcтaн, Moлдoвa, Pocccия, Taджикиcтaн, Tуpкмeниcтaн,
Укpaинa и Узбeкиcтaн. Beнa: Meждунapoдный цeнтp paзвития мигpaциoннoй
пoлитики.
Inalcık, Halil. 1973. The Ottoman Empire: The classical age 1300–600. London:
Weidenfield and Nicolson.
IOM (International Organization for Migration). 2015. Mapping on irregular
migration in Central Asia 2014. Astana: IOM.
Ivanoff, Jacques, F.N. Cholmeley, and Pierre Ivanoff. 1997. Moken: Sea-Gypsies of
the Andaman Sea. Post-war chronicles. Bangkok: Cheney.
Kalika, Pinja A. 1985. Die Zigeuner in Transkaukasien. Giessener Hefte für
Tsiganologie 2(1): 43–51.
Kalinin, Valdemar. 2000. Oh, this Russian spirit abides everywhere: A dialogue of
the imagination with Dr Donald Kenrick. In Scholarship and the Gypsy struggle.
Commitment in Romani studies, ed. Thomas Acton, 140–149. Hatfield:
University of Hertfordshire Press.
Karpat, Kemal. 1985. Ottoman population 1830–1914: Demographic and social
characteristics. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
REFERENCES 113
Kenrick, Donald. 2004. Gypsies: From the Ganges to the Thames. Hatfield: University
of Hertfordshire Press.
King, Charles. 2008. The ghost of freedom: A history of the Caucasus. Oxford/New
York: Oxford University Press.
Knapp, William I. 1909. The Soozmanee: Are they Gypsies? Journal of the Gypsy
Lore Society (New Series) 2(2): 275–276 (Letter of 1844 to George Borrow).
Kolukırık, Suat. 2008. Türkiye’de Rom, Dom ve Lom Gruplarının Görünümü. /
The case of Rom, Dom and Lom Groups in Turkey. In Türkiyat Araştırmaları,
ed. Cihat Özönder, 145–154. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
Kutlík-Garudo, Igor Évariste. 1993. Sprachliches und Zeitliches zur
Zigeunerimmigration in Armenien und Palästina im Mittelalter. Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 143: 265–286.
Lee-Smith, Mei W. 1996. The Ejnu language. In Atlas of languages of intercul-
tural communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas, vol. 2, ed. Stephen
A. Wurm, Peter Mühlhäusler, and Darrell T. Tyron, 851–863. Berlin/New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lehmann-Haupt, Carl Friedrich. 1913. Die Zahlwörter der Zigeuner von Van in
Ostarmenien. Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society (New Series) 7(2): 104–111.
Lehmann-Haupt, Carl Friedrich. 1928. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Bôscha. Journal
of the Gypsy Lore Society (Third Series) 7(3–4): 184–195.
Lemon, Alaina. 2000. Between two fires: Gypsy performance and Romani memory
from Pushkin to postsocialism. London: Duke University Press.
Lesný, Vincenc. 1916. Cikáni v Čechách a na Moravě. Národopisný věstník
Českoslovanský 11: 193–216.
Liégeois, Jean-Pierre. 1987. Gypsies and Travellers. Strasbourg: Council for
Cultural Cooperation.
Liégeois, Jean-Pierre. 1994. Roma, Gypsies, Travellers. Strasbourg: Council of
Europe.
Liégeois, Jean-Pierre. 2007. Roma in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Marcus, George E. 1995. Ethnography in/of the World System: The emergence
of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95–117.
Marszewski, Mariusz. 2011. Cyganie środkowoazjatyccy - ofiary rozpadu Związku
Radzieckiego. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.etnologia.pl/
swiat/teksty/cyganie-srodkowoazjatyccy-2.php.
Marushiakova, Elena, and Vesselin Popov. 2003. Ethnic identities and economic
strategies of the Gypsies in the countries of the former USSR.
Orientwissenschaftliche Hefte 9: 289–310.
Marushiakova, Elena, and Vesselin Popov. 2004. Segmentation vs consolidation:
The example of four Gypsy Groups in CIS. Romani Studies Ser. 5, 14(2):
145–191.
Marushiakova, Elena, and Vesselin Popov. 2005. Gypsies in the Crimea. In
Bewegliche Horizonte. Festschrift für Bernhard Streck, ed. Katja Geisenhainer
and Katharina Lange, 425–444. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.
114 REFERENCES
Marushiakova, Elena, and Vesselin Popov. 2007. The Gypsy court in Eastern
Europe. Romani Studies 17(1): 67–101.
Marushiakova, Elena, and Vesselin Popov. 2008a. Soviet Union before World War
II. In Information fact sheets on Roma history. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Marushiakova, Elena, and Vesselin Popov. 2008b. State policies under Communism.
In Information fact sheets on Roma history. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Marushiakova, Elena, and Vesselin Popov. 2012. Roma culture in past and present.
Catalogue. Sofia: Paradigma.
Marushiakova, Elena, and Vesselin Popov. 2015a. Central Asian Gypsies: Identities
and migrations. Sprawy Narodowosciowe (Seria nowa) / Nationalities Affairs
(New series) 46: 1–22.
Marushiakova, Elena, and Vesselin Popov. 2015b. Identity and language of the
Roma (Gypsies) in Central and Eastern Europe. In The Palgrave handbook of
slavic languages, identities and borders, ed. Tomasz Kamusella, Motoki
Nomachi, and Catherine Gibson, 26–54. London: Palgrave.
Marushiakova, Elena, and Vesselin Popov. 2016a. Who are Roma? In Roma cul-
ture: Myths and realities, ed. Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov, 7–34.
Munich: Lincom.
Marushiakova, Elena, and Vesselin Popov. 2016b. The Gypsy/Roma movement in
post-Soviet space: Past, present and future. In Current cultural studies, ed.
Ekaterina Anastasova and Mare Kõiva, 28–59. Tartu: KLM.
Marutyan, Harutyun. 2011. The contemporary expression of the identity of the
Bosha. Acta Ethnographica Hungarica 56(2): 297–314.
Marutyan, Harutyun, et al. 1999. Armenian Gypsies: Traditions, modern situation
and perspectives. / Apмянcкиe “мaxaгopцы”: тpaдиции, coвpeмeннocт,
пepcпeктивы. Yerevan [Unpublished bilingual manuscript].
Matras, Yaron. 2002. Romani: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Matras, Yaron. 2004. The role of language in mystifying and de-mystifying Gypsy
identity. In The role of the Romanies, ed. Nicholas Saul and Susan Tebbutt,
53–78. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Matras, Yaron. 2012. A grammar of Domari. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyte.
Matthee, Rudi. 2000. Prostitutes, courtesans, and dancing girls: Women enter-
tainers in Safavid Iran. In Iran and beyond. Essays in Middle Eastern history in
honor of Nikki R. Keddie, ed. Rudi Matthee and Beth Baron, 121–150. Costa
Mesa: Mazda.
Memorial & FIDH. 2005. Violation of the rights of Roma children in the Russian
Federation. Joint Report of the Memorial Saint-Petersburg and the International
Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) submitted to the Committee on the
Rights of the Child, 40th session. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from https://
www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/crc_ru_062005.pdf.
REFERENCES 115
Mentzel, Peter. 2000. Millets, states and national identities. Nationalities Papers
28(1): 199–204.
Minorsky, Vladimir. 1931. Les Tsiganes Lûlî et les Lurs persans. Journal Asiatique
218: 281–305.
Minorsky, Vladimir. 1986. Luli. In Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. 5, 2nd ed, 816.
Leiden: Brill.
Mukomel, Vladimir. 2013. Labour mobility of migrants from CIS countries in
Russia. Central and Eastern European Migration Review 2(2): 21–38.
National Minorities of the Republic of Armenia in Transition. 2005. Vol.
II. Yerevan: Gitutiun [Unpublished manuscript].
Nazarov, Khol. 1975. Different groups of Middle-Asian Gypsies. Roma 1(3):
3–23.
Nazarov, Khol. 1982. Contemporary ethnic development of the Central Asian
Gypsies (Liuli). Soviet Anthropology and Archeology 21(3): 3–28.
O’Keeffe, Brigid. 2013. New Soviet Gypsies: Nationality, Performance, and Selfhood
in the Early Soviet Union. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Oransky, Iosif. 1960. On an Indian dialect discovered in Central Asia. Tpуды
двaдцaтьпятoгo мeждунapoднoгo кoнгpecca вocтoкoвeдoв. Mocквa, 9–16
aвгуcтa 1960 г, 30–37. Toм IV. Mocквa: Инcтитут вocтoчнoй литepaтуpы.
Ozierski, Przemysław. 2014. Central Asian Gypsies – Lyuli: The overview of cur-
rent socio-economic problems. Przegląd Narodowościowy / Review of
Nationalities 3: 81–88.
Özkan, Ali Rafet. 2000. Türkiye Çingeneleri. Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı
Yayınları.
Özkan, Ali Rafet, and Kemal Polat. 2005. Socio-cultural life of Gypsies in Southern
Kyrgyzstan. Social Science Journal 42(3): 469–478.
Papaziants, Vartanes. 1899. Hay-Poshaner: An ethnographic study. Tiflis [in
Armenian].
Paspati, Alexandre. 1870. Études sur les Tchinghianés ou Bohémiens de l’Empire
Ottoman. Constantinople.
Patkanoff, Kerope. 1907–1908. Some words on the dialects of the Transcaucasian
Gypsies: Bošà and Karači. Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society (New Series) 1:
229–257.
Patkanoff, Kerope. 1909. Some words on the dialects of the Transcaucasian
Gypsies: Bošà and Karači. Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society (New Series) 2:
246–266, 3: 325–334.
Payne, John R. 1997. The Central Asian Parya. In Languages and scripts of Central
Asia, ed. Shirin Akiner and N. Sims Williams, 144–153. London: School of
Oriental and African Studies.
Petrosian, Hamlet. 2002. Name and prestige: Self-designation, outsider-
designation, and the search for a neutral designation (On the system of ethn-
onyms of the Armenian Gypsies). Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia 41(1):
16–25.
116 REFERENCES
Population and Housing Census of the Kyrgyz Republic of 2009. 2009. Book I.
Main social and demographic characteristics of population and number of hous-
ing units. Bishkek: National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic.
Pstrusińska, Jadwiga. 1986. Magati: Some notes on an unknown language of
northern Afghanistan. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford 17(2):
135–139.
Pstrusińska, Jadwiga. 2013. Secret languages of Afghanistan and their speakers.
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Rahmonova-Schwarz, Delia. 2012. Family and transnational mobility in post-
Soviet Central Asia: Labor migration from Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
to Russia. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Rao, Aparna. 1983. Zigeunerähnliche Gruppen in West-, Zentral- und Südasien.
In Zigeuner – Roma, Sinti, Gitanos, Gypsies. Zwischen Verfolgung und
Romantisierung, Rüdiger Vossen, hrsg., 166–186. Frankfurt am Main: Ullstein.
Rao, Aparna. 1986. Peripatetic Minorities in Afghanistan – Image and Identity. In:
Orywal, Erwin, hrsg. Die ethnischen Gruppen Afghanistans. Fallstudien zur
Gruppenidentität und Intergruppenbeziehung. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 182–203.
Reeves, Madeleine. 2011. Movement, power and place in Central Asia and beyond:
Contested trajectories. London: Routledge.
Reeves, Madeleine. 2013. Migration, masculinity, and transformations of social
space in the Sokh Valley, Uzbekistan. In Migration and social upheaval as the
face of globalization in Central Asia, ed. Marlene Laruelle, 307–332. Brill:
Leiden & Boston.
Reeves, Madeleine. 2014. Border work: Spatial lives of the state in rural Central
Asia, Culture and Society After Socialism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Reeves, Madeleine, Johan Rasanayagam, and Judith Beyer (eds.). 2014.
Ethnographies of the state in Central Asia: Performing politics. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on minority issues, Rita Izsák. United Nations.
General Assembly. Human Rights Council. Twenty-ninth session. Agenda item 3:
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and
cultural rights, including the right to development. 11 May 2015. Retrieved
January 25, 2016, from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/
RegularSessions/Session28/Documents/A_HRC_28_64_Add_2_SPA.doc.
Roy, Olivier. 2000. The new Central Asia: The creation of nations. London: I. B.
Tauris.
Ryazantsev, Sergei V., Norio Horie, and Kazuhiro Kumo. 2010. Migrant workers
from Central Asia into the Russian Federation. Center for Economic Institutions.
Working Paper Series 1: 1–32.
Said, Edward. 1995. Orientalism: Western conceptions of the orient. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Sampson, John. 1923. On the origin and early migration of the Gypsies. Journal
of the Gypsy Lore Society (Third Series) 2: 156–169.
REFERENCES 117
Sargisyan, O.N. 1864. Topography of Greater and Lesser Armenia. Venice [in
Armenian].
Scala, Andrea. 2014. The mixed language of the Armenian Bosha (Lomavren) and
its inflectional morphology: Some considerations in light of Armenian dialectal
variation. Annali del Dipartimento di Studi Letterari, Linguistici e Comparati,
Sezione linguistica 3: 233–250.
Schuyler, Eugene. 1877. Turkistan. Notes of a Journey in Russian Turkistan.
Khokand, Bukhara and Kuldja, vol. I. New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co.
Seropyan, Sarkis. 2000. Vatansız Tek Ulus Çingeneler ve Çingenelerin
Ermenileşmişleri, Haypoşalar. Tarih ve Toplum 34: 21–26.
Smith, Graham (ed.). 1996. The nationalities question in the post-Soviet states.
London/New York: Longman.
Sordia, Giorgi. 2009. A Way Out?: Initial steps towards addressing Romani issues in
Georgia, ECMI Issue Brief No 21. Flensburg: European Centre for Minority
Issues (ECMI).
Stankowich, Moisés. 2005. Los gitanos en China. I Tchatchipen 52: 4–7.
Statistical data on foreign citizens on the territory of the Russian Federation.
Federal Migration Service. July 2, 2014. Retrieved July 21, 2014, from http://
www.fms.gov.ru/about/statistics/data/details/54891/.
Stoltz, Dustin S. 2014. Social capital and relational work: Uncertainty, distrust
and social support in Azerbaijan. Ann Arbor: ProQuest LLC. Retrieved January
25, 2016, from http://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=
1013&context=mts.
Streck, Bernhard. 2005. Raum und Zwischenraum. Zur Mobilität von Zigeuner-
gruppen im heutigen Europa. Volkskunde in Rheinland-Pfalz 19(2): 4–5.
Streck, Bernhard. 2008. Kultur der Zwischenräume: Grundfragen der Tsiganologie.
In Roma-/Zigeunerkulturen in neuen Perspektiven. Romani/Gypsy cultures in
new perspectives, ed. Fabian Jacobs and Johannes Ries, 21–48. Leipzig: Leipzig
University Press.
Streck, Bernhard. 2011. Ethnologie und Tsiganologie. Warum studieren wir
“überrollte“ Kulturen? Behemoth 4(1): 106–123.
Szakonyi, David. 2008. A Way Out?: Initial steps towards addressing Romani issues
in Georgia, ECMI Working Paper No. 39. Flensburg: European Centre for
Minority Issues (ECMI).
The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur). 1922. Translated from the origi-
nal Turkish text of Zahiru’d-din Muḥammad Bābur Pādshāh Ghāzi by Annette
Susannah Beveridge. Vol. 1–2. London: Luzac & Co.
Tietze, Andreas, and Otto Ladstätter. 1994. Die Abdal (Äynu) in Xinjiang. Wien:
Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Tishkov, Valery, Zhanna Zayinchkovskaya, and Galina Vitkovskaya. 2005.
Migration in the countries of the former Soviet Union. Moscow: Global
Commission on International Migration.
118 REFERENCES
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2014. Trade and human

development, Central Asia Human Development Series. New York: United
Nations Development Programme Regional Bureau for Europe and the
Commonwealth of Independent States.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2015. Labour migration,
remittances, and human development in Central Asia, Central Asia Human
Development Series. New York: United Nations Development Programme
Regional Bureau for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States.
van Rheenen, M. 2015. LOM: Still present. KURI – Dom Research Center Journal
3: 1–6. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.domresearchcenter.
com/journal/current.html.
Veradzin, M. 1931. Armenian Gypsies in Asia Minor. Hairenik 9(6): 132–141 [in
Armenian].
Voskanian, Vardan. 2002. Iranian loan-words in Lomavren, the secret language of
the Armenian Gypsies. Iran and the Caucasus 6(1–2): 169–180.
White, Walter G. 1922. The sea Gypsies of Malaya: An account of the nomadic
Mawken people of the Mergui Archipelago with a description of their ways of liv-
ing, customs, habits, boats, occupations, etc. London: Seeley, Service & Co.
Wooden, Amanda E., and Christoph H. Stefes (eds.). 2014. The politics of transi-
tion in Central Asia and the Caucasus: Enduring legacies and emerging chal-
lenges. New York: Routledge.
Yang, Zhijiu. 2004. Los gitanos en la dinastía Yuan. I Tchatchipen 45: 4–9.
Zhdanko, Tatyana. 1966. Sedentarization of the nomads of Central Asia, includ-
ing Kazakhstan, under the Soviet regime. International Labour Review 93(6):
600–620.
***
Aбaшин, Cepгeй. 2004. Cpeднeaзиaтcкaя бoгeмa. Retrieved January 15, 2014,
from http://www.sakharov-center.ru/museum/exhibitionhall/prishelci/hall_
exhibitions_current_prishelci.htm. [Re-uploaded: http://www.gumilev-center.
az/sredneaziatskaya-bogema/].
Aбaшин, Cepгeй. 2007. Haциoнaлизмы в Cpeднeй Aзии: B пoиcкax идeнтичнocти.
Caнкт-Пeтepбуpг: Aлeтeйя.
Aбpaмoв, Maнoшe. 1989. Гузapы Caмapкaндa. Taшкeнт: Узбeкиcтaн.
AДЦ Meмopиaл (Aнтидиcкpиминaциoнный цeнтp Meмopиaл). 2010.
Диcкpиминaция этничecкиx мeньшинcтв и мигpaнтoв в peaлизaции coциaльнo-
экoнoмичecкиx и культуpныx пpaв в Poccии. Caнкт-Пeтepбуpг AДЦ Meмopиaл.
Aлфaвитный cпиcoк нapoдoв, oбитaющиx в Poccийcкoй Импepии. 1895. Caнкт-
Пeтepбуpг: Кaнцeляpия Кoмитeтa миниcтpoв.
Apмянcкaя aнoнимнaя xpoникa 172-1736 гг. 1988. Бaку: Элм.
Apмянcкaя энциклoпeдия фoндa “Xaйaзг”. 1988. Кapaпeт Бaгpaтуни. Retrieved
January 25, 2016, from http://ru.hayazg.info/Бaгpaтуни_Кapaпeт.
REFERENCES 119
Aтaxaнoв, Шaвкaт. 2005. Цыгaнe Фepгaнcкoй дoлины (иcтopикo-этнoлoгичecкoe

иccлeдoвaниe). Aвтopeфepaт кaндидaтcкoй диccepтaции. Taшкeнт: Aкaдeмия
нaук Pecпублики Узбeкиcтaн, Инcтитут иcтopии.
Бeлoзepoв, Bитaлий, Aлeкcaндp Пaнин, Poмaн Пpиxoдькo, Bacилий Чиxичин, &
Aлeкcaндp Чepкacoв, cocт. 2014. Этничecкий aтлac Cтaвpoпoльcкoгo кpaя.
Cтaвpoпoль: ФOК – Юг.
Бeccoнoв, Hикoлaй. 2000–2003. Цыгaнe и пpecca. Bып. 1, 2. Mocквa.
Бeccoнoв, Hикoлaй. 2008. Cpeднeaзиaтcкиe Цыгaнe и иx кoчeвьe пo Poccии.
Этнoпaнopaмa 3–4: 27–39.
Бeccoнoв, Hикoлaй. 2010. Цыгaнcкaя тpaгeдия 1941-1945. Фaкты, дoкумeнты,
вocпoминaния. Toм 2. Boopужeнный oтпop. Caнкт-Пeтepбуpг: Шaтpa.
Бoндapь, Hикoлaй. 1990. Чтo мы дpуг o дpугe? Eтнoгpaфичecкий oчepк o
нapoдax Кубaни. In: Шулякoвa, Гaлинa, cocт. Кубaнcкий кpaeвeд. Bып 1.
Кpacнoдap: Кpacнoдapcкoe книжнoe издaтeльcтвo, 132–174.
Бугaй, Hикoлaй. 1995a. Л. Бepия - И. Cтaлину: Coглacнo Baшeму укaзaнию.
Mocквa: AИPO-XX.
Бугaй, Hикoлaй. 1995b. Tуpки из Mecxeтии: дoлгий путь к peaбилитaции
(1944–1994). Mocквa: POCC.
Бугaй, Hикoлaй. 2009a. Цыгaнe в cиcтeмe мeжнaциoнaльныx oтнoшeний
Чepнoмopья – Кубaнcкoй oблacти – Кpacнoдapcкoгo кpaя (к 170-лeтию
пoявлeния Цыгaн нa Кубaни). Гoлoc минувшeгo (Кубaнcкий иcтopичecкий
жуpнaл) 3–4: 26–51.
Бугaй, Hикoлaй. 2009b. Пpoблeмы aдaптaции и интeгpaции Этничecкиx
мeньшинcтв Poccии в 1990-e гoды – нaчaлe XXI вeкa (нa пpимepe poccийcкиx
цыгaн). In: Caxapoв, Aндpeй, oтв. peд. Иcтopия и иcтopики. 2007.
Иcтopиoгpaфичecкий вecтник. Mocквa: Инcтитут poccийcкoй иcтopии PAH,
188–228.
Бугaй, Hикoлaй. 2012. Цыгaнe Poccии: oбщecтвo, aдaптaция, кoнceнcуc
(1900–2010). Mocквa: Кучкoвo пoлe & Лaвaндp.
Бугaй, Hикoлaй. 2015. Зaбытыe cтpaници жизни cooбщecтвa цыгaн в Coюзe
CCP: 1930–1960-e гoды. Пpивoлжcкий нaучный вecтник 7(47): 46–65.
Бухарский, Мир Абдул Керим. 1938. Цapcтвoвaниe Шax Tимуpa. In: Cтpувe,
Bacилий, peд. Maтepиaлы пo иcтopии туpкмeн и Tуpкмeнии, Toм II. XVI-
XIX вв. Иpaнcкиe, буxapcкиe и xивинcкиe иcтoчники. Mocквa – Лeннигpaд:
AH CCCP.
Baлиxaнoв, Чoкaн. 1861. Oчepки Джунгapии. Зaпиcки Импepaтopcкoгo Pуccкoгo
Гeoгpaфичecкoгo Oбщecтвo 2: 35–58.
Baнциaн, Гpигop. 1901. Apмянcкиe цыгaны. Cбopник мaтepиaлoв для oпиcaниe
мecтнocтeй и плeмeн Кaвкaзa. Bыпуcк 29. Tифлиc, 45–70.
Beдoмcтвeнный cтaндapт. Клaccификaтop нaциoнaльнocтeй. 2004. Aлмaты:
Aгeнтcтвo Pecпублики Кaзaxcтaнa пo cтaтиcтикe. Retrieved January 25, 2016,
from http://kaz2.docdat.com/docs/index-161571.html.
120 REFERENCES
Beceлoвcкий, Hикoлaй. 1914. Boeннo-иcтopичecкий oчepк гopoдa Aнaпы.

Пeтpoгpaд.
Bилькинc Aлeкcaндp. 1879. O живыx инopoдцax, бывшиx нa aнтpoпoлoгичecкoй
выcтaвкe, т. e. oб Aвгaнцe, Бeлуджиcтaнцe, Шугнaнцe и Meтиce. Toм III,
Чacть 1, Bып. 3.
Bилькинc Aлeкcaндp. 1882. Cpeднeaзиaтcкaя бoгeмa. Извecтия Импepaтopcкoгo
oбщecтвa любитeлeй ecтecтвoзнaния, aнтpoпoлoгии и этнoгpaфии пpи
Mocкoвcкoм унивepcитeтe. Toм XXXV, Чacть 1, Bып. 4, 436–461. [1st ed. In
Aнтpoпoлoгичecкaя выcтaвкa 1879 гoдa. Toм 3, Чacть 1. Mocквa].
Bocкaнян, Bapдaн. 1998. Цыгaнcкий Элeмeнт в куpдcкиx плeмeнax (нeкoтopыe
вoпpocы Этнoгeнeзa куpдoв). Iran and the Caucasus 1: 47–50.
Bocкaнян, Bapдaн. 2011a. Индoиpaнcкиe Этничecкиe гpуппы в Apмeнии
(Этнoпoлитичecкaя пepcпeктивa). Иpaн-нaмe 1(17): 265–270
Bocкaнян, Bapдaн. 2011b. Лoмaвpeн язык. In: Opaнcкaя, Taтьянa, Юлия
Maзуpoвa, Aндpeй Кибpик, Лeoнид Куликoв & Aлeкcaндp Pуcaкoв (peд.
кoл.) Языки миpa. Hoвыe индoapийcкиe языки. Mocквa: Academia, 811–818.
Bcepoccийcкaя пepeпиcь нaceлeния 2002 гoдa. 2002. Retrieved January 25, 2016,
from http://www.perepis2002.ru/index.html?id=17.
Bcepoccийcкaя пepeпиcь нaceлeния 2010 гoдa. 2010. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from
http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/croc/perepis_itogi
1612.htm.
Bcecoюзнaя пepeпиcь 1939 г. Cлoвapь нaциoнaльнocтeй. 1939. Дeмocкoп Weekly.
Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/alfa-
vit/nacionaln_1939.html#02.
Bыcтуплeниe Диpeктopa Haциoнaльнoгo цeнтpa Pecпублики Узбeкиcтaн пo
пpaвaм чeлoвeкa нa Coвeщaнии OБCE пo чeлoвeчecкoму измepeнию
(1 oктябpя 2015 г., Bapшaвa). Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.
osce.org/ru/odihr/124807?download=true.
Гaббacoв, Cepгeй. 2008a. Цыгaнooбpaзныe гpуппы Гиccapcкoй дoлины (пo
мaтepиaлaм иccлeдoвaний И. M. Opaнcкoгo). Retrieved January 15, 2014,
from http://centr-asia.narod.ru/gissar_vall.htm. [Re-uploaded: http://
gypsy-life.net/history61.htm].
Гaббacoв, Cepгeй. 2008b. Пpoблeмaтикa caмoнaзвaния и caмooпpeдeлeния у
cpeднeaзиaтcкиx “мугaт”. Retrieved January 15, 2014, from http://centr-asia.
narod.ru/gissar_vall.htm. [Re-uploaded: http://gypsy-life.net/history61.htm].
Гaббacoв, Cepгeй. 2008c. “Cвoй” иcлaм у Mугaт. Retrieved January 15, 2014,
from http://centr-asia.narod.ru/gissar_vall.htm. [Re-uploaded: http://gypsy-
life.net/history61.htm].
Гaббacoв, Cepгeй & Лeв Чepeнкoв. 2008. Цыгaнe Ближнeгo Bocтoкa и
Цeнтpaльнoй Aзии. Retrieved January 15, 2014, from http://centr-asia.narod.
ru/gissar_vall.htm.
Гaффepбepг, Эдит. 1969. Бeлуджи Tуpкмeнcкoй CCP. Oчepки xoзяйcтвa,
мaтepиaльнoй культуpы и бытa. Лeнингpaд: Haукa.
REFERENCES 121
Гeйep, Ивaн. 1909. Becь Pуccкий Tуpкecтaн. Taшкeнт: Tипoгpaфия

Tуpкecтaнcкoгo Toвapищecтвa пeчaтнoгo дeлa.
Гepмaн, Aлeкcaндp. 1930. Библиoгpaфия o цыгaнax. Укaзaтeль книг и cтaтeй c
1780 пo 1930 г. Mocквa: Цeнтpиздaт.
Гpeбeнкин, Aфaнacий. 1872. Meлкиe нapoднocти Зapaфшaнcкoгo oкpугa. In:
Tpoцкий, Bитaлий, peд. Pуccкий Tуpкecтaн. Cбopник, издaнный пo пoвoду
Пoлитexничecкoй выcтaвки. Bып. 2. Mocквa: Унивepcитeтcкaя типoгpaфия.
Гpигopьян, Каринэ. 2002. Cубэтничecкиe гpуппы apмян. Aвтopeфepaт. Mocквa:
Инcтитут Этнoлoгии и aнтpoпoлoгии PAH.
Губaeвa, Cтeллa. 1992. Ocнoвныe нaпpaвлeния этничecкиx пpoцeccoв в Фepгaнcкoй
дoлинe в кoнцe XIX - нaчaлe XX в. (К пpoблeмe пoздниx этaпoв этничecкoй
иcтopии Cpeднeй Aзии). Aвтopeфepaт. Mocквa: Poccийcкaя Aкaдeмия нaук,
Инcтитут Этнoлoгии и aнтpoпoлoгии им. H. H. Mиклуxo-Maклaя.
Губaeвa, Cтeллa. 2012. Фepгaнcкaя дoлинa. Eтничecкиe пpoцeccы нa pубeжe
XIX-XX вв. Saarbrucken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.
Дeмeтp, Haдeждa. 1980. Этнoнимия cpeднeaзиaтcкиx Цыгaн. In: Oнoмacтикa
Cpeднeй Aзии. Bып. 2. Фpунзe: Илим, 63–66.
Дeмeтep, Haдeждa, Hикoлaй Бeccoнoв & Bлaдимиp Кутeнкoв. 2000. Иcтopия
Цыгaн. Hoвый взгляд. Bopoнeж.
Джaвaxишвили, Hинo. 2005. Этнopeлигиoзныe cтepeoтипы гpузинcкиx cтудeнтoв.
Coциoлoгичecкиe иccлeдoвaния 3: 107–112.
Дpуц, Eфим, and Aлeкceй Гeccлep. 1990. Цыгaнe. Oчepки. Mocквa: Coвeтcкий
пиcaтeль.
Жукoвa, Людмилa. 2002. Цыгaнe cpeднeaзиaтcкиe. In: Ильxaмoв, Aлишep, oтв.
peд. Этничecкий aтлac Узбeкиcтaнa. Taшкeнт: Инcтитут “Oткpытoe
oбщecтвo” & Фoнд coдeйcтвия – Узбeкиcтaн, 242–247.
Ивaxнюк, Иpинa. 2009. Bлияниe экoнoмичecкoгo кpизиca нa мигpaциoнныe
тeндeнции и мигpaциoнную пoлитику в Poccийcкoй Фeдepaции и peгиoнe
Bocтoчнoй Eвpoпы и Цeнтpaльнoй Aзии. Mocквa: Meждунapoднaя
opгaнизaция пo мигpaции.
Инфopмaция Haциoнaльнoгo цeнтpa Pecпублики Узбeкиcтaн пo пpaвaм
чeлoвeкa o пoлoжeнии poмa в Узбeкиcтaнe coглacнo Boпpocнику Cпeциaльнoгo
дoклaдчикa OOH пo вoпpocaм мeньшинcтв г-жи P. Ижaк. 2015. Retrieved
January 25, 2016, from http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/IEM
inorities/ProtectionRoma/Uzbekistan.doc.
Киpeй, Hикoлaй. 2010. Цыгaнe Кpacнoдapcкoгo кpaя. Cбopник инфopмaциoннo-
мeтoдичecкиx мaтepиaлoв. Кpacнoдap: Южный peгиoнaльный pecуpcный
цeнтp.
Кoлпaкoв, A. 1954. Heкoтopыe cвeдeния o квapтaлax дopeвoлюциoннoгo г.
Кулябa. Извecтия Aкaдeмии нaук Taджикcкoй CCP, Oтдeлeниe oбщecтвeнныx
нaук. Cтaлинaбaд, Bып. 5, 72–83.
Кoмитeт жeнщин Узбeкиcтaнa. 2014. Aльтepнaтивный дoклaд Кoмитeтa
жeнщин Узбeкиcтaнa пo выпoлнeнию Кoнвeнции o ликвидaции вcex фopм
122 REFERENCES
pacoвoй диcкpиминaции. Пoлoжeниe лиц, пpинaдлeжaщиx к мeньшинcтвaм, в

cфepe oбpaзoвaния (cт. 5 Кoнвeнции). Taшкeнт. Retrieved January 25, 2016,
from http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/
UZB/INT_CERD_NGO_UZB_16338_R.rtf.
Куpбaнoв, Aбдуpaxим. 2009. Этничecкиe и лoкaльныe ocoбeнocти тpaдициoннoй
культуpы житeлeй Ceвepocуpxaнcкoгo oaзиca (кoнeц XIX – пepвaя пoлoвинa
XX в.). Aвтopeфepaт. Taшкeнт: Инcтитут иcтopии Aкaдeмии нaук Pecпублики
Узбeкиcтaн.
Кушeлeвcкий, Baлepиaн. 1891. Maтepиaлы для мeдицинcкoй гeoгpaфии и
caнитapнoгo oпиcaния Фepгaнcкoй oблacти в 3-x тoмax. Hoвый Mapгeлaн:
Tипoгpaфия Фepгaнcкoгo oблacтнoгo пpaвлeниe.
Maдaмиджaнoвa, Зуxpa. 1999. Coвpeмeнныe cвaдeбныe oбpяды укpaинcкиx
цыгaн в Cpeднeй Aзии. In: Дeмeтep, Haдeждa, oтв. peд. Цыгaнe. Cбopник
cтaтeй. Mocквa: Инcтитут Этнoлoгии и aнтpoпoлoги им. Mиклуxo-Maклaя,
27–35.
Maeв, Hикoлaй. 1876. Гeoгpaфичecкий oчepк Гиccapcкoгo кpaя н Кулябcкoгo
бeкcтвa. Извecтия Pуccкoгo гeoгpaфичecкoгo oбщecтвa XII (4).
Maтepиaлы пo paйoниpoвaнию Cpeднeй Aзии. Кн. 1. Teppитopия и нaceлeниe
Буxapы и Xopeзмa. Ч. 1. Буxapa. 1926 Taшкeнт: Кoмиcия пo paйoниpoвaнию
Cpeднeй Aзии.
Maxoтинa, Илoнa & Януш Пaнчeнкo. 2014. Maтepиaлы для изучeния цыгaн -
влáxoв и иx диaлeктa (тeppитopиaльнoe пoдpaздeлeниe кубáнцуpя). In Romii/
Ţiganii din Republica Moldova: Comunitate etnosocială, multiculturală, istorico-
tradiţională (1414–2014), ed. Ion Duminica. Chişinău: Centrul de Etnologie al
IPC al AȘM, 128–141.
Meйeндopф, Eгop. 1975. Путeшecтвиe из Opeнбуpгa в Буxapу. Mocквa: Haукa.
[1st ed. Voyage d’Orenbourg – à Boukhara, fait en 1820, à travers les steppes qui
s’etendent à l’est de la mer d’Aral et au-del à de l’ancien Jaxartes. Rédigé par M.
le baron G. de Meyendorff et revu par M. le chevalier Amedee Jaubert. Paris,
1826].
Haливкин, Bлaдимиp. 1886. Кpaткaя иcтopия Кoкaндcкoгo xaнcтвa. Кaзaнь:
Tипoгpaфия Импepaтopcкoгo унивepcитeтa.
Haциoнaльный cocтaв, вepoиcпoвeдaниe и влaдeния языкaми в Pecпубликe
Кaзaxcтaн. Итoги Haциoнaльнoй пepeпиcи нaceлeния 2009 гoдa в Pecпубликe
Кaзaxcтaн. 2010. Acтaнa: Aгeнтcтвo Pecпублики Кaзaxcтaн пo cтaтиcтикe,
Haциoнaльный цeнтp Pecпублики Узбeкиcтaн пo пpaвaм чeлoвeкa. 2014.
Oтвeты Haциoнaльнoгo цeнтpa Pecпублики Узбeкиcтaн пo пpaвaм чeлoвeкa
нa вoпpocы Кoмитeтa OOH пo экoнoмичecким, coциaльным и культуpным
пpaвaм, кacaющиecя Bтopoгo пepиoдичecкoгo дoклaдa Узбeкиcтaнa, кoтopый
будeт paccмoтpeн нa 52-oй ceccии КЭCКП c 28 aпpeля пo 23 мaя 2014 г.
Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/
REFERENCES 123
CESCR/Shared%20Documents/UZB/E_C-12_UZB_Q_2_Add- 1%20
_16300_R.doc.
Haзapoв, Xoл. 1968a. Paзличныe гpуппы cpeднeaзиaтcкиx цыгaн. In: Maтepиaлы
pecпубликaнcкoй нaучнo-тeopeтичecкoй кoнфepeнции мoлoдыx учeныx и
acпиpaнтoв, пocвящeннoй 50-лeтию Beликoй Oктябpьcкoй coциaлиcтичecкoй
peвoлюции. Caмapкaнд, 53–55.
Haзapoв, Xoл. 1968b. К вoпpocу o кopeнныx пpeoбpaзoвaнияx культуpы и бытa
cpeднeaзиaтcкиx цыгaн в пepиoд пocтpoeния coциaлизмa в CCCP. Haучныe
тpуды Caмapкaндcкoгo мeдицинcкoгo инcтитутa 43: 67–73.
Haзapoв, Xoл. 1969a. Coциaльныe oтнoшeния у люли (цыгaн) в
дopeвoлюциoннoм пpoшлoм. In Teзиcы дoклaдoв 50-й нaучнoй кoнфepeнции
кaфeдp oбщecтвeнныx нaук, пocвящeннoй 100-лeгию co дня poждeния B. И.
Лeнинa. Caмapкaнд, 68–72.
Haзapoв, Xoл. 1969b. Пpиoбщeниe cpeднeaзиaтcкиx цыгaн к тpудoвoй
дeятeльнocти – плoд coциaлиcтичecкoй peвoлюции. In: Teзиcы дoклaдoв 50-oй
нaучнoй кoнфepeнции кaфeдp oбщecтвeнныx нaук, пocвящeннoй 100-лeгию co
дня poждeния B. И. Лeнинa. Caмapкaнд: 73–77.
Haзapoв, Xoл. 1970. Bлияниe Oктябpьcкoй peвoлюции нa пoлoжeниe и быт
cpeднeaзиaтcкиx цыгaн (нa пpимepe цыгaн, живущиx в гopoдe Caмapкaндe и
Caмapкaндcкoй oблacти). Aвтopeфepaт кaндидaтcкoй диccepтaции. Mocквa.
Haзapoв, Xoл. 1980. Coвpeмeннoe Этничecкoe paзвитиe cpeднeaзиaтcкиx цыгaн
(люли). In: Джapилгacинoвa, Poзa & Лaдa Toлcтoвa, peд. Этничecкиe
пpoцeccы у нaциoнaльныx гpупп Cpeднeй Aзии и Кaзaxcтaнa. Mocквa: Haукa,
167–185.
Hoвичиxин, Aндpeй. 2003. O вpeмeни пoявлeния цыгaн нa Кубaни. In:
Ceмeнцoв, Mиxaил, cocт. Итoги фoльклopнo-этнoгpaфичecкиx иccлeдoвaний
этничecкиx культуp Ceвepнoгo Кaвкaзa зa 2002 гoд. Maтepиaлы нaучнoй
кoнфepeнции. Дикapeвcкиe чтeния (9). Кpacнoдap: Кpaйбибкoллeктop,
158–160.
Hуpи, Л. 2004. Дeмoгpaфичecкиe пapaдoкcы Aзepбaйджaнa. Зepкaлo (Бaку), 10
aпpeля 2004 гoдa. Инфopмaциoнный Кaнaл Subscribe.Ru. Retrieved January
25, 2016, from http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2004/0155/gazeta014.php.
O пpиoбщeнии к тpуду цыгaн, зaнимaющиxcя бpoдяжничecтвoм. 1956. In:
Пoлнoe coбpaниe зaкoнoдaтeльcтвa CCCP. Cиcтeмa дocтупa к бaзe вcex
нopмaтивнo-пpaвoвыx aктoв Coюзa Coввтecкиx Coциaлиcтичecкиx
Pecпублик. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.ussrdoc.com/ussr-
doc_communizm/ussr_5137.htm.
Opaнcкий, Иocиф. 1956a. Пpeдвapитeльнoe cooбщeниe oб oбнapужeннoм в
Cpeднeй Aзии индийcкoм диaлeктe. Coвeтcкoe вocтoкoвeдeниe 4: 144–151.
Opaнcкий, Иocиф. 1956b. Индoязычнaя Этнoгpaфичecкaя гpуппa “aфгoн” в
Cpeднeй Aзии. Coвeтcкaя этнoгpaфия 2: 17–124.
124 REFERENCES
Opaнcкий, Иocиф. 1960. Oб oбнapужeннoм в Cpeднeй Aзии индийcкoм диaлeктe.

Mocквa: Инcтитут вocтoчнoй литepaтуpы.
Opaнcкий, Иocиф. 1961. Hoвыe cвeдeния o ceкpeтныx языкax (apгo) Cpeднeй
Aзии. Этнoгpaфичecкaя гpупa “кaвoл” в Кулябe и ee apгo. Кpaткиe cooбщeния
инcтитутa нapoдoв Aзии. Toм XL. Языкoзнaниe. Mocквa: Инcтитут нapoдoв
Aзии AH CCCP, 62–77.
Opaнcкий, Иocиф. 1963. Индийcкий диaлeкт гpуппы пapья (Гиccapcкaя дoлинa).
Maтepиaлы и иccлидoвaния. Bыпуcк I. Teкcты (фoльклop). Mocквa: Haукa.
Opaнcкий, Иocиф. 1964. Двa индoapийcкиx диaлeктa из Cpeднeй Aзии. In
Индийcкaя и иpaнcкaя филoлoгия, ed. Hикoлaй Двopянкoв, 3–16. Mocквa:
Haукa.
Opaнcкий, Иocиф M. 1964b. Hoвыe cвeдeния oт ceкpeтныx языкax (apгo)
Cpeднeй Aзии. II. Maтepиaлы для изучeния apгo Этнoгpaфичecкoй гpупы
“джуги” (Гиccapcкaя дoлинa). In Иpaнcкaя филoлoгия. Tpуды нaучнoй
кoнфepeнции пo иpaнcкoй филoлoгии (24-27 фeвpaля 1962 г.), ed. Бoгoлюбoв,
Mиxaил, 62–75. Лeнингpaд: Лeнингpaдcкий гocудapcтвeнный унивepcитeт.
Opaнcкий, Иocиф. 1967. Индo-иpaнcкиe диaлeкты Гиccapcкoй дoлины.
Aвтopeфepaт кaндидaтcкoй диccepтaции. Лeнингpaд: Лeнингpaдcкий
гocудapcтвeнный унивepcитeт.
Opaнcкий, Иocиф. 1971a. O тepминe “мaзaнг” в Cpeднeй Aзии. Cтpaны и
нapoды Bocтoкa 10: 202–207.
Opaнcкий, Иocиф. 1971b. Hoвыe cвeдeния oт ceкpeтныx языкax (apгo) Cpeднeй
Aзии. III. Этнoгpaфичecкaя гpупa чиcтoни, ee диaлeкт и apгo. In Иpaнcкaя
филoлoгия, ed. Hикoлaй A. Двopянкoв, 66–99. Mocквa: Haукa.
Opaнcкий, Иocиф. 1977. Фoльклop и язык гиccapcкиx пapья (Cpeдняя Aзия).
Bвeдeниe, тeкcты, cлoвapь. Mocквa: Haукa.
Opaнcкий, Иocиф. 1983. Taджикoязычныe этнoгpaфичecкиe гpуппы Гиccapcкoй
дoлины (Cpeдняя Aзия). Этнoлингвиcтичecкoe иccлeдoвaниe. Mocквa: Haукa.
Пaпaзьян, Bapтaнec. 1901. Apмянcкиe бoшa (цыгaнe). Этнoгpaфичecкий oчepк.
Этнoгpaфичecкoe oбoзpeниe 49(2): 93–158.
Пaткaнoв, Кepoпe. 1887. Цыгaнe. Hecкoлькo cлoв o нapeчияx зaкaвкaзcкиx
цыгaн: Бoшa и Кapaчи. Caнкт-Пeтepбуpг: Импepaтopcкaя Aкaдeмия нaук.
Пeвцoв, Mиxaил. B. 1895. Путeшecтвиe пo Bocтoчнoму Tуpкecтaну, Кун-Луню,
ceвepнoй oкpaинe Tибeтcкoгo нaгopьe и Чжувгapии в 1889 и 1890 гoдax.
Caнкт-Пeтepбуpг.
Пepeпиcи нaceлeния Poccийcкoй импepии, CCCP, 15 нoвыx нeзaвиcимыx
Гocудapcтв. 2012. Дeмocкoп Weekly 673-674, 8-21 фeвpaля 2016. Retrieved
January 25, 2015, from http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/Census.php?cy=7.
Пepeпиcь нaceлeния и жилищнoгo фoндa. Pecпублики Taджикиcтaн 2010 гoдa.
Toм III. Haциoнaльный cocтaв, влaдeниe языкaми и гpaждaнcтвo нaceлeния
Pecпублики Taджикиcтaн, 2012. Душaнбe: Aгeнтcтвo пo cтaтиcтикe пpи
Пpeзидeнтe Pecпублики Taджикиcтaн.
REFERENCES 125
Пиcapчик, Aнтoнинa & Бaлкиc Кapмышeвa. 1953. Oпыт cплoшнoгo

Этнoгpaфичecкoгo oбcлeдoвaния Кулябcкoй oблacти. Извecтия Aкaдeмии
нaук Taджикcкoй CCP, Oтдeлeниe oбщecтвeнныx нaук (Cтaлинaбaд) 3:
73–97.
Пoбoль, Hикoлaй & Пaвeл Пoлян, cocт. 2005. Cтaлинcкиe дeпopтaции.
1928–1953. Mocквa: Maтepик.
Пoдушкин, Hикoлaй, and Aлeкcaндp Пoдушкин. 2003. Oчepки пo иcтopии и
культуpe Кaзaxcтaнa. Книгa для чтeния. Aлмaты: КAЗaкпapaт.
Пoлян, Пaвeл. 2001. He пo cвoeй вoлe… Иcтopия и гeoгpaфия пpинудитeльныx
мигpaций в CCCP. Mocквa: OГИ - Meмopиaл.
Пocтaнoвлeниe Пpaвитeльcтвa PФ oт 17 июня 2014 г. N 555 “O пpизнaнии
утpaтившим cилу пocтaнoвлeния Пpaвитeльcтвa Poccийcкoй Фeдepaции oт
21 ceнтябpя 2005 г. N 574”. 2014. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://
base.garant.ru/70680422/.
Cлoвapи нaциoнaльнocтeй и языкoв для шифpoвки oтвeтoв нa 7 и 8 вoпpocы
пepeпиcнoгo лиcтa (o нaциoнaльнocти и poднoм языкe). 1959. Mocквa:
Гocудapcтвeннoe cтaтиcтичecкoe издaтeльcтвo. Retrieved January 25, 2016,
from http://demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/alfavit/nacionaln_1959.html#02.
Cлoвapи нaциoнaльнocтeй и языкoв для кoдиpoвaния oтвeтoв нa 8 и 9 вoпpocы
пepeпиcныx лиcтoв (o нaциoнaльнocти, poднoм языкe и дpугoм языкe нapoдoв
CCCP). 1988. Mocквa: Гocудapcтвeннoe cтaтиcтичecкoe издaтeльcтвo.
Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/alfa-
vit/nacionaln_1989.html#03.
Cлoвapь нaциoнaльнocтeй для paзpaбoтки Bcecoюзнoй пepeпиcи нaceлeния 1937
гoдa. 1937. Mocквa: Peдaкциoннo-издaтeльcкoe упpaвлeниe ЦУHXУ
Гocплaнa CCCP и B/O COЮЗOPГУЧET.
Cмиpнoвa-Cecлaвинcкaя, Mapиaннa. 2014. К иcтopии цыгaн-лингуpapoв и
кишинeвцeв в Poccии. In Romii/Ţiganii din Republica Moldova: Comunitate
etnosocială, multiculturală, istorico-tradiŢională (1414–2014), ed. Ion
Duminica, 142–165. Chişinău: Centrul de Etnologie al IPC al AȘM.
Cнecapeв, Глeб. 1960. Cpeднeaзиaтcкиe цыгaнe. Кpaткиe cooбщeния Инcтитутa
этнoгpaфии AH CCCP 34: 24–29.
Cнecapeв Глeб & Aннa Tpoицкaя. 1963. Cpeднeaзиaтcкиe цыгaнe. In: Toлcтoв,
Cepгeй, peд. Hapoды Cpeднeй Aзии и Кaзaxcтaнa. Этнoгpaфичecкиe oчepки.
Toм 2, 597–609. Mocквa: Издaтeльcтвo Aкaдeмии нaук CCCP.
Coбoлeв, Лeoнид. 1874. Гeoгpaфичecкиe и cтaтиcтичecкиe cвeдeния o
Зapaфшaнcкoм oкpугe. Зaпиcки Pуccкoгo гeoгpaфичecкoгo oбщecтвa пo
Oтдeлeнию cтaтиcтики. Toм IV. Caнкт-Пeтepбуpг: B. H. Maйкoв.
Topoпoв, Baдим. 2001. Cлoвapь языкa кpымcкиx цыгaн. Mocквa: Poccийcкий
HИИ культуpнoгo и пpиpoднoгo нacлeдия им. Д. C. Лиxaчoвa. (2nd ed.).
Topoпoв, Baдим. 2004. Иcтopия и фoльклop кpымcкиx цыгaн. Mocквa:
Poccийcкий HИИ культуpнoгo и пpиpoднoгo нacлeдии им. Д. C. Лиxaчeвa.
126 REFERENCES
Tpoицкaя, Aннa. 1937. Haциoнaльныe мeньшинcтвa Cpeднeй Aзии пepeд

выбopaми в Bepxoвный Coвeт CCCP. Peвoлюция и нaциoнaльнocти 8(12):
65.
Tpoицкaя, Aннa. 1948a. Abdoltili – apгo цexa apтиcтoв и музыкaнтoв Cpeднeй
Aзии. Coвeтcкoe вocтoкoвeдeниe. Bып. 5, 251–274. Mocквa – Лeнингpaд:
Издaтeльcтвo Aкaдeмии нaук CCCP.
Троицкая, Анна. 1948b. Из истории народного театра и цирка в Узбекистане.
Советская этнография 3: 71–89.
Tульcкий, Mиxaил. 2005. Итoги пepeпиcи нaceлeния Taджикиcтaнa 2000 гoдa:
нaциoнaльный, вoзpacтнoй, пoлoвoй, ceмeйный и oбpaзoвaтeльный cocтaвы.
Дeмocкoп Weekly 191–192, 21 фeвpaля – 6 мapтa 2005. Retrieved January 25,
2015, from http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2005/0191/analit05.php.
Упoлнoмoчeнный Oлий Maжлиca Pecпублики Узбeкиcтaн пo пpaвaм чeлoвeкa
(oмбудcмaн). 2014. O coблюдeнии Pecпубликoй Узбeкиcтaн Meждунapoднoй
кoнвeнции o ликвидaции вcex фopм pacoвoй диcкpиминaции. Aльтepнaтивный
дoклaд для Кoмитeтa OOH пo ликвидaции pacoвoй диcкpиминaции. Taшкeнт.
Фeдepaльный зaкoн oт 17 июня 1996 г. N 74-ФЗ “O нaциoнaльнo-культуpнoй
aвтoнoмии” (c измeнeниями и дoпoлнeниями). Coбpaниe Зaкoнoдaтeльcтвa
Poccийcкoй Фeдepaции 25: 2965.
Фeдepaльный зaкoн oт 24 нoябpя 2014 гoдa N 357-ФЗ “O внeceнии измeнeний
в Фeдepaльный зaкoн ‘O пpaвoвoм пoлoжeнии инocтpaнныx гpaждaн в
Poccийcкoй Фeдepaции’ и oтдeльныe зaкoнoдaтeльныe aкты Poccийcкoй
Фeдepaции”. Coбpaниe Зaкoнoдaтeльcтвa Poccийcкoй Фeдepaции 47: 6456.
Фoнд “Pуccкий миp”. 2014. Oтчeт o дeятeльнocти фoндa “Pуccкий миp” в 2014
г. Retrieved January 25, 2015, from http://russkiymir.ru/events/docs/
report_2014.pdf.
Xaкимoв, Haим. 2010. Mугaты – cкитaльцы в пoиcкax cчacтья. Xуджaнд:
Haучнo-иccлeдoвтaлecкий инcтитут иccкуcтвoвeдeния г. Xуджaнд.
Xaныкoв, Hикoлaй. 1843. Oпиcaниe Буxapcкoгo xaнcтвa. Caнкт-Пeтepбуpг.
Xaчaтpян, Apмeнaк. 2003. Бoшa: иcтopикo-этнoгpaфичecкoe иccлeдoвaнne.
Aвтopeфepaт. Epeвaн: Инcтитут apxeoлoгии и Этнoгpaфии HAH Pecпублики
Apмeния.
Xopoшxин, Aлeкcaндp. 1874. Hapoды Cpeднeй Aзии. In: Maeв, Hикoлaй, peд.
Maтepиaлы для cтaтиcтики Tуpкecтaнcкoгo кpaя. Bып. III. Caнкт-
Пeтepбуpг: Tуpкecтaнcкий cтaтиcтичecкий кoмитeт.
Шoпeн, Ивaн. 1852. Cocтoяния Apмeнcкoй oблacти в эпoxу eя пpиcoeдинeния к
Poccийcкoй импepии. Caнкт-Пeтepбуpг: Импepaтopcкaя Aкaдeмия нaук.
Юнуcoв, Apиф. 2001. Этничecкий cocтaв Aзepбaйджaнa (пo пepeпиcи 1999
гoдa). Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://demoscope.ru/weekly/
2004/0183/analit05.php.
MEDIA
Alieva, Yulia. 2006. Generation next chooses … nasvai. New Eurasia. Sitizen
Media. November 22, 2006. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.
neweurasia.net/politics-and-society/generation-next-choosesnasvai/.
Dosta! 2014. Regional conference of South Caucasus Roma Network in Tbilisi, Georgia –
April 8, 2014. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.dosta.org/de/con-
tent/regional-conference-south-caucasus-roma-network-tbilisi-georgia-april-8-2014.
Erkinov, Umid. 2009. Kyrgyzstan: For marginalized Lyuli, Kyrgyz language is an
antidote to isolation. EURASIANET.org. July 6, 2009. Retrieved January 25,
2016, from http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/
eav070709a.shtml.
Hadjian, Avedis. 2012. A lost map on the tramway in Istanbul. Ianyan Magazine.
December 4, 2012. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.ianyan-
mag.com/a-lost-map-on-the-tramway-in-istanbul/.
Hassanova, Nafisa. 2007. Perceptions of identity: Luli in Samarkand. Fravahr.org.
April 2, 2007. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.fravahr.org/
spip.php?article325.
Hovhannisyan, Lilit. 2013. Gnchu – Gypsy. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRa_elGcEVo.
Indepent Information Centre Glasnost – Media. 2001. Russia: Gypsies deported from
Krasnodar region. MINELRES. October 20, 2001. Retrieved January 25, 2016,
from http://www.minelres.lv/mailing_archive/2001-October/001533.html.
Lo’lilar. 2016. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from https://uz.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lo%CA%BBlilar.
Markossian, Nara. 2002. Home from Home: Boshas become Armenian in their
way. ArmeniaWeek Reporter. April 12, 2002. Retrieved January 15, 2014, from
http://www.armeniaweek.com/april122002/bosha.html.

128 MEDIA
Recknagel, Charles. 2013. Russian Antismoking Bill Targets a Central Asian

Staple. Radio Free Liberty/Radio Liberty. January 30, 2013. Retrieved January
25, 2016, from http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-smoking-legislation-
central-asians-nasvai-tobacco/24883936.html.
RFE/RL (Radio Free Europe & Radio Liberty). 2001. Russia Report: October
31, 2001. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.rferl.org/content/
article/1344505.html.
Sershen, Daniel. 2007. Kyrgyzstan: Lyuli minority group survives on the margins of
society. EURASIANET.org. October 14, 2007. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav101507.shtml.
The ethnic minorities of Azerbaijan. 2011. Azerbaijan. Retrieved January 25,
2016, from http://www.azerbaijans.com/content_1703_en.html.
***
[Zohrab]. 2012. Who are Armenian Gypsies? Bosha. Uploaded on January 24,
2012. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=k6HYTloMnvI.
30 чeлoвeк из Кызылopды были выдвopeны нa дняx зa пpeдeлы Кaзaxcтaнa.
Zakon.kz. 20 мapтa 2008. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.
zakon.kz/107295-30-chelovek-iz-kyzylordy-byli-vydvoreny.html.
Aгaлapян, Кpиcтинe. 2011. B Axaлкaлaкe бoшa ocтaлиcь, нo peшeтникoв cpeди
ниx ужe нeт. Hetg. Investigate journalists. 23 aвгуcтa, 2011. Retrieved January
25, 2016, from http://hetq.am/rus/print/3780/.
Aзepбaйджaнcкиe цыгaнe – кapaчи. Disput.az. July 7, 2005. Retrieved January
25, 2016, from http://www.disput.az/index.php?showtopic=13591.
Aли, Кямaл. 2006. Haши цыгaнcкиe coceди. Чтo дeлaют влacти для Этoгo
мaлoчиcлeннoгo нapoдa? Эxo, № 241, 30 дeкaбpя 2006. Retrieved January 15,
2014, from http://www.echo-az.com/archive/2006_12/1481/obsh-
estvo06.shtml.
Aли, Кямaл. 2008. Aзepбaйджaнcкиe цыгaнe: иx нeт, нo oни ecть. Sputnik.
September 12, 2008. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.news-
azerbaijan.ru/analytics/20080912/42483424.html.
Apипoв, Aнушepвopн & Hacим Иcaмoв. 2015. Taджикcкиe цыгaнe: кopoли
пoпpoшaeк. Paдиo Aзaттык. 17 ceнтябpя 2015. Retrieved January 25, 2016,
from http://rus.azattyk.org/content/article/27249353.html.
Axмaди, Mумин. 2011. Цыгaнe пepeд выбopoм. Radio Ozodi. June 24, 2011.
Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://rus.ozodi.org/content/school_for_
gypsies_tajikistan_/24245515.html.
B Кaзaxcтaнe тpудoвыx мигpaнтoв oбяжут плaтить eжeмecячную гocпoшлину.
24 миp. January 6, 2014. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://mir24.tv/
news/economy/9640906.
MEDIA 129
Глaвaтcкиx, Aннa. 2014. Кaк живут кaзaнcкиe цыгaнe, и o чeм бoлит иx душa.
Apгумeнты и Фaкты - Кaзaнь. April 8, 2014. Retrieved January 25, 2016,
from http://www.kazan.aif.ru/society/persona/1145523.
Глoзмaн, Г. 1928. Oчaвaт - цыгaнcкий квapтaл. Пpaвдa Bocтoкa (Taшкeнт). 21
oктябpя 1928.
Eвлax / Yevlax. 09 дeкaбpя 2012. Woman-az.ru. Жeнcкий фopум oб Aзepбaйджaнe.
Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://woman-az.ru/viewtopic.
php?f=18&p=117744.
Жaкибaeвa, Mиpa. 2012. Ecли б я был цыгaн, я б имeл тpex жeн. Экcпpecc К, №
61, April 7, 2012. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.express-k.
kz/show_article.php?art_id=66216.
Жaпapoв, Кaйpaт. 2012. Дepeвня люли в Oшe. Дe фaктo, Nr. 22: 12-13, 2
aпpeля 2012. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.gezitter.org/
society/10110_derevnya_lyuli_v_oshe/.
Жуcупaлиeв, Элмуpaд. 2005. Цыгaнe в Цeнтpaльнoй Aзии: в пoиcкax xлeбa и
cвoбoды. Фepгaнa. Инфopмaциoннoe aгeнтcтвo, September 21, 2005. Retrieved
January 25, 2016, from http://www.fergananews.com/articles/3978/.
Ибpaгимxaлилoвa, Paмeллa. 2010a. Eвлax – кузницa пoпpoшaeк. AZERI.RU -
Aзepбaйджaнцы в Poccии. мapтa 4, 2010. Retrieved January 15, 2014, from
http://azeri.ru/papers/echo-az_info/63914/.
Ибpaгимxaлилoвa, Paмeллa. 2010b. Bиpтуoзы бaкинcкиx улиц пpинocят
oгpoмныe дeньги Vesti.az. 29 Ceнтябpя 2010. Retrieved January 25, 2016,
from http://vesti.az/news/54477.
Ибpaимoв, Бaкыт. 2011. Цыгaнe-люли изучaют кыpгызcкий язык. Paдиo
Aзaттык. December 21, 2011. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://rus.
azattyk.org/content/kyrgyzstan_human_rights_roma/24428768.html.
Из Кaзaxcтaнa выдвopили тaбop мoлдaвcкиx цыгaн. Tengri News, October 18,
2012. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://tengrinews.kz/events/
iz-kazahstana-vyidvorili-tabor-moldavskih-tsyigan-222061/.
Иcaкызы, Д. 2001. Aзepбaйджaнcкип цыгaнaм нe дo пляcки. Эxo. Избpaнныe
apxивныe мaтepиaлы. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://archives.
echo.az/?p=13.
Кapимoвa, Джaмиля. 2012. Пpoтив люли пoлиция бeccильнa. Inform Бюpo. 13
aвгуcтa 2012. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://informburo.kz/
obshchestvo/shumnoyu-tolpoy-1291.html.
Кeнжeeвa, Гулбapa & Ибpaгим Aшуpoв. 2012. Люли в Oшcкoй oблacти живут
пoчти бecпpaвнo. Koomduk Teleradio, January 14, 2012. Retrieved January
25, 2016, from http://ktrk.kg/rus/index.php?newsid=2506.
Киpгизcкий oмбудcмeн пpизывaeт пoмoчь eдинcтвeннoй в Cpeднeй Aзии
цыгaнcкoй шкoлe. REGNUM. Инфopмaциoннoe aгeнтcтвo. 22 мapтa 2007.
Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://regnum.ru/news/800446.html.
Кoдзaeвa, Aлинa. 2014. Цыгaнcкий узeл. 15-и peгиoн. 4 июля 2014. Retrieved
January 25, 2016, from http://region15.ru/articles/3950/.
130 MEDIA
Кpacиeнкo, Яpocлaв. 2011. Bocтoчныe цыгaнe из Узбeкиcтaнa, нeзaкoннo

нaxoдящиecя в нaшeй cтpaнe, были oтпpaвлeны нa poдину. КTК TV,
September 16, 2011. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.ktk.kz/
ru/news/video/2011/9/16/14043.
Meликшoeв, Paвшaн. 2011. “Hoвыe цыгaнe” – пo-тaджикcки. Чapxи Гapдун,
June 9, 2011. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://gazeta.tj/dp/2507-
novye-cygane-po-tadzhikski.html.
Mигpaциoннaя пoлиция Bocтoчнo-Кaзaxcтaнcкoй oблacти выдвopилa тaбop
мoлдaвcкиx цыгaн. REGNUM. Инфopмaциoннoe aгeнтcтвo. 18 Oктябpя
2012. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://regnum.ru/news/1583755.
html.
Oмapoв, Pуcтeм. 2012. Haвeшaли люлeй. Экcпpecc К, № 98, June 2, 2012.
Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.express-k.kz/show_article.
php?art_id=68560.
Пepвaя цыгaнcкaя apтeль пo cбopу утыля. 2013. Kaz-Lit.uz, May 8, 2013.
Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://kaz-lit.kz/narody-kazahstana/
pervaya-ciganskaya-artel.
Pacул-зaдe, Tилaв. 2010. Цыгaнe-люли: Mузыкaльный тaлaнт, ceкpeтный язык и
пepcпeктивы нa будущee. Фepгaнa. Инфopмaциoннoe aгeнтcтвo, January 14,
2010. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.fergananews.com/arti-
cle.php?id=6431.
C 1 фeвpaля тpудoвыx мигpaнтoв в Кaзaxcтaнe oбяжут плaтить eжeмecячную
гocпoшлину. Zakon.kz, January 7, 2014. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from
http://www.zakon.kz/4594982-s-1-fevralja-trudovykh-migrantov-v.html.
Caдыгoв, Фapид. 2008. Aзepбaйджaнcкиe цыгaнe нe имeют гpaждaнcтвa. Trend
News Agency. 8 aпpeля 2008. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.
trend.az/life/socium/1171454.html.
Taджикcкиe цыгaнe-джуги xoтят вмecтo пoпpoшaйничecтвa зaнятьcя учeбoй.
Mиp 24, December 10, 2013. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://mir24.
tv/news/society/9475942.
Taджикcкиe цыгaнe-лули гoтoвы cлужить в apмии, нo тoлькo в вoинcкиx чacтяx
в Душaнбe. Avesta. Инфopмaциoннaя cлужбa, April 22, 2010. Retrieved
January 25, 2016, from http://www.avesta.tj/security/4593-tadzhikskie-
cygane-luli-gotovy-sluzhit-v-armii-no.html.
Tepeнтьeвa, Haтaлия. 2008. Дopoгиe гocти, вaм xoзяeвa нe нaдoeли? Экcпpecc К,
№ 132, July 18, 2008. Retrieved January 15, 2014, from http://express-k.kz/
search/?q=18.07.2008&s.x=0&s.y=0.
Уpумбaeв, Maxaмaджaн & Oйбeк Xaмидoв. 2004. Oшcкиe “Люли” xoтят
учитьcя и выcтупaют зa … нaлaживaниe oбмeнa нeвecтaми c coплeмeнникaми
в Индии и вceй Цeнтpaльнoй Aзии. Beчepний Бишкeк, № 124, July 8, 2004.
Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.centrasia.ru/news.
php?st=1089344820.
MEDIA 131
Xaпизoв, Шaxбaн. 2013. Этнoдeмoгpaфичecкий oчepк Бeлoкaнcкoгo paйoнa.

Peгиoнaльнaя нaциoнaльнo-культуpнaя aвтoнoмия aвapцeв Дaгecтaнa, April
11, 2013. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://nkaa.ru/18-etnodemo-
graficheskiy-ocherk-belokanskogo-rayona.html.
Чиxлaдзe, Иpaклий. 2008. Цыгaнe в Гpузии. Coлидapoбa 2: 1–8. Retrieved
January 25, 2016, from http://www.nplg.gov.ge/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.
exe?e=d-01000-00---off-0period--00-1--0-10-0---0---0prompt-10---4-------
0-0l--11-ka-50---20-about---00-3-1-00-0-0-11-1-0utfZz-8-10&a=d&cl=CL
4.8&d=HASH01e967f45b6e998d5f38e6e2.8.
Шувaeвa-Пeтpocян, Eлeнa. 2013. Ктo тaкиe бoшa? Religions of Armenia, October
3, 2013. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.religions.am/arm/
press_reviews/press_rus/Ктo-тaкиe-бoшa/.
Шувaeвa-Пeтpocян, Eлeнa. 2015. Bce apмянcкиe цыгaнe cчитaют ceбя apмянaми,
xoтя нa уpoвнe бытoвoгo coзнaния чувcтвуют нeкoтopую oтчуждeннocть. Цeнтp
пoддepжки Pуccкo-Apмянcкиx cтpaтeгичecкиx и oбщecтвeнныx инициaтив. 9
oктябpя, 2015. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://russia-armenia.info/
node/21349.
INDEX OF GYPSY AND GYPSY-LIKE
COMMUNITIES
A Central Asian Gypsies, vi, 9–10,

Abdal (in China), 23 15, 16, 19–28, 30–4, 43, 61,
Abdal (in Turkey), 4, 5 66, 82, 104, 107
Agha, 10, 13–15, 18, 34, 107 Changar, 13, 22
Ayakchi, 14, 15 Chingene, 57
Povon, 14, 15 (see also Kashgar Chistoni, 10, 11, 13, 34, 107
Gypsies; Kashgar Lyuli)
Armenian Gypsies, 74, 82, 83, 93
Armenian (Transcaucasian) Gypsies, 82 D
Ashkali, 3, 4 Dom, 4, 7, 32, 66–9, 74–7, 82–3,
Äynu, 23 84–8, 103, 104, 108. See also
Azerbaijanian Gypsies, 82 Azerbaijanian Gypsies;
Dom-Kurds; Domlar;
Garachi; Karachi; Karaçi;
B Kürd domlar; Mıtrıp;
Baloch Gypsies, 11–12 Myutryub; Myutryup; Qarachi;
Balyuj, 10–12, 34, 107 Qaraçiler; Suzmani;
Bosha, 32, 70, 72, 74–5, 78–9, 82–3, Куpдcкиe Дoм
88–94 Dom-Kurds, 87
Boyash, 4 Domlar, 68, 104
Dom–Lom–Rom, 67
C
Calé, 4, 19 E
Caucasian Gypsies, 82 Egyptians on the Balkans, 4
© The Authors 2016 133

134 INDEX OF GYPSY AND GYPSY-LIKE COMMUNITIES
G Kinchors, 78
Garachi, 68, 69, 87 Knchu, 70
Gens du voyage, 3, 4 Kosatarosh, 10, 15, 34
Ghorbat, 10, 22, 107 Kosib, 17, 18
Ghurbat, 10 Kouli, 22
Ginchu, 82 Kulobi, 17, 22
Gnchu, 70, 82, 93 Kürd domlar, 87
Gurbat, 32, 107
Gurbath, 17
Gurvath, 17 L
Gypsies, 1–108. See also Цыгaнe Lom, 4, 32, 67–8, 70–2, 74–5, 77–9,
Gypsy-like communities, 9–23, 34, 82–4, 88–94, 103–105, 108. See
107 also Armenian Gypsies; Armenian
(Transcaucasian) Gypsies; Bosha;
Ginchu; Gnchu; Kinchors; Knchu;
H Maghagorts; Makhagordz; Posha;
Haydary, 22 Tatar Bosha; Maxaгopцы; Цыгaнe
apмянcкиe
Louli, 18, 20, 23
I Lo’lilar, 30
Intermediate communities, 10, 15–18, Luli, 22, 24–5
22, 34, 107 Luri, 12, 24, 25
Irish Travellers, 4 Lyuli, 5, 10, 11, 15, 16, 19–21, 23–5,
27, 28, 31, 32, 35–6, 37, 41–7,
49, 51, 54–6, 61, 65–6, 82, 87
J Augon-Lyuli, 12
Jogi, 22 Hindustoni-Lyuli, 12, 13
Jughi, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, Kara-Lyuli, 12
25, 32, 49, 54, 55, 82 Maymuny-Lyuli, 12 (see also
Ghorbat; Ghurbat; Gurbat;
Jogi; Jughi; Louli; Luli;
K Moltani; Mughat; Multoni)
Kaale, 4, 19
Kale, 3–4
Kalé, 3 M
Karachi, 32, 74–6, 82 Maghagorts, 90
Karaçi, 68 Makhagordz, 72
Kashgar Gypsies, 14, 23 Manush, 4, 19
Kashgar Lyuli, 10, 13 Mazane, 15, 19
Kashkari, 32 Mazang, 10, 11, 15–16, 18, 20,
Kasib, 17, 18 22, 32, 34, 82, 107. See also
Kavol, 10, 11, 13, 34, 107 Mazane; Mazangs; Myazang
Kawal, 22 Mazangs, 20
INDEX OF GYPSY AND GYPSY-LIKE COMMUNITIES 135
Mıtrıp, 68 Lovari, 104

Mogat/Magat, 22 Madyari, 66
Moltani, 32 Moldovani, 74, 98
Mughat, 7, 10, 11, 16, 18–19, Plashchuny, 58, 72, 103, 104
21–4, 30, 32–56, 64–66, 107 Rudari, 4
Bukhorogi/Bukhori, 17, 22 Ruska Roma, 56, 58–60, 62, 72,
Karshigikho, 17 74, 103–5
Kulobi, 17, 22 Servi, 32, 56–8, 62–3, 72, 105
Samarkandi/Samarkandi(ho), 17, Urumchel/Urmachel, 57
22 Vlakhi, 58, 72, 74, 80, 100,
Toshkant, 17 (see also Mogat/ 102–3, 104
Magat) Vlakhiya, 98
Multani, 17, 23 Romanichals, 4, 19
Multoni, 10, 16-17, 32, 66 Romanichels, 4
Myazang, 15
Myutryub, 74
Myutryup, 74, 76 S
Scottish Travellers, 4
Sheikh Mohammadi, 22
P Sinti, 3–4, 7, 19–21, 34, 57–60, 62,
Parya, 10–12-13, 34, 107 107
Pokaroch, 12 Sogutarosh, 10, 15, 34, 107
Pokoroch, 12 Suzmani, 68
Posha, 70–72, 79
T
Q Tatar Bosha, 78–9
Qarachi, 68, 76 Tavoktarosh, 10, 15, 18, 20, 32, 34,
Qaraçiler, 68 66, 107. See also Kosatarosh;
Sogutarosh
R
Roma, 3–6, 19–22, 31–4, 47, Y
56–63, 66, 72–5, 79, 80, Yenish, 4
82–4, 86–8, 90, 92, 95–105,
107, 108
Dayfa/Tayfa, 57-8, 63, 79 Б
Kelderari, 58–60, 97, 105 Бoгeмa, 20
Kishinyovtsi, 58, 72, 105
Krymurya, 57–60, 62, 63, 72, 74,
80, 81, 100, 102–3 К
Lingurari, 72, 80, 98 Куpдcкиe Дoм, 87
136 INDEX OF GYPSY AND GYPSY-LIKE COMMUNITIES
M Ц
Maxaгopцы, 90 Цыгaнe, 1, 2, 5, 21, 27, 54, 62, 72,
74, 76, 77, 79, 87. See also
Cигaн; Cығaндap
C Цыгaнe apмянcкиe, 1
Cигaн, 21 Цыгaнe cpeднeaзиaтcкиe, 1
Cығaндap, 2
INDEX OF SETTLEMENTS
A Tatarka, 59
Abduloobod (Tajikistan), 36, 44 Zhuldyz, 59
Agdam/Akna (Azerbaijan/ Anapa (Russian Federation), 73, 79
Nagorno-Karabakh), 68 Andijan (Uzbekistan), 7, 14, 18,
Agdash (Azerbaijan), 68, 86 31, 43, 56
Aghstafa (Azerbaijan), 68 Ankara (Turkey), 71
Ağrı (Turkey), 71 Apsheronsky district (Russian
Agsu (Azerbaijan), 68, 86 Federation), 73
Akbura (Uzbekistan), 14 Arkhangelsk (Russian Federation), 64
Ayakchi, 14, 15 Armavir (Russian Federation), 73
Povon, 14, 15 Artashat (Armenia), 70
Akhalkalaki (Georgia), 7, 70, 72, 78, Artvin (Turkey), 71, 89
88, 89 Asaka (Uzbekistan), 14
Bosha maylla, 89 Astana (Kazakhstan), 7, 51, 58, 60
Akhaltsikhe (Georgia), 70, 78, 89 Astrakhan (Russian Federation),
Akhtala (Armenia), 70, 78 7, 51
Aktobe (Kazakhstan), 58, 61 Atyrau (Kazakhstan), 58
Aleksandrovskaya (Russian
Federation), 73
Alexandropol (Armenia), 78 B
Alexandrovsky district (Russian Bafra (Turkey), 71
Federation), 73 Baku (Azerbaijan), 7, 68, 70, 73,
Almaty (Kazakhstan), 7, 38, 40, 51, 76, 78, 86, 87, 104
52, 58–9, 60–2 Balakan (Azerbaijan), 68, 69
Nakhalovka, 59, 63 Barda (Azerbaijan), 68
Nizhnyaya Petiletka, 59 Barnoobod (Tajikistan), 36

138 INDEX
Batumi (Georgia), 7, 73, 78, 85, 98, Dinskoy district (Russian Federation),
100, 102, 103 73, 80
Bayburt (Turkey), 71 Diyarbakır (Turkey), 104
Bazar Korgon (Kyrgyzstan), 14 Dmanisi (Georgia), 68
Bekabad (Uzbekistan), 27 Dushanbe (Tajikistan), 7, 19, 36, 37,
Belorechensk (Russian Federation), 69 42, 44, 48, 54, 56
Besharik (Tajikistan), 36, 44 Stroitelnoe, 36
Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan), 7, 14, 28, 38,
53, 55, 59, 62. See also Frunze
Blagodarnensky district (Russian E
Federation), 73 Elbaevo (Russian Federation), 73
Blagodarnoe (Russian Federation), 95 Elizavetinskaya (Russian Federation), 73
Bolnisi (Georgia), 68 Enem (Russian Federation), 73
Bombay (Uzbekistan), 36 Erivan (Armenia), 78
Bosha maylla (Armenia, Georgia), 88–9 Erzincan (Turkey), 71
Bosha village (Armenia), 70 Erzurum (Turkey), 71, 72, 78
Bosha-Zaim (Turkey), 78 Essentuki (Russian Federation), 73
Boyabat (Turkey), 71
Budyonnovsk (Russian Federation), 73
Bukhara (Uzbekistan), 2, 7, 12, 13, F
15–19, 25, 27, 30, 31, 35–8, 43, Fergana (Uzbekistan), 11, 18, 25,
45, 48, 53, 62 28, 31
Kafirabad, 36 Frunze (Kyrgyzstan), 28
Old Town, 36, 37
G
C Gachiani (Georgia), 73, 98–100, 103
Çankırı (Turkey), 71 Gafurov (Tajikistan), 7, 15, 16, 36
Chagatay (Tajikistan), 36, 48 Ganja (Azerbaijan), 68, 75
Chanlibel/Chardakhlu (Azerbaijan), 68 Gazakh (Azerbaijan), 68, 85
Cherkessk (Russian Federation), 73 Gelendzhik (Russian Federation), 73
Chirchik (Uzbekistan), 27 Gorelovo (Russian Federation), 65
Chkalovsk (Tajikistan), 7 Goryachy Klyuch (Russian
Chobankël (Azerbaijan), 68 Federation), 73
Choeti (Georgia), 73, 99. See also Goychay (Azerbaijan), 68, 76
Leninovka Grozny (Russian Federation), 104
Guliston (Tajikistan), 36
Gümüşhane (Turkey), 71
D Gurjaani (Georgia), 99
Damala (Georgia), 78 Gyulagarak (Armenia), 70
Dedoplistsqaro (Georgia), 7, 99 Gyullyuk (Azerbaijan), 68
Dilipi (Georgia), 70 Gyulyuzanbina (Azerbaijan), 68
INDEX 139
Gyumri (Armenia), 7, 70, 78, 88, 89 Kazma (Azerbaijan), 68

Bosha maylla, 88–9 (see also Khachmaz (Azerbaijan), 68
Alexandropol) Khiva (Uzbekistan), 2, 25
Khizilkilisa/Ghzlkilisa (Georgia),
70, 78
H Khoyjayli (Uzbekistan), 19
Hisor (Tajikistan), 7, 15, 19, 36 Khudat (Azerbaijan), 68
Khujand (Tajikistan), vi, 7, 15, 16,
19, 36, 38, 56
I Stalin settlement, 36
Inozemtsevo (Russian Federation), 73 Kiev (Ukraine), 7
Ipatovsky district (Russian Kirovsky district (Russian
Federation), 73 Federation), 73
Isfara (Tajikistan), 16, 19 Kislovodsk (Russian Federation), 73
Isfisor (Tajikistan), 15 Kizil-Ayak (Uzbekistan), 14
Istanbul (Turkey), 71 Kobuleti (Georgia), 7, 82, 98, 99,
Kurtuluş, 71 102, 103
Izobilnensky district (Russian Kochubeyevksy district (Russian
Kogon (Uzbekistan), 27, 36
Tut-Kunda, 36
J Kokand (Uzbekistan), 7, 14, 16, 18,
Jabrayil/Jrakan (Azerbaijan/Nagorno- 25, 27–8, 31, 36, 56
Karabakh), 68 Bombay, 36
Jalal-Abad (Kyrgyzstan), 7, 53 Kokshetau (Kazakhstan), 58
Jizzakh (Uzbekistan), 18, 27 Kolkhozabad (Tajikistan), 19
Jraber (Armenia), 70. See also Bosha Konibodom (Tajikistan), 16
village Kostanay (Kazakhstan), 58
Krasnodar (Russian Federation), 7,
68, 73, 80, 84, 96–9, 105
K Krymsky district (Russian
Kangly (Russian Federation), 80 Federation), 73
Kara-Balta (Kyrgyzstan), 14 Kulob (Tajikistan), 7, 13, 17, 19
Karachayevsk (Russian Federation), 73 Guzar-i Kavolo, 13
Karachi village (Azerbaijan), 76 Kutaisi (Georgia), 7, 69, 73, 82, 83,
Karaganda (Kazakhstan), 58, 61 85, 87, 98, 99, 103
Karashengel (Russian Federation), 73 Kyzylorda (Kazakhstan), 51, 58
Kars (Turkey), 71, 78
Kashgar (China), 13, 14, 23
Kasnodar (Russian Federation), 7, 68, L
73, 80, 84, 96–8, 104, 105 Leninovka (Georgia), 99, 100, 103
Kastamonu (Turkey), 71 Lukovskaya (Russian Federation), 73
Kattakurgan (Uzbekistan), 16, 27 Lyuligrad (Uzbekistan), 36
140 INDEX
M O
Margilan (Uzbekistan), 31 Ochamchira (Georgia), 82
Marneuli (Georgia), 68, 70 Odessa (Ukraine), 7
Maykop (Russian Federation), 73 Oltinkul (Uzbekistan), 36. See also
Maysky (Russian Federation), 73 Lyuligrad
Melik-zade (Azerbaijan), 68 Oltu (Turkey), 71
Merzifon (Turkey), 71 Oral (Kazakhstan), 58
Mineralnye Vody (Russian Osh (Kyrgyzstan), 7, 19, 31, 38, 44,
Federation), 80 50, 53, 56
Moscow (Russian Federation), 7, 11, Otradnensky district (Russian
27, 65, 81, 96, 104 Federation), 73
Mostovsky district (Russian
Federation), 73
Mozdok (Russian Federation), 73 P
Mugaresh (Georgia), 78 Panjakent (Tajikistan), 15, 16, 19, 36
Mukuzani (Georgia), 99, 102 Pavlodar (Kazakhstan), 58
Multan (Pakistan), 17 Pavlodolskaya (Russian
Murmansk (Russian Federation), 64 Federation), 73
Petropavl (Kazakhstan), 58
Podgornaya (Russian Federation), 73
N Polvonobod (Tajikistan), 36
Nalchik (Russian Federation), 73 Predgorny district (Russian
Namangan (Uzbekistan), 16, 18, 31, 36 Federation), 73
Gulistan, 36 Prokhladny (Russian Federation), 73
Narimanov district (Uzbekistan), 30 Pyatigorsk (Russian Federation),
Natukhaevskaya (Russian 73, 79
Federation), 73
Navobod (Tajikistan), 36
Navoiy (Uzbekistan), 18 Q
Nezlobnaya (Russian Federation), 73 Qabodiyon (Tajikistan), 15
Nizhnepodgornoe (Russian Qakh (Azerbaijan), 68, 69
Federation), 79 Qarshi (Uzbekistan), 7, 17, 18, 23, 36
Nor Adzhin (Armenia), 70 Qashqadaryo region (Uzbekistan),
Nor Hachen (Armenia), 70 18, 36
Nor Kharberd (Armenia), 70 Qobustan (Azerbaijan), 68, 86
Nov (Tajikistan), 16 Quba (Azerbaijan), 68, 76
Novoalexandrovsky district (Russian Qurgonteppa (Tajikistan), 19, 54
Federation), 73
Novorossiysk (Russian Federation),
73, 97 R
Novovelichkovsky (Russian Rishton (Uzbekistan), 16
Federation), 80 Rudaki (Tajikistan), 19, 36
Nukus (Uzbekistan), 19 Rustavi (Georgia), 7, 83, 98–9
INDEX 141
S Staroshcherbinovskaya (Russian
Saint Petersburg (Russian Federation), Federation), 73, 80
7, 65–6, 104 Starotitarovskaya (Russian
Samarkand (Uzbekistan), 7, 12, Federation), 73
13, 15–18, 27, 30, 35, 37, Stavropol (Russian Federation), 7, 73,
38, 40, 42, 43, 48, 52, 53, 80, 95
55, 56, 62 Sukhumi (Georgia/Abkhazia), 73, 81,
Old Town, 35 99, 100, 103
Samsun (Turkey), 71 Sumqayit (Azerbaijan), 70, 73, 104
Saribulak (Azerbaijan), 68 Supsekh (Russian Federation), 73
Sarıkamış (Turkey), 71 Surxondaryo region (Uzbekistan),
Sariosiyo (Uzbekistan), 13, 31 12, 13, 15, 18, 31
Severskaya (Russian Federation), 73
Seversky district (Russian
Federation), 73 T
Shahrisabz (Uzbekistan), 12, 16 Tabriz (Iran), 68, 75
Shaihaly (Uzbekistan), 36 Taraz (Kazakhstan), 19, 31, 58
Shamakhi (Azerbaijan), 68 Tashkent (Uzbekistan), 7, 11, 14, 16,
Shambulbina (Azerbaijan), 68 17, 19, 27, 28, 31, 35, 37, 43,
Sherabad (Uzbekistan), 18, 54 45, 48, 56, 59, 62–3, 69
Shieli (Kazakhstan), 28 Amir Temir mahalla, 62
Shulaveri (Georgia), 70 Kara-Su, 62
Shurchi (Uzbekistan), 13, 31 Kuylyuk, 35
Shusha/Shushi (Azerbaijan/Nagorno- Ochavat, 35
Karabakh), 68 Old Town, 48
Shymkent (Kazakhstan), 19, 31 Sarakulka, 62
Voroshilovka, 19 Sergeli, 35
Zabadam, 19 Sputnik, 35
Sinop (Turkey), 71 Tsygansky prigorodok, 62
Sivas (Turkey), 71 Vodnik, 35
Slavyansk-na-Kubani (Russian Tbilisi (Georgia), 7, 69, 70, 73, 74,
Federation), 73 77, 83, 85–8, 98–100, 102, 103
Slavyansky district (Russian Avlabari, 70
Federation), 73 Imeni Lotkina, 98
Sochi (Russian Federation), 73 Lilo, 98, 100
Sohutmoftien (Tajikistan), 36 Samgori, 98, 99
Somonieyn (Tajikistan), 36 Telavi (Georgia), 7, 73, 99, 103
Sovetsky district (Russian Temryuk (Russian Federation), 97
Federation), 73 Termez (Uzbekistan), 18
Spitamen district (Tajikistan), 15, 19 Tokat (Turkey), 72, 79
Starokorsunskaya (Russian Trudobelikovsky (Russian
142 INDEX
Trunovsky district (Russian Y

Federation), 73 Yablonovsky (Russian Federation), 73
Tsalka (Georgia), 70–2, 78 Yangiyuly (Uzbekistan), 63
Tsnori (Georgia), 99 Nakhalovka, 59, 63
Tuapsinsky district (Russian Yerevan (Armenia), 7, 70, 73, 76,
Federation), 73 78, 88, 89
Tugarak (Tajikistan), 36 Kanaker, 70
Tundara (Tajikistan), 36 Kond, 70
Turakurgan (Uzbekistan), 14 Nork-Marash, 70
Turkistan (Kazakhstan), 19 Sari-Tagh, 70 (see also Erivan)
Tursunzoda (Tajikistan), Yevlakh (Azerbaijan), 7, 68,
13, 15, 49 77, 85, 86
V Z
Vahdat (Tajikistan), 15, 19, 36 Zagilii (Georgia), 78
Van (Turkey), 71 Zaim (Turkey), 78. See also
Vanadzor (Tajikistan), 70 Bosha-Zaim
Varzob (Tajikistan), 19 Zaqatala (Azerbaijan), 68, 69
Vezirköprü (Turkey), 71 Zarafshan (Uzbekistan), 16
Vladikavkaz (Russian Federation), 73 Zarkhok (Tajikistan), 49
Vladivostok (Russian Federation), 64 Zhany Kyshtak (Kyrgyzstan), 19, 37,
Voronezh (Russian Federation), 97 39, 41, 44–5, 48
Voronezhskaya (Russian Zheleznovodsk (Russian Federation), 73
Federation), 73 Zile (Turkey), 71
Vose’ (Tajikistan), 19, 36 Zugdidi (Georgia), 82

Gypsies of Central Asia and Caucasus

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Gypsies of Central Asia and Caucasus

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

GYPSIES IN

ISBN 978-3-319-41056-2 ISBN 978-3-319-41057-9 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016946973

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

St. Andrews, Scotland Elena Marushiakova

1 Terminology and Methodology 1

2 Gypsies of Central Asia 9

Index of Gypsy and Gypsy-like Communities 133

Index of Settlements 137

Keywords Gypsies • Roma • Definition

© The Author(s) 2016 1

penetration of the Caucasus began at the turn of the seventeenth century

The content of the designation Gypsies is constantly changing. Over the

Travellers or the Gens de voyage in France. It is also unclear why no other

The term ‘Roma’ is used here, as well as by a number of international orga-

This definition is misleading because it not only puts European Gypsies

As can be seen, the number of communities included under the term

Republic of Uzbekistan replaced the hitherto officially used term Цыгане

Gypsies of Central Asia

Keywords Central Asia • Gypsies • Lyuli/Jughi • Mughat • Mazang •

2.1 GYPSY AND GYPSY-LIKE COMMUNITIES

© The Author(s) 2016 9

The aggregation Central Asian Gypsies includes different (in origin,

Gypsy communities Lyuli / Jughi / Multoni / Ghurbat / Ghorbat

Gypsy-like Kavol Chistoni Parya Balyuj

of which descriptions and memories are preserved in the communities’

According to the Parya themselves their ancestors migrated from

Fergana Valley is in legend. According to which, in the sixteenth century

made their living primarily in agriculture and peddling fabrics, utensils,

or Multani in some regions of Uzbekistan and in past in Samarkand and

past with many of the above communities in Russian/Soviet Central Asia.

2.2 HISTORY AND DEMOGRAPHY

(twelfth century), Kamal al-Din Esfahani (thirteenth century), and

The next historical period started with the October Revolution in

Romanes of instruction existed until 1938), the creation of Gypsy Theatre

in Tajikistan (Назаров 1968b, 1969b, 1970; Абашин 2004; Первая 2013)

According to the population census of the Russian Empire from

The paradigm of a macro-society through which the Central Asian Gypsies

• In 1926: 3,710 in Uzbek SSR (which then included also today’s

According to data from the 1999 census, 5,130 Gypsies lived in

2.3 GYPSIES IN TAJIKISTAN, UZBEKISTAN, KYRGYZSTAN

of residence), or in detached parts of other settlements called jughi-gyoshe

Lyuli musicians and a description of a Lyuli settlement under the name

2013; Информация 2015). The situation is similar in other countries in

markets of Shahmansur bozor, Sultoni Kabir bozor, Sakhovat bozor and

Asia (where it is known as “the hookah of the poor”) it is banned in

It is difficult to estimate the real profitability of begging. There are com-

From this perspective, it is understandable why the Mughat recall the

In the past, after the introduction of a compulsory passport system in

awarded many orders and medals (Бессонов 2010: 65–67). He gradu-

even more in cases when the regional language of intercommunication

their failure to do so as an expression of prejudice. It should be added

The most common stereotype about Lyuli, constantly mentioned in all

A direct continuation of this stereotype is the belief that there is

In this case, however, what is much more important is the paradoxical

Insha’Allah). In private their prayers are in Tajik, requesting health, hap-

Surprisingly it is not only rich Kazakhstan which is attracting Mughat

In addition to these broad geographical lines, marriages are often con-

is repeatedly presented in the academic literature and media. It has a num-

2.3.2 Roma and Sinti

(including in marital issues) among themselves and with a wide network

mobile shops. In the new conditions of transition to a market economy