Gypsies of Persia, Encyclopaedia Iranica

ShareThis

Contact UsFAQS

generally referred to by the term kowli in Persian, seemingly a distortion of kboli, that is, coming fromKabol, the capital of Afghanistan. It is not at all certain, however, that all the groups referred to as kowliare authentic gypsies; nor that only the groups referred to as kowli should be considered as gypsies.

GYPSY. Gypsies are generally referred to by the term kowli in Persian, seemingly a distortion of kboli,i.e., coming from Kabol, the capital of Afghanistan. It is not at all certain, however, that all the groupsreferred to as kowli are authentic gypsies; nor that only the groups referred to as kowli should beconsidered as gypsies. The fact is that almost everywhere in Persia there are groups with characteristicssimilar to those of the Gypsies, but they are called by different names, sometimes designating theirgeographic or ethnic origin, sometimes their social status, and sometimes their profession. This entry willbe treated in two sections:

i. Gypsies of Persia.

ii. Gypsy Dialects.

(Jean-Pierre Digard, Gernot L. Windfuhr)

Originally Published: December 15, 2002

Last Updated: February 24, 2012

This article is available in print.Vol. XI, Fasc. 4, pp. 412-421

0 COMMENTS ADD COMMENT1 TAG ADD A TAG

GYPSY1.GYPSY i. Gypsies of Persia2.GYPSY ii. Gypsy Dialects3.

GYPSY Encyclopaedia Iranica http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/gypsy

2 of 3 20/09/2014 7:41 PM

ShareThis

Contact UsFAQS

Almost everywhere in Persia there are groups with characteristics similar to those of the Gypsies, but theyare called by different names, sometimes designating their geographic or ethnic origin, sometimes theirsocial status, and sometimes their profession.

GYPSY

i. GYPSIES OF PERSIA

Gypsies are generally referred to by the term kowli in Persian, seemingly a distortion of kboli, i.e.,coming from Kabol, the capital of Afghanistan. It is not at all certain, however, that all the groups referredto as kowli are authentic gypsies; nor that only the groups referred to as kowli should be considered asgypsies. The fact is that almost everywhere in Persia there are groups with characteristics similar to thoseof the Gypsies, but they are called by different names, sometimes designating their geographic or ethnicorigin, sometimes their social status, and sometimes their profession: abdal (uzestn), hangar (severalplaces), egini or ingna (Azerbaijan, the Caspian provinces), fiuj (uzestn), arblband (Tehran),gowdari (Baluchestan), jat (Khorasan, Afghanistan), jugi (Central Asia), Karai or Kari (Azerbaijan),kvol (Lorestn), kowli (Tehran, central province, Lorestn, Batiri, Frs), orbati (Lorestn, Batiri),lom (Tajikestan), luli (several places), luri (Baluchestan, center, not to be confused with the inhabitants ofLorestn), lui (Kermn, Lorestn, not to be confused with the 19th-century urban thugs, see Migeod,1959), mazang, multni (Central Asia), moreb (Lorestn), qereml (Khorasan), irzi (Batiri),sudni (Persian Gulf), suzmni (Kermnh), tuml (Batiri), ott (Baluchestan, u-zestn) (Sykes,1902, pp. 437-38; Minorsky, 1931; Ama-nolahi and Norbeck, pp. 3-4; ok, passim).

The identity of these groups being uncertain, there are no statistics about them; at best they are estimatedto be two or three thousand people (Amanolahi and Norbeck, p. 2). Their origins are just as obscure.According to a legend reported in h-nma (Moscow, VII, pp. 451-52) and repeated by several modernauthors (e.g., Bausani; Goeje), the Sasanian king Bahrm V Gr (q.v.) learned towards the end of hisreign (421-39) that the poor could not afford to enjoy music, and he asked the king of India to send himten thousand luris, men and women, lute playing experts (l. 2558). When the luris arrived, Bahrm gaveeach one an ox and an ass and an ass-load of wheat so that they could live on agriculture and play musicgratuitously for the poor. But the luris ate the ox and the wheat and came back a year later with theircheeks hollowed with hunger. The king was angered with their having wasted what he had given them,ordered them to pack up their bags on their asses and go wandering around the world.

This interesting legend only partially reflects the real life of the kowlis and assimilated groups. Thesegroups, however, possess several common characteristics. They are usually small groups of two or threenuclear families on the move, living in tents or temporary dwellings, and following seasonal migrations ofpastoral nomadic tribes to which they are more or less attached (Barth, 1961, pp. 91-92; Digard, 1981, pp.21-22), or moving from village to village and to town suburbs. That is why they have been described asperipatetic or peripatecians (Rao, 1985). There are, however, districts in some cities (e.g., Birjand,Nipur, Sabzavr) where the kowlis live permanently (Ivanow, 1920, pp. 282-83; idem, 1926, p. 157).The economy of the kowlis is based on supplying the nomads and/or the settlements they frequent withservices or manufactured articles against money or goods, hence their designation by some authors as

GYPSY i. Gypsies of Persia Encyclopaedia Iranica http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/gypsy-i

2 of 8 19/09/2014 7:21 PM

service nomads (e.g., Barth, 1960; Kieffer; Olesen, passim). Their professional specialties areblacksmithery (hangari), peddling, making small articles of everyday use such as sieves made of woodand gut, weaving and carding combs made of wood and metal, spindles and tops made by turning wood,wicker baskets and straw mats (kowli), etc. They also work as musicians (luri, lui, tuml, etc.) and, in amore marginal sense, fanfare comedians as well as performing in animal shows (Filmer, passim;Westphal-Hellbusch, 1964, passim; Drukker).

These groups are organized in economically autonomous domestic production units that are related toeach other within each professional guild; each profession corresponds to a group and the groups are ingeneral endogamous. Within the group the transmission of social status and technical specialization ispatrilineal.

Although the kowlis are Muslims, Shiite or Sunnite as the case may be, and partly adopt the language(see below) of the village or tribal communities for which they work, they are much despised by thesecommunities. The generic word orbati (lit: stranger), by which they are designated in many regions, isvery pejorative. The segregation of these artisans and musicians is also manifested by their prohibition tomarry outside their group. In some areas, for instance in the Batiri region, they are prohibited topractice the same activity of production as the tribe (e.g., animal husbandry, weaving) or wear the tribaldress (Digard, 1981, p. 211).

In reference to a similar context among the Swat in Pakistan, Fredrik Barth maintains that these despisedprofessions in the service of land-owners can be likened to castes. This notion is, however, rejected bythe scholars (including the present writer) who believe that castes could not exist outside a social structurein which all members are categorized in a system of castes (see Bougl; Dumzil; Hocart; Bailey, 1957;idem, 1961; Balandier, pp. 99-107). The gypsies of Persia seem rather to fit into a system of patronageand clientele, as Dumont put it (p. 265), complementing a class society (Digard, 1973).

The rough picture drawn of the groups of artisans living in symbiosis with nomadic communities orvillages should, however, be modified in each individual case. A number of these groups should in fact betreated as particular cases. For instance, the musicians (luri, lui, tuml, etc.) benefit from a specialstatus, which distinguishes them from both the kowlis and orbatis present in the same area, as well asfrom the musicians of other regions. Among the Batiris, for example, the tumls (Digard, 1974) allbelong to the same faction of amala, traditionally at the service of the Khan and an integral part of thetribe. They are at the bottom of the social hierarchy and must marry among themselves, but they have theright to wear Batiri dress. The name tuml, by which they are called is an outdated title among theBatiris, but it is still in use elsewhere, notably in Lorestn, where it is an equivalent to kad-od (chief).The situation of the tumls is singularly in contrast with that of the musicians of Mamassani, BoirAhmadi and Lor tribes culturally and geographically closest to the Ba-tiris, where they have theunenviable status of foreigner (orbati) and are pejoratively called lui or moreb (Minorsky, 1931;Bahman Beygi; Nadjamadbadi, passim).

The ethnic identity, real or supposed, of the professionally specialized groups that live in contact with thenomadic tribes of the southwest of Persia is, therefore, crucial to their status; however, it remains a veryambiguous question. Even the vocabulary is ambiguous. In fact the terms used, not only in Persia(Amanolahi and Norbeck; Minorsky, 1931; Sykes, 1902) but in all the Middle East (Burton; Anastase,1902; Littmann; Massignon, passim; Lewis and Quelquejay; Kenrick, 1975, 1994; Berland) to designatethese groups refer to very distant notions, ranging from socio-economic status (e.g., abdal slaves,orbati foreigner) and profession (hangar blacksmith, lui, musician) to regional or supposedlyethnic origins (ingna from angar or ingar, in India, kowli, from Kabol, ott or jat Indian,sudni, black).Such confusion is not exceptional. Similar examples date back to most ancient times, e.g., the Khalybes of


3 of 8 19/09/2014 7:21 PM

Herodotus, which is not clear whether it refers to some people or it was a professional designation(blacksmith, Planhol). The same ambiguity exists in our times among the Batiris, where the ethnonymkowli refers to a specified socio-professional group, that of very mobile pedlars who visit the nomads tooffer them various light objects of their manufacture (e.g., weaving combs, sieves, wooden spoons,spindles, etc.) and leave them immediately thereafter, contrary to other orbatis who pre-ferably remainin contact with the same portion of the tribe and move with it. Some of these orbatis are referred to bythe Batiris by the name of a profession, hangar (blacksmith), but they call themselves irzi (fromShiraz).

Here, the linguistic criterion itself is of little help. However, one thing is certain: For all the groups inquestion, Persian or the languages of the tribes with which they associate has, until recent progress inschooling, been a second language, a working language (Amanolahi and Norbeck). Beyond that, thelinguistic studies of these groups (Amanolahi and Norbeck; Digard, 1978; Ivanow, 1914; Macalister;Sykes, 1902; Wirth) are too piecemeal and too partial to permit definite conclusions as to the nature oftheir language. Except in two cases (Ivanow, 1922; Turner, 1978), their language cannot be considered asan argot so common among many Persian guilds. In all other cases (languages called Darvii, Luiuna,hangari, irzi, etc. in various places) one is struck by the existence of common terms among severalgroups, such as sanuta or sanufta for dog; tirang, ox; nahur, eye; mana, bread; dontaz, sister; bri, brother;dqis, mother; bqis, father; kala, son; gowari, chief; and so forth (Amanolahi and Norbeck). Despitetheir flimsiness, these few similarities seem to indicate the existence and permanence in Persia of at leasta partially common language and culture among the groups of kowlis and assimilated groups, despite thestrong loss of culture brought about by fragmentation and geographical dispersion.

One is also struck by the presence, in these tongues, of words close to Hindi, Romani and Manouchian(spoken by Manouch gypsies of Europe and America), such as ekel, earth/Romani ik, mud; gohr,horse/Hindi qor, horse/Roman huro, colt; loh, iron/Hindi loha, same mean-ing, Lohar, blacksmith;mrez, man/Romani more, man (interjection), mur, male; ponnawi, rain/Hindi and Manouchian pn,water; potor, son/Hindi putra, same meaning (literary), and so on (Digard, 1978). These similaritiesclearly seem to indicate that the groups in question, their language(s) and their culture(s) could beconsidered as part of the vast nebula known as gypsy. Such are the conjectures, much more thandefinite conclusions, based on the fragmentary data currently available.

Bibliography:

I. Afr Sistni, Kowlih: pauhe-i dar zamina-ye zendagi-e kowlih-ye Irn wa jahn, Tehran, 1377./1998.

S. Amanolahi and E. Norbeck, The Luti, an Outcast Group of Iran, Rice University Studies 61, 1975,pp. 1-12.

P. Anastase, Les Nawar ou Tziganes dOrient, Al-Mashrik 5, 1902, pp. 865-76, 932-40, 966-75,1031-37, 1077-86.

Idem, Luristan, or Land of the Luri, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society (JGLS) 7, 1913-14, pp. 298-319.

H. Arnold, Some Ob-servations on Turkish and Persian Gypsies, JGLS 46, 1967, pp. 105-22.

M. Bahman-beygi, Orf o dat dar ayer-e Frs, Shiraz, 1324 ./1945; tr. V. Monteil as Moeurs etcoutumes des tribus du Fars, in V. Monteil, ed., Les tribus du Frs et la sdentarisation des nomades,Paris and The Hague, 1966, pp. 97-152.


4 of 8 19/09/2014 7:21 PM

F. C. Bailey, Caste and the Economic Frontier, London, 1957.

Idem, Tribe and Caste in India, in L. Dumont and D. Pocock, eds., Contributions to Indian Sociology 5,Paris and The Hague, 1961, pp. 7-19.

G. Balandier, Anthropologie politique, Paris, 1967.

F. Barth, The System of Social Stratification in Swat, North Pakistan, in E. R. Leach, ed., Aspects ofCaste in South India, Ceylon and North-West Pakistan, Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropology 2,Cambridge, 1960.

Idem, Nomads of South Persia: The Basseri Tribe of the Khamseh Confederacy, Oslo, 1961.

A. Bausani, The Persians, from the Earliest Days to the Twentieth Century, London, 1972.

J. C. Berland, No Five Fingers Are Alike: Cognitive Amplifiers in Social Context, Cambridge, Mass., 1982(Gypsies of Pakistan).

G. F. Black, The Gypsies of Armenia, JGLS 8, 1913-14, pp. 327-30.

C. Bougl, Essai sur le rgime des castes, Paris, 1908.

R. F. Burton, The Jew, the Gypsy and el-Islam, n.p., n.d.

J.-P. Digard, Histoire et anthropologie des socits nomades: le cas dune tribu dIran, Annales:Economies, Socits, Civilisations 28, 1973, pp. 1423-35.

Idem, Baxtyri, nomades de la montagne, Paris, 1974.

Idem, Tsiganes et pasteurs nomades dans le sud-ouest de lIran, in J.-P. Ligeois, ed., Tsiganes etnomades: tendances actuelles de la recherche, Paris, 1978, pp. 43-53.

Idem, Techniques des nomades Baxtyri dIran, London etc., 1981.

R. and B. Drukker, Turkish Gypsy Bear-leaders, JGLS 47, 1968.

G. Dumzil, La prhistoire indo-iranienne des castes, JA 216, 1930, pp. 109-30.

L. Dumont, Homo hierarchicus: essai sur le systme des castes, Paris, 1968.

H. Field, Contributions to the Anthropology of Iran, Chicago, 1939.

H. Filmer, The Pageant of Persia, Indianapolis and London, 1937.

M. J. de Goeje, Mmoire sur les migrations des Tsiganes travers lAsie, Leiden, 1903.

M. J. de Goeje and J. Sampson, The Gypsies of Persia, JGLS N.S. 1, 1907-08, pp. 181-83.

F. H. Groome, Persian and Syrian Gypsies, JGLS 13, 1891.

A. M. Hocart, Les castes, Paris, 1938.

W. Iva-now, On the Language of the Gypsies of Qint (in eastern Persia), J(R)ASB 10, 1914, pp.439-55.

Idem, Further Notes on the Gypsies in Persia, ibid., 16, 1920, pp. 281-91.


5 of 8 19/09/2014 7:21 PM

Idem, An old Gypsy-Darwish Jargon, ibid., 18, 1922, pp. 375-83.

Idem, Notes on the Ethnology of Khurasan, JRGS 67, 1926, pp. 143-58.

D. Kenrick, Romanies in the Middle East, Roma (Chandigarh) 1/4, 1976, pp. 5-9; 2/1, 1977, pp. 30-36;2/2, 1977, pp. 23-39.

C. M. Kieffer, A propos de la circoncision Caboul et dans le Logar: note de dialectologie etdethnographie afghanes, in Festchrift fr Wilhelm Eilers, Wiesbaden, 1967, pp. 191-201.

J. Koch-anowski, Gypsy Studies, 2 vols., New Delhi, 1963.

H. C. Kprlzade Mehmet Fuad, Abdal, in Trk halk edebiyati ensiklopedisi, Istanbul, 1935.

G. L. Lewis and C. Quelquejay, ingne, in EI2, pp. 41-42.E. Littmann, Zigeuner arabisch, Bonn, 1920.

R. A. S. Macalister, Language of the Nawar or Zutt, the Nomad Smiths of Palestine, London, 1914.

Mass, Croyances. L. Massignon, Annuaire du monde musulman, Paris, 1954.

H. G. Migeod, Die Ltis, ein Ferment des stdtischen Lebens in Persien, Journal of the Economic andSocial History of the Orient 2, 1959, pp. 82-91.

V. Minorsky, Les Tsiganes Ll et les Lurs persans, JA 218, 1931, pp. 281-305.

S. Nadjmabadi, Die Shiravand in West-Lorestan: Mit besonderer Bercksichtigung desVerwandtschaftsystems, Ph.D. diss., Heidelberg, 1975.

A. Olesen, Afghan Craftsmen: The Culture of Three Itinerant Communities, Copenhagen, 1994.

A. G. Paspates, tudes sur les Tchingians ou Bohmiens de lEmpire Ottoman, Constantinople, 1870.

K. P. Patkanoff, Some Words on the Dialects of the Transcaucasian Gypsies, JGLS N.S. 2, 1908-09.

X. de Planhol, Geographica pontica, JA 251, 1963, pp. 293-309.

A. Qem-maqmi, Kowlih ki hastand wa koj hastand? Armagn 29, 1339 ./1960, pp. 262-70.A. Rao, Les Gorbat dAfghanistan: aspects conomiques dun groupe itinrant Jat, Paris and Tehran,1982.

Idem, Des nomades mconnus: pour une typologie des communauts pripattiques, LHomme 25,1985, pp. 97-119.

J. Sampson, On the Origin and the Early Migrations of the Gypsies, JGLS 19, 1923.

A. T. Sinclair, The Oriental Gypsies, JGLS N.S. 1, 1907-08, pp. 197-211.

P. Sykes, Anthropological Notes on Southern Persia, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 32,1902, pp. 339-49.

Idem, The Gypsies of Persia: A Second Vocabulary, ibid., 36, 1906, pp. 302-11.

Idem, Notes on Musical Instruments in Khorassan, with Special Reference to the Gypsies, Man 9, 1909,


6 of 8 19/09/2014 7:21 PM

pp. 94-103.

Idem, Persian Jats, JGLS N.S. 4, 1910.

D. Tripler, The Banjara: Notes on Some Cousins of the Gypsies, JGLS, 3rd Series 44, 1965.

R. L. Turner, The Position of Romani in Indo-Aryan, Lodon, 1927.

Idem, Notes on A Note on the Secret Language of the Traditional Musicians of Iran, by S. AmanullahiJGLS,4th Series 1, 1978, pp. 283-86.

S. Westphal-Hellbusch, Randgruppen in Nahen und Mittleren Osten, Baessler Archiv 53, 1980, pp.1-59.

S. Westphal-Hellbusch and H. Westphal, The Jat of Pakistan, Berlin, 1964.

Idem, Zur Geschichte und Kultur der Jat, Berlin, 1968.

G. L. Windfuhr, European Gypsies in Iran: A First Re-port, Anthropological Linguistics 13, 1970, pp.271-92.

A. Wirth, A Persian Gypsy Vocabulary, JGLS, 3rd Series, 6, 1927, pp. 88-95.

Y. ok, Kowli wa zendagi-e u, Tehran, 1337 ./1958.(Jean-Pierre Digard)




0 COMMENTS ADD COMMENT2 TAGS ADD A TAG



7 of 8 19/09/2014 7:21 PM

ShareThis

Contact UsFAQS

The languages and dialects popularly called Gypsy (< Egipcien < qebi Coptic, Egyptian) constitutethree major groups: Asiatic or Middle Eastern Domari, Armenian Lomavren, and European Romani.

GYPSY

ii. GYPSY DIALECTS

The languages and dialects popularly called Gypsy (< Egipcien < qebi Coptic, Egyptian) constitutethree major groups: Asiatic or Middle Eastern Domari, Armenian Lomavren, and European Romani,technical terms now used to reflect the speakers self-designations: Dom, Lom, and Roma, respectively.For Gypsy in Iranian-speaking areas the most common terms are Kowli (presumably < Kboli, lit. fromKabul) and Gorbati (stranger); mostly western groups such as the Karai of Azerbaijan have retainedthe term dom man (see listing of names and groups below). While traditionally oral, there are nowwritten forms for some European varieties.

The three groups as a whole originate in Indo-Aryan (Indic) languages, most likely the central andnorthwestern branches. Individually, they reflect three distinct historical layers of Indo-Aryaninnovations, which suggests three successive westward migrations, rather than a single one (Turner, 1926,1927; Sampson, 1923, 1926; overview in Hancock, 1988, also idem, 1995, pp. 25-32). With Iranian-speaking territories as their first staging area and linguistic contact, the earliest layer is reflected in thediverse Middle Eastern group which most likely dates from the second half of the first millennium C.E. Itincludes most dialects from Central Asia to Anatolia and to North Africa, and is distinct by the absence oflater Indo-Aryan changes found in the other two groups. The subsequent layer is represented by theEuropean group, first reported in the southeastern Balkans by 1100 C.E. It is here, in the Greek languagecontext of the Byzantine Empire, where the constituent varieties evolved into a relatively unified languagefrom which all European varieties derive. The latest layer appears to be the Armenian group, which mayhave established itself in Armenian-speaking northeastern Anatolia separately. The examples in Table 1illustrate major historical sound changes which serve to define the three groups, but also exemplify theblurring of the distinctions due to dialect mixture and admixture (Near Eastern examples are Domari fromSyria and Fiuj-orbati from central western Persia; for brother, cf. English pal friend).The phonological diversity is partially reflected also in the Indo-Aryan core vocabulary, including somecommon terms such as juklo dog (< Sk. jukua-) in European vs. reflexes of Sk. unaka in MiddleEastern Gypsy dialects (e.g., Fiuj-orbati sonoft).The Gypsy dialects in Iranian speaking areas by and large constitute a continuum from Central Asia andAfghanistan through Persia to parts of Transcaucasia, Mesopotamia, and eastern Anatolia. The exceptionare two: (a) Two related European Romani dialects, one spoken in two villages near Qazvin (Windfuhr,1970), the other near Qun in northern Khorasan (Djonedi), of which Zargari has fully retained thehighly inflectional morphology of European Gypsy. Both probably originate in southern Bulgaria andwere deported a century or more ago. (b) The dialect of the Seb-Seliyer, literally tin-workers, which isspoken in a cluster of mountain villages near Firuzkuh (Sotuda). While largely adapted to localMzandarni, its small but distinct core vocabulary has remained a linguistic isolate, except for a fewterms such as kr horse. Often, the distinction between Gypsy as a dialect and the use of Gypsy terms

GYPSY ii. Gypsy Dialects Encyclopaedia Iranica http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/gypsy-ii

2 of 11 20/09/2014 7:39 PM

and features in the argot and jargon of other marginalized groups is blurred (see below).

LEXICON

Extra-Iranian Gypsy. The loan component in European Gypsy has been an important factor in theattempts to trace the course and time of migrations. While the largest loan component is Greek, thePersian component in Euro-pean Gypsy as a whole amounts to some 100 items, of which about 60 arefound throughout. It clearly reflects Early New Persian, evidenced by the long mid-vowels and , e.g.,Romani amrol pear (< amrd), zr power, zn saddle; but also bi- without (rather than b, cf.Indic vi-), which in Romani is a highly productive prefix. Very few loans are from other Iranianlanguages. The absence of any Arabic loans later adapted by (spoken) Persian, as well as the absence ofTurkish loans, reflects the pre-Ottoman and pre-classical Persian date of this migration. Most MiddleEastern Gypsy dialects outside Iranian territories have rather few Persian loans, varying from sub-groupto sub-group, and by distance from Iran (Hancock, 1995).

Gypsy in Iranian-speaking areas. The lexicon of all dialects has at least three basic components: Indic,Persian, and loans from various later contact sources. While there is heavy borrowing from locallanguages, most dialects have retained a substantial Indic core, though varying with the dialect, includingeveryday words such km work, nk nose, l iron, rt night, and gor horse, all with localvariants. The latter term, from Sk. gh-, is most widely retained and serves as a ready initial clue toidentifying a dialect as Gypsy.

The Indo-Persian/Iranian core has been supplemented to various degrees by a distinct component ofArabic terms other than those found in the Persian varieties, together with a few terms of Hebrew orSyriac and of obscure origin. This has led to doublets, or the loss of the Indic term; e.g., inherited Indicjewed woman vs. dena/neda; Indic g fire vs. nrak; Indic pn water vs. mi(w); Indic k eyevs. nuhur < nr light. Most of these terms entered Gypsy via marginal groups, such as mendicantdarvishes, Sufis, qalandars, also artisans and musicians, as shown in pioneering studies of their probableorigin, the social mechanisms, and their typical linguistic manipulation, not unlike anagrammatic play,tamya, often with semantic shift, by Wladimir Ivanow (1922, 1927); Alexandr Romaskevich (1945); andforemost Anna L. Troitskaya (1948); and, in a larger context, Clifford E. Bosworth (1976).

In fact, in addition to vocabulary as such, a typical feature of most recorded Gypsy dialects is thedistortion of words, which may also serve to distinguish related sub-groups. This aspect wassystematically discussed by Moammad Moqaddam in the context of Fiuj-orbati, and includesmetathesis, phonemic substitution, extensions (e.g., le > l maternal aunt, sib > lib apple, amu >lmu paternal uncle,), and combinations thereof and other concealing means.GRAMMAR

All Gypsy languages are typologically hybrids, and reflect the results of contact with successive hostlanguages through centuries. This includes major restructurings in morphology and syntax. The final stageof this process is the loss of the inherited grammar, while retaining a significant part of the hybrid lexicon,a type called Para-Romani in studies of European Romani. Romani in Europe, and to some extent inAnatolia, has increasingly been the subject of systematic linguistic research during the last quartercentury, in particular with regard to the dynamics of language contact, interference, and linguistictypology (cf. Hancock 1988; Matras 1995; Matras et. al.; for Gypsy in Iran, cf. the typological study ofZargari by Windfuhr, based on data collected with the assistance of Stilo, who recognized the dialect asRomani).

In the Middle East, those Gypsy dialects which were or are in contact with inflectional languages such asTurkic, Arabic, Armenian, and Iranian Kurdish and Pashto have tended to retain the inherited


3 of 11 20/09/2014 7:39 PM

morphological distinctions to various degrees, including masculine and feminine gender, two-level casemarking with direct and oblique cases, and secondary cases mostly marked by inherited Indicpostpositions, as well as a basic system of tense, mood, and aspect (similar to European Romani). Such isthe case, e.g., in the language of the Nawar of the Levante, which significantly shows not only lexical, butalso morphological loans from Kurdish, most prominently the indefinite enclitic -ek (Macalister, 1909-10,p. 299); the language of the Karai of Azerbaijan (Patkanoff, 1909); and probably the language of thePashto-based Kuaa of Afghanistan (Rao, 1995). Most other dialects and variants of Gypsy in theseregions are based on local variants of Persian, having adopted both morphology and syntax.

The following examples illustrate the hybrid features of Iranian Gypsy (cf. similar features in the hybridlanguage of the Jewish communities of Persia, discussed by Yarshater; upper case = Gypsy); a Zargar-Romani example is added for comparison:

Example 1. Iranian Gypsy (Fiuj-orbati, Moqaddam, 1960, p. 131, with Persian translation).Example 2. orbati of Afghanistan (Rao, 1995, with Afghan Persian translation).Example 3. Jugi, Tajikistan (Oranski, 1964, 1968, with Tajik translation).Example 4. Rmni of Zargar near Qazvin (Stilo in Windfuhr, 1970, p. 279, here with literal Persiantranslation).

The particle TE introducing subjunctive phrases is typical for European Romani and Levantine NawarGypsy, and may be a conflation of the functions of the Persian preposition-conjunction t and the generalpresent-future particle te found in the Iranian Pamir languages, which would further evidence the diversecourse of the Gypsy varieties.

DIALECTOLOGY

It has been difficult to establish the internal dialectology of Middle Eastern Gypsy. This is partially due tothe inadequate data, some of which date to the early 19th century. Donald Kenrick (1976), who included anumber of Iranian dialects, did the first systematic comparative study, but did not aim at a dialectology.Aparna Rao (1995) presented an overview of Gypsy in Afghanistan, with careful attention to exonymicand endonymic terminology, coupled with some linguistic samples. The following suggests a tentativedialectology of Iranian Gypsy. It is based on the original possessive/oblique forms of the personalpronouns, which were a crucial part of the former inflectional morphology, and as last vestiges provideclues for the dialectal interrelationships. The data suggest two major distinct morphological markers: (a)the suffix -ri/-ra (inherited pronominal possessive forms, probably merged with the dative-accusativefunction of the Persian enclitic r); and (b) the suffix -ki (inherited pronominal dative forms). Theirpresence or absence define six major dialect groups (Table 2) from northwest to northeast (NOM =nominative, or direct case; POS = distinct possessive, or oblique case, which became the generalpronominal form in most dialects).

It is evident that there is no direct correlation between name and dialect. The Jugi of northeastern Persia isclearly distinct from that of Tajikistan, just as Western Persian orbati is distinct from Afghan orbati,which in turn is closest to its neighbor, eastern Persian Qere-ml (speakers of Afghan orbati claimwestern origin; Rao 1995, p. 74). However, there is a close correlation between the distribution ofmorphological features and geographic distribution. The notable exception is Persian orbati, whichmorphologically is located between the two varieties of Jugi in northeastern Persia and Central Asia.(Already Moammad Moqaddam detailed the closeness of the orbat of the Ark area he described andAstarbd Jugi, based on de Morgan, 1904).In comparison, the dialects of the Ottoman areas clearly belong to the ki-groups, but also show


4 of 11 20/09/2014 7:39 PM

compounding with possessive -r (Table 3).

Geographical Listing of Sources, mostly containing linguistic data:

European Romani. Zargari; endonym/language Rmni; two villages in Qazvin area (Windfuhr, 1970).Rmni, endonym/language; Qun area (Djonedi).Isolate. Seb-Seliyer, endonym; isolate Gypsy dialect, local dialect base; in mountains of Firuzkuh areaeast of Tehran (Sotuda).

Northwest, Transcaucasus, Armenia, Azerbaijan. Boa: endonym Lom, Armenian base, Christian(Patkanoff 1908; Finck, 1907-08, grammar);Mitrib: exonym, Turkish or Persian base, Sunnite (Patkanoff,1908; Benninghaus).Kara: endonym Dom, Persian or Tat base, Shiite (Patkanoff, 1909);Kara:endonym Dom, Tabriz area and Kurdestan (Ouseley, III, pp. 400-401; Patkanoff, 1909).

West, Kurdish areas, western Persia. Kaloro: endonym, also Dom, Marash, eastern Turkey and Ainteb,Syria, along Euphrates, Sunnite, Alawi, and Kelli groups (Paspates, 1862, 1870, in lexicon).Cingna: inCentral Kurdish areas (Turkey), endonym Dom in most Kurdish areas of Persia and Iraq; Sz(m)n:exonym, in southern Kurdish areas (Sanandaj and Kermnh; Voskanian, 1997, no linguistic data);Dmn (Dom): endonym, extensive Persian loans, Baghdad (Newbold, 1856, pp. 285-312).Central and Southern Persia. orbati: endonym Il-e Fiuj, Ark area, from Shiraz area (Moqaddam,extensive data and discussion; Wirth); orbati: Jiroft, Sirjn, Ker-mn (Sykes);L language Mkki orLn, Ba-luchistan; possibly secret language (Ivanow, 1914, no linguistic data).Caspian and eastern Persia. Jugi, exonym; Mzandarn and Astarbd (de Morgan, pp. 304-6); Gowdari,exonym; Astarbd; strong Persian component (de Morgan, pp. 306-7); Qereml, exonym; Khorasan(Sykes); Gypsies of Nipur, Sabzavr, Qen, Birjand (Ivanow, 1920), Qent (Ivanow, 1914).Afghanistan. Jat: term for four major Indic Gypsy groups in Eastern Afghanistan, Jall, Pikrj, dibz,Vangwli, speaking Inku, related to Hendku in Paki-stan (Rao, 1995; the term Jat is also generally usedfor Gypsies); aydar: endonym, language Magadi orbati, Fryb province, North Afghanistan(Pstrusinska,1986). Jgi, Jugi: endonym, also Mugat, language Mogati-bey, North Afghanistan; alsocalled Jugi-e Bori or orbati in Mazr region; also called Jugi-e Baligi or Qzulgi in Bal region(Rao, 1995). Kuaa: Pashto base (Rao, 1995); Bal, endonym (Rao, 1995), related to Kara-Luli ofTajikistan.

Persian-based Gypsy groups of Afghanistan: orbat, endonym, widely found, language also namedQzulgi in Herat, Magadi in Kabul region, claim to come from Persia (Rao, 1995);ay Moammad:endonym, language durgari, Pashto loans, Afghan Persian base, mostly secret language, EasternAfghanistan (Rao, 1995; Oleson); related to Kavol of Tajikistan.

Central Asia(Tajikistan/Uzbekistan). Jugi; endonym Mugat, Tajiki base, Hissar Valley (Oranski, 1961,1983; Nazarov), related to Jg of Afghanistan and to Jugi of Astarbd and Mzandarn; Kavol, qawmAfghan: language Porsi, Pashto loans, Afghan-Persian base mother tongue, Kulyb district (Oranski,1961), related to ay Moammadi of Afghanistan; Balj: endonym, Persian base (Wilkins, 1882;Patkanoff, 1909), related to Bal of Afghanistan; Luli: endonym Multni, argot, Tajiki base, Farnaarea (Wilkins, 1882; Patkanoff, 1909); Kara-Luli (Lit. Black-Luli): endonym Hindustani, qowm Beluji,Farna area (Wilkins, 1882; Patkanoff, 1909); related to Bal of Afghanistan; Afn: Indic baseddialect group (Oranski, 1956), related to Inku in Afghanistan.


5 of 11 20/09/2014 7:39 PM

Bibliography:

Sekandar Amanolahi and Edward Norbeck, The Luti, an Outcaste Group of Iran, Rice UniversityStudies 61/2, 1975, pp. 1-12.

Idem, A Note on the Secret Language of the Traditional Musicians of Iran, Journal of the Gypsy LoreSociety, Ser. 4, 1/4, 1978, pp. 283-86.

Idem, The Gypsies of Iran (A Brief Introduction), Iran and Caucasus 3-4, 1999-2000, pp. 109-18.

Father Anasts, the Carmelite, The Nawar or Gypsies of the East, tr. from the Arabic by AlexanderRussell, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, N.S. 7/4, 1913-14, pp. 298-319; 8/2, 1914-15, pp. 140-53,266-91.

Hermann Arnold, Some Observations on Turkish and Persian Gypsies, tr. from the German by A. M.Fraser, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Ser. 3, 46/3-4, 1967, pp. 105-22.

Rdiger Benninghaus, Les Tsiganes de la Turquie orientale, tudes Tsiganes 37/3, 1991, pp. 47-60.

Clifford Edmund Bosworth, The Jargon Element in the Qada Sasniyyas, with Some Notes of Jargonsand Secret Languages in Other Parts of the Middle Eastern and North African Cultural Region, in idem,The Mediaeval Islamic Underworld: The Ban Ssn in Arabic Society and Literature, Leiden, 1976, pp.150-79.

Fereydun Djonedi (Joneydi), Romano-Glossar: Gesammelt von Schir-Ali Tehranizade, GrazerLinguistische Studien 46, Herbst, 1996, pp. 31-59.

Franz Nikolaus Finck, Die Grund-zge des armenisch-zigeunerischen Sprachbaus, Journal of the GypsyLore Society, N.S. 1, 1907-8 pp. 34-60.

Arthur von Gobineau, Die Wanderstmme Persiens, ZDMG 11, 1857, pp. 689-99.

Michal Jan de Goeje, Mmoire sur les migrations des Tsiganes travers lAsie, Leiden, 1903.

Michal Jan de Goeje and J. Simpson, The Gypsies of Persia, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Ser.2/1, 1907, pp. 181-83.

Ian Hancock, The Development of Romani Linguistics, in Mohammed Ali Jazayery and Werner Winter,eds., Languages and Cultures: Studies in Honor of Edgar C. Polom, Trends in Linguistics, Studies andMonographs 36, Berlin and New York, 1988, I, pp. 183-224.

Idem, On the Migration and Affiliation of the mba: Iranian Words in Rom, Lom and Dom Gypsy, inYaron Matras, ed., Romani in Contact, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 1995, pp. 25-51.

Wladimir Ivanow, On the Language of the Gypsies of Qainat (in Eastern Persia), J(R)ASB, N.S. 10/11,1914, pp. 439-55.

Idem. Further Notes on the Gypsies in Persia, J(R)ASB, N.S. 16, 1920, pp. 281-91.

Idem, An Old Gypsy-Darwish Jargon, J(R)ASB, N.S. 18, 1922, pp. 375-83.

Idem, Jargon of Persian Mendicant Darwishes, J(R)ASB, N.S. 23/1, 1927, pp. 243-45.

Donald Kenrick, Romanies in the Middle East, Roma 1/4, 1976, pp. 5-8; 2/1, 1977, pp. 30-36, 2/2, pp.23-29.


6 of 11 20/09/2014 7:39 PM

Idem, Historical Dictionary of the Gypsies (Romanies), Lanham, Md., 1998.

Charles M. Kieffer and Rita Kief-fer, Notes de lexicologie arabe, in Christian Robin, ed., Mlangeslinguistiques offerts Maxime Rodinson, compte rendus du Groupe linguistique dtudes chamito-smitiques, Supp. 12, Paris, 1985, pp. 205-19.

Robert A. Stewart Macalister, A Sketch of the Grammatical Structure of the Nuri Language, PalestineExploration Fund Quarterly Statement 40/1, 1908, pp. 64-70.

Idem, A Grammar and Vocabulary of the Language of the Nawar or Zutt: The Nomad Smiths ofPalestine, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, N.S. 3, 1909-10, pp. 120-26, 298-317; 5, 1911-12, pp.289-305; 6/3, 1912-13, pp. 161-240 (also separately publ. by Gypsy Lore Society as Monograph 3,Edinburgh, 1914).

Yaron Matras, ed., Romani in Contact: The History, Structure, and Sociology of a Language, Proceedingsof the International Conference on Romani Linguistics in Hamburg, May 1993, Amsterdam andPhiladelphia, 1995.

Yaron Matras, Peter Bakker, and Hristo Kyuchukov, eds., The Typology and Dialectology of Romani,Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, S. 4, Amsterdam and Philadelphia,1997.

Bart McDowell, Gypsies: Wanderers of the World, Washington, D.C., 1970.

Franz Ritter von Miklosich, ber die Mundarten und Wanderungen der Zigeuner Europas I-XII, Vienna,1872-1880.

Moammad Moqaddam, Guyeh-ye Vafs wa tin wa Tafre, Tehran, n.d. (1960).Jacques de Morgan, Mission scientifique en Perse V: Etudes linguistiques. Dialectes Kurdes. Langues etdialectes du Nord de la Perse, Paris, 1904, pp. 304-7.

Haqnazar (Kh.) Nazarov, Contemporary Ethnic Development of the Central Asian Gypsies (Liuli),Soviet Anthropology and Archaeology 21/3, 1982-83, pp. 3-28.

Thomas John Newbold, The Gypsies of Persia, pp. 309-12, in idem, The Gypsies of Egypt, JRAS 16,1856, pp. 285-311.

Asta. Oleson, Peddling in East Afghanistan: Adaptive Strategies of Peripatetic Sheikh Mohammadi, inAparna Rao, ed., The Other Nomad: Peripatetic Minorities in Cross-Cultural Perspective, Cologne andVienna, 1987, pp. 35-64.

Iosif Mikhailovich Oranski, Indoiazychnaya etnograficheskaya gruppa Afgon v Sredne Azii (TheIndic-speaking ethnographic group Afgon in Central Asia), Sovet-skaya Etnografiya, 1956, 2, pp. 117-24.

Idem, Novye svedeniya o sekretnykh iazykakh (argo) Sredne Azii I: Etnograficheskaya gruppa kavol vKuliabe i ee argo (New Information on the sacred languages [argot] of Central Asia I: The ethnographicgroup Kavol in Kulayb and its argot), Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Narodov Azii 40, 1961, pp. 62-71.

Idem, Novye svedeniya o sekretnykh iazykakh (argo) Srednei Azii II: Materialy dlia izucheniya argoetnografichesko gruppy dzhugi (Gissarskaya dolina) (New Information on the sacred languages [argot]of Central Asia II: Materials for the research on the argots of the ethnographic group Jugi of the HissarValley), Iranskaya Filologiya, 1964, pp. 62-75.


7 of 11 20/09/2014 7:39 PM

Idem, Novye svedeniya o sekretnykh iazykakh (argo) Sredne Azii III: Etnograficheskiya gruppachistoni, ee dialekt i argo (New Information on the sacred languages [argot] of Central Asia III: Theethnic group Chistoni, its dialect and argot) in Indiiskaya i Iranskaya Fililogiya. Voprosy dialektologi(Indian and Iranian philology: Problems of dialectology), Moscow, 1971, pp. 66-90.

Idem, Tad-zhiko-iazychnie etnograficheskie gruppy Gissarsko dolini (Tajiki-speaking ethnographicgroups in Hissar Valley), Moscow, 1983.

William Ouseley, Travels in Various Countries of the East, More Particularly Persia, London, 3 vols.,1823, III, pp. 400-401.

Alexandros Georgios Paspates, Etudes sur les Tchingians ou Bohmiens de lmpire Ottoman,Constantinople, 1870.

Idem, Memoir on the Language of the Gypsies, as Now Used in the Turkish Empire, tr. from the Greekby Rev. C. Hamlin, JAOS 7, 1862, pp. 143-270.

Kerope Petrovich Patkanoff, Some Words on the Dialects of the Transcaucasian Gypsies, Journal of theGypsy Lore Society, N.S 1, 1907-8, pp. 229-57; 2, 1908-09, pp. 246-66, 325-34.

Douglas Craven Phillott, A Notes on the Sign, Gesture, Code, and Secret Language etc. amongst thePersians, JASB, N.S. 3, 1907, pp. 619-22.

August Friedrich Pott, Die Zigeuner in Europa und Asien: Ethnographisch-linguistische Untersuchung,vornehmlich ihrer Herkunft und Sprache, nach gedruckten und ungedruckten quellen, Leipzig, 1844-45,repr., Leipzig, 1964.

Jadwiga Pstrusinska, Magati: Some Notes on an Unknown Language of Northern Afghanistan, Journalof the Anthropological Society of Oxford 17/2, 1986, pp. 135-39.

Chantal Quelquejay, Cingane, EI2 II, pp. 40-41.

Aparna Rao, Note prliminaire sur les Jat dAfghanistan, Stud. Ir. 8/1, 1979, pp. 141-49.

Idem, Qui sont les Jat dAfghanistan, Afghanistan Journal 8/2, 1981, pp. 55-64.

Idem, Les orbat dAfghanistan: Aspects conomiques dun groupe itinrant Jat, Paris, 1982.Idem, Zigeunerhnliche Gruppen in West-, Zentral- und Sdpersien, in Rainer Vossen, ed., Zigeuner:Roma, Sinti, Gitanos, Gypsies. Zwischen Verfolgung und Romantisierung, Berlin, 1983, pp. 166-89.

Idem, Des nomades mconnus: pour une typologie des communauts pripattiques, LHomme 25, no.95, 1985, pp. 97-119.

Idem, Peripatetic Minorities in Afghanistan: Image and Identity, in Erwin Orywal, ed., Die ethnischenGruppen Afghanistans: Fallstudien zur Gruppenidentitt und Intergruppenbeziehungen, Wiesbaden,1986, pp. 254-83.

Idem, The Concepts of Peripatetics: An Introduction, in idem, ed., The Other Nomads: PeripateticMinorities in Cross-Cultural Perspective, Cologne, 1987, pp. 1-32.

Idem, Folk Models and Inter-Ethnic Relations in Afghanistan: A Case Study of Some PeripateticCommunities, in Jean-Pierre Digard, ed., Le fait thnique en Iran et en Afghanistan, Paris, 1988, pp.109-20.


8 of 11 20/09/2014 7:39 PM

Idem, The Jat, in Encyclopedia of World Cultures III: South Asia, Boston, 1992, pp. 110-13.

Idem, The Ghorbat, in Encyclopedia of World Cultures IX: Africa and the Middle East, Boston, 1992,pp. 105-7.

Idem, Marginality and Language Use: The Example of Peripatetics in Afghanistan, Journal of theGypsy Lore Society 5, 1995, pp. 69-96.

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Romaskevich, K voprosu o zhargone iranskikh dervishe (On the question ofjargon of the Iranian dervishes), in Ivan Ivanovich Meshchaninov, ed., Iranskie Jazyki I, Moscow, 1945,pp. 141-44.

Johann Christian Christoph Rdiger, Von der Sprache und Herkunft der Zigeuner aus Indien: NeuesterZuwachs der teutschen, fremden und allgemeinen Sprachkunde in eigenen Aufstzen, Bcheranzeigen undNachrichten, pt. 1, Leipzig, 1782, pp. 37-84.

John Sampson, The Gypsies of Persia, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, N.S. 1/2, 1907, pp. 181-83.

Idem, On the Origin and Early Migrations of the Gypsies, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Ser. 3,2/3, 1923, pp. 156-69.

Idem, The Dialects of the Gypsies of Wales, Oxford, 1926, repr., Oxford, 1968.

Manuehr Sotuda, Lahja-ye Seb-Seliyeri, FIZ 10, 1341 ./1962, pp. 471-77.Percy Molesworth Sykes, Anthropological Notes on Southern Persia, Journal of the RoyalAnthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 32, 1902, pp. 345-51.

Idem, The Gypsies of Persia: A Second Vocabulary, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute ofGreat Britain and Ireland 36, 1906, pp. 302-11.

Idem, The Gypsies of Persia: A Second Vocabulary, Gypsy Lore Society Monographs 4, London, 1927.

Anna Leonidovna Troitskaya, Abdoltili - Argo tsekha artistov i musikantov Sredne Azii (Abdoltili, theargot of the guilds of artists and musicians of Central Asia), Sovietskoe Vostokovedenie 5, 1948, pp.251-74.

Ralph Lilley Turner, The Position of Romani in Indo-Aryan, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Ser. 3,5/4, 1926, pp. 145-89.

Idem, The Position of Romani in Indo-Aryan,Gypsy Lore Society Monographs 4, London, 1927.

Idem, Notes on A Note on the Secret Language of the Traditional Musicians of Iran by S. Amanollahi,Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Ser. 4, 1/4, 1978, p. 286.

Vardan Voskanian, Tsiganski element v Kurdskikh plemenakh: Nekotorye voprosy etnogeneza Kurdov(The Gypsy element among the Kurdish tribes: Some problems of the ethnogenesis of the Kurds), Iranand Caucasus 1, 1997, pp. 47-50.

Genot L. Windfuhr, European Gypsy in Iran: A First Report, Anthropological Linguistics 12/8, 1970,pp. 271-92.

A. Wirth, A Persian Gypsy Vocabulary, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Ser. 3, 6/2, 1927, pp. 88-95.

Siegmund A. Wolf, Grosses Wrterbuch der Zigeunersprache (romani tiw), Wort-schatz deutcher und


9 of 11 20/09/2014 7:39 PM

anderer europischer Zigeunerdialekte, Mannheim, 1960.

Alfred Cooper Woolner, Studies in Romani Philology, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, N.S. 9, 1915,pp. 119-28.

Ehsan Yarshater, The Hybrid Language of the Jewish Communities of Persia, JAOS 97/1, 1977, pp. 1-7.

See also electronic sources at KURI, Electronic Journal of the Dom Research Center: ; Graz RomaniProject: ; Gypsy dictionary: ; and B. F. Grimes, ed., Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Dallas, SummerInstitute of Linguistics, 1988-: (Numerous separate entries on Gypsy dialects and languages).

(Gernot L. Windfuhr)




0 COMMENTS ADD COMMENT3 TAGS ADD A TAG



10 of 11 20/09/2014 7:39 PM

Date post:	22-Nov-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ali-erden-sizgek
View:	73 times
Download:	6 times

Gypsies of Persia, Encyclopaedia Iranica

Documents