I d e n ti ty F o rmati o n amo n g Mi n o ri ti e s i n th e B al k an s :
Th e c as e s o f R o ms , Eg y p ti an s an d A s h k al i i n K o s o v o
Minority S tudies S ociety S tudii R om ani
S o f i a, 2 0 0 1
4
I d e n ti ty F o rmati o n amo n g Mi n o ri ti e s i n th e B al k an s :
Th e c as e s o f R o ms , Eg y p ti an s an d A s h k al i i n K o s o v o
© Elena Marus hiakova, H erbert H eus s , Ivan Boev, J an Rychlik, N adege Ragaru,
Rubin Zemon, Ves s elin P opov, Victor F riedman
IS BN : 954-9878-11-2
P ublication of Minority S tudies S ociety S tudii R om ani
CONTENTS
F OR EWOR D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I N TR OD U C TI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P R OC ES S OF S TA TE A N D ETH N ON A TI ON A L F OR MA TI ON : A N
H I S TOR I C A L
B A C K G R OU N D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … … … … …
C ON TEMP OR A R Y MI N OR I TY I D EN TI TY B U I LD I N G I N K OS OV O
. . . . . . . . . ………………….
A / R o ms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … … … … .
B / Eg y p ti an s . . . . . . . . . . . . . … … … … … .
C / A s h k al i , K o v ac h i , Mag ju p s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D / S i mi l ar c as e s i n th e B al k an s ( Mi l l e t an d
R u d ara) . . . . . . . . . … … … … … … … … … .
C U R R EN T D EV ELOP MEN T I N K OS OV O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
R EC OMMEN D A TI ON S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I N TER N A TI ON A L TEX TS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
S ELEC TED B I B LI OG R A P H Y . . . . . . . . . . . . … .
F OR EWOR D
4
The initiative for this publication is that of N icolae G heorghe, Advis er on Roma and
S inti Is s ues , Office for Democratic Ins titutions and H uman Rights , OS CE, Wars aw .
The text w as prepared by the expert group and dis cus s ed at a w orks hop in S ofia, 15-16
December 2000. Our idea w as to pres ent a s ynthetic monograph in w hich all points of
view regarding the identity formation of the Balkan minority communities in ques tion
w ill be given w ithout impos ing any external refereeing on the authors ’ opinions (w hich
s ometimes differ greatly).
Members of the expert group preparing this publication are:
Elena Marus hiakova (Ethnographic Ins titute and Mus eum of the Bulgarian Academy of
S ciences , S ofia, Bulgaria & Minority S tudies S ociety S tudii R om ani); H erbert H eus s
(P rojektbüro zur F örderung von Roma Initiativen, H eidelberg, G ermany); Ivan Boev
(Law F aculty, U nivers ity of N ancy, F rance); J an Rychlik (Charles U nivers ity, P rague,
Czech Republic); N adege Ragaru (Ins titut de Relations Internationales et S trategiques ,
P aris , F rance); Rubin Zemon (Etno-kult, S truga, Macedonia); Ves s elin P opov
(Ethnographic Ins titute and Mus eum of the Bulgarian Academy of S ciences , S ofia,
Bulgaria & Minority S tudies S ociety S tudii R om ani); Victor F riedman (Department of
S lavic Languages and Literatures , U nivers ity of Chicago, U S A).
We are in debt for information, documents and comments to S tephan Müller (Advis or
on Minority Affairs OMIK Democratization, P ris htina, K os ovo) and J udith K iers from
CP RS I, Office for Democratic Ins titutions and H uman Rights , OS CE, Wars aw .
A n o te o n u s ag e : In this booklet, Rom is a s ingular noun that follow s the rules of
Englis h grammar like other ethnonyms , s uch as Turk. J us t as w e w rite Turks and not
Turkler, s o, too, w e w rite Roms and not Roma. The us e of the Romani plural noun
Roma in place of the adjective Romani is grammatically incorrect, w hile the us e of the
Romani adverb Romanes is a marginalizing exoticis m. When w riting in Englis h, w e
w rite that the Roms s peak Romani jus t as w e w rite that the Turks s peak Turkis h (and
not that Turkler s peak Turkche). S imilarly w e w rite about Romani N G Os jus t as w e
can w rite about Turkis h N G Os , not Turks N G Os . It s hould be noted that in all the
Balkan languages , ethnonymic us age concerning Roms follow s the grammar of the
given language jus t as does the us age for other ethnonyms . The s pelling Romani is
cons is tent w ith Englis h us age for other Indic languages , e. g. N epali, P unjabi,
K as hmiri, etc.
V. A. F riedman
IN TRODU CTION
After the K os ovo cris is the w orld dis covered the exis tence of “new communities ”,
unknow n before then to any except to a s mall circle of s cholars w ho s pecialize in the
region. International ins titutions s uch as K F OR, U N H CR, OS CE and others , nongovernmental and human rights organizations , and the mas s media w ere puzzled and
confus ed by this “new ” phenomenon and they did not know how to react to it.
H ow ever, it did not take experts in thes e ins titutions and organizations a long time to
find a s olution to this is s ue. They rapidly declared thes e new communities (and
es pecially “Egyptians ”) to be an “artificial creation” of S lobodan Milos evic, and later
on mention of thes e communities dis appeared from mos t reports and documents . After
a w hile this s ilent approach w as replaced by the introduction of s uch appellations as
“Roma and As hkali”, w hich als o completely negated the exis tence of the “s o-called
Egyptians ”. Recently, in official reports on K os ovo, it has been become conventional
to w rite about "Roma, As hkali and Egyptians ". It s hould als o be noted that OS CE
agreements make it clear that ethnic s elf-identification mus t be res pected and that
4
governments mus t res pect how individuals and groups w ant to be identified in general
and in cens us es in particular.
Repres entatives of the Romani community and political activis ts are vehemently
res is ting the emergence of "Egyptians ", and actually s ee this phenomenon as a kind of
s eparatis m w hich w eakens the unity of their nation. They accus e international
ins titutions of fortifying the gap betw een different Romani groups by accepting the
exis tence of Egyptians and As hkali. Egyptians and As hkali on the other hand are
accus ing the international ins titutions , N G O’s , humanitarian organizations , foreign
governments , and Romani community repres entatives of attempts at forced as s imilation
and des troying of their identity. The relations among Egyptians and As hkali are
s imilar. According to the Egyptians , the As hkali are pure Egyptians , w ho, under
Albanian pres s ure or voluntarily becaus e of s ome s pecific interes ts , pres ent thems elves
as another community. According to the As hkali, the Egyptians are trying to as s imilate
them . . .
To unders tand the complicated relations betw een the communities in ques tion, ongoing
contemporary proces s es s hould be view ed as part of a his torical proces s and in the
Balkan context as a w hole. F or centuries large groups of people, w ho are mos t often
know n by the s urrounding population as “Ts igani” (bes t trans lated as ‘G yps ies ’,
although this general Englis h term is not the exact equivalent of “Ts igani”, the latter
being s trictly limited to an ethnically identified group), have lived throughout the
Balkan region. The name for this group varies s lightly from one local Balkan language
to another; in Albanian es pecially the terms “Magjyp” ‘s ettled G yps y’ and “G abel”
‘nomadic G y p s y ’ a r e e s p e ci a l l y co m m o n . To t h i s ca n b e a d d e d t e r m s
s u ch a s M a ce d o n i a n “Gj u p t i n ”, Gr e e k “Gi f t o s ”, a n d Tu r k i s h “Kı p t ı ”,
w h i ch , l i k e En g l i s h “Gy p s y ”, a r e a l l e t y m o l o g i ca l l y d e r i v e d
u l t i m a t e l y f r o m Gr e e k “Eg y p t o s ” ‘Eg y p t ’.
The G yps ies are not the homogeneous community that they often s eem to be in the eyes
of s urrounding populations . They are divided into s eparate more or les s endogamous
groups , differing s ometimes s ignificantly in their w ay of life (s ome have been s ettled
for centuries , w hile others w ere s eas onal nomads until recently), in their religion
(s ome G yps y communities are Chris tians , s ome are Mus lims and cas es of voluntary or
forcible convers ions are not unus ual), as w ell as in a number of their ethnic and
cultural characteris tics . The s urrounding population cons iders communities or groups
w ith different origins and his tories to be G yps ies .
Among the G yps ies a complicated change of identity is in proces s . The s urrounding
population in individual Balkan countries generally cons ider G yps ies to be a
community of low er rank in comparis on to other ethnic groups . Cons equently, s ocalled “ethnic mimicry” is not uncommon among G yps ies , w ho s ometimes prefer to
hide their identity and try mimicking another identity. This is done in s pite of the
obvious difficulty of doing s o, cons idering that the s urrounding population us ually
recognizes very w ell the G yps ies ’ dis tinctive anthropological and cultural features . It
s hould als o be noted that in s mall communities , a pers on’s origins are likely to be
know n to his or her neighbors .
Among s ome G yps y communities the phenomenon of “preferred identity, ” or public
declaration of a different, non-G yps y, identity is common. S ometimes , as a res ult of
as s imilatory pres s ure from the larger s ociety, this identity is that of the ethnonational
s tate in w hich thes e communities are living. In the Balkans , the preferred community
can als o be a minority of their country of res idence w ith w hom they s hare religion or
language, for example Turks (on the bas is of Is lam), Albanians or Romanians (on the
bas is of s poken language).
4
Another variant of thes e proces s es is the creation of the new identities . Often thes e
new identities involve “redis covering” an ancient origin, in s pite of the difficulty of
proving its authenticity and even blatant contradictions to his torical facts . This looking
to the pas t is not an accident. Wins ton Churchill s tated: “The Balkans produce more
his tory than they can cons ume. ” But it is w orth noting that this is a general human
tendency. In his H is tory of the P ers ian Empire A. T. Olms tead points out that the 26th
dynas ty of Ancient Egypt [663 BCE] s ought to res tore practices of the even more
ancient 18th dynas ty [1570-1320 BCE] in order to legitimate its elf. H is tory and
folklore traditions have a s pecial place in the life of the Balkan and other nations w here
the proces s es of ethnonational development began later than in Wes tern Europe, in the
nineteenth or tw entieth centuries . Thes e proces s es are s till active today. Indeed, it is
not rare for the nineteenth-century his torical mythology to be mobilized by extreme
nationalis t movements for tw entieth-century purpos es and, w hen pos s ible, embellis hed
w ith tw entieth-century know ledge. H is tory here is not s o much a s cience as part of the
national mythology. Olms tead, in dis cus s ing ancient As s yrians , Egyptians , and J ew s ,
w rote: “What thes e peoples thought of their pas t is a vital element of our his tory; w hat
that pas t actually w as mus t form the background of the picture. ” Each nation in the
Balkans has its ow n his torical mythology dating back to ancient times , one w hich
reveals its glorious his torical pas t. It is cons tantly res urrected and projected in
different guis es in modern times , es pecially in s ituations of cris is . Balkan nations
often have lives clos ed w ithin the patterns and inferiority complexes of their his torical
pas t rather than open to the problems of the pres ent and the pers pectives of the future.
F olklore traditions are important to the Balkan nations , as they are to nationalis m in
general, becaus e they are an integral part of the his torical neomythology that often
makes us e of folkloric s ubs tance and arguments to explain contemporary problems .
The goal of this publication is to s how the proces s es behind the change in the identity
of the communities typically called G yps ies , w hich change, at firs t glance, s eems
inexplicable to the s urrounding population and to foreigners , in particular thos e
coming to the Balkans . The identity of s ome groups in many cas es is unclear and
changes dynamically. It could take various parameters not only on the diachronic
plane, in terms of generational change, but als o on the s ynchronic level, even in
w ithin the framew ork of a s ingle family. A w ell-know n example of this phenomenon is
the family celebration in S kopje to w hich three brothers returned to their home tow n
from different places : One brother declared Romani identity, the s econd Albanian, and
the third Egyptian.
This publication is relevant to the Balkans as a w hole becaus e proces s es throughout the
region are s imilar and interconnected, but s pecial emphas is is placed on K os ovo. (The
current full name of that territory in S erbian is K os ovo and Metohija, in Albanian, the
term K os ova includes Metohija, w hich is know n in Albanian as Rrafs hi i Dukagjinit.
F or the s ake of brevity w e us e the commonly recognized name K os ovo, w hich is ,
etymologically, of S lavic origin).
This publication is intended to help repres entatives of international ins titutions and
organizations w orking in region to be better oriented and to improve their activities .
The main beneficiaries w ill likely be the OS CE in general, OS CE-MiK in particular,
and Minority programs and the ODIH R/CP RS I, w ith a view to better management of
current activities affecting minorities in general and Roms in K os ovo in particular. The
booklet w ill s erve as a tool of information and training for various public actors in
pos t-cris is K os ovo including but not limited to the follow ing: International officers ,
members of U N MIK , OS CE MIK , U N H CR, K F OR, international N G Os , field officers
of the OS CE Mis s ion in K os ovo and in the region, officers in the local public
adminis tration of K os ovo, local councils , K os ovo P olice, s chool and police units ,
K TC and other regional bodies ; activis ts /advocacy N G Os in human rights and in
4
minority rights in K os ovo and in the region including S erbia, F RY, other S tates in the
Balkans , the res t of Europe, and OS CE-w ide media, local and international actors .
P ROCES S OF S TATE AN D ETH N ON ATION AL F ORMATION : AN H IS TORICAL
BACK G ROU N D
To unders tand ethnic conflicts in the Balkans it is neces s ary to unders tand the nationbuilding proces s in Eas tern Europe in general and in the Balkans in particular. The
current concept of the nation-s tate developed in Wes tern Europe. Ow ing to the
exis tence of centralized monarchies in that region, the idea of the nation w as bas ed on
the exis tence of the s tate. We can s ay that the s tate came firs t and then the nation: all
citizens living under the s overeignty of the s ame monarch became its “nation”. It w as
of cours e normal that this nation w as bas ed on the dominant linguis tic group w hich
later as s imilated the others . F rance is a good example of this proces s , but a s imilar
s ituation occurred in England and the N ordic countries , too. Thus , the w ord “nation”
in this part of Europe s imply means “the citizens of the s ame s tate” and “nationality”
means “s tate citizens hip”. This concept of the nation influenced als o the nationbuilding proces s in America and Aus tralia.
This concept of the nation does not exis t in Central and Eas tern Europe. “N ation” here
is not connected w ith the s tate and “nationality”. It does not mean s tate citizens hip. It
is a cultural category connected mos tly w ith language or another as pect of human
s piritual life s uch as religion. Centralized monarchies in this part of Europe did not
mean that the dominant linguis tic group w as identified w ith the s tate w hile s maller
groups w ere as s imilated. H ow ever, the people belonging to the dominant linguis tic or
cultural group us ually did identify w ith the country or empire. This group s tarted to
cons ider the other linguis tic or cultural groups to be minorities w hich mus t either be
s ubordinated to the dominant group or leave. If tw o or more groups on one territory
w ere s trong enough they s tarted to fight w ith each other.
In three great empires of Central and Eas tern Europe - the H abs burg Empire (later
know n as Aus tria or Aus tria-H ungary), Rus s ia and the Ottoman Empire - there w as no
“melting-pot” to produce Aus trians , Rus s ians and Ottomans out of all the empire’s
citizens . Different ethnic groups developed to the s tage of s eparate political nations in
thes e empires each of them as king firs t for political autonomy and later for
independence. Autonomy or federation on a national bas is (in Eas tern Europe, in a
linguis tic-cultural s ens e) did not and could not s olve the problem and s ave thes e
empires from des truction. Mos t of the nations w ithin an empire did not cons ider that
empire as their ow n s tate and did not identify w ith them. N ational autonomy thus
s erved only as a bas is for more demands .
The development of Balkan nations roughly follow ed that of Central and Eas tern
Europe but there w ere s ome differences . F eudalis m in Central and Eas tern Europe w as
bas ed on s erfdom. S erfs could not move freely from one place to another. This w as not
the cas e of Ottoman Empire. H ere the land belonged to the S ultan. The peas ants w ere
pers onally free. F or Ottoman authorities , the ethnic origin of the population w as , up to
the s econd half of the 19th Century, of no s ignificance. P eople w ere divided into
millets , e. g. religious ly defined communities w ith internal s elf-government. Compared
w ith Central and Wes tern Europe there w as religious toleration in the Ottoman Empire.
The non-Mus lim population - the re’ayah - could practice their religion but their
political rights w ere limited and the Chris tians (like the J ew s ) w ere s ubject of s pecial
tax (harac). Ottoman authorities often moved different population groups from one
4
place to another either for economic or for military reas ons . The final goal w as to have
is lands of Mus lims at s trategic points all over the Empire.
At the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries the proces s of the
development of modern nations began among the various nationalities in the Balkans .
The millet s ys tem, w ith its clas s ification bas ed on religion, became increas ingly les s
viable. This proces s is know n as the N ational Revival. But once the new nations
developed they had to s olve the problem w here their future independent s tates w ould
be s ituated. It w as not pos s ible to bas e the program on any his torical bas is becaus e the
former medieval empires s uch as the Bulgarian, the S erbian or the Byzantine
(cons idered by the G reeks to be the medieval G reek s tate) had ceas ed to exis t more
than half a millennium ago, and even w hen they had exis ted their borders w ere in a
cons tant s tate of flux becaus e thes e s tates fought w ith each other. The only pos s ible
s olution w as the idea that the future s tate s hould be s ituated on the territory w here the
res pective nation w as currently living. In other w ords : the G reek political program
required the unification of all G reeks (meaning G reek Orthodox Chris tians ) in one s tate
(the s o-called megali idea), the Bulgarian program required the unification of all
Bulgarians (meaning non-S erbian S lavic Orthodox Chris tians ) in a s ingle s tate (the
G reat Bulgarian P rogram), the S erbian required the unification of all S erbs (meaning
S erbian Orthodox Chris tians ), the Albanian required the unification of all Albanians
(meaning Albanian-s peakers regardles s of religion), etc. But becaus e of the
heterogeneity of the population in the Ottoman Empire and als o becaus e of the fact that
many people did not have a clear national cons cious nes s , it w as technically impos s ible
to define the new borders according to a principle of nation = s tate. Thus the w ars
betw een the future s tates as w ell as ethnic cleans ing w ere potentialities even before the
new s tates emerged.
At the beginning the nations cooperated becaus e they had a common enemy - the
Ottoman Empire. It s hould be noticed that the tactics “attack and run aw ay” developed
among all the Balkan nations fighting agains t the Ottoman Empire. The s tandard
procedure w as firs t to attack Turkis h or Mus lim villages , police s tations and s mall
army units to provoke the revenge of the Ottoman authorities . Once the repris als
s tarted it w as pos s ible to appeal to the Wes tern public for help on the grounds that the
Chris tian population w as being mas s acred. Thes e tactics proved to w ork and are us ed
to this day. The attacks of the K os ovo Liberation Army agains t S erbian P olice s tations
w hich provoked the S erbian repris als s erve as a good example.
Once the new independent s tates emerged in the 19th Century an open conflict s tarted
among them. F or each ethnic group, loyalty to the group came firs t w hile loyalty to the
s tate in w hich the particular pers on lived came s econd, if at all. The Wes tern (and
Imperial) concept of loyalty to the s tate regardles s of ethnic origin, religion etc. , w as
s trange to the Balkan population ow ing to the lack of adequate his torical precedent
under the exis ting conditions . This res ulted in many w ars , upris ings , and military
conflicts . The Balkan w ars 1912-1913 (es pecially the 2nd Balkan War in 1913), World
War I betw een 1914-1919, the G reco-Turkis h w ar of 1920-23, and World War II
betw een 1939-1945 (1941-44 in the Balkans ) w ere largely ethnic conflicts of the above
mentioned type w ith G reat P ow er overlays , e. g. the Italian and G erman occupations .
(The Yugos lav Wars of S ecces s ion w ere able to mobilize thes e s ame s entiments des pite
the radically different his torical circums tances . )
The conflicts in the 20th Century s how that the concept of the protection of minorities
does not w ork becaus e no ethnic group w ants to be a minority in another nation-s tate.
As Vladimir G ligorov w rites in the epigram to S us an Woodw ard’s book Balkan
Tragedy: Chaos and Dis s olution After the Cold War: “Why s hould I be a minority in
your s tate w hen you can be a minority in mine?” Als o, democracy is not enough to
bridge the gaps among the nations becaus e ethnicity (nationality) has become
4
politicized via ethnonational parties . F ree elections are, under s uch circums tances , a
kind of fiction becaus e people do not vote according to the programs of the political
parties but according to their nationality. The national minority cannot accept the
res ults of the elections becaus e it w ould mean to s ubmit to the majority. F or this
reas on, for example, the elections in Bos nia-H ercegovina w ere of no us e and the
communal elections in K os ovo las t year w ere a fatal mis take. It w as clear from the
beginning that the remnant of the S erbs in the country could not participate in them.
The argument that different nations lived peacefully together in Tito’s former
Yugos lavia is only partly true. Coexis tence w as pos s ible becaus e of pan-S lavic
s entiments and becaus e of a fear of the S oviet U nion on the part of the Yugos lav
peoples combined w ith the exis tence of a Communis t dictators hip.
Becaus e all the s tates exis ting in the region are bas ed on the idea of the nation-s tate of
one dominant (or “cons tituent”, i. e. eponymous ) nation (under w hos e banner the
nations fought agains t the Ottoman Empire in the 19th Century) the idea of expelling
ethnically “foreign” populations had already emerged at the beginning of the formation
of thes e s tates . Although the phras e “ethnic cleans ing” is relatively recent, the s ys tem
is old. In fact, the current population s tructure of the modern Balkan s tates is due to
ethnic cleans ing. Becaus e the nationalities have the protection of their res pective
nation-s tates , an attempt to get rid of one nationality frequently s parks a chain of
s imilar atrocities on the other s ide. During the 1920’s , in w hat w as called The
Exchange of P opulations , adminis tered by the G reat P ow ers under a s eparate
agreement made at Laus anne in 1923, the Turkis h authorities expelled approximately
1, 500, 00 G reeks (i. e. Chris tians , regardles s of language) from As ia Minor and the
Aegean Is lands to G reece w hile the G reek government expelled approximately 500, 000
Turks (i. e. Mus lims regardles s of language) from G reece to Turkey. Exceptions w ere
made for the G reeks of Cons tantinople (Is tanbul) in exchange for the Mus lims (Turks ,
Bulgarian P omaks , and Albanian Chams ) of Thrace and Epirus . The cons olidation of
G reece happened als o through the forced as s imilation of the Macedonian, Arvanitika
(Albanian), Vlah (Aromanian) and other minorities .
F rom this point of view the s ituation in K os ovo at pres ent is more or les s the s tandard
Balkan ethnic conflict. All forces in the Yugos lav w ar after 1991 (pos s ibly w ith the
exception of the S lovenes , w hos e minorities are w ell as s imilated) tried to get rid of
ethnically “s trange” populations know ing that once a population is gone it w ill mos t
likely never come back. Both S erbs and Albanians us e the s ame method w hen they can.
Both groups als o us ually cons idered the s mall “s trange” ethnic groups in K os ovo to be
pos s ibly hos tile to the new adminis tration and treated them accordingly.
The background of the K os ovo conflict is generally know n. The S erbian claims to
K os ovo are bas ed on his torical grounds : Even if K os ovo w as not the nucleus of
S erbian s tatehood (and s ome S erbs believe it is ), it w as an integral part of the medieval
S erbian s tate. In the memory of the S erbian people K os ovo is als o connected w ith the
end of the medieval S erbian s tate and the beginning of Turkis h domination after the
battle of K os ovo P olje in 1389. All this makes K os ovo the “s acred land” w hich no
S erbian government - democratic or non-democratic - can give up voluntarily. The
Albanian claims are on the other hand bas ed on ethnic grounds , i. e. on the fact that the
population is now predominantly Albanian. H ow ever, it s hould be added that this
s ituation is mainly a res ult of the colonization of K os ovo by the Albanians at the end
of the 17th Century, an exodus of militarily defeated S erbs dating from this s ame
period, and als o of a higher birth rate of the Albanian population. An attempt to
include K os ovo into the new Albanian s tate in 1912 w as jus t another modification of
the concept “my country is w here my compatriots live”, in this context, Albania is
w here any Albanians live. With the exception of the years 1941-1944, how ever,
K os ovo has never been part of Albania and even this period is problematic becaus e
Albania its elf w as under Italian control during 1939-1943 and G erman rule during
4
1943-1944, i. e. Albania as s uch did not exis t as an independent country during this
time. H ow ever, the original idea of “G reater Albania” (w hich claimed not only
K os ovo, but als o parts of Montenegro, Macedonia and Epirus , i. e. N orthern G reece) is
today not likely to be realized. Albanians in K os ovo w ho lived in Tito’s Yugos lavia
had much more freedom and a better s tandard of living than people in the Albania of
Enver H oxha. The K os ovar Albanians probably w ould not w is h to s ubmit to the rule of
Tirana, nor w ould the Albanians of Albania w is h to be s ubordinated to the rule of the
K os ovars . H ow ever, the problem of a G reater K os ovo including parts of Montenegro,
S erbia, and es pecially northern and w es tern Macedonia is already the s ource of armed
conflict.
F rom
little,
G reat
bring
the pres ent point of view the ques tion of w ho has “more rights ” to K os ovo is of
if any, us e. The future s tatus of K os ovo w ill be s imply a political decis ion of the
P ow ers anyw ay. Regardles s of the s olution, it can only s atis fy one s ide and w ill
problems for all other ethnic groups .
CON TEMP ORARY MIN ORITY IDEN TITY BU ILDIN G IN K OS OVO
A brief pres entation of minority communities in the Balkans in general and in K os ovo
in particular entails many problems that cannot be s olved s imply and s imultaneous ly.
Thes e problems are not connected s olely w ith the current s tatus of ethnic proces s es or
w ith dis tinctions of s eparate communities (es pecially Roms , Egyptians and As hkali),
but als o w ith ques tions of their ethnogenes is and his tory. This is not a unique
phenomenon. S imilar problems can occur in connection w ith many other his torical
topics , and not only in the Balkans . H is tory is not an exact s cience, it does not alw ays
offer unchangeable and unques tionable ans w ers . H is torical know ledge als o develops
along different paths and according to different res earch s chools . Rare is the his torical
event w hich is not debated and interpreted (in many cas es in abs olutely different
w ays ).
The old aphoris m that his tory is politics revers ed in the pas t is of relevance here. That
is w hy problems w hich under normal conditions w ould be confined to narrow academic
dis cus s ion have the potential to create international cris es . (It is s ufficient to recall the
events connected to the es tablis hment and international recognition of the Republic of
Macedonia. )
K eeping in mind all thes e circums tances , w e preferred a more open approach. We w ill
pres ent the ethnogenes is and his tory of Roms , Egyptians and As hkali according to the
view s of different authors , repres entatives of different academic trends , as w ell as
thos e accepted by repres entatives of the communities in ques tion. It is important to
note that w hile in s ome of the communities (es pecially among Roms and Egyptians )
there are already es tablis hed his torical s chools of thought (s cientific, quas i-s cientific,
and folk), in other communities (As hkali, Millet, Rudari) the know ledge of the pas t
remains predominantly at the level of folklore (s ometimes w ith elements of quas is cientific explanations introduced from outs ide).
This approach may look paradoxical for a publication like this (having in mind its
purpos e), but it is the only pos s ible one in this cas e. According to this line of
thinking, if a bas ic recommendation is to be formulated for foreigners w ho are coming
to w ork on Balkans , it w ill be the follow ing: “Avoid dis cus s ions and es pecially
arguments about his torical topics !”
4
The next group of problems is connected w ith the s tatis tical data about the communities
in ques tion in K os ovo (Roms , Egyptians , and As hkali). The data from regular
population cens us es in the former Yugos lavia are ins ufficient in this res pect. In
general the s tatis tical data on G yps ies all over the w orld are uncertain and inaccurate.
Becaus e of the above mentioned phenomenon of ethnic mimicry and preferred ethnic
s elf-cons cious nes s among G yps ies in all population cens us es in Eas tern Europe,
numbers of s elf-declared G yps ies (and, in modern times , Roms ) are s ignificantly les s
than the number of thos e w hom the s urrounding population cons iders to be G yps ies .
In the las t cens us in K os ovo in 1991 the number of people w ho declared thems elves as
“Roms ” w as 42, 806, but in reality their number w as cons iderably higher. It s hould be
remembered, that from the 1960s onw ards there w ere s ignificant migrations of the
G yps ies from K os ovo, at firs t w ithin the borders of the former Yugos lavia, and later
into different countries of Wes tern Europe as w ell (in the 1970s and 1980s Yugos lav
G yps ies migrated mainly to G ermany and during the 1990s their main des tination w as
Italy). Different s ources cite quite different numbers , w hich vary mainly betw een
120, 000-150, 000 for the time before the K os ovo cris is in 1999. N ow adays it is hard to
s ay w hether thes e data are accurate, and it is hard to determine how many members of
this population remained in K os ovo after 1999. International ins titutions cite different
numbers , varying us ually betw een 20, 000 and 30, 000 Roms , Egyptians and As hkali.
It is als o hard to determine the internal relations among thes e communities in K os ovo
(both in the recent pas t and today). In pas t population cens us es there w as only one line
for the population defined in general as G yps ies (from the 1970’s as “Roms ”), and
thos e w ho today declare thems elves as Egyptians and As hkali w ere clas s ified in
various w ays (mos t often as Albanians , Yugos lavs , Mus lims , Other, or U nknow n).
According to the book Days of Terror (In the P res ence of the International forces ), in
the month of S eptember 1998 there w ere 97, 000 Roms living in K os ovo, after
10. 06. 1999, 62, 000 of them left the province and out of 41, 000 Egyptians , 21, 000
left. The ques tion how ever to w hat extent w e can rely on thes e figures , including on
the proportion betw een Roms and Egyptians (As hkali are us ually included w ith the
Egyptians on the bas is of their common Albanian language) remains open.
A/ Roms
The G yps ies (s elf-appellation Rom [s g. ] Roma [pl. ]) are the des cendants of migrants
from early India. They cons titute a s pecific ethnic community in Balkans , s ometimes
called by s cholars “the s econd home of the G yps ies ”. There are different theories
concerning the beginning of the G yps y migration from India varying betw een the fifth
and the eleventh centuries . The firs t pos s ible evidence of the pres ence of G yps ies
(under the appellation “Athinganoi”, and/or “Egyptians ”) in Europe is on the territory
of the Byzantine Empire. The large-s cale s ettlement of G yps ies in Balkan lands can be
traced back approximately to the period of the 11th - 13th centuries ; s ome earlier
contacts are als o pos s ible (s ome authors are inclined to think that G yps y pres ence in
thes e lands began in the 9th century). N umerous his torical s ources have recorded the
G yps y pres ence in Byzantium, their entry into S erbia, Bulgaria, Wallachia and
Moldova.
There is a w ealth of his torical information about G yps y pres ence in the Balkans during
the Ottoman period. A great number of G yps ies came to the Balkans together w ith the
Ottomans (14th c. ) either as participants (s erving in the army) or as camp follow ers .
The is s ue of the civil s tatus of G yps ies in the Ottoman Empire is a rather complicated
one as G yps ies had a s pecial place in the overall s ocial and adminis trative organization
of the Empire. Des pite the populational divis ion into tw o main categories (Mus lims vs
N on-Mus lims ), G yps ies had their ow n, rather s pecific dual s tatus outs ide thes e tw o
4
categories . G yps ies w ere differentiated according to the ethnic principle (s omething
quite unus ual for the Ottoman Empire) w ith no s harp dis tinction betw een Mus lim and
Chris tian G yps ies (for tax and s ocial s tatus purpos es ). As a w hole G yps ies w ere
actually clos er to the s ubordinated local population, w ith the exception of s ome minor
privileges for Mus lim G yps ies . (G yps ies w ho w orked for the army w ere more
privileged. ) N evertheles s , G yps ies w ere able to pres erve a number of ethnic and
cultural characteris tics s uch as nomadic lifes tyle, s ome traditional occupations , etc.
P roces s es of their permanent s ettlement in tow ns and villages w ere active. As early as
the 15th c. there w ere s ettled G yps ies in the Balkans w ho did agricultural w ork in the
villages and uns killed labor and s ervices in the tow ns . A new type of s emi-nomadic
lifes tyle emerged as w ell (G yps ies w ith a w inter res idence and an active nomadic
s eas on w ithin regional boundaries ). Thes e proces s es did not include all G yps ies ,
nevertheles s they w ere very important. A large part of the G yps ies in the Balkans live
predominantly in ethnic neighborhoods w hich originated in a pattern of s ettlements
going back to the days of the Ottoman Empire, and they created a s pecific Balkan
Romani ethnic culture.
In order to unders tand the his torical des tiny, the ethno-s ocial s tructure and ethnocultural features and contemporary problems of the Roms in S outheas tern Europe, w e
have to cons ider the follow ing tw o circums tances :
1) G yps ies /Roms are a s pecific ethnic community, an "intergroup ethnic community"
w hich has no analog in the other nations of Europe. The G yps y/Romani community is
divided into a number of s eparate (and s ometimes even antagonis tic) groups ,
s ubgroups and metagroup units w ith their ow n ethnic and cultural features , and often
their problems are completely different in nature and thus not s us ceptible to
generalizations .
2) The his torical and cultural context of G yps y/Romani life as w ell as its contemporary
s ocial, economic and political s ituation in the different countries are extremely
important. The region has a complex his tory and the pres ent day s ituation differs from
one country to another, and thes e differences affect modern G yps y life. Therefore all
analys es of the G yps y s ituation mus t be differentiated according to the s pecifics of
each country (or group of countries ).
The picture of Romani pres ence in S outheas tern Europe changed w ith each change in
s tate borders follow ed by an exchange of G yps y groups from neighboring countries .
This s ituation w as als o influenced by the mas s G yps y migrations during different
periods of his tory. The mos t important his torical migrations in modern times came
w ith: the end of s lavery in Wallachia and Moldova and the s ubs equent s cattering of
G yps ies all over the w orld, know n as the “great K elderara invas ion” (the s econd half
of 19th to the firs t half of 20th c. ), the exchange of Mus lim and Chris tian G yps ies
along w ith other Mus lims and Chris tians betw een G reece and Turkey during the
1920’s , the open borders of Tito’ former Yugos lavia w hich led to the “Yugos lavian
w ave” of G yps y migrations of the 60’s and 70’s of the 20th century (including
cons iderable dis location w ithin Yugos lavia its elf); the end of the s o-called s ocialis t
period in the countries of Central and Eas tern Europe and the s ubs equent changes
leading to the "third w ave" of G yps y migrations from the beginning of the 90' s ,
including Romani refugees from former Yugos lavia in recent years (at firs t mainly
from Bos nia and H erzegovina, and now from K os ovo as w ell).
The Romani community in S outheas tern Europe can be clas s ified on the bas is of
various criteria s uch as language, lifes tyle, boundaries of endogamy, profes s ional
s pecialization, time of s ettlement in the res pective country, etc. All thes e criteria
reflect on Romani s elf-cons cious nes s and identity, and they contribute to a complete
4
picture of the pres ent s tate of the Romani community. This is by no means a s tatic
picture, it us ed to be different and w ill be different yet again in the future.
G yps ies have been s ettled for centuries in the Balkans (in our cas e s pecifically in the
countries of former Yugos lavia, Bulgaria, G reece and Albania). The G yps y
communities w ho s peak the Romani dialects of the Balkan dialect group are the oldes t
G yps y s ettlers in the Balkans , and the G yps ies s peaking the dialects of the Old Vlax
dialect group are the des cendants of a great w ave of migration from Wallachia and
Moldova, w ho s cattered en mas s e all over the Balkan P enins ula in the 17th and 18th
centuries . The Balkans have a relatively w ell-pres erved variety of the different groups
and metagroup communities w ho practice Is lam or Chris tianity. S ome of them
converted from one religion to the other in different periods of his tory. The mos t
general dis tinction betw een thes e communities is the dis tinction betw een Mus lims
(X oraxane Roma) and Chris tians (Das ikane Roma), w ho are divided into more or les s
autonomous groups w ithin each community. The groups are differentiated at various
hierarchical levels (i. e. the principle factor in Romani identity s tructure can be on the
level of the tw o above mentioned major divis ions or on the level of s eparate
s ubdivis ions ).
Examples for s uch s ubdivis ions , differentiated on various levels according to various
features (linguis tic, etc. ) are the Arli/Erli, G urbeti (including Dzhambazi), K ovachi
(including Bugurdzhi), G abeli, Chergara, K hanyara, Themes ke Roma, Romts i
(S hiyats i), S lovens ka Roma, etc. in the countries of former Yugos lavia; Erlia,
Dzhambazia, K alaydzhia, Chilingiri, K os hnicharia, Burgudzhia, F utadzhia, F ichiria,
Drindari, Vlaxoria (Vlaxichki, Laxo), etc. in Bulgaria; K aburdzhi, Mechkara, K urtofi,
Chergara, Bamile, etc. in Albania, and s o on for each country.
A relatively s maller number of G yps ies belong to groups w ho entered thes e lands
primarily at the time of the G reat K elderara invas ion and s peak the Romani of the N ew
Vlax dialect group. Today they live primarily in Bulgaria and S erbia. This community
is mos t often labeled K aldaras h/K elderas h, K ardaras ha, (‘kettle-makers ’) and in s ome
places als o as Layes ha or K atunari (literally ‘nomads ’). A very popular s elf-appellation
is Rom Ts iganyaka (meaning ‘G yps y G yps ies ’, i. e. ‘true G yps ies ’). There are ingroup/s ubgroup s ubdivis ions w ithin this group, w ith their clan and other kins hip
s ubdivis ions .
Es pecially in K os ovo, Roms are comparatively old s ettlers . Mos t authors do not
cons ider the evidence from 1348 as reflecting G yps ies , but from the s ixteenth century
onw ards the G yps y pres ence there is attes ted in s everal Ottoman documents . P rior to
1999, various Romani communities lived in K os ovo. S ome of them w ere s ettled in
tow n or village ethnic quarters , others continued their s emi-nomadic w ay of life
(s eas onal nomadis m) in various traditional or modernized modes . Romani communities
include the Romani-s peaking Arli, K ovachi (or Bugurdzhi, w hich includes als o the
s ubgroup of Arabadzhi), G urbeti (including the s ubgroup of Dzhambazi), G abeli
(coming mainly from Bos nia) and the S erbian s peaking G jorgjovts i (w ho los t their
Romani language in the 19th century). G roup identity is als o connected w ith religious
confes s ion, but the correlation is not alw ays abs olute, i. e. there are quite a few cas es
of G yps ies w ho are Mus lims under certain conditions and Chris tians under others . The
majority of Roms in K os ovo are Mus lims (among them there are s ome members of
Romani Dervis h communities ), s ome (mainly G urbeti from S erbia) are Orthodox and a
s mall community of Roms (in Lipljan) are Catholic.
Many s cholars w ho s tudy G yps ies /Roms cons ider Egyptians and As hkali to be a
s eparate s ubdivis ion of the larger G yps y/Romani community, i. e. they are Roms w ho
los t their Romani language and s ubs equently began to change their identity. F rom
living as a dis tinct group, they s ubs equently tried to as s imilate as Albanians (on the
4
bas is of common language) and then “redis covered” their “ancient” origins and a
different, non-Romani identity. Roms als o mos t often cons ider Egyptians and As hkali
to be a part of their community that kept their ow n group dis tinction and s eparation
from them. The etymological evidence favors this view . In recent times the relations
among the communities are tens e, in particular s ince the K os ovo cris is and the entry of
international forces .
In the 1970s and 1980s Roms in K os ovo received permis s ion from the authorities of
former Yugos lavia to develop their ethno-cultural identity. With active s tate s upport
radio-programs in P ris htina and P rizren w ere s tarted, as w ell as a Romani televis ion
program in P ris htina. Romani language w as taught in s chool, s everal books by Romani
authors w ere publis hed, and s everal periodicals appeared. S everal Romani
organizations w ere es tablis hed, and the repres entative of the Romani ethnic community
at the Rambouillet negotiations w as Luan K oka, pres ident of the Coordination
Committee of the Alliance of Roms of Yugos lavia.
As a w hole Egyptians and As hkalis s tand apart from thes e proces s es , becaus e they
have not been as ked to connect thems elves or to identify thems elves w ith Roms and do
not s peak Romani.
B/ Egyptians
The key element in the identity for the Balkan Egyptians is the ques tion of their
ethnogenes is . S everal s cholars (mos tly from the region of ex-Yugos lavia) joined their
efforts w ith thos e of repres entatives of the Egyptians thems elves to draw up a s pecific
interpretation of his torical documentation that can s erve as the bas is of an account of
the creation and development of this community. The bas ic res ults are pres ented
below .
H is tory gives us s ome material that can be us ed to argue for the arrival of thes e people
from Egypt to Balkans . The firs t his torical s ource is probably one noted by H erodotus ,
w ho w rote: “In Macedonia, the Ancient P hoenicians w ere exploiting the gold from the
mines , w hich w as s melted at a s pecial furnace, before the arrival of Egyptian colonis ts
in H ellas ”. F rom this text w e could conclude that in 5th century BC, in H erodotus ’
times , in G reece the metal and mine w orkers w ere the Egyptian colonis ts . F rom this
time w e have als o a s tory about the creation of Athens , w ritten by Ancient G reek
w riters , w here it is w ritten: “the Egyptians inhabited 12 quarters of Athens according
to their us ual trades ”.
There is his torical evidence about the pres ence of Egyptians als o from other periods ,
e. g. at the time of Macedonian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and
the Ottoman Empire. Archeology gives evidence for the exis tence of people w ith
Egyptian origin in Balkans , too. There are pres erved temples of Is is in Lyhnidos
(Ohrid) and H eraclea (Bitola), the temples of S erapis , the s carab (holy ins ect of
Egyptian mythology) occurs on Balkan ornaments , etc. The very clos e relations
betw een the Balkans and Egypt is reflected in many myths and legends from ancient
times .
The Egyptians ’ ethnic identity in the Balkans is attes ted as s uch s ince the middle of
19th century. On 8 Augus t 1867 a letter to the editor s igned “An Egyptian from P rilep”
(today in Republic of Macedonia) w as publis hed in the new s paper “Macedonia” in
Is tanbul. The goal of this letter w as to protect this ethnic community and its religious
rights . H is torical and political conditions , how ever, from the time of collaps e of the
Ottoman Empire until to the end of the Communis m, didn’t allow many ethnic groups
and communities to declare and develop freely their ethnic identity.
4
Egyptians in various regions of the Balkan P enins ula are know n under various
appellations , in Albania: G jup, Egjup, Magjup, J evg, Evgjit, in Maced o n i a : Gj u p ci ,
Eg j u p ci , Ju p ci , Ej u p ci , Oj u p ci , i n Bu l g a r i a : A g u p t i . Th e Tu r k s i n t h e
Ba l k a n s , ca l l t h e m K˝ p t ˝ . Th e s e a p p e l a t i o n s a r e s a i d t o d e m o n s t r a t e
t h e co n n e ct i o n o f t h i s p o p u l a t i o n w i t h Eg y p t . Th e s e p e o p l e a l s o h a v e
o t h e r a p p e l a t i o n s , h o w e v e r , co n n e ct ed w ith their profes s ion, e. g. K ovachi
(‘Blacks miths ’) in Montenegro or (according to the explanation of s ome s cholars )
As hkali (‘charcoal-burners ’) in K os ovo and Metohija, and in N orthw es t part of
Macedonia. In the Balkans , the members of this community do not have their ow n
language but rather s peak the languages of the s urrounding population. In K os ovo all
Egyptians s peak Albanian as their mother tongue. In Macedonia, mos t Egyptians s peak
Albanian and mos t others s peak Macedonian as their firs t language. In the 1994
Macedonian cens us 42 declared Turkis h, 10 declared S erbian, and few er than ten
declared Romani.
The community of Egyptians in the w hole Balkan P enins ula is predominantly
endogamous . They are a s ettled population and inhabitant mos tly the central or market
parts of cities and villages . Their hous es us ually have tw o s tories , w here the groundlevel is us ing as handy-craft w orks hop. In the his tory and traditions of the Egyptians
there is no evidence of nomadis m. The traditional profes s ions of the Egyptians in
K os ovo w ere blacks mithing, agriculture, and mus ic-making.
The proces s es of public pres entation of their ow n identity came to the s urface in the
1970s w ith the firs t attempts to have a s eparate entry for “Egipkjani” (Egyptians ) in the
cens us es in former Yugos lavia, and in the Republic of Macedonia in particular. The
Egyptian movement received a new impetus after the new cons titution of the S F R
Yugos lavia w as pas s ed in 1974 (Art. 166, 170). It es tablis hed the right of every
citizen to declare his ow n ethnic identity. S ome Egyptians remember that in the 1981
cens us s ome of them declared thems elves as “G jupci”, but they w ere reclas s ified as
“Roms ”, w hile others declared thems elves as “Egipkjani” (Egyptians ) for the firs t time
in Macedonia, but they w ere als o not recorded in the cens us res ults and w ere clas s ified
as “unknow n”. It became clear that w ithout having a s pecial cens us entry (Egyptians )
their exis tence w ould not be public know ledge. In order to achieve this s pecial
Egyptian entry people began circulating petitions not only in Macedonia but in K os ovo
as w ell (nearly 4000 people s igned a petition in K os ovo). Thes e petitions w ere
depos ited at various levels of government.
The long s truggle ended w ith s ucces s in the cens us of 1991, w hen Egyptian activis ts
managed to pers uade the Yugos lav authorities to introduce an entry for Egyptian as a
nationality category in the cens us , thus actually recognizing their exis tence. F rom
K os ovo around 13, 000 citizens ’ s ignatures w ere collected. According to the unofficial
res ults of the 1991 cens us (the outbreak of the w ar prevented that cens us from ever
being finalized, and the cens us w as contes ted by Albanians in K os ovo and s ome parts
of Macedonia) in 1991 in Macedonia, 3, 307 people or 0, 2 % declared thems elves as
Egyptians . According to Egyptians this number w as too low and did not reflect the
actual s ituation. They w rote again petitions and protes ts . In the 1994 cens us the
number w as 3, 169 (citizens of Macedonia res iding outs ide the Republic for more than
one year w ere not counted. )
The s truggle to es tablis h the Egyptians as a s eparate community w as led by their new
as s ociations , firs t in Macedonia and later els ew here in the Balkans . In 1990 the
“Egipkjani” as s ociation in Yugos lavia w as founded w ith N azim Arifi as its chairman
and w ith its headquarters in Ohrid, Macedonia. The As s ociation of Egyptians for
K os ovo and Metohija w as founded on October 21s t 1990 w ith Ves el K adroli as
4
chairman. At the s ame time an Egyptian club w as founded in Belgrade and later on
grew into the U nion of Egyptians “Es naf” (‘G uild’), w hich w as centered in Belgrade.
In 1991, in S truga, Macedonia, an Egyptian political party, w as founded - the
Democratic Movement P arty - led by N apoleon K amberi from S truga. The s econd
Egyptian political party in Macedonia, w as founded in 2000 - the U nion of Egyptians .
After the beginning of the dis s olution of Yugos lavia in 1991, bas ed on the exis ting
organizations of the Egyptians in Yugos lavia, independent as s ociations w ere founded
in Macedonia, S erbia and K os ovo. In 1992 the leaders hip of the Egyptian as s ociation
w as headed by U s ni Zemos ki, and N azmi Arifi remained chairman of honor. In 1994
Ars lan S uleiman w as elected chairman of the As s ociation (w hich w as already an
as s ociation of the Egyptians in Macedonia), new regulations w ere adopted, and new
leaders elected.
At the s ame time a number of Egyptian cultural as s ociations w ere es tablis hed, Among
thes e w ere “P yramid” in Ohrid, “Cleopatra” in S truga, “Bela kula” (‘White Tow er’) in
K ichevo, and a children' s folklore group, “Little Egyptian” in Ohrid. The Egyptian
s ports as s ociations , founded earlier, w ere s till active. Thes e included the S ports Club
“Borets ” (‘F ighter’) in K ichevo, w hich is cons idered the oldes t one in Macedonia.
More recently es tablis hed clubs are “Crni Drim” in S truga and “P res pa” in Res en.
H umanitarian as s ociations (mutual aid as s ociations ) w ere als o in the proces s of being
es tablis hed - the firs t s uch as s ociation w as “Lake Ohrid” in Ohrid and “S truga” in
S truga.
At the s ame time the idea of a s eparate Egyptian community w as extended beyond the
borders of former Yugos lavia and s imilar as s ociations w ere als o founded on the
territory of Albania by the “Evgjit”. The firs t one w as founded in K orcha on J une 28,
1992. It w as follow ed by regional as s ociations s uch as the cultural and educational
as s ociation “Orient” in Vlora, a S tudents ’ Egyptian As s ociation in Albania, w hich w as
later united in a Cultural as s ociation of the Egyptians in Albania “N efreta” (i. e.
N efertiti), regis tered on March 22, 1993, w ith Behar S adiku as chairman. In 1992 a
committee of the Albanian Egyptians w as founded, w hich later on became the “P arty
for Equality, Dignity and Rights ”.
In 1998 the different Egyptian as s ociations w ere formally united and, in a congres s in
Ohrid, the formation of the Balkan U nion of the Egyptians w as announced. The
congres s w as attended by repres entatives of all exis ting organizations of the Egyptians
from Macedonia, Albania and S erbia (Belgrade). The congres s w as not attended by
repres entatives from K os ovo w ho at the las t minute announced that they w ould not be
able to arrive due to the uncertain political s ituation and Albanian pres s ure. Rubin
Zemon from Macedonia w as elected chairman of the Balkan organization and Behar
S adiku from Albania became vice-chairman.
P arallel w ith this phenomenon there are attempts by Egyptians to develop their ow n
media. In 1995 the as s ociation of the Yugos lavian Egyptians for K os ovo and Metohija
began to publis h the magazine “Voice of the Yugos lav Egyptians ” and in 1998 the
as s ociation of the Egyptians in Macedonia began to publis h the magazine “Voice of the
Egyptians in Macedonia”.
In 1993, the As s ociation of Egyptians conducted its ow n cens us in K os ovo and
Metohija. According to this cens us there w ere approximately 120, 000 Egyptians in
K os ovo and Metohija. The repres entative of the Egyptians at the Rambouillet
negotiation w as Cherim Abazi.
Organizations of Egyptians exis t in Albania, in the Republic of Macedonia, and in the
F R Yugos lavia. All thes e organizations are united in the U nion of Balkan Egyptians ,
4
w hich is headquartered in Ohrid, Macedonia. The Balkan Egyptian émigrés in Wes tern
Europe are united in the U nion of Balkan Egyptians of Wes t Europe w ith its s eat at
Mulheim-an-der-Ruhr, G ermany, w ith chair Robertina As houri. Many organizations of
Egyptians from K os ovo exis t in G ermany, S w itzerland, H olland, and S w eden.
C/ As hkali, K ovachi, Magjups . . .
The As hkali are the comparatively “new es t” minority, having entered the
international s tage only after the K os ovo cris is . The exis tence of As hkali w as already
w ell know n to the s mall circle of s cholars that are occupied w ith G yps y s tudies . Thes e
s cholars us ually identified them as Albanian-s peaking G yps ies /Roms . The As hkali
thems elves , according to local conditions , gravitated to the Albanians or to the Roms ,
declaring mos t often Albanian or Romani identity, but alw ays pres erving their ow n
community dis tinction (from the Roms and from the Egyptians too). The As hkali in
K os ovo have never been counted or es timated, they have never been included in
cens us es . H ow ever the As hkali as s ert they conducted a cens us , but the cens us w as not
never finis hed, and/or that the papers from cens us dis appeared, etc. Many of them
(als o in unknow n numbers ) moved from K os ovo to other parts of ex-Yugos lavia and to
Wes tern Europe.
The pres ence of international forces and organizations in K os ovo and their attempt to
ens ure the repres entation of all minorities in the K os ovo Trans itional Council is
accelerating the proces s of the manifes tation of the dis tinct non-Romani, non-Egyptian,
and non-Albanian identity of the As hkali. The As hkali ins is ted on receiving a place in
the governing bodies . Over a relatively s hort period of time the As hkali s ucceed in
es tablis hing their ow n organizations , s uch as a political party Democratic P arty of
Albanian As hkali in K os ovo w ith S abit Rahmani as P res ident (founded in December
1999) and a non-governmental organization “Democratic H ope”, headed by Agim
H ys eni. There are als o As hkali N G Os in F us hë K os ovë/K os ovo P olje and
F erizaj/U ros evac.
The As hkali quickly created their ow n explanation of their ethnogenes is and his tory.
There are many oral vers ions about the legends of this community’s arrival in K os ovo,
bas ed until now mainly on folklore and quas i-s cientific evidence, the bas ic purpos e of
w hich is for the As hkali to dis tinguis h thems elves from Roms and Egyptians .
According to their explanation, the As hkali come originally from Iran and arrived in
the Balkans in the 4th century. Therefore, they w ere the s econd oldes t people here.
When they came, only the Illyrians w ere here and they (the As hkali) adopted the
language of the Illyrians and the Illyrians adopted the religion of the As hkali, i. e.
Is lam. (We s hould note that Is lam did not appear until the 7th century CE. )
According to another legend about their origins , the As hkali are colonis ts from ancient
Rome, w ho came from Italy to Albania. This is w hy the As hkali s peak the Albanian
language. According to this folk-etymological vers ion, the Albanian form “H as hkalija”
comes from the Albanian s entence: “hajt s hko në Itali” (‘go back to Italy’). (Cf. the
popular Albanian folk etymology of America (Albanian Amerikë): “H a! Merr! Ikë!”
(‘Eat! Take! Leave!’).
Yet another vers ion about their origin als o emerged, according to w hich, the As hkali
originated in the tow n As kalon in Biblical P ales tine, i. e. generally s peaking, jus t like
any other Balkan nation, the As hkali derived their origin from mos t ancient times and
relate it to w orld civilizations and religions .
4
Roms in K os ovo in mos t cas es cons ider the As hkali (as w ell as the Egyptians ) to be
Albanian-s peaking Roms , w ho do not w ant to acknow ledge their origins and are
looking for new identities . According to the Egyptians , the As hkali are Egyptians w ho
hid their identity and the w ord “As hkali”, according them, comes from an Albanian
w ord for charcoal, es hkë (definite es hka, cf. als o as hka ‘[w ood] chips ’), w hich
As hkali blacks miths us ed to build their fires . The proces s of making charcoal for
blacks miths is very difficult, and only certain profes s ional pers ons are able to do it;
thes e profes s ionals got the ethnonym “es hka/as hka-makers ” w hence “As hkali”.
The K ovachi (‘blacks miths ’) in Montenegro have a s tory s imilar to the that of the
As hkali. Like the As hkali, the K ovachi are als o Albanian-s peaking, and the
s urrounding population cons iders them to be G yps ies . H ow ever, they categorically
refus e this identity. Roms and Egyptians cons ider K ovachi to be a s ubdivis ion of their
res pective communities .
The picture of new ethnic communities in K os ovo s hould not be taken as a fixed and
unchangeable. In F ebruary 2001, in Is tog/Is tok municipality, a Magjup As s ociation
w as founded, s ince they do not feel that they are repres ented by Egyptian, As hkali or
Romani organizations .
The emergence of new communities is on-going and one can not predict how many
more w ill come forth in the future.
D/ S imilar cas es in the Balkans (Millet and Rudara)
There are als o other communities living in Balkans (bes ides the Egyptians and
As hkali), w ho are cons idered by the s urrounding population as G yps ies , but w ho,
more or les s categorically, do not w ant to be connected w ith them and w ho have
recently s tarted to create s eparate identities (and from that their ow n “his tory”, albeit
on the level of folklore and quas i-s cience).
S uch divers e communities are s ome of the Turkis h-s peaking G yps ies living in Bulgaria
(mos tly in the eas tern parts ), in G reece (mos tly Wes tern Thrace) as w ell as in s ome
countries of ex-Yugos lavia (Macedonia and S erbia). U s ually they declare thems elves in
public as Turks , how ever the local population (including local Turks ) do not accept
them as s uch and call them Turkis h G yps ies .
There are s everal communities of Turkis h G yps ies in Bulgaria. Their mother tongue is
Turkis h, and s ome of them prefer to call thems elves s imply Millet (i. e. ‘nation’) or
Mus lims w hich is cons idered to be a neutral ethnic category. We can cite the example
of U s ta Millet (“us ta” means ‘mas ter crafts man’) in N orth-Eas tern Bulgaria, w ho are
now beginning to create their ow n his tory, according to w hich they are the des cendants
of an unknow n tribe of blacks miths from Afghanis tan, w ho w ere the mos t famous guns miths at the time of the Ottoman Empire.
Another variation of this type of identity ques t can be s een among s ome Turkis h
G yps ies from the Ludogorie region in Bulgaria. They s ay that they are des cendants of
people of Arab origin, from the K oreys ha clan (i. e. , the clan of the P rophet
Mohammed), w ho lived in Bulgaria in 1200-1300 A. D. According to them, proofs for
their exis tence can be s een in the Mus lim tombs tones all over the region dating from
the reign of K ing K aloyan around 1205 A. D. This is a his torical myth of the Arabic
origins w hich is bas ed on a fals e reading (w hether it is deliberate or not is another
is s ue) of the years on Mus lim tombs tones w hich, of cours e, are dated according to the
Is lamic calendar (A. H . , year of the H egira, 622 A. D. ), and are interpreted according to
the Chris tian one: The difference is 622 years .
4
The numerous community of Rudara/Ludara or Beas ha (this appellation is know n in
Croatia and H ungary) inhabit the w hole Balkan penins ula (Bulgaria, G reece, countries
of ex-Yugos lavia). They are als o called G yps ies , often Vlax G yps ies or K opanari
[‘cradle-makers ’], K oritari [‘trough-makers ’], Vlas i [‘Wallachians ’], K aravlas i [‘black
Wallachians ’], etc. by the s urrounding population. The Rudara have pres erved a
certain number of intergroup s ubdivis ions bas ed on profes s ional features , (s uch as
Lingurara [‘s poon-makers ’], U rs ara or Mechkara [‘bear-trainers ’], and on regional
features (e. g. Monteni, Is treni, Tracieni, etc. ). They s peak their ow n dialect of
Romanian. There is s ome debate concerning their origin. The overw helming majority
of s cholars cons ider them to be G yps ies w ho los t their Romani language and migrated
out of the territory of modern-day Romania. Moreover, there are s ome members of this
group in H ungary w ho, being identified as G yps ies and know ing that G yps ies s peak
Romani, think that their Romanian dialect is Romani. There are als o s ome s cholars
(mainly from Romania), how ever, w ho cons ider them to be “ethnic Romanians ” or an
old Balkan population Latinized during Roman empire.
The Rudara often pres ent thems elves as true Vlaxs or Old Romanians . S ome of them
are undergoing a proces s of s earching for their ow n non-Romani (and s ometimes als o
non-Romanian) identity.
One of their popular legends derives Rudari origin from their ancient kingdom in the
Balkans . F ollow ing its des truction s ome of them cros s ed the Danube and laid the
foundations of the Romanian people, w hile their true direct ances tors , the Rudari of
today, remained in Bulgarian lands . In s ome ins tances their explanations have already
begun to follow the trail of quas i-his torical know ledge, relying on naive his torical
s peculation, w hich as s erts the unity of Rudari w ith pres ent-day Romanians ; gradually
this reas oning is acquired by the Rudari thems elves , as s is ted by the efforts of the
autodidact authors .
In Bulgaria Rudara regis tered their ow n political P arty under the name of Democratic
Movement “Rodoliubie”, becaus e, according their repres entatives , the appellation
“Rudari” originates not from “ruda” (ore, w hence “rudar” ‘miner’) but from “Rod”
[‘family’; ‘clan’], and they are the heirs of the firs t proto-Bulgar clans , s ettled in
Bulgarian lands w ith K han As parukh during the founding of the Bulgarian s tate in the
7th century.
The proces s es of the formation of new , non-Romani identities among communities of
Millet and of Rudara are incomplete and are taking place w ith s ome contradictory
tendencies . S ome of them merge w ith the greater Romani community, (part of
H ungarian Beas ha are the bes t know n example of this ). They are developing actively at
pres ent, are influenced by different factors , and the res ults are s till unfores eeable.
4
CU RREN T DEVELOP MEN TS IN K OS OVO
With the gradual development of the K os ovo “parallel s ys tem” in the 1990’s , the
Romani, Egyptian, As hkali and other related communities w ere caught in a gap
betw een the (Albanian) pow er of numbers and the (S erb) pow er of government, w hich
left hardly any choice for them but opting for one of the tw o s ocieties . Individual
decis ions depended on many is s ues . Thus , s ome opted for the Albanian s hadow
s ociety, others for the S erb official s ociety. N either decis ion, how ever, meant that
they w ere fully accepted and integrated into the res pective s ociety.
The S erb authorities initiated an active "minority policy" in K os ovo, emphas izing the
exis tence and the cultural rights of minorities s uch as the Roms and Egyptians . Radio
and TV programs w ere broadcas t in the Romani language and new s papers w ere
publis hed in Romani. In s ome parts of K os ovo, S erbian authorities even introduced
s chooling in Romani.
In autumn 1998, w hen the K os ovo cris is w as internationalized, the S erb and Yugos lav
authorities intens ified their intentions to us e the Roms and Egyptians to demons trate
the multi-ethnic nature of K os ovo and thereby w eaken the Albanian pos ition in the
international negotiations on K os ovo. The S erb authorities founded a “Temporary
Executive Council for K os ovo and Metohija” w hich included minority repres entatives .
The Yugos lav delegation to the peace negotiations in Rambouillet included one
repres entative of the K os ovo Roms and one of the K os ovo Egyptians .
On the other hand, the Albanian s ociety and politicians did not undertake any efforts to
w in the Roms and Egyptians over. After the Albanian “underground elections ” of May
1992, s everal s eats w ere allocated to G orans , S erbs and Montenegrins . F or the Roms
(and As hkali and Egyptians ) no repres entation w as fores een.
The ethnic picture in K os ovo w as s ignificantly changed in 1999, w hen tw o major
w aves of Roms , Egyptians and As hkali refugees left the province.
The firs t refugee w ave w as in March of 1999, w hen the Albanian population w as
expelled from K os ovo en mas s e and pus hed into Macedonia and Albania, and from
there certain groups w ere s ent to different countries in Central and Wes tern Europe, to
the U S A and to Aus tralia. Together w ith Albanians in this refugee w ave w ere als o
many Roms , Egyptians and As hkali. The exact numbers here are hard to es timate,
becaus e during thes e migrations they declared thems elves to be Albanians (at leas t at
firs t). When Albanians began to return to K os ovo, Roms , Egyptians and As hkali,
fearing for their s afety, refus ed to return. Their extradition from s ome countries (e. g.
G ermany and S w itzerland) has been delayed, and their future is s till uncertain. The
s ame is true for Roms , Egyptians and As hkali from K os ovo w ho are in Macedonia.
4
The s econd and much larger w ave of Romani, Egyptian and As hkali refugees w as in
s ummer 1999 (J uly 1999), w hen the non-Albanian population of K os ovo (mainly
S erbs ) left en mas s e mos tly for S erbia, s ometimes for Montenegro or Macedonia or
Wes tern Europe (e. g. Italy alone regis tered 12, 000 Roms from K os ovo as refugees by
late s ummer 1999).
Today, the vas t majority live as Internal Dis placed P ers ons (IDP ) or refugees in the
F ederal Republic of Yugos lavia, Macedonia, Albania, Bos nia and H erzegovina and
Wes tern Europe. In 2000, U N H CR regis tered 27, 419 Roms and Egyptians as IDP s in
the F RY. H ow ever, there is general agreement that the actual number is higher.
Romani organizations in the F RY as s es s that up to 80, 000 live as IDP s in the F RY
(including about 5, 000-8, 000 in Montenegro), and betw een 3, 000 and 6, 000 in
Macedonia. There are als o about 150 Romani refugees from K os ovo in the refugee
camps in Bos nia and H erzegovina.
Large groups of Roms (about 600 to 1, 000) have been repeatedly attempting to flee by
s ea to Italy.
The communities of Roms , Egyptians and As hkali cons tituted a very large part of the
population in K os ovo until the outbreak of the hos tilities in K os ovo and the N ATO
intervention. The exact number cannot be determined, but it could be es timated that at
leas t 120, 000 to 150, 000 Roms , As hkali and Egyptians lived in K os ovo until then. In
the Yugos lav cens us from 1991, w hich w as boycotted by the K os ovo Albanians and
parts of other communities , 42, 806 pers ons declared thems elves as Roms . H ow ever,
w e s hould bear in mind that s ome boycotted the cens us and, in general, Roms and
related groups tend to claim a different ethnicity ow ing to s everal reas ons (fear of
dis advantages , tendency to go w ith the majority in the immediate s urrounding, etc. ).
Currently, around 30, 000 to 35, 000 Roms , As hkali and Egyptians live in K os ovo and
the correlation among the individual communities is not abs olutely clear. In various
regular reports of international organizations (mos tly U N H CR) s mall groups of thes e
three communities are identified as living in the different adminis trative units in
K os ovo. In thes e reports , w hos e data w e pres ent here, the s eparate communities often
are not differentiated or are united under the term Roms , and the numbers often vary
and change.
Roughly s peaking, it can be s tated that Roms can be found all over K os ovo, w hile
Egyptians , currently, can be found in the predominantly P lain of Dukagjin (i. e. ,
Metohija, in the w es tern part of K os ovo) and As hkali in the P lain of K os ovo (in the
eas tern part of K os ovo). The figures for the communities in the different
municipalities , w hich are pres ented below , are only es timates . N onetheles s , they
provide an indication of the current s ituation.
N umerically, the larges t population of Roms , As hkali and Egyptians live in
G jakovë/Djakovica municipality. Approximately 7000 Egyptians and Roms live in this
municipality, of w hich the vas t majority declare thems elves as Egyptians . Large
communities can be found in P rizren (4, 500, predominantly Roms ), F erizaj/U ros hevac
(4, 000, mos tly As hkali, a few hundred Roms ), P eja/P ec (4, 000, Egyptians and Roms ),
F us hë K os ovë/K os ovo P olje (2, 300, majority As hkali), Lipljan (1, 700, majority Roms
and As hkali), Obilic/Obiliq (1, 500 Roms and As hkali), K lina (1, 200 Roms and
Egyptians ), P odujevo (1, 000, majority As hkali), Is tog/Is tok (800, Egyptians , Roms
and Magjup). In the S erbian enclave of G rachanica and the s urrounding villages , w hich
belong to the municipality of P ris htinë/P ris htina, there are 1, 000 Roms . In the tow n of
P ris htina approximately there are 140 As hkali. In other municipalities the es timates are
the follow ing: S htimje/S timlje (750 As hkali and Roms ), Rahovec/Orahovac (450 Roms
4
and Egyptians ), K amenica (350 Roms ), Vus htrri/Vuchitrn (300 As hkali and Roms ),
S uha Reka (350 Roms and As hkali), Decan/Dechani (350 Egyptians and Roms ). In the
other municipalities , the number of Roms , As hkali and Egyptians is even low er.
Around 700 As hkali and Roms live in the IDP camp P lementina, clos e to Obilic/Obiliq,
around 500 Roms and As hkali are in other IDP camps in Mitrovica, Lepos avic and
Zvechan.
In thos e tow ns w ith very large Romani, As hkali and Egyptian populations before J uly
1999, only a few hundred are left: In P ris htina its elf, out of more than 10. 000, only
140. In Mitrovica of around 10. 000, a few hundred Roms and As hkali might remain.
In G jilan/G njilane 350 pers ons remain out of an earlier figure of 6, 500.
The data from international organizations gives the impres s ion that the pres ence of
Egyptians is quite s mall. Data received from other s ources , how ever, s how that in
many cas es they are counted as Roms or Albanians . Of cours e, the data received from
the Egyptian organizations abroad - according to w hich in K os ovo there now live
100, 000 Egyptians - s hould als o not be accepted uncritically, bearing in mind that
us ually community repres entatives es timate numbers much higher than other s ources .
The numbers given here cannot be cons idered as exact and definite. There are quite a
few Roms , Egyptians and As hkali w ho w ant to leave K os ovo or to change their place
of res idence w ithin the province. It is clear that the ethnic picture in the region w ill
continue to change in future as w ell.
The current s ituation of Roms , As hkali and Egyptians is far from cloudles s . In the
immediate aftermath of the N ATO air-s trikes their s ituation dramatically deteriorated.
The pres ence of K F OR could not prevent attacks by K os ovo Albanians committed
under the pretext that Roms had participated in w ar crimes and collaborated w ith the
S erb and Yugos lav s ecurity forces in the cours e of the w ar in 1998/99. Many hous es
w ere burnt or des troyed, e. g. , in Mitrovica, P ris htina, and G njilane, and even entire
neighborhoods have been burnt or des troyed.
H aras s ment, killings , rape and illegal abductions w ere committed all over K os ovo,
w hich w as in mos t cas es connected w ith the order to leave their place of res idence.
Other groups left their places of res idence after receiving threats that they have to leave
if they did not w ant to ris k attacks and ars on.
H ow ever, in s ome tow ns and villages the communities could maintain a fairly good
relations hip w ith the Albanian majority or w ere locked into their quarters w ithout
having freedom of movement.
N otw iths tanding numerous s evere and fatal attacks agains t members of the
communities all over K os ovo, compared to firs t months after the return of the
Albanians to K os ovo, the s ituation today has improved. H ow ever, lack of s ecurity,
limited acces s to the education s ys tem, health care and employment, and very limited
inclus ion in the various recons truction programs s till characterizes the s ituation of the
communities .
Regional differences can be identified, e. g. , in P rizren, G jakove, P eja, P odujevo,
K amenica, G rachanica, and J anjevo, they can enjoy freedom of movement. But, it
might be s till dangerous to leave thes e areas . In other areas , e. g. , in G jilan and
Rahovec, a certain improvement can be noted although the majority of the Roms s till
do not dare to leave their quarter. In Vus htrri, only a very few As hkali dare to leave
their hous es . P ris htina is s till a tow n w here it is very dangerous for them to move in
tow n.
4
Although this improvement is acknow ledged by many Roms , As hkali and Egyptians ,
they are s till afraid of being targets of attacks and even killings . Many community
members are s till afraid to report on threats or attacks to international organizations ,
including the U N MIK P olice.
In s pite of this difficult s ituation there are s everal attempts at s elf-organization and
repres entation. Only the As hkali have a political party, (P DAs hK , Democratic P arty of
Albanian As hkali in K os ovo). In P odujevo and F us hë K os ovë, As hkali es tablis hed
N G Os , and the P odujevo N G O “Democratic H ope” is very active in s everal
municipalities in K os ovo.
The Egyptians are organized in the “Albanian-Egyptian As s ociation in K os ovo”
(S hoqata S hqiptaro-Egjiptiane e K os ovës ) w ith branches in P eja/P ec and
G jakove/Djakovica.
The Roms do not have a K os ovo-w ide organization, but in s everal municipalities they
have es tablis hed N G Os (P rizren, Rahovec/Orahovac, G jilan/G njilane, S htrpce/S trpce,
F erizaj/U ros hevac, K amenica, Lepos avic, G rachanica).
The International Community has als o made s ome efforts to integrate thes e
communities into political s tructures . S ince May 2000, the Roms have a repres entative
in the K os ovo Trans itional Council (K TC), Mr. H adji Zylfi Mergja from P rizren. S ince
December 2000, P DAs hK is repres ented in the K TC by its P res ident, Mr. S abit
Rrahmani from F erizaj. The participation of the Egyptians in the K TC is s till pending.
In the Municipal As s emblies , Roms , As hkali and Egyptians are repres ented in 16
municipalities . P DAs hK , running for the elections in s even municipalities , w on a
regular s eat in F us hë K os ovë/K os ovo P olje, 22 other repres entatives have been
appointed to the Municipal As s emblies by decis ion of S pecial Repres entative of the
S ecretary-G eneral. H ow ever, in s ome municipalities , e. g. , Mitrovica and
Vus htrri/Vucitrn, no repres entatives w ere appointed. According to the U N MIK
Regulation on Municipal S elf G overnment, the Municipal As s emblies have to es tablis h
Community Offices , Community Committees , and Mediation Committees , in w hich the
ethnic communities living in the municipality s hould be repres ented. H ow ever, this
proces s is currently s till on-going.
In particular, the Romani communities have revived their cultural activities . Cultural
groups exis t, e. g. , in G jilan/G njilane, P rizren, and G rachanica. H ow ever, their
performances are either limited to occas ions organized and protected by the
International Community or res tricted to Romani neighborhoods .
The efforts of the International Community s hould ameliorate their s ituation, how ever,
for the mos t crucial is s ues , s uch as s ecurity, return of IDP s and refugees ,
recons truction, return of illegally occupied property, acces s to the labor market, acces s
to education and health care, no appropriate res pons e has been identified yet.
In particular, the return of refugees and IDP s is of critical importance, s ince many of
the intellectual and profes s ional elite left K os ovo in 1999. This is evident in s everal
municipalities w here it is difficult to find repres entatives to participate in political
s tructures . In s everal places , e. g. , among the As hkali in Vus htrri/Vucitrn, w here a
once large and w ell integrated community has decreas ed to les s than 10% of its former
population, the s urvival of the community has already reached a critical s tate, and the
departure of a few more families could caus e the entire community to dis appear.
4
The communities are, therefore, caught in a dilemma, s ince the current s ecurity
s ituation does not allow for a large-s cale return. F or the remaining communities , this
could mean a change for the w ors e and even s mall achievements could be threatened.
Voluntary returns to s ome areas in limited numbers took place, in particular in the
w es tern part of K os ovo.
RECOMMEN DATION S
The group of experts that provided this booklet recommends that in implementing their
policies all actors in K os ovo aiming at improving the current s ituation s hould be aw are
of the follow ing as pects - keeping in mind that the aim of all actors is to achieve
peaceful co-exis tence among the various ethnic groups and that minority problems are
the mos t s erious problems to be s olved in the region.
- Improve the training of international actors s ent to K os ovo.
- P romote better cooperation among international actors and organizations in K os ovo.
- Conduct in-depth inves tigation of the s ocial and economic effects of international aid
to K os ovo.
- F os ter the development of a netw ork of N G Os of Roms , Egyptians and As hkali in
K os ovo.
- P revent s egregation in the educational s ys tem in K os ovo. S ome foreign language
s chools – Englis h, F rench, G erman, s hould be opened and provide an alternative to
education in S erbian or Albanian s chools . The tendency s hould be to w ork tow ard a
united and integrated educational s ys tem.
- Create a databas e on property ow ners hip to facilitate future recons truction and
pos s ible refugee return.
- P repare adequate res ources of the Balkan S tability P lan to s upport the recons truction
of minority-ow ned property des troyed during and after the w ar.
- Encourage and improve the employment of minority members in public s ervices ;
s upport s elf-employment and income generating activities developed by minority
members
- All the above mentioned recommendations are conditional upon the fulfillment of the
mos t urgent tas k of the international community in K os ovo: The clarification of
K os ovo’s future s tatus .
4
IN TERN ATION AL TEX TS
A/ International
I. G eneral H uman rights protection:
1. Convention agains t Dis crimination in Education. Adopted by the G eneral
Conference of the U nited N ations Educational, S cientific and Cultural Organization on
14/12/60, not entry into force.
2. International Covenant on Economic, S ocial and Cultural Rights . Adopted and
opened for acces s ion by G eneral As s embly res olution 2200A (X X I) of 16/12/1966.
Entry into force 03/01/76.
3. International Convention on the Elimination of All F orms of Racial
Dis crimination. Adopted and opened for acces s ion by G eneral As s embly res olution
2106 (X X ) of 21/12/65. Entry into force 04/01/69.
4. Convention on the Elimination of All F orms of Dis crimination agains t
Women. Adopted and opened for acces s ion by G eneral As s embly res olution 34/180 of
18/12/1979. Entry into force 03/09/81.
Optional P rotocol to the Convention. Adopted by G eneral As s embly res olution
A/54/4 on 6/10/99 and opened for s ignature on 10/12/99. Entry into force 22/12/2000.
5. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Adopted and opened for acces s ion by
G eneral As s embly res olution 44/25 of 20/11/89. Entry into force 2/09/90 and 2
Optional P rotocols to the Convention.
6. International Covenant on Civil and P olitical Rights w ith Optional P rotocol to
the Covenant. Adopted and opened for acces s ion by G eneral As s embly res olution
2200A (X X I) of 16/12/66. Entry into force 23/03/76.
S econd Optional P rotocol to the International Covenant aiming at the abolition of
the death penalty. Adopted and proclaimed by G eneral As s embly res olution 44/128 of
15/12/89.
II. Criminal law :
1. Convention on the P revention and P unis hment of the Crime of G enocide.
Approved and propos ed for acces s ion by G eneral As s embly res olution 260 A(III) of
9/12/48. Entry into force 12/01/51.
2. S tatute of the International Tribunal for the P ros ecution of P ers ons
Res pons ible for S erious Violations of International H umanitarian Law committed in the
Territory of the F ormer Yugos lavia s ince 1991. Adopted 25/05/93 by the U N S ecurity
Council res olution, amended 13/05/98.
3. S tatute of the International Criminal Court. Adopted and opened for acces s ion
by the U nited N ations conference, Rome, 17/07/98, not yet into force.
III. Refugees :
1. Convention relating to the S tatus of Refugees . Adopted and opened for
acces s ion by the U nited N ations conference of P lenipotentiaries , G eneva, 28/07/51.
Entry into force 22/04/54
2. P rotocol relating to the S tatus of Refugees . Approved by the G eneral
As s embly res olution 2198 (X X I) of 16/12/66. Entry into force 4/10/67.
B/ European
4
1. Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms .
Adopted and opened for s ignature: Rome 04/11/50. Entry into force 03/09/53 and 12
Additional P rotocols to the Convention.
2. European convention for the prevention of torture and in human or degrading
treatment or punis hment. Adopted and opened for s ignature: S tras bourg, 26/11/87.
Entry into force 01/02/89 and 2 Additional P rotocols to the Convention.
3. European charter for regional or minority languages . Adopted and opened for
s ignature: S tras bourg, 05/11/92. Entry into force 01/03/98.
4. F ramew ork convention for the protection of national minorities . Adopted and
opened for s ignature: S tras bourg, 01/02/95. Entry into force 01/02/98.
C/ N ot compuls ory texts
I. International:
1. U nivers al Declaration of H uman Rights . Adopted and proclaimed by G eneral
As s embly res olution 217 A (III) of 10/12/48.
2. Declaration on the Rights of P ers ons Belonging to N ational or Ethnic,
Religious and Linguis tic Minorities . Adopted by G eneral As s embly res olution
A/RES /47/135 of 18 December 1992
II. European:
1. Document of the Copenhagen meeting of the Conference on the human
dimens ion of the CS CE. Adopted in Copenhagen, 05/06 – 29/07/90.
D/ On G yps ies
1. Recommendation 1203 (1993)1 on G yps ies in Europe. Adopted by the
P arliamentary As s embly of the Council of Europe 2/02/93.
2. Res olution 249 (1993) on G yps ies in Europe: role and res pons ibilities of the
Local and Regional Authorities . Adopted by the Congres s of the Local and Regional
Authorities of Europe 18/03/1993
3. Recommendation 11 (1995) and Res olution 16 (1995) on the contribution of
Roma (G yps ies ) for the cons truction of a tolerant Europe. Adopted by the Congres s of
Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, 31/05/95.
4. Recommendation 1424 (1999)1 on Evaluation of the humanitarian s ituation in
the F ederal Republic of Yugos lavia, particularly in K os ovo and Montenegro. Adopted
by the P arliamentary As s embly, 23/09/99.
5. Res olution A5-0035/1999 on abus es agains t Roma and other minorities in the
new K os ovo. Adopted by the European P arliament, 07/10/99.
6. Recommendation N o R (2000) 4 on the education of Roma/G yps y children in
Europe. Adopted by the Committee of Minis ters of the Council of Europe 03/02/2000.
S ELECTED BIBLIOG RAP H Y
Andjelkoviç, Z. ; S cepanoviç, S . ; P rlinceviç, G . Days of Terror. (In the P res ence
of the International forces ). Beograd, 2000, “Center for P eace and Tolerance”.
4
Barjaktaroviç, M. “Cigani u J ugos laviji danas . ” [G yps ies in Yugos lavia today] Zbornik filozofs kog fakulteta (Belgrade), IX (1), 1970, pp. 743-48.
Barjaktaroviç, M. “Romi u P rizrenu. ” [Roma in P rizren] - G las nik Etnografs kog
Muzeja (Belgrade), 43, 1979, pp. 171-86.
Berbers ki, S . “Romi i iredenta na K os ovo. ” [Roma and Iredentity in K os ovo] N as e teme (Belgrade), 28 (7-8), 1984, pp. 1335-47.
Bogis iç, B. “Die s lavis ierten Zigeuner in Montenegro. ” - Das Aus land, 47(21),
1874, pp. 401-6.
Courthiades , M. Tow ards a Typology of Balkan N ational Communities : N onterritorial G roups . Manus cript, 1999
Crow e, D. A H is tory of the G yps ies in Eas tern Europe and Rus s ia. N ew York:
S t. Martin’s P res s , 1995.
Dujzings , G . “The Making of Egyptians in K os ovo and Macedonia” - In:
G overs , C. and Vermeulen, H . (eds . ) The P olitics of Ethnic Cons cious nes s . London,
1997, “Macmillan”, pp. 194-222.
Duijzings , G . Religion and the P olitics of
Identity in K os ovo. London: H urs t & Co. , 2000.
Duriç, R. S eoba Roma. K rugovi pakla i venac s reçe. [Circle of H ell and Wreath
of Luck]. Beograd: Biblioteka P ublicis tika, 1983.
F ras er, A. The G yps ies . Oxford: Blackw ell, 1985.
F riedman, V. A. “Romani and the Cens us in the Republic of Macedonia. ”
-J ournal of the G yps y Lore S ociety, 5th S er. , 6 (2), 1996, pp. 89-101.
F riedman, V. A. “Obs erving the obs ervers : Language, ethnicity and pow er in the
1994 Macedonian cens us and beyond. “ - In: Rubin, B. (ed. ) Tow ard comprehens ive
peace in S outheas tern Europe: Conflict prevention in S outh Balkans . N ew York:
Council on F oreign Relations / Tw entieth Century F und, 1996, pp. 81-105, 119-26.
F riedman, V. A. “The Romani Language in the republic of Macedonia:
S tatus , U s age, and S ociolinguis tic P ers pectives . - Acta Linguis tica H ungarica, vol. 46
(3-4), 1999, pp.
F riedman, V. A. “Romani and the Cens us in the Republic of Macedonia. ”
-J ournal of the G yps y Lore S ociety, 5th S er. , 6 (2), 1996, pp. 89-101.
F riedman, V. A. & R. Dankoff “The Earlies t Text in Balkan (Rumelian) Romani:
A P as s age from Evliya Çelebi' s S eyahat-name ” - J ournal of theG yps y Lore S ociety,
5th S er. , 1 (1), 1991, pp. 1-20.
G uy, W. (ed. ) Betw een P as t and F uture: the Roma of Central and Eas tern
Europe. H atfield: U nivers ity of H ertfords hire P res s , 2001.
Liegeois , J . -P . Roma, G yps ies , Travellers . S tras bourgh: Council of Europe,
1994.
Lutovac, M. “O Romima u Crnoi G ori. ” [About Roms in Montenegro] - G las nik
Etnografs kog ins tituta S AN U (Belgrade), 26, 1977, pp. 119-38.
Lutovac, M. Romi u Crnoi G ori. [Roms in Montenegro]. Ivangrad, 1987.
Marus hiakova, E. & P opov, V. “Myth as proces s . ” - In: Acton, T. (ed. )
S cholars hip and the G yps y s truggle: Commitment in Romani s tudies . H atfield:
U nivers ity of H ertfords hire P res s , 2000, pp. 71-83.
Marus hiakova, E. & P opov, V. G yps ies in the Ottoman Empire. H atfield:
U nivers ity of H ertfords hire P res s , 2001.
Marushiakova, E. & Popov, V. “Historical and Ethnographic Backgraund. Gypsies, Roma,
Sinti” - In: Will Guy (Ed.) Between Past and Future: the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hatfield:
University of Hertfordshire Press, pp. 33-53.
Meneks he, S h. , & all. “P olozaj Roma u S ocijalis tickoj s amoupravnoj pokrajini
K os ovo. ” - Romano allav (P rizren), 1, 1972, pp. 35-43.
Mirga, A. & G eorge, N . The Roma in the Tw enty-F irs t Century: A P olicy
P aper. P rinceton: P roject on Ethnic Relations , 1997.
Mujiç, M. “P olozaj Cigana v J ugos lovens kim zemljama pod Otomans kom
vlas çu. ” [The Conditions of G yps ies in Yugos lavian Lands During the Ottoman Rule]. P rilozi za Orientalnu F ilologiju (S araevo) 3-4 (1952-1953): 137-93.
4
Müller S . “Zur S ituation der Roma in K os ovo. ” - S üdos teuropa. Zeits chrift für
G egenw arts fors chung, 48. J ahrgang, H eft 9-10, 1999, pp. 506 - 19.
N edelkoviç, D. “Dias pora, razvoi i mezduetnicke uloge etnickih grupa Roma na
K os ovo. ” - Obelezja (P ris tina), 6 (6), 1976, pp. 5-15.
Olms tead, A. T. H is tory of the P ers ian Empire. Chicago, 194
P latform for J oint Action Regarding K os ovar Roma, As hkalija and Egyptian
Communities . Office of the Deputy S pecial Repres entative of the S ecretary-G eneral to
K os ovo for humanitarian affairs . P ris tina, 12 April 2000.
Ragaru, N . “Les avatars d l’aide internationale dans les Balkans . ” - La Revue
internationale et s trategique, 40, 2000, pp. 49-66.
Report on the joint field mis s ion by the U nited N ations H igh Commis s ioner for
Refugees (U N H CR) and the Organization for S ecurity and Co-operation in Europe
(OS CE) on 26 J uly 1999.
Report on the joint OS CE/ODIH R-Council of Europe field mis s ion on the
s ituation of Roma/G yps ies in K os ovo. 27 J uly-6 Augus t 1999.
Ris tes ki, S . N arodni prikazni, predanija i obichai kaj Egipkanite / Egjupcite vo
Makedonija. Ohrid: N ikola K os tes ki, 1991.
Roma, As hkali and K os ovo Egyptians require effective meas ures for their
protection. Oral S tatement of the S ociety for Threatened P eoples . 57th S es s ion
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Dis crimination /Thematic Dis cus s ion on Roma.
CERD, 2000.
S oulis , G . C. “The G yps ies in the Byzantine Empire and the Balkans in the late
Middle Age. ” - Dumbarton Oaks P apers , 15 (1961): 143-65.
U pdate on the S ituation of Ethnic Minorities in K os ovo (P eriod covering
F ebruary through May 2000). U N H CR/OS CE, 2000.
Vukanoviç, T. “The P os ition of Women among G yps ies in the K os ovo-Metohia
region. ” - J ournal of the G yps y Lore S ociety, 40 (3-4), 1961, pp. 81-99.
Vukanoviç, T. “G yps y pilgrimages to the monas tery of G racanica in S erbia. ” J ournal of the G yps y Lore S ociety, 45 (1-2), 1966, pp. 17-26.
Vukanoviç, T. Romi (Cigani) u J ugos laviji. [Roms (G yps ies ) in Yugos lavia].
Vranie: N ova Yugos lavia, 1983.
Woodw ard, S . Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Dis s olution After the Cold War
Brookings , 1995.
Zemon, R. (ed. ). Zbornik na trudovi za etnogenezata na egiptanite vo
Makedonia. [Collection of Works on Ethnogenes is of the Egyptians in Macedonia].
S kopje: Logos -T, 1996.
Zirojeviç, O. “Cigani u S rbii od dolas ka Turaka do kraja 16 veka. ” [G yps ies in
S erbia from the Arrival of the Turks until the End of the 16th c. ]. - J ugos lovens ki
is torijs ki cas opis (Beograd) 1-2 (1976): 67-77.
Zirojeviç, O. “Romi na podruciu danas ne J ugos lavie u vreme turs ke vladavine. ”
[Roma in the Lands of P res ent Day Yugos lavia during the Turkis h G overnment]. G las nik Etnolos hkog muzeja (Beograd) 45 (1981): 225-45.
Zülch, T. Bis der letzte “Zigeuner” das Land verlas s en hat.
Mas s envertreibung der Roma und As chkali aus dem K os ovo. G öttingen: G es ells chaft
für bedrohte Völker, 1999.
650 J ahre Roma-K ultur im K os ovo und ihre Vernichtung: Das P rogrom.
K öln: Rom e. V. , 2000
4