History of Roma in Hungary

02chapters.qxd 2007.03.
22 12:48 AM Page 1
István Kemény
HISTORY OF ROMA IN HUNGARY
Arrival of Roma in Hungary
We do not know exactly when Roma arrived in Hungary. In recent

decades the historical literature has identified the earliest source
relating to Roma as a document dating from 1416: the municipal
accounts book [városi számadáskönyv] of Brassó mentions a dona-
tion of food to Mr. Emmaus, an Egyptian, and his fellows. This
Egyptian, Mr. Emmaus, and his fellows were evidently Roma,
because at the time Roma were known as Egyptians.
Viorel Achim draws attention to an even older (pre-1416) doc-
ument in his book Cigányok a román történelemben [Roma in
Romanian History], published in Romanian in 1998 and in Hun-
garian in 2001.
According to the document in question— which was issued by
Mircea Cel Bâtrân, the ruler of Wallachia— a boyar by the name of
Costea owned the villages of Alsóvist, Felsõvist and half of Alsóár-
pád in the Fogaras region of Transylvania, as well as 17 wandering
Roma. A Latin version of this document, dating from 1511, has
been preserved, rather than the original Slav text which must have
been compiled between 1390 and 1406 when Mircea Cel Bâtrân
was a vassal of the King of Hungary and the Fogaras region was his
fiefdom. The document indicates that Roma were already present in
Transylvania around 1400.
Roma arrived in the Balkan countries in the mid-14th century,
moving on to Wallachia, where they are first mentioned in 1385.
From Wallachia they migrated to Transylvania. In later centuries
too, Roma came from the Romanian principalities to Transylvania
and Hungary. The other main route led across Serbia to Hungary.
1
02chapters.qxd 2007.03.22 12:48 AM Page 2
2 István Kemény
In a study published in 1974, József Vekerdi noted that Roma

“probably came to Hungary sporadically somewhat before this
time.”1 He cites surnames and place names resembling the word
cigány as evidence of this. The presence of Roma in Hungary in the
14th century was supported by Barna Mezey in a study published
in 1986 and by Péter Tóth in an article published in 1994. Both
researchers drew heavily on earlier publications by Tivadar Lehoczky
and Béla Szalay.
In 1998, based on research by Katalin Fehértói, Pál Nagy
argued that the village name Zygan and the personal names Cigan,
Cygan, and Chygan bear no relation to the Roma [cigány] ethnic
group. Still, Nagy could only surmise about the origins of these
names. Though it fails to prove the argument, his work nevertheless
offers strong evidence that Roma did not inhabit the village of
Zygan in the 14th century and that people with the name of Cigan
were not Roma.
Roma arrived in western Europe in the early 15th century.
According to a book by Angus Fraser, published in 1995, Roma
were seen in Hildesheim in Lower Saxony in 1407, in Basel and
Hessen in 1414, and in Meissen and Bohemia in 1416. They were
spotted once again in Hildesheim in 1417. In the same year, in Lin-
dau, they received a letter of safe-conduct from Sigismund, Holy
Roman Emperor and King of Hungary and Bohemia. Roma were
reportedly seen in Lüneberg, Hamburg, Lübeck, Wismar, Rostock,
Stralsund, and Greifswald in 1417, in Frankfurt am Main, Stras-
bourg, Colmar, Zurich, Basel, Solothurn, Bern, and Augsburg in
1418, in Châtillon (Savoy), St. Laurent, and Sisteron (Provence) in
1419, and in Brussels, Deventer, and Bruges in 1420. In all— or
almost all— of these imprecise locations, Roma presented the letter
of safe conduct received from Emperor Sigismund in Lindau— a
document which Miklós Tomka surmised and Pál Nagy proved to
be a forgery produced or purchased by Roma. Not even a copy of
this document has survived, but Hermann Cornerus’ chronicle,
History of Roma in Hungary 3
written in about 1435, does mention it. Nevertheless, a copy of

another letter of safe conduct, also attributed to Sigismund and dat-
ing from 1422 or 1423, has survived. This second letter was shown
by Pál Nagy to be a forgery. The accounts of the chroniclers tell
how Roma peddlers bearing letters of safe conduct received provi-
sions and donations, but it is difficult to know whether to give
much credence to such accounts.
Persecution of Roma evidently began very early on. They
were accused by the Holy Roman Empire of being spies. Miklós
Tomka states that they were expelled from Germany by the imper-
ial diet [Reichstag] as early as 1479. However, according to
H.M.G. Grellmann, the first expulsion order was issued by the
imperial diets held in Lindau in 1496 and in 1497. The order was
reiterated at Freiburg in 1498, at Augsburg in 1500, 1544, 1548 and
1551, as well as on later occasions. But both Grellmann and Tomka
state that in general the anti-Roma laws could never be imple-
mented.
The example of Spain is even more illuminating. As Grell-
mann notes:
In 1492, the King of Spain ordered the expulsion of the Roma.
But instead of making their way towards the country’s bor-
ders, Roma took refuge in remote places, and before long they
could be seen all over the place once again. Emperor Charles
V hounded them, as did Philip II too. But they managed to re-
entrench themselves in Spain and have lived there peacefully
until the most recent times.2
In his book, Grellmann surveyed each of the European coun-

tries for legislation requiring the expulsion of Roma. He estab-
lished that in all European countries— with the exception of Hun-
gary, Transylvania and Russia— such legislation was adopted, but
that nowhere was it effective.
4 István Kemény
“While it is true that only a few Roma were punished by all

this, nevertheless it added to their feelings of exclusion,”3 wrote
Miklós Tomka.
Barna Mezey was of a similar view: “The states of western
Europe, while never able to expel or (and this is no exaggeration)
annihilate the nomadic Roma communities, did succeed in drasti-
cally limiting their numbers through their measures.”4
The words of Angus Fraser are even more poignant: “Had all
the anti-Gypsy laws which sprang up been enforced uncompromis-
ingly, even for a few months, the Gypsies would have been eradi-
cated from most of Christian Europe well before the middle of the
16th century. This did not happen. The saving feature, as has
emerged repeatedly, was that even the most rigorous penal laws
were often not carried into effect, perhaps owing to silent opposi-
tion on the part of some of the population, or venality among minor
officials, and certainly on account of the defective organization of
such police forces as existed.”5
Historical developments in the 15th and 16th centuries per-
haps explain why the national assemblies (or diets) of Hungary and
Transylvania, in stark contrast to those of the other European coun-
tries, never passed laws against Roma. The greatest problem facing
the region at the time was the expansion of the Ottoman Empire.
The need to defend against the attacks and destruction wrought by
the Turks determined everything— even the policies of rulers, diets
and cities towards Roma.
In 1474, during the reign of Matthias, the Turkish pasha of
Szendrõ attacked and burned down the town of Várad. In the same
year, Turkish troops advanced as far as the River Fekete Körös and
overran Moldavia. In 1476, Ottoman incursions led the town of
Nagyszeben to employ Roma with the task of strengthening the
municipal fortifications. Eleven years later, in 1487, King Matthias
promised in writing to protect the freedoms of the Roma of Szeben.
According to this document, which was addressed to István
Báthori, voivode of Transylvania,

the Roma, that is, Egyptians, living in the seat of Szeben—
who are required to undertake certain tasks for the defense of
the town— have enjoyed, for some years now, the privilege
that none of the voivodes, or deputy voivodes, of these parts,
nor their familiaris, should be permitted to bother the Roma or
extract tax or other payments from them: thus, seeking to pre-
serve the Roma in their old rights and privileges (… ) we here-
by order and command that you at all times refrain from pes-
tering, inciting or burdening the aforementioned Roma, that is,
the Egyptians, and from extracting taxes or other dues from
them (… ).6
Roma were employed not just on the fortifications but also in

the manufacture and repair of arms. Evidence of this is provided by
a salvus conductusa issued by King Ulászló II in 1496 to the
voivode Tamás Bolgár and his entourage. The document distin-
guishes Tamás Bolgár and his party of 25 wandering Roma from
other groups of Roma travelling with other voivodes. Boglár’s
group are ordered to make rifle bullets and other war tools in the
service of Sigismund, bishop of Pécs.
From the early 16th century, the Roma population grew steadi-
ly in Hungary and particularly in Transylvania. After the Battle of
Mohács, the country was divided into three parts. Most of the 16th-
century sources indicating a Roma presence relate to the towns of
Nagyszeben, Brassó and Kolozsvár in Transylvania, the eastern
part of the divided country. In 1502, King Ulászló II addressed a
document to Péter Szentgyörgyi, országbíró and voivode of Tran-
sylvania, offering four wandering Roma in the service of Kolozsvár
protection as well as freedoms similar to those received by the
Roma of Szeben. The document was subsequently reaffirmed by
both Ferenc Kende and István Dobó, voivode of Transylvania.
Meanwhile the document issued by King Matthias in 1487 was
6 István Kemény
reaffirmed in 1583 by Zsigmond Báthory, prince of Transylvania.

According to Brassó’s municipal tax records dating from the
16th century, Roma performed several tasks in the city, such as
repairing the city’s gates and bridges, manufacturing arms and can-
nons, keeping the streets clean, sweeping the market, and clearing
the sewers. Roma also functioned as gravediggers, dogcatchers,
and executioners in Brassó.
Major fields of employment were the manufacture of iron tools,
horseshoes and nails as well as locksmithery and blacksmithery.
And some Roma were goldwashers.
Roma were mentioned in the municipal tax records of Brassó,
Szeben, Kolozsvár and other towns because they paid taxes. The
tax records even tell us how much tax they paid.
The Transylvanian diets also ordered the taxation of Roma.
For instance, a diet convening between September 29 and October
4, 1558, decreed as follows: “The tax on Roma is 1 forint per head.
They should not be subject to irregular burdens by means of their
voivodes.”7 According to a resolution passed by the Enyed diet of
March 10–15, 1560, the “taxation of Roma has been regulated: all
Roma with tents should pay the sum of 50 dinars biannually on the
days of St. George and St. Michael.”8
There was clearly a demand for Roma labor— for both military
and peaceful purposes. Demand for their labor meant that Roma
themselves were in demand. Still, the towns and voivodes required
not just the labor of Roma but also their taxes. Indeed, there were
squabbles about who should receive the taxes payable by Roma and
who should benefit from their labor. This was so not just in Szeben
and Kolozsvár, but also in other places, such as Dés.
In 1552, Ferdinand I issued a document concerning the Roma
of Dés, addressed to András Báthori, voivode of Transylvania:
… As the followers of our Royal Highness, the wise and pru-
dent judge and jury of our town of Dés, as well as it citizens
and residents, have described, our citizens dispose of ten tents
of Roma, who have been serving our chamber in Dés since

ancient times and, as a result of the approval and consent of the
king of Hungary, have been able to freely traverse all counties
of Hungary, and everywhere they have enjoyed exemption
from regular and irregular public dues, whom, however, the
formerly decent Fráter György, bishop of Várad, tormented
with the collection of stiff taxes and services that were not due
to him, resettling the Roma from the town of Dés to Újváros...9
The document then ordered the return of the Roma to the town
of Dés and the restoration of their “ancient” freedoms as well as
their exemption from taxation. Queen Isabella issued a document
of similar content in 1557.
In the late 15th century and early 16th century, strengthening
fortifications and manufacturing weapons were not the only forms
of employment practiced by Roma, for some of them were musi-
cians: “Apart from their metal-working skills, the Gypsies were
acquiring a reputation as musicians in Hungary,” writes Angus
Fraser.10
His assertion was based on five pieces of data. The first dates
from 1489. According to the accounts book of Hyppolit, archbish-
op of Esztergom, funds were granted to Roma who played the lute
on Queen Beatrix’s island (Csepel Island). “We do not know the
exact number of Roma,” wrote Bálint Sárosi, “nor exactly what
was meant by the word ‘lute’(it could have been a tambura or even
a cimbalom). We don’t even know what kind of Roma they were
(Turkish Roma musicians, who perhaps did not speak Hungarian
… ).”11
The second piece of data stems from the accounts book of
Lajos II. On May 3, 1525 the sum of two silvers was paid to the
pharaunes, who played the cythara in front of the queen at the royal
horse races. According to Bálint Sárosi, the word “cythara” may
have meant a violin or another plectrum string instrument, such as
8 István Kemény
a tambura or cimbalom, but it could not have been a zither at this

stage.
The third piece of data concerns the appearance of Roma at the
Hatvan diet in 1525. According to Archduke Joseph and Henrik
Wlislocki the “Roma ordered to appear” were musicians: “With
their music, they soon conquered the sympathy of the nation, so
that at the Hatvan diet of 1525 Roma musicians were officially
invited.”12 Since the original text mentions merely Roma rather
than Roma musicians, Bálint Sárosi disputed that the Roma invited
to the diet were necessarily musicians.
The fourth piece of data is a request for Roma violinists
(cytharedos chyganos) made in 1532 by Pál Bakyth, chief captain
of the Hussars, to Tamás Nádasdy. As Bálint Sárosi concluded, the
cytherados may have been violinists, luteplayers or minstrels.
The fifth piece of data concerns a letter sent to Vienna in 1543
by someone at the court of Queen Isabella. The letter states the fol-
lowing: “The most excellent violinists from Egypt, the progeny of
the pharaohs, are playing here.” On their instrument (the cim-
balom), “they do not pluck the strings with their fingers, but hit
them with a wooden stick, and they sing along in full throat.”13
The above data are cited by Fraser and are also to be found in
Bálint Sárosi’s book entitled Cigányzene [“Gypsy” Music]. Fraser
does not refer to any additional data, whereas Sárosi mentions sev-
eral other items and his conclusion is very different from Fraser’s:
“The data listed do not in any way verify the hypothesis that a
relatively large number of Roma musicians settled in Hungary as
early as the 16th century.”14
Although few written documents dating from the 16th centu-
ry— or even from the 17th century— refer to Roma musicians, one
should also note that few contemporary documents make any
mention of Roma at all. The scarcity of documents and, more
importantly, the dearth of documentary references to families and
individuals, indicate that the number of Roma in Hungary in the
16th century was small. They were not particularly numerous in
Transylvania and were even more uncommon in the middle part of

the country controlled by the Ottomans.
We have already noted how King Ulászló II sent the voivode
Tamás Bolgár and 25 wandering Roma to Pécs. It would seem cer-
tain that the Ottoman advance resulted in the appearance of small
numbers of Roma throughout the southern counties in the late 15th
century and early 16th century. From the 1540s onwards, Turkish
sources refer to Roma
who served the Muslim armed forces and public administra-
tion as musicians, blacksmiths, firemasters, bullet casters,
nailsmiths, swordsmiths, gunpowder producers, weapon pol-
ishers, hangmen, surgeons, soldiers, and guides, or who
worked for Muslim military-civil municipalities in the occu-
pied zone— municipalities that increasingly resembled “the
Balkans.” At Haram Castle, for example, 15 Roma musicians
and 6 Roma blacksmiths were living in 1540. Since they were
in the Treasury’s service, they were exempted from paying
taxes.15
The elaboration of Ottoman sources has shown that, in the

Turkish-occupied zone of Hungary, Roma were relatively numer-
ous in five Sultanic municipalities— Tolna, Pécs, Ráckeve, Eszter-
gom and Buda. But Roma also lived in Szeged, Kecskemét and
elsewhere. “In Buda and in other parts, whole urban quarters were
taken over by Roma in the 16th century,”16 wrote Sándor Takáts.
Following in Takács’s footsteps, László Mészáros wrote the fol-
lowing: “According to the defters, most tax-paying Roma lived in
Buda, where they inhabited a separate ‘Roma town’.”17
Other authors too mention a Roma ‘town’in Buda. Still, given
the number of Roma inhabitants, it does not seem justified to speak
of a town. Fifty-six Roma families were listed in 1546, rising to 62
families in 1559 and 90 families in 1580.
According to Mészáros, the Buda census of 1546 indicates that
10 István Kemény
71 per cent of Roma heads of household still used Greek Orthodox

names, while 29 per cent were already Muslim. However, the fig-
ure of 71 per cent derives from 32 Greek Orthodox families and the
figure of 29 per cent from 13 Muslim families. Based on such small
numbers, it would be foolish to draw far-reaching conclusions.
It was only considerably later that Roma reached Royal Hun-
gary, i.e. the northern and western parts of the country. And they
seem to have been in even smaller numbers than in Turkish-occu-
pied Hungary. Several letters are the only documentary evidence of
their presence to have survived from the 16th century.
Roma, Landlords, and Counties
By the late 16th century or the early 17th century, Roma had nev-
ertheless reached all parts of Hungary. Evidence of this is a letter of
recommendation issued to Voivode Gáspár and his people by Péter
Révai Túróc, county lord lieutenant, in 1608:
The birds of the heavens have their nests, the foxes have their
dens, the wolves have their hiding places, indeed all the ani-
mal species know where their home is, apart from this poor
Egyptian nation that people call gypsydom— nobody can be
sure why, but people go on about this everywhere. Perhaps
because of the brutal tyranny of the pharaoh or perhaps
because the gods so destined, they live their usually sorrowful
lives according to ancient tradition in tents made of rags,
which they erect in the fields and meadows outside cities; and
the old, young, children and infants of the clan have thus learnt
how to put up with the rain, the freezing cold and the swelter-
ing heat outside the walls of a house, to do without any
birthright in this world, not to enter towns, castles, and market-
towns, not to fall under royal patronage, but instead, moving
back and forth between their uncertain settlements, knowing
nothing of economy, having no kind of ambition, and just liv-
ing from one day to the next and from one hour to the next,
they earn their food and clothing by the work of their two
hands under God’s free sky. Therefore, believing that this clan
is worthy of pity, I request you, each one of you, and I enjoin
my kindred, that if ever a group of this Egyptian clan— espe-
cially the holder of this letter, Voivode Gáspár, together with
the Roma who are subordinate to him and strive under his
leadership, including their children, families and chattels—
should come to your lands, your holdings and your estates,
that you please or, in the case of my kindred, you shall, give
them permission to settle in your lower towns, on your mead-
ows and lands, to put up their tents, to bravely practice their
smithery, and that you protect them from all people that may
wish to harm them.18
A letter of safe conduct issued by Palatine György Thurzó to

Voivode Ferenc and his party of Roma in 1616 is almost identical
in wording. Indeed, there is just one small difference between the
two letters. When describing the employment of Roma, the letter
written by György Thurzó does not mention blacksmithery, but
states: “They strive with their own hands, anvil, bellows, hammer,
and pliers for morsels to eat and clothes to wear.”19 Fraser notes the
following: “The document was written in fine Latin, and in the
opening sentences— clearly, not by accident— it cites a verse from
the scriptures (Matthew 8:20).”20
It is the subtle beauty and humanity of these letters of recom-
mendation and safe conduct that distinguish them from other con-
temporary documents mentioning Roma. A further distinctive fea-
ture is that they concern the destitute wandering Roma living out-
side the towns. Other notables also issued documents protecting
Roma in the 17th century: for instance, Palatine Miklós Esterházy
in 1630, Prince of Transylvania Rákóczi György I in 1643, and
György Hononnay Drugeth, lord lieutenant of Ung County, in
12 István Kemény
1661.
Citing research by Kálmán Thaly, Pál Nagy gave an account of
the relationship between the Esterházy family and Roma. Nagy’s
account includes the following passage: “János and Ferenc Ester-
házy provided Roma with legal protection as well as the right to
freely pursue their crafts. They also granted them letters of safe
conduct, so that the Roma could move freely from one Esterházy
estate to the other without let or hindrance from the civilian or mil-
itary authorities at tax and customs offices, bridges or ferries. In the
documents, János and Ferenc identified the main Roma trades as
smithery and barter-trading, adding, in 1723, other trades that were
wholesome. Essentially, the Esterházy family were acknowledging
that free movement would enable Roma to provide artisan services
in villages on the family’s estates, which would provide them with
a living.”21
The documents issued by palatines, princes, lord lieutenants
and feudal lords demonstrate that by the early 17th century Hun-
gary’s Roma population had grown significantly as a result of
immigration and that this increase was to continue throughout the
century. The documents also demonstrate a demand for Roma
handicrafts, in particularly smithery, on the estates and in the vil-
lages. The feudal lords and dignitaries paid Roma for their smith-
ery and other work, and they also provided them with protection. It
is furthermore apparent that like their French and Spanish counter-
parts Hungarian aristocrats were generally sympathetic to Roma.
The documents also contain much evidence concerning the pover-
ty of the Roma. Although Roma were paid for their work, it seems
the amounts they received were inadequate.
In 1683 the Ungarischer Simplicissimus reported on the
growth of the Roma population. “Roma are by nature inclined
towards music; almost every Hungarian noble has a Roma violinist
or locksmith.”22 To claim that almost every noble had a violinist
was clearly an exaggeration: Hungary’s population at the end of the
17th century was probably between 3.5 and 4 million, and one in
twenty men was a noble. But there could not have been more than
several hundred Roma musicians living in the country at the time.
Indeed, the total Roma population could not have been much
greater than 20,000.
Written sources from the 17th century do not just mention
Roma blacksmiths, Roma musicians and the nobles who offered
them protection. In 1624, Szepes County determined upon the
expulsion of Roma from the towns and villages of the county. The
justification for such action was that Roma,
an Egyptian clan, which, due to its otherwise pitiful life of
destitution and vagrancy, and having adopted the habits of
vagabonds and armed itself like a group of bandits… forces
the poor people to make payments, and what is particularly
worthy of contempt, it steals the horses of the poor people,
taking them across to neighboring Poland.23
In 1660, Nyitra County resolved to expel Roma from the

county.
A patent issued by Governor Ferenc Nádasdy in 1670 reveals
that expulsion orders were announced in the counties of Somogy,
Vas and Zala. In the end, however, no attempt was made to imple-
ment these statutes. In the 17th century, only a very few Roma
appear to have settled in these counties. Even today, few Roma live
in the counties of Nyitra, Szepes and Vas.
One should note that until the Ottomans were forced out of
Hungary, the country was wracked by conflict— between Turks and
Hungarians, Transylvanians and supporters of Royal Hungary,
Catholics and Protestants, itinerants and the sedentary population.
And the conflicts resumed at the time of the Rákóczi war of liber-
ation.
Reconstruction and Immigration

14 István Kemény
From 1711 the destitute country began the process of regeneration

and reconstruction. As part of the reconstruction effort, the Habs-
burg rulers— Charles III and Maria Theresa— settled Germans,
Serbs and Romanians in depopulated areas of the country. In addi-
tion to such officially sponsored immigration, there was also a
spontaneous flow of people to vacant or semi-vacant areas around
the country. Some of the new immigrants were Roma. Indeed,
Roma immigration continued throughout the 16th and 17th cen-
turies and became even more significant in the 18th and 19th cen-
turies.
Between 1784 and 1787 a census was held in Hungary and
Transylvania by order of Joseph II.
According to the census, the population of Hungary, less Tran-
sylvania, was 6.5 million. Transylvania had a population of 1.5 mil-
lion, while Croatia’s population numbered 340,000. Together with
the military districts comprising the Banat region as well as mili-
tary personnel on active service, the country’s population was
9,300,000.
In Hungary (excluding Transylvania) the census recorded
43,772 Roma in 1782. Roma thus accounted for 0.67 per cent of the
country’s total population. In Transylvania, 3762 sedentary Roma
families and 3849 nomad Roma families, that is, in total 7718
Roma families, were recorded in the census of 1772. If we suppose
that five individuals were living in each family, this would mean a
Roma population of 38,590. Given that there were in total 302,896
families in Transylvanian, the Roma population in the principality
comprised 2.55 per cent of the total population. In the Banat region,
8072 Roma persons were counted in 1780. The total population of
the region was 450,000. Thus 1.6 per cent of the region’s popula-
tion was Roma. Combining the three parts of the country, Hun-
gary’s Roma population must have been approximately 90,000 in
1780. This was 1 per cent of Hungary’s total population.
Similarly to the situation in the 15th and 16th centuries, the
main immigration route ran from Wallachia and Moldavia to Tran-

sylvania, and from Transylvania to the central, northern and west-
ern counties of the nation. The second route of immigration ran
from Serbia to the southern parts of Hungary. In the late 18th cen-
tury, just over half of the country’s Roma population resided in
Transylvania and the Banat region. These were the areas to which
the new immigrants were coming. Meanwhile, few Roma resided
in the western counties bordering Austria or in the northern coun-
ties bordering Poland.
The Roma immigrants were Romani native speakers; they
learnt Hungarian after their arrival in the country. Within several
generations, their linguistic assimilation was complete and they no
longer spoke Romani. Some smaller groups, however, preserved
their knowledge of the language. In the counties of Nógrád and
Baranya and in the Pilis hills, some Roma continue to speak
Romani (the Carpathian dialect) as well as Hungarian. And in
Szabolcs County and in the Szatmár region, some Roma still speak
the Gurvari dialect of Romani. Transdanubia is home to Sinti and
to Vend Roma— who are also known as “knife-grinding” Roma.
“Enlightened” Absolutism
During the reign of Maria Theresa and of her son, Joseph II, cen-
suses were carried out and records of the Roma population made.
The underlying idea sought to count, record and monitor every-
thing and everyone, to classify the population and subordinate it to
the purposes of the state, to settle all unsettled issues, and to regu-
late anything that was still unregulated.
It was this approach that gave rise to Maria Theresa’s Roma
decrees. Under the decree issued in 1753, the estates were obliged
to designate areas under their ownership for the permanent settle-
ment of Roma. In such areas, they were obliged to assist Roma in
building accommodation; the estates were also to provide agricul-
16 István Kemény
tural land, to support Roma in practicing their artisan trades, and to

secure them access to guild membership. The decree prohibited
Roma from moving from one place to another and from traveling;
and it prohibited the authorities from issuing passports to Roma.
Roma were also prohibited from begging. The decree placed the
Roma voivodes and the general Roma population under the juris-
diction of the village magistrates. It prohibited Roma from keeping
horses. It ordered Roma to wear normal clothing wherever they
were living. The decree of 1761 prescribed that Roma were in
future to be called “new Hungarians” or “new peasants” and that
use of the word cigány should be discontinued. Indeed, people who
used the word cigány were to be fined. The decree issued in 1762
prescribed military service for young Roma males aged over 16.
The decree of 1772 prohibited Roma from speaking Romani. It also
prohibited Roma from marrying among themselves. It ordered that
Roma children should be removed from their families at the age of
four and placed with peasants. The counties were to pay mainte-
nance payments to the foster parents of Roma children.
After the death of Maria Theresa, Joseph II issued a decree in
1783 that served to reiterate and summarize the previous provi-
sions. Thereafter, however, Joseph II ignored the Roma issue.
Maria Theresa’s decrees were clearly impossible to imple-
ment. Landowners were reluctant to grant land to Roma, and guilds
had no wish to accept Roma artisans as their members. The county
diets appeared to support the imperial and royal decrees, passing
them on to the district administrators. In reality, however, the diets
had no interest in verifying implementation of the decrees or in pro-
viding the funding necessary for their implementation. Time and
again, the royal court issued new commands to the governing coun-
cils, demanding they give account of the results. The governing
councils then demanded the same of the counties, while the coun-
ties adopted resolutions but never verified their implementation.
The only real efforts were made in counties bordering Austria,
close to the royal court in Vienna.

In 1783, a new census recorded 30,241 Roma persons—
13,531 persons less than in 1782. The difference stemmed from the
reclassification of some Roma as new Hungarians; they no longer
counted as Roma.
On April 10, 1787, the governing council informed the coun-
ties that Roma were no longer on the agenda and that the Depart-
ment for Roma Affairs had been abolished. It told them to stop pro-
viding for Roma children out of their own funds. Thereafter the
governing council ignored the Roma issue, as did also the diets of
the 19th century.
The Triumph of “Gypsy” Music
The decrees of Maria Theresa and Joseph II prohibited the Roma

from making music, thereby acknowledging the significance of the
change in the Roma lifestyle that began to take place as the decrees
were being drafted. The census of 1782 recorded 1582 Roma musi-
cians and 5886 Roma blacksmiths, but in subsequent years the
number of Roma musicians rose rapidly.
Roma musicians had been living in Hungary since the late
15th century. At first, there were only a few of them, but their num-
bers grew steadily. Still, “gypsy” bands and “gypsy” orchestras did
not begin to form until the 18th century. The first gypsy band was
founded by Panna Czinka. It had four members: first violin
[prímás], second violin [kontrás], bass, and cimbalom. János
Lányi, a landowner in Gömör, had taught Panna Czinka music; the
orchestra was in Lányi’s service. By the end of the century, a whole
series of “gypsy” orchestras had been established. In the initial
periods, they were founded by landowners for their own entertain-
ment. Nonetheless, landowners were usually quite willing to sup-
port public performances, and they took their orchestras along with
them to the national diets.
Bálint Sárosi offers a thorough analysis of developments in the
18 István Kemény
era— which saw the ascendancy of “gypsy” music. Such music

should not be regarded as Roma music, but as music performed by
so-called gypsy musicians, who usually play the works of Hungar-
ian and Roma composers and whose style is acknowledge and
respected the world over as “gypsy” music. Sárosi wrote:
In the early 19th century, the best Roma musicians, led by
János Bihari (1764–1827), won general acclaim; the public
saw them as the representatives of [Hungarian] national music,
welded to the Hungarian national movement.24
Sárosi then noted that Bihari was the most popular of contem-
porary musicians because he knew more than anyone else about
Hungarian musical traditions and was the most effective player of
the tunes that conjured up the spirit of the wars of liberation.
Roma “gypsy” musicians also accompanied their masters into
the war of independence of 1848. After the Hungarian defeat, it was
time for plaintive merriment [sírva vigadás]; and Roma musicians
were in greater demand than ever before.
Roma Population Growth in the 19th Century
According to the census of 1850, the permanent population of Hun-

gary was 12,946,000 while the resident population was 13,192,000.
By 1857, the permanent population had risen to 13,668,000 and the
resident population to 13,769,000. Meanwhile, the Roma popula-
tion in 1850 was 140,000— 1 per cent of Hungary’s total popula-
tion. In 1857 the number of Roma with permanent residence in the
country was about 143,000, or 1 per cent of the total population.
Between 1784 and 1857, Hungary’s total population grew by 47 per
cent, while between 1782 and 1857 the Roma population grew by
58 per cent. Immigration accounts for some of the population
growth among both the general population and the Roma popula-
tion. Nevertheless, immigration was clearly a more important fac-
tor among the Roma population.

According to the 1893 Roma census— one of the most impor-
tant documents in the history of the Roma of Hungary, 280,000
Roma were living in the country on January 31, 1893. The number
of Roma recorded in the census was 274,940. (This is the usually
cited figure.) Still, Budapest, where perhaps more than 500 Roma
were living, was not covered by the census. Moreover, “the census
did not find sedentary Roma” in several towns. The document also
notes the following: “The census left out those who did not profess
to be Roma… Adding in those who were missed, the number of
Roma in Hungary may surely be put at approximately 280,000.”25
In the census report, Roma population figures were broken
down by county. The Treaty of Trianon cut through the borders of
Hungarian counties and districts and various subsequent changes
have been made to Hungary’s administrative boundaries. These two
factors mean that one may only make an approximate estimate of
the size of the Roma population in the late 19th century in areas that
today belong to Hungary. Our estimate is that about 65,000 Roma
were living on territory that still forms part of Hungary. In 1893,
160,000 Roma were living on territory ceded to Romania after the
First World War, about 40–42,000 on territory ceded to Czechoslo-
vakia, and about 8–10,000 on territory ceded to Yugoslavia.
Of the 65,000 Roma living in areas that today belong to Hun-
gary, 23,000 were living in Transdanubia, 18,000 in the region
between the rivers Danube and Tisza (excluding Bács-Bodrog
County, but including the municipality and district of Baja as well
as Heves County), 10,000 in what is today the northern part of
Hungary, including Borsod County as well as retained parts of the
counties of Esztergom, Nógrád, Abaúj and Zemplén, and about
14,000 in what is today the eastern part of Hungary, including the
counties of Békés, Hajdú and Szabolcs as well as the retained part
of Szatmár County.
Minister of Interior Károly Hieronymi, who took up his post
on November 19, 1892, in fact initiated the census. Several weeks
20 István Kemény
later, Hieronymi assigned the holding of the census to the Statisti-

cal Office. According to the preface of the census report, Hierony-
mi’s aim was “to settle, at national level, the issue of vagrancy and
also to sedentarize vagrant Roma.” Nevertheless, the survey was
not limited to nomadic Roma but also covered Roma who “had
already fully assimilated into modern civil society and who no
longer differed from the rest of the population in terms of lifestyle,
livelihood, culture and traditions, disregarding some minor anthro-
pological differences.” The survey also noted housing conditions,
family status, religious adherence, literacy, employment, liveli-
hood, as well as native language and knowledge of other languages.
The head of the Statistical Office charged Antal Hermann—
“an ethnologist known for his studies of Roma”— with elaborating
the data collected during the census and with compiling a general
report.
In several areas the findings were somewhat surprising.
Indeed, the large number of Roma staggered Antal Hermann. He
referred to the 1873 “Roma census” that had been carried out under
a decree of the Minister of Interior. That census had recorded “on
very indefinite grounds” 214,000 Roma. Hermann might also have
cited earlier data.
In just 53 years the Roma population had doubled. Its share of
the total population had risen from 1.16 per cent to 1.8 per cent.
Yet, during this period, the natural increase rate could not have
been much higher among Roma than it was among the general pop-
ulation. Proof of this is that, in 1890, children aged under 14 com-
prised 37 per cent of the Roma population and 36.6 per cent of the
general population.
During the same period, the national population grew by 30
per cent but the Roma population by 100 per cent. This difference
must be attributed to immigration, principally from Romania, a
country with the highest percentage of Roma in Europe. The effects
of immigration were apparent in regional differences in the size of
the Roma population. Whereas in Transdanubia and in the region

between the rivers Danube and Tisza, the Roma share of the popu-
lation was just 0.8 per cent, it was as much as 5 per cent in Tran-
sylvania. In what are currently the easternmost counties of Hun-
gary, it was 1 per cent in Békés, 1.5 per cent in Hajdú, 1.8 per cent
in Bihar, and 2.6 per cent in Szabolcs. The northwesterly direction
of migration is apparent in the figures for Abaúj (2.4 per cent) and
for Borsod-Zemplén (1.9 per cent).
The extent and direction of forward migration from Transyl-
vania are perceivable in the figures. Thus, whereas during the 1850
census, 78,906 of 140,092 Roma (i.e. 53 per cent) were living in
Transylvania, by 1893 it was 105,000 of 280,000 Roma (i.e. 37.5
per cent).
As we have seen, Roma migrated from the Romanian princi-
palities to Transylvania and from there to Royal Hungary. The
migration flows began as early as the 15th century and grew
stronger in the second half of the 18th century and in the first half
of the 19th century. Migration became even more significant in the
second half of the 19th century.
One-third of the Roma recorded in the census of January 31,
1893 were either recent migrants or migrants (or their children)
who had arrived in the country after 1850. An additional 50,000
Roma were descendants of people who had arrived in the country
after 1809.
Accordingly, 38 per cent spoke Hungarian as their native lan-
guage, 30 per cent spoke Romani, and 24 per cent spoke Beás
(Romanian). Other native languages spoken by Roma in Hungary
were Slovak, Serbian, German, Ruthenian, and Croatian. In terms
of the spoken language, there were substantial regional differences.
In the region between the Danube and Tisza, Hungarian was

the native language of 82 per cent, while 8 per cent spoke Romani
and 8 per cent spoke Serbian. In Transdanubia, Hungarian was the
22 István Kemény
native language of 72 per cent, while 11 per cent spoke Romani, 8

per cent spoke Beás (Romanian), and 6 per cent spoke German. In
what are today the eastern counties of Hungary, Hungarian was the
native language of 89 per cent of Roma in Békés, 94 per cent in
Hajdú, 98 per cent in Szabolcs, 70 per cent in Szatmár, and 45 per
cent in Bihar; Romani was the native language of 12 per cent in
Bihar and 17 per cent in Szatmár; and Beás (Romanian) was the
native language of 29 per cent in Bihar and 13 per cent in Szatmár.
In the northern counties, the Hungarian-speaking share of the
Roma population was 76 per cent in Nógrád, 88 per cent in Borsod,
75 per cent in Abaúj, and 47 per cent in Zemplén; the Romani-
speaking share of the Roma population was 16 per cent in Nógrád,
12 per cent in Abaúj, and 29 per cent in Zemplén. In these counties,
the native language of some Roma was Slovak: 8 per cent in
Nógrád, 11 per cent in Abaúj, and 22 per cent in Zemplén. In Bor-
sod County, the native language of 10 per cent of Roma was
Ruthenian.
As far as Hungary’s current territory is concerned, in January
1893, Hungarian was the native language of 79.5 per cent of Roma,
while 10 per cent spoke Romani, 4.5 per cent spoke Beás (Romani-
an), and 6 per cent spoke another language (Serbian, Slovak, Ger-
man, Ruthenian, Croatian, etc.). One may observe substantial dif-
ferences between pre-Trianon Hungary and the country’s current
territory, but the differences are even greater if one compares the
Roma population living on territory that still belongs to Hungary
with the Roma population living in Transylvania where Romani
was the native language of 42 per cent and Romanian was the
native language of 39 per cent; or with the Roma population living
in the Tisza–Maros region where Hungarian was the native lan-
guage of just 5 per cent.
The above is perhaps evidence that most of the Roma popula-
tion living, in 1893, on territory that today still belongs to Hungary
were descendants of earlier immigrants: their forebears had arrived
in the country neither after 1850 nor during the 50 preceding years
but during even earlier periods. However, recent migrants were
clearly predominant in areas where the native language of Roma
was not Hungarian: for example, in Baranya County, where Hun-
garian was the native language of just 53 per cent of the Roma pop-
ulation and Beás and Vlach Roma had immigrated from the Slav
regions to the south; or in Bács-Bodrog County, where migration
flows from the south had added to the relative significance of the
Romani-speaking Roma population (22.5 per cent), the Serbian-
speaking Roma population (38.5 per cent) and the Beás-speaking
Roma population (4 per cent), while reducing the Hungarian-
speaking share to just 34 per cent.
Roma in the Late 19th Century
Roma Settlement Patterns and Housing Conditions
As previously noted, at the end of the 18th century, 39,000 Roma

were living in Hungary proper (Hungary without Transylvania and
the Banat region) while 51,000 Roma were living in Transylvania
and the Banat region. Thus, 43 per cent of the Roma population
lived in Hungary proper and 57 per cent lived in Transylvania and
the Banat region.
According to the 1850 census, 47,609 Roma— 34 per cent of a
total Roma population of 140,092— lived in Hungary proper,
12,121 (8.7 per cent) lived in the Banat region, 780,806 (56.3 per
cent) lived in Transylvania, and 1660 (1.1 per cent) lived in Croat-
ia-Slavonia.
According to the 1857 census, 46,040 Roma— 32.2 per cent of
a total Roma population of 143,150— lived in Hungary proper,
52,480 (57.6 per cent) lived in Transylvania, 12,950 (9 per cent)
lived in the Banat region, and 1660 (1.2 per cent) lived in Croatia-
Slavonia.
24 István Kemény
According to the Roma census of January 31, 1893, 20,905

Roma (7.61 per cent of a total Roma population of 272,776) lived
in the 11 counties to the north of the Danube, 22,197 Roma (8.29
per cent) lived in the 11 counties of Transdanubia, and 22,328 (8.12
per cent) lived in the five counties between the Danube and Tisza.
Overall, 24 per cent of the country’s Roma population lived in these
three regions. In each region, the Roma share of the population was
below the national average: 1.12 per cent to the north of the
Danube, 0.83 per cent in Transdanubia, and 0.81 per cent between
the Danube and Tisza. The Roma population in the eight counties
to the north of the Tisza (today, eastern Slovakia) was 30,076— or
10.94 per cent of the total Roma population. The Roma population
in the seven counties to the south of the Tisza (the Great Plain
region) was 36,336— or 13.21 per cent of the total Roma popula-
tion. Overall, 24.15 per cent of the country’s Roma population lived
in these two regions. The Roma share of the total population was
1.98 per cent to the north of the Tisza and 1.76 per cent to the south
of the Tisza. Meanwhile, the Tisza–Maros region had a Roma pop-
ulation of 35,300 (12.84 per cent of the country’s Roma population)
and Transylvania had a Roma population of 105,034 (38.20 per
cent of the country’s Roma population). These two latter regions
together accounted for 51.04 per cent of the country’s total Roma
population.
Table 1:
The Number of Roma and their Percentage of the County
and Regional Populations
The Number of Roma and their Percentage of the County

and Regional Populations (continuation)
The effect of various administrative boundary changes in the
Region None Grow Keep Both Total

Vegetables Livestock
Budapest agglom. 64.1 0.0 23.1 12.8 100.0
Eastern 45.4 18.5 9.3 26.9 100.0
Great Plain 52.5 5.0 22.5 20.0 100.0
Northern 39.5 16.4 10.7 33.3 100.0
Transdanubia 36.1 18.6 6.2 39.2 100.0
Western* (0.0) (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (100.0)
Total 42.9 15.9 11.4 29.8 100.0
26 István Kemény
latter half of the 19th century should be noted. For instance, Tran-
sylvania’s administrative territory declined from 60,700 square
Budapest agglom. 64.1 0.0 23.1 12.8 100.0
Eastern 45.4 18.5 9.3 26.9 100.0
Great Plain 52.5 5.0 22.5 20.0 100.0
Northern 39.5 16.4 10.7 33.3 100.0
Transdanubia 36.1 18.6 6.2 39.2 100.0
Western* (0.0) (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (100.0)
Total 42.9 15.9 11.4 29.8 100.0
kilometers in 1850 to 57,804 square kilometers in 1876 and 1893.

According to the 1850 census, 65 per cent of the country’s Roma
population lived in Transylvania or the Banat region. If the 1850
administrative boundaries had remained unchanged, 65–66 per cent
of the country’s Roma population would have been living in these
two regions in 1893.
We have already noted that 65,000 Roma, or 23 per cent of the
country’s Roma population, were living in areas that still belong to
Hungary today. Meanwhile, 58 per cent were living in areas subse-
Table 2:
The Numbers and Percentages of Roma
in the Census Categories for the Various Regions

History of Roma in Hungary
27
28 István Kemény
quently ceded to Romania, 15 per cent in areas ceded to Slovakia,

and 3.5 per cent in areas ceded to Serbia. Today, approximately 1.6
million Roma live in Transylvania and 400,000 Roma live in Slo-
vakia.
The stated objective of the Roma census of 1893 was “to
resolve the issue of vagrancy and to sedentarize itinerant Roma.”
The census-takers sought, therefore, to determine the numbers and
describe the lifestyles of Roma that were “permanently settled,”
“temporarily resident” or “itinerant.” According to the census, 89.2
per cent of Roma in the country were permanently settled, 7.5 per
cent were temporarily resident, and 3.3 per cent were itinerant.
The census recorded Roma populations in 7962 (63 per cent)
of the country’s 12,693 communities. Permanently settled Roma
were found in 7220 communities while temporarily resident Roma
were found in 2399 communities. The category “temporarily resi-
dent” meant residence of up to one month in 167 communities, 1–6
months in 659 communities, 6–12 months in 383 communities, 12
months or more in 632 communities, and an unspecified duration
in 543 communities. Thus, by the end of the 19th century, 90 per
cent of Roma were settled.
In the regions to the north of the Danube and between the
Danube and Tisza, as well as in Transylvania, more than 90 per cent
of Roma were permanently settled. Approximately 90 per cent of
Roma were permanently settled in the regions to the north and
south of the Tisza, but the ratio was just 84 per cent in the
Tisza–Maros region where one-third of itinerant Roma were living
and as low as 78 per cent in Transdanubia where the percentages of
itinerant Roma and temporarily resident Roma were twice the
national average. In the Tisza–Maros region— and particularly in
Krassó-Szörény County— a significant factor was immigration
from Romania and from Serbia. Immigration was also salient in the
southern part of Transdanubia and especially in Baranya County. A
general and self-evident observation is that earlier immigrants were
more likely to be permanently settled than were more recent immi-

grants.
As already noted, there were 7220 communities with perma-
nently settled Roma populations. Roma were living in segregation
in 3750— or 52 per cent— of these communities, while in 2784
communities (38.6 per cent) they were living mixed with other
local inhabitants, and in 596 communities (8.3 per cent) they were
living partly segregated and partly mixed. In this regard, there were
significant differences between the various regions.
The majority of the population was Slovak in both regions—
which were ceded to Czechoslovakia after the First World War. The
census findings indicate that in the Slovak-inhabited areas of Upper
Hungary, where Roma tended to live in segregation, Roma were
rather detached from their Slovaks neighbors. As Antal Hermann
wrote in the report: “Relatively few [Roma] speak Slovak, and
rarely do they assimilate to the extent that they no longer speak
Romani.”
In the counties to the south of the Tisza— roughly, the Great
Plain region— there were almost equal numbers of mixed and seg-
regated communities, while in 11 per cent of communities Roma
lived partly segregated from, and partly mixed with, other local
inhabitants.
Between the Danube and Tisza, Roma lived in full segregation
in 41 per cent of communities, mixed with other local inhabitants
in 46 per cent of communities, and partly segregated and partly
mixed in 12 per cent of communities.
In Transdanubia, Roma lived in full segregation in 44 per cent
of communities, mixed with other local inhabitants in 51 per cent
of communities, and partly segregated and partly mixed in 6 per
cent of communities.
In Transdanubia too, there were some counties where the per-
centage of segregated communities was higher than the percentage
of mixed communities. Indeed, segregated communities were more
30
Table 3:
Relatively Segregated Roma Populations
in Two Regions of the Country
István Kemény
common than mixed communities in the counties of Baranya,

Komárom and Vas. Antal Hermann noted that German tended to be
the dominant native language in districts where Roma lived in seg-
regation. In Transdanubia, this was especially true in the districts of
Felsõõr, Kõszeg and Németújvár in Vas County.
In Hermann’s view, Germans and Slovaks were more likely to
reject Roma than were Hungarians. Thus Roma were more inclined
to live among Hungarians than they were among Germans or Slo-
vaks. But Roma mixed even more easily with Ruthenes and Roma-
nians. For instance, in the counties of Bihar and Szatmár, mixed
communities were more common than segregated communities in
the predominantly Romanian districts, but they were less common
in the predominantly Hungarian districts. Such analysis, however,
could not explain differences between predominantly Hungarian
districts and counties. For instance, it could not say why, in the
region between the Danube and Tisza, mixed communities were
more numerous than segregated communities in the counties of
Bács-Bodrog, Csongrád and Pest-Pilis-Solt-Kiskun but less numer-
ous in the counties of Heves and Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok. Nor could
it explain why, in the region to the south of the Tisza, mixed com-
munities were more numerous in the counties of Békés and Hajdú
but less numerous in Szabolcs County.
Further, the native language of the majority population could
not explain the differences between the three Szekler counties in
Transylvania. In Csík County, Roma were present in each commu-
nity, and everywhere they lived mixed with other local inhabitants.
But in Háromszék County, Roma lived in segregation in 42 com-
munities, mixed with other local inhabitants in 39 communities (42
per cent), and partly segregated and partly mixed in 12 communi-
ties (13 per cent). Meanwhile, in Udvarhely County, Roma lived in
segregation in 41 communities (30 per cent), mixed with other local
inhabitants in 57 communities (50 per cent), and partly segregated
and partly mixed in 16 communities (14 per cent).
32 István Kemény
Evidently, the native language of the local majority population

did not determine the extent of the residential segregation of Roma.
Antal Hermann identified other social factors underlying segrega-
tion. “There are villages in which some Roma, usually those work-
ing in the more disdained or filthy trades, live in segregation, while
those working in more respected and clean trades tend to live dis-
persed among other local inhabitants.” The methods employed in
the 1893 census did not, however, make it possible to categorize
whole Roma communities as either “disdained/filthy” or “respect-
ed/clean.”
In this regard, the census report’s analysis of housing condi-
tions represents a point of reference— albeit an inadequate one. The
analysis and accompanying table tell us how many permanently
settled Roma were living in proper housing in the various regions:
77 per cent in Transdanubia, 73 per cent between the Danube and
Tisza, 72 per cent in Transylvania and the Tisza–Maros region, 49
per cent to the south of the Tisza, 43 per cent to the north of the
Tisza, and 39 per cent to the north of the Danube. The remaining
Roma population lived in shacks, tents, hovels, etc.
As far as Hungary’s current territory is concerned, mixed com-
munities were more common than segregated communities at the
time of the Roma census of 1893. We may therefore conclude that
Roma were more likely to be living among non-Roma in 1893 than
they were in either 1971 or 2003.
Employment and Livelihood
Of 275,000 Roma recorded in the 1893 census, 101,000 were

aged under 16 years. Wage-earners accounted for 143,000 of
174,000 adults, while there were 18,000 homemakers and 13,000
unemployed. This latter group included those who were recorded
by the census as making a living through begging, sooth-saying,
fortune-telling, quackery, theft, and loafing.
Among the wage-earners, 50,506 were working in industry

and 4453 in commerce. There were roughly 17,000 musicians,
5847 farm-workers, and 64,190 day-laborers. The latter two cate-
gories must have been a rather arbitrary distinction. Most Roma
lived in villages, on the outskirts of villages or in isolated Roma
settlements. Accordingly, almost all Roma day-laborers must have
been working in agriculture, occasionally performing odd jobs for
other villagers, who then paid them in kind. But such odd jobs
could only have been secondary to the real work of the day labor-
ers, which was first and foremost seasonal agricultural labor: hoe-
ing in the maize, potato, sugarbeet and vegetable fields, reaping,
swath-laying, threshing, assisting in treading the corn, corn-crush-
ing, gathering of turnips, picking paprika and tomatoes, fruit and
vine harvest, pruning and hoeing the vineyard, sheep-shearing,
force-feeding geese, and plucking feathers.
In addition to paid work in agriculture, the day-laborers also
undertook other kinds of work. “They will do anything and they are
good for anything,” wrote Lajos Kiss of the day laborers. “The day-
laborers are in the most uncertain position; they are lucky to find
work on 200 days in any given year.”26
Those lucky enough to find work on 200 days in a given year
were unlikely to have been Roma, who usually found work on far
fewer days. In winter, work was practically unavailable— as is the
case even today. In spring, work was scarce. The most work was to
be had in summer and autumn: harvesting, threshing and treading
in summer; corn-crushing, collecting turnips, clearing, storing in
pits, and vine-harvesting in autumn. Wages were also higher in
summer and autumn. Indeed, day-laborers— both Roma and non-
Roma— earned their food for the whole year during the summer
and autumn months.
Of approximately 64,000 day-laborers, 28,000 were men and
34,000 were women. Many of the latter came from families where
the menfolk were working in industry. In such cases, just a part of
34 István Kemény
the family’s livelihood— usually a minor part— stemmed from day

labor. Large families limited the extent to which women could par-
ticipate in day labor or undertake any other kind of paid work. In
this respect, Roma day-laborers were no different from the other
day laborers. “In most large families,” wrote Lajos Kiss “the
women are permanently pregnant; if their husbands merely touch
their hats, they fall pregnant.”27 Large families with many children
were the norm among non-Roma day-labourers, farmworkers and
other rural poor. Indeed, until the Second World War and even
afterwards, children were just as numerous in the non-Roma fami-
lies as they were in Roma families.
The total number of farmworkers and day-laborers was
70,000. In other words, almost 50 per cent of the 143,000 Roma
wage-earners worked mainly or principally in agriculture. Never-
theless, it would be a mistake to conclude that, in 1893, 50 per cent
of the livelihood of Roma stemmed from agriculture. As we have
noted already, the earnings of some of the 34,000 female day-labor-
ers were supplementary earnings. Moreover, the large number of
children restricted the work and earnings of women. It seems there-
fore sensible to examine, in addition to the employment distribu-
tion of the total population, the employment distribution of male
wage-earners.
Of approximately 85,000 male wage-earners, 32,000 (or 38
per cent) were farmworkers or day-laborers. If our goal is to esti-
mate the extent to which the livelihoods of Roma stemmed from
agriculture, then this ratio was probably very close to reality.
It would seem reasonable to proceed in a similar manner with
regard to industrial workers. The 50,000 Roma working in industry
represented 35 per cent of a total number of 143,000 wage-earners.
Among male wage-earners, however, the percentages are different.
Of 85,000 male wage-earners, 33,930 (39.9 per cent) were working
in industry. Thus, a little less than one half of the sum of livelihoods
of Roma tended to stem from industry rather than from agriculture.
In this respect, Roma differed significantly from the country’s other

inhabitants. At the time of the census, industrial workers comprised
54.5 per cent of the general population but just 18.4 per cent of the
Roma population. Moreover, importantly and significantly, there
were 171 women workers for every 1000 men among the general
population but as many as 487 women for every 1000 men among
the Roma population.
In his analysis of the employment of Roma in industry, Antal
Hermann distinguished between jobs performed exclusively, main-
ly or mostly by men and jobs performed mainly or exclusively by
women. The statistical tables only partly show this distinction.
According to the statistics, jobs performed mainly or almost exclu-
sively by women included rope- and brush-making. Thus, among
Roma, almost all the rope-, string-, brush-, and limebrush-makers
were women (4135 women from 4163 persons). Jobs performed
exclusively by women included the making of lace, spinning,
weaving, needlework, working in a tobacco factory, white-wash-
ing, washing, and plucking (2938 persons in total).
According to the statistics, jobs performed mainly by men
included the metal-work trades. The tinsmiths (60 persons), bell-
makers (41), knife-makers, knife-sharpeners (43), spoilers (175),
coppersmiths (81) were all men, while the locksmiths (217 from
221) and gimlet-makers (370 from 380) were almost all men. How-
ever, the largest group comprised the blacksmiths: 12,749 persons.
As Antal Hermann wrote: “The blacksmiths are the most numer-
ous, comprising 36.5 per cent of Roma men working in industry
and 22.5 per cent of the all the blacksmiths in the country (whose
number the census of 1891 indicated as 7146 under the category of
domestic or cottage industry and 47,710 under the category of reg-
ular industry). For centuries they have been practicing this craft,
which is so vital to the farmer. The guilded blacksmiths of the
towns have quarreled with them, but in the villages and poorer rural
areas they are almost irreplaceable. In many places, they are the
36 István Kemény
contracted blacksmiths of the village and live in the local forge

house. A far greater number of women than the 379 shown in the
statistics are involved in the work of the blacksmiths. As spouses,
they help the head of the family in his work, performing auxiliary
tasks— in which their children help out. Apart from the musicians,
the blacksmiths are the most popular and attractive figures in the
Roma population and may be regarded as the most useful and
respectable element.”28
Roma blacksmiths were most numerous in Transylvania, fol-
lowed by the region to the east of the Tisza and then the northern
part of the country. The smallest numbers were recorded in the
region between the rivers Danube and Tisza and in Transdanubia.
As Antal Hermann observed, the lower a region’s level of econom-
ic development, the higher its number and share of Roma black-
smiths.
We discover something rather similar in earlier periods, too. A
majority of Roma heads of family and Roma men in general were
blacksmiths at the time of the census in 1782— i.e. when the coun-
try was less developed and poorer than it was in 1893. At that time,
the number of Roma blacksmiths was almost four times higher than
the number of Roma musicians.
During the 111 years between the two censuses, rather than
decline, the number of Roma blacksmiths actually doubled. Never-
theless, their share of the Roma population and their relative sig-
nificance diminished substantially, because, during the same peri-
od, the total Roma population increased sevenfold and the number
of Roma musicians by a factor of 10.5.
In addition to almost 13,000 blacksmiths, there were also 1661
nailsmiths whose separate classification was, as Antal Hermann
concludes, “not always consistent.” According to the census,
female nailsmiths numbered just 36, although in fact women were
involved in the work of the men in the same way as they were
among the blacksmiths. Nailsmiths were relatively numerous in the
northern counties.
Blacksmiths were predominant among the Roma population

from the early 15th century onwards. Their role became slightly
less dominant in the 18th century. Hungary’s subsequent industri-
alisation in the second half of the 19th century reduced the signifi-
cance of both blacksmiths and nailsmiths, particularly in the more
developed regions.
The kettle-making and kettle-mending profession probably
emerged among Roma in Hungary in the 18th century. Vlach
Roma, or Kalderash Roma to be more precise, brought it to the
country. In 1893, 2077 kettle-makers (including 139 women) were
recorded by the census, principally in the Tisza–Maros region and
in Transylvania. Half of the kettlemakers were settled Roma, one in
three were nomadic Roma, and one in six were classed as “long-
term residents.”
The “advance guard” of Beás-speaking trough- and spoon-
makers arrived in Transdanubia in the 18th century. Larger num-
bers immigrated in the 19th and 20th centuries. At the time of the
census, they numbered 5147 (3808 men and 1339 women). They
arrived in historical Hungary from two different directions: they
came from Croatia to the counties of Baranya, Somogy, Tolna; and
they came from the Romanian principalities to Transylvania and
the Tisza–Maros region and then to the counties adjacent to Tran-
sylvania. Antal Hermann wrote the following about them: “In
forested areas, usually at the site of wood production, they use
primitive tools to make basic wooden utensils for the lower class-
es. Their work benefits the public to the extent that in many poorly
accessible places, to which it would barely be profitable to supply
wood, they sell products from the forest, offering a fair price or
other consideration to the owners, and they make a decent living
from their work.”
The census divided the wood workers into two groups: mak-
ers of wooden spoons and makers of wooden troughs. Hermann
wrote the following about the latter group: “Long-term residence is
38 István Kemény
suited to making troughs. Groups functioning as business co-oper-

atives stay in one place until they have used up the available raw
material and have satisfied demand for their products in the area.
The right bank of the Danube offers the trough-makers the most
suitable types of wood and the best markets.”29 Hermann was also
aware that there were no Roma wooden workers in the heavily
wooded areas of the northern part of the country. His explanation
was that in such regions “most of the inhabitants (Slovaks and
Ruthenians) cover their own needs by means of the domestic wood
industry.”
In this regard, it is worth noting Gábor Havas’s conclusion that
as the peasants began to produce goods and to become part of bour-
geois society, so “in the social distribution of labor, the Roma spe-
cialized increasingly in the production of appliances and the provi-
sion of services which the self-reliant peasant farms had previous-
ly provided for themselves.”30 Havas then classifies wood workers,
as well as those working with reeds or wicker, as people working
in such trades.
Let us now examine this latter group. In 1893 there were 74
matting- and bag-weavers, 963 basket-weavers, 1036 broom-mak-
ers, and 767 sieve-makers. The total number of Roma working with
reeds or wicker was 2840 (1633 men and 1207 women).
Far more important than work with wood, reed or wicker and
only slightly less important than metalwork was work associated
with construction: plastering and mudding, firing bricks and tiles,
making adobe, and stonemasonry. At the time of the census, 9385
men and 6010 women (in total 15,395 persons) were involved in
such work.
Roma were involved in plastering, mudding and adobe-mak-
ing as early as the 18th century. But the increase in the number of
adobe-makers and the importance of adobe-making was particular-
ly great in the second half of the 19th century.
The 50 years after the Austro–Hungarian Compromise of
1867 were a time of growth and construction. The development

and expansion of small towns and villages created a demand for
adobe-making. (Three-quarters of the country’s population lived
in places where adobe, wood and reed were the typical construc-
tion materials.)
Ferenc Erdei has shown how adobe-making is a regular indus-
trial enterprise. It requires expertise just like walling, thatching,
brick-laying. Nevertheless, “the science of the craft is not studied
during prescribed terms as apprentice and assistant, nor can an
examination be taken in it. Instead, just as a farmer learns how to
farm, so adobe-making is learned from tradition and practice.”31
Adobe-making was seasonal work available from spring until
autumn. As Gábor Havas notes “Even during the season, there
would not be enough work where they were living, so the adobe-
makers were forced to move around.”32
In the winter months, Roma adobe-makers had to make do on
whatever they had put aside from spring until autumn. They
worked on other jobs, too: for instance, from spring until autumn,
they worked as agricultural day laborers; in winter they did a vari-
ety of jobs such as basket weaving, odd jobs around the house, and
even music-making.
Roma families typically had several sources of income, and
they had to select among them as the opportunities arose.
The exceptions were Roma musicians— or at least those musi-
cians who were licensed and had steady livelihoods. But such musi-
cians were rare. Antal Hermann also esteemed them: “The musi-
cians are, among the Roma population too, highly respected group.
They form a class that is the most distinguished in every respect;
they are the most intelligent and the most significant as far as the
nation is concerned.”33 As Bálint Sárosi repeatedly emphasized in
his excellent work, music offered Roma the only possibility of
social advancement. Sárosi also concluded that the peak of “gypsy”
music’s popularity occurred in the mid-19th century.
40 István Kemény
In earlier periods, “gypsy” music had not been so popular. In

the latter half of the 18th century, for instance, little mention was
made of Roma music-making and it was not an important factor in
their livelihood. Still, in the late 18th century, the Hungarian
national movement developed a taste for modern Hungarian and
European music. Only the violins of the “gypsy” musicians were
capable of providing such music.
In the reform era, great numbers of “gypsy” musicians joined
the growing national movement. It was then that the “gypsy”
orchestra style was established. Roma also took part as musicians
in the War of Independence of 1848–49. After the war “plaintive
merriment [sírva vigadás] permitted a heartfelt encounter between
‘gypsy’musicians and the Hungarian upper and middle classes. In
spite of their subservient role, the best musicians gained the popu-
larity and respect of the public.”
The 1893 census recorded 16,784 musician Roma (16,638
men and 146 women), but the true number was substantially high-
er. The census did not include Budapest, where the greatest number
of musicians was living (3000). In several provincial cities (Pécs,
Székesfehérvár, and Szabadka), only nomadic Roma were counted.
The authorities in Gyõr submitted merely a general description of
Roma living in the Roma district of the city. It is thus very likely
that the real number of musicians was well over 20,000.
The musicians were not a homogenous group. Alongside a
small but celebrated group of first violinists and others who earned
well and lived in security and comfort, there were many musicians
who earned money by playing music at local weddings, balls or
other occasional events, and who therefore had no choice but to
work as laborers at other times.
The 4453 merchants accounted for 3 per cent of Roma wage-

earners. There were 1978 men, representing 2.3 per cent of Roma
male wage-earners. Women merchants numbered 2475, or 4.3 per
cent of Roma female wage-earners. Of the male merchants, 1475

were horse-dealers. They were particularly numerous in the Tisza–
Maros region (especially in Torontál County) and in the region
between the rivers Danube and Tisza (especially in Pest-Pilis-Solt-
Kiskun County).
All things considered, at the time of the 1893 census, the situ-
ation of Roma was significantly better than it had been in earlier
decades or centuries. Economic historians have calculated that
Hungary’s national income doubled or even tripled between 1867
and 1900. This growth had a tangible effect on Roma livelihoods.
As already noted, there was a greater demand for adobe and bricks.
Even more importantly, there was a steady increase in the number
of landowners, middle-class citizens and peasant farmers who
could afford to invite “gypsy” musicians to play at weddings and
other celebrations and festivals.
Nevertheless, opportunities were unequally distributed around
the country. In the region between the rivers Danube and Tisza,
10.6 per cent of the 7400 male wage-earners made a living from
primary production or day labor (the national figure was 38 per
cent), 28 per cent from industry (the national figure was 39.9 per
cent), 8.7 per cent from commerce (the national figure was 2.3 per
cent), 52.5 per cent as musicians (the national figure was 19.3 per
cent, or 23 per cent after the adjustment explained above). The
share of blacksmiths was just 5 per cent, compared with a national
figure of 15 per cent. One should also note that 23.4 per cent of the
country’s “gypsy” musicians lived in the region between the rivers
Danube and Tisza.
In Transdanubia, 21.5 per cent of male wage-earners made a
living from primary production and day labor, 37 per cent from
industry, 4 per cent from commerce, and 37 per cent as musicians.
Blacksmiths accounted for 10 per cent of male wage-earners, a
higher proportion than in the region between the Danube and Tisza
but still below the national average. As in the region between the
42 István Kemény
Danube and Tisza, the blacksmiths gradually shifted to music-mak-

ing— a process accompanied by a language shift from Romani to
Hungarian.
Roma musicians living in this part of the country accounted
for 12.5 per cent of the national “gypsy” musician population.
In the region to the east of the Tisza, i.e. the counties of Békés,
Bihar, Hajdú, and Szabolcs, as well as half of the county of Szat-
már, 15.6 per cent of 6834 male wage-earners made a living from
primary production and day labor, 56.6 per cent from industry, 2.9
per cent from commerce, and 24.6 per cent as musicians. The share
of blacksmiths in the region was 21.2 per cent, a significantly high-
er rate than the national average. The percentage of brick-makers,
adobe-makers, and plasterers also substantially exceeded the
national average. Musicians in this region accounted for 10 per cent
of the national population of musicians.
At the time of the census, 46 per cent of the national popula-
tion of “gypsy” musicians lived in the three cited regions. Analyzed
in terms of Hungary’s current territory, the proportion was even
higher— 51–52 per cent.
Roma between the Two World Wars
After the Roma census of 1893, the next comprehensive although

merely representative survey of the Roma population was made in
1971. The survey covered 2 per cent of the Roma population. The
questionnaire included a question concerning “father’s principal
employment.” The responses to this question provide us with a
rough idea of employment in the period before the Second World
War.
Based on 1971 survey data for parental employment, more

than one-third of Vlach Roma made a living from horse-dealing,
pig-trading, carpet-selling, and other commercial activities. More
than one in four made a living from agriculture, while the liveli-
hoods of 20 per cent were based on kettle-making or other metal-
working. Finally, somewhat less than 20 per cent coupled adobe-
making and plastering with music-making.
Beás, speaking dialects of Romanian, based their livelihoods
on the manufacture of wooden troughs and other wooden utensils.
As Gábor Havas has shown, many Beás were brought by landown-
ers from their Croatian-Slavonian estates to their estates in Hun-
gary. Other Beás, however, came voluntarily to Hungary from
Romania. This second group settled close to villages.
Over time, Beás living on the estates moved closer to the near-
by villages. Both groups soon coupled forestry work with basket-
weaving, partial harvesting, and other agricultural jobs. Between
the wars, a third of their livelihoods stemmed from agriculture and
day-labor.
As far as Hungarian Roma are concerned, we cite the 1971
survey report: “… in the preceding generation, more than a quarter
of them had been living from agricultural work, while more than a
half had coupled adobe-making and plastering with music-making.
Meanwhile, the livelihoods of a small minority were based exclu-
sively on music-making.”34
One should add to the above summary that many other trades
are mentioned by survey respondents, such as nailsmith, building
laborer, rag-and-bone man, and merchant. Moreover, some of the
musicians coupled music with agricultural work.
A majority of Hungarian Roma respondents participating in
the 1971 survey identified their forefathers as Musician Roma and
considered their original families to have been musician families.
How many Musician Roma could there have been between the
two wars?
Based on Miklós Markó’s book about “gypsy” musicians,
Bálint Sárosi writes that in 1927 Hungary was home to more than
12,000 “gypsy” musicians. He adds that at least one-quarter of
44 István Kemény
these musicians were not in employment and that “many ‘gypsy’

musicians in rural areas were not to be included, because village
musicians were generally without work.” Sárosi also establishes
that, after the First World War, many Musician Roma came to Hun-
gary from areas ceded to other states.
When interpreting these estimates, one should bear in mind
that in 1893 more than 20,000 “gypsy” musicians were living with-
in the territory of historical Hungary. Of these 20,000, about 12,000
lived within the country’s territory after 1920. All the musicians
were Hungarian Roma— both in 1893 and between the two wars. At
the turn of the century, 106,000 Hungarian Roma were living in the
country, of which 35,000 were adult men of working age, that is,
most of them made a living from music-making. And the share of
musicians was even greater among those Hungarian Roma who
were living within the diminished territory of post-Trianon Hun-
gary. (The number of Hungarian Roma in this area was 25,000, and
there were 16,000 men of working age.)
In 1927, there were approximately 100,000 Hungarian Roma,
and the number of adult men of working age must have been about
30,000. Most of them had been born in “gypsy” musician families
and had learnt how to make music in the family from early child-
hood. It is worth citing Sárosi once again:
In the “gypsy” music profession, more important than school-
ing and methodology, is that skills should be passed down
from generation to generation. They are more inclined to
undertake this profession rather than any other— even consid-
ering the associated risks of livelihood.
Of course, it would be a mistake to conclude that there were

30,000 applicants or candidates for 12,000 or even just 9000 posts.
Still, it does seem certain that the number of Roma wanting or hop-
ing to make a living from music gradually increased to twice the
previous level and then to more than twice the previous level
towards the end of the interwar period. At the same time, however,
the number of opportunities fell. Noblemen with a passion for
“gypsy” music became increasingly impoverished, while the richer
peasants who had once invited “gypsy” musicians to their wedding
feasts grew less prosperous. Among Hungary’s middle classes, jazz
music and modern dance music became increasingly fashionable.
Throughout the period, Hungarian Roma experienced a painful
deterioration in their situation. They were now simply too numer-
ous for the profession that constituted their livelihood. Not every-
body experienced a downturn, since the best musicians were even
more famous than their predecessors had been at the turn of the
century. Nevertheless, some of those who got left behind sank into
poverty— which was sometimes severe.
The situation of Hungarian Roma also grew worse in terms of
the jobs that were undertaken in addition to or in place of music-
making. As far as seasonal labor was concerned, demand exceeded
supply. And the situation grew worse between the two wars, before
it finally improved in the latter half of the 1930s. Roma black-
smiths— practitioners of the oldest and, for centuries, most impor-
tant trade— continued to decline; by the end of the period, they had
been completely pushed out of the economy. Demand for railway-
track nails continued to provide nailsmiths with a livelihood. The
adobe-makers also survived, but in this area too, the supply of both
enterprise and labor exceeded demand.
Beás and Vlach Roma were similarly affected by a deteriora-
tion in their livelihoods. Large-scale immigration worsened their
plight. Between 1893 and 1930, the Vlach Roma population rose
from 10,000 to 30,000, while the Beás population rose from 4500
to 12,000. Even if the number of opportunities had remained
steady, the population increases would have made it more difficult
to prosper. In fact, however, there were fewer opportunities, owing
to a steady decline in demand for products such as wooden troughs
and other utensils, baskets, brooms, doormats, bags, and kettles, as
46 István Kemény
well as for labor in areas such as kettle-making, wire-binding, and

thatching. Moreover, Beás and Vlach Roma were affected by the
changes in seasonal agricultural work noted above.
The situation of all Roma— of Beás and Vlach Roma as well
as Hungarian Roma— was made worse by the political ideology
prevailing in the country and the manner in which such ideology
was implemented in practice. After 1867, liberal legal principles
held sway in the legislative process, thereby establishing a liberal
system of institutions.
An example of the effect of such principles on the Roma pop-
ulation is the Industrial Act of 1872, which governed the issue of
trade licenses and the conditions for practicing a trade. For
instance, under the provisions of the Act, the authorities were
required to issue trade licenses within three days of an application
being made. If they failed to do so, one could practice the trade
without a trade license. In his book László Pomogyi shows how
some government authorities violated this act of law but also how
their unlawful measures failed to prevent or restrict Roma from
practicing their trades or from being active in commerce.
Very different circumstances emerged and became dominant
in Hungary after 1919. Initially, the rule of law was openly disre-
garded. Later on, the anti-democratic process was continued,
although efforts were made to preserve appearances— particularly
with respect to certain social groups. In both industry and com-
merce, regulation became the guiding principle. Several worrisome
examples of regulation and arbitrary administration may be found
in Pomogyi’s book as well as in Barna Mezey’s collection of essays
published in 1986. Attempts were repeatedly made to prevent
Roma from receiving trade licenses. Where they did receive licens-
es, they were valid— under a ministerial decree of 1931— merely in
the county of residence. Moreover:
When practicing their trade, they must go alone; they may not
keep assistants even if they are peddlers; they may not take
family members along with them; and they may not use a vehi-
cle when practicing their trade.
Another of the many examples is the 1928 decree of the Min-

ister of Interior on raids on Roma communities. According to the
decree,
whether they practice migration in order to avoid work, or do
so under the pretext of looking for work, the forces of public
order are obliged to arrest and detain them where they are
found and then to deposit them at the nearest police headquar-
ters.
The decree stipulated that county police forces should under-

take annual raids on Roma communities, but, as Pomogyi notes, in
most counties such raids were actually undertaken twice yearly.
Pomogyi even publishes a table identifying raids launched in Pest
County in October 1940, which led to the detention of 131 Roma
and the seizure of nine wagons and ten horses. Such foolish acts
clearly diminished people’s chances of survival. But perhaps the
real purpose was to show that one could treat Roma more harshly
than other people.
The thoughts and actions of ministers, state secretaries,
deputy-lieutenants, district administrators, and police offices
reached their lowest point— and with them the relationship between
Hungarian society and Roma. It was only a matter of years before
Roma could be subjected to anything, including genocide.
The German army occupied Hungary on March 19, 1944. The
deportation of the Jewish population to the death camps began
shortly afterwards. The first trains left Hungary on May 15, 1944.
By the end of June, a majority of Jews living outside Budapest—
440,000 people— had been deported. Protests from foreign govern-
ments and German military setbacks, including the Normandy
landings, prompted Horthy, the Hungarian leader, to put a hold on
further deportations as of July 20, 1944. However, on October 15,
1944, Ferenc Szálasi and the Arrow Cross Party seized power.
48 István Kemény
Adolf Eichmann returned to Hungary and, working in conjunction

with the Hungarian authorities, resumed the destruction of the
country’s Jewish population. By February 1945, 50 per cent of
Budapest’s 200,000 Jews had been annihilated. The deportation of
Transdanubia’s Roma population began in November and Decem-
ber 1944 and continued in the first three months of 1945. During
the deportation process, some Roma were murdered close to their
homes by Hungarian military police and Arrow Cross party offi-
cials. In the 1970s, the Victims of Nazism Commission estimated
the number of Roma victims to have been 28,000. In 1992, the his-
torian László Karsai published a book in which he estimated, based
on archival evidence, the number of murdered Roma to have been
5000. If the Germans had won the war, Hungary’s Roma population
would have been completely obliterated.
Changes after 1945
Developments in 1945 enabled the survival of Roma and rescued

them from destruction. The period of limited democracy between
1945 and 1947 altered the relationship between Roma, Hungarian
society and the Hungarian state. While the authoritarian regime of
the pre-1944 period had denied Roma equality and subjected them
to racial discrimination and the 1944 regime had actually placed
them outside the law, democracy declared the principle of equality
and prohibited racial or ethnic discrimination.
Nonetheless, in the economic field, Roma suffered very seri-
ous losses. We cite Zsolt Csalog: “The disappearance of the former
consumer groups in society resulted in the end of the age-old mar-
ket for musicians (even if it did then partly recover in the 1960s),
and the remains of the other traditional forms of employment were
swept away by the tide of history. The colossal and hard-won his-
torical capital of Roma was thus destroyed… A strange contradic-
tion was that while the end of the Second World War had brought
emancipation and removed the immediate danger of extermination,

it had failed to establish opportunities for making a living.”35
Land distribution began in spring 1945. The process marked
the definitive end of the economic and political rule of the
landowners. Both poorer peasant farmers and the rural landless
received land. Roma, however, were left out of the process of land
distribution. Most Roma did not even request land. Apart from a
few rare instances, even Roma who claimed land were not given
any. Land was scarce, and the process of land distribution achieved
no more than create out of a land of “three million beggars” a land
of “two million beggars.” It was quite easy to leave Roma out of the
process— and they were indeed left out, in spite of the fact that
many Roma, more than a third of them, made livelihoods from sea-
sonal work in agriculture.
At the same time, land distribution also served to remove the
job opportunities previously offered to Roma by medium and large
landowners.
In commerce, the restrictions placed on Roma by the decrees
and bureaucratic procedures of the former regime clearly no longer
applied. Still, in 1945 and 1946, commercial activities were still
highly risky and threatened by looting on the part of Soviet sol-
diers. Horses were taken first by the Germans and then by the Rus-
sians. Pigs were taken away or eaten on the spot. By 1947, looting
was no longer a problem, but that year saw the beginning of Com-
munist rule, which regarded private enterprise undertaken by Roma
(and non-Roma) as pernicious, a threat to public welfare, and a
public foe.
Roma Population Growth between 1893 and 1971

Changes in the Linguistic Distribution
50 István Kemény
At the time of the 1971 national survey, the Roma population in

Hungary was 320,000. Between 1893 and 1971 there were sub-
stantial changes in the linguistic distribution of Roma. In 1971 the
native language of 71.0 per cent of Roma was Hungarian, while
21.2 per cent spoke Romani as their native language, 7.6 per cent
spoke Beás, and 0.2 per cent spoke some other language. There
were 224,000 Hungarian Roma (Romungro), 61,000 Vlach Roma,
and 25,000 Beás. Within a period of 78 years, there had been an
almost fivefold increase in the Roma population within the territo-
ry in question. The Hungarian Roma population had increased four-
fold, while the Vlach Roma population had increased more than
ninefold and the Beás population more than eightfold. Immigration
is the only possible explanation for an eightfold or ninefold
increase— or even for a fivefold increase. Many Beás were brought
by landowners from their estates in the south to estates in Hungary.
A majority of them arrived in Hungary before 1914. But immigra-
tion continued between the two wars and also in the period imme-
diately after the Second World War.
Katalin Kovalcsik has identified three language groups among
Hungary’s Beás population. The muncsánok live in the southern
part of Baranya and maintain an affinity with their fellows in Croa-
tia living on the other side of the border. The argyelánok speak the
Banat dialect of Beás. The ticsánok came from the Nagyvárad
region in the 1910s; they initially resided in Szabolcs and Szatmár
counties and then moved to the Tiszafüred region.
A language shift may be observed among those Roma whose
native language was Slovak, Ruthenian, Serbian or Croatian in
1893: Hungarian had become their native language by 1971. Lin-
guistic assimilation thus partly explains the fourfold increase in the
Hungarian-speaking Roma population.
In 1971 a majority of Beás were living in Southern Trans-
danubia: they comprised a majority of Roma in the counties of
Baranya and Somogy.
Vlach Roma came from Croatia-Slavonia to Hungary in the

late 19th century and early 20th century and to a lesser extent
between the two world wars. In 1971, they accounted for one-fifth
of the Roma population in Southern Transdanubia. Vlach Roma
came from Serbia and the Banat region to the counties of Bács,
Csongrád and Szolnok. In 1971 they accounted for 19 per cent of
the Roma population of these three counties. A third group of Vlach
Roma came from Transylvania, or Romania, to the counties of
Szabolcs, Szatmár, Bihar, Békés and Hajdú. Together with earlier
arrivals, they accounted for 22 per cent of the Roma population of
the region.
Before 1918 it was quite natural for Romani-speaking Roma
to move to areas now comprising the counties of Borsod, Nógrád
and Heves. And there were few obstacles to such migration flows
even during the interwar period. László Pomogyi cites a ministeri-
al decree dating from 1927:
Villages near the Czechoslovakian border have witnessed the
arrival of a large number of Roma families who come from
other parts and have never been seen here before; they go
from village to village … From what I hear, the Czechoslovak
state has expelled en masse itinerant Roma from its territory,
who then come across at poorly defended border points,
whence they disperse, primarily in the villages along the border.
The Vlach Roma percentage of the Roma population was the

highest in the counties of Pest, Fejér and Komárom: 24.1 per cent.
There were about 15,000 Roma in these three counties.
In addition to immigration and migration flows within the
country, the period 1893–1971 saw many other changes in the
country and in the lives of Roma. Nevertheless, the differences
between the various native-language groups did not diminish.
A significant change was urbanisation, but in 1971 Roma were
far less likely than other Hungarians were to be living in urban
areas.
52 István Kemény
Table 4:
The Percentage Distribution of the Roma Population
by Type of Settlement and Native Language
There were significant differences between the various native-
language groups in terms of the percentage of people living in iso-
lated or segregated settlements: 65 per cent of Hungarian Roma, 75

Budapest agglom. 64.1 0.0 23.1 12.8 100.0
Eastern 45.4 18.5 9.3 26.9 100.0
Great Plain 52.5 5.0 22.5 20.0 100.0
Northern 39.5 16.4 10.7 33.3 100.0
per cent of Vlach Roma, and 48 per cent of Beás resided in such
settlements.
This was clearly a factor influencing the average number of
persons per dwelling, which was 6.3 among Romani-speaking
Roma, 5.5 among Hungarian-speaking Roma, and 4.9 among Beás-
speaking Roma. Sixty per cent of Vlach Roma, 56 per cent of Hun-
garian Roma, and 40 per cent of Beás lived in families with three
or more children. The number of dependents per 100 workers was
250 among Vlach Roma, 221 among Hungarian Roma, and 191
among Beás.
In 1971, 33 per cent of Hungarian native-speaking Roma, 54
per cent of Romani native speakers, and 57 per cent of Beás native
speakers were unable to read or write.
The Communist Era
A period of forced industrialization began in Hungary in the 1950s.

The process continued in the 1960s and 1970s and was concluded
only in the latter half of the 1980s. In the Budapest agglomeration,
the Northern region, and large parts of Transdanubia, industrializa-
tion created full employment and even resulted in labor shortages,
leading to a dramatic increase in Roma employment.
As a result of this process, by the time of the national survey

in 1971, three-quarters of Roma males of working age (aged 15–
59) were in permanent employment, a further 10 per cent were self-
employed or in temporary jobs, while 15 per cent were dependents.
At the time of Hungary’s census in 1970, 87.7 of males were
active income earners, while 12.3 per cent were pensioners or
recipients of other benefits. The difference between the Roma and
non-Roma populations appeared to be small, but in reality it was
quite significant.
Inactive income earners, that is, people unfit for work due to
long-term illness or disability, accounted for 2.7 per cent of males
of working age. The percentage of Roma males unfit for work was
7.3 per cent. Most of these men could not have been entitled to
long-term illness or disability pensions, because they lacked the
necessary service time in employment.
The student ratio among the male population in Hungary was
8.2 per cent. In contrast, just 0.5 per cent of Roma were students.
Table 5:
The Result of Hungary’s Census in 1970
Thus, the 1960s brought great changes to the lives of Roma
families: full employment was almost achieved among adult Roma
males. Roma families witnessed a dramatic improvement in terms
Budapest agglom. 64.1 0.0 23.1 12.8 100.0
Eastern 45.4 18.5 9.3 26.9 100.0
Great Plain 52.5 5.0 22.5 20.0 100.0
Northern 39.5 16.4 10.7 33.3 100.0
Transdanubia 36.1 18.6 6.2 39.2 100.0
of their livelihood, standard of living, job security, and general wel-

fare. Such progress enabled many Roma families to build
“reduced-value” houses or to buy old peasant houses and thus to
move away from the isolated Roma settlements to other towns or
villages. Some Roma were able to use their own savings to con-
54 István Kemény
struct or purchase their homes, but most of them required loans to

do so. Continuous employment was, of course, a prerequisite for
receiving such loans.
Although there was virtual full employment among Roma
males in industrialized areas, this was not the case in rural areas.
The ratio of dependent males was 5.5 per cent in the Budapest
agglomeration, 4.3 in Transdanubia, and 3.8 per cent in the north-
ern industrial counties. In contrast, it was 10.2 per cent in the Great
Plain region and 15.2 per cent in the Eastern region. In the three
industrialized regions, 4.5 per cent, 5.4 per cent, and 6.8 per cent of
people were unfit for work. The corresponding figures were 8 per
cent in the Great Plain region and 10 per cent in the Eastern region.
Employment differences were far greater among females than
they were among males. At the time of the 1970 census, 64 per cent
of women of working age (aged 15–54) in Hungary were active
income earners, while 6 per cent were pensioners and 30 per cent
were dependents. Data of the 1971 survey showed, however, that
just 30 per cent of Roma women were active income earners while
as many as 70 per cent were dependents. The survey report cited
two reasons for the low employment rate among Roma women: the
larger number of children and the fact that rural areas offered fewer
employment opportunities to women (and especially to women
without school education).
Another factor identified by researchers during the survey was
the limited provision of nurseries and kindergartens. Some areas
had no nurseries or kindergartens, but even where there was provi-
sion, it was generally inaccessible to Roma children.
In 1971, researchers identified two main reasons for the sig-
nificant income differences between Roma and non-Roma. One
reason was the large number of children, while the other was the
low level of female employment. Both factors led to more depen-
dents and fewer income earners within Roma families. As the
research report stated:
The lower the income, the higher the number of children, and
the higher the number of children, the lower the income. An
improvement in the situation of Roma would be both a means
and a result of reducing the number of children, as is already
the case among upwardly mobile Roma families … In most
Roma settlements, the lack of nurseries, kindergartens and
employment opportunities render family planning meaning-
less. Yet family planning is on the advance wherever Roma
have acquired basic housing, kindergartens, and employment
opportunities for women.36
In 1971, 11 per cent of Roma heads of family were skilled

workers, 10 per cent were unskilled workers, 44 per cent were
laborers, 15 per cent were agricultural laborers, 3 per cent were day
laborers, and 6 per cent were self-employed or casual workers.
The ratio of skilled workers was highest among Hungarian-
speaking Roma. Among this group, 15 per cent of heads of family
were skilled workers. The rate was 25 per cent in provincial urban
areas and 35 per cent in Budapest. The ratio of skilled workers was
negligible, however, among Vlach Roma and Beás.
The three language groups exhibited a significant difference in
terms of the contribution made by agriculture towards livelihoods.
Agricultural laborers accounted for 8.8 per cent of heads of family
among Hungarian Roma, 10.5 per cent among Vlach Roma, and
47.5 per cent among Beás. We have already noted the far greater
role played by agriculture in the livelihoods of Roma prior to 1945.
Since most Roma working in agriculture were not granted land
under the post-war land redistribution programme, a smaller per-
centage of them were included in the system of co-operatives than
had been active in agriculture prior to 1945. As the 1971 research
report notes:
Their relative participation rate in the agricultural co-operative
system fell even further in the 1950s and early 1960s. This was
due in part to uncertain income levels, in part to their leaving
56 István Kemény
the co-operatives for other forms of employment, but also in

part to the fact that non-Roma members of co-operatives tend-
ed to be hostile to Roma. Jobs in industry did not just provide
Roma with secure incomes— as in the case of non-Roma— but
also offered them equality. They were accepted into jobs from
which they had previously been excluded.37
Prior to 1945, many Roma working in agriculture were sea-

sonal laborers, while those in permanent employment tended to be
shepherds or livestock-keepers. In 1971, 15 per cent of Roma heads
of family worked in agriculture, but just 5 per cent of them were
members of co-operatives, and 1.5 per cent were plant cultivators,
while the rest were day laborers, park keepers, seedling planters,
forestry workers, shepherds, livestock-keepers, and vineyard work-
ers. Seasonal workers accounted for 40 per cent of agricultural
laborers. Nine per cent of Roma active earners in permanent
employment and almost one half of those in temporary employ-
ment worked in agriculture.
The 1950s and 1960s saw Roma turn away from agriculture
towards industry. Seasonal (mostly summer) work in agriculture
never provided the levels of income needed in order to live decent-
ly throughout the year. Industrialization offered Roma the possibil-
ity of regular and constant income and an opportunity to secure a
respected position in modern industrial society.
Nevertheless, seasonal work in agriculture continued to play
an important role in Roma livelihoods. Most typically, this was the
case where the men were working throughout the year in mines,
blast furnaces and factories and the women took on work as day
laborers in seasonal agricultural work. It was quite common for a
man to take part in the agricultural seasonal work too— with or
without his employer’s permission. During this period, Roma
livelihoods stood on two (or more) legs, and Hungarian agriculture
could not have done without the Roma seasonal workers.
Seasonal work was not limited to agriculture, but covered

other forms of work performed by the rural poor. Seasonal work in
the rural areas of Hungary included seasonal employment in the
food industry (preserves, mills, sugar, and alcoholic beverages),
seasonal employment in forestry, wood-processing, wood mills,
saw mills, and seasonal work in the construction materials industry,
road and rail construction, as well as the itinerant industries and
trades. Roma undertaking such jobs had no land or property. Still,
they were not the agricultural proletariats but— as the 1971
research report referred to them— “freely wandering proletariat.”
They worked in economic sectors with frequent changes in the
location of work— and where labor tended to accompany the job
opportunities over small distances.
This life-style thus links sedentarization with some degree of
movement, and is characterized by the long-term absence of
men— heads of families and fathers. During the Horthy
regime, the relationship between Roma and non-Roma labor-
ers was not constant in the various rural areas across the coun-
try. In some places, Roma and non-Roma comprised a more or
less uniform working class, while in other areas ‘poor whites’
distanced themselves from Roma.38
The forced industrialization of the 1950s and 1960s led to the

re-emergence and indeed dominance of families with absent
fathers— this time in the form of commuting workers. But there
was a significant difference; namely, that commuting workers were
generally working at great distances from their families.
In the 1950s and 1960s, most Roma were subjected to a
process of proletarization. This development amounted to a fall in
status for Roma musicians. According to a statistical table for Jan-
uary 1968, 3670 “gypsy” musicians were in employment, but
Bálint Sárosi argues that the number of part-time Roma musicians
was at least as high or even higher.
58 István Kemény
The process of proletarization amounted to a reduction in sta-

tus for merchants too. As the 1971 research report notes:
Roma with livelihoods based on the horse or pig trade were
pushed out, because on the one hand we slaughtered our hors-
es and, on the other, such trade was prohibited. In recent years,
horse-breeding and horse-trading has recovered, but only a
negligible number of Vlach Roma now make a living from
these activities. Two smaller groups of horse dealers had
switched to trading in automobile spare parts and to fattening
cows, while a slightly larger group had become carriers (or
were involved in the carrier trade as secondary work). Most of
them, however, had found work in industry. The few horse-
trading Roma families who continued to work in the trade
(that is, those who traded horses legally for the state livestock
company or who carried on the craft in wagons as rage-and-
bone men) gradually became detached from the rest of the
Roma population and began to consider themselves as the
only real “Roma.”39
In some counties, commerce and trading were specifically

prohibited, but in others such activities were merely subject to
restrictions— permission was granted, but only within the borders
of the county in question. The carpet-traders offer an example of
this. They moved from Transylvania to Hungary in 1916 after the
Romanian invasion. Calling themselves Szekler Roma and speak-
ing a distinctive dialect of Romani, the carpet-traders settled in the
counties of Somogy, Veszprém and Zala, as well as in Budapest
They made a living from the itinerant textile trade and were also
involved in the cottage industry production of rugs and coarse blan-
kets. The carpet-traders of Budapest found their place in Budapest
society, but their trade license was withdrawn in Somogy County
and they were removed from municipal housing in Kaposvár and
rehoused in barracks. The survey of 1971 revealed an image of a
doomed community.
If commercial opportunities were geographically disparate,
they varied even more over time. Periods of relative leniency
towards private commerce were followed by periods of outright
hostility. The recurring policy of clamping down and then liberal-
izing led, in the 1980s, to conditions that were more permissive
than ever before. The early 1980s saw the publication of Gábor
Havas’s inquiries into the employment transfer strategies of Roma
communities, including the “mobile-initiator lifestyle.” Diminish-
ing markets in traditional areas led Roma to look for other income
sources obtainable by similar means, Havas noted. Collecting
feathers and collecting iron are forms of commerce that could be
undertaken with a horse and cart. The state purchased the feathers
and the iron, while the population bought the goods distributed by
peddlers. The mobile-initiator life-style is based on familial rela-
tions.
The involvement of the family network is indispensable to
acquiring information and making better use of any opportu-
nities … In such communities, extended family centres are
formed— usually around the household of a patriarchal grand-
father. And all of this is pictorially visible: brick houses of
higher quality are surrounded by the shacks of younger rela-
tives (the children and grandchildren).
In the mid-1980s (between 1984 and 1986), Michael Sinclair

Stewart studied the lives of Vlach Roma living in a Roma settle-
ment in the town of Gyöngyös. He concluded that Roma involved
in horse-trading or some other business activity were becoming
more prosperous and were respected by the non-Roma community.
In his book, however, he acknowledged the truth of the following
words written by Gábor Havas: “Roma with such life-styles live
necessarily and permanently on the margins of illegality, and thus
the group is subject to persecution.”
60 István Kemény
Forced industrialization was continued for a decade and a half

after the 1971 survey. During this period the labor shortage became
even more acute, and new jobs were formed even in areas that had
been some way from full employment in 1971. Jobs for women
also became more numerous, and Roma women were more
inclined to undertake regular paid work. The ratio of female earn-
ers (which had been 30 per cent in 1971) rose to almost 50 per cent
in the late 1970s and exceeded 50 per cent in the early 1980s.

Changes in the Linguistic Distribution
The 1993 survey indicated a Roma population of 468,000. Accord-

ing to the 1993 data, 5.5 per cent of Roma non-students aged 15 or
over identified Beás as their native language, while 4.4 per cent
stated that Romani was their native language and 0.6 per cent stat-
ed that it was another language other than Hungarian. These figures
indicate an increase in the share of Hungarian native speakers from
71.0 per cent in 1971 to 89.5 per cent in 1993. In both 1971 and
1993, Beás- and Romani-speaking Roma were bilingual: in addi-
tion to their native languages, they also spoke Hungarian. In 1993
the native-language distributions differed significantly from the
spoken language distributions. Thus while just 5.5 per cent of
Roma identified Beás as their native language, 11.3 per cent said
they spoke the language. Similarly, just 4.4 per cent of Roma iden-
tified Romani as their native language, but 11.1 per cent said they
spoke the language.
After the Political Changes of 1989–90
In the latter half of the 1980s, the employment rate began to fall—
slowly at first, but then more quickly. In late 1993, the employment
rate among males aged 15–59 was 64 per cent in the general popu-
lation but 29 per cent in the Roma population. The discrepancy was
even greater among the female population: in late 1993, 66 per cent
of Hungarian women aged 15–54 were in employment, but just 15
per cent of Roma women.
The decline in employment was accompanied by correspond-
ing increases in the number and percentage of unemployed people
and inactive earners.
At the time of the research project in 1993–94, the number of
registered unemployed was very high in Hungary: on average, it
stood at 640,000 between October 1993 and January 1994. The
number of registered unemployed remained below 100,000 until
late 1990. It then rose to a peak of 703,000 in February 1993.
Thereafter the rate gradually decreased to 496,000 in 1995,
477,000 in 1996, 464,000 in 1997, and 404,000 in 1998. A fall in
the number of registered unemployed is not the same as a fall in the
actual number of unemployed persons, for some of those who are
not entitled to benefits do not bother to register themselves.
In late 1993, the number of unemployed Roma in Hungary
was approximately 57,000. Thus, 8.9 per cent of Hungary’s regis-
tered unemployed were Roma. Males accounted for 37,000 and
females for 20,000 of the 57,000 unemployed Roma. Thus, 9.6 per
cent of the Hungary’s 386,000 registered unemployed males and
7.9 per cent of its 254,000 registered unemployed females were
Roma.
The registered unemployment rate in late 1993 was 12.84 per
cent among the non-Roma population and 49.68 per cent among the
Roma population. The rates were more favorable in Budapest (8.1
per cent among non-Roma and 31.8 per cent among Roma) and less
favorable in rural areas. The worst unemployment rates were
recorded in the Northern and Eastern regions: 17 per cent among
non-Roma and 59 per cent among Roma.
62 István Kemény
According to the ILO definition and based on the labor statis-

tics of the Integral Civil Data Service System, the unemployment
rate among non-Roma in late 1993 was 11.08 per cent— or 13.15
per cent together with the passive unemployed, that is, those who
wanted to work but had given up hope of finding work. Meanwhile,
the unemployment rate among Roma was 37.91 per cent— or 48.19
per cent if the passive unemployed are added in.
We know, however, that most inactive persons are in fact
unemployed. This conclusion is valid not just for the Roma popu-
lation but also for the general population as a whole. In 1982, Hun-
gary had 5 million active earners (or 5.437 million together with
working pensioners). In 1995, however, there were just 3.7 million
active earners (or 3.882 million together with working pensioners).
The difference between the two figures was some 1.3 million. In
1994, of these people, 632,000 were registered unemployed,
100,000 were passive unemployed, and the rest were inactive per-
sons.
Over the years, some people who had previously been active
earners had become inactive. Fleeing unemployment, they took
some form of retirement— a trend indicated by the increase in the
number of people on disability pensions from 500,000 in 1989 to
700,000 in 1995. Other formerly active earners were no longer
recorded, having broken off contact with the labor office after the
expiry of their unemployment benefits and income support.
A third group of active earners became inactive after a transi-
tion period rather than immediately. They went on maternity or
childcare benefit, but when such benefits expired they were then
unable or unwilling to return to work. Finally, after a period on
unemployment benefit, they joined the inactive group.
A fourth group of formerly active earners became inactive

when, having lost their jobs, they started working in the unofficial
economy. Such people were in fact active earners rather than inac-
tive, but they were not classified as employed persons in the offi-
cial statistics because they were not officially registered as such.
Finally, one should also mention the young people who would
doubtless have found jobs in the 1960s and 1970s, but who, in
1993, had no hope at all of finding work and did not bother to reg-
ister at the labor office.
Among the Roma population, such trends were particularly
strong and began relatively early on. This becomes very apparent if
we examine, by age groups, the rates of employment, unemploy-
ment and inactivity among the Roma and non-Roma populations.
First of all we shall examine the non-Roma population, based on
the labor survey of late 1993:
Among 30–39 year-olds, 75 per cent were employed, 11 per
cent were unemployed, and 14 per cent were inactive. Among
40–54 year-olds, 72 per cent were employed, 9 per cent were unem-
ployed, and 19 per cent were inactive. Among 55–59 year-olds, 9
per cent were employed, 3 per cent were unemployed, and 23 per
cent were inactive.
Among the Roma population (based on national research in
1993–94), the same trends prevailed, but there were far higher per-
centages of unemployed and inactive persons. Among 30–39 year-
olds, 28 per cent were employed, 30 per cent were unemployed,
and 42 per cent were inactive. Among 40–54 year-olds, 24 per cent
were employed, 20 per cent were unemployed, and 56 per cent
were inactive. Among 55–59 year-olds, 9 per cent were employed,
3 per cent were unemployed, and 23 per cent were inactive.
The transition between unemployment and inactivity and,
indeed, the dominance of inactivity are apparent among the
younger age groups. Among 15–19 year-olds, 16 per cent of both
Roma and non-Roma were employed, 5 per cent of non-Roma and
11 per cent of Roma were unemployed, and 79 per cent of non-
Roma and 73 per cent of Roma were inactive. There is, however, a
fundamental difference between the two groups. While 70 per cent
64 István Kemény
of young non-Roma were students (including 55 per cent in sec-

ondary education, 5 per cent in higher education, and 6 per cent in
primary education), the corresponding rate among the same age
group in the Roma population was just 25 per cent (including 3.4
per cent in secondary education). Thus, the real unemployment rate
among young Roma aged 15–19 was 48 per cent— with 11 per cent
registered as unemployed and 37 per cent not registered as unem-
ployed.
In late 1993, 58,000 Roma were in work and 57,000 were out
of work. At the same time, the number of inactive Roma was
151,000, almost three times the number of unemployed. Among
Roma, 56.5 per cent of 15–74 year-olds were inactive, while the
corresponding rate among non-Roma was 44 per cent. Among
males, the rates were obviously quite different. There were approx-
imately 37,000 employed males, roughly the same number of reg-
istered unemployed males, and 55,000 inactive males. Thus, 42 per
cent of Roma males aged 15–74 were inactive, while the corre-
sponding rate among non-Roma males was 36 per cent.
The differences between Roma and non-Roma in the field of
employment were even greater among women. There were 136,000
Roma aged 15–74, of whom 95,000— or 70 per cent— were inac-
tive, while 21,000 were employed and 20,000 were unemployed.
Meanwhile, the inactivity rate among non-Roma women was 52
per cent. Of course, one should also bear in mind the large number
of children among the Roma population when interpreting these
figures.
Lack of education may be identified as the primary reason for
the differences between the two populations. Before 1986, a com-
pleted primary education (8 grades) made it easier to find work, but
by 1993 a primary or basic vocational education was no longer suf-
ficient. According to a labor survey carried out by the Hungarian
Central Statistical Office in the final quarter of 1993, the unem-
ployment rate among the non-Roma population was 12.84 per
cent— 2.94 per cent for those with a higher education, 9.91 per cent
for those with a secondary education, 15.55 per cent for those with
a vocational education, and 17.52 per cent for those with a prima-
ry education (8 grades).
A second reason was the place of residence of most Roma. The
unemployment rate was significantly higher in rural areas than it
was in urban areas, and particularly high rates were registered in
small villages. Sixty per cent of Roma lived in rural areas and 40
per cent in small villages. The unemployment rate was significant-
ly lower in Transdanubia and the Budapest agglomeration but far
higher in the Northern, Eastern, and Great Plain regions, where 56
per cent of Roma resided.
A third reason was that Roma were working in industrial sec-
tors that quickly collapsed after 1990. By way of illustration, in
1993 the unemployment rate in the construction industry was
almost twice the national average. And in 1971, 26 per cent of
Roma in employment had been working in the construction indus-
try or on building sites. They must have numbered about 25,000,
accounting for 10 per cent of all construction workers at the time.
However, even in combination, these three factors did not
fully explain the high level of Roma unemployment. A fourth rea-
son to consider would be discrimination, but we were unable to
measure its effect.
At the time of the national survey in 2003, the Roma population

was approximately 600,000. In May 2005, the estimated Roma
population was between 600,000 and 650,000. In 2015, the Roma
population is projected to be between 700,000 and 800,000.
There are various forecasts for Hungary’s population in 2015,
but all of the estimates predict a population of less than 10 million
but greater than 9 million. Thus, Roma are expected to account for
7–8 per cent of Hungary’s total population in 2015.
The period 1993–2003 saw a continuation of the linguistic
66 István Kemény
assimilation of Beás native speakers but a reversal of the language

shift among Romani native speakers. In 2003, 87 per cent of Roma
identified Hungarian as their native language, while Beás was the
native language of 4.6 per cent and Romani was the native lan-
guage of 7.7 per cent.
The Present Situation of Roma
Roma population growth, declining numbers of non-Roma, and

migration from slum settlements, have reinforced residential segre-
gation. In 2003, 6 per cent of Roma families were living in isolat-
ed/segregated Roma settlements, 2 per cent were living outside
such settlements but away from other villages, 42 per cent were liv-
ing on the outskirts of villages, and 22 per cent were living within
villages or towns but in areas inhabited mainly by Roma. Thus in
2003, 72 per cent of Roma families were living in segregation.
In 2003, 28 per cent of Roma males aged 15–74 were in jobs,
while the employment rate was 15 per cent among the Roma
female population.
A major weakness of Hungary’s economy is the low employ-
ment rate.
The employment rate is particularly low among those with no
more than a primary education (8 grades) and it is even lower
among those who failed to complete their primary education. The
majority of Roma thus share in the fate of Hungary’s poorly edu-
cated, although their employment rates are even worse than those
of poorly educated non-Roma.
Data for March 2003 indicate that 82.5 per cent of Roma aged
20–24 have completed 8 grades of primary education. Still, rarely
have they achieved this at the normal age of 14 or 15, but usually
at an older age.
Five per cent of Roma aged 20–24 have completed secondary
education, and just 1.2 per cent are attending college or university.
One in five Roma children who fail to complete primary edu-
cation face long-term unemployment, and a similar fate awaits
those who fail to complete secondary education.
The integration of Roma has been the declared aim of succes-
sive Hungarian governments in the field of Roma policy. A prereq-
uisite for integration is, however, that young Roma should be able
to participate in secondary and higher education to the same degree
as non-Roma.
Notes
68 István Kemény
1. József Vekerdi, A cigány népmese [The Gypsy Folktale], (Budapest,

1974), p. 9.
2. Barna Mezey, ed., A magyarországi cigánykérdés dokumentumokban
[Documentary Evidence Concerning the Issue of Roma in Hungary]
(Budapest, 1986), p. 140–141.
3. László Szegõ, ed., Cigányok, honnét jöttek, merre tartanak? [Roma,
where did they Come from and where are they Going?] (Budapest,
1893), p. 43.
4. Mezey, ed., A magyarországi cigánykérdés … , p. 8.
5. Angus Fraser, The Gypsies (Oxford, 1995), p. 130.
6. Pál Nagy, A magyarországi cigányok története a rendi társadalom
korában [The History of Roma in Hungary during the Feudal Era]
(Kaposvár, 1998), p. 69.
8. Ibid., p. 71.
9. Ibid., p. 71.
10. Angus Fraser, The Gypsies (Oxford, 1995), p. 108.
11. Bálint Sárosi, Cigányzene [Gypsy Music] (Budapest, 1971), p. 50.
12. Archduke József and Henrik Wlislocki, A cigányokról [About
Roma] (Budapest 1894), p. 4.
13. Sárosi, Cigányzene, p. 51.
14. Ibid., p. 51.
15. László Mészáros, “A hódoltsági latinok, görögök és cigányok
története” [The History of Latins, Greeks and Roma in Ottoman
Hungary], Századok (1976): 484.
16. Ibid., p. 484.
17. Ibid., p. 485.
19. Fraser, The Gypsies, p. 148–149.
20. Ibid., p. 148.
21. Nagy, A magyarországi cigányok … , p. 133.
25. A Magyarországon 1893. január 31-én végrehajtott cigány összeírás

eredményei [Findings of the Roma Census in Hungary of January 31,
1893] (Budapest, 1895), p. 11.
26. Lajos Kiss, A szegény ember élete [The Poor Man’s Life] (Budapest,
1981), p.189.
27. Ibid., p. 191.
eredményei, p. 51.
29. Ibid., p. 52.
30. Gábor Havas, “Hagyományos mesterségek,” in István Kemény,
ed., A magyarországi romák [The Roma of Hungary] (Budapest,
2000), p. 88.
31. Ferenc Erdei, A magyar paraszttársadalom [Hungarian Peasant
Society] (Budapest, 1940), p. 127.
32. Gábor Havas, “Korábbi cigány foglalkozások,” in Cigányvizsgála-
tok [Roma Surveys] (Budapest, 1982), p. 164.
eredményei, p. 59.
34. István Kemény, Beszámoló a magyarországi cigányok helyzetével
foglalkozó 1971-ben végzett kutatásról [Report on Research Car-
ried out in 1971 on the Situation of Roma in Hungary] (Buda-pest,
1976), p. 54.
35. Zsolt Csalog, “A cigánykérdés Magyarországon 1980 elõtt” [The
Roma Issue in Hungary Prior to 1980]. In: Bibó Emlékkönyv
(Budapest, 1979), II: p. 291.
36. Kemény, Beszámoló … ,p. 53.
37. Ibid., p. 54.
38. Ibid., p. 55.
39. Ibid., p. 66–67.
István Kemény and Béla Janky

History of Roma in Hungary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

History of Roma in Hungary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

History of Roma in Hungary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

02chapters.qxd 2007.03.

HISTORY OF ROMA IN HUNGARY

Arrival of Roma in Hungary

We do not know exactly when Roma arrived in Hungary. In recent

In a study published in 1974, József Vekerdi noted that Roma

History of Roma in Hungary 3

written in about 1435, does mention it. Nevertheless, a copy of

In his book, Grellmann surveyed each of the European coun-

“While it is true that only a few Roma were punished by all

History of Roma in Hungary 5

Báthori, voivode of Transylvania,

Roma were employed not just on the fortifications but also in

reaffirmed in 1583 by Zsigmond Báthory, prince of Transylvania.

History of Roma in Hungary 7

of Roma, who have been serving our chamber in Dés since

a tambura or cimbalom, but it could not have been a zither at this

History of Roma in Hungary 9

Transylvania and were even more uncommon in the middle part of

The elaboration of Ottoman sources has shown that, in the

71 per cent of Roma heads of household still used Greek Orthodox

Roma, Landlords, and Counties

History of Roma in Hungary 11

A letter of safe conduct issued by Palatine György Thurzó to

History of Roma in Hungary 13

In 1660, Nyitra County resolved to expel Roma from the

Reconstruction and Immigration

From 1711 the destitute country began the process of regeneration

History of Roma in Hungary 15

main immigration route ran from Wallachia and Moldavia to Tran-

tural land, to support Roma in practicing their artisan trades, and to

History of Roma in Hungary 17

close to the royal court in Vienna.

The Triumph of “Gypsy” Music

The decrees of Maria Theresa and Joseph II prohibited the Roma

era— which saw the ascendancy of “gypsy” music. Such music

Roma Population Growth in the 19th Century

According to the census of 1850, the permanent population of Hun-

History of Roma in Hungary 19

tor among the Roma population.

later, Hieronymi assigned the holding of the census to the Statisti-

History of Roma in Hungary 21

the Roma population. Whereas in Transdanubia and in the region

In the region between the Danube and Tisza, Hungarian was

native language of 72 per cent, while 11 per cent spoke Romani, 8

History of Roma in Hungary 23

Roma in the Late 19th Century

Roma Settlement Patterns and Housing Conditions

As previously noted, at the end of the 18th century, 39,000 Roma

According to the Roma census of January 31, 1893, 20,905

History of Roma in Hungary 25

The Number of Roma and their Percentage of the County

Region None Grow Keep Both Total

kilometers in 1850 to 57,804 square kilometers in 1876 and 1893.

in the Census Categories for the Various Regions

quently ceded to Romania, 15 per cent in areas ceded to Slovakia,

History of Roma in Hungary 29

more likely to be permanently settled than were more recent immi-

History of Roma in Hungary 31

common than mixed communities in the counties of Baranya,