Development and institutionalisation of Romani representation and administration. Part 1

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

See, e.g. Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 1–6, 35 and 45.

Melissa Williams, “The Uneasy Alliance of Deliberative Democracy and Group Representation,” in Will Kymlicka and Wayne Norman, eds. Citizenship in Diverse Societies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 124.

For details see Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship: pp. 26–38.

Ilona Klimova, “Romani political representation in Central Europe. An historical survey,” Romani Studies 5th series 12, no. 2 (2002), 104.

See, e.g. European Roma Rights Center (ERRC), Roma Rights in Europe: World Conference Against Racism (Budapest: ERRC, 2001); Max van der Stoel, Report on the Situation of Roma and Sinti in the OSCE Area (The Hague: Organisation for Security and Co‐operation in Europe High Commissioner on National Minorities, 2000); Zprava o situaci romske komunity v Ceske republice [Report about the situation of the Romani community in the Czech Republic], Prague, 1997, accessed 10 September 2002, available from The Czech Government's website, http://www.vlada.cz/1250/vrk/vrk.htm.

See, e.g. Anna Jurova, Vyvoj romskej problematiky na Slovensku po roku 1945 [Development of Romani problematics in Slovakia after 1945] (Bratislava: Goldpress, 1993), pp. 32–92.

The transformation is called partial because in this case we cannot actually refer to a complete transformation, i.e. one phenomena disappearing by changing into another, as today we see modern political Romani organisations co‐existing through various types of relationships (indifference, ambivalence but in some cases also competition or on the other hand co‐operation or even slight overlap) with traditionally organised Romani communities. Besides the trends towards modernisation, there is also a revival of traditional Romani organisation and in some countries such as Romania the traditional leaders have greater authority than the modern ones [see, e.g. Viorel Achim, Tigani din Istoria Romaniei (Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedica, 1998), pp. 176–177].

Directed towards non‐Romani power structures and recognised by them.

The term Roma was not commonly and widely used until the political changes in 1989–1990. Until that time, it was mostly used as an endonyme (an internal community self‐appellation) in the countries of Central Eastern Europe (CEE), except former Yugoslavia [Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov, “Historical and Ethnographic Background: Gypsies, Roma, Sinti,” in Will Guy, ed. Between Past and Future: the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe (Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2001), p. 52, footnote 1]. It was also used by members of the international Romani intelligentsia organised in the International Romani Union (IRU). This article is not the place to explain the difficulties of using a common umbrella name for all Romani/Gypsy groups or the Roma/Gypsy dichotomy. Instead the readers are invited to refer to the above book chapter or Ian Hancock, We Are the Romani People: Ame sam e Rromane dzene (Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2002), Introduction. The first article in the series predominantly uses the term Gypsy as it is the term used by most early sources.

The bulk of this article concentrates on the institutional arrangements in today's CEE where the majority of Gypsies have lived. During the time in question, the numbers of Gypsies in western Europe were minimal and Western regimes did not attempt to integrate them in their systems through institutionalisation of their representation or at least administration. Instead they dealt with them mostly through deportations and anti‐Gypsy laws.

Jean‐Pierre Liegeois, Roma, Gypsies, Travellers (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1994), p. 76. To my best knowledge, only one author has so far argued that Gypsies as a whole “nation” had already developed formal political organisation (with leaders governing more than just their kinship groups) before they entered Europe. In his opinion, before their arrival to Europe Gypsies were already led by “princes” and “counts” (perhaps called differently in Romani) who were subordinate to only one common king whose institution dated all the way back to ancient India [see J. Harmatta, “The Gipsies in Hungary,” in Chaman B. Lal, ed. Gipsies: Forgotten Children of India (New Delhi: Patiala House, 1969), pp. 87–88]. This hypothesis is, however, mostly based on questionable linguistic evidence and is not very plausible.

Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov, Gypsies (Roma) in Bulgaria (New York: Peter Lang Verlag, 1997), p. 155.

Liegeois, Roma, Gypsies, Travellers, p. 76.

For details, see e.g. Hancock, We Are the Romani People, Chapter 11.

For details on Romani law, see e.g. Romani Customs and Traditions: Romani Law , accessed 25 February 2001, available from the Patrin Web Journal, http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/law.htm.

For details, see Ignacy‐Marek Kaminski, The State of Ambiguity: Studies of Gypsy Refugees (Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, 1980), pp. 170–171.

Liegeois, Roma, Gypsies, Travellers, pp. 71–76.

Rarely and only in some groups was this function performed by a female.

Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies (Roma) in Bulgaria, pp161–164.

The dates in parentheses in this and the subsequent headings refer to the period described, not to the whole period of the existence of the empires or other polities.

Note that the practice of collecting special taxes from Gypsies by contracted tax‐collectors had already been established in the thirteenth century [Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov, Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire (Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2001), p. 16]. However, at that time this practice was probably not connected to further administration and jurisdiction.

Harmatta, “The Gipsies in Hungary,” p. 42; Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire, p. 18.

George C. Soulis, “The Gypsies in the Byzantine Empire and the Balkans in the late Middle Ages,” Dumbarton Oak Papers, no. 15 (1961), pp. 157–158.

Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire, p. 18; George C. Soulis, “Cikani v Byzantske risi a na Balkane v pozdnim stredoveku,” in Romove v Byzanci (Prague: Indologický ústav FF UP, 1998), pp. 20–21. The latter source is a Czech translation of Soulis' original article “The Gypsies in the Byzantine Empire and the Balkans in the Middle Ages,” with a commentary by Milena Hubschmannova.

According to Fraser it is likely but not officially proven whether this was a fiefdom or only a similar administrative unit [Angus Fraser, The Gypsies (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), p. 51].

There are certain doubts whether the leaders themselves were of Gypsy origin. The title was hereditary and, while we have no records of most of the leaders, we know that one of them, in charge around 1444, was called Johannes cinganus—gypsy John [Ibid.]. While Soulis believes that John and his predecessors were Gypsies, Fraser maintains that from the sources we have available this fact is unsure [Fraser, The Gypsies, p. 51; Soulis, “Cikani v Byzantske risi,” p. 17].

Details of which are unfortunately unknown [Soulis, “Cikani v Byzantske risi,” p. 17].

Ibid., pp. 16–17.

Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies (Roma) in Bulgaria, p. 16.

Ibid; Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire, p. 17.

Adam Watson, The Evolution of International Society (London: Routledge, 1992), p. 108.

Marushiakova and Popov, Personal communication, October 2001.

In the reign of Ottaviano Bono as the governor of Nauplion (1397–1404).

Soulis, “The Gypsies in the Byzantine Empire,” p. 153.

Fraser, The Gypsies, p. 51.

According to Davies, feudal relations consisted of contracts based on balance between rights and obligations and these contracts linked all the levels, from the highest level to the lowest [Norman Davies, Europe: A History (London: Pimlico, 1997), pp. 311–316]. In our case it was from the Emperor through the governor of Nauplion to Johannus and to his subjects.

Marushiakova and Popov, personal communication, October 2001.

Gypsies in these empires, unlike elsewhere, did already constitute an integral part of the society; the reference to improving this integration is not intended to imply otherwise.

Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire, p. 28.

Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies (Roma) in Bulgaria, p. 20; Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire, pp. 28–72.

Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies (Roma) in Bulgaria, p. 20; Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire, pp28–72

Martin Block, Gypsies: Their Life and Customs (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd, 1938), p. 166; Jean‐Pierre Liegeois, Gypsies: An Illustrated History (London: Al Saqi Books, 1986), p. 123; Liegeois, Roma, Gypsies, Travellers, p. 76; Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies (Roma) in Bulgaria, pp. 164–165.

Thomas Acton, Gypsy Politics and Social Change: The Development of Ethnic Ideology and Pressure Politics among British Gypsies from Victorian Reforms to Romany Nationalism (London: Routledge, 1974), pp. 97–98.

Kaminski, The State of Ambiguity, pp. 122–127.

Fraser, The Gypsies, p. 61.

While many authors assume that these were traditional internal Gypsy leaders, Block speculates that they might also have been officials appointed to “escort the dangerous horde out of Rumania or Hungary…and squeeze the desired tribute from them” [Block, Gypsies: Their Life and Customs, p. 168]. Similarly Fraser, based on his reading of Arnold von Harff, hypothesises that these leaders might in fact have been former feudal barons administering Gypsies who organised the explorations into Central and Western Europe because they lost or feared loosing their privileges after various parts of the Balkans came under the Ottoman rule [Fraser, The Gypsies, p. 82]. These hypothesis would change the analysis in this article but require substantiation first.

This particular title was especially used by Gypsy leaders during the wars of religion in Europe [Acton, Gypsy Politics and Social Change, p. 98].

“Little Egypt” is an old name for Epirus, on the Greek–Albanian coast. Its designation as a homeland by Gypsies arriving to Central and Western Europe created lot of confusion. They were themselves either unwilling or unable to describe the correct location of this place. They were therefore mistakenly considered to be Egyptians or “Gyptians” which gave the rise to the word Gypsies. Various other theories of the location of “Little Egypt” were also formulated until the eighteenth century when scholars began to establish the links of Gypsies with India as the historical motherland [Fraser, The Gypsies, Chapter 4; Ian Hancock, Origins of the Romani People, accessed 12 February 2001, available from the Patrin Web Journal, http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/history.htm].

Whether honestly or through falsification remains in some instances questioned.

For details, see e.g. Fraser, The Gypsies, Chapter 4.

For instances, see e.g. Ibid., pp. 67, 71, 76 and 80. Jurisdiction to administer justice also in cases of disputes between Gypsies and the local population was only rarely given to Gypsy leaders, yet reportedly it did happen. See e.g. F. de V. de Foletier, Mille Ans d'Histoire des Tsiganes (Paris: 1970), pp. 98–99; Grattan Puxon, On the Road (London: NCCL, 1968), p. 10. Both cited in Acton, Gypsy Politics and Social Change, p. 98.

Fraser, The Gypsies, p. 72.

Ibid., p.74

Ibid., p. 77.

This pattern actually resembles the recent activities of certain Romani groups that are suspected of travelling in an organised way, more or less “testing” the asylum systems and welfare benefits in several EU Member States as well as other countries [Martijn Pluim, “Roma in the EU Candidate Countries—Challenges of Integration,” Presentation by the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), 26 September 2000, Vienna]. However, in both the very old and the very recent instances, these activities are probably organised only individually or on a small‐scale community or kinship basis and through the word of mouth and (recently) communication technologies rather than through unified efforts of Roma as a collective group.

Horvathova points out that Gypsies travelling under the jurisdiction of their own vajdas were still in majority in northern Hungary (today's Slovakia) in the beginning of eighteenth century [Emilia Horvathova, Cigani na Slovensku [Gypsies in Slovakia] (Bratislava: Vydavatelstvo Slovenskej Akademie Vied, 1964), pp. 109–111].

Perhaps with the exception of the Byzantine arrangement in Nauplion mentioned earlier.

Hancock, Origins of the Romani People.

Acton, Gypsy Politics and Social Change, p. 97.

Please note that these instances are not widely reported by historians and might therefore be fabricated or adjusted to suit the purposes of building a glorious Romani past.

Fraser, The Gypsies, pp. 63–64.

Horvathova, Cigani na Slovensku, p. 111.

Kaminski, The State of Ambiguity, p. 119.

P. Nagy, A Magyaorszagi Ciganyok Toertenete a Rendi Tarsadaom Koraban (Kaposvar: Csokonai Vitez Mihaly Tanipokepzoe Foeiskola Kiadoja, 1998), p. 125; E. Pamlenyi, ed., A History of Hungary (London: Collets, 1975), p. 63. Cited in Martin Kovats, “Hungary: Politics, Difference and Equality,” in Will Guy, ed. Between Past and Future: the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe (Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2001), p. 334.

There was already a kind of precedent for this in the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires, however, in those empires, such arrangements were not made specifically for the Gypsies.

Achim, Tigani din Istoria Romaniei, pp. 58–63.

Ibid.; Kaminski, The State of Ambiguity, p. 121.

Some authors however argue that administration stayed largely an internal affair of the Gypsies according to their customary laws while positions given to non‐Gypsies were rather about profit from the taxes than about de facto administration [Horvathova, Cigani na Slovensku, p. 101].

Konrad Bercovici, The Story of the Gypsies (London: Jonathan Cape, 1928), p. 78.

Tihomir R. Gjorgjevic, “Rumanian Gypsies in Serbia,” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society Vol. 8, No. 1 (Third Series, 1929), pp. 11–13.

Usually one official oversaw the whole geographical area but had assistants who oversaw groups of particular professions.

Achim, Tigani din Istoria Romaniei, pp. 58–63.

Here the bulibashas were, however, called voivods which creates a confusion with the office of the Chief Voivods who came from the ranks of nobility, not Gypsies and whose function will be described shortly; I therefore remain terming them bulibashas.

Owned by the ruling Prince.

Before this arrangement, Gypsies in Transylvania (probably only a particular group although the decree does not specify so) were reportedly briefly entitled to enjoy again their ancient liberties (antiquis libertatibus). Janos Zapolyai, who became Transylvanian ruler in 1538, rewarded his Gypsy loyalists with a renewal of these liberties upon coming to power and asked the Transylvanian nobility to respect these liberties. This privilege was allegedly a reward for Gypsy support in Zapolyai's struggle for power in which he used Gypsy smiths to prepare torture instruments for his opponents and other Gypsies to burn a number of Hungarian villages in today's eastern Slovakia. One Gypsy band got impaled by Zapolyai's opponents in this struggle but the rest of the group was rewarded with ancient libertiesIt is unsure what these entailed, although one could guess that it was an internal jurisdiction and tax exemption. Some authors however speculate that this was simply Zapolyai's way of protecting Gypsies from the rest of the nobility so that he could exploit them himself [David M. Crowe, A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996), p. 70; Horvathova, Cigani na Slovensku, p. 101].

Including those who worked on private estates but were not owned by the landlords. Some authors however believe that the authority applied only to settled Gypsies. Horvathova argues that nomadic Gypsies could not have been taxed as they had no income. She believes that the office was established primarily to tax the settled Gypsy gold‐washers [Horvathova, Cigani na Slovensku, pp. 101, 109]. Similarly, based on his reading of Wlislocki, Winstedt believes that the authority of the Voivods applied only to settled Gypsies, although the documents bestowing this authority which he examined do not make any such reservation [E. O. Winstedt, “Some Transylvanian Gypsy Documents of the Sixteenth Century,” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society XX, No. 2 (1941), p. 52; H. Wlislocki, Vom vandernden Zigeunervolke (Hamburg: 1890)]. Other sources cited here do not confirm this interpretation.

Most sources state that there were four Chief Voivods for Hungary, two of them being for Transylvania [e.g. Crowe, A History of the Gypsies, pp. 70–71; Fraser, The Gypsies, p. 109; Harmatta, “The Gipsies in Hungary,” pp. 88–89; E. O. Winstedt, “Some Transylvanian Gypsy Documents”, p. 52]. Achim however maintains that only one of them was for Transylvania [Achim, Tigani din Istoria Romaniei, pp. 58–63].

Crowe, A History of the Gypsies, p. 123; Gjorgjevic, “Romanian Gypsies,” pp. 11–13; and Bercovici, The Story of the Gypsies, pp. 78–79. Gjorgjevic contradicts himself on the same page (11) by stating that the bulibasha was the Gypsies' judge of both first and last instance and that the Chief Voivod served as the “supreme court of appeal” for the “Gypsies”, unless he means that bulibasha was the last instance judge for individual matters and the Voivod for collective matters.

Achim, Tigani din Istoria Romaniei, pp. 58–63.

Horvathova, Cigani na Slovensku, p. 101.

Wlislocki, Vom vandernden Zigeunervolke. Cited in Winstedt, “Some Transylvanian Gypsy Documents,” p. 52.

Achim, Tigani din Istoria Romaniei, pp. 58–63; Horvathova, Cigani na Slovensku, pp. 101, 109; Kaminski, The State of Ambiguity, pp. 120–121.

Bercovici, The Story of the Gypsies, p. 79.

Achim, Tigani din Istoria Romaniei, pp. 176–177.

Ficowski, who provides a detailed account of the office of Kings of Gypsies in Poland, stresses that it is impossible to establish a certain date for the first King, due to the lack of written sources [Kaminski, The State of Ambiguity, p. 133].

Crowe, A History of the Gypsies, p. 152; Jerzy Ficowski, The Gypsies in Poland: History and Customs (Warsaw: Interpress, 1991), p. 15. Kaminski suggests that the first King came to power between 1636 and 1652 [Kaminski, The State of Ambiguity, p. 134].

Harmatta, “The Gipsies in Hungary,” pp. 87–88. For excerpts from the fifteenth century sources, see Reimer Gronemeyer, Zigeuner im Spiegel fruher Chroniken und Abhandlungen: Quellen vom 15. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert (Giessen: Focus, 1987), pp. 28–30. From these excerpts it is however unsure if such a King really existed or if he was only a fictional figure invented by the Gypsies who reported to belong under his rule to be exempted from local jurisdiction or to belong to his court to gain respect. Even though the sources themselves do not question the existence of the King, historians should.

There is only sketchy evidence to suggest that. Ficowski concludes that they probably were Gypsies while Kaminski argues that it could be either way [Ficowski, The Gypsies in Poland, p. 16; Kaminski, The State of Ambiguity, pp. 134–135].

Some authors mention a later date, e.g. Horvathova states 1703 based on her different reading of Ficowski's facts [Horvathova, Cigani na Slovensku, p. 65].

The first Partition of 1772 incorporated the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania (where the position of certainly the last but also perhaps a few previous Kings of Gypsies had been the strongest) into the Russian Empire. Many Gypsies moved further East into the Russian Empire. Only a few stayed in Lithuania in the jurisdiction of Jakub Znamierowski, the last King appointed by the Royal Chancery. In 1795 those few Gypsies left in Lithuania elected themselves a new King Milosnicki, who ruled until 1799. Kaminski (p. 365, foootnote 91) states that it is unknown whether Milosnicki was himself a “Rom.” There also appears to be a slight confusion about the end of Znamierowski's rule. Ficowski (p. 20) states that Znamierowski died in 1795 but he probably means it figuratively not literally (i.e. he died as a ruler, i.e. his rule was over) because in a latter work, based largely on Ficowski, Kaminski (p. 136) claims that Milosnicki ruled simultaneously with Znamierowski (i.e. Znamierowski was still the officially appointed King, while the Gypsies had already elected themselves a new one [Ficowski, The Gypsies in Poland; Kaminski, The State of Ambiguity]. Other authors, however, interpret Ficowski's statement literally, as a real death [e.g. Crowe, A History of the Gypsies, p. 153].

Crowe, A History of the Gypsies, pp. 153, 155; Ficowski, The Gypsies in Poland, pp. 15–22.

Ficowski, The Gypsies in Poland, pp. 17–18.

Ibid., p. 17.

Horvathova, Cigani na Slovensku, p. 65.

Ficowski, The Gypsies in Poland, pp. 17–20.

Kaminski, The State of Ambiguity, p. 135.

Ficowski, The Gypsies in Poland, pp. 17, 20–22.

This arrangement rather resembles a modern‐type of institutionalisation yet is entrenched in a feudal context.

Who were as of 1705 allowed to “maintain and keep” up the income from the collected taxes for the purposes of financing their administrative apparatus of deputies [Ficowski, The Gypsies in Poland, p. 18].

Kaminski, The State of Ambiguity, pp. 137–138

Ficowski, The Gypsies in Poland, p. 16.

Ibid.

Horvathova, Cigani na Slovensku, p. 55.

S.S. Shashi, Roma – The Gypsy World (Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan, 1990), p. 46.

S.ee, e.g. Ibid., pp. 155–156.

Zoltan Barany, The East European Gypsies: Regime Change, Marginality, and Ethnopolitics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 185–185; Jean‐Pierre Liegeois, Mutation tsiganes (Paris: PUF, 1976), Chapter 4; Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov, Gypsies/Roma in Times Past and Present: Photo‐Book (Sofia: Litavra, 2000), p. 187; “Olasi maji dva krale [Vlach Roma have two kings]” Romano Hangos, 17 September 2001, 1.

Some authors argue that similar arrangements also took place later in Russia [see, e.g. Crowe, A History of the Gypsies, p. 153]. This author, however, found no evidence of that. Gypsies in Russia were de jure considered slaves of the Crown, according to a decree of Catherine the Great, but de facto their position did not differ much from that of Russian serfs. Many had kept their nomadic existence and only as of 1783 were they forcefully settled at crown properties as serfs upon Catherine the Great's decree [Horvathova, Cigani na Slovensku, p. 67].

P. Barannikov, The Ukrainian and South Russian Gypsy Dialects (Leningrad: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1934), pp. 8–9; Crowe, A History of the Gypsies , p. 153.

Barannikov, The Ukrainian and South Russian Gypsy Dialects, pp. 8–9.

M. Gronfors, Blood Feuding Among Finnish Gypsies (Helsinki: 1977); Shashi, Roma, p. 40. The source for Gronfors' citation is Kaminski, The State of Ambiguity, p. 145.

Historic region, largely in Moldova and Ukraine.

Shashi, Roma, p. 40. Same information is presented in Kaminski, The State of Ambiguity, pp. 145–146.

This was specified in a charter granted to the region by Alexander I. in 1818. Gypsies as a category of people and their rights and privileges (mainly related to taxation) were included in this charter. All these privileges, including that of Romanian self‐government were, however, gradually phased out by the Russian officials and almost completely eliminated in a new Charter in 1828 [Achim, Tigani din Istoria Romaniei, pp. 113–114; Crowe, A History of the Gypsies, p. 159].

Achim, Tigani din Istoria Romaniei, pp. 113–114.

Although some authors argue that they were always elected by the Gypsies first, as with the judes, and only then confirmed by the rulers.

Although some authors (who are however in minority) do question, as mentioned earlier, whether these leaders in fact were traditional.

Although some Romani leaders would use the title voivod during the twentieth century (see later parts of this series).

Ian Hancock, “The East European Roots of Romani Nationalism,” Nationalities Papers XIX, No. 3 (1991), p. 256. Although this idea that Roma were one people upon their arrival in Europe might not be shared by all Romani political elites, it is certainly gaining support, if for no other reason than as a convenient nation‐building myth.

The numbers (1,2, etc.) in this column refer to separate arrangements as sometimes there were different arrangements in the same polity. In some of these arrangements, there were various levels of institutionalisations and these are marked by letters (a, b, etc.). The bold/normal distinction is used to emphasise how in some cases the lower levels of institutionalisation were actually initiated from within while the higher ones from without. The schema of the arrangements refer to the most complicated (multi‐level) arrangements which were not always in place for the duration of the whole indicated period (for details refer to the article).

Disputed case.

Dates unsure.

Leader coming from the community chosen by the authorities for the collection of taxes.

Leader for military purposes.

In the prebends, fiefdoms, fiefs and the sultan's lands. It is unsure whether these leaders were institutionalised from within or without; it is possible that either could have been the case, depending on whether the group in question was a natural unit or an artificially gathered body.

But mostly fifteenth–eighteenth century.

During the time in question, Lithuania was a part of the Polish Commonwealth and therefore is not located in a separate column. It is however specifically listed as it had some additional institutional arrangements unknown elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

The date refers to the Commonwealth in general.

Tentative placement.