Vesselin Popov

Origins and Divergence of the Roma (Gypsies)

The identification of a growing number of novel Mendelian disorders and private mutations in the Roma (Gypsies) points to their unique genetic heritage. Linguistic evidence suggests that they are of diverse Indian origins. Their social structure within Europe resembles that of the jatis of India, where the endogamous group, often defined by profession, is the primary unit. Genetic studies have reported dramatic differences in the frequencies of mutations and neutral polymorphisms in different Romani populations. However, these studies have not resolved ambiguities regarding the origins and relatedness of Romani populations. In this study, we examine the genetic structure of 14 well-defined Romani populations. Y-chromosome and mtDNA markers of different mutability were analyzed in a total of 275 individuals. Asian Y-chromosome haplogroup VI-68, defined by a mutation at the M82 locus, was present in all 14 populations and accounted for 44.8% of Romani Y chromosomes. Asian mtDNA-haplogroup M was also identified in all Romani populations and accounted for 26.5% of female lineages in the sample. Limited diversity within these two haplogroups, measured by the variation at eight short-tandem-repeat loci for the Y chromosome, and sequencing of the HVS1 for the mtDNA are consistent with a small group of founders splitting from a single ethnic population in the Indian subcontinent. Principal-components analysis and analysis of molecular variance indicate that genetic structure in extant endogamous Romani populations has been shaped by genetic drift and differential admixture and correlates with the migrational history of the Roma in Europe. By contrast, social organization and professional group divisions appear to be the product of a more recent restitution of the caste system of India.

Origins, admixture and founder lineages in European Roma

The Roma, also known as ‘Gypsies’, represent the largest and the most widespread ethnic minority of Europe. There is increasing evidence, based on linguistic, anthropological and genetic data, to suggest that they originated from the Indian subcontinent, with subsequent bottlenecks and undetermined gene flow from/to hosting populations during their diaspora. Further support comes from the presence of Indian uniparentally inherited lineages, such as mitochondrial DNA M and Y-chromosome H haplogroups, in a significant number of Roma individuals. However, the limited resolution of most genetic studies so far, together with the restriction of the samples used, have prevented the detection of other non-Indian founder lineages that might have been present in the proto-Roma population. We performed a high-resolution study of the uniparental genomes of 753 Roma and 984 non-Roma hosting European individuals. Roma groups show lower genetic diversity and high heterogeneity compared with non-Roma samples as a result of lower effective population size and extensive drift, consistent with a series of bottlenecks during their diaspora. We found a set of founder lineages, present in the Roma and virtually absent in the non-Roma, for the maternal (H7, J1b3, J1c1, M18, M35b, M5a1, U3, and X2d) and paternal (I-P259, J-M92, and J-M67) genomes. This lineage classification allows us to identify extensive gene flow from non-Roma to Roma groups, whereas the opposite pattern, although not negligible, is substantially lower (up to 6.3%). Finally, the exact haplotype matching analysis of both uniparental lineages consistently points to a Northwestern origin of the proto-Roma population within the Indian subcontinent.

Code unknown: Roma/Gypsy montage

Roma/Gypsies have rarely figured in mainstream social theory; they have, rather, been a topic of ‘specialist’ interest. The aim of this feature is, in some small way, to address the issue of Roma culture and society in a mainstream context. More than considering a neglected group, it suggests that there is something positive and constructive to be learned from the Roma and their experiences—something to be learned from a people who have invariably been considered as problematical. Roma have a distinctive significance in the context of a changing Europe, and they also merit serious consideration in urban theory. Yet they have never figured in mainstream spatial politics. They have never received spatial justice. Through the assembling of a broad range of contributions, mostly concerning the eastern side of Europe, I have sought to bring out something of the broad range of perspectives and discourses concerning Roma culture. The aim has been to make an argument by way of a montage, and, moreover, to make the argument through ways of telling that expand the definition of ‘academic’.

Identity and Language of the Roma (Gypsies) in Central and Eastern Europe

The region designated as ‘Central and Eastern Europe’ in this book is inhabited by many different and sizeable groups, who are called with similar names in various countries: ‘Cyganie’ (Poland), ‘Cigonai’ (Lithuania), ‘Cigāni’ (Latvia), ‘Cigani’ (Slovakia), ‘Cikani’ (Czech Republic), ‘Ciganyok’ (Hungary), ‘Ţigani’ (Romania, Republic of Moldova), ‘Цигани’ [Tsigani] (Serbia, Bulgaria, Ukraine), ‘Цыгане’ [Tsygane] (Russian Federation), ‘Тσіγγάυоі’ [Tsigani] (Greece), etc.1 Their ancestors migrated from the Indian subcontinent to Europe more than a millennium ago. In most cases, the population identifies itself as Roma2 and speaks its own Romani language, called Romani chib or Romanes. It is divided into different dialects (Matras 2002: 5–48), which are used by various endogamous ‘Gypsy’/Roma groups and metagroups (Marushiakova and Popov 2001a: 34–41; Tcherenkov and Laederich 2004: I 237–514). The ‘Gypsy’/Roma groups are characterized, among other things, by the use of a common dialect (or acquired language where their own original language is now lost), which is an important marker of their identity. The metagroups are often made up of separate groups who have already begun to lose their group characteristics. Metagroups may also include descendants of groups who have lost the memory of their former existence, and the identity of their members now only exists on the metagroup level. The ‘Gypsy’/Roma groups are not static social and cultural units.

Terminology and Methodology

This chapter defines the term Gypsies and charts the area of study—the countries, settlements and regions where field research was conducted—and the methodology.

Gypsies of the Caucasus

This chapter defines the main communities included under the designation of Gypsies (Dom, Lom and Roma) in the Caucasus area and presents historical and demographic data. It looks at the current features of the three communities studied in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and the Russian Federation, as well as their migration in the post-Soviet Space.

Gypsies of Central Asia

This chapter defines the main communities in Central Asia covered by the designations Gypsy, Gypsy-like and Intermediate Communities. Historic and demographic data is presented, which reveals the current features of the two studied communities (Mughat and Roma) in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan, as well as their migration in the post-Soviet era.

The Bulgarian Gypsies (Roma) during World War II

Gypsies have been living in the land of Bulgaria for centuries. The surrounding population refers to them with the generic name Tsigani and perceives them as one whole undifferentiated community. It is true that all Gypsies in Bulgaria belong to the Roma stream and that Roma is also their common self-appellation; however, they are internally divided into various groups, subgroups and metagroup units and they entered Bulgaria gradually with several waves of migration.