August 2003
Is there a hierarchy among Rroma groups and their sub-divisions? Can one find groups or subgroups which are "better", of a higher standing among the Rroma community? These questions - and answers to them, when looked upon in one country or region have distorted the reality. The perception of a hierarchical structure among Rroma groups has fuelled the polemics about the origin of Rroma. Do an apparent hierarchy among Rroma reflect their origins from different Indian casts?
All together, we do think that there is no such global hierarchical structure between groups. Only at the local level, that is, in one country or region, do perceptions among the Rroma community spew such tales as "Rroma aristocrats" and the like.
Several factors arise as means of measuring the standing of a group or subgroup inside the Rroma community. The "cleanness" of the language, the degree of preservation of the concept of Romanipe and of course economical factors and position.
One has to distinguish the perception of hierarchy inside a single metagroup, say for example the Vlax and the hierarchy which involves the comparison of groups stemming from different metagroups.
Take the example of so-called "aristocrats" in Bulgaria. These are de-facto Kalderaša and subgroups - that is Vlax Rroma which are relative new-comers in this land. Who regards them as being "aristocrats" and what are the reasons for such a definition? Language is one factor: Many Rroma dialects in Bulgaria are infiltrated by Bulgarian and Turkish lexical elements which are understood by all as being "foreign". At the same time, Vlax Rroma, in our case Kalderaπa, use a dialect practically devoid of such lexical elements. Not to say that they don't have "foreign" influences in their language, but these stemming from Romania and Serbia, are not understood as "foreign" but as being purely Rromanes in Bulgaria. Hence, in the eyes of many autochtonous Bulgarian Rroma, these Kalderaša speak a "cleaner" Rromanes. This factor of new-arrival in another country forces the new-comers to find an unoccupied economical niche in that country. This pushes them in "non-traditional" - in that country - occupations as well as to show more entrepeneurship than other local Rroma. This, in Bulgaria, led the Kelderaπa to enrich themselves way above the general level of local Rroma. Interestingly enough, this also leads to a perception of Kalderaša in Bulgaria as being thieves and parasites.
In terms of endogamy and traditions, the newcomer status in a given country enhances the preservation of one's specific culture as well as the self-separation. This process goes both ways since in the eyes of the local Rroma population, this enhances their special status and thus enhances the separation.
The very same process as in Bulgaria can be found in Russia with the Lovara. They are perceived as speaking a "cleaner" Rromanes, for exactly the same reasons: They have few Russian lexems in their dialect - which contains many Romanian and Hungarian acquisitions. They have become much richer than the local Rroma - originally in their traditional area, they were horse-dealers, a trade which Russian Rroma already occupied in that country. The Lovara had to find new occupations, legal or semi-illegal such as gold traders. This, in turn also gives them the reputation of criminals. The etymology of their endonym has been changed by Rroma from horse-dealers (Hung. lovasz) to money-owner/dealer (Rromanes love - money). This, in turn has been accepted as a fact by many Lovara themselves.
In Russia, the Kalderaša, who also arrived at the same time as the Lovara do not have this special status or recognised social position. Contrary to the case of Bulgaria, where the autochtonous Rroma population practised the same trade as the newcoming Kalderaša, in Russia, this line of work among Rroma was totally non-existent. They thus did not need to adapt themselves to new economical situation. The local Russian Rroma, for traditional reasons, regarded such manual work with disdain, thus lowering the status of these newcomers.
In view of these two examples of inter-groupal comparisons, we see that in one case, Kalderaša stand in a somewhat "higher" position or esteem while in the other case, they are de-facto in a lower position.
The self-esteem and appreciation of Rroma groups - that is their idea of their relative position inside the Rroma community cam be found among all. Naturally, one's own group or even subgroup has the highest standing. One result of this attitude is the use of special terms to denominate the other Rroma (often not using their own autonym) which sometimes take a pejorative coloration. In Bulgaria, Kaderaπa use the term Rroma groups Tsutsumanja for local Bulgarian Rroma, in other countries. Sinti, especially in Germany, are using the general concept of Rroma to describe all the other Rroma groups and have managed by now to even enshrine this in the "politically correct terminology". Kalderaπa often use the term Poljačja (Poles) for local Rroma, the Lovara world-wide use the term Rromungri for the others, Crimean Rroma use the term Laxoja (Vlax) for all other Rroma independent of their metagroup appurtenance, Russian Rroma tend to call Lovara and Kalderaša Bulgari (Bulgarians) etc...
The "true" Polish Rroma from Central and Northern Poland use the term Labanci - with a very pejorative connotation - for the so-called Bergitka Rroma which live in Southern Poland and speak a Rromanes belonging to the Carpathian Rromanes group. Labanco (sing.) originated in the Hungarian Labanc, a term used to describe the Habsburg followers during the Kossuth rebellion in the XVIIIth century. The Polish Gypsiologist J. Ficowski tried to etymologise this term from the Turkish yabanci (foreigner) exclusively on the basis of similar spelling. Yabanci is however pronounced as jabandæi, which, in our opinion is a little different from Labanco.
Inside a given group, where a reflection of this process also takes place, it sometimes takes a mythical dimension. The "lower" Rroma inside one's group sometime do not exist in reality. For example, Buzgi, used pejoratively by Latvian Rroma for a mythical non-existing lower standing sub-division of their group. In Poland and North-Western Ukraine, one finds the use of Kelmeπi; in Central Russia, Bobri; in Central Ukraine, Kahanci etc. These subdivisions, i.e. subgroups do not exist in reality.
The relative position of a group inside the Rroma community may and does vary from country to country, is often determined by local conditions, such as the case of Kelderaπa in Russia shows and maybe most important for the questions we have raised in the beginning, are the result of moves and migrations, sometimes of very recent happening.
One can thus say that there is no true hierarchy among groups or subgroups, but that there exists a perception, which varies from place to place as the relative standings of these entities inside the community. In view of the process which created groups in the first place, this is not surprising. One thing, is however found in all groups, namely the mythologisation of the archetype of a lower Rrom or subgroup.