Although the title had me dubious about this work’s academic merit (the terms “Roma” or “Romani” usually preferred to “Gypsy” by serious academics, in my experience), my doubts were quickly assuaged upon starting the book. Within a few pages it was apparent that this is certainly an academically thorough, well-researched and serious scholarly work, in which the author demonstrates a deep understanding of linguistics, history the social sciences as well as dabbling in such fields as musicology and folkloristics. Fraser defends his use of the word “Gypsy” as an overarching term that encompasses groups identifying variously as Roma, Sinti, Manouches, Dom and Lom.
This work is clearly intended as a comprehensive overview and, unlike in most academic monographs, the author doesn’t push any particular theories or interpretations. This is especially relevant to the opening chapters about the origins and early migrations of the Roma, where Fraser makes no secret of the uncertainty of the matter and presents a range of different theories, offering only hesitatingly his own appraisal of their respective likelihoods. This means that instead of a straightforward narrative history being provided, the (sometimes very limited) evidence is presented and sensible deductions are proffered, but readers are left to make their own ultimate conclusions.
I can imagine that a casual reader might find it too heavy going at times, as Fraser often goes into great detail – for example describing numerous, quite similar, records of dealings with “Egyptians” throughout fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Europe and explaining how linguistic analysis gives clues about their earliest migrations – but I for one found it riveting reading. It really felt as though I was going along with Fraser, taking part in the investigation, piecing together the evidence to create a picture of Romani history. I found the writing style clear and engaging – certainly not at all dry – though Fraser’s erudite vocabulary did have me reaching for a dictionary a couple of times. The text is broken up with lots of relevant paintings and photographs, though as they are printed in low-quality monochrome, they aren’t exactly beautiful and details aren’t really visible. The maps provided are fairly useful though.
The book’s most obvious shortcomings are, I think, due not to any failing of the author, but rather due to a lack of information. As such, questions about religious beliefs and practices upon departure from India, and the timing of conversion to Christianity and Islam, are unaddressed. Similarly, up until the eighteenth century Fraser makes few attempts to even guestimate population sizes. These kinds of uncertainties are somewhat frustrating, but cannot be blamed on Fraser.
However, one shortcoming for which Fraser could be criticized is the issue of the Dom and Lom. As I understand, there is much academic debate about the relation of these groups to the Roma. Fraser claims that the ancestors of the European Roma probably split off from the Dom and Lom while in Persia or Armenia, but does not directly address the theory that the ancestors of the Roma and those of the Dom and Lom might have left the Subcontinent at different times. Furthermore, while apparently including Dom and Lom in his understanding of the term “Gypsy”, Fraser more or less forgets about them after the first chapter. This absence of the Dom and Lom from most of the book brings me on to a second criticism: that of geographical scope. There seems to be slight undue weight given to Britain – a bias presumably due to the author’s own nationality – England and Scotland receiving nearly as much attention as the Balkans and Central Europe, where the Roma population is most concentrated. The Low Countries, France, Iberia and Scandinavia are all given due coverage, but the Roma of the Russian Empire/the USSR are given surprisingly little attention and those of Asia Minor and the Americas are scarcely mentioned at all. Of course it would be impossible for this work to cover all corners of the Earth in detail. I can only assume that Fraser decided to focus on Europe as the book was published as part of the “Peoples of Europe” series. In any case, this is far from a major problem.
The only serious criticism that I have is the fact that Fraser tends to treat the Roma only as objects of history, never as actors. The predominant focus of the work is the treatment of Roma by non-Roma and, above all, by states. Although it is clear that for much of their history Roma were overwhelmingly illiterate, and thus left behind no insight into their own perspectives, the nineteenth and twentieth centuries did see the formation of Roma intelligentsias and Roma cultural organizations, of which Fraser makes but passing mention until the very end of the book, where a scant four pages are given to explaining that a pan-Roma movement has developed and to listing some of the issues they have turned to. Similarly, the book does not make a single mention of any kind of Roma activist, politician, community leader or public intellectual. Furthermore, for most of the book Fraser laments a lack of sources revealing anything of Roma lives and social organization, then when he reaches the modern day he makes surprisingly little use of the sources that I can only assume are available (I find it hard to believe that there are not plenty of first-hand accounts, interviews and anthropological studies). A couple of accounts of the lives of two Sinti individuals towards the end of the book really helped me to picture the reality of their lives and I feel that The Gypsies would definitely have benefitted from more such Alltagsgeschichte integrated throughout, rather than just added as a kind of afterthought. This criticism is a serious one, but thankfully only really affects the last part of the book, because, as mentioned, up until the nineteenth century there is very limited scope to view history from the Roma perspective.
If you know nothing whatsoever about the Roma and want a general introduction to them – especially if you aren’t used to reading academic literature – this might not be the book for you. If, like me, you have a general interest in the Roma, have read most of the relevant information on Wikipedia and were left unsatisfied, this is perfect. It could also be very useful for writing an undergraduate-level essay. Though it is probably too general to be of much use as a source for more advanced academic work, it would certainly provide a good overview and you could make good use of its extensive bibliography (sources are cited on almost every page). Although the section dealing with the twentieth century is a little bit weak, the vast majority of the book could scarcely be better.