The Institute, Inc. Urban Anthropology: This Content Downloaded From 24.133.140.214 On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 06:33:18 UTC

Romnichel Economie And Social Organization In Urban New England, 1850-1930
Author(s): Matt T. Salo and Sheila Salo

Source: Urban Anthropology, Vol. 11, No. 3/4, Urban Gypsies (FALL-WINTER 1982), pp.
273-313
Published by: The Institute, Inc.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40552979
Accessed: 06-09-2018 06:33 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Institute, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Urban Anthropology
This content downloaded from 24.133.140.214 on Thu, 06 Sep 2018 06:33:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Romnichel Economic And Social
Organization In Urban New England,
1850-1930
Matt T. Salo
Division of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Centenary College
Sheila Salo
ABSTRACT: This study, based on ethnohistorical research, utilizes hitherto unexa-

mined documentation on the Romnichel Gypsies in the U.S. to trace the evolution of
their adaptations to the rapidly modernizing urban centers in the East between 1 850
and 1930. Romnichels began immigrating to the United States from England around
1850 when the country was undergoing the mechanization of its agriculture, rapid
development of its industries, and growth of its urban population centers. These de-
velopments brought about an increasing demand for horses, which provided the
Romnichels an opportunity to expand their peripatetic horse trading activities. Cap-
italizing on the differences in the supply and value of horses and aided by the newly
constructed railroad links, the Romnichels began shipping horses to the urbanized
areas of the East where the demand was greater. In several areas of the East, but
especially in New England, the peripatetic horse trade developed into a highly orga-
nized business, with some Romnichels founding centralized sales stables in the larg-
er urban centers. These stables became centers of Romnichel business and social
activity around which other families, affinally or cognatically related to the founders,
clustered. These communities were characterized by regionalism and systematic in-
tensive exploitation of the urban market opportunities. Although the switch from a
nomadic to a sedentary urban existence might seem to constitute a major break with
the past, we argue that the peripatetic existence had actually preadapted Romni-
chels to urban life. Their flexibility is seen as due to generalized adaptation to the
broader socioeconomic niche, of which the peripatetic and urban adaptations are
simply variations.
The focus of this article is the adaptations of the American Romnichel

Gypsies to the rapidly urbanizing and modernizing society of the late nine-
273
ISSN 0363-2024, ©1982 The Institute for the Study of Man, Inc.
274 URBAN ANTHROPOLOGY VOL. 11(3-4), 1982
teenth and early twentieth century. The Romnichels, or "En

are generally thought to be the descendants of those Gypsie
wave of migration who were reported in the British Isles be
1 500; the ancestors of the present-day American Romnichels be
ing to the United States and Canada about 1 850. 1 They were th
Gypsy group to have established themselves in the United
1880's, as the immigration from Eastern Europe picked up
groups of Gypsies began appearing on American shores. All o
led a nomadic existence during their first few decades in A
took them to every part of the country. In the early accounts o
press they appear in both cities and in rural areas as they plied
trades. It is the Romnichels in New England, however, among
groups, who seem to have developed the most sedentary ada
ban locations in the period discussed here, and appear to h
est to resembling typical American urban dwellers and entre
England Romnichels can be seen as an early example of urba
peripatetic group and can be used as a test case to see what
such a group when it ceases to wander and adapts to an urban
environment.
In the past the Romnichels of England and America have often been
described in both popular and scholarly literature as primarily rural, nomad-
ic, and somehow mysteriously immune from the economic realities that con-
strain ordinary citizens. It is only recently that research has begun to modify
these stereotypes; Romnichels now appear to be, and to have been for
some time, at least as urban as they were rural, many of them much more
closely associated with specific locales than had previously been thought,
largely dependent on the larger socioeconomic system for their survival and
many aspects of their culture subject to change as their socioeconomic ma-
trix changed (Okely 1983, Salo 1984, Sibley 1981). At the same time, re-
search has also demonstrated that within the confines of the larger social
system Romnichels have often been able to exercise considerable auton-
omy, to preserve their ethnic identity, and to adapt with surprising flexibility
to changing conditions. They appear to have succeeded better than most
stigmatized urban minorities in resisting assimilation, proletarianization, and
impoverishment.
Objectives, Approach, and Sources
The chief orientation or framework for this study is broadly evolution-

ary-ecological with the major difference that the environmental factors con-
sidered in the ecological relationship are more often social rather than
physical. The study is evolutionary in that we seek to describe and explain
M. Salo and S. Salo NEW ENGLAND 275
cultural changes that have taken place a

eighty-year period. It is ecological in the se
changes in terms of the interactions that t
population and its socioeconomic environ
are seen as responses to both the larger
the specific microenvironmental opportu
terized the specific urban areas they exp
changes in the Romnichel culture as pro
of continuous adaptation to the changes i
nomic matrix.
Specifically we shall examine the deve
horse trading as a major economic specia
eastern United States from 1850 to about 1930. As the market for horses
expanded after the Civil War, many Romnichel families began concentrating
in and around some of the larger urban centers in the East, especially in New
England. The bulk of this paper is devoted to the analysis of the social and
economic dimensions of this new urban Gypsy niche as well as of the condi-
tions leading to its formation and development. We shall endeavor to isolate
some of the key factors responsible for this specialization, describe the im-
pact it had on Romnichel settlement patterns and social organization, and in
general show how the Romnichels related to both the larger socioeconomic
and the particular urban contexts. We shall examine the effects of the
changes in settlement and procurement strategies on ethnic persistence
and in-group cohesion. We will describe how the Romnichels, beginning
from a peripatetic base, successfully adapted to urban milieus, what the
mechanisms of their success were, how they managed to maintain their eth-
nic integrity, avoid proletarianization, impoverishment, and other negative
effects or urbanization. We will make reference to other groups sharing simi-
lar experiences, but hasten to caution the reader that any generalization at
this point may be premature. We are guided by Simpson's (1 953:1 61 ) stipu-
lation that "environmental relations of the compared population be equiva-
lent... in other words, the ecological niches of the compared populations be
comparable" (quoted in Hardesty 1972:464). Before dealing specifically
with the Gypsy adaptations, a brief summary of the scholarship on other
groups which derive their livelihoods from the exploitation of social re-
sources will help clarify the broader issues involved.
The awareness of the social environment as a locus of resources has
surfaced sporadically in the ecological literature of the past few years. Ben-
nett, for example, has urged anthropologists working on modern societies
to acquire "an appreciation of the social milieu as a resource: that men are
part of the environment other men manipulate for gain or for satisfaction of
their wants" (1976:310). He notes that especially "people lacking any ac-
cess to natural resources, or to energy conversion t

available social resources" (1976:280).
It is this exploitation of the human milieu that I h
nomic niche. According to Ruyle it is of great antiquit
nings of agricultural production and formation of c
the establishment of large sedentary populations ba
populations appeared which occupy a new ecologic
the appropriation of the products of human labor...
The socioeconomic niche can be seen as consistin
tions that take place with the surplus or liquid asse
hand for exchange or transfer.3 Since the socioecon
tion based on surpluses it follows that the more develo
more potential it will have for the exploitation of its
exploitation of such resources is ubiquitous and ca
forms. The niche is very broad and amenable to exploi
strategies ranging the gamut from exchange and m
and parasitism. Curiously no explicitly ecological stu
this area; we lack even adequate surveys on the sub
cial resources exploitation remains to be written.
Although the most common full-time exploiters
niche are the sedentary merchants, landlords, or t
services operating within the tertiary sector of the
are also those who use social resource exploitation a
aptation, catering to the actual or latent needs for goo
are required infrequently or only by a few people.
In his introduction to an anthology on pastoral
reminded us how such societies manifest a "multiform
tures and orientation, providing alternatives and va
flexibility and adaptability" (1980:4). In the same vo
noted that, in addition to herding, pastoralists "far
they handcraft, they smuggle, they transport, they
war on their account or for others, they manage the l
for them" (1980:175).
Many of these strategies involve the utilization
sources amenable to exploitation through spatial mo
ist these are only occasional or supplementary
however, in most parts of the world, populations w
suits full time. The utilization of such scattered resources that could be ex-
ploited only through nomadic strategies has in recent years come to be
called the peripatetic adaptation. The most prominent recent advocates of
this approach have been Berland (1 982) and Rao (1 982, 1 984), but the rec-
ognition of the concept goes back at least to the work of Srinivas (1 969). It
has since been developed further and referred to by various terms as "ser-
vice nomadism" (Hayden 1979), "com

and "non-food-producing nomadism
been given perhaps its clearest descrip
landers in Pakistan. "Peripatetic group
larger socioeconomic systems, offer a w
which are frequently socially and economi
tary communities" (1982:57). He furth
town or a village may not be able to suppo
of sedentary communities can support
ten than not, however, peripatetics did no
service. As Bennett has observed: "La
with a variety of adaptive strategies for
their very mobility exposes them to a n
gies, and this confers certain necessar
The peripatetic adaptation should be con
ing the social resources. Strictly speaki
pastoral nomadic strategy, but recent w
include a variety of non-pastoral procur
Although it is by now widely accepte
economic category it has been less ofte
also endogamous ethnic groups. The ma
into the life, which distinguishes them fr
ers forced into itinerancy by circumsta
as soon as possible. Barth has pointed ou
providing intergenerational succession
of individual experience and social categ
bonds or peddlers, but also the continui
prehensive acculturation into a persist
specifically for the peripatetic life" (1984:
focus should be "on peripatetic peoples
individuals" (1984:2).
Peripatetic life is ideal for ethnic main
viding conditions for ethnogenesis. Gm
have demonstrated how the Irish and S
and evolved into ethnic enclaves distinct f
taking up an itinerant life. The persiste
groups has many reasons, but certainly am
what Spicer has called the "oppositio
tion of the peripatetics from the sedentar
tion of close ties and in fact frequently br
mutual suspicion, prejudice, and stereo
tions allow friendly relationships to devel
Travelers in Europe and North America
ideological oppositions based on peripatetic strateg

an integrated life-style they became very difficult to
# When speaking of Gypsies we should remember
the West as already separate groups with fully deve
styles and demonstrated capability to survive in wid
tural environments. As Barth has described the rela
differentiae have not sprung from the local organiz
preestablished cultural contrast is brought into conjunc
tablished social system and is made relevant to life i
(1969:30). Gypsy adaptations have been characterize
tional processes ever since first mentions of them
cords. The circumstances of their ethnogenesis are
both the internal and external mechanisms for preserv
ty are still amenable to observation. Internally the key
position include their self-imposed social separation
exploitation of outsiders. Externally the prejudices and
at Gypsies as exotic foreigners served further to turn
primarily on one another. The effects of the separa
strong sense of group identity, coupled with their succ
the socioeconomic niche which reinforced their sense o
discrimination by outsiders, which confirmed the G
undesirable, have all helped to maintain Gypsy ethn
they have lived among western nations. The factors
in ethnic persistence among Gypsies have been treat
detail by Salo (1977, 1979, 1983).
In spite of the close connection between ethnicity a
egies, the two clearly need not be interdependent. Bart
to the existence of peripateticism without ethnic se
raise the question as to what happens to ethnic peripate
nicity is no longer supported by the social separation
mobility and the conflicts created by the nomadic e
(1984:3). Rao, too, recognizes the problem when
Roma (Gypsies) are peripatetic, but fails to pursue the
have on ethnic maintenance (1 984:1 8).
Aside from the recent increased sedentism, the oth
the lives of many peripatetics is the increased urbaniza
ment. Recent studies have noted both the long term
ation of Gypsies and Travelers with cities; few also
urban settlements and the use of non-peripatetic st
have by now a sizable ethnographic literature describ
ban areas, very little of it is ecological or process-o
now, however, several theoretical studies on the urb
ization of pastoral nomads which offer us insights i
lives of the peripatetics as well (e.g., Nels

for example, cites their "operational gen
tence and market activities relied upon in va
ty and economic opportunity varied. '
available, maintained by various mechani
over time, as circumstances required, wer
put into practice" (1980:9-10). He furthe
who shifts to settled residence and non-p
not lose the knowledge, skill and ability to p
production..." (p. 13). The overall result is an
gard to adaptive strategies that is ideally
either the social or physical environment. A
peripatetics. Peripatetics even more than
gaged in a multiplicity of economic pursuits
absence of any major commitment to herdin
pendency on natural resources. As econom
peripatetics follow either generalized or m
If we were to consider the potential ra
ships as constituting the socioeconomic m
es of exploitation within the smaller sect
society could be termed microniches.5 A
of exploiting a broad range of resources w
iche, but they are equally capable of takin
specific microenvironments and specialize
is that regardless of their current special
repertoire of supplementary strategies wh
circumstances require.
Of the major North American Gypsy
longest continued presence here and cons
historical documentation is available on th
thropological research has been conducted
study to the pre-depression era is due to
was the period during which the Romnich
as a major economic activity in the U.S., a
Romnichel informants have expressly stat
current descriptions of their lives made p
privacy.
We shall first present an overview of the urbanization process as it af-
fected the Romnichels in the eastern United States and then provide case
studies of specific urban adaptations centered on the horse trade in three
New England urban centers. We will demonstrate how some of the Romni-
chels, building on a primarily peripatetic foundation, were able to take ad-
vantage of the increased needs of the growing urban centers f

they were already supplying and became specialized in a ne
Data on changes in the Romnichel socioeconomic niche
lyzed by a variety of standard historical and ethnohistorical te
use of documents, especially, calls for rigorous source cri
checking, and evaluation of the relative validity of the various
The primary sources consist of documentary materials su
and checked against oral histories of living informants. To
data allowed quantification, frequencies and percentages ar
because of the frequent spottiness of the data, no strictly s
ment is possible. The data for the broader survey are still
case study data represent nearly as complete a documentati
nichel populations of the cities covered as is presently avail
In the order of importance for this study, the documentar
lized consist of newspapers; census schedules; vital record
cords; property records; business records; court records; ci
cemetery records; passenger lists; letters; manuscript mat
and ordinances; photographs and sketches. The methods us
ing the Romnichel population in the records are essential
That is, the historical population studied comprises the ancesto
sent-day American Romnichels. The accuracy and quality o
is varied, but most information provided by them can us
checked against other documentation. Because none of
were originally produced with the study of Gypsies in mind, t
any researcher-introduced bias. Whatever other biases they
usually be corrected by rigorous cross-checking of the vari
directories ignore transients, but are not systematically bia
of income or property ownership (Thernstrom 1973:280-2
U.S. census is not free from errors, it did attempt an actua
population, and included those living in tents as well as in h
time (indeed, some members of the population studied we
more than once). The death records of the Commonwealth
setts, the first state to institute uniform and compulsory recor
gathered information on all persons who died in the state,
who died elsewhere but were buried in Massachusetts. That even deaths of
newborns in the study population are recorded as early as 1 866 assures us
of the completeness of these records for our purposes. In 1 902, a daughter
of the Holyoke, Massachusetts stable-owning family estimated the Massa-
chusetts Romnichel population at under 200 (Sinclair n.d.). Using the 1900
U.S. census schedules, supplemented by data from city directories, we
count 196 individuals. The similarity of these figures would indicate that our
data are close to covering the entire Romnichel population in the state at
that time.
The oral data consist of interviews over

25 members of 1 3 Romnichel families in
East Coast. They were used primarily to
records and to fill in the kinds of informa
Immigration, Demography, and Settlem
Romnichels began appearing in the U.

immigrate in small family groups until Wo
tainty what impelled them to leave Englan
sons, which seem interrelated, given by so
least suggest possible causes. In 1 851 a m
determined, interviewed at a camp in H
the group had left England in search of
duly impressed by the reports of the ju
Freedom, Newark, N.J., 1 9 August 1 851
nichels camping in Brooklyn in 1 867 r
the increase in their numbers which led t
livelihood (New York Times, 12 August
appears to have been part of the overall
land, which grew steadily to a peak in the
ly in the 1890s as the overall immigration
see, economic opportunity possibly play
In our total sample, from the censuses
of individuals whose places of birth are
who reported arriving in the U.S. prior to
reported to have been born in the U.S. pri
appears to have begun then and continu
the Civil War, which temporarily stemme
families already in the U.S. spent the Civi
ly returning to the U.S. Immigration from
ued until halted by World War I and the su
restrictions.
Probably no completely accurate estima

any period, including the present, is yet p
data do, however, reveal interesting facts
lation on which we do have data. For ex
5.4 in 1 880 (n = 200), 5.3 in 1 900 (n = 5
477). The 1 91 0 census schedules are th
most of the 1890 schedules were destro
increasingly in urban areas during this tim
282 URBAN ANTHROPOLOGY VOL. 11(3-4). 1982
FIGURE 1.
Birth Dates and Nativity Reported on Census Schedules of 1870, 1880, 1900, and 1910 (1023 individuals).
uals reported from urban areas fluct

percent in 1900 and 72 percent in 19
camp units of different sizes and po
figures. The 1 880 and 1 900 censuses w
summer camping season; the 1910 ce
urban to rural locations ranged from 7
1 91 0. The average size of the camp un
ed by blood or marriage, hovered ar
A few other demographic data rev
times to have been heavily weighted to
about 40 percent of the total number o
percent of the population is over 60
equivalence. Life expectancy is appro
en, but more women died of childbir
suffered more accidental deaths. By
pecially among children, were the re
on morbidity is too scanty at present
cy appears to have been low, primarily
sexes and increasing only slightly from
From the records on places of birt
tive numbers of people in different par
ual shifts in location over time. T
Romnichels, beginning from the 1 85
vania, and Virginia. Virginia seems t
the Civil War. Pennsylvania continu
births into the 1 880s, which then beg
in Ohio remains about the same up to 1
the New England States of Massachu
show a relatively large number of birt
Louisiana, and Arkansas fewer, but a
fornia also has a Romnichel populati
until 1910. Overall there seems to be
chel population centers in the East and
of population further and further wes
The longevity of Gypsy association w
tested. From their first arrival into an
frequently reported to have visited and
ley 1981 , Vaux de Foletier 1970). Upo
U.S., they were also frequently reporte
equally as often in small towns and
portion of time they spent in the diff
gauge with precision. Since travel b
slow (maximum 20 miles per day) frequent stays in the

inevitable.
An analysis of Romnichel land ownership patterns
preference for the proximity of large population centers,
ness reasons. Depending on the economic strategies
steady clientele for fortune-telling, horse-trading, or othe
ly required business locations not too far removed from
reached by the available local transportation. Not surprisin
erties located at the ends of trolley lines, adjacent to r
near main travel routes, such as highways. In New Jersey,
cities in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, a lot purchase
the acquisition of clustered contiguous or nearby lots m
times Romnichels were the first owners in new subdivisions. These loca-
tions often evolved into so-called Gypsy colonies where numerous families
concentrated on adjacent lots with other, more transient, visitors camping in
tents or wagons on the land. In addition to the larger scale ownership of
land, lots were also often owned by the same families along the routes they
traversed seasonally. The ownership of a lot made it impossible for the
neighbors or the police to evict the campers, which otherwise seems to
have been a relatively frequent occurrence at sites used but not owned. For
example, in 1 874 in East Orange, New Jersey, a family of Romnichels were
notified to leave town because of the complaints of residents from the neigh-
borhood of their camp. At first they promised to do so, but the next news,
rather than reporting their departure, announced that they had purchased a
house instead. The local paper admits this to be "sharp practice" and rue-
fully concludes that the town will now have "a small chance of getting rid of
them" (East Orange Gazette, 21 May 1874). The Gypsies remained and
continued to own the property until 1911.
It has been suggested (Brown 1924:125) that Romnichels made it a
practice to abandon their land through non-payment of taxes; this was tak-
en as a sign of Gypsy indifference to material wealth. Most often, according
to our data, lands lost through neglect of taxes were soon bought back by
their original Romnichel owners. In the case to which Brown seems to refer,
the land had already been in the family three generations.
Apparently there were numerous travel patterns, but all of them in-
cluded frequent movement during the warm seasons, often beginning as
soon as the roads were dry enough after the melting of the snows to be
passable. Winter stays varied from the southern pattern of continued travel-
ing made possible by the warmer weather, to wintering in houses in northern
cities. We also have reports of Romnichels wintering in tents during sub-
zero weather, including the blizzard of 1 888 in northern New Jersey. A Rom-
nichel woman, writing to Paul Kester from her camp near Denver, Colorado
on December 22, 1892, remarks on the cold we

writing in pencil because the ink was frozen (Ke
Much of the earlier literature also reports a mig
ing in the South and returning North for the sum
to be true for some families some of the time,
stays in or travels between northern states
common.
Travel usually involved going from community to community

many towns or hamlets along the way as required for the acqu
cessities or for business reasons. According to reports, buyin
was performed at any time and most Gypsies were ready to t
of any opportunity that presented itself. When not camping
property, any convenient spot, whether it be a farmer's field
vacant lot in the city, might be utilized. Some families are rep
traveled in regular circuits, often returning to the same pla
ranged more widely, following no set route. Hardly ever, how
travel either continuous or completely random. Awareness of the
small towns, or rural areas for exploitation guided all travel. The
camp for weeks, sometimes months, at especially productive
and keep returning to these spots year after year, as they did to
New York City, for example.
Romnichel Occupations and Economic Context
The last half of the nineteenth century saw a number of dev

that were to change profoundly the nature of American society.
period the country underwent rapid westward expansion and sett
public domain. Railroads were to play a key role in the opening of
By 1 853 the first railroads reached to Chicago from the East. Th
the Mississippi to northern trade in 1861 further stimulated t
east-west railroads. Federal land grant policy for the railroads
in 1 850 and already by 1 869 the completion of a coast-to-coast r
become a reality. Before the end of the century railroads crisscro
ica (McKelvey 1963:20-22).
From 1 850 to 1 900 the American population grew more t
fold, bringing with it an expansion of domestic markets. Incr
facturing and the mechanization of agriculture were some res
increased demand for industrial and agricultural products (G
Ladd 1969:31). The Civil War also stimulated manufacturing an
war industrialization proceeded rapidly, raising the gross nat
from 3.3 billion in 1 869 to over 1 3 billion in 1 899 (McKelvey 1 9
Before the 1 850s most American farmers had used oxen

and heavy draft work. The invention of new farm machinery,
ers and reapers, required nimbler animals, and before 1860
gun to replace the oxen on many farms (Gates 1960:227-228
the increased number of manufacturing businesses and the i
horse-car lines, well under way by the 1 860s, also increased the
horses; for example by 1 880 all cities of over 50,000 popula
railroads (McKelvey 1 963:76). The Civil War put a damper on th
the number of horses temporarily and, of course, large num
were killed as a direct result of the war. The requirements of th
and the shortages following it boosted the demand for horse
The score or more years following the Civil War have been c
en age of animal husbandry" in the U.S., during which the num
shot up from 8 to 12 million (Gras 1946:319). Dealing in hors
a big business with central markets cropping up throughout
Midwest, and the states directly west of the Mississippi River h
numbers of horses (Green 1967:v-vii).
The regional differences in the supply and demand of ho
into existence a whole new class of entrepreneurs ready to
of the profits that could be made by driving or shipping horses
kets where more would be paid for them than at their orig
More horses were bred and raised in the South and in the West than need-
ed, and not enough in the more densely settled and urbanizing eastern
states. The building of the railroads allowed the horses to be shipped east. It
is no surprise that important railroad junctions such as Kansas City, Omaha,
St. Paul, Chicago, St. Louis, and Cincinnati also became central locations
for the Romnichel population and where the Romnichels concentrated. For
the northeast, horses were also brought in from Canada.
The purchase of the horses was, of course, done primarily in the rural
areas where they were raised, but their disposal could occur anywhere
there was a need for them. Since the urban areas had no way of replenishing
their own stock, large continuous markets developed for outside stock; also
the wear and tear on the horses was greater in the cities, causing a faster
rate of turnover, hence greater demand. Although the horses could be sold
to farmers along their transportation routes, this would have been small
trade compared to the larger sales and higher prices that could be realized
with the clientele of the urban markets. Even the farmers from the vicinity of
the urban market centers traveled to them to get their pick from the larger
selection of animals available. In the cities, industries, railroad companies,
fire houses, breweries, and other smaller businesses and the city itself cre-
ated a large demand for horses. Before the end of the nineteenth century it
was estimated that about 20 percent of the total demand for horses came
from the cities (U.S. Department of Commerce 1902:clxxxix).
Besides the local variation in the value of horses there was also con-
siderable fluctuation in the prices over time. After the Civil War the value of
horses rose steadily until after 1 887, after which a decline set in, bottoming
out from a low point in 1 897, climbing again for a while, and then returning to
a slow decline from 1910 through 1925. After 1925 the prices again rose
slightly but never again did they reach the turn of the century levels.
In 1850, 186 persons identified themselves as horse dealers to the
census takers. By 1860 the figure had risen to 879 (U.S.Department of
Commerce 1904:lvi). After that date, the census reports subsume horse
dealers under the category "traders and dealers: live stock," thus obscur-
ing the figures as bases for comparison. The figures given in that category
are 7,723 persons for 1870, and 12,596 persons for 1880. No figures are
given for subsequent years (U.S. Department of Commerce 1904:xxxviii).
Inadequate as the figures are, they do give another indication of the increase
in horse trade.
Since literature on the economic organization of the horse trade is ex-
tremely sparse, comparison of Romnichel business practices with those of
non-Gypsies must be very tentative. Non-Gypsy horse-trading appears to
have been conducted primarily in two ways. Green (1967:v-xi), speaking
from experience in a later period than that of the present study, and in the
Midwest and South rather than New England, distinguishes between the
practices of the dealers operating from the large urban horse markets and
the "road traders." The urban entrepreneurs hired buyers to travel and ship
horses to the central market. Road traders bought and sold horses on a
small scale while traveling the countryside. Although most of the individuals
in the horse business, whether owners of liveries, sale stables, or indepen-
dent traveling traders, were not Gypsies, the particular skills, attitudes, mo-
bility, and family-based social organization gave the Romnichels certain
advantages the others did not possess.
Gypsy trade appears at first to have been primarily road trade on a
small scale, but as soon as some families began acquiring land, or even
more permanent rented campsites, they began collecting larger numbers of
horses in one place for resale. By having a larger selection available, they
could afford to advertise and attract more buyers to their central location. If
the camp boasted the added attraction of a "Gypsy Queen" telling fortunes,
the word of their presence and offerings soon spread widely. Apparently
they were successful in this line of work, as all accounts we have of this vari-
ety of trade report that business was usually brisk.
Although the data are sparser for the earlier periods than later, it does
appear that Romnichel dependence on horse trading as a primary economic
strategy increased from 1850 to 1880. Newspaper articles indicate that in
the first two decades after their arrival in the U.S., the Romnichel men were
already engaged in a wide variety of peripateti

among others, horse-trading and coping; tinning; b
the women, at least sometimes, engaged in for
house selling of baskets, lace, trinkets, and amu
easily made or cheaply purchased sundry items
these occupations were that they were independe
overhead, had a ubiquitous clientele, and could b
By the last quarter of the nineteenth century a
horse trading had become considered by many
tion of male Romnichels. Of 42 males over 18 y
the 1880 U.S. census schedules, 19, or 45 percen
as horse dealers or in the horse and livestock busin
age was 75, and in 1 91 0, 77 percent (see Table 1 ).
ries of 30 cities at five-year intervals provides the
listed in Table 2 (Table 2; city directories list males
self-ascriptions refer to Romnichel formal econom
informal economy, such as peddling, may be ob
Horse trading assumed a symbolic as well as
functioning as a badge of ethnic identity and a sou
1903, one family of Maryland Romnichels w
1 They're stylish Gypsies- they don't bother with
and telling fortunes; they buy horses (The Sun,
italics ours). Even as late as 1922, a wealthy Ne
trasted his family, which had become widely know
tivities, with a group of Rom already traveling
kind of people" (Newark Evening News, 1 7 Aug
trader" or "horse dealer" was given as an officia
sus takers, local officials, and newspapers an
seemed almost synonymous with "Gypsy." The
Romnichels to advertise their presence to any com
ther reinforced this identification by the profe
depicting idealized horses and the horse trading lif
er" was reserved mostly for the older, adult marri
younger dependent males could be found in more v
ticed to the horse business as stable-boys, hostl
pride of success in horse trading is reflected ev
horses on the tombstones of horse dealers. The
Rogers of Hartford, Connecticut was surmounted b
horse. (The statue is now missing.)
The number of males able to support thems
solely by horse trading was, of course, a functio
horse market. Thus, when there were slumps in th
TABLE 1:
Occupations Reported for Romnichel Men Over Age 18, U.S. Census of 1870, 1880, 1900 and 1910.
Occupation 1870 1880 1900 1910
Horse trader, dealer 6 13 82 78
Stock dealer 3 12 4
Horseman 5
Wholesaler, horses 2
Stablekeeper; Prop, livery stable 1 2

Keeping horses 1
Horse salesman 1 2
Auctioneer, horses 1
Horse doctor; vet. surgeon 2 1

Liveryman 1
Hostler; attends stock 1 2
Driver 1
Total horse trade 6 19 101 95
Wood and wicker work
Basket maker 15 2 1
Chair maker, bottomer 2
Cabinet maker 1
Metal work and repair
Tinsmith 2 1
Cutler 2
Umbrella mender, repairman 2

Farm work
Farmer 2 2 5
Farm laborer 2
Other
Works at home 1
Grocerman 1
Dealer, general 2
Showman, show business 1
Laborer, show business 2
Boxing lessons 1
Wagon painter 1
Real estate 1
Laborer, day laborer 2 1
Brass polisher 1
Printer, wallpaper 2
Clerk, office 1
Prisoner 1
None 1
Own income 1
Gypsy; wandering Gipsy 4 3 2

Not given 7 16 6
Total 10 42 134 124
TABLE 2. Occupations Reported for Romnicel Men Over Age 20, City D
Occupation 1870 1875 1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930
Horse dealer, trader 6 4 9 7 18 23 29 27 31 28 19 12 2
Sale, livery stables 3 2 2 7 6 813 913 9 5 5 5

Stock-, livestock dealer 2 3 2 11
Horseman 1
Manager, stables 2
Employee, stables 11 112
Salesman, stables 1 112
Auctioneer 11112
Bookkeeper, stables 1
Horse trainer 1
Horse dentist 1 1
Stableman, barnman 2 1 2
Hostler, helper 112 2 113 14 1

Driver, teamster 2 3 3 11
Total horse trade 9 6 11 14 27 39 48 52 49 48 30 27 15
Wood and wicker work
Basket maker 1 111 8 16
Chair bottomer, seater 1 1
Rustic work, furniture 1 1
Reedworker 1 1
Wood worker 1 1
Total wood work 01 00011 3221 917
Metal work and repair
Grinder 1 1
Umbrella maker 1
Other, self-employed 1 2 4 5
Laborer 1 2 3 2 4 2 14
Other, wage labor or

unknown 1 1 2 3 7 6 10
Total 10 7 11 14 28 43 53 56 56 60 44 43 47
ample during the depression of 1 893, indivi

but as soon as business picked up again fro
identified themselves as horse traders on censuses and other documents
calling for occupational information. After the horse trade went into a per-
manent decline in the 1 920s, most Romnichels were forced to seek new oc-
cupations. After the 1930s only a few older men identified themselves as
horse traders. In 1 930, basket-making accounted for 33 percent of the male
occupations reported in city directories; wage labor accounted for 29
percent.
Women's occupations experienced fewer changes. Their main tasks
had been to take care of the children and household duties, and to supple-
ment men's earnings whenever they could. The older girls and adult women
would leave the younger children with the older women in the camp and go
"calling" door-to-door presenting petty items for sale and offering to tell for-
tunes whenever this seemed appropriate. The only major change in this pat-
tern occurred after the horse trading business dropped precipitously in the
1 920s and for a while the women were pressed into service as the main in-
come earners.
Of the sample of 54 adult women on the census rolls or in

reporting a trade, 32, or nearly 60 percent, identified themselves
tellers or palmists. Fortune telling was practiced in a variety of w
the "calling" pattern described above. One variation involved t
pageants with the Gypsies as chief performers. More often t
simply on the fortune teller as the chief drawing card, but often
traction such as a "Royal Gypsy Wedding" or a "Queen's Cor
staged to attract clientele. Often, especially on weekends, thi
to-dusk work for the women and would produce a sizeable income
time. The camps were most often pitched at the outskirts of
ends of trolley lines for larger cities, and even within city limits i
cations could be obtained. From the range of camping spots re
data no locality was too small or too large. Naturally the larg
centers could be counted on to bring in a larger clientele, but
location was often a compromise between various factors, such
ability of different types of clients, for example, for horses, fort
basket sales; the availability of transportation to the campsite
ents, and water and pasturage for the horses. The strictness of th
cials in enforcing the various statutes and ordinances regulat
peddling, and fortune telling that might be on the books also had
into account. The relation of the camping spot to other spots on
or its proximity to other Gypsies, whether friends and relatives
might also be a factor. However, as we shall see later, territo
seems hardly ever to have been an important factor in considerin
camp. It develops only in the case of fixed business sites
stables.
Romnichels in Urban New England
As we have seen, increased railroad construction during and

ately following the Civil War improved transportation from the We
eastern cities. It is shortly after the end of that war that the Romn
dealers began to found urban stables in New England, first in So
Massachusetts (1 868) and Providence, Rhode Island (1 873-76), th
following two decades, in other cities. Somerville, Holyoke, Worc
River, and Somerset, Massachusetts; Hartford, Connecticut; and
dence and East Providence, Rhode Island, all housed stables found
fore 1900 and continuing in business through the 1920s. All th
had, in 1 880, populations of between 21 ,000 (Holyoke) and 1 04,8
dence). All were served by at least one railroad line, most by betw
and six. With one exception, all were manufacturing or trade ce
exception, Somerville, was a near suburb of Boston and part of i
politan area (U.S. Department of Interior 1886).
The Romnichel stables and communities in the Boston area, H
and Providence will be described in detail below. Of the others, th
ter, Massachusetts business was founded in 1 881 by Hugh Clark,
been in the area since at least 1 868, and who had done business
from 1 871 to 1 874. The Holyoke stable was founded about 1 884
Clark, and later, from 1894 on, was continued by Cornelius, a b
Hugh Clark; Cornelius had also been in Boston in 1871. The East
dence business was founded about 1 885 in Providence and op
both Providence and East Providence until about 1902, after whic
fined its activities to East Providence. It was founded by Joshu
Hugh Clark, the Worcester stable owner. The Fall River/Somer
was founded by Levi and Samuel, sons of Benjamin Walker, a son
and Harriet Walker who had settled in Ohio in the early 1850s. T
which had been in Boston in 1 871 , settled in the area about 1 880. T
bles were founded in 1 893 in Fall River and moved to the Somerset home-
stead in 1904. (See Figures 2 and 3.)
Boston and Somerville, Massachusetts
In 1 870, the first census year in which the Romnichels are enumerated
in Somerville, that city had a population of 14,685. A suburb of Boston,
Somerville attracted inhabitants from the larger city with relatively cheap
land for both residence and business purposes (U.S. Department of Interior
1 886). Boston, a great trade center, county seat and state capital, and focal
FIGURE 2.
Romnichel Stable Communities in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.
Ç
Somerville /
'"Y Boston
Worcester • ^^^^
Holyoke • '
Hartford
S<»%f
• Ri
Fall
^
R. I.JU ^
CONNECTICUT / •« 1/ j-~'
1 ^^L^-^ ^ j-~' ^
FIGURE 3.
Kinship Relationships Among New England Romnichel Communities. (Chart much simplified. Stable
communities underlined.)
I . ■ , ^¿ ■ "'O , f , , j' I X ii
1 1 « 1 1 i V.6 fY
11 | ? II ' '
' ' ' if I, ' ' '
I Somerset, MA | I Worcester, MA
"I I I I I I | Providence, RI ,
point of an area already to a great extent urban by 1 880

ulation of 250,526. Between 1 867 and 1 870, Boston b
road and terminal facilities, including improved conn
Boston was also the American terminus of the Cunard Lin
1840; passenger business was transferred to New Yo
sumed about 1870 (U.S. Department of Interior 1 886).
The Romnichel settlement in Somerville dates from 1866. Enumer-
ated in the 1870 census of Somerville were not only the founding family of
the Somerville sales stable, but also the founding family of the Providence
business, and that of the family which founded the Lower Roxbury neigh-
borhood of Boston. These families were listed in the Somerville city directo-
ry beginning with the issue of 1 868-69, the first issue published. The Boston
directories for 1 870 through 1 874 list members of the families which later
founded the Fall River and Holyoke stables, as well as those of Hartford and
Providence.
The Somerville Carter family evidently immigrated to the U.S. about
1 855. The first two members to be born in the United were born in 1 856 and
1857 in Virginia. By 1870, when the census enumerator found them in
Somerville, the family consisted of 1 1 members; the founding brother, their
father, the mother-in-law of one, and the brothers' wives and children. All but
the children were born in England.
Samuel Carter (ca. 1823-90) first purchased corner property and
buildings in a commercial district of East Somerville in 1869 for $2,250, as-
suming a mortgage of $1 ,800 from the previous owner. Here he founded the
sales stable of S. Carter and Brother, doing business together with his youn-
ger brother Richard (1830-91); this is where A. T. Sinclair visited in 1882,
remarking on the business sign on the street (Sinclair 1917:7). In 1884 an
adjoining piece of property, bought for $1 ,969.45, was added to the prem-
ises. In 1888 Samuel formalized his partnership with Richard, deeding him
one-half interest in most of his property. The stable was operated as Carter
Bros, until Richard's death. From 1893 to 1902 it bore the name of Carter
Brothers and Sons, and was operated first by two sons of Samuel together
with Richard's son, then by Samuel's sons only. After Samuel's eldest son
moved to Hartford to live with his wife's family, the business was run until
1904 as Carter Bros. Sons by Samuel's two youngest sons. After that, the
formal business name was no longer used, although the horse trading busi-
ness continued at the same location under Richard's son through 1927.
With one exception, horse dealing was the only business carried on by the
men of the family at this location; from 1899 to 1901, Samuel's youngest
son ran a fruit store in part of the property. In 1 91 3 that portion was rented
on long-term leases to non-Gypsies as a grocery store. Non-Gypsy servants
were hired to assist in the horse-trading businesses; in 1 870 one hostler
lived with the family.
In addition to the Somerville pr

property in Maiden, Massachusetts,
chusetts, bought in 1 873, the latter
The property containing the sta
Richard's families, by 1900 using se
households consisted of the nuclear fa
parent, more rarely of a full three g
rented housing in the immediate ne
the same address one year or less.
We know that, despite settled re
travel on business, particularly to Can
n.d.). Sinclair met Richard Carter's d
Harbor, Maine, a seaside resort area
day," made possible by the seasona
July and August (Sinclair n.d.).
One of Samuel's six daughters ma
stable-owning family; two daughter
Rogers, the Hartford stable owner;
the Holyoke stable community.
Not far from this first Somerville stable and off a main street was the
stable of another brother of Samuel and Richard, Esau Carter (1 836-1 91 8).
While not doing business under a formal name, he bought the property in
1 873 and 1 874, and traded horses here from 1 896 until his death. His family
continued to live on the property long after.
Immigrated about 1 850, he married a daughter of the Providence sta-
ble owner about 1 860, and spent much of the next ten years in Canada. One
of his daughters and a son married children of Thomas Rogers, the Hartford
stable owner.
His property included the Somerville stable and residence, as well as
land in Melrose, Massachusetts, bought in 1882, residential property in the
Roxbury and Hyde Park sections of Boston, bought by his wife in 1 893 and
1894. He traveled (he was in camp in Lunenberg, a rural area in northern
Massachusetts, in June 1880), lived at various addresses in Somerville
(1 887-94) and at his Boston home (1 895 and 1 898-99) and Somerville home
(1896), before settling on his Somerville property beginning 1900.
His household generally consisted of the nuclear family, but some-
times included the families of his married children, and that of a widowed
daughter.
In the southern section of Somerville, another family of Romnichels
held sway. Also known as expert horse dealers in the city (Boston Traveler,
6 November 1 91 7), this group did not found an urban stable in a fixed loca-
tion, but traveled more regularly. Renting housing in Somerville, they gener-
ally stayed at the same addresses for a year or less. This group consisted
largely of Cornelius Carter (1830-1911), his family, and the f

sons and sons-in-law. The pattern of renting neighboring housin
turning year after year to the same neighborhood, though not n
the same houses, led the newspapers to label the settlement
lage" (Boston Sunday Herald, 23 December 1900). This "cogn
often camped as close to home as the still-open areas of B
camps, accessible to the electric streetcar lines, drew city dweller
diversion, and took advantage of the Sunday streetcar rides popu
teenth-century Boston (Warner 1962:60). The camps were in p
ple of overcommunication of ethnicity, stressing fortun
picturesqueness, yet within easy reach of the city. In 1 900, whe
enumerated the group at one of these camps in Boston's 23rd
cluded Cornelius, two sons-in-law and their families, includin
married sons of one son-in-law, and his widowed daughter and h
thus the group included four generations. The group also include
in non-Gypsy servants.
Beginning in 1891 the same groups began to purchase lo
Roxbury (now Roslindale), a suburb of Boston just beginnin
with the extension of streetcar service (Warner 1 962:2, 60). Toge
bers of the group bought 19 lots in the same subdivision at
boom period for housing construction in the area. In 1895 the
Park Commission bought some of this property as part of the ta
for the Roxbury Parkway planned by Olmsted. In 1896 Jame
1851-1903), one of Cornelius's sons-in-law, had two adjoining
apartment buildings built on some of his property (Boston, Build
ment). The newspapers indicated that the six apartments, pro
modern conveniences, were rented to "Boston's elite" (St. Lo
24 July 1 897; this article erroneously assigns ownership to Jame
in-law, Joshua Walker (ca. 1839-1917). James Walker and ot
group also owned property in Hyde Park, now part of Boston, bo
ning in 1894. Some of the West Roxbury properties continued
vestment, camping, or dwelling property up to the present
Building Department).
Closer to Boston, in Lower Roxbury, an older suburb in tr
the late nineteenth century) from lower-middle class to wo
(Warner 1 962:1 00), another Romnichel neighborhood develop
tern of that in southern Somerville, the same families returning
the same neighborhood, but to different rented houses. Th
Romnichels in this area since 1873, but the group associated
the neighborhood formed around the families of Mathew Wal
1 908) and Richard Walker (ca. 1 831 -1 91 0), married to sisters.
The 1870 census found Mathew Walker and his family in
Reportedly born in Devonshire, England, he came to the U. S. bet
and 1865, his youngest child being b

listed in the Providence city directory
was in Everett, Massachusetts. In 18
ton, and in 1883 with Lower Roxbur
few years before his death, he took
(n.d.) records meeting his son, owne
these Lower Roxbury addresses.
Richard Walker is first recorded in
bury in 1877. He is listed sporadically
at various addresses in the neighborhoo
neighborhood and lived there up to
land purchase in Lower Roxbury, with
by Esau Carter's wife a year later. R
of rural land in Newton, bought in
son, bought a contiguous parcel of s
Walker was camping in a tent on this
the time, two servants, a hostler and a
The men in both families consisten
dealers, although they did not found
their business practices.
Boston, then, unlike the smaller ci
deed, no formalized Romnichel stab
Rather, it appears to have served as a
ploying peripatetic strategies.
Providence, Rhode Island
In 1870 the population of Providence was 68,904; by 1880 it had

grown to 1 04,857. A state capital and industrial center, it was served by six
railroads. Industry in the area surrounding the city was dominated by mills;
agriculture took the form of market gardening (U.S. Department of Interior
1886).
James Walker (ca. 1 81 7-98) immigrated to the U.S. between 1 851 and
1855 with his wife and eldest children; the years shortly after immigration
were spent in southern states. Two children were born, in 1 856 and 1 859, in
Virginia; one, in 1861 , in Pennsylvania and one, in 1867, in Massachusetts.
From 1869 to 1871 he lived in Somerville, moving to Providence about
1872. In 1876 James Walker's wife bought land in a newly-developing sec-
tion near the then-northern border of Providence. Twenty years later the
family increased its land holdings by purchasing seven lots of land nearby,
including corner lots on a main urban highway. Members of the family con-
tinued to buy neighboring land in 1906 and 1909. Following James's death
in 1 898, his heirs sold his property and his wife's to the eldest son.
In 1 887 this eldest son, William Walker, moved his horse trading
ness to a leased stable in a commercial center of the city, purchas
property in 1913. However, he continued to reside on the norther
dence property. Following his death in 1917, his son, who also ow
in Ohio, continued the stable business at the same site until 1932.
from 1 926-28, James Walker's great-grandson operated a garage in th
mer stables on the family's northern Providence property; the proper
then leased out as a truck garage. In 1 934 the Romnichel stable bu
Providence passed to another family, descendants of both the Som
and Hartford stable founders, doing business in another part of the ci
James Walker's urban horse trading business supplied brewer
other local businesses with draft horses. Horses were bought, at
part, during travels in New England, Canada, and to the West and
non-Gypsy hostler, who began working for the family on these j
about 1892, at age 14, later recalled that two to three freight-car
horses were shipped East from the western states. In addition, som
were sold from town to town. The caravan of ten canvas-covered
camped outside big cities or, between cities, in rural areas. Near ci
camp attracted crowds for the women's fortune-telling businesses.
ing to this observer, the women's income from fortune telling and sel
willow baskets of their own manufacture carried the travel expenses;
come from horse trading was then clear profit (Providence Journal, 2
1927). On some of these trips, a custom-built and highly decorate
wagon, said to have won an award at the 1 893 Columbian Exposition in
cago, served as a moving advertisement for James Walker's horse
business (Providence Evening Bulletin, 17 August 1932).
One of James Walker's daughters married Esau Carter, the Som
stable owner; a son married a daughter of Cornelius Carter, of So
and West Roxbury. His grandchildren's marriages created further t
the West Roxbury group and with the Somerset, Massachusetts,
owners. There are no affinal ties with the rival stable-owning family
Providence.
From 1880 to 1910, according to the census schedules, the principal
household in the group always included at least three generations. In 1880
the household included James, his wife, his widowed sister, three married
sons and their families, one married daughter and her family, one unmarried
son.
Hartford, Connecticut
In 1 880, Hartford, with a population of about 42,01 5, was a sta
ital and major trade center served by fi

insurance industry (U.S. Department of In
Thomas Rogers (1830-95) immigrated
with his first wife and three eldest childr
reported to have spent his first post-im
then to have spent the Civil War years in
ada (New York Herald, 10 March 1895).
Carolina, before 1858.
His first recorded connection with th
daughter was born there; at that time he
York. In 1882 he bought property in Ea
leading from the Hartford business distri
the stables," as his 1895 newspaper adv
horse trading business. Acquisition o
brought the property to a little over fo
building which had housed the Farmer'
prised the house with additions, barns
board. In 1 899 the land was appraised a
Upon Thomas Rogers's death in 1 895
viving three sons, who did business as R
the third dying in 1 932. Except for one y
stables in Hartford or East Hartford ot
sons-in-law.
Following the destruction of the barn by fire in 1 902, the Rogers Broth-
ers moved their operations to a location near the railroad terminal in the
Hartford business district, on property bought at that time. In 1916, they
sold that land and bought a larger property even closer to the train station,
and which included the former Prospect Hotel. The Rogers added a stable
building of fire-resistant material (Sanborn 1 920). The original East Hartford
property, involved in a probate dispute from 1895 to 1936, remained in the
family, and was used to generate income, through leasing of the billboards
to outdoor advertising companies, and as "guest space" on which visiting
relatives could camp.
Thomas Rogers, and later the Rogers Brothers Firm, advertised in
display ads in the city directories, and in the local newspapers (Figure 4). An
analysis of advertisements which appeared from 1891 to 1915 indicates
that business was in draft, rather than saddle horses. The ads emphasize
business horses and driving horses, but especially teams (farm teams,
matched draft pairs for coaches, hearses, and family use). They stress that
the horses are acclimated to urban use and, later, broken to automobiles.
Horses were sent from the North and Canada, from New York, Ohio, or
Pennsylvania, by the carload or hand-selected "from the farmers who raised
them." A written guarantee was promised.
FIGURE 4.
Advertisement from Geer's Hartford City Directory, 1896.
ROGERS BROS.,
DEALERS IN
Canada «Western Horses.
A Full Stock constantly on hand.

Horses if not as represented,
Money xvill be Refunded.
Farmer's Hotel, East Hartford, Conn.

ty Horses not warranted against sickness or death, ^g
When traveling, Thomas Rogers's best advertisem

his distinctive and flashy wagon, described as "a marvel
(New York Herald, 30 May 1 886). The following assess
to "an intimate and lifelong friend" of Thomas Rogers.
All this gewgaw spread [showy wagons and harness]... dazzled t

traffic and dicker about his caravan as nothing else on earth could
was a mighty shrewd and sagacious judge of the pecuniary side o
ness phenomenon" (New York Herald, 10 March 1895).
At the same time, the Herald's "rural critic" summ

business is ez good ez a circus, and don't you forgit it
FIGURE 5.
Wagon Owned by Thomas Walker (1854-1929), Probably Manufactured in Massachusetts. Photo courtesy
The Museums at Stony Brook.
The Hartford Romnichel horse-trading firms both bought an

credit, the promissory notes being duly recorded in Town Hall.
gave and took mortgages on real property, sued and were sued
owed.
When Thomas Rogers died in 1 895, his estate was appraised at over
$13,000, a sum giving credence to his business title "Prince" Rogers.
Thomas's second wife was a sister to the Carter brothers, Somerville
stable owners. Through the marriage of Thomas Rogers's daughter by his
first wife, the family was also connected with the Toledo, Ohio stable own-
ers. Four daughters and two sons married children of the Somerville Carter
brother, that is, cross-cousins. At least one of the daughters married a man
of non-Gypsy origin, who became fully integrated into Romnichel society. In
the third generation seven sets of first-cousin marriages can be identified.
Thus there were tendencies both toward cementing ties with other stable-
owning families, and toward forming a local group.
The Rogers Brothers' business partnership was mirrored in their
household arrangements; over the years the brothers' families shared a sin-
gle building or lived at adjoining addresses. Probably this was not a true joint
household, but nearer a three- (later two-) family dwelling. The 1 900 census
enumerated as one household the three brothers and their families and a
single nephew. The widowed father of a daughter-in-law and his family, in-
cluding the family of another daughter of the latter, were also included. The
household also comprised seven non-Gypsy live-in employees: six hostlers
and a cook. The 1910 census enumerated the two surviving brothers and
their families at one address; next door, a sister, her husband, and children
(plus one employee); and, on the East Hartford property, two other sisters,
their husbands and children.
Discussion
The immigration pattern of the Romnichels settled in New England in

dicates arrival in the United States beginning 1 850. The first American bi
recorded are reported in the southern states between 1850 and 1860,
cating that the earliest association was with the South. The Civil War perio
found the "New England" Romnichels in the Midwest, the Middle Atl
states, and Canada. Births in the New England states begin in 1866.
As we have seen, the beginning of the Romnichel immigration to
U.S. coincided with the period of transition to the use of draft horses in fa
ing. While we have no evidence that this was a factor in the decisions to im
migrate, it certainly seems clear that the Romnichels were not slow to
advantage of the opportunity presented by the expanding need for ho
and that this opportunity contributed to their specialization in the h
trade.
The growing urbanization of the Northeast w

crease in demand for draft horses, together with
ments which made shipments of horses from we
presented another opportunity which the Romniche
ing. Romnichel horse traders then, like other bus
urban centers by improved opportunities for bus
stant increase in the demand for horses which co
encouraged the establishment of the horse trade
activity, as a marker of ethnic and personal identity
The Romnichel horse business in cities, as els
along lines of kinship and ethnicity. The stable-oper
man with his sons or sons and sons-in-law, or a se
few short-lived partnerships with non-Gypsies ar
risks and profits of the venture was generally li
roles of non-Gypsies being limited to those of hi
responsibility.
The organization of the Romnichel stable bus
seems also to have been characterized by territo
whether any jurai rules regulated the distributio
rules may have been enforced. However, with som
only a single kin-based group owned stables in an
the only city in which families shared a city for an
between the two families apparently developed
September 1908). The lack of marriage ties betwe
have been an expression of this hostility.
Territoriality was based on and limited to sta
horse trade; it did not cover any other economic str
ample, a Romnichel traveling show played in Con
to Romnichel stables, apparently without conflic
spect the concept of territoriality appears to paralle
group today. In the latter case, territoriality is ba
activity of fortune telling, regulating the distributi
nesses (Salo 1977:90).
Green (1967), as we have seen, distinguished b
tion of the centralized urban horse markets and that
eling road traders. The New England Romnichel s
utilize both the centralized and peripatetic strategies
eralist, peripatetic strategies were always maintai
more specialized strategy ceased to be economica
The Romnichel urban New England stables dr
from both the New England area and from farthe
or the Midwest. Rather than hired buyers, it wa
owning family who did the traveling, purchasing, an
times only the male members of the family undertook h

other times the entire family made the trips. In the case
ble family, one of the sons moved to Iowa before 1 900,
manent contact with the western sources of supply.
organization which allowed direct control of both the bu
pects of the business may have given the Romnichels
The peripatetic strategy was exercised both withi
in a wider geographical area. On these trips the families
nesses, fortune telling and basket making and sales, i
be an advantage.7 Clientele for horse trading and for
tracted by overcommunication of ethnicity, through the
of some of the wagons, and the expectations of exoti
the Gypsy camp. Seasonal slack periods for urban ho
some families taking advantage of the opportunities o
mountain resorts and their diversion-minded clientele.
Clientele were attracted to the urban stables through display advertis-
ing in newspapers and city directories, as well as by reputation. Draft horses
were the main stock of these stables. Some were sold to area farmers, but
the major customers were urban businesses and individuals. It was claimed
that half the horses bought by the city of Worcester for municipal use were
bought from the Romnichel stable in that city (Worcester Telegram, 8 Febru-
ary 1910).
How successful were the Romnichel-owned urban stables in New
England? The chief source available to answer this question is the inven-
tories filed in probate courts in conjunction with wills or intestate administra-
tions. Although this inventory is an objective evaluation of property
ownership, it has several weaknesses as a source. First, it is possible that
property of which there is no legal record may not be reported. Also, states
differed in their requirements concerning what must be reported; these re-
quirements also changed over time. In addition, our sample for persons dy-
ing within a short span of time is very limited. Our sample, in fact, covers the
entire period of study, and includes persons who died in youth as well as at
the end of long careers. The sample consists of 18 males dying between
1890 and 1937, whose estates were probated in eight probate districts in
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Combined real and per-
sonal property inventoried for these persons ranged from $295 to $50,438,
the mean figure being $6,81 6. Of the 1 8, ten were owners or part-owners of
urban stables. For stable owners, although the range of property values re-
mains the same, the mean rises to $9,675. Of the six persons whose prop-
erty was valued at less than $2,000, all but one were not stable owners.
Nine persons, or half the total, had property valued at between $3,000 and
$9,000; of these, six were stable owners. The two persons with property
values considerably above these were also stable owners. While these re-
main far below the apparently inflated

World, 29 May 1 887), they are certainly
Stephan Thernstrom, in his occupatio
to 1930, regards independent propriet
$1 ,000 or more or real estate valued at
collar" category. In the "low white col
having less property (Thernstrom
about half the stable owners would be
The success of the stables of course varied over time. The owner who
left property valued at over $50,000 in real estate, bank accounts, business
inventory, and stocks and bonds died in in 1917, when the demand for
horses was at its height. It is not until the present time that property values
again reach this level.
To some extent, business success can be gauged by the need for and
ability to employ outside help. Of the twenty New England Romnichel house-
holds or camps enumerated in the 1900 census, ten included non-Gypsy
employees. The Hartford stables employed the largest number.
In neither its peripatetic nor its centralized, urban form was horse trad-
ing conducted as a casual, random business. In the cities, as we have seen,
the Romnichel stable owners took advantage of advertising opportunities.
Nor were they unsophisticated about the uses of law and legal documents.
Where such transactions were recorded publicly, we know that they both
bought and sold capital stock on credit. We know that they sued and were
sued both individually and as business firms. In land purchases, they ob-
tained loans for the immediate purchase, and also borrowed on their equity
for other purposes. In selling land, they also lent money to the buyers.
Indeed, with the exception of capital stock, land was the Romnichels'
most common investment in the larger community, in New England urban
areas as elsewhere in the U.S. Land and buildings for business and resi-
dence purposes was purchased in business districts of the cities. Land for
investment, residence or reserve areas for camping use was purchased in
further suburbs or rural areas. In cases of suburban land purchases, a num-
ber of related Romnichels commonly bought several contiguous or at least
neighboring lots in new subdivisions which were not yet built up. This was
the case in Providence, where the area became the family's main residence;
in West Roxbury, Boston, where the land was first used for investment and
as camping reserve, and only later for residence; in Hyde Park, Boston, and
in Worcester. Some of the property bought during this period remains in the
families today. In 1900 only 25 percent of Boston's families owned houses
(Warner 1962:9). The figure is somewhat higher, 37 percent, for Romnichel
families enumerated in Boston in the 1 900 U.S. census. None, however, was
enumerated at his property.
Where land purchase was not the norm, as in southern Somerville a

Lower Roxbury, a pattern of short-term rentals in neighboring streets dev
oped. Unlike their working-class neighbors, the Romnichels in these nei
borhoods owned rural land, used as summer camps. For the south
Somerville families, the summer retreats were their lands in then suburban
Roslindale or the more rural Hyde Park. The Lower Roxbury families sum-
mered in rural Newton and Natick.
We have seen that business was organized along lines of kinship. By
the same token, social networks and marital alliances tied together the sta-
ble-owning families. Judging from yet incomplete evidence, multiple ties
united each stable community with at least two others. Elopement being the
mode of marriage among Romnichels with, ideally, free choice of partner, it
seems that these alliances were "arranged" by manipulating proximity.8 Ex-
amination of the marriages indicates a strong preference for spouses whose
families are associated with New England or the other northeastern states.
Examination of other data, as well, supports this strong regional asso-
ciation. Of 102 Romnichels who died in Massachusetts between 1866 and
1 920, 39, or 62 percent, of the 63 born in the U.S. (rather than in England or
Canada) were reported to have been born in the same state. A total of 81
percent were born in New England. According to the 1900 U.S. census
schedules for Massachusetts, 71 percent of those born in the U.S. (n =
1 02) were born in the state. For persons born after 1 860 the figures are even
higher, 91 percent births in New England of the American-born Romnichels
who died in Massachusetts, and 89 percent of those enumerated in Massa-
chusetts in 1900 were born in New England. Of the 312 individuals in our
files enumerated in the 1900 U.S. census in all states other than Massachu-
setts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, only 3 were born in New England
states. Of the 330 persons enumerated outside New England in 1910, 15
were born in New England. Even allowing for a possible bias toward over-
reporting in favor of the state of residence at census time, the figures show a
high stability of residence within New England.
Marriage patterns were characterized by a relative endogamy based
on affinal ties of previous generations, geography, and ethnicity. However,
from the first generation, marriages with non-Gypsies, both male and fe-
male, were common. Often the non-Gypsy husbands were fully integrated
into Romnichel society and economic life. In many cases, such marriages
were short-lived or childless; in a few cases, the succeeding generations,
through further marriages, became an integral part of present-day Romni-
chel society. We do not, among New England Romnichels, find any con-
firmed marriages to members of other Gypsy groups.
Although household composition patterns varied, commonly more
than two generations were found in a household. They tended, in the latter
part of the period under study, to approximate the nuclear-family household
more than they did in the earlier. It a

cluster, rather than the individual hou
economic unit. This cluster, comparable t
gle or neighboring buildings or on contig
the cases of partnership among brothers
cation of responsibility and resources am
appears clear that they shared in the o
in its profits. The group, which did busi
other, was based on kinship, relationsh
The group could include the families o
could be considered to be formed on c
The Romnichels of nineteenth-cent
group which emphasized its cohesiven
absolute, endogamy based on ethnicity
and through the shared risks and expe
activities. As business men, they took ad
ties, centralized location, and access to
ers offered by cities. And they did so
strategies when appropriate. As urban
property taxes, and generally made th
citizen. The same can be said of Romn
A Brief Update
The Great Depression of the 1 930s,

of the precipitous decline in the demand
bly hard who had so successfully spec
matters worse, the alternatives were li
By the 1 930s the urban fortune telling
lished in the hands of the Rom group
competed with the Rom in one eastern c
true in New England. Some Romnichels c
themselves as horse dealers, and one f
dealing in trotting horses until about
England Romnichels at this time engag
ary activities for support, and in som
consonant with Thernstrom's findings (1
productive years during the Depression t
fathers had been low-white-collar work
chels again found a successful set of st
independent businesses.9 Due to the
and following the national trend, ma
from the cities to far suburbs and rural towns.
Summary and Conclusions
Romnichels began appearing in the U.S. around th

teenth century, when the burgeoning population, th
and the mechanization of agriculture was increasi
horses. This development was followed by rapid urba
ization, partly stimulated by the Civil War, which a
for horses in the urban areas, especially in the Ne
chels were quick to seize the opportunity and, ai
railroad links to the western territories, which p
they could use, began shipping them to the area
greater. Some of the Romnichels continued to f
trading strategy, buying and selling horses wher
early as 1 868 some began founding sales stables
the larger urban centers, from which they could dis
bles were founded in cities such as Washington,
sey; Detroit, Michigan; and Toledo, Ohio, but by
longest operating and successful of these was the
founded in the states of Massachusetts, Connecti
These stables formed territorial nuclei around which
or cognatically related to the founders, clustered.
main activity for many Romnichel males, symbolizi
personal success. Many stable owners ran highly
nesses, some of which continued in the same loca
until automobiles and tractors finally displaced ho
ban business, regionalism, and the intensive exploita
able marketing opportunities provides yet another
flexibility of Gypsies and should warn us against
tions based on stereotyped notions of assumed G
Romnichels provide an excellent example of the u
patetic group that survives by the exploitation of so
called socioeconomic niche. This study has tr
Romnichel strategies relative to the general trend
society and has examined in detail their specific
ticular urban milieus. The peripatetic strategy, as
the exploitation of patchy socioeconomic resource
with its high population in a condensed area, allows
cient exploitation of concentrated resources. Duri
were needed in both rural and urban areas, horse tra
peripatetic or sedentary strategies, or, as the Rom
cumstances in New England (e.g., the growth of c
allowed the Romnichels to switch to intensive exp
cities while continuing to use the peripatetic strateg
Before moving to urban areas Rom

nomic niche was based on spatial mobi
flexibility of procurement strategies
chels' relationship to the larger societ
al process grounded in ethnicity and the
Although the Romnichels utilized
were always ready to maximize return
and thus to specialize whenever the c
ally stereotyped as nomadic, historical r
settlement strategies always varied a
sources and their freedom of access t
necessary, Romnichels were noted to
long periods, to move into houses or t
erty when lengthier stays were anticipa
Romnichels are among the earliest of
West known to have adapted to urban
sis. We have examined how they did t
dom, ethnic identity, or occupational an
The Romnichel urban adaptations a
of ties to their peripatetic past, but me
their overall adaptive strategy to urb
the peripatetic portion of the socioec
dapted them to deal with microniches o
ters. In fact the differences between rural, small town, and urban
adaptations were, for the Romnichels, matters of degree rather than kind.
These differences concerned mainly housing and transportation; the eco-
nomic relationships did not change drastically. The concentration of re-
sources simply made their exploitation easier from an urban base. The only
major difference appears to have been in the consolidation of rights to a par-
ticular resource territory; the consequences of this seem to have been to
turn some already close-knit families further inward, as exemplified by many
close, even first-cousin, marriages.
In the strict sense Romnichels never became entirely urbanized or,
conversely, they had always been somewhat urban. They remained as a
separate ethnic entity, relating to the rest of the population primarily by
means of the socioeconomic niche. They remained in control of their work,
their schedules, their places of residence, and their social associations. The
flexibility of their adaptive strategies was preserved in spite of the long-term
specialization in the horse trade; in fact Romnichels retained a degree of
autonomy and self-direction rarely found among other urban minorities. Ulti-
mately the fact that the Romnichels were not dependent on any particular
environment, but on the resources of the socioeconomic macroniche at
large, saved them from the fate of many less fortunate urban minorities.
They bear no resemblance to the peasant immigrants in cities, nor to thp
urban poor. They do have some similarities to the urbanizing pastoral

ples described by Salzman et al. (1980), but because, as peripatetics,
had long ago severed any dependency on natural resources, their ad
ment to the urban context was both simpler and more successful.
Instead of succumbing to the more debilitating aspects of the ur
existence and sinking into a culture of poverty, Romnichels appear to
made a successful adaptation to the cities for as long as it was profitab
do so. Since they remained free to choose which microenvironment, u
or rural, to exploit within the larger society, they remained the masters
their fate. When their lucrative specialization began to yield diminishing
turns, they reverted to the more generalized strategies held in reserv
eventually developed new specializations, both urban and rural. This flexib
ity and the success of their adaptations have tempted us to call the genera
ized approach employed by the Romnichels the culture of competence
Acknowledgements
The research on which this paper is based was supported partially by small grants fro
Centenary College Faculty Development Fund and by a Grant-in-Aid from the New Jerse
torical Commission. Special thanks are due to the Romnichel men and women who have ta
an interest in and encouraged our work.
NOTES
1 For more background on Gypsy history see the introduction to this special issue of URBAN
ANTHROPOLOGY.
2 The larger scale structures and processes that impinge on the group and local conditions
are viewed from the world systems perspective (e.g., Rollwagen 1979). The concept of the
microenvironment is derived from Melville (1 983).
3 A good discussion of the economic structures (albeit from a non-ecological point of view)
which are relevant here is to be found in Pryor (1 977). His distinction between exchange and
transfer is especially useful in analyzing socioeconomic transactions (1977:27).
4 Some book-length ethnographies dealing with urban peripatetics are Gmelch 1977, Grop-
per 1 975, Okely 1 983, Salo and Salo 1 977, and Sutherland 1 975. Only Gmelch deals specifi-
cally with the urbanization process.
5 Although there is a superficial similarity here with the ecological concepts of the fundamental
and realized niche, the two are not identical. Any microniche, for example, could be either a
fundamental or a realized niche.
6 Pseudonyms have been used in keeping with the wishes of some of the Romnichels.
7 It is not clear to what extent these businesses were carried on by the stable-owning families
in the urban environment. The records indicate a clear primacy of the horse trading busi-
ness. Sinclair, in 1882, observed Richard Carter's wife dispensing medicines and advice to
clients at their Somerville address (1917:7). In the urban setting businesses such as this
would have belonged to the Romnichel informal economy.
8 It is interesting to note that such a system resu

marriage "exchanges" very similar to those pr
where parentally arranged marriage with bride
9 Examining New England Romnichel economic hi
we see that men's activities were primary from the
1 930s to the 1 950s women's activities appear to
the present, men's activities resume their primac
REFERENCES CITED
Acton, Thomas A.
1981 Gypsylorism In The Far East. Newsletter Of The Gypsy Lore Society,
North American Chapter 4(1 ):2, 6.
Aronson, Dan R.
1980 Must Nomads Settle? Some Notes Toward Policy On The Future Of Pas-
toralism. IN When Nomads Settle, Philip Carl Salzman (ed.). New York:
Praeger, pp. 173-184.
Barth, Fredrik
1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Boston: Little, Brown.
1984 Preface. IN The Other Nomads: Peripatetics In Cross-Cultural Perspec-
tive, Aparna Rao (ed.). Manuscript.
Bennett, John W.
1 976 The Ecological Transition: Cultural Anthropology And Human Adaptation.
New York: Pergamon Press.
Berland, Joseph C.
1983 No Five Fingers Are Alike: Cognitive Amplifiers In Social Context. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press.
Brown, Irving
1 924 Gypsy Fires In America. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Gates, Paul W.
1 960 The Farmer's Age: Agriculture 1 81 5-1 860. The Economic History Of The
United States. Vol. 8. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston.
Gee, Wilson
1 954 The Social Economics of Agriculture. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan.
Gmelch, George
1977 The Irish Tinkers: The Urbanization Of An Itinerant People. Menlo Park,
California: Cummings.
Gmelch, Sharon Bohn and George Gmelch

1976 The Emergence Of An Ethnic Group: The Irish Tinkers. Anthropological
Quarterly 49:225-238.
Gras, Norman
1946 A History Of Agriculture In Europe And America. 2nd ed. New York: F. S.
Crofts.
Green, Ben K.
1 967 Horse Tradin' . New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Gropper, Rena C.
1975 Gypsies In The City: Culture Patterns And Survival. Princeton, New Jer-
sey: Darwin Press.
Hardesty, Donald L.
1 972 The Human Ecological Niche. American Anthropologist 74:4
Hayden, Robert M.
1979 The Cultural Ecology Of Service Nomads. The Eastern An
32:297-309.
Heymowski, Adam
1969 Swedish Travellers And Their Ancestry: A Social Isolate Or An Ethnic Mi-
nority? Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksell.
Kester, Paul
n.d. Papers. New York: Manuscripts and Archives Division, New York Public
Library.
Ladd, Everett Carli, Jr.

1969 Ideology In America: Change And Response In A City, A Suburb And A
Small Town. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
McKelvey, Blake
1963 The Urbanization Of America 1860-1915. New Brunswick, New Jersey:
Rutgers University Press.
Melville, Margarita B.
1 983 Ethnicity: An Analysis Of Its Dynamism And Variability. American Ethnolo-
gist 10:272-289.
Nelson, Cynthia (ed.)
1973 The Desert And The Sown. Berkeley, California: Institute of International
Studies.
Okely, Judith
1983 The Traveller-Gypsies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pryor, Frederic L.
1977 The Origins Of The Economy: A Comparative Study Of Distribution In
Primitive And Peasant Societies. New York: Academic Press.
Rao, Aparna
1982 Non-Food-Producing Nomads And The Problems Of Their Classification:
The Case Of The Ghorbat Of Afghanistan. The Eastern Anthropologist
35:115-134.
Rao, Aparna (ed.)

1984 The Other Nomads: Peripatetics In Cross-Cultural Perspective.
Manuscript.
Rollwagen, Jack R.
1 979 Some Implications Of The World System Approach For The Anthropologi-
cal Study Of Latin American Urbanization. Urban Anthropology 8:249-265.
Ruyle, Eugene E.
1973 Genetic And Cultural Pools: Some Suggestions For A Unified Theory Of
Biocultural Evolution. Human Ecology 3:201-215.
Salo, Matt T.
1 977 The Expression Of Ethnicity In Rom Oral Tradition. Western Folklore 36(1 ):
33-56.
1979 Gypsy Ethnicity: Implications Of Native Categories And Interaction For
Ethnic Classification. Ethnicity 6:73-96.
1983 The Peripatetic Niche And Ethnic Persistence In The South. Manuscript,
paper presented at the Southern Anthropological Society meetings, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana.
1 984 The Gypsy Niche In North Ame

Exploitation Of Social Environment
In Cross-Cultural Perspective, Apar
Salo, Matt T. and Sheila M. G. Salo
1 977 The Kalderash In Eastern Canada. Canadian Centre for Folk Culture Stud-
ies Paper No. 21 . Ottawa: National Museums of Canada.
Salzman, Philip Carl (ed.)
1980 When Nomads Settle. New York: Praeger.
Sanborn Map Co.
1 920 Atlas Of The City Of Hartford And West Hartford. New York: Sanborn Map
Co
Sibley, David
1981 Outsiders In Urban Societies. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Sinclair, Albert Thomas

1 91 7 American Gypsies. New York: New York Public Library.
n.d. Papers. New York: Manuscripts and Archives Division, New York Public
Library.
Spicer, Edward H.
1 971 Persistent Cultural Systems. Science 1 74:795-800.
Srinivas, M. N.
1969 The Social System Of A Mysore Village. IN Village India: Studies In The
Little Community, M. Marriott (ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp.
1-35.
Sutherland, Anne
1 975 Gypsies: The Hidden Americans. New York: The Free Press.
Thernstrom, Stephan
1 973 The Other Bostonians: Poverty And Progress In The American Metropolis
1880-1930. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor
1902 Twelfth Census Of The United States 1900. Vol. 5, Pt. 1. Agriculture.
Washington: Bureau of the Census.
1904 Twelfth Census Of The United States 1900. Special Reports: Occupa-
tions. Washington: Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Department of the Interior
1 886 Report On The Social Statistics Of Cities. Pt. 1 . The New England And The
Middle States. Washington: U.S. Census office.
Vaux de Foletier, François de
1 970 Mille ans d'histoire des Tsiganes. Paris: Fayard.
Warner, Sam Bass, Jr.
1962 Streetcar Suburbs: The Process Of Growth In Boston. Cambridge: M.I.T.
and Harvard University Press.

The Institute, Inc. Urban Anthropology: This Content Downloaded From 24.133.140.214 On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 06:33:18 UTC

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

The Institute, Inc. Urban Anthropology: This Content Downloaded From 24.133.140.214 On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 06:33:18 UTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Romnichel Economie And Social Organization In Urban New England, 1850-1930

Author(s): Matt T. Salo and Sheila Salo

ABSTRACT: This study, based on ethnohistorical research, utilizes hitherto unexa-

The focus of this article is the adaptations of the American Romnichel

teenth and early twentieth century. The Romnichels, or "En

Objectives, Approach, and Sources

The chief orientation or framework for this study is broadly evolution-

cultural changes that have taken place a

cess to natural resources, or to energy conversion t

vice nomadism" (Hayden 1979), "com

ideological oppositions based on peripatetic strateg

lives of the peripatetics as well (e.g., Nels

vantage of the increased needs of the growing urban centers f

The oral data consist of interviews over

Immigration, Demography, and Settlem

Romnichels began appearing in the U.

Probably no completely accurate estima

uals reported from urban areas fluct

slow (maximum 20 miles per day) frequent stays in the

on December 22, 1892, remarks on the cold we

Travel usually involved going from community to community

Romnichel Occupations and Economic Context

The last half of the nineteenth century saw a number of dev

Before the 1 850s most American farmers had used oxen

already engaged in a wide variety of peripateti

Occupation 1870 1880 1900 1910

Horse trader, dealer 6 13 82 78

Stablekeeper; Prop, livery stable 1 2

Horse doctor; vet. surgeon 2 1

Total horse trade 6 19 101 95

Wood and wicker work

Chair maker, bottomer 2

Metal work and repair

Umbrella mender, repairman 2

Laborer, show business 2

Laborer, day laborer 2 1

Gypsy; wandering Gipsy 4 3 2

Total 10 42 134 124

Horse dealer, trader 6 4 9 7 18 23 29 27 31 28 19 12 2

Sale, livery stables 3 2 2 7 6 813 913 9 5 5 5

Hostler, helper 112 2 113 14 1

Total horse trade 9 6 11 14 27 39 48 52 49 48 30 27 15

Wood and wicker work

Basket maker 1 111 8 16

Chair bottomer, seater 1 1

Rustic work, furniture 1 1

Total wood work 01 00011 3221 917

Metal work and repair

Other, wage labor or

ample during the depression of 1 893, indivi

Of the sample of 54 adult women on the census rolls or in

Romnichels in Urban New England

As we have seen, increased railroad construction during and

Boston and Somerville, Massachusetts

Romnichel Stable Communities in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.

point of an area already to a great extent urban by 1 880

In addition to the Somerville pr

largely of Cornelius Carter (1830-1911), his family, and the f

and 1865, his youngest child being b

Providence, Rhode Island

In 1870 the population of Providence was 68,904; by 1880 it had

In 1 880, Hartford, with a population of about 42,01 5, was a sta

ital and major trade center served by fi