Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 156

Thread: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

  1. #1

    Default The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    There I put an awesome investigation about the origins of the gypsy or romeni people by the historian Sarah Carmona.

    There the original link in a spanish forum: http://baxtalo.wordpress.com/nuevas-...storia-gitana/

    NEW PERSPECTIVES ON HISTORY GYPSY (Rroma)


    Sarah Carmona, Rromani Historian and author of this interesting study.

    I would like, first of all, thank you for this interesting collaboration of Sarah Carmona, ethnicity rromani historian specializing in military history and has made this excellent study. The record from here my admiration and respect for his work not only in academia but also for their involvement and outstanding work as activist Rroma People's Rights.

    The theme of time and its construction in historical writing is essential. In the case of Roma studies, this concept has been very little studied (Ian Hancock, Adrian Marsh). All work on universal history Gypsy have been developed through the prism of a temporary feature of the Euro centric and Western historiography. But, "the time of the Gypsies (to quote the film so popular ironically E. Kusturica) is indeed a alocrónico time. The time of those who observe and write about an object.

    The main question posed by the study of the concept of a temporary gypsy specified serious historiography: What are the impacts on the Roma people, their civilization, their metaphysics and perception of their own history, the imposition of a time not rightful time exogenous characteristic historiographical and scientific culture other than their own?

    To answer this question, we must consider a challenge: try to recover, crack, exposing what could be the "time" of the Gypsies, the cadence, the rhythm and the breath of its historical authenticity.

    An encouraging and stimulating challenge certainly requires years of research and reflection and, for now, unfortunately we have to leave in the air, hoping that once they see resumed (when perhaps has reached a certain maturity and a full scientific confidence in our own legacy by academics Gypsies).

    However, personally and in regard to my remarks today, I opted for a structure of historical time gypsy language based on the work of Professor Ian Hancock. This is the reason, this rapid journey through the history of our people, is divided into 4 parts.

    Time Division gypsy

    The first division of time, called TELJARIPÉ means "the beginning". The meaning of this word carries with it the notion of home, of "founding event". In this part, I will try to provide you the keys to understanding who the Proto-Roma, Gypsies ancestors of today and what was the historical context of his departure from India in the eleventh century.

    The second part known as the NAKHIPÉ (idle) corresponds to the period covered by the proto-Roma experiences in Asia and Asia Minor. The gypsy proto march towards Europe. This is a critical time period and yet little studied. It is the time of crystallization, or rather of the homogenization of the different elements that came to give birth to Roma ethnicity.

    The third part: the corresponding ARESIPÉ literally on arrival, the arrival of the Roma in Europe.

    The fourth, called BUXLJARIPÉ. It corresponds to the deployment and diffusion and installation of the Roma in all European geographical space.

    CONSCIENCE

    First, I would point out one important fact: unlike what usually reflect historiography, the first Gypsies arrived in Europe were aware of their Indian origins. Once in Europe, began to give Roma origins incorrect. And those were his last such fabrications. However, this procedure must be understood from the perspective of the medieval concept of origin has nothing to do with the present. At this time, one is presented or identified, not always as originating in their native country but in the geopolitical context of the moment and the profit it could generate.

    However, there is clear evidence of consciousness of the Gypsies first arrived in Europe from their geographic origins. Documentary sources of the XV, XVI and XVII corroborate this fact.

    To quote a few:

    We have for example Chronicle city of Forli "Chronicum Fratris Hieronimy of Forlivio" (1422) which states:

    "The same year, people sent by the Emperor came to Forli, with the desire to become our faith, and reached Forli on August 7, and as I heard some said were from India."

    In RECORD CITY BRAS, in the South of France in 1636 we find this reference "20 pounds were given to the Indians to salgasen of this place."

    Ben Salomon David Gans, Jewish chronicler late sixteenth century writes in his history of the world, "King Philip II of Spain decided to expel all Kuchim, to leave this land and return to his country, India, the place where they were born his old earth ... "

    Also, some lawyers mention the Indian origin of Roma in his writings, and this from the fifteenth century. This is the case of Charles d'Orleans (1397-1465) in France or Sebastian Munster (1489-1552) in Switzerland. The last mention of those Indian origins is dated approximately 1630.

    You all know that Gypsies were long regarded as Egyptians. This mythical origin came to own the real Indian origin of Roma both the recognition by mainstream society as much of their own self-recognition gypsy in the Middle Ages and modern. Being more prestigious for various reasons, this transposition of origin favored the entry and acceptance of the Roma in Europe. And the myth of an Egyptian origin came to be regarded as authentic. But we will return to the genesis of this process.

    THE TELJARIPÉ:

    Of linguistics to historical documentation

    Comparisons between Rromani and various vernaculars of India suggest an exodus from Uttar Pradesh but it took a more extensive research to determine more precisely the exact point of this output, the timing and causes of that event.

    The discovery of the connection between the output of the Proto Gypsies and a passage from "Kitab al Yamini" (Book of Yamin), written by Naser Al Arab chronicler Utbi ABU (961-1040) who was the personal secretary of Mahmud of Ghazni , helped to confirm what researchers such as Rishi, Rajko Djuric, Ian Hancock, Marcel Courthiade and others had already suspected: a direct relationship between the Teljaripe, the exodus of the ancestors of the Gypsies and raids perpetrated by Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni . However, until recently, the translation of the Book of Yamin was still incomplete and only had proof of raids in northwest India (none in Kannauj) and therefore historians and researchers could not fully understand the mechanisms Exodus.

    The passage from the Kitab al Yamini Utbi, we are interested and we can say that the ancestors of the Gypsies were from Uttar Pradesh, described a raid that took place in the winter of 1018-1019 in this region that was captured , according to the Chronicle, the population of Kannauj. This was not the first foray of the Sultan in the area but the former had just reached the regions of Punjab and Rajasthan.


    Map of India incursions of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni

    In fact, in the first quarter century of the second millennium AD, northwestern India was the subject of a series of attacks by troops of Sultan Mahmud, whose headquarters was in Ghazna (today located Ghazni in modern Afghanistan). Between 1001 and 1026, those perpetrated ghaznavides 17 raids on Hindu Shahi kingdoms, reaching Kashmir and the desire to spread Islam so as to generate economic benefits.

    But this time, in the year 1018-1019, Mahmud's troops reached the city of Kannauj, a very important city of more than 50,000 and on December 20, 1018 captured the entire population. Here I quote the Arab chronicler "rich and poor, light and dark, most notable artists and artisans" to sell "whole families" in Ghazni and Kabul. Later, and again by the same author, Khorasan, Transoxiana and Iraq were "full of this population."

    The analysis of historical documentary sources lead us to state that the origin of the Gypsies in this raid is 1018-1019 year.


    Engraving depicting the raid in the city of Kannauj in the years 1018 and 1019.

    First, because there is no mass deportation of this kind at this time and in this region.

    Also, because the geographical unit site from which the ancestors of the Gypsies is reflected in the remarkable consistency of the elements in the language rromani Indians. The major differences between the dialects rromani not based on components in Indian language but vocabulary borrowed from European languages.

    Likewise, social diversity (and probably ethnic) of the original population deported may also be an element of understanding of a very peculiar character rromani, survival, 1000 years after the Exodus. Indeed, sociolinguistics shows that: the higher the social heterogeneity of exile or immigrant group, the greater the strength and longevity of the transmission of the original language of the group.

    Furthermore, Ian Hancock, investigated from the perspective of linguistics, the timing of this exodus and demonstrated that the exodus could not be before the tenth century, as the shares with other languages ​​rromani Indians two fundamental grammatical features that appeared at the end of the first millennium.

    These characteristics are:

    training postposition system that replaces old Indian inflections and medium.

    The loss of neutral gender reassignment previous noun gender neutral male and female.

    Another essential and impressive is that three linguistic elements linking rromani with languages ​​used in the area of ​​Kannauj and solely or almost solely in this area. These unique features are:

    The two genders, masculine and feminine singular 3rd person are the same in the Rromani and bradj, a language spoken by over 15 million people in the western part of Kannauj.

    Only the dialects of Kannauj, the bradj and Nepalese, are their names and adjectives ending in O as rromani

    Only the Awadhi, spoken by over 20 million people in eastern Kannauj is, as the rromani, an alternative way long for forming the possessive postposition.

    Both time and geographic location that appears in the source document are corroborated by science linguistics here.

    The mention in Kitab al Yamini the pelts "light and dark" could explain the diversity of color of skin we find among the different Gypsy groups, due to the heterogeneity of the original population. There were at this time many Rajputs in Kannauj. The Rajputs were warriors originating on the one hand, of the invaders who came from Central Asia with the Huns in the sixth century and, on the other hand, the populations from the boondocks, the banks of the Ganges Valley. The Rajputs got Ksatrias category, (one of the highest caste military merit).

    As in all urbanized cities of this time, there were a number of artists in the city Domba Kannauj. As the spiritual and intellectual center of the major northern India, Kannauj attracted numerous artists from around and between many Domba. It should be noted that, contrary to what they say, the Domba not belong to a lower caste or negligible because both religious texts as chronicles appear palatial eating at the table of the powerful.

    MILITARY ORIGIN OF GYPSIES

    The military origin of the Gypsies, prisoners generally treated as warriors, not a new idea. Historians and linguists of the late nineteenth and twentieth century had issued earlier this hypothesis. In 1992 to be conducted a serological study in India concluded that the Rajputs occupied the position closest genetic relative to the Roma.

    However, to date,


    The slaves were Ghulams highly trained soldiers, mostly Indians.

    have a greater and more nuanced understanding of these realities. We know that in addition to being prisoners of war, the Indians themselves this time fought like "Ghulam" in special units of troops being warriors Ghaznavíes slaves but also mercenaries "mawali". The slaves were Ghulams highly trained soldiers. The majority was of Indian origin but also among them jorasaníes and slaves from other parts. Hindus in regiments "mawalíes" were very structured hierarchically. Their status and pay were not yet equal to those of the "Muqatila" or regular soldiers. Enlisted, sometimes with little free will, with all their children, slaves and clients to protect the interests or perform ghaznavides Holy War promoted by the Sultan. This clarification is important because it allows you to restore the truth when it comes to the popular image of Hindu resistance against Muslim incursions, Indian historiography presented fairly monolithic.

    Therefore, it is important to understand how the Hindu population displaced by the defeats and forced migration from Kannauj to Ghazni was initially diverse. Once in the hands ghaznavíes were "reconstituted" into a new group militarized, but also heterogeneous slave. This view I share with Adrian Marsh or Ian Hancock, frames the story proto gypsy from a perspective that considers ethnic and social complexity. This territory gaznaví Hindu population could develop, and what I think, a new linguistic and cultural koine in response to the huge change they faced.

    Do not forget that the army under the reign of Mahmud was undoubtedly one of the most professional of the time. The Ghulam, commanders and guards palatial slaves, the Mamluks, were the heart of the military structure Ghaznavi. These elite units under the command of the army, were often specialized ethnic compositions. The Ghulams Hindus were led by their own boss and in the city of Ghazni occupied a specific neighborhood. The Mamluks, were also a central body gaznavíes forces, and came from different ethnic Turkish uajiks, korasaníes, dailamíes, people from the Caucasus region ... But there were also many Hindus in their ranks. Captured prisoners were usually young or received as tribute from lands outside the Empire, educated, trained, educated and converted, excluding Indians that the conversion did not occur.

    Osprey Picture:
    http://baxtalo.files.wordpress.com/2...pg?w=570&h=639
    The army under the reign of Mahmud was undoubtedly one of the most professional of the time.

    If we accept the ratio suggested by Army Specialist gaznaví, Clifford Edmund Bosworth, the number of soldiers in the army gaznaví could be around 80,000 people. And that figure doubled to bring the troops after a victorious battle of that, getting back with a tribute consisting of slaves and captives. Providing gaznaví army, like all medieval armies east and west, long caravans needed logistics and procurement, real rows of elephants. A real city on the move. An army of civilians besides combat troops: auxiliary, merchants, women and children, prostitutes, laundresses, cooks, porters, nurses ... Not counting offices belonging directly to the military such as blacksmiths, horse dealers and musicians.


    The Battle of Dandaquan (1040) is of crucial importance for the genesis of the People Rroma.

    In fact, the importance of this moment in the history of the Roma is more important and deserves more dedication because, while making the genesis of our history (at this time is when does the "Proto Rroma"), these Hindus had not reached the Transoxiana (in plain Dandaqan) if they had not been part of the army and his guard gaznaví palace. If Masud, the son of Mahmud, had not met with the Turkmen Oghuz Tribe, had not lost its empire and gypsy nascent history had stopped here.

    Indeed, it is the battle of Dandaquan, held in 1040 and opposed Ghaznavides and Seljuks, allowing us to understand and contextualize the arrival of Gypsies to Byzantine lands, but on the whole crystallization rromani proto-language. However, to understand how they came to make the arrival of the ancestors of the Gypsies in Byzantine domains is necessary to examine briefly the origin of the Seljuks.

    THE NAKHIPÉ

    "The Seljuk factor"

    This crucial period in history but the gypsy is most difficult for the historian is because there is hardly any written or documentary source that refers to Hindus, Indians or any other group that we identify as the Proto-Proto Rome or Gypsies . There are none, except an interesting and intriguing reference in the chronicles of Matthew of Odessa in which is mentioned the high number of refugees and destitute across Asia Minor in the late eleventh century.

    In this context, the historian's task is primarily to "build", draw, carve a narrative relying on fragments of the past that have historical verisimilitude. However, despite these difficulties, try to make them see what the logical relationship between the soldiers of the Indian contingent who survived the battle of Dandaqan in May 1040 and those who were called "Egyptians" or "aigupta" in the capital of Constantinople at the end of the eleventh century. But for this, you must give them a key to understanding who these Turkmen Seljuk.

    The Seljuks who defeated in the battle Gaznavíes Dandaqan princely clan belonged to a descendant of Turkish confederation of nomadic tribes from the steppes of Central Asia called Oghuz Turk. Originally shaman had recently converted to Sunni Islam. And this legacy of shamanism in spirituality Seljuk not disappear so easily.


    Seljuk Empire, final XI century. The Seljuks win the Battle of Dandaqan and leave the palace slaves Ghaznavide side serve to move to their new masters.

    Those were the force Turkmen migration pushed proto-rromani after the defeat of the army and its contingent gaznaví Hindus after the battle of Dandaqan in 1040.

    Bosworth explains that in May 1040, the Seljuk army attacks the Ghaznavides in advanced towards the castle Dandaqan. The Sultan Masud, son of Mahmud, led his army to defeat. The palace slaves left the camp to go next Ghaznavide Seljuk, joining those who had escaped before. '

    The initial step of his troops to the enemy troops by defeated warriors was a common practice in medieval and modern armies. In this case, the change of loyalties to Tughril Masud Beg is a good example of this phenomenon. However, the source does not mention incorporating Indian troops in Seljuk forces, nor likely to be carried out. At least not in a way as strong and clear as was the case in the military gaznaví.

    The concept of power and organization of the Seljuk war machine were totally different to the Ghaznavides. At this time was based on clans and mobile households. It will be a little later when he developed what could be described as a classical Islamic Ghulam structure.

    There is no mention of the military or Indian officials in none of the chronic Seljuks as was the case in al-Utbi, Baihaki ghaznavides other written sources.

    However, the "Seljuk factor" necessary to understand the arrival of Proto-rromani to Byzantium is decisive. Unfortunately, understanding the development of this moment is still based on the historian's narrative situation.

    In fact, there was no large-scale incorporation of Hindu warriors Seljuk forces after Dandanqan, and the mechanism by which this group eventually became independent group of "Egyptians" to come to Constantinople at the end of the eleventh century is not quite a mystery but needs more discoveries documentaries.

    If we reason logically, to have become captives and slaves, Indians should have ended in the regional markets, sold to domestic service workers or individual owners. But again that scenario does not explain how Proto Gypsies made their way into the Byzantine Empire, to arrive in various "units" or groups to the capital a little later, moving through a chaotic and dangerous territory, swarming with bands Turkmen and refugees.

    Finally, the linguistic evidence does not support that assertion, since loans are virtually absent in the lexicon rromani Turks. If the Hindus had been part of the Seljuk force, some terms of Turkish and Arabic were incorporated into the Roma.

    Furthermore, in the stories and chronicles of the conquest of Anatolia Armenian, Hindus have been associated with the "bloodthirsty beasts" mentioned by Matthew Odessa.

    Therefore, we need to develop another script more feasible. For this, once again we have to step back in time to understand the presence of Turkmen Seljuk Armenian lands.

    The first group raiding Turcomenos in Armenian lands did during the years 1018-1019 in the region of Lake Van. The Armenian clergyman Matthew Odessa (one of the very few that possess documentary sources) described this attack in very dire. These warriors are for him "bloodthirsty animals ... (Seljuk) the nation of savages called Turkish infidels".

    At this time, the first venture of Seljuk, the northern part of Armenia and southern Georgia, were under attack by Basil, Emperor of Byzantium. The Armenian king Georgi refused to submit to the emperor and had to pay the consequences. For the Armenian chronicler, the destruction of the Kingdom was the consequence of the perfidy of the Greeks, the Byzantine, and the wrath of the Seljuks. Cleric Matthew interprets this event from the perspective of the Armenian Church apocalyptic.

    Armenian resistance to invasions turkomenas was fierce but ineffective, largely due to the novelty for them to face the Turkish cavalry.

    In its advanced, Seljuk perpetrated a series of raids that extend its presence in Armenian and Georgian territory causing widespread massacres in several cities to the terrible sack of artze in 1049.

    Osprey Picture:
    http://baxtalo.files.wordpress.com/2...-xii.jpg?w=570
    Seljuk Army - Century XI and XII. "... Were full of rage boiling like a river full of fury and a crazed beast bloodthirsty character" (Matthew Odessa). Gradually, the Seljuks undergo Armenia, and Georgia Abkasia.

    Odessa Matthew tells us that "... were full of rage boiling like a river full of fury and a crazed beast bloodthirsty character." Gradually, the Seljuks undergo Armenia, and Georgia Abkasia.

    It is therefore, with this background that we have to build another script logic to understand how Protos-Gypsies arrive in late Byzantine territories XI century.

    Turkmen tribes, nomadic and shamanistic, major components of the Seljuk military machine, were the driving force pushing proto-Romani migration forcing her to move.

    His career followed the "Silk Road" from Merv to Nishapur, on the south coast of the Caspian Sea to Rayy to complete in the lands of Azerbaijan and Armenia, the ancient roads of East-West trade and communication.

    In the chaotic border areas between the Seljuk Empire and the Armenian lands, this group of defeated Hindu, Persian and other origins go unnoticed by contemporary chroniclers. And so far, for lack of documentary source, passing through these lands and, from a scientific point of view, historical speculation, a narrative elaboration necessary that only today is supported by the language.

    The practice of "chasing" the defeated before the advance of the forces of Turkish-Mongol war was designed to instill fear and intimidate communities threatened.

    The Fall of Armenia


    Located southeast of the Byzantine Empire, Armenia fell under the yoke of the Seljuk army in 1071 at the Battle of Manzikert. It was at this time that laid the foundation for the establishment of a new sultanate called Rum, occupying Armenia and some Byzantine territory in Anatolia, in the area that is now Turkey.


    The new sultanate called Rum, occupy Armenia and some Byzantine territory in Anatolia, in the area that is now Turkey.

    As I mentioned before, in 1040, after the Battle of Dandakan, the Seljuks directed toward Baghdad. In 1055, Baghdad to take Buyides, Alp Arslan and Sultan becomes the guarantor of Sunni orthodoxy. His mission is now conquering Cairo, where the rulers were Shia Fatimids of obedience. But the frequent raids and looting of the Seljuks began to worry the Byzantine emperor who decides to mobilize over 200,000 troops for the battle of Manzibert, in August 1071, in which faces the Seljuk army 50,000. .

    This event was the trigger of the First Crusade, and the subsequent expulsion of the Turks in Nicaea in 1097.

    The perception that one can have the Byzantine Empire of this period is that of a territory in eastern Anatolia, immersed in increasingly chaotic situations. The defenses were irreversibly weakened by internal dissent and rebellion in the Byzantine Empire, the conflict with the Armenian and Georgian kingdoms in the region and the incursions of Turkmen Seljuk and his followers.

    In fact, the Eastern Empire lived in chaos and soldiers were needed to ensure the defense of the kingdom. Because the needs of the Byzantine army at this time, it is likely that Indian soldiers had been employed in the armies of the empire. But there is no mention of it in historiographical source. The Romans used a multiethnic army often using mercenaries as was the case including the Pecheneg. The possibility, shuffling by some researchers, whereby Rromani Proto were part of the Byzantine military machine, should not be dismissed. This hypothesis is supported by the subsequent appearance in Venetian sources Gypsy companies defending the island territories of the Venetian Republic against the Ottoman Turks.

    The end of the Realms Bagratidas Armenians arrived in 1064-1065. Alp Aslan, the Seljuk ruler, gathered a large number of Persian and Turkish soldiers "all of Khuzestan (southwestern Persia) and Sijistan (east of Persia)", subjecting the entire region into chaos. Its main objective was the most important Byzantine city Armenian eastern Anatolia, the royal city of Ani. Once he was defeated, the whole population was enslaved.

    Likewise, the possibility that the relatives of the Hindus who fought in Dandaqan also may have participated in the fall of Armenia twenty years later can find their echo in the description of settlements outside the walls of the besieged city of Ani .

    Matthew's description in his chronicles of the community living outside the walls of Ani in 1064 shows great similarity to the descriptions of the pilgrims camp "Egyptians" Mondón outside of Greece in the mid-fourteenth century. While not making any reference to Hindus or who may seem to them, this statement should be viewed with caution.

    Notably, the mess that was Anatolia East was not only a consequence of the pressures Byzantine and Seljuk. The various principalities were divided and conflict entered against each other. This situation led to the increased use of mercenary soldiers who were often Turcomenos, Persians, Dailamis, Franks, Normans and Varangians, arguably, these mercenaries were among those who were in his time Gaznavíes Ghulams and other Hindus who survived the Dandanqan battle.

    In summary, tests historiographic materials or the presence of Proto Rromani Armenian lands are quite circumstantial. The alternative idea that the proto-Roma could be involved in the defense of Armenia has more ground but still remain quite speculative.

    However, the story that I have proposed is more than logical and once again, the methodology is historical narrative, in this case, supported by the language.


    The defeats of the Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071 and again in Miriokefalon that profoundly influenced the development and in the ethnic balance of the region with the arrival of thousands of Turkmens.

    The establishment of the Rum Seljuks in Anatolia was, as we have seen before, the direct consequence of the defeat of the Gaznavíes in Dandaqan in 1040 and its implications for the Armenians streak in nine years Artsn and Ani in 1065. However, were the defeats of the Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071 and again in Miriokefalon that profoundly influenced the development and in the ethnic balance of the region with the arrival of thousands of Turkmens. Of course, the Armenian historiography, ecclesiastical hands frequently, as Matthew of Edessa and Aristakes, for example, speak of these changes in a very negative and almost apocalyptic.

    But this portrait should be carefully reevaluated. And the contemporary historian must put aside Manichean vision imposed by some historians "nationalizing". The notion of an irreducible opposition between new invaders (the Turkmen Seljuk and his followers) and the populations of Anatolia and the Levant and Eastern Orthodox Christian should be reviewed.

    Things were not as dichotomously opposed. For example, the antagonisms between the Eastern and Orthodox Christians were such that some princes Georgians and Armenians joined the Seljuks against the Greeks, using the confusion created by the defeats Byzantine allowing the establishment of independent principalities. However, the complexity of the relationships between the different actors of the moment affected geopolitical changes that occurred in the region and beyond this simple dichotomy between Islam and Christianity.

    The predominance of the Greek population in Asia Minor or Anatolia, also composed of a complex mix of Armenians, Syrians, Hebrews, Indians, Arabs and others was, undoubtedly, altered by the arrival of the Seljuks.

    But although this alteration was made, the simple representations of the Roma, the number of words (220 words Greek roots) and Greek key grammatical forms is very high, suggesting a connection and a very strong interaction between urban Greek population and Gypsy proto installed in the region. In addition, the contact had to be long so that were to influence so important in the structure of the language. It should be stressed that the Greek lexicon Metalworking referred to in rromani is quite high.

    Osprey Picture:
    http://baxtalo.files.wordpress.com/2...pg?w=570&h=633
    Selyúcides of Rum, XIII century. antagonisms between Eastern and Orthodox Christians were such that some princes Georgians and Armenians joined the Seljuks against the Greeks, using the confusion created by the defeats Byzantine allowing the establishment of independent principalities.

    Professor Ian Hancock suggested that in the multi-ethnic and linguistic huge range of Byzantium, children born in proto Gypsy families, grew up surrounded by a multitude of languages.

    If amuse me give all these details is not esbozarles both the population of the Sultanate of Rum but consider essential that you understand what the context of the time of crystallization, or rather of homogenization of the different elements that came to bear (give birth to) Gypsy ethnicity.

    I contend that the Proto expressly Gypsies are structured, in the period between the destruction of Ani, in 1064, and the second major defeat caused by the Byzantines Seljuks in Myriokefalon, in 1176, in three interrelated identities.

    These identities were forged with, first, the cultural and cosmological elements of Koine gaznaví groups. (Ie at the beginning, the proto-Romani jorasaníes Hindus and displaced by defeats in Dandaqan Gaznavíes and Merv), and second, later, by the Armenians defeated after Artsn loss of Ani and Kars. in 1064.

    Who were these three groups?

    The first is no longer characterized as an organized military force in units, as was the case of Hindus in Muslim armies Gaznavíes. Perhaps for a time followed related trades warriors but in subordinate positions as waiters swords, squires, blacksmiths, gunsmiths, cooks, artists.

    However it is very likely that these Proto Gypsies, whose ethnicity starts homogenized, share a number of features, including: a social structure based on clans, commercial nomadism as an economic strategy based on group skills, and cultural elements from the "core" Indian. This set of practices and beliefs hybrid also benefited from the contributions and influences of the cultures of the places where the Proto Rromani moved, especially Khorasan, Azerbaijan and Armenia, connecting the original Hindu cosmogony Zoroastrian fire worship, Apocalyptic Christianity Georgian, Armenian and Turkmen shamanism.

    Some of these Proto-Rromaníes installed in Epirus in mid fourteenth century who were curious had its origins as Rhomiti or Romitoi. The exact composition of these Romitoi in the eleventh century in Anatolia is, of course, impossible to trace. But since blood and genetic tests carried out in 2004 in Roma in the area, it is clear that there was a mixture of different peoples from the output of the Gypsies Proto Persian territory located west of Merv.

    Another group of the substrate could emerge proto Roma in the context of the dissolution and destruction of kingdoms Bagratidas of the time.

    As Matthew and some others mentioned, the roads and field were filled Anatolian refugees and fugitives fleeing the atrocities committed by the Seljuk and Turkmen.


    Map of the Battle of Mankinzert. After the Battle of Manzikert (1071), Anatolia was desolate and devastated.

    After the Battle of Manzikert (1071), Anatolia was desolate and devastated.

    This extremely chaotic situation was such that the chroniclers tell us that "VIPs and distinguished-nobles, princes and ladies' came to wander begging on the roads, leading a wandering life.

    Here you can find the solution to one of the enigmas of Roma history, banding of "Egyptians" in XV century Western Europe, led by "Dukes" and "Counts".

    The terms "Doux" and "Komes" military titles were used by the Armenians. In a first time, and by honoring the top commanders and, later, more lower-ranking officers.

    These princes, nobles and ladies stray found in Armenian chronicles the late eleventh century, could be the ancestors of the heads of Egyptian companies, whose memories we have, for example in Paris, embodied in the Journal of a Bourgeois in Paris in Hildesheim early fifteenth century, or repetitive occasions in Spain.

    These considerations lead me therefore to two statements. The first, that those Egyptians mentioned in the fifteenth century were descendants of Byzantine dismantling and destruction by the Seljuk Bagratidas Realms. Surely, with their retinues were established, first in Armenia Minor (Cilicia and the Taurus Mountains) to join after the Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt.

    The second of my thinking leads me to assume that if the atomization of Armenian kingdoms ultimately led to the breakup of proto gypsy group and migration of a part of the west and Constantinople, others remained isolated, trapped between Turkmen and raids eventually migrating to Georgia and the Caucasus. Those last developed a type of Rromani with many influences from Armenian is now known as Lomavren.

    To summarize, I believe, after the battle of Dandaqan operating a proto-group tripartition rromani.

    A military group maintains a characteristic associated with the military leadership and Komes Doux. The second group, or perhaps groups, launched way through Anatolia to Constantinople. It consisted of people with no military function, probably associated support staff initial group of warriors. They adopted commercial nomadism and played small craft works and services to survive.

    Finally, a third group emerged from the chaos experienced in eastern Anatolia. Disconnected because of Seljuk incursions, migrated to Karabakh (Azerbaijan at present), Georgia and the Caucasus where they developed a distinct vocabulary that became the Lomavren.

    This schematic description aims trying contextualize the complex factors at work in the emergence of a Gypsy identity in the eleventh century in Anatolia. It also allows us to better understand the variety and differentiation thereafter present in historical sources.

    In conclusion, and as I said many times, this time is critical as is the step before entry into Europe and especially the time when you begin to capture both ethnicity and Gypsy identity.

    The emergence of the Gypsy identity in the chaotic Anatolia XI century is the focus of the historical narrative about the Roma. Is the historical moment during which the fusion of different elements from both the culture of the refugee soldiers from India and Khorasan, as Persians, Azerbaijanis, Georgians, Armenians, Greeks and others merged to create their a new entity, ours, the Gypsy.

    The Byzantine Empire is the next venue for these groups that had moved south after the defeat of the Armenians and the end of the kingdom Bagratid in 1064.

    It was there again there is a radical change, a step in the construction of the image of the Gypsy, there begins to be called "Egyptian". Indeed, it is in the Byzantine Empire where the Proto-Gypsy is associated with the notion of magic and bulería, creating the first stereotype of the "Egyptian".

    Gypsy identity was initially associated with the notion of magic, as the Byzantines related the "magic" with these Romitoi Egypt (proto Gypsies) who practiced divination, while others played less exotic trades (such as pots, blacksmiths or small crafts).

    The Greek classical tradition and made in India and Egypt places of all possibilities, magical land par excellence. Therefore, it is not surprising that commentators and intellectuals as Procopio Byzantine disseminate this idea among others, confusing addition to these newcomers with a group of heretics Zoroastrians from Asia Minor and known as Atsinganoi.

    The arrival of the "Egyptians" coincided with a fundamental cataloging Byzantine society as referring to the spiritual. Early Church Councils had defined orthodoxy and faith in opposition to heresy. The case of the Roma and their alleged practices, was not as ecumenical concepts, really related to heresy, but with the world of "xotika" Greek, is not superstition but social and spiritual disturbance .

    Therefore, the doors opened to make way for an oscillation in perception exogenous Gitano, a perpetual oscillation between attraction and repulsion, fascination and fear.

    It should be emphasized that in little more than 50 years, the Indians of Kannauj, culture and Vedic Hindu and Buddhist spirituality, strongly impregnated cosmogonic elements outside, mingling with the ghaznavides Islam, shamanism of the Turkmen, Zoroastrianism, Armenian apocalyptic Christianity and Byzantine Orthodoxy, building what will be the gypsy cosmogony.

    THE ARESIPE

    The emergence of the Roma and their language

    The passage from India to the Byzantine Empire was in a "very fast", took only two or three decades. However, his stay in Anatolia lasted for over two centuries, and was crucial to the rise of the Roma.

    This population, as we have seen, was ethnically mixed. Byzantine society as a whole, whose lingua franca was Greek and Orthodox Christianity official religion.

    Of course, if Greek was the administrative language and everyday throughout the Empire, it was the only language spoken at the grassroots level. Newborn children in this community were exposed to a variety of languages, including their own parents Rajputic and Greek that was spoken about him.

    The Romany language was born in the Byzantine Empire at this time. The reconstruction of proto prebizantina Roma as distinct language is not possible even if you are about to finish a more detailed description of Rajputic.

    The Greek Byzantine influence in the composition of the Romani language should not be underestimated. Not only is the second highest percentage of pre-European vocabulary words after Hindus, but also their influence on semantics (even numbers) is critical, and their contribution to the core areas of grammar.

    11. In Europe

    The main movement of Roma in Europe was also a consequence of Islamic expansion, this time by the Ottoman Turks, who pillage Byzantium in 1453 and extend its influence in the Balkans. But it would be a mistake to think that this migration has occurred all at once.

    Bubonic plague had reached western Anatolia in 1347 and forced a general migration through Europe, where Roma were certainly, as even came to be accused of having introduced into Europe. In addition, language tests indicate that there was an early exit of Greece from a gypsy group. Indeed, in at least one dialect Roma, the Istriani, spoken in Slovakia, the Greek lexicon is quite small.

    Islam was not only a key to understanding this output to Europe, as if it was in the case of his departure from India. But both events shared the same military aspect, as the Ottoman Turks used to Gypsies in his militia or military service craftsmen.

    In 1300, there were military garrisons both Modon Roma specifically as Nafplio in the Peloponnese Venetian, southern Greece today. The Gypsies had arrived in Europe.

    We do not know how different groups of Roma first entered Europe. Most probably crossed the Isthmus of Constantinople, although it has been suggested that others would have left by boat across Anatolia to the Aegean Sea or the Black Sea.

    Whatever the manner in which they came to the Balkans in 1500 were aware of its presence throughout Europe.

    BIBLIOGRAPHY:

    Acton, Thomas A. (Forth.) "You have gone out of style Rishi? Academic & policy paradigms in Romani Studies ", Rome, New Delhi

    Acton, Thomas A. (2006b) 'In Memoriam', in Adrian Marsh & Elin Strand [eds.], Gypsies and the Problem of Identities: Contextual, Constructed and Contested, Istanbul, Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, Transactions no. 17, I.B. Tauris, p.11

    Aksan, Virginia H. & Daniel Goffman [eds.]

    (2007) The Early Ottomans: Remapping the Empire, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Aksan, Virginia (1999) "Ottoman Military Recruitment Strategies in the Late Eighteenth Century" in Erik Jan Zürcher [ed.] Arming the State; Military Conscription in the Middle East and Central Asia, 1775-1925, London, IBTauris

    al-Biruni, Abu Rihan Muhammad b. Ahmad

    (1867-77) "Hind Tārīkhu-l" in Sir H.M. Elliott [trans.], John Dowson [ed.], The History of India as told by its own Historians, 8 vols. London, Trubner, vol.2, chap.1

    al-Biruni, Abu Rihan Muhammad b. Ahmad

    (1879) The Chronology of Ancient Nations, an Inglés version of the Arabic text of the Athar-ul-Bakiya of Albīrūnī, CE Sachau [trans. & Ed.], London, Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, WHAllen

    Ali, Tariq (2003) The Clash of Fundamentalisms, Crusades, Jihads and Modernity, London, Verso

    Alpman, Nazim (1994) Çingeneler, Istanbul, Ozan Yayincilik,

    Altinoz, Ismail (2006) "Gypsies in the Balkans During the Ottoman period", Paper presented to the Third International Congress on Islamic Civilisation in the Balkans, 1-5 November, Bucharest, Romania

    (2005) "Gypsies in Ottoman Society", Paper presented to the Gypsy Lore Society 2005 Annual Meeting and Conference on Gypsy Studies, 9-10 September, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Granada, Spain

    Andric, Ivo (1990) The Development of Spiritual Life in Bosnia Under the Influence of Turkish Rule, I. Andric, Zelimer B. Juricic & John F. Loud [eds. & Trans.}, London, Duke University Press

    Baihaki, Abu-l Fazl al (1862) Tarikh-i Baihaki, W. H. Morely [trans. & Ed.], Calcutta, Bibliotecha Indicates

    Baihaki, Abu-l Fazl al (1867-1877) "Subuktigīn Tārīkhu-s" in Sir HM Elliott [trans.], John Dowson [ed.], The History of India as told by its own Historians, 8 vols. London, Trubner, vol.2, chap.3, pp.53-154

    Bivar, A. D. H. (2008) "Hephthalites", Encyclopaedia Iranica Online Edition, http://tinyurl.com/4arlwr

    Black, George F. (1912-13) "The Gypsies of Armenia" Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, [New Series], Vol.6, no.4, pp.327-330

    Bond, Rev. Lewis (1917) "The Gypsies of Monastir: Two Letters Addressed to the late Albert T. Sinclair, reprinted from the Bulletin of the New York Public Library "George F. Black [ed.] Manuscripts in the New York Public Library, NY, New York Library

    Borrow, George (1981) A Journey to Eastern Europe in 1844 (thirteen letters), Angus M. Fraser [ed.], Edinburgh, Tragara Press

    Borrow, George (1851) Lavengro: The Scholar, the Gypsy, the Priest, 3 vols. London John Murray

    Bosworth, Clifford Edmund (1982) "The concept of dhimma in early Islam" in Benjamin Bruade & Bernard Lewis [eds.] Christians & Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, Volume 1 The Central Lands, New York & London, Holmes & Meier

    Bosworth, Clifford Edmund (2002) "al-Zutt" in PJ Bearman et al, [eds.] Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Vol XI, Leiden, Brill, pp.574-575

    Bosworth, Clifford Edmund (2003) "Hamza al-Isfahani" in PJ Bearman et al [eds] The Encylcopaedia of Islam WebCD Edition, Leiden, Brill Academic Publishers,

    Bosworth, Clifford Edmund (2000) "al-'Utbi" in PJ Bearman, Th Banquis, C.E. Bosworth, et al [eds.] Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. 10, Leiden, E. J. Brill, p.945

    Bosworth, Clifford Edmund (1999) "Saldjūkids" in E. van Donzel et al [eds.] The Encyclopaedia of Islam CD-ROM Edition v.1.0, Koninklijke Brill NV, The Netherlands

    Bosworth, Clifford Edmund (1990) "Karrāmiyya" in PJ Bearman, Th Banquis, C.E. Bosworth, et al [eds.] Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. 4, Leiden, E. J. Brill, pp.667-669

    Bosworth, Clifford Edmund (1986 -) "Saldjūkids" in HARGibb, JHKramer & B.Lewis et al [eds.] The Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd ed.), Leiden, E. J. Brill

    Bosworth, Clifford Edmund (1977) The Later Ghaznavids: Splendour & Decay, The Dynasty in Afghanistan & Northern India, The University Press at Edinburgh

    Bosworth, Clifford Edmund (1973) The Ghaznavids, Their Empire in Afghanistan & Eastern Iran, 994-1040, 2nd ed. Beirut, Librarie du Liban

    Burton, Sir Richard Francis (1898) The Jew, the Gypsy & Islam, [ed. with a brief preface and notes by W. H. Wilkins], London, Hutchinson,

    Cahen, Claude (1968) Pre-Ottoman Turkey, a general survey of the materials and spiritual culture and history c1071-1330, J. Jones-Williams [trans.], New York, Taplinger Publishing

    Calvino, Italo (1978) Invisible Cities, Orlando, Florida, Harvest Books

    Carmelite, Fr Anastas [the] (1913-1914) "The Nawar or Gypsies of the East", A. Russell [trans.], Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, [New

    Courthiade, Marcel (2007) "Chronology of Rrom's Short History", posted to the group India Rome, 20th December, [email protected]

    Courthiade, Marcel (2009) "L'origine des rroms" Historiens et Géographes n ° 399.

    Series] Vol.7, pp.298-320

    In Foletier, F. Vaux (1971) ans d'histoire des Mille Tsiganes, les grandes etudes historiques Collection, Paris, Fayard

    of Goeje, Michael Jan (1903) "Mémoire sur les à travers Tsiganes migratins des l'Asie" Mémoires d'histoire et géographie Eastern, 3, Leiden

    Destani, B. [Ed.] (2007) Minorities in the Middle East: Muslim Minorities in Arab Countries, 1843-1973, 4 vols., Vol. 1, 1843-1930, Slough, Archive Editions

    Dostourian, Ara Edmond (1993) Armenia and the Crusades, the Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, [translated from the original Armenian, with a commentary and introduction] NY & London, National Association for Armenian Studies and Research, Armenian Heritage Series, University Press of America

    Duffy, John (1995) "Reactions of Two Byzantine Intellectuals to the Theory and Practice of Magic: Michael Psellos and Michael Italikos" in H. Maguire [ed.] Byzantine Magic, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library & Collection, Washington, DC pp. 83-97
    Johannes Fabian (2006) Le temps et les autres. Comment l'objet anthropologie construit are.

    Traduction française par-Bossoney Estelle Henry Bernard Müller et. Toulouse, Anacharsis, 313 p.

    Hancock, Ian (2006) "On Romani Origins & Identity: Questions for Discussion" in Adrian Marsh & Elin Strand [eds.] Gypsies and the Problem of Identities, Contextual, Constructed & Contested, Transactions of the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, not 17, IB Tauris Istanbul & London

    Hancock, Ian (2006a) "On the interpretation of a word: as Porrajmos Holocaust" in Thomas A. Acton & Michael Hayes [eds.] Travellers, Gypsies, Roma: The Demonisation of Difference, Newcastle, Cambridge Scholars' Press. 53-57

    Hancock, Ian (2004) "Introduction", The Heroic Present Life Among the Gypsies: the photographs and memoirs of Jan Yoors, New York, The Monacelli Press

    Hancock, Ian (2002) We Are the Romani People (Ame sam e Rromane džene), Interface Collection, Hatfield & Paris, University of Hertfordshire Press / Centre de recherches Tsiganes

    Hancock, Ian (2000) "The emergence of Romani as a koine outside of India" in Thomas A. Acton [ed] Scholarship & the Gypsy Struggle, Commitment in Romani Studies, Hatfield, University of Hertfordshire Press, 1-13

    Hancock, Ian (1989) Jewish repsonses to the Porrajmos, http://tinyurl.com/56ubyc

    Hancock, Ian (1987) The Pariah Syndrome: an account of Gypsy slavery & Persecution, Ann Arbor Michigan, Karoma Publishers

    Hancock, Ian,

    Siobhan Dowd & Rajko Djuric (1998) The Roads of the Roma, a PEN anthology of Gypsy Writers, Hatfield, University of Hertfordshire Press

    Kenrick, Donald Simon (2004) Gypsies: From the Ganges to the Thames, [2nd. rev. ed.], Interface Collection, Hatfield, University of Hertfordshire Press

    Kenrick, Donald Simon (2001) "What is Domari?", Kuri, the Journal of the Dom Research Centre, vol.1, no.5, http://tinyurl.com/46keys

    Marsh, Adrian (2008) "A brief history of the Gypsies in Turkey", We Are Here! Discriminatory Exclusion and Struggle for Rights of Roma in Turkey, Edirne Roma Association, European Roma Rights Centre, Helsinki Citizens' Assembly, Istanbul, pp.5-20

    Marsh, Adrian (2008a) "Ethnicity and Identity: who are the Gypsies?" We Are Here! Discriminatory Exclusion and Struggle for Rights of Roma in Turkey, Edirne Roma Association, European Roma Rights Centre, Helsinki Citizens' Assembly, Istanbul, pp.21-30

    Marsh, A. & Acton, Thos. (2008) "Glocalisation": a new phenomenon or an age-old process? Current adaptations in changes in Gypsy / Roma / Traveller Identity in the Turkish Republic ", Paper delivered to regulate session" Globalisation and (De-) / (Re-) Construction of Roma / Gypsy / Traveller Identities "at the 38th Congress of the International Institute of Sociology, Budapest 26-30 June

    Marsh, A. & Melike Karlidağ (2008) "A study of research literature Regarding Turkish Gypsies Gypsy and the question of identity", We Are Here! Discriminatory Exclusion and Struggle for Rights of Roma in Turkey, Edirne Roma Association, European Roma Rights Centre, Helsinki Citizens' Assembly, Istanbul, pp.143-58

    Runciman, Sir Stephen (1947) The Mediaeval Manichee: A Study of the Christian Dualist Heresy, Cambs. Cambridge University Press

    Spiegel, Gabrielle M. (1999) The Past As Text: The Theory and Practice of Mediaeval Historiography, Baltimore and London, John Hopkins University Press

    Spiegel, Gabrielle M. (1993) Romanicing the Past: The Rise of Vernacular Prose Historiography in Thirteenth Century France, Berkeley, University of California Press

    Spiegel, Gabrielle M. (1990) "History, Historicism and the Social Logic of the Text of the Middle Ages", Speculum, 65, pp.59-86

    Stewart, Donald Angus (2001) The Armenian Kingdom and the Mamluks: War and Diplomacy During the Reigns of Het'Um II (1289-1307), Leiden, Brill

    Tha'ālibī, Abu Mansur (1968) The Latā'if al-ma'rāif of Tha'ālibī, the Book of Curious and Entertaining Information, C. E. Bosworth [trans. & Introduction, with notes], Edinburgh, Edinburgh at The University Press

    Voskanian, Vadan (2003) "The Iranian Loan-words in Lomavren, the Armenian Secret Language of the Gypsies", Journal of Iran & the Caucasus, vol. 6, no.1-2, E.J. Brill, Leiden, p. 169-80

    Vryonis, Spyros Jr. (1971) The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century, [Publications of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies 4] Berkeley, California, UCLA

    White, Hayden (1972) "The Irrational and the Problem of Historical Knowledge ..." in HE Pagliaro [ed.], Irrationalism in the Eighteenth Century, Papers presented at the Second Annual Meeting of the American Society for Eighteenth Century Studies, Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture, Volume 2, Cleveland

    White, Hayden (1966) "The Burden of History", History & Theory, vol.5, no.2

    Ye'or, Bat (1985) The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam, Rutherford, NJ, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press / Associated University Presses
    Last edited by Rampante-Cid; September 13, 2012 at 03:59 PM.



  2. #2
    neoptolemos's Avatar Breatannach Romanus
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seirios,a parallel space,at your right
    Posts
    11,015

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    Interesting article.
    Last edited by neoptolemos; September 14, 2012 at 04:04 PM.





    The Imperial Tagmatic Army Preview is out!!!!!




    TOTAL WAR HELLAS UNIT PACK V1.7 released-NEW MACEDONIAN,EPIROT PONTIC AND SELEUCID UNITS ARE HERE!!!!(CLICK)

    TOTAL WAR HELLAS SPARTA-ATHENS-PTOLEMIES AND BAKTRIANS released!!!! (click)

    "Wherever the art of medicine is loved, there is also a love of humanity".
    Hippocrates
    “There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.” Hippocrates
    "Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are." Bertolt Brecht
    "The doctor sees all the weakness of mankind; the lawyer all the wickedness, the theologian all the stupidity." Arthur Schopenhauer
    "Nowadays historians generally agree that the Macedonian ethnos forms part of the Greek ethnos;hence they also shared in the common religious and cultural features of the Hellenic world"M.Opperman

    under the patronage of jimkatalanos
    .Proud member of the fellowship of CBUR project-TGC/proud member of East of Rome mod



    Quem faz injúria vil e sem razão,Com forças e poder em que está posto,Não vence; que a vitória verdadeira É saber ter justiça nua e inteira-He who, solely to oppress,Employs or martial force, or power, achieves No victory; but a true victory Is gained,when justice triumphs and prevails.
    Luís de Camões

  3. #3

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    Interesting article.

    However, I think roma were not used as ghulams but artisans and drivers etc at army camps.
    In tribute to concerned friends:
    - You know nothing Jon Snow.





    Samples from the Turkish Cuisine by white-wolf

  4. #4
    Babur's Avatar ز آفتاب درخشان ستاره می
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Agra,Hindustan
    Posts
    15,406

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    Interesting article, ghulams were predominantly Turkic I thought?
    Under the patronage of Gertrudius!

  5. #5

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    Quote Originally Posted by Babur View Post
    Interesting article, ghulams were predominantly Turkic I thought?
    ghulam part, I assume, author's wish-thinking. Remember main aspect of ghulam/mamluk/janissary? They were not live with their parent-families... It was impossible roma-ghulams to preserve their Indian families and language.
    In tribute to concerned friends:
    - You know nothing Jon Snow.





    Samples from the Turkish Cuisine by white-wolf

  6. #6

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    Ghulams and Mamlukes were mostly Turkish i think?

  7. #7

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperTechmarine View Post
    Ghulams and Mamlukes were mostly Turkish i think?
    Mamluks were, with a small correction, mostly Turkic. However there were other ethnicities. I do not know well abouth ghulams. But as far as I know Ghulams were small companies of body-guardian for the ruler.
    Last edited by white-wolf; September 14, 2012 at 05:55 PM.
    In tribute to concerned friends:
    - You know nothing Jon Snow.





    Samples from the Turkish Cuisine by white-wolf

  8. #8

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    I don't know about Ghulams, but I'm sure roma weren't used as janissaries, because they were considered unreliable.

  9. #9
    Babur's Avatar ز آفتاب درخشان ستاره می
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Agra,Hindustan
    Posts
    15,406

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    Quote Originally Posted by white-wolf View Post
    ghulam part, I assume, author's wish-thinking. Remember main aspect of ghulam/mamluk/janissary? They were not live with their parent-families... It was impossible roma-ghulams to preserve their Indian families and language.
    Some Turks did migrate to India and established dynasties such as the Khilji and Tughlaqs.

    The Roma are apparently descended from migrants hailing from what is now western India, I think present day Rajasthan.
    Under the patronage of Gertrudius!

  10. #10

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    A lot of Slaves which became Ghulams or Mammeluks were traded from the Kypshak Steppe and South Russia. Specially the Vikings made a lot of their money, selling slaves to the arabs. Famous is Baybars who was russian-kypshak or tscherkessian.

    Proud to be a real Prussian.

  11. #11
    Babur's Avatar ز آفتاب درخشان ستاره می
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Agra,Hindustan
    Posts
    15,406

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus View Post
    A lot of Slaves which became Ghulams or Mammeluks were traded from the Kypshak Steppe and South Russia. Specially the Vikings made a lot of their money, selling slaves to the arabs. Famous is Baybars who was russian-kypshak or tscherkessian.
    Turkic Ghulams who came to India originally hailed from Central Asia, an example being Qutub-ud-din Aibak the founder of the Delhi Sultanate.

    The Mamlukes of Egypt were not necessarily the same as the Mamlukes of India.
    Under the patronage of Gertrudius!

  12. #12
    The Noble Lord's Avatar Holy Arab Nation
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Peshawar, Pakistan - Kabul, Afghanistan
    Posts
    7,735

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    Quote Originally Posted by white-wolf View Post
    Interesting article.

    However, I think roma were not used as ghulams but artisans and drivers etc at army camps.
    Very interesting article, and we already knew this. The historians and anthropologists have analyzed modern Roma language and concluded they are some kind of military cast coming from northern India. Two most used words by the modern Roma/Gypsies to describe non-Gypsies is 'Gadjo' which means prisoner of war and 'Das' which literally means non-military personnel! So we know their origins, but the question is here why did they start their mysterious journey in the first place, that hasn't been answered!!
    [IMG][/IMG]
    أسد العراق Asad al-Iraq
    KOSOVO IS SERBIA!!!
    Under the proud patronage of the magnificent Tzar


  13. #13
    Blatta Optima Maxima's Avatar Definitely banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Free Democratic People's Republic of Latvia
    Posts
    10,742

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    Quote Originally Posted by white-wolf View Post
    Mamluks were, with a small correction, mostly Turkic. However there were other ethnicities. I do not know well abouth ghulams. But as far as I know Ghulams were small companies of body-guardian for the ruler.
    Ghulam and Mamluk mean the same thing (slave soldier), the former being the Turkic word and the latter - the Arab one.

  14. #14
    wudang_clown's Avatar Fire Is Inspirational
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    7,357

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    Both words are Arabic.

    Ghulam is for "young man" or "boy", while mamluk literarily means "thing possessed", hence "slave".
    Last edited by wudang_clown; September 18, 2012 at 03:14 PM. Reason: Corrected spelling mistake.

    Under the patronage of m_1512

  15. #15
    Heinz Guderian's Avatar *takes off trousers
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    16,482

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    Mamlukes (also known as Ghilman) could be from Armenia, Georgia/Caucasus, north of the Black Sea, so Cuman/Kipchack, but also Sudanese, Turkic or Slav. The benefits of being a Mamluk were sometimes considered so cool that some indigenous Egyptians/Levantines/Arabs sold themselves (or kids) into the "mamluk market". So there isnt really a reliable indicator of the racial makeup of a Mamluke/Ghulam. Some captured Europeans were sold into "mamlukery" if they were young enough or from a military background. It would be perhaps better to consider a Mamluke a person of a certain rank rather than a person of a certain background.




  16. #16
    Blatta Optima Maxima's Avatar Definitely banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Free Democratic People's Republic of Latvia
    Posts
    10,742

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    Quote Originally Posted by wudang_clown View Post
    Both words are Arabic.

    Ghulam is for "young man" or "boy", while mamluk literarily means "thing possessed", hence "slave".
    Hmm well what is certain is that the Turks used the word ghulam. Can't recall who exactly, but someone had a unit called qaraghulam.

    Either way, both are words for the same thing, more or less, elite cavalry of slave origin.

  17. #17
    wudang_clown's Avatar Fire Is Inspirational
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    7,357

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    I think you are talking about the Ayyubids.

    I think the connection between both words originated from the fact that many mamluks were purchased as boys or young men.

    Under the patronage of m_1512

  18. #18
    Laetus
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    "The Gypsies of Eastern Europe edited by David Crowe and John Kolsti"

    "In the long course of the Gypsy experience in Eastern Europe, none has been
    worse than that in Romania.Within several centuries after Gypsies entered
    the medieval provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia, they began to be enslaved,
    a condition that lasted until the mid nineteenth century. Although slavery
    was not a condition peculiar to Gypsies or the Balkans at the time, the
    deepseated, dehumanizing prejudice that has characterized the historic
    Romanian relationship with Gypsies produced a socioeconomic caste system
    that resulted in the "social death" of Gypsies as Romanian slaves. ...
    Wallachia under the Grand Voivode and Prince, Basarab (1317-1352), and
    Moldavia under Prince Bogdan (Bogdan Voevoda Moldaviensis) began to emerge
    as autonomous political entities through wars of independence. Severel years
    later, Wallachian records indicate that Prince Vladislav Vlaicu (1364-1377)
    gave forty Gypsy families and land to the new Monastery at Vodita. Over the
    next century, Gypsy slavery became institutionalized in the Romanian
    Provinces, and abundant historical records document the Gypsys' plight. The
    most significant factor affecting the enslavement of Gypsies at this time
    was warfare. In the aftermath of his campaigns against the Ottoman Empire in
    nothern Bulgaria in 1461- 1462, the Wallachian ruler, Vlad IV Tepes (the
    Impaler), brought back 11,000- 12,000 "Gypsies (or Gypsylike People)" to his
    capital where he tortured and killed some for his entertainment. Vlad IV's
    contemporary in Moldavia, Stephen the Great (1457-1504), brought 17,000
    Gypsies back from his campaigns in Wallachia in 1471 to use as slave labor.
    His move, however, simply strengthened a practice supported by law, which,
    for example, stated that any Moldavian that got a Gypsy pregnant and wanted
    to marry her would lose his status and have to become a slave. Later, "any
    Moldavian who married a Gip sy himselfj oined the ranks of the 'robi. ' " In
    time Gypsy slaves were categorized according to who owned them and the type
    of work that they did. Referred to as sclavi, scindromi, or robie they were
    known as either tigani de casati (house slaves) or tigani de ogor (field
    slaves). Domestic Gypsy slaves owned by the crown or the state were then
    divided according to whether they were owned by noblemen (sclavi domnesti),
    the Court (sclavi curte), or rural land owners (sclavi gospod). ... Another
    category of Gypsy domestic slaves were the laisei, which included the
    lautari or laoutari (musicians or "fiddlers"), who did most of the slilled,
    nonagricultural work on the estate. Contemporary Balkan Gypsy clans take
    their names from those given to them during this period, such as the kirpaci
    ("basketmakers"), the kovaci (Magyar, blacksmith) or sastrari, the zlatafi
    ("goldwashers"), the curari ("sieve-makers"), and the chivute
    ("whitewashers"). The Romanian Orthodox church also had Gypsy slaves, the
    sclavi monastivesti, who were divided into the vatrasi (household slaves)
    and the more artistic laisei. Becouse of the Gypsy slave's value as a
    laborer and a craftsman, laws were passed both to restrict their movement
    and to prevent runways slaves and illegal Gypsy slave trading. In 1560, for
    examle, the Voivode of Wallachia protested the kidnapping and resale of
    Gypsies to the Sultan. ...,By the late 1930s Romania, like many of its East
    European neighbors, had drifted into the fascist camp. The new constitution
    of 193 8 paid little attention to minority rights, while the Minority Statue
    of $ August 193 8 was viewed as little more than a "piece of propagandd' mea
    nt primarily for "Gernian ... consumption." Within a year after the outbreak
    of the Second World War, Romania saw some of the territory that it had
    acquired between 1918 and 1920 returned to the USSR, Bulgaria, and Hungary.
    King Carol tried to stife public outcries over these losses by more
    stringent policis against groups like the Gypsies and the jews. His
    successor, Ion Antonescu, intensified such efforts in his new "Nationalist
    Legionary State". Officially, Gypsies, like Jews,were considered no better
    than "Mice,rats,crows..." and,according to Antonescu, should be eliminated".

  19. #19
    Settra's Avatar the Imperishable
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    13,855

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    Miketerra's post is the biggest pile of idiotic i have ever seen. It doesn't even get the ruler's names right, much less the facts and figures.

    Quote Originally Posted by miketerra View Post
    "In the long course of the Gypsy experience in Eastern Europe, none has been worse than that in Romania.Within several centuries after Gypsies entered the medieval provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia, they began to be enslaved, a condition that lasted until the mid nineteenth century. Although slavery was not a condition peculiar to Gypsies or the Balkans at the time, the deepseated, dehumanizing prejudice that has characterized the historic Romanian relationship with Gypsies produced a socioeconomic caste system that resulted in the "social death" of Gypsies as Romanian slaves. ...
    Gypsies were not slaves. Their social status was somewhere between a servant and a serf. They worked in the lord's fields and household and in exchange the lord had to PAY THEM, provide food, clothing and lodging befit of a peasant and care for their children. Any noble who abused, or provided inadequate care to, his gypsies would lose absolutely everything he had in favor of the voievod. This law instituted to protect the gypsies, thus reducing the risk of gipsy crime/rebellion, and to cement the voievod's power over the traditionally rebellious Romanian boyars.

    Quote Originally Posted by miketerra View Post
    Vlad IV Tepes (the Impaler), brought back 11,000- 12,000 "Gypsies (or Gypsylike People)" to his
    capital where he tortured and killed some for his entertainment.
    This is made up, there are no documents, or even stories, confirming this. Also its Vlad III. Get your facts straight.

    Quote Originally Posted by miketerra View Post
    Gypsy pregnant and wanted to marry her would lose his status and have to become a slave. Later, "any Moldavian who married a Gipsy himself joined the ranks of the 'robi. ' " In time Gypsy slaves were categorized according to who owned them and the type of work that they did. Referred to as sclavi, scindromi, or robie they were known as either tigani de casati (house slaves) or tigani de ogor (field slaves). Domestic Gypsy slaves owned by the crown or the state were then divided according to whether they were owned by noblemen (sclavi domnesti), the Court (sclavi curte), or rural land owners (sclavi gospod). ... The Romanian Orthodox church also had Gypsy slaves, the sclavi monastivesti, who were divided into the vatrasi (household slaves) and the more artistic laisei.
    Not true. Anyone who left a woman pregnant was forced to marry her. While it is true that gipsies were looked down upon, and your family would probably disinherit you if you married one, you did not become a slave for doing so.

    Gypsies were called slugi, meaning servants/workers/subjects. The word sclav (slave) only entered the romanian language in the 19th century. Tigani de ogor means field gypsies not field salve, tigani de casa means house gipsy not house slave, etc. The terms scavi domensti, sclavi de curte, sclavi manasitresti never existed. The term was slugi domnesti, slugi de curte and slugi manastiresti and it referred to the boyar's/voievod's/monastery's entire staff, not just the gypsies. Working for the nobles/ruler was not so different from the rest of Europe, while working for the monastery was seen, at times, as an act of piety and it usually earned you a degree of respect from the peasants.

    The term sclavi gospod isn't even in romanian.

    Quote Originally Posted by miketerra View Post
    Because of the Gypsy slave's value as a laborer and a craftsman, laws were passed both to restrict their movement and to prevent runways slaves and illegal Gypsy slave trading. In 1560, for example, the Voivode of Wallachia protested the kidnapping and resale of
    Gypsies to the Sultan. ...
    As would any lord who had his servants kidnapped and sold to his greatest enemy. Trading gypsies was not allowed. The only ways a gipsy could enter a boyar's service were: if he was born on the boyar's estate, if he was a travelling gipsy (pot makers, musicians, etc) and wanted to settle down a that boyar's estate or if he was captured in open battle.


    Quote Originally Posted by miketerra View Post
    By the late 1930s Romania, like many of its East European neighbors, had drifted into the fascist camp. The new constitution of 1938 paid little attention to minority rights, while the Minority Statue of $ August 193 8 was viewed as little more than a "piece of propaganda meant primarily for "Gernian ... consumption."
    Not true. Romanian was very much an anti-fascist state all throughout the late 30s and the first half of 1940. King Charles II executed fascist "Iron Guard" members on a daily basis. The 1938 constitution was a corporatist constitution meant to give more power to the king support the royal camarilla's "economic interests". Minorities enjoyed full rights and they were left to their own devices as long as they obeyed the law.

    In 4 August 1938 Romania was distinctively pro-french/english. If anything the king would pass laws to suck up to anyone that would be the french, but he never did that either.


    Quote Originally Posted by miketerra View Post
    Within a year after the outbreak of the Second World War, Romania saw some of the territory that it had acquired between 1918 and 1920 returned to the USSR and Hungary.
    Returned?

    Quote Originally Posted by miketerra View Post
    King Carol tried to stife public outcries over these losses by more stringent policis against groups like the Gypsies and the jews. His successor, Ion Antonescu, intensified such efforts in his new "Nationalist Legionary State". Officially, Gypsies, like Jews,were considered no better than "Mice,rats,crows..." and,according to Antonescu, should be eliminated".
    No, the king apologized to the nation and abdicated immediately after those territories were lost. Many of his advisers and financiers were jewish, he couldn't have implemented such measures even if he wanted to.

    The Nationalist Leginary state was a public spectacle meant to suck up to germans so they would not interfere in Romania's plans to declare war on Hungary. It lasted for little over a year.
    Antonescu never said that. He had plans to create a free gipsy state in what is today Trandnistria, and he did settle/deport some there, but never gave any orders to have them exterminated.
    Last edited by Settra; November 02, 2012 at 08:21 AM.

  20. #20
    Laetus
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    21

    Default Re: The origins of the gypsy or romani people

    [QUOTE=Sir Adrian;12192286]Miketerra's post is the biggest pile of idiotic i have ever seen. It doesn't even get the ruler's names right, much less the facts and figures.



    Gypsies were not slaves. Their social status was somewhere between a servant and a serf. They worked in the lord's fields and household and in exchange the lord had to PAY THEM, provide food, clothing and lodging befit of a peasant and care for their children. Any noble who abused, or provided inadequate care to, his gypsies would lose absolutely everything he had in favor of the voievod. This law instituted to protect the gypsies, thus reducing the risk of gipsy crime/rebellion, and to cement the voievod's power over the traditionally rebellious Romanian boyars.


    You are another instant Historian around here,And there are many of you.

    I only quote what David Crowe and John Kolsti said.
    Read this you can get illuminated

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Romania

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •