The Roma, as the gypsies call themselves, have many legends about the origins of their traveling. They have long been regarded by followers of Christianity as the “cursed descendants of Cain” (Clebert, 2), a notion which seems to be supported by the Bible. In the first book of the Bible, Genesis, there are many references that may be applied to the Roma. The very name of Cain, in Semitic languages, means blacksmith, or metal worker, a traditional Roma occupation. The mark “the Lord set upon Cain” to set him apart (Genesis IV, 15) is still used by the Roma to demarcate a clan that utilizes the old concept of blood vengeance. Further, Genesis IV, 12 may be interpreted as the reasons for gypsy avoidance of agricultural work and the beginnings of their roaming the earth: “When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth”. Extended study of the book of Genesis support the “sons of Cain” myths by emphasizing traditional Roma occupations: “Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other was Zillah. And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents… Ad his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron…”(Genesis IV, 19-22) Other fables of the origin of their wandering have to do with the crucifixion of Christ.
Macedonian legend tells a story of how the Roman soldiers drank away the money given them to forge the nails for the crucifixion. After killing Jewish smiths who refused to make the nails to crucify a fellow Jew, they finally found a gypsy smith to work for them. There was a considerable problem, however: the fourth nail would not cool. This cursed nail is the reason they move from place to place; it follows them and haunts them wherever they go.
Danubian legend has it that they are the descendants of evil Biblical characters: makers of the crucifixion nails, advisors to Judas, people who refused the Virgin Mary succor on her flight from Egypt, and those involved in the slaughter of the children of Bethlehem. (Clebert, 4)
Serbian gypsies also have a few tales on the origin of their travels. Some believe that for reasons unknown, gypsies stole the fourth nail for the crucifixion of Christ. Others tell the tale of gypsies set to the task of guarding Christ becoming drunk and failing to fulfill their duty. Either way, they travel as penance for their role.
Other legends from Mesopotamia and Asia state that the ancestors of the early Roma, the Sinti, broke from their original band living East of India in Nepal or Burma, and headed west. They became horse-breakers and traded in precious stones, eventually reaching Chaldea by caravan. There they worked bronze and gold, taught the Chaldeans yoga, fire walking, and other acrobatic exercise. In return, they were taught astronomy. A later foray into Egypt by these people has them entertaining the Pharaoh with these same feats to win asylum in his lands. (Clebert, 6)
An Indian gypsy legend tells of a curse by a sorcerer who condemned them to wander the earth forever, never sleeping in the same place twice, drinking from the same well twice, or crossing the same river twice in the same year. (Singhal, 36)
As early as Renaissance times, scholars have tried to unravel the mystery concerning the Roma and their origins. Even then notice was taken of their separate language, but at that time, they were unable to attach it to an area. Further scientific studies of Romany, the gypsy language, by linguists have helped determine that the grammar and vocabulary are close to Sanskrit (in the same way that the Romance languages are related to Latin) (Singhal, 39), and thus an origin in India. It is widely believed that the formation of Romany began in the sixth or seventh century. A linguistic study of Indian gypsies points to an origin in the northwestern regions of India, or at least a stay long enough in the region to absorb local language dialects and vocabulary. (Singhal, 67)
This linguistic evidence is supported by the similarities of the gypsy culture with Indian culture in terms of dress, appearance, social organization, and cleanliness. Like Indians, gypsies do not wash dishes in the same vessels as where clothes are washed; tables are also to be kept clean, with nothing considered unclean, (or in Romany, marhime) such as shoes or underwear, allowed to touch it. On a social scale, there are many similarities between the Dom of India and gypsies. All are considered lower caste vagrants; they are characterized as lazy, dreamers, gamblers, smokers, drinkers, fighters, and singers.
The reason for the movement of the gypsies is a question that may never be answered. It is possible that their rung on the Indian social scale, and subsequent treatment, was unacceptable to them, so they began movement to better their status. Another hypothesis involves the White (Epthalite) Huns from Central Asia. Their invasion of India in the fifth and sixth centuries brought crisis to India. The fall of the Gupta dynasty and disintegration of the Empire caused the decay of towns and agriculture, which lead to famine and epidemic outbreaks. The Roma may have begun to move to escape these tribulations. (Marushiakova and Popov, 11-12) Yet another theory presented also had the Roma leaving India to escape the social and economic upheaval caused by the Arab invasion of India in the seventh and eighth centuries. This invasion is known to have caused massive migration in India of many people, so it is not untoward that the Roma may have begun to move then. (Marushiakova and Popov, 12)
The first actual account of people who may have been gypsies comes from the
Arab historian, Hazma of Isfahan, in 940. He mentions an account from approximately
the year 420 of Bahram Gur, the Sassnian King of Persia, asking a favor of Shankala,
the Maharaja of India. He requested entertainers for his poor subjects whose
lives were miserable without music and amusement. Shankala sent twelve thousand
Indian men and women who were musicians and dancers to Persia. The entertainers
were given land and seed to cultivate. They instead ate the seed, which drove
the Persian Shah, in his anger, to seize their instruments and force the Indians
to roam about earning their living by singing. The Persian poet, Firdusi also
gives this account, in his book, Shah Nameh, about a half-century later, with
a minor difference: Firdusi used the term Luri to describe the musicians, while
Hazma used the word Zott (the Arabic pronunciation of the Indian Jat). Both
these terms later came to mean gypsies. The difficulty with these accounts is
that both Zott and Jat were also used, during that time, rather indiscriminately,
to describe anyone with an Indian origin.
There are numerous references of migration of the Zotts in Persia. In the seventh
century, detachments from Sind deserted the Persian army, settled in Basra,
and embraced Islam. As the Arabs swept through Asia, conquering the Sind, Jats
were deported to the banks of the Tigris River. In 855, Tabari, an Arab chronicler,
reports of the Syrian Zotts being taken prisoner by invading Byzantines. If
these people were indeed gypsies, this would be their first introduction to
Christian territory. These accounts do match the linguistic studies that support
Romany branching off as a separate language with influences of other major languages
that were spoken in the area (such as Persian, Armenian, and Greek) in the eighth
and ninth centuries.
While it is not known exactly when the Roma entered or left Persia, many linguists
agree that is during their stay there that they broke into two different branches
based on the word for “sister”: the ben and the phen branches. The
differences between the two branches is significant enough to point to an early
separation of the branches; there are no Persian loan words in the ben speaking
groups, indicating a short stay in Persia. It is thought that the ben speaking
group (which has also been designated the Dom group by the way they spoke the
Sanskrit word domba )may have stayed in the Middle East, as their dialect was
heavily permeated with Arabic and little of the original remained. It is also
thought that some of this group may have continued to travel to Egypt and North
Africa.
The phen speaking gypsies were believed to have split into two groups: the Lom
and the Rom (again, so designated by the Sanskrit domba). The Lom were thought
to have traveled north to settle in Armenia, as their language, like the way
of the Dom, is heavily impregnated with Armenian, with little of the original
left.
It was the Rom that traveled west toward the Byzantine Empire, which included parts of Asia Minor and the Balkans at that time. Some Byzantine historians and linguists currently believe that the name Atsingani, which later became Tsingani in Eastern Europe, was always used in Byzantine records to refer to gypsies. (Marshiakova and Popov, 14) The first mention of these Atsingani was by Theophanes the Confessor in his Chronicles, written around 800. He tells of a great friendship between the Atsingani and Nikephoros I Genik, the Byzantine emperor, because of help Ottokar II of Bohemia that they gave him by subduing a riot with their knowledge of magic in 803. The emperor allowed them to move freely about his empire; some choose to settle in Thrace. Modern Bulgarian gypsies agree with this early date, comparing it with a legend that the gypsies were blacksmiths of the Bulgarian Khan Krum. They coated the skull of Nikephoros I Genik, who had been killed in 811 in the Vurbishki Pass battle, with silver for the khan to use to toast his soldiers.
Another account of the Atsingani was from the ninth century in Life, the bibliography of St. Atanasia. St. Atanasia describes a time of famine where she gave food to foreigners called Atsingani.
The Patriarch of Antioch, Theodore Monach, under Emperor John I Tzimiskes, organized Atsingani from the Antioch region that settled in Phillippopolis in 969. This, and a mention of the traveling nomads, “Singani”, in a letter from Archbishop Theophilact of Ohrid to Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, help confirm a second wave of mass migration of the gypsies into the Byzantine Empire.
Previous to the current definitive linguistic studies, the first accepted documentation of a gypsy presence in the Balkans (Byzantine Empire) was from the Life of Saint George of Athos, written around 1100 about a saint who died in 1065. This chronicle describes the arrival of Atsingani in Constantinople from Samaria who had no permanent jobs, but wandered about using clairvoyant and other magic skills. The Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos asked him to fix a pest problem within his hunting park, which they did by giving the beasts “charmed” (poisoned) meat. After astounding success, the emperor invited them into the palace to demonstrate on his dog. Saint George, who blessed the meat and saved the animal, thwarted them. They were forced to leave the palace in disgrace.
There is positive evidence that the terms Atsingani referred specifically to gypsies between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries. The twelfth century Byzantine church legislator Thedor Balsamon mentions Atsingani carrying snakes and foretelling the future. Anastasios I, the Patriarch of Constantinople in the first half of the fourteenth century, cautions his flock about snake charmers, magicians, and bear trainers; “especially Atsingani, who preach about devilish things” (Marushiakova and Popov, 15). Joseph Briennius, writing in the mid-fourteenth century, noted people associated with magic, clairvoyants, Atsingani, and exorcists. The term Atsingani is also used as an insult in two Byzantine satirical poems, referring to gypsies.
Documents from Western Europe confirm the presence of the gypsies in the region. A Franciscan monk, Simon Simeonis, writing in 1322 describes slaves from Danube lands (Moldavia and Wallachia) that he had previously seen in Egypt as being “black as Indians with tattooed faces”. He also mentions “descendants of Ham” on Crete living in tents and caves, staying less than 30 days in one spot (Marushiakova and Popov, 16). A German pilgrim form Cologne, traveling to the Holy Sepulchre (Jerusalem) in 1340 tells of Mandopoli, who spoke their own language that no one else understood. A fourteenth century Bulgarian version of The Life of Saint Barbarus tells of many Egyptians living along the Albanian Coast.
It is also in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries that the names Tsingani and Egyptians came into use to describe people with gypsy-like qualities. The first evidence of this was from the tax records of Greorios II Kyprios, the Patriarch of Constantinople form 1283-1289. Special taxes were collected from both Egyptians and Tsingani by subcontractors who paid a percentage of the taxes in advance and recovered the whole sum from the taxpayer. The Nomokanon, written in the fifteenth century, punishes those who ask Egyptian women to foretell the future or exorcise the sick by barring them from the Eucharist. The widow Anna and her new husband, and Egyptian are recorded as living near the monastery of Xiropotamou on Mount Athos. The Lavra monastery recorded Nikolaus the Egyptian living near its lands. From these records it has been determined that Tsingani and Egyptians are used to describe two different, separate communities. This also elucidates the status of the gypsy as a parici or villein, a dependent feudal population in Byzantium, not well liked by the Church for their “satanic” practices. Other names from the area include Katsivelos, or sievemaker, a name for gypsy, still used in modern Greece, from a Byzantine satirical poem, “The drunkard’s philosophy” and egypto-katsivelos, used in 1350 by JohnV Paleologos in a decree confirming land ownership.
The name of Egyptian to describe gypsies became very common in the fourteenth century. This may be from the gypsy’s assertion to an origin and royal lineage in Little Egypt. The lands which may be linked to Little Egypt include an area around Antioch in Anatolia (now Turkey) and the more widely accepted Peloponnesus, where the gypsies had been established long enough so that by the fourteenth century the right of self rule and certain tax privileges were widespread. The earliest positive evidence of the gypsy presence was from Modon, a town on the western coast. In 1384, Lionardo di Nikolo Frescobaldi wrote about the Romiti living outside the city walls who, he thought, were doing penance for their sins.
The gypsies had settled long enough in Corfu to form an independent fief as of 1386. They obviously were held in some esteem in Greece as Johannes cinganus (John the Gypsy) was given the position of drungarius acinganorium (the commander of a group of soldiers) when the town of Nauplion, Greece, organized a group of gypsies under a military leader on the 12th of August 1444. (Fraser, 51)
From early thirteenth century Byzantine records, we know that gypsies in Bulgaria were considered to have very low social standing due to not having permanent professional affiliations: “Ne’er do well fortunetellers, ventriloquists and wizards….who are inspired satanically to pretend to predict the unknown.” (Crowe, 11) The first gypsies to settle in Bulgaria were slaves that were given to the Rila monastery in 1378 by Tsar Ivan Shishman.
Serbian records from the town register of Ragusa tell of two Egyptian brothers, Vlaho and Vitan, makers of silver coated leather straps, depositing 8 pieces of silver with a local goldsmith for a loan in 1362. Earlier, more controversial, records place the gypsies in Serbia as early as 1290. It was then that Serbian king Milutin gave gypsies (that some Serbian historians interpret as shoemakers) to the Hiliandariou monastery on Mount Athos. Also, in 1348, King Stephan Dushan passed a charter giving taxes paid by Cingarie to the Monastery of Archangels Micheal and Gabriel in Prizren. Certainly they were not held in high esteem, as records also frequently mention gypsy traders and musicians appearing often before the judiciary for having defaulted on loans. A particular example of this appeared in Ragusan court documents in 1443 as a Radoiko the Tsigan being in debt to traders from Ragusa.
A fourteenth century Albanian legend has the son of Lek Dukagin, the Albanian ruler, killed by gypsies in Montenegro. The tradition of blood revenge, still seen in current gypsy behavior, (blood for blood, man for man) was utilized by the Albanian lord. He is quoted as saying “one does not buy 2 loaves of bread for a small coin, and for blood spilled once, there is no need to spill more than one blood”. (Marushiakova and Popov, p.19)
The gypsy status was to change in this area with the conquest of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans had enjoyed permanent settlement in Asia Minor from Central Asia as early as the eleventh century. The Ottomans, led by Orkhan (1326-59), took advantage of the internal conflicts of the Byzantine Empire and the Balkan states, conquering Thrace and Macedonia by 1382. It was after the defeat of the united armies of many Balkan rulers, led by Serbian King Lazar, by Sultan Bayezid I Ildurum (“Lightening”), that led the way for the gradual conquest of the entire Balkan area, with Wallachia and Moldavia being granted the special status of vassal principalities.
Large numbers of gypsies arrived in the Balkans with the Ottoman invasion. They were serving in the army as auxiliary soldiers, craftsmen, and other supporting personnel. Some continued on to Europe with the army, some settled, and some stayed in the Balkans as nomads. Official documents from this period such as the archives of the Ottoman government and the local governments (mostly tax registers and court documents) yields many different kinds of information, including demographic information, laws and regulations, and names of gypsies in the area. The documents separated all gypsies into two categories with each having a different status and obligations towards the state: Muslims (true believers) and subjected Christians, each being encouraged to settle.
Tax registers from different areas document the numbers of gypsy households in those areas. In1430, the Register of Timars in the Nikiopol sanjak (region) showed that 431 gypsy households, or roughly 3.5% of the total population, were registered. (Men or widows were classified as the heads of households and paid taxes on behalf of the family.) Records from the province of Rumelia, under the leadership of Mehmet II Fatih, in 1475 detailed laws and regulations concerning gypsies. All gypsies, regardless of religion, paid a poll tax of 42 akche, a tax usually only levied on Christians. Muslim gypsies were taxed at a higher rate if found intermingling with Christians. Nomad gypsies, except those providing service to the army by maintaining and living in fortresses, blacksmithing, military musicians, and auxiliary troops, also paid higher taxes. A 1487-1489 register from the districts of Istanbul, Viza Gallipoli, Edirne, Hirmen, Yanboli, Filibe, Sogia, Nikopoli, Vidin, Kyustendil, Krushevak, Smederevo, Yeni Pazar, and Bosnia record 3237 gypsy households, with 211 widow households. The poll tax was 25 akche annually with an additional land tax (ispenche) and charge on the first night of marriage (kruvnina) for Christians. (Marushiakova and Popov, 27-28) The tax records reflect the changing gypsy populations. 33 regular households and 5 widow’s households populated the settlement of Filibe in 1489-1490. In 1516 there were 175 gypsy households, and by 1526 there were 283 households, with 90 of them being Muslims. Plevne experienced the same growth: 1516 records 11 gypsy households, 1550 had 36, and in 1579 there are 44 registered households. These records also provide a perspective of the gypsy population in relation to the non-gypsy population. The district of Eski Zagra records 61 gypsy households out of a total 2450 households, or roughly 2.5% of the population. The town of Yanboli in 1595 documents that the gypsies made up roughly 1.3% of the population, or 7 out of 529 total households.
A very important record was the Rumelia Tax Register of 1522-1523. This 347 page document dealt solely with the gypsies and was entitled “Comprehensive roll of the income and taxation of the Gypsies of the province of Rumelia, who are found in the vakufs (land from which taxes went to Muslim religious institutions) of the late Sultan Bayezid Khan in the vakufs and myulks (land belonging personally to the sultan) of the grand ministers and noblemen in the Gypsy sanjak (a unit of territory, smaller than a province) and in ziamets (land given to high ranking men of military aristocracy by sultan) and timars (land given to high ranking men of military aristocracy by sultan, smaller that the ziamets).”(Marushiakova and Popov, 29) This comprehensive document records the number of gypsy households, the religious status of the gypsy population, and the occupations of the gypsies, as well as illuminating gypsy legal status. It records 14,497 households, including 491 widow’s households: 10,294 Christian households and 4203 Muslim households. 3185 households were located in modern Turkey, 2512 in Greece, 374 in Albania, 4382 in former Yugoslavia, and the majority (5701) in Bulgaria. It is uncertain where the remaining 1037 households were located. There was an additional 2694 Muslim households in the Gypsy Sanjak (in this case, sanjak means a group involved in auxiliary service to the army). According to Macedonian historian Alexander Stojanovsky, who estimated that there were 5 people inhabiting each household, approximately 47,000 of the roughly 66,000 gypsies in the area were Christian. This estimate is very uncertain, though, as an analysis of the registered names showed evidence of the naming system being mixed, as if to illustrate the changing nature of their beliefs and ability to adjust with the circumstances. Recorded Muslim gypsies often had Christian style names, lacking the “son of Abdullah”, the standard demarcation of new Muslim converts; recorded Christian gypsies, in turn, had Muslim names. It is interesting to consider that almost all of the women’s names found in the register were Christian. The favoritism towards “true believers” is shown the tax rates: Christian gypsies paid a land tax (resm-i-chift) of 25 akche, while Muslims only paid 22 akche. Widows paid only one akche. (Marushiakova and Popov, 26-31)
Twelve laws passed by Sultan Suleiman I the Magnificent in 1530 further enlighten as to the special status of the gypsies in Rumelia. The first confirmed the amount of taxes paid by both Muslim and infidel gypsies. The second law dealt with fining gypsy women from Istanbul, Edirne, Filibe, and Sofia who had taken up unlawful professions. The unusually large fine of 100 akche each month leads some historians to believe that these women may have been prostitutes. The next stated that gypsies were to pay the usual marriage tax and fines for crimes as other people. The fourth law concerned gypsies who tried to hide to evade tax payment. It authorized leaders of their companies, village mayors, and others to find, return, and punish the evader. The fifth and sixth laws dictated who should collect the taxes, based on location, certain exemptions, and warns against interference from others. The seventh law gives permission to admonish and add additional taxes to the Muslims consorting with non-Muslims. The next law concerned exemptions granted by the sultan. The ninth law stated that gypsies in the Branicheva district and Smederevo region should pay 80 akche per household. The next two laws outlined tax payment and where to serve in wartime in the Nikipol region. The final commanded the gypsies of Nish to serve in the Smederevo region in times of war. These laws showed the intention of the Ottoman Empire to tax everyone, including nomads. It also demonstrated the Ottoman Empire’s willingness to allow the self-government of the gypsies. These ideas are further established by a decree by Sultan Selim II in 1574, which allowed workers in groups of 50 from Banya Luka to choose their own leader to be responsible for them and to represent them. (Marushiakova and Popov, 32-34)
Gypsies in the Ottoman army were treated differently than others. They were arranged in platoons (myusyulems) with the non-gypsy head of the company (mir-liva) in charge of 4 captains and 11 corporals. They never participated in active service. For their auxiliary assistance, these 543 companies received 449 areas of land n seventeen regions of Rumelia.
Nomadic gypsies were especially singled out during this regime. From the beginning of the conquest, the Ottomans were intent on settling the nomads so that they could fully tax them. Unlike other situations, where Muslims usually paid less tax, Muslim nomadic gypsy laws took into account that the one who wandered had to be sought out and returned to the proper district to fulfill their obligations. To do this, age, occupation, and family status of the gypsy population was documented and used to group them into tax communities with a leader. These were then divided into smaller units, also with a leader (kethuda). This type of limited group responsibility was applied commonly to subjects of the Empire. The Ottomans also used the tax policies to regulate movement within the boundaries of the Empire: raising taxes in areas where gypsies were not wanted, lowering them when their presence was desired. In addition, there were decrees issued to limit the use of horses by the gypsies. Many nomads settled in the cold weather and traveled during the warmer months, beginning a pattern of seasonal nomadism common in the Balkans. Whether this was established behavior prior to their introduction to the Balkans, or if it was imposed by the social and economic circumstances brought about by the Ottoman Empire is open to further study.
The Rumelian Tax Register of 1522 also described many of the occupations of the gypsies. There were so many musicians (sazende) that they made up entire tax communities. There are several examples of gypsy leaders of these communities: Kara Olgan, son of Oruch from Vrany fortress, Boro, son of Kiriak, from Melnik, and Div (or Diya) son of Ivrod, from Aitos are a few that are mentioned. Information from other travelers confirms many examples of music ensembles with dancers.
A different form of entertainer has previously been mentioned: prostitutes. While prostitution is not usually found among the Roma, the euphemistic expression of women engaged in unlawful occupation, as well as the unusually high tax lead to the belief that prostitution by gypsy women was a mode of livelihood in this area. Like the musicians, entire tax communities are recorded as paying these unusually high taxes: the community of Ilias in Istanbul had a special annual tax of 5000 akche, the community of Mehmet, son of Karaja in Edirne paid 3000 akche annually, and the community of Yaramaz, son of Todor, in Plovdiv paid 1400 akche annually. These taxes, when compared to other communities were unusually expensive. (Marushiakova and Popov, 45)
Blacksmithing, a traditional gypsy occupation through even current times, is also mentioned. Although there is evidence that there were many gypsy smiths before the fifteenth century and after the sixteenth century, only one blacksmith and four other ironworkers (chilingir, timurji, and haddads) are mentioned in the Rumelian tax register as civilians. There were a few more in the gypsy sanjak, but they worked solely for the army.
Other occupations listed in the Rumelian tax register included the following: horse-traders, tinsmiths, goldsmiths, sword makers, nail makers, stove makers, shoe and slipper makers, leather workers, farriers, tailors, dyers, carpet makers, cheese makers, butchers, kebab makers, gardeners, guards, manservants, couriers, monkey breeders, and well diggers. Occasionally monks, policemen, surgeons, doctors, janissaries, and army officers are mentioned as well. As with the musicians and “women employed in unlawful professions”, sometimes entire tax communities evolve around a certain profession, but it is unclear whether these occupations are newly learned or traditional employment. It is interesting to note that the Roma began to organize craft’s guilds by the sixteenth century; unsurprisingly one of the first mentioned are horse traders.
Also not surprising is the mention of gypsies taking an occupation that is not looked favorably upon by others. Unskilled jobs and begging are mentioned, as well as more unlawful vocations such as trading in defective horses and other kinds of thievery.
In most of the Byzantine Empire (Balkans) there was a contemptuous and negative attitude towards gypsies, but no outright hostility or systematic persecution by religious and civic authorities that will be evident later in western Europe. The exception to this statement is in the Danube provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia where gypsies were enslaved because of their superior craftsworking skills. Though they had been reported to have been in Wallachia since the eleventh century by Mircea the Great and had purportedly been in Moldavia since the twelfth century, we see the mass migration of gypsies connected to the widespread practice of donating people and land to monasteries. When the Ottomans conquered the area, they again were captured as useful slaves. In 1340, Serbian nobles donated several families to the Holy Virgin monastery in Tismana, in the Carpathian Mountains. In 1360, Voivode Vladislav gave gypsy families to the monastery of Saint Anthony in Vodici. In 1385 His nephew, Don I (“ruler and master of all Ungro-Wallachia”) sent 40 more families to Holy Virgin monastery in Tismana. Later, in 1387, Don I’s heir, Jon Mircea confirmed his gift and gave 300 families to a monastery in Gozia. The importance of these families as craftsworking slaves was evident as the entire legislative systems of Moldavia and Wallachia gave them complex slave status. This slave system in the two vassal principalities gave gypsies of different professions different status. These slaves (robi) were classified as state owned (sclavi) or crown owned. These were then catalogued into smaller groups based on their duties. In the state owned group there were sclavi, which were slaves to noblemen; sclavi skopici was the designation for men castrated as boys to drive the coaches of noble women. Sclavi monastivesti were orthodox church slaves, vatrasi were their grooms, coachmen, and cooks. Sclavi curte were court slaves, sclavi go spody were householding slaves, sclavi coevesty were field slaves of the nobility, and sclavi de mosii were field slaves for the small farmer. There was a separate classification system for the crown owned slaves. There were the rudari or aurai, (goldwashers), the usari (bear trainers) and the lingurari (carvers of wooden spoons). There were also some general names for houseslaves (tigani de casati) and field slaves (tigani de ogor). Some slaves had freedom of movement (laiesi). There were musicians who served in this capacity as well, lautari (or fiddlers) (Crowe, 107). From this system came names of clans (vici) of the Wallachian/ Danubian area. There were the kirpaci (basketmakers), bovaci (blacksmiths), zlatari (goldwashers), curari (sievemakers), and the chivute (whitewashers). Not all slaves enjoyed this special status in this area. One exemption is Vlad Dracul (the Devil), father of Vlad Tepes, (the Impaler). He brought back 11,000-12,000 slaves from his campaigns in Bulgaria against the Turks. These slaves, who were said to have looked like Egyptians, were tortured terribly.
There are early indications of the gypsies in Hungary. In West Transylvania there was a noble family of Zygan found that dated back to the ninth century. In 1260, Ottokar II of Bohemia defeated Bela IV of Hungary, who was reported to have gypsies in his army. Historians have hypothesized that gypsies fled the Mongols through Hungary in 1241. In the 1370’s the Hungarian name for gypsy, cigany is found as family names and names of villages in archives. The first undisputed records of gypsies in Hungary came from court documents from 1382 in Agrom: butchers with the name Cigan, Cygan, Chichan, and Czyganychyn were recorded. There are many accounts of gypsy butchers and traders appearing in Zagreb courts for unpaid loans in 1373, 1378, and 1387-1397. In 1399 the Book of Executions of the Lords of Rozmberk tells how a gypsy, groom of Andrew, was killed for a crime.
The attitude of the Hungarians, especially in the Slovak regions was a welcome change for the gypsies. They were not only welcomed as religious exiles from Egypt, but also gladly received due to the sparse population, particularly around castles. They were encouraged to settle; many did, becoming castle musicians and metal workers and also serving in Hungary’s army. Gypsy smiths during the reign of Vladislas II were reported to have made weapons, war necessities, and instruments of torture. Gypsy smiths also made instruments of torture for Janos Zapolyai after he captured the rebel leader Dosza (Gyorgy Szekely) in 1514. Legend has it that Dosza was placed on a red-hot iron throne and crowned with a red-hot iron crown. Starving gypsies were then permitted to carve cutlets from his flesh. There are favorable reports of gypsy troops from the late fifteenth century in Imperial Hungarian records. Janos Zapolyai used Rom troops in 1534 to burn four east Slovak towns supporting his opponent for the Hungarian throne, Ferdinand I. (Captured Romany soldiers confessed to burning an additional 9 towns.) Gypsy troops also participated in the defense of the castle at Velka Ida.
Many Roma were declared royal servants and permission from the king was necessary to utilize their expertise on private estates. This was shown by King Matthias I granting permission of the use of the gypsies to the residents of Hermannstadt in Transylvania. Those who did not settle were considered pilgrims and gifted as such. An example of this was found in the eastern Transylvanian town of Brasso where Lord Emaus of Egypt and his 120 companions were provided food and money. Eventually, though, their true nature began to tarnish the pilgrim reputation. Hermann Cornerus, in his book Chronica novella, related a story that was confirmed by Rufus, the chronicler of Lubeck: a duke, count, and 200 men and women were granted alms, but with a guard posted around the city because of the thievery.
Roma traveling through Hungary began to enjoy special circumstances as Sigismund came to power. He was crowned King of Hungary as of 1387 and also given the crown of Germany in 1411, which, in turn made him de facto Holy Roman Emperor. The Pope finally recognized him in 1411 as the actual Holy Roman Emperor until his death in1437. In 1407, groups of gypsies passing through Bohemia to Western Europe showed safe conduct passes (glejty) from King Sigismund. In 1417, gypsies showed shrewd diplomatic negotiation skills in obtaining permission of the king to travel through Transylvania and the Slovak portions of Hungary by capitalizing on the time spent in the Ottoman Empire and their military knowledge of the Turks. King Sigismund also granted a detailed travel permit to Rom leader, Ladislaus, at Spissky Castle on April 17, 1423. Other monarchs and lords proffered the same privilege. Ulasszlo II (reigning from 1490-1516) gave the gypsy leader Tamas Polgar, Vayvodam Pharaonum (Voivode of Pharoah’s People) and his 25 tents of gypsy smiths permission to move about and settle as they pleased in the country. (The voivode was a Rom leader who acted as a judge for the Rom. This voivode, in turn, served the chief of the gypsies, „egregius” or distinguished.) They, as compensation, provided the Bishop of Pecs and others with muskets, cannon balls, and other military hardware.
The Rom musicians also held a distinguished place in Hungarian society. They were especially sought after by nobility. In 1489, they entertained Queen Beatrix, wife of Matthias I, on Csepel Island. Louis II paid pharaones (a gypsy designation) to perform in 1525. Queen Isabella, wife of Janos Zpolya and daughter of Sigismund I Jagiello, was exuberant in her praise after they performed for her in 1541: “the most excellent Egyptian musicians play, descendants of the Pharaohs.” (Crowe, 71)
After the Turkish defeat of Hungary, there was a change in attitude toward the gypsies. The shift had begun in the fifteenth century because of the perceived gypsy indifference to religion. Now they were looked on as spies for Turkey. Gypsies were isolated from peasants and restricted to the periphery of towns and villages. Their smiths were also restricted in what they could produce. They were only allowed to make simple instruments, leaving the more lucrative metalworking to gadje (non-gypsies). Despite a plea from Gyorgy Thurzo, royal governor of Hasburg, to allow some settling to the gypsies due to their military importance, laws enacted forced nomadism with no real means to earn an honest living. (Crowe, 72)
Gypsies entered Bohemia through the region of the Arpad Hungarian Kingdom. There is mention of “unwelcome people soothsayers, sorcerers and cheats, who had great influence with the simple folk” being expelled by Bohemian King Bretislav II in 1092; however, they are not specifically called gypsies and may be other unwanted people, such as pagans (Crowe, 31). Some Slovak gypsiologists have postulated that gypsies first entered Bohemia through Hungary in 1217-1218 with the army of King Andrew II, while returning from Crusades in the Holy Land (Crowe, 32). Also, the Mongol invasion of Hungary in 1241 caused the Rom to flee to Bohemia. Like the Gypsies of Hungary, they were allowed to settle around castles to support and defend, until the sentiment turned against them. August 28, 1526 saw the first anti-gypsy policies enacted. King Ferdinand I expelled all Rom from Prague after a series of fires in 1541. In 1548, the German Diet at Ausberg decreed that killing gypsies was not murder. As this sentiment ran rampant, laws had to be passed in 1556 forbidding the drowning of gypsy women and children.
Gypsies from Central Asia (the Liuli) began to inhabit Russia as early as the tenth century to escape the assaults by Muslims in northern India. They were noted in the Ukraine, having traveled from the Balkans in 1428. They also migrated to the northern parts to escape Polish and German persecution in the 1500’s. They appeared to have not been treated badly in Russia; in fact, later in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, they became wildly popular, becoming an essential part of Russian theater, music, and literature. (Crowe, 151-152)
The gypsies themselves seem to have had a major change in attitude as they journeyed from Eastern Europe to the west. In the East, they had been unobtrusive, striving to fit in. As they trekked into West Europe, they seemed to seek attention; their behavior becoming much more outlandish as they traveled. Instead of wandering aimlessly, leaderless, they now moved with a purpose under leaders with titles and letters of protection from great lords, such as King Sigismund.
An early visit (1300’s) from Tartars, a later northern German term for gypsies, may have been the first introduction of the Rom in Germany. The first record in municipal accounts, however, was in 1407 at Hildesheim. They were given alms and a guard was set up. It is here that new traits of the gypsies are first mentioned. As usual, their poverty, fortune telling, and light fingers were noticed, but also stressed in these records are their extremely dark skins, silver earrings, palmistry, and rags for clothing.
In Switzerland, where they arrived in 1417 or 1418, they were said to be outlandish and dark. They mostly claimed to be from Little Egypt, but there is a reference from Zurich where they claimed to originate from Igritz, a small town in northern Hungary. (Fraser, 68) They soon wore out their welcome. Conrad Justinger notes an example; 200 gypsies camped outside Berne until the local authorities expelled them. It seems their thievery had exasperated the residents. They are not noted again in Switzerland for some time.
They were not enthusiastically welcomed in France, where they appeared on August 22, 1419 at Chatillon-en-Dombes, a dependency of Savoy. When they presented their letters of protection from the Duke of Savoy and Emperor Sigismund, the dubious residents first assured their authenticity before giving them wine, oats, and three florins. In other places, they were refused admission, so camped outside the city.
Their reception in the Low Countries was pleasant enough. When they first emerged in Brussels in January 1420, they were given bread, wine, beer, sheep, a cow, and 25 gold crowns. In many places, such as Deventer, Holland, the village even assumed the cost of clean up. Their nobility traveled with them. A duke of Egypt was spotted in Bruges, Flanders in September of 1421; Sir Miquiel, the prince of Latinghem in Egypt, told the story of penance to the people of Hainalt to receive 12 gold coins, bread, and beer. A Duke Micheal and 60 followers along with Duke Andrew and 80 followers showed up in Mons in October of 1421. These people returned the following year as well. The gypsies still had letters of protection and self-rule, because the unfortunate locals were victims of stealing, purse cutting, and dubious horse dealing, and could not administer justice.
Their papal letters lead to mixed results in Swiss towns, where they appeared in July of 1421. Duke Micheal was refused admission to Basle, while Duke Andrew was welcomed to the King’s Inn in Bologne.
On January 12,1425, in Saragossa, Spain, a good reception was given to a Don Johan di Egipte Minor in the form of 3 months of safe conduct from Alfonso V, of Aragon. Alfonso also received and aided Count Tomas of Little Egypt as he restored stolen dogs (a greyhound and mastiff) to the gypsies in March 1425.
The Roma had journeyed as far as a city near Paris by 1427. A duke, a count, and 10 men displayed a papal letter demanding that each bishop or abbott who bore a crosier must give 10 pounds tournois to the bearers. (A search was actually conducted in 1932 for a record of this letter, but no mention was ever found. This is hardly surprising; there were many losses from those archives over the years. There was also a flourishing trade in forgeries in the Middle Ages. Either could explain the absence.) The city expelled them in less than a month to the town of Pontoise.
It was not until 1457 that the gypsy, Filippo, in Milan, killed the wife and daughter of Count Michele of Egypt: the first recorded gypsies in Italy. By the end of the 1400’s, this kind of behavior had completely worn out their welcome in Italy.
The first undoubted accounts of gypsies in England and Scotland do not appear until the 1500’s. A record of gypsies was given in 1505 from the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland. In 1514, A Dialogue of Sir Thomas More, Knight refers to gypsy women fortune-tellers being present at an inquest in England.
It was from Scotland and England that the gypsies entered Scandinavia on the 29th of September, 1512. A Count Anthonius, from Little Egypt, and his 60 followers entered Stockholm, Sweden and were given lodging and 20 florins. A few years later, they were considered spies and driven from the country.
A “second wave” theory exists among those studying gypsies (Fraser, 75). These new Roma seem to have different backgrounds; they were no longer using the penance story as a reason for wandering; they did not have Christian names, and they did not claim an exotic origin. Either with or without their status as pilgrims, the sentiment in Italy and Sweden was shared by most in Western Europe. After the first few visits to any village, town, or country the gypsies were not welcome back. There were several reasons for this, mostly due to the changes in the religious climate: the papal letters of protection had lost their effectiveness; pilgrims everywhere were losing their revered status; and poverty, which had been idealized by the Franciscans, was out of style.
Several extraordinary events had happened with the appearance of the gypsies in Europe for which the superstitious gadje blamed them: the coming of the Black Death, the quarreling of the popes and major religious leaders, and political unrest and war. These combined with acts of nature and other epidemics set the stage for what was to come. It is hardly surprising when the chronicler Aventinus (Johan Thurmaier) documents the beginning of the anti-gypsy laws in Germany in1439. Switzerland passed its first anti-gypsy laws in Lucerne in 1471: Spain followed in 1492; stricter measures ensued in 1499 as all gypsies were ordered to find a trade and master. Those who did not were lashed and banished, further punishment included amputation of their ears, sixty days in chains, and as a last offense they became the slaves of those who captured them. As previously recounted, Paris had expelled the gypsies soon after their arrival; by 1504 they had been prohibited by Louis XII from living in France. England enacted its first law expelling the Roma in 1530 and imposed a fine on anyone responsible for the transportation of gypsies into England; Scotland followed with similar laws in 1541.
The anti-gypsy sentiments and laws that began in the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteen century have never really abated. Even while the gadje romanticized their carefree lifestyle, enjoyed their theatrical talents, and took advantage of their skills, the gypsies were persecuted. Sometimes these persecutions seem warranted given the gypsy bent for thievery, unscrupulous horse dealings, and other unsavory behavior. At others, it is hard not to be astonished at the unwarranted blame that has been laid at the feet of these people. The Roma continued to travel to escape persecution and to ever broaden their horizons; they probably always will.
Acton , T. Gypsy politics and Traveller identity. Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press, 1997
Acton, T. & Mundy, G. Romani Culture and Gypsy Identity. Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press, 1997
Braun, M.J. “Examination of Gypsy Migration from India to Britain and the Effects of Latter-Day Societal Mores on Modern Renaissance Reenactments.” 21 May, 2002
http://www.bellydancingbyzamoras.com/guild/gypsy_history
Clebert, J. The Gypsies. London: Vista Books, 1961
Crowe, D. A History of the Gypsies in Eastern Europe and Russia. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995Fraser, Angus The Gypsies. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992
Kenrick, D. & Bakewell, S. On the Verge: the Gypsies of England. Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press, 1995
Kenrick, D. & Clark, C. Moving On: The Gypsies and Travellers of Britain. Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press, 1999
Kenrick, D. & Grattan, P. The Destiny of Europe’s Gypsies. London: Sussex University Press, 1972
Liegeois, J. Gypsies: an Illustrated History. London: Al Saqi Books, 1986
Marushiakova, E. & Popov, V. Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire. Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2001
McDowell, B., Gypsies: Wanderers of the World, Washington D.C.: National Geographic Society, 1970
O’Brien, P.K. Oxford Atlas of World History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999
The Patrin Web Journal: Romani Culture and History. 21 May, 2002, http://www.patrin.com
Shepherd, W. Historical Atlas. Columbia: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1956
Singal, D.P. Gypsies: Indians in Exile. Meerut: Archana, 1982