After studying various sources on the history of India and Asia, it seemed clear to me that the gypsies must have been taken out of India against their will, perhaps as slaves, or were so heavily persecuted that they simply had to leave.
Some might argue that the gypsies may have needed to travel further afield in order to find customers for their ancient smithing skills and that the sale of their craftwork would have been a dominant feature in their migration. However, in the past there would not always have been an economic structure to their lives, as in more modern times. Apart from this, if the gypsies had been so fond of accumulating wealth, would they not have made use of their large numbers in early days either to defend their own territories in their homeland or to conquer the lands they passed through, as other, more warring nomads were doing? If this were so, they might have abandoned their old primitive ways of life and taken up a position in the civilized society developing all around them a lot earlier.
I finally came across a theory providing a more feasible solution to the puzzle of the gypsies’ early days. Roger Moreau, in The Rom: Walking in the Paths of the Gypsies, suggests that the gypsies were taken from their homeland in vast numbers as slaves in the ninth century AD by the Afghan-Turks, who used them to ferry booty out of India into Afghanistan. Three tribes, the Lohar, the Banjara, and the Kanjar, who bore a great resemblance to the gypsies in Europe, and who were also at the lower end of the caste system in India, proved easy pickings for these ruthless marauders in their greed for India’s vast wealth.
The Afghan-Turks were by no means the first to set their sights on India, for the Greeks had arrived in the fourth century BC and then the Arabs in the seventh century AD and it is not unreasonable to assume that some of the resident nomadic tribes may have left India at these times if being repressed or forced to remain sedentary. Certainly there have been a great many accounts giving descriptions of nomads befitting Romani gypsies in places as far away as Egypt and in the Balkans long before any officially documented accounts of them appeared in the fifteenth century, so this must always remain a possibility.
In these earlier centuries, however, the Eastern world was constantly in upheaval, ever changing as religious powers, namely Islam and Christianity, rose up to exert rights over many nations. For humble nomads, such as the Romani gypsies, still primitive in essence, still practising their magic, still believing the Earth, moon, stars and spirits to hold the essential key to all life, and above all, still borrowing the Earth, this was a most bewildering and ill-fated time as a wilful new society began springing up all around them, a society which claimed to hold the key to everyone’s destiny.
This was, understandably, a society which the gypsies, from the earliest times, did not want to associate with, for it had developed an insatiable thirst for wealth, land and converts, and there were devastating consequences for those courageous enough to question or defy such a power. Such are the roots of what we call religion, and religion has saturated many primitive cultures the world over, killing the natural tribal-Earth relationships we all once had and replacing them with prophet-based relationships, thus shifting the emphasis from Earth to man.
The word ‘religion’ itself has its roots in domination. It comes from the Latin religio, which means ‘obligation’, or being bonded, and this itself stems from the verb religare, ‘to tie back, tie tight’. For many tribal people living in the ancient way, be they Romani, Native American, African, Australian Aborigine, or any other, there was only one option: conform - if you don’t you will indeed perish!
Roger Moreau put forward the new idea that the gypsies were held for some 300 years or so in a place called Dasht i Nawar, which means ‘Desert of the Gypsies’, by Muslims, in a slave encampment near Ghazni, in Afghanistan, which he likens to a large concentration camp. This indeed answers many questions and makes a good deal of sense. The gypsies have been victims of persecution and slavery throughout their long history; might they not also have been slaves in those earlier times?
It is also reasonable to assume that when the gypsies were finally freed from this camp - the Afghan-Turks eventually conquered India proper, so had no more need of slaves to help them plunder it - they would have been prevented from returning to their homeland because of the unrest going on there. It is also likely that the three tribes involved would have merged and interbred, which was not permitted by the caste system back home, and which would only bring shame and bad luck on a return to the Motherland.
There was no option but to turn west.
Many authors will refer to this long migration west as some sort of adventure, but the reality would have been very different. A journey across Asia in the twelfth century was no holiday. The gypsies would have risked being taken as slaves again by other warring peoples, they risked being attacked and killed, and their children and old folk would certainly have risked perishing. These very real dangers would have accompanied the gypsies every step of the way.
One of the gypsies’ greatest gifts, however, is a strong spirit and this would have supported them as they migrated in steady droves along the Silk Road across Asia, moving west towards Turkey. Numbed by the pain of their ordeal, they would have continued to travel rather as nomadic animals might, instinctively looking for a new day, tired, nervous and alert, but nevertheless able to let go of all that was behind them, just as animals do. For they moved as nature moved, as the stars, moon and sun moved; they knew that nothing in nature ever stays still. When they found a suitable resting-place they borrowed the facilities offered by the Earth, as they had always done. They would continue to do so for the next 1,000 years.
Yet by the time they entered Europe, some 200 years later, in the fifteenth century, they came with an almost regal air, with dukes and counts as their leaders, who said they were from a place called Little Egypt, announcing that they were all doing penance as pilgrims for infidelity to the Christian faith.
This may seem a little theatrical or fanciful, but the Romani gypsies were no different from any other tribal people the world over who were busy aping ‘civilized’ superiority and aristocratic ways, especially when they saw the respect such behaviour brought from the masses. The Lees and Boswells in particular were extremely fond of claiming to be ‘aristocrats’, a claim which lasted right up until modern times. Gypsy kings in Scotland lived in hovels - which they called palaces - and were often photographed in their finery, particularly the clothes that had been discarded by the well-to-do. We must remember, of course, that these people were also excellent mimics and could adopt the air of an aristocrat very easily.
But the point is that the gypsies had still not integrated with the masses of civilization. They were still living in their tribes, in their ancient way, still managing, indeed preferring, to keep themselves to themselves.
They had of course undergone quite a dramatic change from the degenerate rabble of ex-slaves in the twelfth century to the colourful and confident bands of ‘Christian pilgrims’ openly welcomed in Europe by the fourteenth century. Their passage through Constantinople in Turkey (now Istanbul) and Greece, I believe, strongly influenced this change, for both these centres of cultural excellence had served to equip them for the new political climate now stealing over a fast-developing Europe. In Europe the menaces of religious dominance and particularly land ownership were destined to become irreversible, and this gave the gypsies a taste of things to come. As committed non-warring primitives, they were now socially and spiritually focused, armed and ready for these political changes.
They appeared to conform, but for the most part, Romani gypsies have always maintained a pacifist attitude anyway. They may fight each other, but rarely will they fight the gaujos around them, for always wits are far more important, and, as my mother often used to tell me, ‘You’ve nothing to gain by stirring up a rumpus if there’s something you don’t agree with.’ Perhaps a typical Romani attitude if being confronted with a charging bull would be to simply step out of the way so that the bull could c
harge right past! A few Romanies have gone to war, but most prefer to avoid the political confrontations which develop in the gaujo world, as these are seen as not being their quarrel, and traditionally, anything out of harmony with the rest of nature is best avoided wherever possible.
Similarly, most Romanies will never vote, because they do not believe a central government can make decisions for the rest of the population and also for other living things. I have long understood this view myself. The chief of a tribe in a small intimate community is very involved with the tribe’s politics and will make decisions based upon every individual’s needs, which a larger central government cannot do. To sit down and talk to your chief, who knows a good deal about you as a person, is a very different political situation; you can rarely sit down and talk to the Prime Minister.
For the larger percentage of old Romani gypsies, then, traditions have always been of great importance in any political situation, because to practise your traditions brings luck and luck will always protect you far more than anything else.
Most have said that the place called Little Egypt in Greece, where the gypsies’ traditions were probably revived, was a fabrication of the highly imaginative gypsy mind, but this story does have a basis, because the Gypsies earned the title of ‘Egyptians’ at this time. It was when passing through Constantinople that I believe the ‘Rom’ were finally stamped with the name ‘gypsy’, a name that was to carry them into their future.
The Byzantine Empire, once a major superpower, was well into decline by the eleventh and twelfth centuries when the gypsies arrived in Constantinople, its old capital. Spiritually at this time people were sandwiched between the old world of the magical arts and the new world of Christianity. New man-made religion had already taken hold, but just as a minority are nourished by the revival of the ‘magical’ and ‘shamanic’ arts today, so a minority would have been hanging on to these arts as they began to diminish in those early times. Many individuals would have been wrestling with themselves, still troubled by having to bid farewell to the old Earth-based spirituality. It was far safer to follow the new man-made religions - they were, after all, approved of by officialdom.
Civilizations like that of ancient Egypt were already history. The ancient Egyptians, then as now, were people swathed in mystery, having been repeatedly conquered, not unlike the natives of India. Successive waves of Greeks, Romans, Persians and Arabs, and particularly Christians and Muslims, had left Egypt numbed to the magical power it had once enjoyed.
It is perhaps not too difficult to imagine how the people of Constantinople might have confused the Romanies with Egyptians, for there were great similarities. To begin with, methods of divining had important roots in Egypt, and divining was a craft the gypsies were also naturally adept at, having carried it with them from India across troubled Asia. Gypsies were rather stubborn, like the Egyptians, and the Egyptians had always had a strength of spirit which tended to ignore political change, rather like the gypsies. Above all, stories were told, just as they are today, of the mysterious power of the ancient Egyptians, who were every bit as psychically gifted as the gypsies were. In turn, the gypsies listened attentively, always partial to a good story.
The fact that the gypsies had brought their own magical crafts with them from India to Constantinople may or may not have been talked about in the lively market-places of this ageing city, but it is likely that the gypsies would have remained secretive about their homeland and what had happened when they had been forced to leave it. It was far better to hail from a people who were still held in awe and who had enough mystique in which to cloak a troubled past than admit that you were descended from common slaves. There can be no doubt that the gypsies would also have admired the ancient Egyptians for their skills in the magical arts.
The common man in the streets of Constantinople who sat down in the market-place to have his fortune told by the gypsies may well have been attracted by the secrecy and magnetic charm of these colourfully dressed dark-skinned natives, who wore kohl around their eyes like the ancient Egyptians and who were painted with henna, which came from a plant growing in Egypt. Fortune-telling was frowned upon by officialdom, but there was a confident air about these people that was inspiring, for all their noise and childlike laughter.
The man might have muttered something about Egyptians to his wife as he joined them, and the gypsies would casually have taken note, for they might already have heard others referring to them as ‘Egyptians’. And in the end they would be happy to allow this man, any man, to tell them who he thought they were.
Thus the Egyptians, and later the shortened ‘gypsy’ received the stamp of approval, and a new race was born. It was the name never chosen by the gypsies themselves, but by those around them, yet it travelled with them further west, into Europe, nudged onward by the untiring Turks.
When the gypsies found themselves taking up residence on the outskirts of Modon in Greece in sizeable numbers, headed by their chiefs and older wise women and guided by their Chovihanos, there was a peaceful tribal structure to their social life again at last. So many of these natives were living in huts in this place that people began to call it ‘Little Egypt’, a metaphorical rather than a geographical place, the home of these secretive magical people with the dark skin and the healing powers and the ability to lift or lay curses, tell your fortune, cure your horse of its ills, cast spells, mix potions, charm wild animals, start fires or stop them - oh, and they could also mend your pots and pans while they were at it!
Indeed, many authorities will have us believe that the gypsies happened to stumble upon fortune-telling and magic along their path as a means of ‘conning’ the public out of their money, but this is not the truth, for magical and folkloric traditions were always at the heart of the gypsies’ social life and had been for many thousands of years. No one, after all, ever said the gypsies were conning people when they mended their pots and pans, work which was always carried out to a high standard.
I believe that the gypsies’ magical side gathered power when they were able to band together in large groups again in Little Egypt. I think that after some 500 years of migration and the enslavement, near-starvation and near-extinction of their race, at that point the blood memory of these people was fully restored and they became empowered again. They were able to celebrate who they were, and what they had come through, yet they were still careful about keeping themselves to themselves and remained on the fringes of conventional society.
This could also have been another factor in their being nudged on further into Europe, for society was not going to tolerate anything smacking of native, or primitive - unless, of course, it could all be tamed and tailored to meet the demands of the new all-powerful religion. In modern times the magical arts have to meet the demands of science in much the same way.
Also, in earlier days, the gypsies’ tribalism itself might have posed a threat, for they had come into Europe in very large numbers, in fact, in their thousands, at a time - the fourteenth century - when officialdom had already begun packaging the old primitive gods and customs as new Christian saints and values, and turning the tribes into neater, smaller, more manageable family units. The gypsies had not exactly fostered and promoted a religion of their own, that is, something demonstrating political power and strength - if they had, given their vast numbers, Europe would certainly have taken up arms against them - but their tribalism itself had to be ‘seen to’, which wasn’t too difficult, as European natives had been dealt with before. Both tribalism and shamanism could easily be passed off as unfavourable pastimes of that much-feared designer-baddie the Devil: himself a creation of the Church.
It is said that the gypsies’ announcement of needing to wander for seven years through Europe whilst doing penance as Christian pilgrims at the same time was a plot hatched in order to procure them a safe passage. Bearing in mind the climate of Europe, which was socially muddled (this was the time of the Black Death, which took a heavy toll on Europe’s populati
on), and heavily religious, could a primitive people have done anything else?
Creating such a plot is well in keeping with gypsy psychology, for gypsies would rather play a game of pretence than sacrifice themselves to ‘civilized’ laws, but here we are obviously talking about ‘lying’ and one perhaps needs to understand how the ‘civilized’ mind was developing in order to finally understand what this ‘lie’ was all about.
I do not believe that the gypsies so much hatched a plot as went along with what everyone else was saying of them at the time, which many of us do today, although we perhaps don’t always realize it. Perhaps the gypsies only practised this in extreme situations. Today, we might wish to keep our political opinions on an agreeable level to avoid confrontation: then, the gypsies were keeping their religious ideas on an agreeable level for exactly the same purpose. They, after all, had much more to lose, so it was vital that they played their part well; so the ‘plot’ was a deliberate attempt to keep the peace around themselves and what the gypsies themselves called the Bari Hukni - the Great Lie, or Great Trick.
The way they saw it, living without the Earth, or using the Earth, as opposed to borrowing it, was a sacrilegious act and living a lie anyway, and the masses were all now doing this. Laws were created to take taxes from the poor, which the gypsies saw as robbing the destitute and helpless, and the whole of civilization was about lies: lying to the Earth, lying to the spirits, lying to each other and, worst of all, lying to yourself. So the imaginative childlike gypsy mind perceived the Bari Hukni as a necessary game, one needed in order to survive in a lying world. But at the same time there is no doubt that the tribes’ elders, with their great sense of humour, must have enjoyed playing such games and teasing the ‘civilized’ mind - as a cat might perhaps tease a mouse! All this gaujo trickery couldn’t, after all, be anything more than a joke - could it?
We Borrow the Earth: An Intimate Portrait of the Gypsy Folk Tradition and Culture Page 4
