02-11-2008, 02:19 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The linguistic state of Roma dialects point to its NIA (New Indo-Arya) stage, with two genders (losing the MIA stage neutre). This supports an 11th century date for the (main) migrations.
Did these 11th century IA groups adopt previous IA groups already migrated to the west? Like the Zott's a few centuries before in the early Muslim period and other groups from earlier Sasanian times?
The reason for this is that a group closely resembling the post-11th century Roma were already noticed in the Byzantine period around 800 C.E., for instance in Thrace. These 'foreigners' are called 'atsinganoi' in Greek, from which many names denoting Roma people are derived.
A German-Dutsch word 'zigeuner' may be either derived from that Greek word, or perhaps from the word designating the descendants of an ancient group, called the Sigynni living on the side of the river Ister, close to the Sindoi (definitely an Indic speaking group, as also the Maeotians).
The Sinti group do consider themselves different from the other Roma
Probable Indian origin
The speculated connection of Roma with Doms, is perhaps not correct.
This is also speculative, but I believe that none has linked the (main) Roma people with the ancient Roma-kas, pl. N. of a people MBh. ii, 1837 . The Romakas or Raumyas were a fierce (sometimes) warlike people of the west of the subcontinent, closely related to the worship of Virabhadra and Mahakali, and staunch Shaivites. We can see the Shiva worship still in the adapted Roma word for "Cross" when they were Christianized. Their word is "Trushul", which is the Indo-Arya word "Trishul(a), the Trident of Shiva.
Groups of Roma are indeed called 'Cale or black ones', connected to Maha-Kali.
A note to remember: Roma must have had the ancient base form Roman, as the feminine form is Romanii. With the diminutive suffix Roman becomes Roma-ka.
It is interesting to note that Roma(n) as well as JaTT(a) both have a connection with hairs. What this does say about both groups, I do not know yet.
The ancient Saindhava people were mainly branches of Shivi Aushinaras, or the Shiva clans, like the Kekaya in W.Panjab, Madra-ka in E.Panjab, Sau-vira-ka in Multan-upto-Sindhu-mouth [Vira-bhadras? giving the Romaka] and Vrshadarbha (Mahavrsha's?)Â somewhere in the NW.
<b>Note that in 1350 Ludolphus of Sudheim mentioned a similar people to the 'atsinganoi' with a unique language whom he called Mandapolos. Perhaps this points to the Mand group (also called Med), a Sindh people. Ibn Haukal describes the Mands of his time (about A.D. 977), as occupying the banks of the Indus from Multan to the sea, and to the desert between Makrán and Famhal. Masudi, who visited India in A.D. 915-16, calls them Mind, and states that they were a race of Sindh, who were at constant war with the people of Mansura.</b>
The Mands were not really the same as the Jatt (known as Zott to the Arabs), as per the historian RashÃdu-d dÃn decsribing the rivalry between the Jats and Meds. [See the Mujmalu-t TawárÃkh, supra, p. 103,]
Thus, we have different groups moving to Byzantine, like the earlier Zott and Mand (as mercenaries) and regrouping with the new arriving groups. Some groups to the north regrouped perhaps with elements of older Indo-Arya, like the Sindoi-Maeotoi (with more Thrako-Scythoid influenced Sigynni?) may have been a separate branch, perhaps more intimately connected with the Sinti group, who consider themselves a different from (other) Roma.
The 'atsinganoi' are the earlier wave, the 'gypsies' the later one, absorbing many families of the earlier one, except for instance the Sinti.
I haven't yet read about these new point-of-views in websites or books on the Roma in this light.
There may be a strong link of the Roma with the Romaka Vishaya or district of Romakas (with the city Romakapura in Sindhu area. Vishaya is a subdivision being used for ancient, local Janapadas, thus not for far-off areas, like Rome!).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did these 11th century IA groups adopt previous IA groups already migrated to the west? Like the Zott's a few centuries before in the early Muslim period and other groups from earlier Sasanian times?
The reason for this is that a group closely resembling the post-11th century Roma were already noticed in the Byzantine period around 800 C.E., for instance in Thrace. These 'foreigners' are called 'atsinganoi' in Greek, from which many names denoting Roma people are derived.
A German-Dutsch word 'zigeuner' may be either derived from that Greek word, or perhaps from the word designating the descendants of an ancient group, called the Sigynni living on the side of the river Ister, close to the Sindoi (definitely an Indic speaking group, as also the Maeotians).
The Sinti group do consider themselves different from the other Roma
Probable Indian origin
The speculated connection of Roma with Doms, is perhaps not correct.
This is also speculative, but I believe that none has linked the (main) Roma people with the ancient Roma-kas, pl. N. of a people MBh. ii, 1837 . The Romakas or Raumyas were a fierce (sometimes) warlike people of the west of the subcontinent, closely related to the worship of Virabhadra and Mahakali, and staunch Shaivites. We can see the Shiva worship still in the adapted Roma word for "Cross" when they were Christianized. Their word is "Trushul", which is the Indo-Arya word "Trishul(a), the Trident of Shiva.
Groups of Roma are indeed called 'Cale or black ones', connected to Maha-Kali.
A note to remember: Roma must have had the ancient base form Roman, as the feminine form is Romanii. With the diminutive suffix Roman becomes Roma-ka.
It is interesting to note that Roma(n) as well as JaTT(a) both have a connection with hairs. What this does say about both groups, I do not know yet.
The ancient Saindhava people were mainly branches of Shivi Aushinaras, or the Shiva clans, like the Kekaya in W.Panjab, Madra-ka in E.Panjab, Sau-vira-ka in Multan-upto-Sindhu-mouth [Vira-bhadras? giving the Romaka] and Vrshadarbha (Mahavrsha's?)Â somewhere in the NW.
<b>Note that in 1350 Ludolphus of Sudheim mentioned a similar people to the 'atsinganoi' with a unique language whom he called Mandapolos. Perhaps this points to the Mand group (also called Med), a Sindh people. Ibn Haukal describes the Mands of his time (about A.D. 977), as occupying the banks of the Indus from Multan to the sea, and to the desert between Makrán and Famhal. Masudi, who visited India in A.D. 915-16, calls them Mind, and states that they were a race of Sindh, who were at constant war with the people of Mansura.</b>
The Mands were not really the same as the Jatt (known as Zott to the Arabs), as per the historian RashÃdu-d dÃn decsribing the rivalry between the Jats and Meds. [See the Mujmalu-t TawárÃkh, supra, p. 103,]
Thus, we have different groups moving to Byzantine, like the earlier Zott and Mand (as mercenaries) and regrouping with the new arriving groups. Some groups to the north regrouped perhaps with elements of older Indo-Arya, like the Sindoi-Maeotoi (with more Thrako-Scythoid influenced Sigynni?) may have been a separate branch, perhaps more intimately connected with the Sinti group, who consider themselves a different from (other) Roma.
The 'atsinganoi' are the earlier wave, the 'gypsies' the later one, absorbing many families of the earlier one, except for instance the Sinti.
I haven't yet read about these new point-of-views in websites or books on the Roma in this light.
There may be a strong link of the Roma with the Romaka Vishaya or district of Romakas (with the city Romakapura in Sindhu area. Vishaya is a subdivision being used for ancient, local Janapadas, thus not for far-off areas, like Rome!).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->