"Little Egypt"

When the Romani people/s are first cited as appearing in Europe proper, in c. 12-1300 AD, they claimed to have come from a place called "Little Egypt". The leaders of these 'Romani bands' gave themselves grand names such as 'dukes', etc, and presented themselves as "Dukes of Little Egypt", etc. * 'Little Egypt' has been identified as the Peloponese region of Greece. The 'experts' claim that the Romani people did not reach these lands until only slightly prior to the time above, possibly c. the 12th century. However, Greek historical accounts record 'Indic' peoples in this region as far back as the time of Alexander the Great, i.e. in the first centuries AD. An Indic, or Indo-Iranian people were present in Greece around c. 600 AD, acting as mercenary soldiers against incursions from North Africa, etc. Within this time-frame, it is highly possibly that these were the same people as the 'Jatt-Kshatriya' who were 'settled' in the Tigris-Euphrates region of what is now modern-day Iraq. These people were powerful and skilled enough in the art of war, - as befits a 'martial people', i.e. "kshatra" - to defy the Caliph of Baghdad, who took many years to quell them. Eventually they were - possibly - captured and moved to Northern Syria and then into Turkey on the Sothern coastal plain region. * It should also be noted here now that one of the first 'official' recordings of "Gypsies" was on the Isle of Crete, a short sail from the mainland. But similarly described people also appear throughout the Greek Isles and mainland Greece during this time, and even long prior. These people were apparently taken as 'slaves', a captured defeated army by the Caliphs forces in Iraq. But there is also at least as much evidence to strongly suggest that these people in fact negotiated their 'surrender' (as was often the way of warfare in that time!) with the price being that they move out of these lands. Hence, moving into the regions as above, i.e. Northern Syria and Southern. Turkey, and on into Greece and its Islands. There is also much mention throughout Greek historical records of a people called the "Sindi" (various spellings and pronunciations.) These people were also present - according to these old Greek records - on the Eastern coastal region of the Black Sea, which is more accurately the Sea of Azov in the Caucasus region. (Southern Russia). They are also identified as an 'Indic-speaking' people. These same "Sindi, Sindoi", etc, can be found elsewhere and also as a formidable 'martial people' in the areas mentioned above, the Mid-East/SW-Asia and on the coastal region of the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

Evidence strongly suggests also that these people were in fact descendant from 'ancient' Kurdish tribes. *The "Sindi" were, and still are, a most prominent clan among the Kurdish people, linked back to the ancient 'House of Mittani'. *It is also claimed by certain scholars, historians, of the East, that the name "Sind", - now only a province in modern-day SE-Pakistan, was given it's name by these ancient Kurds who came from further East, such as Iran, Persia, into that region of the Indus-valley and Punjab. A number of scholars, etc, who studied in the region - such as Sir Richard Burton - have drawn strong parallels with the Jatts of India and the 'Gypsies of Europe' in language, customs and culture.

As early as Homer's time, a people living on the Isle of Lemnos were the "Sinti" (also Sintians, Sindi, Singi, etc.) They were a 'foreign' people not of that region. The connection of these people to the 'Romani' people is dismissed out of hand by the self-appointed experts, as it simply does not fit the 'time frame' for their desired theory of an exodus out of Punjab in c. 1100 AD. * Later some of these scholars have amended their theories to also include the likelihood of a number of different 'Romani migrations', and also taking place at some much earlier times.

But again, we have historical evidence of large-scale trade between ancient India and Greece, and even with Rome. The 'Sindhi' (people of the Indus-valley and river region) were known for their fine sea-craft and sailing ability, and Arab history records them as both traders and pirates in the Red Sea region, Arabian Peninsula, and Persian Gulf.

* These same fine sea-craft were put on display in Baghdad after the Jatt Kshatriya were defeated by the Caliphs forces in modern-day Iraq. * See above.

* We might also note here at this point, that the various people/s, tribes, etc, of the Indus-valley region (Sind, East-Punjab) were in the past all called by one single name by 'outsiders' - such as in the Persian empire - by the collective name of "Jatts". (as opposed to later and even current-day designation of 'Jatt' in India and within the 'caste-system'.) As we also know, the 'Arab-ized' version of that name was to be "Zott'.

So, we have placed the presence of people who could well be the ancestors of the 'Romani' in the regions of the Middle-East, SW-Asia and SE-Europe, many centuries, in fact half a millennium, before the supposed exodus from the Punjab region in c. 1100 AD!? - and even possibly a full millennium!

So what about names...!? It is widely put forward by these experts that the Romani people, who are known throughout Europe today by a number of variations on the word of "Tsigane", such as "Cigani, Zingari, Zigeuner", etc. The Romani people were 'given' this name, - derived from the Greek "Atsinganoi", - meaning 'un-touchables', 'out-casts', etc. And this term, or variants of the same word, has been applied similarly by the ancient Greeks to other peoples with similar ways, etc. Records indicating an early Romani presence in Europe have these same people reffering to themselves as 'Sincani', 'Zincali', 'Zargari', 'Singani', 'Sindi', 'Sinti', 'Singi', 'Sindoi', etc. as well as "Jatts". * Refer again to people of the Sind (above). These Jatt are also recorded as being as far 'West' as the Danube in the time of Herodutus. All of these ancient names tie in with the modern equivalents in use today, i.e. the 'Tsigane, Cigane', etc.

Q. How many people allow 'others' to name them?

A. Probably None! People/s have a name or names for themselves do they not!? One particular word stands out here among these others and that is the 'German' "Zigeuner"; apparently derived from two different German words say the experts and linguists. However, any German speaker would be able to tell you that it is not possible to arrive at this word in this way and that it 'breaks the rules' of that language! The answer? We gave it to ourselves! It is purely a 'local' pronunciation of those above words, i.e. 'Zigani', 'Tsigane', etc, etc.

The word "Gypsy", = a 'derogative' term for the Romani people. That is true and is usually nowadays the case. However, many 'Romani' people themselves have no problem referring to themselves as "Gypsies"! It is the 'tune that makes the song', as the saying goes, i.e. it is the 'intonation' and/or usage of the word that can cause offence, and the now 'generic' usage of the term, but not the word/name itself. After all, was it not the Romani people themselves - based on cited evidence - who called themselves by this name in the first place!? i.e. with terms such as that of "Duke of Little Egypt", or as "coming from Little Egypt. Old documents state for example such lines as " ...(name)..., the Egyptian, from Little Egypt", etc. In the quest to genuinely improve the name and identity of the "Romani" people, many activists, etc, have pushed hard on the universal adoption and usage of the term "Roma". It has in turn, like many things that begin with good intentions, now become part of what is virtually a movement of 'political correctness', and one which in it itself in 'incorrect' or 'non-accurate'. This term has in recent years been very widely and indiscriminately applied to any and all "Romani" people, and other 'Gypsy-like' people, including even those no Romani ethnic ties, and it is simply not correct!

In finishing, one might care to note the rather large vocabulary from Greek and Persian languages that is found within 'Romanes'. Here we are not talking about modern 'borrowings' of such words as an ancient people would have no equivalents for, such as the recent borrowings of universal 'Latin' words like 'televisiona', 'auto', etc, and other things and objects that an ancient people could not possibly have an equivalent word for. But words that are 'everyday' ones in use in Romani language, and have a number of equivalents to be found within 'Indian' languages. For e.g. an everyday greeting such as - "Kushti bok/Latsho bakht = Kush bakhti - from the Persian. "Drom" = road, path, way, etc. - from the Greek. There are probably several hundred of these such words from these languages within Romanes today. Why would a people substitute 'common' words which they already have equivalents for in their own language!?

Perhaps it was an attempt at a form of 'lingua franca' along the 'trade-routes' where Greek, Persian and Indic peoples all mixed throughout history...!?

Given the 'experts' logic and applying this same logic, i.e. that people 'borrow' words only after a prolonged stay and/or contact with the speakers of these languages, in the places these words are spoken, we are then left to assume that the Romani people were in both the Persian and Byzantine Empires for a long period of time. * See above, History.

Just in this same way that over a period of c. 700 years, the 'modern' European Romani people have adopted so many words from the European, and chiefly Slavic, languages. By applying this logic of 'time spent in a region' and the 'adoption of words from the host language', based thereupon, we can conclude from the percentage of 'foreign words' in Romanes, that the Romani people would have to have been present also in the above-mentioned Persian and Greek lands for a very considerable length of time. And could not have left NW-India only as recently as c. 1100 AD, moving through those inhospitable lands so quickly to arrive in Europe within a mere c. 200 years later. We may need to re-examine the theories on the Romani language as a basis for date of departure, etc, and it's direct connection to 'Modern Indian' languages, as cited by the Romani academics, linguists, etc.