________________
JANUARY, 1887.)
GIPSIES IN ENGLAND AND IN INDIA.
87
one to know that the first is undoubtedly tween Rômans and Jåtaki" (the Jât dialect); wrong, while the second is almost certainly but they argue that "language does not form right.
an infallible test of pedigree. There are several The Jat theory of the origin of the Gipsies gipsy populations by whom the language may be stated as follows:-According to the of the Romani has been forgotten; and everyShah-Náma, the Persian monarch Bahram Gaur where the tendency among Gipsies of the received in the 5th century from an Indian present day is to relinquish their ancestral king 12,000 musicians who were known as Luris, speech." To this the answer is not far to seek. and according to the Majmu'au't-Tauárikh, In the first place, though the language-test the Luris or Lalis (i.e. Gipsies) of modern may not be infallible, it is a very powerful one, Persia are the descendants of these. The and throws much doubt on any theory to which historian Hamza Isfahani, who wrote half a it gives an unfavourable reaction. The Gipsies century before Firdûsî, the author of the Shah of the present day undoubtedly speak an Indian Náma, however, calls these imported musicians language, and that language is not in any way, Zatte, (h;) and the Arabic Dictionary Al Qamus nearly connected with Jațaki ; so that if we has the following entry, Zutt, Arabicized from adopt the theory quoted above, we must also Jatt, a people of Indian origin. Another adopt the utterly impossible assumption lexicon, the Mohit, gives the same information, that the Jags left India speaking Jataki, and, in and adds that they are the people called Nawar the course of their wanderings over Asia and in Syria, and that they are musicians and dancers. Europe, while they were being or had been Zott as the author writes it, is also a term of con- scattered into a number of independent tribes, tempt. "You Zotti" is a term of abuse. Again, gave up their own language, and exchanged it, according to Istakhri and Ibn Hankal, Arabic not for the languages of their new homes, but, geographers of the 10th century, the fatherland all of them, for one certain definite language of of those people was the marshy lands of the the India which they had left centuries before. Indus between al Mansûrs, and Makran. We shall have to assume not only this, but that
In the course of years nambers of Zotts clans scattered over Western Asia and perhaps Bettled in Persia, especially in the regions over Europe, all fortuitously agreed to adopt the of the Lower Tigris, where in 820 A.D. they same Indian language, though all communicahad become a great body of robbers and pirates. tion between them was barred. Varions attempts were made to subdue them, But, even admitting that the test of language, which was not effected till 834, after which when considered alone, is not, in this case, they were conveyed away to Ainzarba on the infallible, -it becomes so, if we consider the northern frontier of Syria. In 855 (according circumstances which attended the importation to Tabart) the Byzantines attacked Ainzarba from India of these 12,000 Zotts or Lüris. and carried off the Zott prisoners with them Firdusi says distinctly that they were 12,000 to their own country. In this way we have musicians of both sexes, and the author of the entry of the Gipsies into Europe accounted the Mahit adds that they were dancers, and for.
contemptible. I am at a loss to understand how Now, though it is possible that the Gipsies 80 large a number of degraded persons could be of Europe are descended from these Zotts who found amongst those from whom were descended were imported into the Greek empire, and the brave defenders of Bharatpur. With all due that they are the same as the Luris or Persian deference to the authors of the Arabic dictionGipsies, there appear to me to be two most aries above referred to, it is impossible that these important flaws in the chain by which it is people can have been Játs. The Jats are one attempted to connect Gipsies with the Jâts, of the highest castes of India. They claim to or Jatts, as they are always called there, of be, after the Rajpats, one of the parest tribes Sindh. First, there is the point of language of Kshatriyas ;' and any one with the smallest It is admitted by the advocates of the Ját acquaintance with the Indian caste system can theory that there is a great unlikeness be understand that a huge band of professional
• Mr. MacRitchie, p. 82.
• Seo, for instance, Monier Williams, Hinduism, p. 161.
