The first reliable sources mentioning Tater people in the Nordic region are from Denmark in 1505 and Sweden in 1512. In the Danish source from 1505, there is a letter of recommendation from the Scottish King Jacob IV to his nephew, the Danish King Hans. The Scottish king asks King Hans to welcome a duke from Little Egypt, Antonius Gagino, and his entourage. They had stayed in Scotland for a few months and planned to visit Denmark (Dyrlund 1872).

The Swedish sources from 1512 state that a group of men, women and children were welcomed to Stockholm. The group is referred to as "the tatra... and were said to be from the land of Little Egypt.  They brought their wives and children with them, and some had infants.” This group also had a leader called Antonius. He is referred to as "a duke and his duchess" (Etzler 1944).

What is evident from these Nordic sources is that the groups are described as a separate people that have come from somewhere far away. The place of origin, "Little Egypt", is found in the Swedish as well as the Danish sources. The Swedish priest and historian Olaus Petri (1493-1552) emphasises that the group was new in Sweden, but that similar groups had been travelling around the European continent for more than a hundred years. 

In all European countries where "the strangers" had turned up, they presented themselves as pilgrims and said they had embarked on a seven-year journey to do penance for the sins of their forefathers.  Since they said they came from Egypt, they were referred to in many places only as Egyptians, which in English became “gypsies”, in Spanish “gitanos”. They called themselves “secani”, the same word that in German has become “zigeuner” (Minken 2009).

It is believed that both the Tater/Romani people and the Gypsies/Roma(a) originate from certain regions of India, but that they are today two different national minorities with different cultures and languages. Both the Tater/Romani people and the Roma/Gypsies used to travel from place to place to trade and sell crafts to the settled population.

In a book written in 1850 titled "Fantefolket" (“The Tramp People”), Eilert Sundt argued that what he called the "tramp people" could be traced back to two waves of immigration. The first group, in the sixteenth century, consisted of Gypsies; the second group, in the seventeenth century, comprised European vagabonds and craftsmen.

The first wave of immigration created what he called the "real" Tater people, the great migrations; the second created a group that he called "rogues" or small migrations.

Sundt believed that the two groups had different personality traits. Because of their "gypsy heritage", the “real” Tater people had a personality with an "untamed savagery" that led them astray and made it difficult for them to get used to a settled life. The small migrations, on the other hand, were people of a less alien breed, as they were of both European and Norwegian ancestry.

Sundt believed that both groups were members of the tramp people, who also consisted of individuals from the Norwegian population who had joined these immigrants (Sundt 1850, Winge 1995, Minken 2009). 

Sundt's view of the Tater people as being descendants of the first Gypsies who came to Norway was dominant for a long time, but at the end of the 1940s it was criticized by, among others, the theologian Kaspar Flekstad. Flekstad believed that it was important to refute that the Norwegian "vagrants" had a "gypsy heritage" because those without such an inheritance would be easier to settle.

In the interwar period, ethnic origin became part of a racial hygiene mindset. This can be seen, for example, in Johan Scharffenberg's analysis of criminal behaviour, which was based on material obtained from prisoners at Botsfengselet. 

With Flekstad, attitudes changed from viewing the Tater people as a separate group with Gypsy origin to their being viewed as a "domestic subclass" created through poverty, crime, and social class belonging. Both Sundt and Flekstad based their studies on prison inmates, and they viewed the Tater people as a social problem.

Minken sees both of these interpretations as artificial and is more concerned with the Tater people’s self-perception: we should instead adopt a historical perspective of Tater identity and how it is built up. Lillehammer emphasises that, in sources predating 1850, there are two central criteria for judging who belongs to the Tater people: travel as a way of life, and characteristic professions or crafts as livelihoods. In addition, family affiliation, origin, marriage patterns and language are essential characteristics.

This is not unlike the ethnic markers the Tater people emphasise today. They have myths and notions of a common origin; they have their own language (Romani) and their traditional professions. Family affiliation is important, and intra-group marriage is common, although inter-group marriage is increasing.