CULTURAL AND POLITICAL CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANI ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN 

ROMOLOGICAL DISCOURSE ON ROMA IN SLOVENIA

Alenka Janko Spreizer

University of Primorska, Koper

© 2004 Alenka Janko Spreizer All Rights Reserved
The copyright for individual articles in both the print and online version of the Anthropology of East Europe Review are
retained by the individual authors. They reserve all rights other than those stated here. Please contact the managing editor
for details on contacting these authors. Permission is granted for reproducing these articles for scholarly and classroom use
as long as only the cost of reproduction is charged to the students. Commercial reproduction of these articles requires the

permission of the authors.

“[Gypsy ethnography] is wrapped in an 
embrace of “Gypsiology,” which has 
presented and still partly presents itself – not 
so much as a cluster of interdisciplinary 
studies than a gypsy lumber room”1 (Piasere 
1994: 21).

In the late 1990s, anthropologists discussed 
the concepts of culture, power, and place in 
the context of critical anthropology (Gupta, 
Ferguson 1997). The concept of culture, as 
rooted and territorialized, was subject to 
critical consideration several times, and the 
criticism of “naturalized” connections of 
people to places was raised again. Whereas 
anthropologists underlined the importance of 
re-thinking the concept of identity as fluid and 
related to space and place, Slovenian 
Romology rooted Romani people to 
demarcated territories.

Although it is generally claimed that 
Slovenian Romology is a “science on Roma” 
(Tancer 1994), I believe that Piasere’s citation 
would serve as a better starting point for an 
anthropological debate on Slovenian 
Romological professional knowledge.2

                                                          
1 “Elle prit place au sein d’une “tsiganologie” qui
se présentait, et se présente encore en partie, non 
pas tant comme un ensemble d’études 
interdisciplinaires que comme un “fourre-tout” 
tsigane.”
2 The analysis of Romology in this text observes 
Slovenian Romology through concepts taken from 
the anthropological field of ethnicity and 

Viewed as a “fourre-tout tsigane,” Slovenian 
Romology is more interrelated with archaic 
traditional Gypsiology and its scientific 
racism than with contemporary theorizations 
in social anthropology, Romani Studies, or 
anthropology of Gypsies, and studies on 
ethnicity and nationalism. One of these 
pernicious effects of Romology is the 
construction of difference between 
autochthonous and non-autochthonous groups 
of Romani people, which is analytically 
described in this paper as a case of a 
territorialization of Romani people and 
culture. In what follows, I explore the process 

                                                                                  

nationalism, or rather, the formalist model of 
ethnicity proposed by Eriksen (1993) and Šumi 
(2000) on the one hand, and Romani Studies 
(Acton 1974, 1989, 1997a, 1997b, 1998, Hancock 
1979, 1987, 1997a, 1997b, 1999, Acton and 
Mundy 1997) on the other. The anthropological 
fieldwork and more recent theories deriving from 
the social anthropology of Gypsies, as it is 
represented in contemporary anthropological 
writings from the 1970s and 1980s onwards, make 
up the framework for a critical reading of 
Slovenian Romology (Gay y Blasco, 1999, Lemon 
2000, Mirga 1987, 1992, Okely 1983, 1994a, 
1994b, 1997, 1999, Piasere 1985, 1986, 1989, 
1994, Stewart 1997a, 1997b, 1999, Silverman 
1988, Sutherland 1975 [1986], Van de Port 1998, 
Williams 1984, 1989). Aside a simple verification 
of ideological statements about the grandeur of 
Slovenian Romology, one of my central interests 
in my doctoral dissertation was also the 
reproduction and transmission of Romological 
knowledge.

Jen
Typewritten Text
54



of the construction of cultural and political 
difference between Romani people within the 
framework of critical anthropology (Gupta, 
Ferguson 1997). The crux of this article lies in 
the ways in which Romological discourse 
shapes the territoriality into a form of cultural 
difference, which was in turn used as a 
political criteria for differentiation of Romani 
communities. Although the extreme 
importance and quality of Slovenian 
Romological production has often been 
accentuated (cf. Tancer, 1994: 28, 30), I point 
out the pernicious consequences of this 
distinction for Romani communities. 

Slovenian Romology was first defined by 
Mladen Tancer. Following his statements, the 
very foundations of Slovenian Romology rest 
on the research project Isolates of Gypsies and 
Calvinists in Prekmurje (1962), when several 
researchers conducted a eugenically-inspired 
study on the Romani population: the 
anthropological type or ‘ethnic types’ of the 
Romani population were constructed by 
anthropologists (Pogačnik 1962, 1967), as 
well as ethnologists (Štrukelj 1964); 
genealogies were collected, and endogamy 
was more presupposed than it had been 
thoroughly studied and described by 
genealogists (Dolinar–Osole 1962); the 
samples of blood types were analyzed 
(Hočevar 1962); an anthropo-medical 
research on the transmission of pathological 
genes was carried out (Avčin 1962a, 1962b), 
and finally, ethnological as well as 
sociological studies on the Gypsy population 
were also conducted (Štrukelj 1964; Šiftar 
1962). However, a general methodological 
slip was made then and has been perpetuated 
since: on the basis of their own pseudo-
scientifically defined and constructed criteria, 
the researchers took it upon themselves to 
decide who was a Gypsy or Rom – or in more 
accurate terms: their decisions were made on 
the basis of the racial archetype of Roma.

After the independence of Slovenia in 1991, 
the study of “isolates” is still considered as 
both fundamental and contemporary in the 
field of Romology, since it has never been 
critically examined despite the fact that during 
the 1990s Slovenian Romology underwent a 

period of considerable revitalization, mainly 
within the Institute for Ethnic Studies
(hereafter IES).  However, the social 
construction of the racial type defining ‘true 
Gypsies’ was not discussed by Romologists. 
Quite on the contrary: the racial image of 
Roma has remained practically intact until the 
present day. As Tancer puts it: “Roma are 
determined by distinctive anthropological 
characteristics, such as: darker tan, dark and 
naturally curled hair, dark eyes and smaller 
stature” (Tancer 1994: 96). Therefore, archaic 
and archetypal Romological repertoire is 
perpetuated and the discourse of Slovenian 
Romology is inevitably veering to racism and 
the discrimination of Roma. Zadravec 
describes his racial images of Roma in his 
book (Medical culture of Roma in Prekmurje 
1989), where he claims: “It is exactly this 
positive genetic basis, passed on from one 
generation to the next, that has enabled Roma 
to preserve themselves as an autochthonous 
ethnic group!” (Zadravec 1989: 88). 
Furthermore, Slovenian Roma are also 
claimed to be unique mostly because of their 
language and their own specific ethnic 
culture.

Autochthonism3 –is it a concept belonging to 
the tradition of the “Slovenian national 

                                                          
3 Encyclopaedic and lexicographical sources 
usually offer two definitions of this term: firstly, it 
means indigenous settlers, original inhabitants, or 
native settlers; “indigenous, native, originating 
from the place where they live”, and secondly, the 
term may also relate to animals and plants. 
Autochthonous in this respect may mean 
indigenous, original, and the botanical meaning 
would also be “wild, spontaneously grown, 
autochthon, being there from the earliest times” 
(Dolinar, Knop 1998; cf. Javornik 1997-1998, 
Verbinc 1994). Furthermore, the dictionary of the 
Slovenian language offers some additional 
exhaustive definitions, such as: “originating from 
the place where they live; native”. I believe that 
the illustrations proposed for the use of the defined 
terms express xenophobic fear of foreigners: 
“autochthons gave way to immigrants”; 
additionally, the use of the term is illustrated with 
explanatory terms, such as “native”, “original”, 
further explaining phrases as “autochthonous 
inhabitants, autochthonous nations and also 

Jen
Typewritten Text
55



question” and ethnic studies or is it a 
“practical criterion withstanding the vital 
test”?

The professional knowledge of the IES,
designated as the “Slovenian national 
question,” has traditionally followed the 
nationalistic interests of the state. As a 
professional field, ethnic minorities have been 
a traditional topic within the “Slovenian 
national question.” They are interpreted as 
“consolidated, historical, autochthonous or, 
not to say, primordial” (Šumi 2000: 118). 
After 1990 conceptualizations have frequently 
implied notions of minorities, such as 
autochthonous, “natural,” “essential” entities. 
Apart from the Italian and Hungarian 
minorities, which have traditionally remained 
close to the Italian and Hungarian borders, 
and the Slovenian minority, which has 
remained “cut off” from the Slovenian 
national body due to the newly established 
state borders after 1991, the so called “new 
minorities,” such as “the Slovenian minority 
in the ex-Yugoslav territories” or “the 
immigrants from the former Yugoslav 
republics,” are also the subject of this 
professional field. The “reinvented German 
minority” and “ethnic community of Roma” 

                                                                                  

autochthonous plants and trees (SSKJ 2000). The 
etymological authority is rarely quoted. The 
Slovenian Etymological Dictionary states that the 
term is of foreign origin and has been adopted 
from the German autochton or Greek 
autokhthonos. Autokhthonos means “native”, 
“indigenous”. Only in few sources is the origin of 
the term clearly stated. The Slovenian 
Etymological Dictionary only reveals that the term 
is of foreign origin, deriving from the German 
autochton, which, in turn derives from the Greek 
autokhthonos, meaning “native”, “indigenous” 
(Snoj 1997: 20). More particular explanations of 
“autochthonous” are given in older encyclopaedias 
of lexicographic institution: “autochthonous” or 
“autochthonism” derives from Greek and means 
“to spring up from the soil”. The connection to the 
soil is therefore particularly emphasized. 
Furthermore, the mythical notion of the term is 
also explained: some ancient cultures are said to 
have believed that they had sprung out to life from 
the soil.

are the topics of ethnic studies as well (Šumi 
2000: 117-134). 

Roma became the subject of research at the 
IES when a group of researchers from the 
institute devised the minority legislation 
regulating their status. Moreover, the newly 
accepted categorization of Roma as an “ethnic 
community” formed a new segment of the 
Institute’s research program. However, given 
the traditional reciprocity of minority policies 
and the Institute’s scientific research program, 
this fact was not surprising (Šumi 2000). In 
the revitalized professional knowledge on 
Roma, the definition of this “ethnic 
community,” equating the concepts of race, 
language, as well as culture4 was constructed 
as follows: 

[…] it is necessary to keep in mind 
that they [Romani people] are also 
determined by ethnic, racial, linguistic 
and cultural characteristics that at the 
same time bear their impact on the 
relations among various Romani 

                                                          
4 Barth (1969:13) expressed the generalization of 
traditional classification of people in human 
species in the equation of “race = language = 
culture.” Siân Jones (1997) explains, “that the 
conflation of culture and language with the notions 
of biological race in the 19th century was the 
combined product of a number of substantially 
different theoretical approaches: (1) the linguistic 
notion of race, which was central to the 
“ethnological” and comparative philological 
traditions; (2) the racial determinism of the 
physical “anthropological” tradition which 
assumed a direct, fixed correlation between 
physical form and structure, and mental and 
cultural capabilities; 3) the widespread adoption of 
the Lamarkian proposal that acquired cultural 
characteristics could become inherited, which 
served to reinforce a vague correlation of race with 
national, cultural and linguistic groups; 4) the 
Social Darwinist conception of a parallel 
relationship between cultural and physical 
evolution. Although all these theoretical 
approaches did contribute to dissolution of the 
boundaries between physical and cultural diversity 
in the classification of peoples, it is evident that 
the relationship between race, language, and 
culture in the 19th century thought was far from 
“straightforward” (Jones 1944:43-44).

Jen
Typewritten Text
56



groups, as well as the level of their 
respective integrations into wider 
society. (Klopčič, Novak-Lukanovič 
1991:12)

The concept of autochthonism has not been 
defined as an analytical term by the IES 
researchers. It is understood “from the native 
point of view,” since the term is represented 
as a “natural,” “empirical,” if not even 
“objective” reality, or – to put it more 
accurately – “the fact withstanding the vital 
test.” Consequently, the distinction between 
the concepts autochthonous (originating from 
the place where they live) and allochthonous 
(originating from some other place (Jesih 
2001: 35) is generally not perceived as 
problematic among the IES researchers. Some 
of the researchers see difficulties in 
establishing criteria, such as three generation 
criteria: 

As a scientist I find such criteria 
somewhat contentious, since they are 
simply not feasible. If we only take, 
for instance, the situation in Europe: 
here we already have a third post-war 
generation of immigrants from Africa 
and Asia, and these people are still 
perceived as complete foreigners. 
Thus, it may be concluded 
(considering the three-generation 
criterion, observation by AJS) that this 
kind of autochthonism does not 
withstand the vital test in practice. 
(interview with Jernej Zupančič, IES, 
Ljubljana, 6 February 2002)

The initiation of the terms 
“autochthonous” and “non-autochthonous” 
in the Slovenian Romological discourse 

It seems that these terms have their history in 
Romological discourses. A considerable turn
in the Romological discourse that could be 
noticed during the late 1980s, as well as 
during the period following the constitution of 
the new, independent Slovenian national state 
in 1991 was brought about by the demarcation 
of boundaries between different groups of 
Roma living in Slovenia. The delimitation of 
autochthonous and non-autochthonous Roma 
was defined by the minority “protective” 

legislation and regulations or administrative 
provisions. This distinction was uncritically 
accepted even by Romologists who had not 
been directly involved in the drafting of the 
minority legislation, as if the delimitation of 
different groups was a naturalized fact. The 
Romani activists also accepted the proposed 
distinction although they had most probably 
been driven by a different motivation. 

The allegedly up-to-date Slovenian Romology 
tradition thus restricted the research activities 
almost exclusively to the groups of Roma that 
were perceived as “native” and as such also 
denoted as “traditionally” present in specific
territories. The latter have been constructed as 
regions permanently colonized by the Romani 
population (cf. Tancer 1994, Štrukelj 1980, 
1996, 1999). This territorialization of Romani 
people was based on the studies from 1960s 
onward (Štrukelj, 1964, 1980, Šiftar 1962, 
1970), in which Romani settlements were 
elaborately listed and described. 

However, before 1980, the explicit distinction 
between “our Roma” and “foreigners” was 
made and “foreign” Roma as well as Roma 
who had been labelled “nomads” were subject 
to discriminative criminalization:

The efforts that are being made by the 
Lendava police are often wasted to 
drive the immigrant Roma back to 
their “home municipality” of Čakovec 
[i.e. town in Croatia]. Those 
immigrating to the towns of Dolga vas 
and Črenšovci have no permanent 
residence and often stir up fights and 
similar disturbances. In the Murska 
Sobota municipality, however, these 
unwanted guests are usually ‘forced 
into exile’ by other Roma. On the 
other hand, there are also Roma that 
are permanently non-resident or camp 
in some of the ‘settlements’ within the 
Novo mesto and other Dolenjska 
municipalities. (Šiftar 1978: 427)

Also initiated was the territorial 
differentiation: “We have to differentiate 
among three territories [i.e. Gorenjska, 
Dolenjska, and Prekmurje] inhabited by 
natives, and immigrants that have been 
settling them during the last two decades” 

Jen
Typewritten Text
57



(Šiftar 1988:329). At that stage, groups had 
not been denoted as “autochthonous” yet, but 
three main groups of Roma living on three 
different territories had been constructed and 
the term was used for “autochthonous, 
original in Romani medicine” (Šiftar 1989: 
10). At the same time, poor knowledge of 
“groups of new-coming immigrants” in urban 
centers, such as Ljubljana and Maribor, was 
expressed: “There is not much data available 
on them and sometimes it is indeed hard to 
establish (since we have no knowledge either 
of their language or dialects) whether they are 
Roma, Albanians, or Turks” (Šiftar 1988: 
331). 

The “Romani ethnic community” became 
closely connected with two larger regions 
“inhabited by native Roma: /which are/ the 
Prekmurje and Dolenjska regions”(Šiftar 
1994: 9). Consequently, Roma have become 
inseparably linked with these 
“autochthonous” regions (Šiftar 1994: 11), 
while in other, non-specific, generally urban 
regions, they are characterized as “Romani 
immigrants” (Šiftar 1994: 11; cf. Štrukelj 
1991, 1999; Tancer 1994).

Before 1989, neither legal nor political 
differentiation between the autochthonous and 
non-autochthonous Roma was observable in 
the Romological discourse, nor was the 
differentiation in the legal categorization 
expressed. What did take place was the 
criminalization of Roma immigrants from 
Croatia in the border areas of Prekmurje 
(while the remaining Romani immigrants to 
Maribor and Ljubljana were mentioned only 
in passing), their culture, however, was not a 
subject of in-depth Romological studies.

From 1991 on, however, a frequent use of 
expressions, such as “autochthonous 
minorities” and “immigrants” has become the
main characteristic of the Romological 
discourse. Roma did not obtain special 
collective rights pertaining to minorities or 
specific groups. This turn occurred after the 
legal categorization had been imported into 
the discourse by a group of researchers at the 
IES. Since then, they have been trying, 
together with the government representatives 
and Slovenian Romologists, to define Roma 

as an “autochthonous ethnic community” 
(Klopčič, Novak-Lukanovič 1991: 7, Jesih et 
al 1994: 14, Klopčič, Polzer 1999) rather than 
a “national community.”

When the distinction between “native” and 
“foreign” or autochthonous and non-
autochthonous Roma became relevant in the 
politico-juridical discourse, some 
Romologists generally recognized and started 
reconfirming the feelings of hatred between 
the two groups. “Especially problematic is the 
strong (and at times even hateful) sense of 
alienation among the autochthonous and 
immigrant Roma” (Šiftar 1994:11).

The Romological discourse has constructed 
the difference in the level of integration: 

It is evident, although more on the 
basis of a general evaluation than 
scientifically argumented findings, 
that the autochthonous Roma have 
been more successful in settling 
housing and urban issues than 
educational ones (relating to both 
higher and permanent education). 
(Šiftar 1994:11)

First, Romologists have not declared 
themselves as explicitly supporting or 
objecting to the minority legislation, although 
Šiftar wondered whether special rights should 
also be granted to “foreign” Roma (cf. Šiftar 
1994: 14). Later Mitja Žagar (1998) added to 
the discussion by stating that it was only the 
autochthonous Roma who were entitled to the 
Romani protective legislation or, more 
accurately, special cultural policies: 

When dealing with the issue of Roma 
and Romani culture, we also have to 
consider the fact that the Roma who 
have been ‘colonizing’ the territories 
in the vicinity of several cities (which 
lie, as a rule, outside the traditional 
colonizing zones of the autochthonous 
Roma) and have for the most part 
arrived from various regions of the 
former Yugoslav federation, cannot be 
considered as autochthonous in 
Slovenia according to the established 
criteria. With respect to their status 
they have to be, quite on the contrary, 

Jen
Typewritten Text
58



regarded as one of the two 
(sub)categories of (im)migrants… 
(Žagar 1998: 173-174)

Moreover, a socio-political construction of the 
difference between the groups of Roma, 
introduced by the minority legislation, is 
widely accepted also by other Romologists. 
When I conducted personal conversations 
with one of them, Štrukelj often confessed 
that “our [Slovenian, non-immigrant] Roma 
require special treatment and the priority 
status when it comes to granting programs for 
granting aid to Romani communities” (Aug 8, 
1999). 

The ethnography of discourse on
autochthonism among Romani activists

Since 1991, some voices of Romani activists 
have made themselves heard in the field. At 
the first conference on Roma in Slovenia, 
some Romani activists thus expressed their 
points of view. They made a considerable 
contribution to the political and legal 
recognition of Roma as a national community, 
finally providing them with collective and not 
only individual rights. Rajko Šajnovič, a 
Romani activist and poet from Novo mesto, 
proposed his vision of the minority legislation 
in the name of “Slovenian Roma” (Šajnović 
1991:131). However, Vlado Rozman, a Rom 
from Pušča, was more poignant in his 
rhetoric, directly opposing to the legislation 
that defined them as “ethnic groups” (Rozman 
1991:135): “no one but the Roma (ourselves) 
… has the right to make decisions in solving 
the issue of our civil rights.” In his opinion, 
only the status of a national minority could be 
acceptable:

Since Slovenia is a state in which we 
have been living for thousands of 
years, we can only be treated as equal 
citizens or be, at the very least, 
recognized as a national minority, as 
is the case with the Italians and 
Hungarians living here. In my 
opinion, this is already our inalienable 
right since our children have been 
attending Slovenian schools, and 
speaking the Slovenian language 
beside their mother tongue, while we 

have been working in Slovenian 
institutions and companies, and have 
been living for the benefit of the 
Slovenian society, and the Slovenian 
existence and time. (Rozman 1991:  
135)

In the early 1990’s, they did not express the 
distinction between the political categories; 
they were, in fact, agitating for an option of 
obtaining the status of a minority group and 
they did not stress the cultural or territorial 
differences among them. Later, during the 
1990’s, it seemed that only one Romologist 
accepted a similar viewpoint – her text 
espouses the idea of a “European Romani 
nation,” while the denotation of the Roma as 
“Indian nomads” is also no less frequent 
(Štrukelj 1999, Štrukelj, Winkler 1996). 
However, no analysis that would examine the 
political consequences of the protective 
policies for different groups of Roma has been 
offered thus far. 

Only one representative of the Romani voices 
outspokenly expressed the consequences of 
the discriminative legislation and outlined the 
difficulties that Roma are confronted with: 

There are two kinds of Roma in 
Slovenia: some of us are autochthones 
and others are immigrants who have 
lived here for more than 30 years, 
therefore we can be considered 
autochthones as well … And I have to 
say that the majority of us Romani 
immigrants come from Kosovo. I had 
many discussions with the Ministry 
[of the Interior], I was present at 
almost every meeting – some of them 
came to Slovenia leaving their houses 
behind, and are now left with 
absolutely nothing, because they 
cannot obtain the citizenship. … 
There is this case – we often talk 
about our Roma; the immigrants do 
not have the status of equal citizens. 
Therefore our Romani immigrants 
cannot lead a normal life; firstly, we 
are not treated as equal citizens. 
(statement given at a press conference 
Ljubljana, April 2000)

Jen
Typewritten Text
59



Jožek Horvat Muc, a Romani leader of the 
Association of Roma in Slovenia, used the 
denomination “Slovenian Roma” or “Roma 
living in Slovenia,” which seems to affirm the 
denomination of autochthonous, typical of 
Slovenian Romology: “The majority of Roma 
living in the Prekmurje and Dolenjska 
regions, as well as Sinti in the Gorenjska 
region are autochthonous” (Horvat 1999: 21). 
It generally seems that Horvat has accepted 
the Romological representation of Slovenian 
Roma as tied to a particular region. However,
Horvat, who is also a cultural worker from 
Murska Sobota, cooperates with the 
Romologist Pavla Štrukelj in organizing 
Romani summer camps. Nevertheless, he has 
recently distanced himself from the above 
mentioned distinction: the inclusion or 
exclusion of the distinction between 
autochthonous and immigrants in his 
discourse depends on the context. The ways in 
which this process of construction of the 
difference manifests itself among Romani 
people is one of the future tasks in studies of 
Romani culture and identity. 

Conclusions

The above-presented ethnography reveals 
several problems of Romology. Among them 
I would like to stress three possible 
interpretations: 

1. Scientific or professional racism is 
obviously present in the discourse on 
Roma. It uses terms such as race, culture,
and ethnicity as naturalized, rooted within 
territory, and biologically determined, 
facts. Consequently, the notion of 
ethnicity as a process of social or cultural 
construction of differentiation between 
specific groups is not accepted, and 
ethnicity as a dynamic phenomenon in the 
political context remains ignored (cf. 
Jenkins 1997, Eriksen 1993). 

2. There are different levels of exclusion of 
Roma and evidence of a patronizing 
discourse on “Slovenian” Roma by 
Romologists and Slovenian minority 
policies. Romologists have always 
automatically denoted Roma as “Indian 

nomads” (Štrukelj). On the one hand, 
Roma have been sedentary – and some of 
them nomadic – in Slovenia for centuries. 
At the same time, they have also been 
highly mobile in their pursuit of 
“economic and social niches in which to 
make a living and maintain their way of 
life” (Stewart 1997: 83, Okely 1983). The 
orientalization of Roma as “Indians” or 
“Asians” has thus always excluded them 
as “foreigners” and the representation of
Roma as a nomadic people could also 
serve as a political tool of exclusion. 

3. One of the possible interpretations of the 
Romological discourse lies in writings 
that discuss concepts, such as 
nomadology (Deleuze, Guattari 1980), 
anti-nomadism or sedentarism (McVeigh 
1997: 7-25; Shuinéar 1997: 26-53), 
sedentarist metaphysics (Malkki 199), or 
in a “nearly mystical assimilation of 
territory, language and people” (Stewart 
1997: 83). Liisa Malkki wrote that the 
metaphorical concept of having roots 
involves intimate linkages between people 
and their place of living (Malkki 1997: 
53). “Sedentarist metaphysics” is one of 
the characteristics of Slovenian Romology 
which expresses the “naturalized identity 
between people and place” (Malkki 
1997). Roma are naturally attached to 
their mythical “original homeland,”India, 
while similarly, “native,”
“autochthonous” Roma are described as 
“confined” to specific regions on the 
Slovenian national territory, e.g. to the 
Prekmurje, Dolenjska, or Gorenjska 
regions. At the same time, some groups of 
Roma who do not live there are depicted 
as “foreigners.” Sedentarism is also 
present in the discourse of Romani 
activists maintaining the dialogue with the 
Slovenian national discourse, even though 
they have chosen it on behalf of every 
Roma living in Slovenia.

References cited:

Acton, Thomas. 1974. Gypsy Politics and 
Social Chang. The Development of Ethnic 

Jen
Typewritten Text
60



Ideology and Pressure Politics among British 
Gypsies from Victorian Reformism to 
Romany Nationalism. London and Boston : 
Routledge & Kegan Paul.

―――1989. Oppositions théoretiques entre 
»tsiganologues« et distinctions entre groupes 
tsiganes, in Williams, Patrick, (ed.), Tsiganes: 
Identité, Évolution. Textes réunis et présentés 
par Patrick Williams. Actes du Colloque pour 
le trentième anniversaire des Etudes Tsiganes. 
Études Tsiganes, Syros Alternatives.

―――1997a. “Mediterranean Religions and 
Romani People”, in Journal of Mediterranean 
Studies, Volume 7, Number 1: pp. 37-51. 

―――1997b. Gypsy Politics and Traveller 
Identity. A Companion Volume to Romani 
Culture and Gypsy Identity. University of 
Hertfordshire Press.

―――1998. Authenticity, Expertise, 
Scholarship and Politics: Conflicting Goals in 
Romani studies. Inaugural Professorial 
Lecture. University of Greenwich.

Acton, Thomas, and Mundy, Gary (eds.). 
1997. Romany Culture and Gypsy Identity. A 
companion volume to Gypsy Politics and 
Traveller Identity. University of Hertfordshire 
Press.

Avčin, Marij. 1962a. Ciganski živelj 
Murskosoboškega okraja v luči demografskih 
podatkov,  in: Marij Avčin (head of research): 
Izolati Ciganov in kalvinistov v Prekmurju 
(typescript).

―――1962b. Učinki krvnega sorodstva na 
potomstvo. MD thesis. Medicinska fakulteta 
Univerze v Ljubljani.

Barth, Fredrik, (ed.). 1969. Ethnic Groups and 
Boundaries. London, Allen and Unwin.

Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Felix. 1980.
Mille plateaux. Capitalisme et Schizophrénie 
2, Les éditions de Minuit, Collection 
“critique”.

Dolinar, Ksenija and Knop, Seta, (eds.). 1998.
Leksikon Cankarjeve založbe. Cankarjeva 
založba, Ljubljana.

Dolinar-Osole, Zlata. 1962. Izsledki iz 
rodovnikov. Ciganska skupnost Pušča, 
Černelavci, Vanča ves, Borejci,  in: Marij 

Avčin (head of research): Izolati Ciganov in 
kalvinistov v Prekmurju,  typescript.

Eriksen, Thomas Hylland. 1993. Ethnicity and 
Nationalism. Anthropological Perspectives. 
London, Boulder, Colorado: Pluto Press.

Gay y Blasco, Paloma. 1999. Gypsies in 
Madrid: Sex, Gender and Performance of 
Identity. Oxford: Berg. 
Gupta Akhil and James Ferguson. 1997. 
Culture, Power, Place. Exploration in Critical 
Anthropology. Duke University Press.

Hancock, Ian, 1979, Introduction, in Hancock, 
Ian F., (ed.), International Journal of the 
Sociology of Language. Romani 
Sociolinguistics 19.

―――1987. The Pariah Syndrome, New 
York: Karoma Press, in 
http://www.geocities.com/~patrin/pariah

―――1997a. Duty and Beauty, Possession 
and Truth: Lexical Impoverishment as 
Control, in Acton, Thomas, and Mundy, Gary, 
(eds.), pp.180-187.

―――1997b. “Dom za vešanje – O vaxt e 
rromengo –Time of the Gypsies, in Journal of 
Mediterranean Studies. History, Culture and 
Society in the Mediterranean World, Vol. 7, 
Number 1, pp. 52-57.

―――1999. The Struggle for the Control of 
Identity. http://www.ijt.cz/transitions/thestrug 
1.html

Hočevar, Miran. 1962. Krvne skupine v 
naseljih Ciganov in kalvinistov v Pomurju, in 
Marij Avčin (head of research): Izolati 
Ciganov in kalvinistov v Prekmurju, 
typescript. 

Horvat, Jožek – Muc. 1999. Položaj Romov v 
Sloveniji, in Vera Klopčič and Miroslav 
Polzer (ed.) 1999.

Javornik, Marija. 1997 – 1998. Veliki splošni 
leksikon: v osmih knjigah, Ljubljana: DZS.

Jenkins, Richard. 1997. Rethinking Ethnicity. 
Arguments and Explorations. London: Sage.

Jesih, Boris et al. 1994. Ethnic Minorities in 
Slovenia. On the occasion of the 6th European 
Conference of Border Regions in Ljubljana, 
13.-15. October 1994, Institute for Ethnic 
Studies, Ljubljana; Information Bureau –
Government of the Republic of Slovenia.

Jen
Typewritten Text
61



―――2001. ”Nekaj razmišljanj o sodobnem 
položaju manjšin v republiki Sloveniji”, in 
Koroški vestnik, Volume 35, Number 1., pp. 
33-58.

Jones, Siân. 1997. The Archeology of 
Ethnicity. Constructing Identities in the Past 
and Present. London, New York: Routledge.

Klopčič, Vera, and Novak-Lukanovič, Sonja 
(eds.). 1991. Romi na Slovenskem. Razprave 
in gradivo 25. Journal of Ethnic Studies. 
Ljubljana: Institute for Ethnic Studies.

Klopčič, Vera, and Polzer, Miroslav (eds.). 
1999. Poti za zboljšanje položaja Romov v
Srednji in Vzhodni Evropi. Izziv za 
manjšinsko pravo. Collection of contributions 
presented at the scientific meeting held in 
Murska Sobota on 11th – 12th April 1997. 
Ljubljana: Institute for Ethnic Studies.

Lemon, Alaina. 2000. Between Two Fires. 
Gypsy Performance and Romani Memory 
from Pushkin to Postsocialism. Duke, 
London.

Malkki, Liisa, H. 1997. The Rooting of 
Peoples and Territorialization of National 
Identity among Scholars and Refugees, in 
Gupta Akhil and James Ferguson 1997. 
Culture, Power, Place. Exploration in Critical 
Anthropology. Duke University Press. 

Ní Shuinéar, Sinéad. 1997. Why do Gaujos 
hate Gypsies so much, anyway? A case study, 
in Acton, Thomas, (ed.), pp. 26-53.

McVeigh Robbie. 1997. Theorising 
sedentarism: the roots of anti-nomadism, in 
Acton, Thomas, (ed.), pp. 7-25.

Mirga, Andrzej. 1987. “The Category of 
“Romanipen” and the Ethnic Boundaries of 
Gypsies”. In: Ethnologia Polona, vol. 13, pp. 
243-255. 

――― 1992. Roma Territorial Behavior and 
State Policy: The Case of the Socialist 
Countries of East Europe, in Casimir, Michael 
J., and Rao, Aparna, (eds.), Mobility and 
Territoriality. Social and Spatial Boundaries 
among Foragers, Fischers, Pastoralists and
Peripatetics. New York, Oxford: Berg, pp. 
259-278.

Okely, Judith. 1983. The Traveller-Gypsies, 
University Cambridge Press.

―――1994a. “L'étude des Tsiganes: un défi 
aux hégémonies territoriales et 
institutionnelles en anthropologie”. In: Etudes 
Tsiganes, Une ethnologie des Tsiganes. Revue 
semestrielle, 2/1994, pp. 39-58.

―――1994b. “Construction Difference: 
Gypsies as ‘Other’”, in Christian Giordano, 
Ina-Maria Greverus, co-editor Klaus-Peter 
Koepping (eds): Anthropology and Ethics, 
Anthropological Journal on European 
Cultures. Volume 3, Number 2, pp. 55-73.

―――1997. Cultural Ingenuity and 
Travelling Autonomy: not Copying, just 
Choosing, in Thomas Acton and Gary Mundy 
(ed.), pp.188-203.

―――1999. “Writing Anthropology in 
Europe: an Example from Gypsy Research”.
In: Folk, 41, 1999.

Piasere, Leonardo. 1985. Mare Roma. 
Catégories humaines et structure sociale. Une 
contribution à l'ethnologie tsigane. Etudes et 
documents balkaniques et Mediterraneens 8, 
Paris.

―――1986. “Les Slovensko Roma entre 
sédentarité et nomadisme”, in Berland, Joseph 
C. and Salo, Matt T. (eds.) Peripatetic 
Peoples, pp. 37-50. (Nomadic Peoples, 
Special Issue)

―――1989. Les amours de “tsiganologues”. 
In: Williams, Patrick (ed.) 1989.

―――1994. “Les Tsiganes sont-ils ‘bons à 
penser’ anthropologiquement?” in Etudes 
Tsiganes, Une ethnologie des Tsiganes. Revue 
semestrielle, 2/1994, pp. 19-38.

Pogačnik, Anton. 1962. Antropološki pregled 
dveh izolatov v Prekmurju, in Marij Avčin 
(head of research) 1962.

―――1967. Antropološke in morfološke 
karakteristike Ciganov v Prekmurju. MD 
thesis, Faculty of Medicine, University of 
Ljubljana.

Rozman, Vlado. 1991. Romi – tisočletja 
živimo na slovenski zemlji in tu bomo ostali, 
in Klopčič, Vera, and Novak-Lukanovič, 
Sonja, (eds.), pp.135-139.

Silverman, Carol. 1988. “Negotiating 
Gypsiness: Strategies in Context”, in Journal 

Jen
Typewritten Text
62



of American Folklore, Vol. 100, No. 101, pp. 
261-275.

Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika. 2000.
SSKJ. Published by: SAZU SRC, Fran 
Ramovš Instittue for Slovenian Language, 
Ljubljana, DZS.

Snoj, Marko. 1997. Slovenski etimološki 
slovar, Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. 

Stewart, Michael. 1997a. The Time of the 
Gypsies. Boulder: Westview.

―――1997b. The Puzzle of Roma 
Persistence: Group Identity without a Nation. 
in Acton, Thomas, and Mundy, Gary, (eds.), 
pp. 82-96.

―――1999. “Brothers” and “Orphans”: 
Images of Equality Among Hungarian Rom. 
V: Sophie Day, Evthymios Papataxiarchis in 
Michael Stewart (eds.): Lilies of the Field: 
Marginal People Who Live for the Moment. 
Studies in the Ethnographic Imagination, 
Westview.

Sutherland, Anne. 1975 [1986]. Gypsies. The 
Hidden Americans, Waveland Press, Inc., 
Prospect Heights, Illinois.

Šajnović, Rajko. 1991. Ureditev statusa 
Romov kot narodnosti – osnutek amandmaja 
k ustavi Republike Slovenije, in Klopčič, 
Vera, and Novak-Lukanovič, Sonja, (eds.),
pp. 131-132.

Šiftar, Vanek. 1962. Cigani. In: Marij Avčin 
(head of research), 1962.

―――1970. Cigani: minulost v sedanjost. 
Murska Sobota: Pomurska založba.

――― 1978. “Romi v Sloveniji (s posebnim 
poudarkom na njihov položaj v Prekmurju in 
občini Novo Mesto)”, in Dialogi, Maribor, 7, 
8, pp. 426-442.

――― 1988. “Že dolgo so med nami – a smo 
že daleč vsaksebi”, in Znamenja, Maribor, 
Volume XVIII, Number 4, pp. 329–337.

――― 1989a. Knjigi na pot. In: Zadravec, 
Jože, 1989.

――― 1990. “Romi včeraj…Pojutrišnjem?” 
In: Znamenja, Maribor, Volume XX, Number 
5. pp. 122-137.

――― 1994. Knjigi na pot. In: Tancer, 
Mladen, 1994

Štrukelj, Pavla. 1964. Kultura Ciganov v 
Sloveniji in problem njihove asimilacije s 
slovenskim prebivalstvom. Inavgularna 
disertacija. Ljubljana: Faculty of Arts, 
University of Ljubljana.

―――1980. Romi na Slovenskem, 
Cankarjeva založba, Ljubljana.

―――1991. Etnološke raziskave romske 
populacije v Sloveniji, in Klopčič, Vera, and 
Novak-Lukanovič, Sonja (eds.), 1991, Romi 
na Slovenskem. Razprave in gradivo 25. 
Journal of Ethnic Studies. Ljubljana: Institute 
for Ethnic Studies, pp. 36-55.

―――1996. Romi. (In cooperation with 
Peter Winkler, in Enciklopedija Slovenije, 10 
Pt-Savn, Mladinska knjiga, pp. 285-288.

―――1997. O romski kulturi v preteklosti, 
in Vincetič, Milan, (ed.), 1997, Romani 
writings / Romano kedijpe. Murska Sobota: 
Solidarnost. 

――― 1999. Romska kultura (Pomen 
tradicionalnega etničnega izročila in 
pospeševanje današnjih kulturnih dejavnosti). 
In: Klobčič, Vera, and Polzer, Miroslav, 
(eds.), 1999, Poti za zboljšanje položaja 
Romov v Srednji in Vzhodni Evropi. Izziv za 
manjšinsko pravo. Collection of contributions 
presented at the scientific meeting held in 
Murska Sobota on 11th – 12th April 1997. 
Ljubljana: Institute for Ethnic Studies.

Šumi, Irena. 2000. Kultura, etničnost, 
mejnost. Konstrukcije različnosti v 
antropološki presoji, Inštitut za narodnostna 
vprašanja. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU. 1999, Poti 
za zboljšanje položaja Romov v Srednji in 
Vzhodni Evropi. Izziv za manjšinsko pravo. 
Collection of contributions presented at the 
scientific meeting held in Murska Sobota on 
11th – 12th April 1997. Ljubljana: Institute for 
Ethnic Studies.

Tancer, Mladen. 1994. Vzgoja in 
izobraževanje Romov na Slovenskem. 
Maribor: Založba Obzorja.

―――1999a. Bibliografija. In: Klobčič, 
Vera, and Polzer, Miroslav, (eds.), 1999, Poti 
za zboljšanje položaja Romov v Srednji in 
Vzhodni Evropi. Izziv za manjšinsko pravo. 
Collection of contributions presented at the 

Jen
Typewritten Text
63



scientific meeting held in Murska Sobota on 
11th – 12th April 1997. Ljubljana: Institute for 
Ethnic Studies.

―――1999b. Komparativni prikaz učne 
uspešnosti romskih in neromskih 
osnovnošolcev v Prekmurju. In: Klobčič, 
Vera, and Polzer, Miroslav, (eds.), 

Van de Port, Mattijs. 1998. Gypsies, Wars and 
Other Instances of the Wild. Civilisation and 
its Discontents in a Serbian Town, 
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Verbinc, France. 1994. Slovar tujk. Ljubljana: 
Cankarjeva založba. 

Williams, Patrick. 1984. Mariage Tsigane. 
Une cérémonie de fiancailles chez les Rom de 
Paris.Selaf : L'Harmattan.

―――1989. Introduction. Dans le lieu et 
dans l'époque. In: Patrick Williams (ed.). 

――― (ed.). 1989. Tsiganes: Identité, 
Évolution. Textes réunis et présentés par 
Patrick Williams. Actes du Colloque pour le 
trentième anniversaire des Etudes Tsiganes. 
Études Tsiganes, Syros Alternatives.

Zadravec, Jože. 1989. Zdravstvena kultura 
Romov v Prekmurju. Murska Sobota: 
Pomurska Založba.

Žagar, Mitja. 1998. “Kulturna dejavnost 
italijanske in madžarske avtohtone narodne
skupnosti, romske skupnosti, drugih 
manjšinskih etničnih skupnosti in priseljencev 
v Republiki Sloveniji”, in Razprave in gradivo 
33, Journal of Ethnic Studies. Ljubljana: 
Institute for ethnic Studies.

Jen
Typewritten Text
64