The Stojka family: Spatial mobility and territorial anchoredness of Lovara Vlax Roms in the former Czechoslovakia

Ma ké a Hajská
The S ojka amily
Spa ial mobili y
and e i o ial ancho edness
o Lo a a Vlax Roms
in he o me Czechoslo akia
KAROLINUM
The book aces he his o y o a Romani amily
om he e i o y o oday’s Slo akia ac oss
he 19 h and 20 h cen u ies. Wo king wi h a la ge
body o di e se his o ical sou ces as well as wi h
a weal h o e hnog aphic da a, Ma ké a Hajská
places he s o y o he S ojka amily in wo
his o ical a enas: he his o y o Czechoslo akia,
as an example o a newly-eme ging Cen al
Eu opean na ion-s a e du ing a highly
u bulen pe iod o complex poli ical changes,
and he his o y o Roms in Cen al Eu ope as
a he e ogeneous e hnic g oup ha has his o ically
o med pa o local mul i-e hnic socie ies.
The S ojka amily belonged o a pa icula
g oup o Roms, a mino i y wi hin he di e se
Slo ak Romani popula ion, sel -iden i ying
oday as Lo a a o Vlax Roms. The Lo a a
economies we e based on egula ade ou es o
a ying leng hs ac oss oday’s Czech and Slo ak
Republics, Aus ia, Poland and Hunga y. A he
same ime, con a y o he popula misconcep ion
o “ a elling Gypsies” as non-belonging nomads,
and no wi hs anding he con inui y o policing
p ac ices and secu i isa ion o a ying in ensi y
di ec ed a he people subsumed unde his
e m by he changing s a e au ho i ies, he
S ojka amily was also esiden ially and socially
ancho ed in a pa icula local u al communi y
h ough a ne wo k o di e se social ela ions
including house owne ship.
Ma ké a Hajská | The S ojka amily
he s ojka amily_mon .indd 1 he s ojka amily_mon .indd 1 09.12.2024 18:0409.12.2024 18:04
The S ojka amily
Spa ial mobili y and e i o ial ancho edness
o Lo a a Vlax Roms in he o me Czechoslo akia
Ma ké a Hajská
KAROLINUM PRESS
Ka olinum P essis a publishing depa men o Cha les Uni e si y
O ocný h 560/5, 116 36 P ague 1, Czech Republic
www.ka olinum.cz
© Facul y o A s, Cha les Uni e si y, 2024
T ansla ion © Vale ie Talacko á, 2024
Pho og aphy © au ho ’s p i a e collec ions;
Milan V ba (p. 278, ig. 6, 7), 2024
Copyedi ing by Gwendolyn Hubka Albe
Layou by Jan Še ých
Se by Ka olinum P ess
Fi s edi ion
Resea ch o his book was inanced by G an no. 19-26638X,
“Genocide, Pos wa Mig a ion and Social Mobili y: En angled Expe iences
o Roma and Jews”, unded by he Czech Science Founda ion,
ca ied ou a Facul y o A s, Cha les Uni e si y.
This wo k is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion-
NonComme cial-NoDe i a i es 4.0 In e na ional License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
ISBN 978-80-246-5917-6
ISBN 978-80-246-5918-3 (pd )
h ps://doi.o g/10.14712/9788024659183
The o iginal manusc ip was e iewed by Pa el Baloun
(Facul y o Humani ies, Cha les Uni e si y, P ague) and Ma in Fo a
(Ins i u e o E hnology, Czech Academy o Sciences).
Cha les Uni e si y
Ka olinum P ess
www.ka olinum.cz
[email p o ec ed]
Con en s
Acknowledgemen s 7
0. In oduc ion, me hodology and heo e ical basis 11
0.1 The aim and subjec o his book 11
0.2 Vlax Roms and Lo a a: Who a e hey? 15
0.3 Me hodology 24
0.4 Theo e ical base 43
Pa 1: Be o e he c ea ion o Czechoslo akia 53
1.1 Lo a a on he e i o y o p esen -day Slo akia 53
1.2 Lo a a in he Czech lands be o e he c ea ion o Czechoslo akia 55
1.3 The oo s o he S ojka amily om T enčianska Teplá 60
Pa 2: The In e wa Pe iod 71
2.1 Lo a a e i o ial ancho ing and spa ial mobili y in Slo akia 71
2.2 The S ojkas o T enčianska Teplá in he in e wa pe iod 95
2.3 The ans o ma ion o he spa ial mobili y o he Lo a a
in he Czech lands a e he c ea ion o Czechoslo akia 119
Pa 3: The e e o wa 143
3.1 Inc eased Romani mobili y in he P o ec o a e 143
3.2 Change o ci izenship as a eason o lea ing he P o ec o a e 148
3.3 Re u ning o Slo akia om he poin o iew o Lo a a wi nesses 150
Pa 4: The Second Wo ld Wa 157
4.1 Roms du ing he Second Wo ld Wa on he e i o y
o he Slo ak S a e (1939–1945) 157
4.2 The si ua ion o he Lo a a on e i o y occupied by Hunga y 169
4.3 The Second Wo ld Wa in T enčianska Teplá 174
4.4 The end o he wa ime chap e 191

Pa 5: The pos wa pe iod 195
5.1 The o ced depa u e o Roms om T enčianska Teplá in 1947 195
5.2 The pos wa ajec o ies o Š e an S ojka, S . 219
5.3 The ajec o ies o he la e Zaga S ojko á’s descendan s 227
Pa 6: The implemen a ion o he law on he pe manen
se lemen o a elling pe sons and i s impac 245
6.1 The d a ing o Ac no. 74/1958 a he cen al le el 245
6.2 The p epa a ion o he egis e in Louny 251
6.3 The lis ing o pe sons in he egis e 260
Pa 7: Conclusions 279
7.1 The in e disciplina y app oach, combina ion o me hods,
b oad spec um o sou ces and o he inno a i e aspec s 280
7.2 Conclusions o indi idual his o ical pe iods 282
7.3 The posi ion o Roms in socie y: The pa e nalism o he s a e,
an i-gypsy policies and he agency o Roms 290
Appendix (pho os)
Bibliog aphy and sou ces 293
Lis o abb e ia ions 302
Genealogical diag am 304
Index 306
7
Acknowledgemen s
This book is he esul o my wo k on he p ojec “Genocide, Pos wa Mi-
g a ion and Social Mobili y: En angled Expe iences o Roma and Jews”
(g an numbe 19–26638X), unded by he Czech Science Founda ion,
on which Iwo ked om 2019 o 2023.
Fi s and o emos , Iwould like o hank all he wi nesses who we e
kind enough o sha e hei memo ies wi h me, wi hou whose willingness
and openness his wo k could ne e ha e happened. Abo e all, Iwould
like o hank Be ci S ojka om Louny, he g andson o Anna Laka ošo á
and he g ea -g andson o Zaga S ojko á. I was he who led me in his na -
a i e o he unique S ojka amily, which o ms he subjec o his book.
Iwould also like o hank all he colleagues and iends wi h whom
Iconsul ed my conclusions and app oaches and who ad ised me on
how o ake my esea ch u he , abo e all hose who made aluable
commen s on my d a ex , namely: Ka eřina Čapko á, László Csősz,
Jan G ill, Dana Ema H uško á, Jan O , I e a Kokyo á, Pa el Kubaník,
Michaela Lônčiko á, and Milada Zá odská. Thank you o Zuzana Bod-
ná o á o help wi h ansla ions om Hunga ian and o E a Zdařilo á
o help wi h ansla ions om Ge man. Thank you o Zuzana Ramajzlo-
á and he non-p o i Člo ěk  ísni, o.p.s. [People in Need] o making
a ailable he es imonies o hose seeking compensa ion o he pe iod o
he Second Wo ld Wa . Thank you also o employees o he s a e a chi es,
he egional a chi es and he dis ic a chi es, abo e all Jana Kup o á o
he Louny a chi es and Soňa Michalco á o he s a e a chi e in T enčín,
as well as hei o he colleagues who willingly ad ised me and helped me
selec a chi al ma e ials which migh con ain in o ma ion on he amily
a he cen e o my in e es o on o he Lo a a, as well as on he imple-
men a ion o measu es a ge ing “ a elling gypsies”.
8
I would like o exp ess special hanks o Jan Če enka, Helena
Sadílko á and Lada Viko á o hei ad ice, suppo , commen s and
c i ical ead- h oughs o key passages, which en iched and ad anced my
pe spec i e in many ways. Addi ional hea el hanks a e due o Lada
Viko á o sha ing he inds in local and egional a chi es, including
conc e e epo s on “ a elling gypsies”, among which we e c ucial e-
co ds pe aining o membe s o he amily who o m he subjec o my
wo k. Iwould like o hank Milan V ba, he owne o ap i a e pho o
a chi e om he T enčín dis ic , and Pa ol Py lík, pho o collec o o he
municipali y o T enčianska Teplá, o p o iding aluable his o ical pho-
og aphs o he S ojka amily, which en iched my book. Thank you also
o e iewe s Ma in Fo a and Pa el Baloun o ex emely pains aking,
hough -p o oking commen s, made o he pu poses o he publica ion
o he wo k by Ka olinum. Las bu no leas , Iwould like o hank my
daugh e Tama a o he pa ience wi h me while Iwas w i ing his book.
16
“coppe bea e s” o “coppe eng a e s”, om he Romanian căldă aş o
căldă a ) and he communi ies ela ed o hem.6
Lo a a on he e i o y o he o me Czechoslo akia
I ocus he ein on Vlax Roms li ing on he e i o y o he o me Czecho-
slo akia. They may be classi ied on he basis o language and hei o -
me ly dominan way o li e as belonging o he Lo a a g oup. This label
is o iginally ap o essionym o ho se deale s ( om he Hunga ian ló =
ho se). I is es ima ed ha o he o al numbe o 440,000 Roms li ing in
Slo akia oday7 app oxima ely 5–15% belong o he Vlax Romani g oup.8
Today, mos li e in he s ip o land bounded by B a isla a and Senec
o he sou hwes , and by Topoľčany and Zla é Mo a ce o he no hwes
(co e ing he dis ic s o Šaľa, Galan a, No é Zámky, Ni a, Komá no and
Le ice) and bounded o he sou heas by he mo e geog aphically isola -
ed communi ies in he dis ic owns o Lučenec and Rima ská Sobo a.9
I may be assumed ha he pe cen age o Lo a a in pa icula , as well
as hei geog aphical localisa ion in he abo e-men ioned dis ic s, was
simila e en mo e han acen u y ago, when Czechoslo akia was c ea ed,
and seemingly also a he ime when he s o y he ein s a s o un old.
6 Elšík and Beníšek, “Romani dialec ology”, 405.
7 Ú ad splnomocnenca lády SR p e ómske komuni y (ÚSVRK), A las ómskych komuní
2019. A ailable a : h ps://www.min .sk/?a las- omskych-komuni .
8 The exac numbe o Lo a a in Slo akia is no known. The e a e no e en many app oxi-
ma e es ima es, and hose ha exis end o be ci ed in he li e a u e o e and o e again
wi hou he ac ual s a e o he popula ion being eliably asce ained. In his book Iuse Nina
Pa elčíko á’ses ima es in Českoslo enš í Romo é le ech 1938–1945 (B no: Masa yko a uni e -
zi a, 2004) and Milena Hübschmanno á’sin Roma: Sube hnic g oups: Index o appella ions (G az:
Rombase, 2003), which a e also used by mos au ho s who gi e numbe s o Lo a a in Slo akia
and he Czech lands
9 In addi ion o he abo e-men ioned Lo a a, we ind ag oup o Lo a a ha di e s sligh ly in
cul u e and language in eas e n Slo akia in he dis ic s o P ešo , Sabino and Košice. This
g oup o Lo a a, numbe ing se e al hund ed pe sons in Slo akia, uses he appela ion Vlaši-
ka Rom o e e o i sel (Ma ké a Hajská, “Ame sam lašika haj o binas lašika!”, Romano
džaniben, ol. 19, no. 2 (Win e 2012): 35–53; Ma ké a Hajská, “Gažikanes aj omanes?” in:
Čie no-biele s e y. Rómo ia majo i nej spoločnos i na Slo ensku, ed. Podolinská and H us ič,
347–373 (B a isla a: Veda, Ús a e nológie SAV, 2015); Ma ké a Hajská, “‘Polokočo níci’.
Mig ační ajek o ie olašských Romů na P ešo sku od polo iny 19. s ole í do současnos i”,
Romano džaniben ol. 23, no. 2 (Win e 2016): 7–37. A p esen , as seems o ha e also been he
case his o ically, hese Roms om eas e n Slo akia ha e no main ained signi ican con ac s
wi h he Lo a a om he sou h and sou hwes o Slo akia, wi h he excep ion o amilies om
he sou hwes who ook pa in ho se ai s in Košice o in o he eas e ly di ec ions.

17
The e a e se e al heo ies ega ding he ini ial Lo a a a i al on he
e i o y o p esen -day Slo akia. Acco ding o some esea che s, Vlax
Roms s a ed o lea e Moldo a and Wallachia in connec ion wi h he end
o se dom o sla e y and o a el o o he Eu opean coun ies, whe e
hey migh no ha e a i ed un il he second hal o he 19 h cen u y.10
Among Czech and Slo ak au ho s, his ci cums ance is explici ly ela ed
o he Vlax Roms’ a i al on he e i o y o he o me Czechoslo akia.11
O he esea che s, howe e , ha e concluded ha Vlax Roms le
he e i o y o Moldo a and Wallachia be o e he end o sla e y he e.
Angus F ase cas doub on he idea ha Vlax Roms emained in sla e y
un il he mid-19 h cen u y and poin ed ou ha many adi ional cul u al
elemen s and he o m o social s uc u e and kinship ela ions p ese ed
by hese Roms a e no compa ible wi h ime spen in sla e y.12 F ase
connec ed he Vlax Roms’ e hnogenesis wi h he a eas o T ansyl ania
inhabi ed by he Romanian popula ion, no he his o ical p incipali ies
o Wallachia and Molda ia.13 The linguis Ya on Ma as also inclines
owa ds he idea ha he Lo a a dialec was o med on he e i o y o
T ansyl ania, unde he in luence o con ac wi h he Hunga ian-speak-
ing popula ion.14 Some linguis s p o ide p oo ha he Wallachian di-
alec s o Romani g adually sp ead om hei co e a ea, in o he wo ds,
Wallachia and Molda ia.15 Vik o Elšík s a es ha al hough i is o en
hough hese dialec s’ dispe sal ou side o oday’sRomania occu ed
in he second hal o he nine een h cen u y a e he aboli ion o Gypsy
sla e y/se dom in Wallachia and Molda ia, i is likely ha he Lo a a
10 E.g. Ian Hancock, The Pa iah Synd ome: An Accoun o Gypsy Sla e y and Pe secu ion (Ann A bo ,
Mich.: Ka oma, 1987), 37; Ian Hancock, Země u pení, ans. Ka olína Ry olo á and Helena
Sadílko á (P aha: Signe a, 2001): 51–52; Jan Kochano ski, Gypsy S udies, pa 1 (New Delhi:
In e na ional Academy o Gypsy Cul u e, 1963), 86; Jean-Pie e Liegeois, Gypsies: An Illus a ed
his o y (London: Al Saqi, 1986), 45; Jean-Pie e Liegeois, Roma in Eu ope (S asbou g: Council
o Eu ope, 2007), 45; Rüdige Vossen, Zigeune (F ank u : Ulls ein, 1983), 58.
11 E.g. Milena Hübschmanno á, Šaj pes do ake as. Můžeme se domlu i (Olomouc: Uni e zi a
Palackého, 2002), 21; Nina Pa elčíko á, “Příchod olašských Romů na Os a sko padesá ých
le ech 20. s ole í”, Romano džaniben, ol. 16, no. 1 (Summe 2009): 37; Šus e o á, Ži o olašskych
žien, 45.
12 Angus F ase , “The Rom mig a ions”, Jou nal o he Gypsy Lo e Socie y, no. 2 (1992): 39.
13 Ibid.
14 E.g. Ya on Ma as, Romani: Alinguis ic in oduc ion (Camb idge: Camb idge, 2002), 8.
15 No be Bo e zky, Die Vlach-Dialek e des Romani. S uk u en, Sp achgeschich e, Ve wand scha s e -
häl nisse, Dialek ka en. Wiesbaden: Ha assowi z, 2003; Ya on Ma as, “Mapping he Romani
dialec s o Romania”, Romani S udies, ol. 23, no. 2 (2013): 199–243, doi: 10.3828/ s.2013.11;
Vik o Elšík, Pe Wagne and Ma gi a Wagne o á, Olašská omš ina. Vlašské dialek y. (online).
P aha: FF UK, 2005. A ailable a : h p://ulug. .cuni.cz/ling is ika/elsik/Elsik_2005_HO
_Vlax.pd .
18
and ela ed g oups ac ually o igina ed in T ansyl ania, so hey migh
ha e a i ed in Slo akia decades ea lie .16
Elena Ma ushiako a and Veselin Popo s a e ha some Roms also
le Wallachia and Molda ia much ea lie han he 19 h cen u y. They
say ha in he 16 h and 17 h cen u ies, he ances o s o oday’sVlax Roms
we e al eady eaching a eas o Poland and Uk aine, o example, o he
O oman Empi e’sbo de s.17 They belie e ha while he end o sla e y
was an impo an ac o in he mig a ion o Vlax Roms om Wallachia
and Molda ia, i did no ma k he s a o , no was i he main eason
o , hei mig a ion o o he pa s o Eu ope.18 Ma ushiako a and Popo
also pu o wa d p oo ha he ances o s o oday’sVlax Roms, he Laesi,
had aspecial s a us du ing sla e y in Wallachia and Molda ia, connec ed
wi h he exe cise o i ine an p o essions. These allowed hem o mo e
eely a ound he es a es, o ace ain ex en , equi ing only paymen o
a ax on hei ea nings o he lo ds, and hey we e also allowed o c oss
s a e bo de s.19
Ano he esea che o posi an ea lie da e o he Vlax Roms’ a i al
in he a ea o p esen -day Slo akia is Zbyněk And š, who ci es, o ex-
ample, Vlax Roms ha ing been eco ded on he e i o y o p esen -day
Slo akia om he 18 h cen u y (o e en ea lie ).20 Slo ak e hnologis and
Romani s udies specialis A ne Mann also s a es ha occu ences o he
su name S ojka may be ound on he e i o y o p esen -day Slo akia in
he 18 h cen u y: he p o ides eco ds om he a ea o Geme and Košice
o he pe iod 1730–1760.21 My own p e ious esea ch in o egis y o ice
eco ds o eas e n Slo akia con i med he p esence o Lo a a in ha
a ea p io o he yea s 1855 o 1856,22 in o he wo ds be o e he end o
16 Elšík, “In e dialec con ac ”, 47.
17 Elena Ma ushiako a and Veselin Popo , Gypsies in he O oman Empi e:ACon ibu ion o he
His o y o he Balkans (He o dshi e: Uni . o He o dshi e P ess, 2001), 50.
18 Elena Ma ushiako a and Veselin Popo , “Segmen a ion s. consolida ion: The example o ou
Gypsy g oups in CIS”, Romani S udies, ol. 14, no. 2 (2004): 169–170.
19 Ma ushiako a and Popo , “Segmen a ion s. consolida ion”, 167–168; Elena Ma ushiako a
and Veselin Popo , “The Gypsy Cou in Eas e n Eu ope”, Romani S udies, ol. 17, no. 1 (2007):
75–76; Angus F ase , Cikáni, ans. Ma a Miklušáko á (P aha: NLN, 1998), 54.
20 Zbyněk And š, “Ou God is Gold: Vlashika Rom a aC oss oads?” E hnologia Ac ualis, ol. 16,
no. 2 (Decembe 2016): 70.
21 A ne Mann, “His o ický p oces o mo ania ómskych p iez ísk na Slo ensku”, in: Milý Bo e…
p o eso u C ibo o i Nečaso i kjeho sedmdesá ým na ozeninám ěnují přá elé, kolego é ažáci, B no:
HÚ AV ČR, 274–275.
22 I ound eco ds o he p esence o he p edecesso s o oday’s Lo a a on he e i o y o eas e n
Slo akia in he egis y books omK áľo ský Chlmec (1825), om Veľká Ida (1843), Rusko
(1844), Spišská kapi ula (1856) and p obably also om Belža in 1808 (Hajská, “‘Polokočo ní-
19
sla e y in Molda ia and Wallachia. A he beginning o he his o ical
o e iew below, Ishall add ess he ques ion o whe he i is possible o
ind con i ma ion ha Lo a a we e p esen in o he a eas o mode n-day
Slo akia a an ea lie da e as well.
Lo a a / Vlax Roms – choice o a sui able appella ion
F om he e y beginning o my wo k, I ied o ind asolu ion o wo un-
damen al challenges: how o de ine he ca ego y o Lo a a / Vlax Roms
and whom o include in i (see he chap e on heo e ical unde pinnings),
and wha e m o hem Iwould use in his book. Iam awa e ha use
o he mo e p ecise and exac appella ion “Lo a a” (Romani pl. Lo á a;
sg. Lo á i) is no pa icula ly widesp ead on he e i o y o he o me
Czechoslo akia, ei he among academics o he Lo a a hemsel es. The
gene al e m Vlax Roms is he one commonly used in academic discou se
in bo h Czech and Slo ak. The e m is used wi h a ious nuances in bo h
e hnog aphical and his o ical wo ks on he Lo a a.23
Howe e , he p oblem wi h using he label Vlax Roms is ha his e m
is ahype nym co e ing a ious subg oups. Acco ding o Hübschman-
no á, his umb ella e m has, on he e i o y o he o me Czechoslo-
akia, los i s hype nymic unc ion and become alabel iden i ying only
ci’”). The ea lies eco d Iha e disco e ed is om 1747 and is o achild wi h he su name
S ojka wi h ano e saying Zinga i. This shows ha a amily wi h he su name S ojka was p esen
in he mid-18 h cen u y in Košice (Ibid., 15).
23 Eg. Emília Čajánko á, “Ži o akul u a ožko ianských Cigáno ”, Slo enský ná odopis, ol. 2,
no. 1–2 (1954): 149–175 and 285–306; Emília Ho á ho á, Cigáni na Slo ensku. His o icko-e -
nog a ický náč (B a isla a: Vyda a eľs o Slo enskej akademie ied, 1964); Jelena Ma ušia-
ko á, “Rodinný ži o alašských Cigáno naSlo enskuajeho ý ino é endencie”. Slo enský
ná odopis, ol. 34, no. 4 (1986): 604–634; Laka ošo á, “Něk e é z yklos i”, 2–13; Da ido á,
Romano d om; Nina Pa elčíko á, “Příchod olašských Romů na Os a sko padesá ých le-
ech 20. s ole í ( e s ě le dobo ých zp á )”, Romano džaniben, ol. 16, no. 1 (Summe 2009),
37–66; S ojka and Pi oň, Náš ži o ; Šus e o á, Ži o olašskych žien; And š, “Ou God”). While
Čajánko á– Ho á ho á and, in he ea lie wo k in Slo akia, also Elena Ma ushiako á mainly
used he e m alašš í Romo é, Da ido á al e na ed he Czech olašš í Romo é wi h he Romani
equi alen Vlachicka Roma (which is an exoe hnonym among speake s o no h-cen al Ro-
mani, in o he wo ds, non-Vlax Roms, o Vlax Roms). Pi oň and S ojka (S ojka and Pi oň,
Náš ži o ) a e ollowing he same line o hough . Also, Zbyněk And š (And š, “Ou God”)
used he Romani e hnonym Vlašika Rom, which Iuse only in connec ion wi h Lo a a li ing
in he eas o Slo akia, he only ones who use his e m na u ally and on adaily basis o e e
o hemsel es. On he di e ences in he use o he adjec i e olašský, alašský and lašický, see
Igo Ku lík-Ga udo, “Olaskí, alašskí alebo lašickí Rómo ia?” Romano džaniben, ol. 4, no. 1
(Sp ing 1997): 35–38.
20
he adi ionally-i ine an ho se ade s who, elsewhe e in he wo ld,
a e known as he Lo a a.24 The eason o his is ha in ecen decades,
no o he g oups o Vlax Roms ha e li ed on he e i o y o he o me
Slo akia, and so he appella ion has become asynonym o he Lo a a.
Ne e heless, Iconside i mo e p ecise o use he e m Lo a a in an
in e na ional con ex , since in many coun ies his is jus one g oup in
he Vlax Rom ca ego y. I is o his eason ha Iha e decided o use
he e m, al hough i s use among Lo a a in he successo s a es o he
o me Czechoslo akia is in equen .
Limi ed use o his e m in he egion by he Lo a a hemsel es has
also been con i med by o he esea che s.25 Acco ding o an ea lie wo k
by Vik o Elšík, his p o essionym was ei he la gely abandoned by
Vlax Roms on he e i o y o he o me Czechoslo akia o p obably
was ne e used.26 Ne e heless, on he basis o my own esea ch, Iha e
eached he opinion ha he appella ion has in ecen yea s once again
become mo e widesp ead among Vlax Roms. This may be a esul o he
in luence o con ac s wi h Vlax Roms om o he coun ies who a e mo e
likely o s ess he di e ence be ween a ious Vlax subg oups, bu i may
also esul om he in luence o he In e ne and social media ne wo ks,
whe e he label is sp eading.
Fo he abo e-men ioned easons, in he wo k ha ollows Iuse bo h
e ms al e na ely (Lo a a and Vlax Roms) as asynonym. Howe e , whe e
he hype nymic unc ion o he e m Vlax Roms needs o be nuanced,
Io cou se di e en ia e and lea e he e m Vlax Roms in i s supe io
posi ion compa ed o he e m Lo a a, who, in he wide wo ld, a e jus
one o he subg oups.
The appella ion o he Lo a a om hei pe spec i e
So a Iha e ocused mainly on his appella ion as i is used in esea ch,
bu we also need o look a he e ms ha Roms hemsel es use. Lo a a
om he sou h and sou hwes o Slo akia e e o hemsel es using an
24 Milena Hübschmanno á, Roma: Sub e hnic g oups: Index o appella ions (G az: Rombase, 2003), 2.
25 Hübschmanno á, Roma: Sub e hnic g oups, 1; Elena Ma ushiako a and Veselin Popo , “The
Gypsy Cou in Eas e n Eu ope”, Romani S udies, ol. 17, no. 1 (2007): 68; Jan Če enka,
“‘Cikán, Gypsy & Rom’– dynamika pojmeno á ání Romů  ůzných disku zech”, Čie no-biele
s e y. Rómo ia majo i nej spoločnos i na Slo ensku, ed. Podolinská, Ta iana and H us ič, Tomáš
(B a isla a: Veda, Ús a e nológie SAV, 2015), 327–8.
26 Elšík, “In e dialec con ac ”, 47.
21
e hnonym, mos o en ama e Rom (“ou Roms”), čače Rom (“ eal Roms”)
o also Romane Rom (li e ally ansla ed “Romani Roms”). They also use
an exoe hnonym om he majo i y languages, Olaskí a/Olašskí a Rom
( he ending -í a being an ending ypical o adjec i al bo owings). To
be p ecise, o cou se, he e m ha he Lo a a mos o en use o e e o
hemsel es is simply he wo d Rom (sg., pl. Rom), which is adeno a ion
ha all Lo a a li ing in he sou h and sou hwes o Slo akia use o e e
o hemsel es. They do no include hose Roms whom hey do no consid-
e Vlax Roms in he e m Rom a all, bu e e o hem using he concep
Rumung i (pl., sg. Rumung o). This is an exoe hnonym ha he Lo a a
use o e e o all non-Vlax Roms in gene al, in o he wo ds, Roms om
su ounding g oups. The o iginal meaning o he wo d Rumung o comes
om Rom Ung o, o “Hunga ian Rom”. This name was la e ex ended by
he Vlax Roms o include all he se led Roms in he Czech Republic and
su ounding lands, and acco ding o he con ex may ha e apejo a i e
meaning. Fo his eason, when e e ing o Slo ak o Hunga ian Roms
who a e no Vlax Roms (o Lo a a), Ip e e o use he academic e m
non-Vlax Roms a he han he no en i ely neu al Rumung i.
I is also common among he Lo a a o iden i y indi iduals using he
g oup name o aconc e e “ amily” g oup, e e ed o by he e m k anga
(“b anch”), such as he Bougeš i, Jo anešťi, Loulešťi, Fe koš i, Júco á a,
Ku keš i and so on. The name o apa icula k anga is usually de i ed
om he Romani nickname o he g oup’scommon ances o (e.g. Bougo,
Jo an, Loulo, Fe ko, Júco, Ku ko). As he genealogical memo y o he
amily g oups weakens, k anga a e di ided in o new sub-g oups and a e
enamed acco ding o signi ican common ances o s who a e accessible
o he collec i e memo y.27 Gi en ha a e analysing my esponden s’
es imonies Iwas able o asce ain hei membe ship o ace ain k anga
in jus some cases, Iwill no use ha ca ego y u he in his book.
F om my esponden s’ pe spec i e, he use o sub-e hnic ca ego i-
sa ion is (and always has been) clea and simple: The idea ha one be-
longed o ag oup o Roms was based on acommon o igin and ela ions,
some imes labelled ablood ie, and on an objec i ely-exis ing, speci ic
cul u e ha clea ly di e en ia es he Lo a a om o he Roms on he
basis o signs hey pe cei e as objec i ely de inable (e.g. acommon lan-
guage, cul u al mani es a ions such as away o d essing, o economic
s a egies).28 Du ing he in e iews my esponden s ully sel -iden i ied
27 Ma ké a Hajská, “H anice jazyka jakož o h anice e nické iden i y. Vz ah uží aní jazyka ae nické
ka ego izace uolašských Romů na ýchodním Slo ensku” (PhD diss., Cha les Uni e si y, 2020), 30.
28 Ibid., 58–60.

22
wi h he Lo a a ca ego y wi hou necessa ily using his label. They in-
cluded hei o ebea s– pa en s, g andpa en s and o he membe s o
he ex ended amily whom hey always conside ed o be membe s o
he same (sub-e hnic) g oup– in he ca ego y Lo a a as well. They also
included o he amilies and amily g oups unde his label whom hey
did no conside hei ela i es.
Roms, “gypsies” and “gypsy agabonds”
In his book, Iuse he e hnically-de ined wo d Roms, e e ing ei he
equally o all Roms o as an umb ella e m29 ha also includes he Lo a a.
Howe e , he e m “Rom, Roms” was undamen ally absen om all he
pe iod sou ces wi h which Iwo ked.30 All Czechoslo ak legisla ion and
he en i e s a e adminis a ion, whe he du ing he in e wa Fi s Repub-
lic, in wa ime, o pos wa , exclusi ely used he e m “gypsy, gypsies”
(Cz. cikán, cikáni). La e on, abo e all du ing he pos wa pe iod, speci ic
e ms such as “ci izens o gypsy o igin” o “ he gypsy ques ion” can be
ound, while in he in e wa and wa ime pe iod i was also common o
ind he nega i e e m “gypsy nuisance”. To e e o g oups which we e
obse ed o be geog aphically mobile, he a chi al ma e ials ac oss he
decades which Is udy he e use e ms such as “ a elling gypsies”, “gypsy
agabonds” and “gypsy a elle s”. The e m “Gypsies” (Cikáni) is a a-
di ional label o he Romani mino i y in he Czech en i onmen used
by he majo i y popula ion. I s mos commonly-used o m, w i en in he
a chi al ma e ials o he pe iod wi h asmall “c”, e lec s he way in which
hese people we e pe cei ed as asocial class o he majo i y popula ion.
They we e no ega ded as ana ion in hei own igh ounded on hei
membe ship o an e hnic g oup and use o acommon language.31
29 The de ini ion o he e m Rom/ oms a e looked a in de ail by Jan Če enka (Če enka,
“‘Cikán, Gypsy & Rom’”). Unlike he Lo a a hemsel es, howe e , in line wi h mos e-
sea che s, I include unde his heading non-Vlax Roms li ing on his e i o y, wi h he
excep ion o Sin i, o whom Iuse, sepa a ely, hei own e m (in Czech, Sin o/Sin i/Sin o é).
30 The e m Rom o Roms i s s a ed o be publicly used in he Czechoslo ak con ex in he
1960s, abo e all in connec ion wi h he ac i i y o he S az Cikánů-Romů (Union o Gypsies/
Roms), he i s o icially-pe mi ed Romani o ganisa ion in Czechoslo akia, unc ioning
be ween 1969 and 1973. A e alling in o disuse in he ollowing wo decades i was no un il
he 1990s ha i s a ed o be used abundan ly (Če enka, “‘Cikán, Gypsy & Rom’”, 335).
Howe e , he documen s ha Iuse da e om be o e his ime and do no e lec he label
Roms in any way.
31 Tomáš Zaple al, “Přís up o ali ního s á u ajeho bezpečnos ních složek kRomské menšině
Českoslo ensku (1945–1989)”, Sbo ník A chi u bezpečnos ních složek 10, P aha: A chi bez peč-
nos ních složek 2012: 14.
23
Equi alen s o he e ms “Gypsy/Gypsies” we e also used o e e o
Roms in many o he coun ies. Ilsen Abou and Anna Abakuno a ha e
poin ed ou ha he p ocess o de ining who is o be conside ed a“Gyp-
sy” has always been connec ed wi h he labelling o pe sons as Roms and
Sin i by he au ho i ies. Since his p ocess has unde gone conside able
change o e ime, i is no a all clea , hey say, whe he he pe sons so
labelled ac ually sha ed acommon e hnic iden i y. Acco ding o hese
au ho s, despi e he g ow h in he his o iog aphy o he iden i ica ion
and ca ego isa ion o pe sons in he 20 h cen u y, i is s ill necessa y o
pay due a en ion o he iden i ica ion me hods and e e yday p ac ices
o he Romani and Sin i popula ions hemsel es.32
The appella ion “Gypsies”, in a ious his o ical con ex s, se ed o
deno e conside ably he e ogenous g oups which, acco ding o he con-
no a ions o he pe iod, may also ha e included a elling adesmen,
ac o s and showmen, pedla s and o he people wi h a a elling li es yle
who we e no e hnic Roms and we e mos ly lumped oge he unde he
Czech e m s ě š í.33 This b oad de ini ion o he e m “gypsies” is ound
abo e all in he Fi s Republic Ac no. 117/1927, Coll., “on wande ing
gypsies”, which de ined “wande ing gypsies” on he basis o hei li es yle
as “gypsies who wande om place o place and o he agabonds who
a oid wo k and li e agypsy li es yle, e en i o pa o he yea – abo e
all in win e – hey ha e ape manen dwelling place in ei he case”.34
The law used adual de ini ion o he a ge g oup: “wande ing gypsies”
and “o he agabonds”, and was ela ed o an unspeci ied “gypsiness”,
based on he idea o “inna e nomadism” which was pe cei ed as a ypical
cha ac e is ic o he “Gypsies”.35
The e m “gypsies” (cikáni) which Icame ac oss in he s a e a chi es is
an ex e nal ca ego isa ion ha does no in any way e lec he in e nal di-
32 Ilsen Abou and Anna Abakuno a, The Genocide and Pe secu ion o Roma and Sin i. Bibliog aphy
and His o iog aphical Re iew (In e na ional Holocaus Rememb ance Alliance, 2016), 12.
33 Hanka Tlamso á, Lexikon s ě em jdoucích (B no: Naklada els í PhD . Jose Spe á , 2020).
34 Ac no. 117/1927 o 14 July 1927, “on wande ing gypsies”, sec ion 1.
35 Pa el Baloun, “‘Cikáni, me la enko a!’ T o ba aupla ňo ání p o icikánských opa ření mezi á leč-
ném Českoslo ensku, za d uhé epubliky a počá eční ázi P o ek o á u Čechy aMo a a (1918–1941).”
(PhD diss., Cha les Uni e si y, 2020), 46. Pa el Baloun has pe o med ade ailed analysis o
he an i-gypsy measu es o he ime, no jus in he a ea o c iminology and police p e en ion,
bu also in he b oade deba e on he “Gypsy ques ion.” He ocused on he a ionalisa ion o
he pe iod ca ego y “Gypsiness” connec ed wi h he en enched assump ion o c iminologis s
ha “Gypsies” ep esen ed aspeci ic g oup o c iminals (Ibid., 56). They we e o en labelled
he “scou ge o he coun yside” and in he con ex o his e m we e conside ed pe manen ly
suspicious people who had o be egula ly con olled and subjec ed o police aids (Ibid.,
59–65).
24
ision o Roms in o indi idual g oups. Asimila conclusion was eached
by his o ian Celia Done , who ound he label “Gypsies” was used in
in e wa Czechoslo akia o e e o awide ange o g oups. The e m
could, she says, ela e o Ge man-speaking Sin i, se led Mo a ian Roms,
Slo ak- and Hunga ian-speaking Roms o pe ipa e ic Vlax Roms.36
Following he example o o he au ho s,37 Iha e decided o use he
e m “gypsies” and i s equi alen s gi en abo e, as well as o he pe iod
labels, only in sca e quo es. I e ain he o m o w i ing hem wi h asmall
ini ial le e ha can be ound in he documen s. My main eason o
doing his is an a emp o main ain he ca ego ies o he pe iod and i s
speci ic discou se, including he language used. Iam awa e ha i Iwe e
o use he wo d “Rom” whe e he pe iod documen s use “gypsy”, Iwould
be guil y o conside able imp ecision, since he wo ca ego ies do no
o e lap and ha e di e en conno a ions.
0.3 Me hodology
This book is he esul o an in e disciplina y app oach, combining
abo e all e hnog aphic, socioan h opological and his o ical me hods.
In e ms o sou ces, i is based on acombina ion o a chi al esea ch
and in e iews wi h wi nesses. A some imes, in pa icula when econ-
s uc ing e en s om he pe iod p eceding he Second Wo ld Wa , Iwas
o ced o ely exclusi ely on s a e a chi es. When esea ching he pe iod
om he Second Wo ld Wa onwa ds, Iwas able o add es imonies as
asigni ican sou ce om Roms in he S ojka amily esea ched he e, as
well as om o he Lo a a amilies and o he wi ness es imonies. I ied
o combine hese wi h o he sou ces. Iuse di e en ypes o sou ces o
a ious pe iods, di e si ied wi h ega d o whe he hey a e om Slo akia
o he Czech lands.
36 Celia Done , The Righ s o he Roma: The S uggle o Ci izenship in Pos wa Czechoslo akia (Cam-
b idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2017), 19.
37 Fo example, Pa el Baloun, “Me la našeho enko a!” K iminalizace Romů od p ní epubliky až po
p o ní ázi p o ek o á u (1918–1941) (P aha: FHS UK– Sc ip o ium, 2022); Vic o ia Shmid
and Be nade e Nadya Jawo sky, His o icizing Roma in Cen al Eu ope: be ween c i ical whi eness
and epis emic injus ice (London and New Yo k: Rou ledge, Taylo & F ancis G oup, 2021);
Dušan Slačka, “Usazení kočo níků nebo řešení „cikánské o ázky“? Kočo níci na Hodonínsku
ap o ádění opa ření podle zákona č. 74/1958 Sb.” Bulle in Muzea Romské kul u y, 23 (2014):
57–70; Ma ěj Spu ný, Nejsou jako my. Česká společnos amenšiny poh aničí (1945–1960) (P aha:
An ikomplex, 2011); Zaple al, “Přís up o ali ního s á u”.
25
Re lexi i y and he cou se o he esea ch
The beginnings o my esea ch in o he Lo a a amily wi h he su name
S ojka da e o Decembe 2018, when I isi ed Be ci S ojka (*1949 in
Louny) o eco d, as pa o an ea lie esea ch p ojec o mine, his
memo ies o o ced seden a isa ion and he implemen a ion o he law
banning i ine ancy. The name Be ci is o cou se anickname ( omano ána ,
li e ally, Romani name). Du ing a isi o se e al hou s, he p o ided me
wi h ahighly de ailed es imony ouching no jus on he e en s connec -
ed wi h he se ling o his amily in he old b ickwo ks in Louny in he
second hal o he 1950s, bu also on speci ic in o ma ion ega ding his
amily and he ou es along which hey a elled be o e coming o Louny.
The amoun o de ailed in o ma ion ha eme ged om he in e iew
compelled me o se ou o he s a e a chi es in Louny, whe e Iacquain -
ed mysel wi h he a chi es o he Dis ic Na ional Commi ee (Ok esní
ná odní ýbo – ONV, he socialis -e a s a e adminis a ion a he dis ic
le el) conce ning he “gypsy” popula ion egis e and he lis o a el-
ling pe sons in bo h he Louny dis ic and he o me Ža ec dis ic . On
ha i s isi o he Louny a chi es, Idisco e ed aconside able amoun
o in o ma ion ha ma ched e y p ecisely wha Be ci S ojka had old
me. Howe e , he angle om which hese ac s we e being in e p e ed
by he documen a y eco d di e ed diame ically om his. Among he
pe sons included on he lis made on he basis o Ac no. 74/1958 Iiden-
i ied, om he names and nicknames gi en o me, Be ci’sg andmo he
Anna S ojko á, née Laka ošo á, wi h he Romani nickname Čaja, as well
as his uncles wi h he Romani names Bobko and Janino, his g ea -uncle
Jouško (Anna’sb o he -in-law) and o he membe s o he amily abou
whom Be ci S ojka had old me. Wi h his basic in o ma ion (i.e., names,
places hey s ayed, bi hda es and bi hplaces), Ibegan in ensi e e-
sea ch in egional a chi es in he Czech Republic and la e also in Slo a-
kia, whe e I ied o ind any possible eco d o he sojou n o mo emen
o he S ojka amily om he in e wa o he pos wa pe iod. S ill, o
all ha Be ci’smemo ies o his childhood and you h we e de ailed and
i id, his knowledge o his amily’sli e be o e hey came o Bohemia
om Slo akia a e he Second Wo ld Wa was ai ly pa chy. He said
ha his amily had “ a elled”, ha hey had ne e been se led anywhe e
and ha hey had come “ om Slo akia”, bu in ou i s in e iew he
was unable o emembe he p ecise place o egion. I hus became all
he mo e o achallenge o me o asce ain whe e his amily came om
and a ound which a ea(s) hey had mo ed be o e he pos wa pe iod.
32
epo s om municipal au ho i ies and, o he pos wa pe iod, he iles
o egional and dis ic adminis a ions, as well as o he documen s con-
ce ned wi h he mo emen s o “ a elling gypsies” somehow. Ilooked o
key documen s con aining o icial p ocedu es and o de s ela ing o his
ca ego y, as well as lis s o such pe sons and any o he epo s ega ding
hei mo emen s on he e i o y o speci ic municipali ies and dis ic s.
Iam awa e ha sou ces om he s a e au ho i ies a a ious le els p o ide
aone-sided iew o “gypsies”, o med om eco ds o clashes be ween he
s a e sys em and he Roms, and ha he e is he e o e aneed o app oach
such sou ces as biased and o con inually e lec on he bias in he a ail-
able ma e ials. The his o ian Michal Schus e poin s ou ha he use o
w i en ma e ials om majo i y-popula ion o icials in ol es anumbe o
limi a ions, abo e all he limi ed, one-sided iews o such o icials a he
egional o cen al le els.50 I was hese o icials who con ibu ed o he
implemen a ion, eco ding and passing o a ious measu es ega ding
“gypsies” and hose speci ically aimed a “ a elling gypsies”. Wi hou
ho ough s udy and con ex ualisa ion o hese documen s, including
a e lec ion on he his o ical p ocesses o how people who we e iewed
a he ime as being on he inges o socie y we e ea ed, only limi ed
use can be made o hem. The e is also aneed, wi h pe iod sou ces, o be
awa e o he con inual o ma ion o he s e eo ypical “ a elling gypsy”,
“gypsy agabond” o jus plain “gypsy”, o whom a“ endency o i ine an-
cy” is conside ed asel -e iden ea u e. This pe cep ion o “gypsies” inds
i s way in o documen s, dec ees and o de s, no jus in he in e wa and
pos wa pe iods, bu also du ing socialism, e en hough he ideology o
ha ime had o icially disa owed acial disc imina ion.
Di e en ia ion among kinds o “ a elling gypsies”
in s a e eco ds
When conduc ing esea ch in he I alian a chi es, esea che Paola T e -
isan posed aques ion ela ed o he iden i ica ion o Roms ha is also
key o my s udy: How can we analyse he pe sis ence o Romani amilies
ac oss his o ical pe iods? She belie es ha “we need o esea ch wha
aces we e le in he a chi es by people who we e iden i ied by he s a e
ins i u ions as ‘gypsies’ and how hese eco ds may be in e p e ed om
50 Michal Schus e , “Jinak bychom ady nebyli.” Příběh odiny Dycho y zobce H ušky (ok .
Břecla ), Romano džaniben, ol. 27, no. 2 (Win e 2020): 9.

33
an e hnog aphical pe spec i e”.51 The ques ion occu s as o whe he , o
how, s a e ins i u ions di e en ia ed be ween g oups o “ a elling gyp-
sies” and on wha hey based such di e en ia ion. In he Czech lands, he
Lo a a may be iden i ied in he s a e eco ds om he pe iod o he Fi s
Republic un il he end o he 1950s in aca ego y ha is, in mos cases,
desc ibed as “ a elling gypsies /gypsy agabonds”. A a e excep ion
consis s o some local eco ds in he a ea o sou he n Slo akia, whe e
he no e “Vlax gypsy”, o i s Hunga ian equi alen “oláh gypsy” (oláh
cigány),52 appea s spo adically as ea ly as he in e wa pe iod in some
eco ds. This e m appea s epea edly as in o ma ion on he p o ession o
he pe son in ques ion. Idid no come ac oss his e m in he Bohemian
o Mo a ian a chi es o his pe iod a all.
The “gypsies” men ioned in he s a e eco ds a e some imes di e en i-
a ed acco ding o hei p o ession o li elihood. Wi h ace ain amoun o
cau ion, i is possible o ind Lo a a unde he p o ession o ho se ad-
e , bu ho se ading was some hing in which Bohemian and Mo a ian
Roms and Sin i also engaged. Mo eo e , he es imonies show ha some
Lo a a amilies ea ned hei li ing in o he ways which also equi ed
mobili y, such as by cleaning ke les, sha pening kni es, me alwo king
o collec ing ea he s o ags. I is di icul o di e en ia e hese amilies
om o he Roms.
Some s a e ins i u ions’ eco ds di e en ia ed be ween “gypsies” ac-
co ding o hei places o o igin– he egion o s a e om which hey
came. Lo a a amilies, i may be assumed wi h g ea p obabili y, all in o
he ca ego y labelled “gypsy ( a elling) ho des om Slo akia”, bu i
canno be uled ou ha his e m may ha e also been used o desc ibe,
o example, Sin i whose domicile was in Slo akia.
The only easonably eliable me hod o es ablishing ha ce ain
a chi al eco ds conce n Lo a a is o ocus jus on a chi al ma e ials
con aining speci ic su names ound only wi h Lo a a (see below). Ionly
compa ed eco ds o his kind wi h in o ma ion on amilies o locali ies
a ailable om my long- e m esea ch in o his subjec . Howe e , he
p oblem wi h my me hod, iden i ying Lo a a amilies on he basis o
51 T e isan, Aus ian “Gypsies”, 61–62.
52 Found du ing he in e wa pe iod (ŠA Ni a/ Le ice, . ONÚ Dolná Seč – T es né lis y
1908–1938: epea ed occu ence), du ing he Second Wo ld Wa (ŠA Ni a/ Le ice, . Hla -
noslúžno ský ú ad Le icích zle 1938–1944: epea ed occu ence), and also du ing he
communis pe iod (ŠA Ni a/ No é Zámky, . ONV No é Zámky, i. č. Vn. 17, k. 238, zp á a
Rady MNV T došo cích (8. 8. 1955), č. j. 1420/1955 men ions 36 Oláh Roms li ing in b ick
houses in he municipali y).
34
su name, is he ac ha Romani su names in he s a e a chi es end o
be ai ly a e, which gi es us alimi ed amoun o a chi al ma e ial wi h
which o wo k. Municipal police epo s o en conce ned he mo emen s
and a i als o speci ic indi iduals and police checks o hem. The only
pe son whose name was gi en in such epo s was he “leade o he
ho de”, in whose name an i ine ancy documen was d awn up. The
numbe o g oup membe s was o en gi en a he end, bu he indi id-
ual membe s we e lis ed only excep ionally. A ypical epo con ained
he name, bi hda e and bi hplace, he numbe o he leade ’s“gypsy”
iden i ica ion ca d o i ine ancy documen , he size o he “ho de”, he
place whe e he police checked hem, and ei he adesc ip ion o he
alleged o ence commi ed o as a emen ha he g oup was “wi hou
aul ”.
The di icul y in iden i ying he Lo a a in a chi al sou ces has also
been deal wi h by his o ian Ras isla Če ný. In his s udy on he Lo a a,
in ol ing mig a ion ajec o ies in he Mís ek dis ic du ing he in e wa
pe iod, he wo ked wi h eco ds which had ca ego ies de ined as “ho des
o Gypsies” o “ agabond Gypsies om Slo akia”.53 Če ný belie es e-
co ds pe aining o Lo a a may be dis inguished om eco ds pe aining
o Slo ak (non-Vlax) Roms acco ding o hei me hod o mobili y: While
Lo a a ended o mo e abou in g oups wi h ho ses and wagons, Slo ak
non-Vlax Roms equen ly came on oo in small g oups, and o en jus
equen ed a eas in he icini y o he bo de .54 Ibelie e an excep ion may
ha e been he Sin i amilies who, like he Lo a a, mo ed abou in ho se-
d awn wagons and o e awide a ea ha wen beyond he bo de a ea.
Sea ching ac oss he a chi es o eco ds on he mo emen s
and s ays o speci ic amilies
As pa o my a chi al esea ch, Ispeci ically ocused ac oss he a ious
locali ies on he mo emen s and s ays o people om he S ojka amily,
using he genealogical diag am desc ibed abo e. Ialso ollowed o he
indi iduals and amilies wi h he su name S ojka, as well as o he su -
names ypical o Lo a a (Sz ojka, Ra ael, Kud ik, Banda, Laka oš, Daniš,
Biha i/Biha y, in combina ion wi h Laka os/Laka oš) who migh be ex-
pec ed o belong o he Lo a a ca ego y on he basis o hei desc ibed
53 Ros isla Če ný, “Lo á o é době p ní epubliky– na příkladu ok esu Mís ek.” Romano
džaniben, ol. 19, no. 1 (Summe 2012): 11.
54 Ibid., 11.
35
li es yle o place o o igin, who we e o en join ly eco ded wi h o he
amilies o Lo a a.
Sea ching he a chi al eco ds by su name was some hing ha Ihad
also done o he ea lie pe iod in he digi alised egis e s o bi hs,
ma iages and dea hs. In pa icula , Ianalysed eco ds ela ing o he
abo e-men ioned su names whe e he egis e s included a no e con-
i ming hese we e “gypsies”, “gypsy agabonds”, “ agabonds” o e en
“Wallachians”.55
This me hod is one o he ew ways o inding in o ma ion on Roms
om ce ain amilies, o e en jus he places whe e hey s ayed o mo ed
abou . Howe e , i in ol es a ious di icul ies, abo e all he ac ha
his ype o sea ch is ai ly demanding. The a chi es di e conside ably
in he ex en o which collec ions o his ype ha e been p ese ed, and
so i is a om assu ed ha a esea che will be able o ind a chi al
ma e ial ac oss he Czech and Slo ak a chi es con aining, o example,
Fi s Republic municipal police o de s on he s ays o “gypsy ho des”
o apa icula dis ic . Al hough Idid manage o ind such collec ions,
only some a chi al ma e ials con ained he names and pe sonal da a o
“ a elling gypsies” wi h which i was possible o wo k u he .
S ill, inding eco ds pe aining o he S ojka amily was e en mo e
complica ed. In his ega d, i was ag ea ad an age ha some o he i s
names in he amily we e highly unique. The i s name “Zaga”, bo ne by
he oldes woman who was he leading pe sonage in amain b anch o he
S ojka amily, is ex emely a e. I is a i s name ha is ound only e y
spo adically in bo h he Czech and Slo ak en i onmen s56 and ha dly
appea ed a all du ing he pe iod in ques ion, al hough i was some imes
possible o ind i in C oa ia, Se bia o Moldo a.57 Hunga ian esea che
Rudol Ho á h gi es he name Zaga as an example o an old- ashioned
Romani emale nickname,58 so i is p obable ha his nickname ( omano
55 This was ano e w i en in Hunga ian indica ing ha apa icula pe son was a ándo ló cigány
o kóbo gó cigány (i.e., a“gypsy agabond”) o an oláh cigány (“Vlax Gypsy”, wi h he o iginal
meaning o “Romanian Gypsy” [Bodná o á 2009: 9]); in egis e s w i en in La in, he no es
s a e he pe son was azinga ius pe eg inus, zingos pe eg inos, zinga ius agabundus, zinga a sub
en o io (sleeping in a en ), e c., o ela ing hei iden i y o Wallachia: zinga us alachicus,
eminine zinga i alachici.
56 The online sou ce Slo enské k s né mená začínajúce na Zága (web-s anka.sk) lis s his name (spel
Zága) among Slo ak names, bu o he sou ces do no men ion i .
57 Acco ding o online sou ces, his was a e y a e name e en in C oa ia (h ps://ac ac oa ica
.com/en/name/Zaga) and also in Se bia and Moldo a (h ps://mondonomo.ai/ o ename
/Zaga).
58 Rudol Ho á h, Amagya o szági kóbo czigányok nyel ana Czigány-Magya Szó á (Szeged:
P imawa e Kiadó, 2014), 43.
36
ána , li e ally Romani name) was ex an among he Slo ak Lo a a p e i-
ously. Howe e , Idid no manage o ind, in he o me Czechoslo akia,
a eco d o any o he pe son wi h he ull name Zaga S ojko á. I is his
ac ha helped me o iden i y he da a on his pe son as unique.
Likewise, he name o Zaga’sson, Filo S ojka, was unique. The name
Filo may be conside ed a amilia o m o he common i s name Filip,
bu o icially- eco ded sho ened o ms o names we e a ha ime ex-
emely a e– and ye he Filo S ojka whom Iwas in e es ed in was e-
co ded ac oss he o me Czechoslo akia as Filo and no Filip, al hough
i was common p ac ice o he Czech au ho i ies and police o eco d he
Czech equi alen s o Slo ak names (so Ju aj was eco ded as Jiří, Pe e
as Pe , Pa ol as Pa el, e c.).
The i s name o Zaga’sdaugh e Kuluš, also ound in some eco ds
as Kuluše o Kuluša, was also ex emely a e, and om wha Icould ind
did no appea anywhe e else in he o me Czechoslo akia. Once again,
i was clea ly an o icially- eco ded omano ána . This was also he case
wi h he nickname o Zaga’sdaugh e G ó a, al hough in he case he
name is now once again widesp ead among he Lo a a. In he la e case,
howe e , Icame ac oss se e al occu ences o his ománo ána o icially
eco ded as a i s name in he o m G ó a, G ó ka o G ó ojka.
These a e i s names made i easy o ind in o ma ion on hei bea -
e s and o iden i y hem wi h he amily being esea ched he ein. I was
also possible o iden i y o he people who had much mo e equen o
ex emely common names and a elled ac oss Czechoslo akia wi h he
holde s o he abo e-men ioned a e names. These included Filo S oj-
ka’swi e Anna Laka ošo á, ma ied su name S ojko á, his sis e Ba bo a
S ojko á, ma ied su name Ho á o á, and his b o he s-in-law Ju aj and
An onín Ho á .
Impedimen s o and di icul ies wi h he me hod
o sea ching o Lo a a on he basis o su name
The si ua ion was en i ely di e en when i came o looking o eco ds
on ano he b anch o he amily ep esen ed by Š e an S ojka, Senio
(*1891), his son Ján (*1905) o his g andsons, also named Š e an S ojka,
and o he membe s o he amily who had e y common names. Icould
no use da a on pe sons named Ján o Š e an S ojka wi hou u he pe -
sonal da a o e i y hei iden i ies because hese names we e also ound
a he same ime in anumbe o o he Lo a a amilies and i would ha e
37
been easy o con use hem. Iwas able o wo k wi h da a on ape son
named Ján o Š e an S ojka only i u he pe sonal da a, such as he
da e and place o bi h o he name o he pa ne and child en, we e also
gi en. A he same ime, i is impo an o emembe ha when commu-
nica ing among hemsel es, he Lo a a exclusi ely used hei Romani
nicknames, which we e a ely eco ded in majo i y-socie y, o icial e-
co ds, and i hey we e, hen equen ly wi h spelling mis akes mangling
he Romani wo ds. Fo example, he nickname o Ján Ra ael, eco ded as
Gulgo,59 was p obably in ac Guglo (“swee ”), and he nickname eco ded
o Anna Laka ošo á, Jed a,60 was clea ly mean o be Sed a, which is s ill
a e y common nickname used by Lo a a women. Thei o icial names
we e o only limi ed signi icance o Roms, and hey hemsel es used hem
only in con ac wi h o icials and secu i y o ces. The pe sonal iden i y
o Roms was c ea ed in hei own communi y o amily ies and by using
special names (nicknames). Thei o icially- egis e ed i s names and
su names had li le signi icance o he Roms in ques ion and would
some imes be changed o e he cou se o hei li e imes.61 These omane
ána a ga e Roms he abili y o con use hei iden i ies, o make hem
unclea , an p o iding hem wi h oppo uni y o escape, concealmen
and de ence, and no jus agains non-Roma pe secu ion, bu also in he
sense o magical p o ec ion.62 Since o icial names we e no used by he
Roms wi h each o he , i equen ly happened ha mo e han one child
in a amily was gi en he same o icial i s name. This ac is, o cou se,
ex emely con using o he esea che . Al hough Iwas awa e ha his
si ua ion could occu , Ine e heless ound ha when c ea ing he gene-
alogical map, he e was adisc epancy in he da a conce ning he son o
Ján S ojka (*1905), named Š e an, o whom a ious a chi al ma e ials
ga e bi h da es o 1919, 1923 and 1933. Al hough Iasked mysel whe h-
e he e migh no be mo e han one son named Š e an in his nuclea
amily, I hough i imp obable. Tha he name eally did occu epea -
edly among hese siblings was i s con i med o me by Báno Biha y, he
g andson o Š e an S ojka (*1919) and he g ea -g ea -g andson o Š e an
S ojka, S . (*1891):
59 SOkA Pelhřimo , . OU Kamenice n. L, i. č. 1008, k. 510. Hlášení Ok esnímu úřadu Kameni-
ci, S anice Ho ní Ce eke č. 17 (1. 8. 1934).
60 Ibid.
61 E a Thu ne , “Bez s á ní příslušnos i ( éměř) až do konce ži o a. Z láš ní úp a y p á a na
získání s á ního občans í p o „Romy“ („Cikány“)” Romano džaniben, ol. 16, no. 1 (Summe
2009): 67–68.
62 Hübschmanno á, Šaj pes do ake as, 63–65.

38
My g ea -g andmo he had se en child en– ou daugh e s and h ee sons.
The sons we e all called Š e an. The eldes was bo n in 1919, ha was my
g and a he and hey called him Tu ko. Then he e was ano he , bo n in 1923,
and hen ano he , abou 10 yea s younge . He died wo yea s ago in P ague.63
The di e ence and appa en lack o connec ion be ween he Romani
nicknames and he o icial names o Roms unde s andably complica es
his o ical analysis and he c ea ion o agenealogical diag am, abo e all
when in o ma ion om esponden s is being linked o a chi al eco ds.
Wi nesses equen ly canno emembe he o icial names o hei Romani
ela i es and iends beyond hei closes ela ions. They jus emembe
he Romani nicknames, which ea u e only spo adically and imp ecisely
in o icial eco ds. Da a on indi idual pe sons may hus be linked only
a e ca e ul conside a ion o all he in o ma ion and con inual compa -
ison wi h he genealogical diag am, an essen ial wo king ool.
Ano he a iable ha complica es he his o ical analysis o documen s
and he asc ibing o da a o indi iduals o amilies is he ac ha some
Roms who mo ed ac oss a ious locali ies would occasionally use alse
names. This is some hing ha he his o ian Pa el Baloun came ac oss
in his esea ch, inding ha he police, when a es ing “gypsies”, would
con inually complain abou he use o alse names by hese pe sons o
mask hei iden i y. Baloun in e p e ed he use o alse names by Roms
as c ea ing ace ain manoeu ing space in o de o a oid pe secu ion by
local au ho i ies.64 Some Romani wi nesses con i med ha gi ing bogus
names was common p ac ice among hei Romani o ebea s, o example
he Lo a a Má ia Laka ošo á (*1951)65 o , in de ail, Tony Lag yn om
aSin i amily in an in e iew o Romano džaniben.66
As an example o he conside able adminis a i e con usion su -
ounding ace ain pe son, connec ed wi h such delibe a e mys i ica ion
and he gi ing o a ious names, Ishall use G ó a S ojko á om he
S ojka amily esea ched he e, he younges daugh e o Zaga S ojko á.
Va ious pe sonal de ails appea in o icial eco ds pe aining o G ó a
om childhood onwa ds, and his con inued un il she ob ained he i s
63 Pe sonal eco ding wi h “Báno” Biha y (1958) eco ded by Pa el Kubaník on 3. 10. 2008 in
Roudnice nad Labem, Czech Republic.
64 Baloun, “Me la našeho enko a”, 50.
65 Pe sonal eco ding by he au ho wi h Má ia Laka ošo á (1951), eco ded in Pečky on 24. 4.
2018.
66 Jana Ho á ho á, “Rozho o sTony Lag ynem: Já už dneska se nedí ám, kdo co jí, ale kdo
jakej je, o mě ži o naučil. Ži o ní příběh Tonyho Lag yna,” Romano džaniben, ol. 20, no. 1
(Summe 2012): 105–139.
39
iden i y ca d in 1959 a e he egis a ion o “ a elling pe sons” unde
Ac no. 74/1958 by he local adminis a ion (MNV) in Louny. On ha
occasion she was asc ibed abi hda e o Ma ch 1924 and he bi hplace
was gi en as Louny, whe e she had de ini ely no been bo n.67 In he
o icial eco ds, G ó a i s appea s unde he name G ó ojka (aRomani
diminu i e o he name G ó a) on alis o “gypsies” camping in Mni-
cho ice, hen pa o Říčany dis ic , in he yea 1931. Nex o he name
he age o eigh yea s was lis ed, co esponding o abi hda e in 1923.68
Du ing he wa , in 1942, G ó a was eco ded in T enčianska Teplá wi h
he da e o bi h and bi hplace gi en as 1923, Veľké Topoľčany. In he
pos wa pe iod she suddenly appea s in o icial eco ds unde he name
Zaga Fa ona/Fa ono á, which was acombina ion o he mo he ’s i s
name and he (clea ly mangled) su name o he a he .69 The au ho -
i ies’ con usion ega ding G ó a S ojko á’s iden i y is also shown by
a eco d om he dis ic adminis a ion (ONV) in Li o el da ing om
July 1953 ha deals in ensi ely wi h he iden i y o ape son who used,
al e na ely, he name G ó a S ojko á, Pinka S ojko á, Helena Kud iko á
and Helena Laka ošo á, née S ojko á. The au ho i ies inally decla ed
he co ec name o be he las one s a ed, Helena Laka ošo á, and he
co ec da e o bi h o be May 1927.70 Howe e , going by he names o
his pe son’schild en, which co espond exac ly o o he da a, his was
in ac G ó a S ojko á. The name G ó a S ojko á also appea s on he
egis e in Louny om Janua y 1959, whe e he da e o bi h is gi en as
July 1923 and he bi hplace as T enčianska Teplá. Howe e , he bi h
da e o Ma ch 1924 ha was decided on by he au ho i ies and insc ibed
in he iden i y ca d in 1959 in Louny is de ini ely no co ec , because i
67 The p ac ice o he local adminis a ions in he pe iod a e he egis e was, howe e , o gi e
people whose bi hplace was unclea an o icially-designa ed bi hplace, so ha he place o
bi h would be he same as he place o egis e ing. The same p ac ice is desc ibed in his appli-
ca ion o ace i ica e unde law 255/1946 by J. R., bo n in Janua y 1943 in sou he n Slo akia,
who was o icially designa ed as ha ing been bo n in No á Paka, in he Jičín dis ic o eas e n
Bohemia, which was also he place ha he was egis e ed in 1959. Sou ce VÚA-VHA P aha,
. Sbí ka osobních spisů žada elůo ydání os ědčení podle zákona č. 255/1946 Sb., pe sonal
ile o applican J. R. (1943).
68 SOkA Přemyšlení. OU Říčany, i. č. 427, e . č. 246– Výkaz cikánů po ulných přis ižených  oce
1931 če nickou s anicí Mnicho icích.
69 The igh spelling was Facuna. ŠA T enčín, . ObNÚ T enč. Teplá, i. č. 99, k. 23– E idencia
cigáňo 1942.
70 The eco d s a es ha he supply o names mean ha she could no be ound by he secu i y
bodies all o e he s a e. ZA Opa ě– pobočka Olomouc, . KNV Olomouc, Ná odnos ní po-
li ika sign. 608, i. č. 1745, k. 1029, 1951–1958. (He e ol. 649– Úp a a pomě ů osob cikánského
pů odu– zp á a za 1. polole í 1953, zn. III-215–30/6–1953/k . (1. 7. 1953).
40
is jus aweek be o e he bi hda e o he b o he Jose (Jouško), who in
ac was ayea younge han he .
Anonymisa ion and esea ch e hics
My s udy includes esea ch in o a ious pe iods o his o y o which
he e a e di e en limi a ions on he use o pe sonal da a. F om he pe -
spec i e o esea ch e hics, i is achallenge ha he esea ch ocus alls
in o he ields o bo h his o ical esea ch and social science (abo e all, so-
cial an h opology and e hnology). I was necessa y, he e o e, igh om
he ini ial phase o analysing he da a and w i ing his book o balance
he di e en app oaches aken by his o ians and social scien is s owa d
anonymising names and he pe sonal da a no jus o esponden s, bu o
he people whose names Ihad iden i ied mos ly om a chi al esea ch.
In Romani s udies, in he ield o social and cul u al an h opology, i is
cus oma y o anonymise names and locali ies in iew o he po en ial
consequences o esponden s a ising om in e p e a ions o he esea ch
indings. F om he his o ical esea ch pe spec i e, howe e , anonymis-
a ion is amo e complica ed s ep ha p e en s he u he e i ying o
sou ces, mainly a chi al ones.71 A u he aspec o his o ical esea ch
is i s emphasis on enabling schola s o build on p e iously esea ched
and published da a ha hey expand u he h ough hei own explo-
a ion. I hus ha e an obliga ion no jus o p e ious esea che s, bu o
con empo a y and u u e ones, as well as o he descendan s o he am-
ilies who wo ked wi h me,72 who will po en ially ha e an in e es in he
li es o hei p edecesso s. On he o he hand, om he social sciences
esea ch pe spec i e, ace ain deg ee o anonymisa ion is essen ial in
wo king wi h li ing esponden s, since such esea ch publishes sensi i e
pe sonal da a, including da a on hei e hnic iden i y and o he sensi-
i e ma e s which could ha e an un a ou able impac on hese li ing
pe sons.
I he e o e decided on acomp omise ha balances he app oaches
o bo h academic disciplines. In he his o ical esea ch, Igi e en i e,
non-anonymised names (i.e., he whole i s names and su names, plus
nicknames, i I know hem) o people who a e al eady dead. Since
pe sonal da a is legally p o ec ed o 100 yea s om bi h,73 his chie ly
71 Baloun, “Me la našeho enko a”, 40.
72 Viko á, “Dlouhá ces a”, 54.
73 Tlamso á, Lexikon, 11.
41
conce ns hose who we e bo n o e 100 yea s ago, i.e., pe sons bo n up
un il he middle o he 1920s. In he case o people bo n mo e ecen ly
who we e ac i e om app oxima ely he pos wa pe iod, Idecided o
use– wi h he excep ion o people om whom Iha e pe sonal consen
o do o he wise– jus hei Romani nicknames, i Iha e hem, o he
ini ial o he i s name accompanied by he su name (e.g., R. S ojko á).
This is because o use bo h ini ials (e.g., R. S.) would make no sense in
he case o he S ojka amily, as i is ob ious ha he inal ini ial S. is
asho ening o he su name S ojka/S ojko á. The Romani name (nick-
name), on he o he hand, is almos unknown o ou side s, and hus
gua an ees ale el o anonymi y o he ou e wo ld while p o iding “ ull
da a”, allowing apid iden i ica ion, o membe s o he na a o ’s amily
o o he local Vlax communi y. Mo eo e , Romani names ( omane ána a)
a e no unique and a e epea ed wi h a equency simila o he epe i ion
o common i s names, and so hey also gua an ee anonymi y o he
pe sons desc ibed somewha . Ialso use he Romani nicknames o li ing
pe sons only wi h hei ull ag eemen .
In his way Ianonymise he names o my esponden s who a e con-
nec ed o he S ojka amily and wi h whom I eco ded mo e ex ensi e
memo ies. Igi e he ull names o o he Lo a a esponden s wi h whom
I eco ded memo ies du ing p e ious esea ch p ojec s, i hey ga e me
signed consen o he publishing o hei names. Some ideo in e iews
which I eco ded o ook pa in eco ding as he ques ione ha e al eady
been published on he websi e Romea.cz as “The Memo y o he Roma”74
o on he YouTube channel “Vlach Roma Tes imony”,75 and hese in e -
iewees had gi en hei w i en consen o such publica ion. In he case
o in e iews whe e Idid no secu e such consen , Iuse jus hei ini ials.
An excep ion is he use o acollec ion o which he e a e o he no ms
es ablished by i s owne conce ning he publishing o pe sonal da a.
In hese cases, Ip oceeded in acco dance wi h he ules es ablished by
he owne o he collec ion. Acase in poin is he da abase o pe sonal
es imonies o hose who in 2001 and 2002 applied o compensa ion o
genocide du ing he Second Wo ld Wa , which a e s o ed in he a chi e
o he nonp o i o ganisa ion Člo ěk  ísni o.p.s. [People in Need] in he
Czech Republic. This is aunique sou ce con aining in ima e, emo ional-
ly-cha ged, highly sensi i e es imonies which need o be handled wi h
g ea cau ion. On he basis o an ag eemen wi h he o ganisa ion’ss a ,
74 Online link: www.pame omu.cz.
75 Full online link: h ps://www.you ube.com/@ lach oma es imony9781.
48
and aded in he a ea a ound hose illages.90 E hnog aphic esea ch
conce ning Roms who li ed o gene a ions in he Slo ak coun yside
shows a ying ways in which he ca ego y o place is connec ed wi h
ace ain social s a us and how i plays apa no jus in unde s anding
he posi ion o Roms in local socioeconomic hie a chies, bu also in
he s uc u ing o ela ionships be ween he Roms hemsel es.91 I was
om his ca ego y in he pas ha all indi iduals d ew hei iden i y in
local socie ies, which had a undamen al in luence on hei belonging
and o e all on he posi ion o Roms in local socioeconomic hie a chies,
abo e all in u al en i onmen s.
Howe e , he ques ion o belonging o aplace is much mo e compli-
ca ed in he case o hose Roms who in he his o ical and e hnog aphic
li e a u e a e s anda dly pe cei ed as “ a elling”. When i comes o
he Roms seen as “ a elling” he pa e ns o hei local socioeconomic
ne wo ks may ollow, o ace ain ex en , pa e ns simila o he Roms
seen as “se led”. Despi e he ecei ed no ion o he Lo a a as ypical
ep esen a i es o “ a elling” Roms who a e seen as ha ing no spa ial
ies, when esea ching hei his o y i is possible o ind examples o
long- e m spa ial links o speci ic loca ions, as well as hei belonging o
ce ain places. I is achallenge o ocus on how he Lo a a hemsel es
ela ed o he spaces h ough which hey mo ed, how hey desc ibed
hei spa ial mobili y, and wha eason hey ga e o i .
My i s esea ch in es iga ing he ques ion o Lo a a e i o ial ies in
connec ion wi h hei concu en ongoing e i o ial mobili y conce ned
ag oup ha had se led in eas e n Slo akia in he second hal o he
19 h cen u y in a illage ha Icall “Bo o any”.92 In 1918, se en Roms
bough some land he e ou side he municipali y on which, o e he nex
ew yea s, aRomani se lemen de eloped. By he ime o he Second
Wo ld Wa i had se e al dozen wooden houses and a ew hund ed in-
90 Aspasia Theodosiou, ‘Be-longing’ in a‘doubly occupied place’: The Pa akalamos Gypsy mu-
sicians case.Romani S udies, ol.14, no. 1 (Decembe 2004): 25–58.
91 Jan O , “Romo é jako mís ní oby a elé? Přináležení, cikáns í apoli ika p os o u e esnici
na ýchodním Slo ensku.” Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Re iew, ol. 57, no. 5 (2021):
3–4.
92 In he case o he municipali y ha Icall Bo o any, Iam gi ing an anonymised name, unlike
he o he eal names. The decision o use he made-up name “Bo o any” was made because
p e ious wo ks wi h asocioan h opological and sociolinguis ic o ien a ion con ained sensi i e
in o ma ion on he membe s o his communi y. In o de o main ain con inui y, Ialso used
he anonymised name o his municipali y in o he wo k, including his book, whe e Ijus
men ion his municipali y b ie ly. Iam awa e o he limi a ions ha come om he use o
anonymisa ion in his o ical ex s, bu Ido so in o de o p o ec my esponden s, who wished
o emain anonymous.

49
habi an s.93 In i s day i was p obably he la ges Lo a a communi y in
Slo akia o be e i o ially connec ed o aconc e e municipali y. Du ing
my a emp o econs uc , on he basis o wi ness s a emen s and a chi-
al indings, he spa ial ajec o ies o he “Bo o any” Roms, I eached
he conclusion ha hei spa ial mobili y was a ious in i s o ms and
geog aphical scope depending on a amily’ssocial s a us. While some
amilies c ea ed and main ained longe ci cui s o a el in he in e wa
pe iod, c ossing he bo de s o Czechoslo akia and he in e nal bo de
be ween he Czech lands and Slo akia, o he amilies mo ed in medium
ci cui s a ound neighbou ing dis ic s, while hose lowes on he social
scale only main ained sho ci cui s in hei immedia e icini y. These
ou es could change g adually o e ime, depending on he ci cums anc-
es. A he same ime, un il he bo de s we e closed in 1939, “Bo o any”
was an impo an (and p obably also a egula ) s opping place on he
ou es o o he Vlax Roms om Poland, Uk aine, Russia, Romania and
Hunga y. They headed ha way clea ly– al hough no solely– o ma -
iage exchanges, and hei a i als s eng hened he image o he in en-
si e mobili y o he “Bo o any” Lo a a in he eyes o he su ounding
communi y.94 I hus p oposed a ious concu en ly-appea ing o ms o
i ine a ion accompanied by ap ocess o g adual o epea ed seden a i-
sa ion in he municipali y.
In my cu en esea ch, Iha e ied o build on hese p e ious conclu-
sions while asce aining whe he hey a e also ele an o he cul u ally
and his o ically di e en Lo a a li ing in he sou h and sou hwes o
Slo akia. My p e ious esea ch o ced me o include among my essen-
ial esea ch ques ions he in es iga ion o he ways in which spa ial
mobili y is desc ibed om he ac o s’ pe spec i es, om he pe spec i e
o he Roms who hemsel es spen hei li es o pa s o hei li es “on
he oad”.
93 I is possible o gain jus a ough idea o Romani numbe s in “Bo o any” in he p e-wa pe iod
on he basis o wi nesses’ agmen a y memo ies, complemen ed by genealogical maps. Acco -
ding o Jose Kolářik-Fin ický’sFi s Republic-e a pho og aphs, he local Romani se lemen
a ha ime consis ed o app oxima ely 20–30 houses, and Ies ima e he e could ha e been
200–300 Roms he e. On alis o he “gypsy” numbe s om 1942 sen o he egional o ice
in P ešo , a o al o 176 Roms was lis ed o his illage (ŠAP ešo , bad. Nižná Šebas o á,
ŠZŽ– p ezidiálne . 1944, k. 2846, k ab. 78, č. j. 3844/42 z8. 9. 1942– ýkaz opoč u cikánů).
I is highly likely ha in he in e wa pe iod he numbe o Lo a a Roms he e was e en highe
since, as Idisco e ed, some o hem did no e u n o he illage a e he s a o he wa ( o
mo e see Hajská, “‘Polokočo níci’”).
94 Ibid., 33.
50
App oaches and policies egula ing he mobili y o Roms
A nega i e phenomenon ha encumbe s he idea o he “ a elling”
pas o he Roms is hei “nomadisa ion”, in o he wo ds, he idea ha
all Roms sha e acommon “ a elling” pas . This no ion pe sis ed un il
ecen ly and is iewed as an essen ial cha ac e is ic o all Romani g oups
wi hou excep ion. Roms a e o en conside ed o be a elling people
wi hou oo s who do no belong o Eu ope o any na ion-s a es he e
because o hei supposed homeland in India and hei alleged cha ac e -
is ic o being a“people wi hou his o y”.95 E en in coun ies whe e Roms
ha e been se led o yea s, Roms we e– indeed, s ill a e– gene ally
pe cei ed as he descendan s o o me “nomads”.96 F om he his o ical
poin o iew, howe e , mos Eas e n and Cen al Eu opean Roms ha e
li ed se led li es since he 18 h cen u y o e en ea lie . This is ue o
oday’sSlo akia, whe e Romani amilies can be shown o ha e li ed
in pa icula municipali ies in he 17 h cen u y and maybe e en ea lie .
Al hough he numbe o Roms wi hou spa ial ies was in ac small,
hey we e long s igma ised because o hei allegedly ha d- o-go e n
mobili y, epea edly becoming he subjec o s a e a emp s o egula e
hei a elling and seden a ise hem.97 As his book demons a es below,
ac oss his o ical pe iods he e a e wo ypes o policy being ca ied ou
simul aneously: A emp s by local sel -go e nmen s o ensu e ha Roms
mo e ou o hei locali ies as soon as possible and o p e en hem om
se ling he e, e sus he s a e’spolicy o ying o limi o s op Romani
mobili y, wi h hese policies o en a odds wi h each o he .
Ne e heless, he mobili y o some Romani amilies o whole commu-
ni ies should be ega ded as ahis o ical ac . Mo emen o e ace ain
a ea was essen ial in o de o ca y ou a ious p o essions and also in-
ol ed o he speci ic an h opological unc ions. Fo his eason, Imade
95 Hugo an Baa , “The Pe pe ual Mobile Machine o Fo ced Mobili y: Eu ope’sRoma and he
Ins i u ionaliza ion o Roo lessness”, The I egula iza ion o Mig a ion in Con empo a y Eu ope:
Depo a ion, De en ion, D owning. Ed. Yolande Jansen, Joos de Bloois, and Robin Celika es,
(London / New Yo k: Rowman & Li le ield, 2015), 4.
96 Can Yıldız,Nicholas De Geno a. “Un/F ee mobili y: Roma mig an s in he Eu opean Union”.
Social Iden i ies, ol. 24, no. 4 (2017): 425–441; Hugo an Baa , “Eu ope’sRomaphobia: p ob-
lema iza ion, secu i iza ion, nomadiza ion”. En i onmen and Planning D: Socie y and Space,
ol. 29, no. 2 (2011): 203–212; an Baa , “The Pe pe ual Mobile Machine”; Will Guy, “Ways
o looking a Roma: he case o Czechoslo akia”, Gypsies: ABook o In e disciplina y Readings,
Ed. Diane Tong (New Yo k: Ga land, 1998).
97 Ta a Zah a, “Condemned o Roo lessness and Unable o Budge”: Roma, Mig a ion Panics,
and In e nmen in he Habsbu g Empi e, Ame ican His o ical Re iew, ol. 122, no. 3 (2017): 2.
51
i my goal o asce ain in wha ways some o hose who had li ed on he
oad in he pas e lec ed on and explained hei spa ial mobili y. These
we e Lo a a om he a ea o he o me Czechoslo akia, om amilies
who had ea ned hei li ing h ough ho se ading, cleaning ke les,
sha pening kni es, “ a elling” blacksmi he y and o he ac i i ies o i-
cially labelled a he ime as “ a elling p o essions”.
In addi ion o he “nomadisa ion” o Roms, in a ious coun ies and
a a ious imes in his o y he e ha e also been con inual, es ic i e
measu es agains “nomadism” and “ he a elling way o li e”,98 such as
a ious kinds o depo a ion, expulsion, being mo ed on and o he o ms
o o ced mobili y, as well as a es s, aids, e hnic p o iling and su eil-
lance.99 Consis en es imonies ega ding all hese o ms o ep ession
a e gi en by Lo a a wi nesses om he a ea o he o me Czechoslo a-
kia. They encoun e ed inge p in ing and he need o egis e wi h s a e
au ho i ies; con inual ejec ion and expulsion, especially du ing he Fi s
Republic; displacemen and limi a ions on hei mobili y du ing he
Second Wo ld Wa in Slo akia; cons an police aids du ing which hei
mo able p ope y was aken om hem (gold and sil e jewelle y was
con isca ed); and a emp s o limi hei mobili y by seizing hei means
o anspo (ho ses and ca s), especially in he pos wa pe iod. Roms
ha e been pe cei ed by poli icians and jou nalis s in he amewo k o
he an isocial beha iou discou se wi h adi ec link om hei alleged
“nomadism” and hei e hnici y o c ime and an isocial beha iou .100 This
is also ue o he o me Czechoslo akia, whe e he e was he gene ally
widesp ead idea ha Roms ha e in hei “blood” an i ep essible enden-
cy owa ds i ine ancy ha is closely connec ed wi h asocial beha iou
and poses asecu i y h ea .101
98 Pe e Kabachnik and And ew Ryde , “Nomadism and New Labou : cons aining Gypsy and
T a elle mobili ies in B i ain”, in: Romani mobili ies in Eu ope: Mul idisciplina y pe spec i es.
Uni e si y o Ox o d: Con e ence P oceedings (2010): 110–125.
99 Hugo an Baa , “The Pe pe ual Mobile Machine”; Gio anni Picke , “Nomads’ land? Poli ical
cul u es and na ionalis s ances is-à- is Roma in I aly”, in: Mul i-disciplina y pe spec i es on Ro-
many S udies, ed. Michael S ewa and Ma on Ro id (Budapes : Cen al Eu opean Uni e si y
P ess, 2010): 71–86.
100 Colin Cla k and Becky Taylo , “Is Nomadism he P oblem? The Social Cons uc ion o Gyp-
sies and T a elle s as Pe pe a o s o An i-Social Beha iou in B i ain”, in: An i-Social Beha iou
in B i ain: Vic o ian and Con empo a y Pe spec i es, ed. Sa ah Picka d (Basings oke: Palg a e
Macmillan, 2014): 166–178.
101 Vě a Sokolo á, Cul u al Poli ics o E hnici y: Discou ses on Roma in Communis Czechoslo akia
(S u ga : Ibidem-Ve lag, 2020), 80.
Old pos ca d o T enčianska Teplá showing illage s in adi ional local
cos umes, be o e 1918.
53
Pa 1:
Be o e he c ea ion o Czechoslo akia
1.1 Lo a a on he e i o y o p esen -day Slo akia
Be o e Is a o look a he li e s o ies o he S ojka amily, egionally
connec ed wi h he a ea o wes e n Slo akia, Iconside i impo an o
b ie ly examine he gene al si ua ion o he Lo a a on he e i o y o
p esen -day Slo akia du ing he pe iod in ques ion.
In he in oduc o y chap e , Iindica ed ha i is highly likely ha
Lo a a amilies we e mo ing a ound he space o he p esen -day Slo-
akia be o e he mid-19 h cen u y, some o hem de ini ely al eady in he
18 h cen u y, and i is no impossible ha hey we e he e e en ea lie .102
The a ea was pa o Uppe Hunga y. Roms we e allowed o mo e
h oughou he en i e e i o y o Hunga y, no jus in he dis ic s now
pa o p esen -day Slo akia. When hinking abou hei spa ial mobili y,
we need o o ge abou he bo de s be ween he cu en s a es, which
hey o en c ossed.
Ne e heless, e en du ing his ea lie pe iod, i is possible o speak
o ies be ween some Lo a a amilies and ce ain e i o ies. The bap ism
eco ds o some amilies wi h he su name S ojka show ha hese amilies
102 I ound hese eco ds mos o en in municipali ies in wha a e oday he mode n-day dis ic s
o sou h and sou hwes Slo akia, such as Galan a, Le ice, Pezinok, Komá no and No é
Zámky. The oldes o hem come om app oxima ely he mid-18 h cen u y, while I ound
ag ea e numbe o eco ds om he ea ly 19 h cen u y. Fo example, a egis y en y om he
municipali y o Ipeľský Sokolec (ea lie Sakáloš) in oday’sLe ice dis ic shows he bap ism
o Ba bo a S ojko á on 12 Janua y 1757, bo n o Joannes S ojka and Cla a (su name illegible:
Ba ani). The eco d con ains he epea ed no e Zinga i a an i (i.e. “Gypsy agabonds”). Th ee
days la e in he same illage he e was ano he bap ism o aRomani child, his ime agi l,
The esie, o amo he named Ca ha ina S ojka. In he case, oo, he e is ano e saying Zinga i
a an i.

54
epea edly, a in e als o se e al yea s, had hei child en ch is ened in
ace ain municipali y. Since a ha ime bap ism ook place jus a ew
days a e bi h, ap ac ice ha is con i med by he eco ds o pa icula
e en s Iha e ound, ha means hese child en we e bo n in hese speci ic
municipali ies. The epea ed bi h o child en om one amily in one lo-
cali y indica es ha hese amilies we e ancho ed in hese municipali ies.
One example is acouple named Go gius S ojka and Ba ba a Gyö i, who
had i e o hei child en, bo n be ween 1791 and 1801, bap ised in he
municipali y o Kálna nad H onom, Le ice dis ic (And ea in 1791,103
F ancisca in 1793,104 Joseph in 1795,105 The esia in 1797106 and Geo gius
in 1801107). I is likely ha he amily spen ime in he municipali y, e-
pea edly e u ned o i o li ed he e. Howe e , o he eco ds show ha
amilies wi h he su name S ojka g adually ch is ened hei child en in
a ious municipali ies. These a chi al aces a e es imony o hei spa ial
mobili y. Fo example, in he case o a eco d om Číčo , Komá no dis-
ic om 1797 e e ing o he son o Rebeka S ojka and Joannes Ra ael
being bap ised wi h he name Ca olus Flo ianus Ra ael, he e is ano e
a e hei names saying Zing.Pe . (“ a elling gypsies”).108
In he case o some municipali ies, Imanaged o connec hei egis-
y eco ds wi h o he documen s ound in he Slo ak a chi es o c ea e
amo e comp ehensi e sample es i ying o he con inuous e i o ial
link be ween aLo a a amily and apa icula municipali y. Tha hei
gene a ionally- emo e ances o s had been p esen in amunicipali y was
in some cases also s a ed by Romani wi nesses om ha locali y.
An example o such amunicipali y whe e i may be assumed ha he
ances o s o oday’sLo a a we e p esen be o e he mid-19 h cen u y is
Teko ské Lužany in he Le ice dis ic ( he Hunga ian name o he mu-
nicipali y, used a he ime, was Nagysalló). He e, in 1791, Má ia Ra ael
103 Slo akia Chu ch and Synagogue Books, 1592–1935, FamilySea ch (h ps://www. amilysea ch
.o g/a k:/61903/1:1:QVNH-W76R), [ci . 18. 5. 2022]; mic o ilm numbe no gi en.
104 Ibid. (h ps://www. amilysea ch.o g/a k:/61903/1:1:QVNH-WF5G), [ci . 28. 6. 2022]; mic o-
ilm numbe no gi en.
105 Ibid. (h ps://www. amilysea ch.o g/a k:/61903/1:1:QVNH-W7LP), [ci . 18. 5. 2022]; mic o-
ilm numbe no gi en
106 Ibid. (h ps://www. amilysea ch.o g/a k:/61903/1:1:QVNH-4SMK), [ci . 18. 5. 2022]; mic o-
ilm numbe no gi en
107 Ibid. (h ps://www. amilysea ch.o g/a k:/61903/1:1:QVNH-W5G1), [ci . 28. 6. 2022]; mic o-
ilm numbe no gi en.
108 Ibid.(h ps://www. amilysea ch.o g/a k:/61903/1:1:QVNH-63PN), [ci . 18. 5. 2022]; mic o-
ilm numbe no gi en.
55
(pa en s Josephus Ra ael and Rosa Laka os, wi h he no e Zinga i agi.)109
was bap ised. Ialso ound he su name Ra ael in he municipal egis e s
wi h he bap ism o Te esie Ra ael in 1777, bu wi h no u he no es.
O e he cou se o he 18 h and 19 h cen u ies, se e al child en wi h he
ypical Lo a a su names Ra ael o Banda we e also bap ised he e.
Al hough he e a e eco ds p o ing he ances o s o he p esen -day
Lo a a we e p esen on he e i o y o p esen -day Slo akia be o e he
yea s 1855–1856, in he second hal o he 19 h cen u y he e is asha p
inc ease in he numbe o eco ds in he egis e books connec ed wi h
he abo e-men ioned su names, which may indica e he a i al o mo e
such amilies in o Uppe Hunga y. S ill, al hough some eco ds indi-
ca e ha hese amilies we e geog aphically ancho ed in ce ain mu-
nicipali ies, o he s show indi ec ly ha he Romani amilies we e jus
a elling h ough he municipali ies in ques ion. A his ime he e is
also an inc ease in eco ds wi h no es s a ing ha hese a e “ a elling”
o indeed “Wallachian” Roms. Fo example, he eco d in he egis y
book o Dojč in he Senice dis ic conce ning he bap ism o Ma in
S ojka on 9Decembe 1856110 desc ibes he amily as “mig a ing”: “[This]
descendan [was bo n] when mig a ing gypsies we e passing h ough
wi h a en .”111 Ma inius S ojka was in ac bo n in ahouse in he abo e-
named municipali y– “unde house no. 13”– (sub e o domus 13), so he
no e is clea ly mean o explain ha he amily did no belong o he
house and did no ha e ies o he municipali y. They we e being p o-
ided wi h shel e du ing he bi h, bu o he wise clea ly slep in a en .
1.2 Lo a a in he Czech lands be o e he c ea ion
o Czechoslo akia
As on he e i o y o p esen -day Slo akia, he Lo a a mo ed a ound
he Czech lands be o e he c ea ion o Czechoslo akia. Howe e , o he
mos pa hese we e di e en Lo a a amilies who belonged o he Cis-
lei hanian pa o he Aus o-Hunga ian Empi e and came o he Czech
lands om o he pa s o Cislei hania. Roms belonging o he a ea o
109 Ibid. (h ps://www. amilysea ch.o g/a k:/61903/1:1:QVNX-37TS), [ci . 28. 6. 2022]; mic o-
ilm numbe no gi en.
110 Fa he Josephus S ojka, mo he Ca ha ina Laka oš. Ibid. (h ps://www. amilysea ch.o g
/a k:/61903/1:1:V1HG-TG3), [ci . 28. 6. 2022]. FHL mic o ilm 1,479,038.
111 La in: “Occasione ansennae o mae/ u mae Mig an ium Zinga o in en o io p ogeni us”.
Ibid.
56
p esen -day Slo akia and o he pa s o wha was hen Hunga y, which
a he ime was also pa o T anslei hania, made hei way o he Czech
lands only o alimi ed ex en . The di ision o he mona chy in o wo ela-
i ely au onomous pa s a e he Aus o-Hunga ian Comp omise o 1867
made i sel el signi ican ly in he wo pa s’ a i udes owa ds Roms.
In Cislei hania he ea men o “gypsies” by he s a e and secu i y
o ces a ha ime was unde pinned legally by he dec ee on “ he aba e-
men o he gypsy nuisance” issued by he Cislei hanian In e io Minis y
on 14 Sep embe 1888, which summed up he exis ing measu es conce n-
ing ag ancy, begging, coe ci e wo khouses and o he measu es agains
“gypsies”.112 The dec ee also allowed measu es o be aken agains wha
we e called “ o eign gypsies”, a e m ha included “gypsies” om he
o he pa o he mona chy. As “bo he some o eigne s”, hey we e o be
“comple ely p e en ed om en e ing Cislei hania” and no allowed o
become domiciled he e.113 The ac ha his dec ee was s ill alid du ing
he i s ew yea s o independen Czechoslo akia may well accoun
o he conclusions o my own a chi al esea ch in he Bohemian and
Mo a ian a chi es, which shows ha un il app oxima ely he mid-1920s,
he Lo a a came o he Czech lands om Slo akia only excep ionally,
despi e he ac ha legally speaking hey we e no longe “ o eign gyp-
sies”, al hough i seems he s a e au ho i ies s ill had a endency o iew
hem as such. E en a e he c ea ion o he new sou he n Czechoslo ak
bo de wi h Aus ia, he end con inued o Lo a a o come om a eas
belonging o he o me geog aphical a ea o Cislei hania.
Howe e , le us now go back se e al decades o he pe iod p eceding
he c ea ion o Czechoslo akia. No his o ian has ye looked a he ques-
ion o o wha pe iod he coming o Lo a a o he Czech lands can be
da ed. Only om he end o he 19 h cen u y on was Iable o ind spo-
adic eco ds in egional a chi es and in digi alised sou ces114 es i ying
o he p esence o indi idual Lo a a amilies on his e i o y, and in he
i s decades o he 20 h cen u y such eco ds a e also ew and a be ween.
I is no impossible, howe e , ha indi idual membe s o whole amilies
112 C ibo Nečas, Romo é na Mo a ě a e Slezsku (1740–1945) (B no: Ma ice mo a ská, 2005),
49–50.
113 Baloun, “Me la našeho enko a”, 49.
114 These a e chie ly digi alised media epo s and p in ed ma e ials. Regis e s o bi hs, ma iages
and dea hs in which pe sons li ing on he e i o y o Bohemia and Mo a ia du ing ha pe iod
migh be looked up by su name we e no a ailable online when his book was being w i en,
no did Imanage o ind any such egis e s in he s a e a chi es in he Czech Republic.
57
om his g oup may ha e been mo ing a ound he e i o y o Bohemia
and Mo a ia much ea lie .
One o he sou ces– howe e p oblema ic and insu icien ly objec-
i e– p o iding in o ma ion on he p esence o Lo a a on he e i o y
o he Czech lands is he digi alised media epo s om he Czech lands.
The pe iodical Ná odní poli ika de o ed i sel epea edly o “ho des o
agabond gypsies” wi h he su name S ojka in he 1890s and hei mo e-
men s a ound as ip o land s e ching om Lowe Aus ia, including
Vienna, o he e i o y o Sou h Bohemia. In Decembe 1898, Ná odní
poli ika men ions he case o Anna S ojko á, known as Pe ala, and he
husband, Jose Ho á h, p o iding ahighly exo icising desc ip ion o
hei g oup:
Thi een adul s and as many child en o med aho de ha was headed by
aswa hy, hai y chap named Jan S ojka. The wagons had ba ely come o
ahal when se en women le he hu iedly-pi ched “camp” and se o in o
he own in sea ch o plunde .’115 The amily was appa en ly a es ed se e al
imes o ag ancy, was mo ed on, was said o ha e epea edly escaped du ing
hese inciden s on he e i o y o wha is oday Aus ia and, among o he
hings, was said o ha e commi ed c iminal o ences in he Sou h Bohemian
own o Písek, which is in e es ing wi h ega d o he Lo a a p esence in he
Czech lands.116
I managed o ind mo e de ailed in o ma ion on he p esence,
p e-Czechoslo akia, o he Lo a a in he Bohemian capi al, P ague. One
example is a esidency documen p ese ed in he P ague police head-
qua e s’ collec ion o esidency documen s (konsk ipce) om 1850–1914,
issued o ape son named F an išek S ojka. Acco ding o he documen ,
S ojka was aho se deale who was bo n in 1873 in Vienna and egis e ed
in Decembe 1913 a house no. 48 in he P ague dis ic o K álo ské
Vinoh ady oge he wi h his wi e and six child en.117 I is wo h no ing
ha his add ess, close o he p esen -day Vinoh ady Hospi al, was no
a la as migh be expec ed in a esiden ial a ea, bu a a ms ead wi h he
name Ho ní S omka. Es ablished in he 18 h cen u y on he ounda ions
o aya d om he 16 h cen u y, by he 19 h cen u y i s buildings housed
asuga e ine y and classic ag icul u al acili ies such as cowsheds, ba ns
and s o ehouses, which we e said o be al eady alling in o dis epai a
115 [au ho n.a.] “P o loupežnou aždu.“ Mo a ská o lice, ol. 36, no. 287 (18. 12. 1898), 5.
116 Ibid.
117 NA, . Policejní ředi els í I, konsk ipce, b. 566, image 223.
64
pa ed o o he Roms, he enjoyed aspecial s a us in he eyes o local non-
Roms. Al hough Icanno oday de ine his social s a us p ecisely om
he iewpoin o he Romani communi y, he eco ds made by he local
adminis a ion o e he cou se o se e al decades e lec his highe social
s a us compa ed o o he Roms om he iewpoin o he non-Romani
communi y. F om a ious eco ds i can be seen ha he was ela i ely
well o , and ha as such he was, o ace ain ex en , espec ed by he
local non-Romani au ho i ies who la e , du ing he Second Wo ld Wa ,
nomina ed him o he posi ion o ajda (chie ), a i le by which he was
e e ed o by bo h Roms and Ne oms in he ollowing decades.
In he eco ds connec ed wi h him he e is ne e any doub cas on
he ac ha he is domiciled in T enčianska Teplá. While in he case o
some Roms he egis e s s a e in he column o employmen hings such
as “ agabond” o “gypsy agabond”, Š e an is always lis ed as aho se
deale o me chan . As Ishall show in de ail in he ollowing chap e s,
i was also he who la e , in he 1930s, was he i s and only Rom o buy
ahouse in he municipali y.
Š e an’s amily li e is also in e es ing. He became a a he a he young
age o 14, in 1905, when his i s -bo n son Ján S ojka was bo n. Ján la e
con inued in he amily business o ho se ading. Like his a he , a
14 Ján S ojka also had ason, who ecei ed he name Š e an. Š e an S oj-
ka, Senio hus became ag and a he a he age o 28. He hen had a
leas i e mo e child en wi h se e al pa ne s in succession (he seems o
ha e been wice widowed). His younges son, who like his i s -bo n son
was named Ján, was bo n in 1953 and was hus wo gene a ions younge
han his hal -b o he o he same name. Ishall deal wi h hese ac s in
e en g ea e de ail la e .
Du ing he i s wo decades o he 20 h cen u y he e a e ela i ely
ew eco ds on Š e an S ojka, S . The mo he o his i s -bo n Ján is e-
co ded in some places as Má ia, elsewhe e as Agnes S ojka ( he name o
he a he is always he same). The mo he o Iboja, bo n in 1919, was
Ka olína, née Laka ošo á. She was bo n in 1902 and was hus jus h ee
yea s olde han Š e an’sson Ján. I is no clea whe he Š e an spli up
om his i s wi e o i he was widowed. I is possible ha had mo e
child en du ing he ime in ques ion who do no igu e in he eco ds
o he local no a y’so ice. His child en men ioned abo e we e bo n in
T enčianska Teplá and we e domiciled he e.
To wha ex en Š e an’s amily li ed in he municipali y on amo e pe -
manen o egula basis is no clea . Ido no e en know he place whe e

65
he amily may ha e dwel o spen he win e s. Howe e , i is clea ha
du ing his pe iod hey a leas used o e u n he e on a egula basis.
Zaga S ojko á (* 1887)
Ialso ha e ai ly de ailed in o ma ion om his pe iod on Š e an S ojka
S .’solde sis e , named Zaga S ojko á. Al hough she was bo n in o he
Lo a a S ojka amily, domiciled in T enčianska Teplá, acco ding o all
he eco ds she li ed oge he wi h aman called Ján Facona,133 wi h whom
she had a leas six child en. Howe e , she ne e ma ied him and hus
kep he maiden name o S ojko á all he li e. Judging by his su name,
bi hplace and esidency, Ján Facona was anon-Vlax Rom (Rumung o, o
Slo ak Rom) om he illage o Dob á nea T enčianska Teplá, abou
akilome e away.134 ARomani amily wi h he su name Facona had been
es ablished o gene a ions he e,135 ea ning ali ing as day labou e s.136
F om he eco ds o he dis ic no a y’so ice in T enčianska Teplá
i can be seen ha a ala e pe iod, he Faconas o Dob á ea ned hei
li ing by ading un anned hides, o which hey had a ade licence.137
In he 1930s, he Facona amily li ed pe manen ly on he edge o Dob á
in aRomani se lemen “in gypsy hu s”138 (see Fig. 2). I may be assumed
ha hey li ed simila ly du ing he p eceding pe iod. F om he Lo a a
pe spec i e, he ac ha Zaga li ed wi h aRumung o may ha e in lu-
enced he lowe s a us including in he eyes o he b o he Š e an S ojka
133 The e is an in e es ing, g adual swi ch in he documen s om he name Facona o Fa ona,
which is also aname ha some o Zaga’schild en used o iden i y hemsel es– such as in
Súpis Cigáno ( he Gypsy Regis e ) om 1942 compiled by he ONÚ (ŠA T enčín, . ObNÚ
T enčianska Teplá, E idencia cigáňo 1942, e . č. 99, k. 23, no č. j.).
134 Dob á was only o icially pa o T enčianska Teplá om 1971. Un il hen i was asepa a e mu-
nicipali y, al hough si ua ed nea by. Iha e no managed o ind he bi hda e o Ján Facona.
135 In he bap ism books we ind se e al bi h eco ds o child en wi h he su name Facona om
he second hal o he 19 h cen u y whe e i is s a ed ha hey we e “Gypsies” (Zinga a) li ing in
Dob á. Fo example, o he child o Jose Facona, bo n in 1865, he add ess is gi en as Dob á
26, bu in o he eco ds only as “Dob á”, wi h no house numbe . Slo akia Chu ch and Syna-
gogue Books, 1592–1935,FamilySea ch(h ps://www. amilysea ch.o g/a k:/61903/1:1:V1C3-
RQ1), [ci . 18. 5. 2022]; FHL mic o ilm 2,428,023.
136 See ŠA T enčín, . ObNÚ T enčianska Teplá, E idencia obchodníko a emeselníko
1901–1913, kn. 52, . 167. Acco ding o he eco ds om he 1930s onwa ds he Faconas om
Dob á ea ned hei li ing by ading aw hides.
137 ŠA T enčín, . ObNÚ T enčianska Teplá, Adminis a í a, k. 30, E idencia obchodníko a em-
eselníko obciach no á s a T enčianska Teplá 1927–1942.
138 ŠA T enčín, . ObNÚ T enčianska Teplá, Sčí anie ľudu z oku 1930, e . č. 6009/30. The e a e
ou amilies lis ed wi h he su name Facona.
66
S . and his nuclea amily. Ibase his s a emen on my long- e m esea ch
in o he en i onmen o he Lo a a in he Czech lands and Slo akia,
du ing which hey ha e decla ed epea edly and clea ly ha in a-e hnic
ma iages wi h non-Vlax Roms we e essen ially inadmissible o hem.139
The same indings ha e been made by o he esea che s.140 Ma iage wi h
aRumung o b ough “g ea shame” o he amily in ques ion and could
lead o he ul ima e punishmen , exclusion om he communi y.141
Zaga seems o ha e li ed o he i s wo decades o he 20 h cen-
u y wi h he pa ne , Ján Facona, in he small illage o Dob á nea
T enčianska Teplá. I is he e ha hei child en appea o ha e been bo n,
and i is he e ha o icial eco ds o he ime ha e hem and hei child en
down as domiciled. He e, howe e , i is necessa y o poin ou ha he
o icial eco ds ega ding ape son wi h he name o Zaga S ojko á ga e
he domicile al e na ely as T enčianska Teplá and Dob á. Dob á was
e en gi en as Zaga’sbi hplace in some eco ds, al hough in o he s he
place o bi h was gi en as T enčianska Teplá. I is, howe e , ce ain ha
he pa ne , Ján Facona, was bo n in Dob á and ha hei h ee eldes
child en we e also bo n he e: Filo (*1907), Minka (*1911) and Ba bo a
(*1914). Acco ding o some eco ds142 hei daugh e Kuluš was also bo n
he e (*1920). O he eco ds loca e he bi h o Kuluš in T enčianska
Teplá,143 whe e he younge siblings we e appa en ly also bo n (G ó a,
seemingly in 1923, and he younges , Jose , in 1924).
Iha e no managed o ind any eco ds es i ying o he spa ial mo-
bili y o Zaga’snuclea amily om his pe iod. I is he e o e unclea
how he amily ea ned ali ing du ing his pe iod, whe he i s income
came en i ely om Ján Facona’slabou , o whe he Zaga oo had asha e
in ensu ing hei income.
139 E.g., Hajská, “H anice jazyka”, 205.
140 Ma ušiako a, “Rodinný ži o alašských”, S ojka and Pi oň, Náš ži o . Ama o ajo.
141 Pe sonal eco ding o J. B. (*1934) by he au ho , made on 12 Augus 2020 in České Budějo ice.
142 Fo example, ŠA T enčín, . ObNÚ T enč. Teplá, e . č. 77, k. 19– E idencia es aných ob-
čiano obce T enčinska Teplá 1933–1949.
143 Da a gi en e.g. in he egis e o Feb ua y 1959, kep in he SOkA Louny: ONV II Louny,
ni ř. 608, k. 332.

Teplická s ee in T enčianska Teplá wi h he single- ack pleasu e ailway.
A he end o he s ee on he le , unde nea h he s one qua y ha can be seen
in he backg ound, is whe e Š e an S ojka had a house buil in he in e wa pe iod.
71
Pa 2: The In e wa Pe iod
2.1 Lo a a e i o ial ancho ing and spa ial mobili y
in Slo akia
Lo a a li ing on he e i o y o he o me Czechoslo akia a e o en
desc ibed as “ adi ionally a elling” people who we e no “se led”
un il he yea 1959.144 The image o Lo a a as “nomads” who we e no
e i o ially ancho ed in any way is abundan ly ein o ced by a ious
media s o ies. Howe e , his concep is educ ionis and imp ecise. In
his chap e , which ocuses on he S ojka amily si ua ion in he in e wa
pe iod, Iwill con inue my sea ch o an answe o he ques ion o he
ex en o which i is possible o speak o he Lo a a li ing in Slo akia
du ing his pe iod as an example o e i o ial ancho ing a odds wi h he
abo e-desc ibed s e eo ypical image o hem as “ a elling”.
A his junc u e Iwill u n o he si ua ion o he a ious Romani
amilies li ing in he sou h and he wes o Slo akia. Iwill pu o wa d
se e al case s udies conce ning a ious Lo a a amily his o ies, people
who we e e i o ially connec ed wi h speci ic municipali ies o wi h
ace ain his o ical egion. De ailed eco ds om he indi idual munic-
ipali ies allow us o be e in es iga e he deg ee and o m o e i o ial
ancho ing o a ious Lo a a amilies. Using selec ed examples, Iwill y
o show he a ious ypes o hei spa ial mobili y and poin o he need
o wo k in amo e nuanced way wi h he idea o he place o which hey
belonged. The deba e ha ollows in his chap e will u he de elop he
144 E.g., Da ido á, Ces y Romů, 96; Nina Pa elčíko á, Romo é českých zemích 1945–1989. P aha:
Úřad dokumen ace a yše řo ání zločinů komunismu, 2004.
72
ac s s a ed abo e ega ding spa ial mo emen and e i o ial ancho ing
in he ea lie pe iod.
Spa ial mobili y om he pe spec i e o he ac o s
People o en hink ha all Vlax Roms used o be a elling. Bu ha ’sno he
case. E en be o e he wa anybody who could, acqui ed ahouse. A e he
wa , he only people who we e s ill a elling we e he poo people ying o
ge away om he police who didn’ wan hem anywhe e.145
This es imony o Vik o Salinas, aLo a a wi ness bo n in Dolná Seč,
Le ice dis ic , con ains he wi ness’ssubjec i e opinion ha he Lo a a
who we e s ill “ a elling” on he e i o y o he sou h and sou hwes
o Slo akia du ing he in e wa pe iod we e by hen amino i y. This
s a emen , which is ully a odds wi h he ideas o his o ians and Romani
s udies schola s ega ding he i ine ancy o his g oup du ing he pe iod
in ques ion, o ced me o ocus on in es iga ing he hypo hesis ha he
Lo a a du ing his pe iod we e e i o ially ancho ed in ce ain munic-
ipali ies. Salinas’ss a emen may be a ec ed by he ac ha he himsel
came om acommuni y in which Roms had buil dwellings on he edge
o he municipali y e en be o e Czechoslo akia decla ed independence.
The si ua ion was simila in o he municipali ies in Le ice dis ic , whe e
anumbe o Lo a a amilies had c ea ed mo e pe manen ies o he e-
gion du ing ha ime. Howe e , hings may ha e been di e en in o he
egions o Slo akia.
In his chap e Ishall wo k wi h he pe spec i e o Lo a a amilies
o communi ies as cap u ed in he es imonies o wi nesses who we e
small child en a he ime o who we e descendan s o hese amilies
and sha ed ana a i e ega ding “ a elling” ha had been c ea ed in
he amilies and handed down h ough he gene a ions. O e he cou se
o mo e han 20 yea s (2001–2023) I eco ded, o a ious pu poses,
biog aphical in e iews ouching in a ious ways on he spa ial mobili y
and e i o ial ies o my esponden s’ amilies. As acomplemen o his,
Iwill once again make use o s a e eco ds kep in he Slo ak a chi es,
which con ain a ious egis e s om he municipali ies in which Lo a a
amilies we e domiciled.
145 Pe sonal eco ding o Vik o Salinas (*1941) by he au ho , made on 7 Augus 2016 in Pos olo-
p y, Czech Republic.
73
The o ms and unc ions o hei mobili y di e ed om amily o
amily, as did hei spa ial ajec o ies and he in ensi y o hei li e “on
he oad”. These amilies ha e a ious kinds o e i o ial ies. Thei
li elihood s a egies di e ed om amily o amily, which is some hing
Iwill e iew a he end o his sec ion. The social s a us o each amily
and he weal h ha was gene a ed which allowed some Lo a a ho izon al
mobili y in he condi ions o he Slo ak coun yside we e bo h ela ed o
he a iables o hei li elihood s a egies, mobili y and e i o ial ies.
Ishall p esen below examples o municipali ies in which he e i o ial
ancho ing o Lo a a amilies ook place o ace ain deg ee. In he second
pa o his sec ion, Iwill look a he S ojka amily, wi h i s e i o ial
ancho ing in T enčianska Teplá, building on he indings Iha e o -
mula ed gene ally on he si ua ion o he Lo a a du ing he pe iod in
ques ion.
Domicile
Mo emen and dwelling is no acons an exp ession o cul u e, bu is
enabled and in luenced by non-Romani ju isdic ion and e i o ial di i-
sions.146 These ac o s ha e asigni ican in luence on he limi s o and
oppo uni ies o Romani mobili y. One o he key hings o subs an ia e
when acing he e i o ial ies o Romani amilies is whe e hey we e
domiciled. This was an o icial ela ionship, bu i s ac ual subs ance a -
ied om case o case. The igh o domicile (o place o domicile) was
unde s ood a ha ime as alegal ela ionship be ween an indi idual and
apa icula municipali y. I did no equi e ac ual p esence in he munic-
ipali y in which he pe son in ques ion was domiciled.147 The acquisi ion
o domicile was go e ned by Ac no. XVIII o 1871, “on municipali-
ies”, by pa ag aph 6 o Hunga ian legal a icle V/1876, by legal a icle
L/1879, and de ini i ely by Ac no. XXII o 1886, “on municipali ies”.
Domicile could be gained au oma ically h ough bi h, and in he case o
women, h ough ma iage, by being accep ed in o he municipali y, by
se ling he e (in he Hunga ian pa , as ay o h ee mon hs a leas was
146 Leona do Piase e, “Les slo ensko oma: en e séden a i é e nomadisme”.Nomadic Peoples,
ol. 21/22 (Decembe 1986): 37–50.
147 Anna Ju o á, “Domo ské p á o o zťahu kRómom p edmnícho skej ČSR”, in: His o ický
ý oj súk omého p á a Eu ópe: zbo ník p íspe ko zmedziná odnej edeckej kon e encie konanej
dňoch 27.–28. mája 2011 na P á nickej akul e UPJŠ Košiciach, ed. E ik Š enpien (Košice:
P á nická akul a UPJŠ, 2011), 121–144.
80
was Ďu i. On he basis o an analysis o documen s om he Dolná Seč
no a y’so ice in he Le ice b anch o he s a e a chi es in Ni a, I ound
ha Ka oly Laka oš was bo n in 1854 and eally did li e o mos o his
li e in Dolná Seč.160 He s ill li ed he e du ing he Second Wo ld Wa ,
dying sho ly a e i ended. He was he a he o mo e han 10 child en
o e h ee decades, om he 1880s o he 1910s. Many o his child en
we e bo n in Dolná Seč and some o hem li ed he e as adul s as well.161
Acco ding o Salinas, be o e he Second Wa hese Roms li ed o many
yea s in houses on he si e o he cu en Romani se lemen . This is
con i med by my a chi al indings.
Acco ding o he 1930 census, among he pe manen inhabi an s o
he illage we e he amily o Ján Ra ael (*1887), aho se deale and owne
o house no. 130, his spouse Má ia Ra aelo á (*1890) and a u he se en
amily membe s. One o hem had nex o his name he no e: ag icul u al
labou e .162 Ano he house, wi h no numbe and desc ibed in ano e as
alean- o shed, was pe manen ly inhabi ed by Rudol Ra ael (*1892),
who had wo occupa ions: ho se deale and ag icul u al labou e . He
li ed he e wi h his pa ne Má ia (*1897) and hei se en child en.163
In he collec ions o he police chie ’s o ice164 in Le ice om
1938–1944165 he e is a eco d ela ing o adispu e o e domicile in he
municipali y conce ning János Laka oš (Romani nickname Rudi)166 s a -
ing ha he li ed in aRomani se lemen (in Hunga ian, cigány elep) in
Dolná Seč,167 which is also con i med in o he documen s by non-Romani
wi nesses who knew him and his a he well.168 Nine o Rudi’schild en
160 ŠA Ni a/ Le ice, . ONÚ Dolná Seč.
161 Fo example, Joze Banda (Joško), Ján Ra ael and Salinas’ g and a he Ka oly Laka os (Ču i),
o icially also egis e ed as János Laka os, bo n in 1895 ŠA Ni a/ Le ice, . ONÚ Dolná
Seč– T es né lis y 1908–1938 and ŠA Le ice, . Hla noslúžno ský ú ad Le icích, spis. zn.
2777/1943.
162 Slo enský ná odný a chí , Sčí ání lidu 1930, obec Dolná Seč, č. há ku 001, č. ška ule 0444,
iden i iká o u n:nbn:sk:cai -ko1b478, a ailible: h ps://slo akiana.sk/sci acie-ha ky.
163 Ibid., č. há ku 002, č. ška ule 0444, iden i iká o u n:nbn:sk:cai -ko1b47b.
164 The o ice was c ea ed on he basis o he dis ic o ice a e Le ice (Lé a) was occupied by
Hunga ian oops on 10 No embe 1938 and unc ioned un il 20 Decembe 1944, when he
Red A my libe a ed he own o Le ice (Lé a). Sou ce: ŠA in Ni a, A chí Le ice, . Hla -
noslúžno ský ú ad Le iciach, a ailable online: Főszolgabí oi hi a al Lé a [ci . 14. 7. 2023].
165 ŠA Ni a/ Le ice, . Hla noslúžno ský ú ad Le iciach, 1938–1944, spis. zn. 2777/1943.
166 This was he b o he o Salinas’ g and a he Ču i (Ká oly/ János Laka oš), son o Ká ol Laka-
oš (Ďu i), bo n 1854. János Laka oš (Rudi), bo n 1884 in Žemlia y, s a es ha his a he is
s ill li ing in Dolná Seč and ha he is 85.
167 ŠA Ni a/ Le ice, . Hla noslúžno ský ú ad Le icích zle 1938–1944, spis. zn. 2777/1943,
unma ked documen en i led Nyila koza (decla a ion) o 23. 12. 1942.
168 Ibid.

81
we e bo n in he 1920s and 1930s in Dolná Seč,169 whe e he amily ap-
pea s o ha e li ed and which se ed as he base o i s economic ac i i-
ies in he su ounding a ea. In he c iminal eco ds om he Dolná Seč
au ho i ies conce ning he pe iod 1908 o 1938, which con ains eco ds
o se e al dozen people om Dolná Seč, i is possible o iden i y a ound
18 people who, on he basis o su names and o he no es (e.g. occupa-
ion: “gypsy”) may be p esumed o be Lo a a. Fi een o hem lis ed
Dolná Seč as hei place o bi h ( om 1884 o 1924), 13 had i as hei
domicile, and 10 lis ed i as hei cu en place o esidence. In wo cases,
di e en places o esidence we e no ed o hei epea ed appea ances in
he egis e , o he e was ano e s a ing “ esidence uns able”, while wi h
he o he eigh , hei place o pe manen esidence was always lis ed as
Dolná Seč. In he occupa ion column, mos o hem had “gypsy aga-
bond”, while h ee e en had hei p o ession desc ibed as “Vlax gypsy”.
Th ee men and one woman ha e “labou e ” lis ed as hei employmen ,
while ano he has “ag icul u al wo ke ”170, which again indica es ha
Roms had pe manen esidence in he municipali y in he p ewa pe iod.
The las -men ioned pe o med ac i i ies locally. F om he es imonies o
wi nesses and o he eco ds i is clea ha he Lo a a communi y he e
was ela i ely la ge. The in o ma ion on he domiciles, occupa ions and
esidences o he abo e-men ioned 18 people cap u ed in his speci ic
police sou ce he e o e illus a es he means and he equency o he
local Romani ancho edness he e, bo h on he o icial le el and in e ms
o he ime hey ac ually spen in Dolná Seč, inso a as such sou ces can
p o ide us wi h his kind o in o ma ion.
Ano he municipali y whe e, acco ding o wi nesses and a chi al
eco ds, Lo a a li ed in hei own houses in he in e wa pe iod was
Teko ské Lužany, also in he Le ice dis ic . Acco ding o wi ness Jose
Molná (*1945),171 Lo a a had li ed in hei own houses, which s ood
in he Romani se lemen , long be o e he Second Wo ld Wa . Jose
Molná said:
Idon’ know when he Roms buil hei houses he e, bu i was along ime
ago. My g and a he had ahouse and as able nex doo . Tha was whe e my
g andmo he li ed, my a he ’smo he . They had houses, bu hey we en’
169 Ibid., documen wi hcase no. 1121/1941, o 3. 12. 1941, p. 3.
170 This is he abo e-men ioned g ea -g and a he o Vik o Salinas, Ká ol Laka oš (Ďu i), bo n
in 1854. Ibid.
171 Pe sonal eco ding o Jose Molná (1945) by he au ho , made on 19 Janua y 2019 in Hořice,
Czech Republic.
82
well o , hey slep on s aw. They didn’ ha e u ni u e o any hing. Du ing
ha ime hey aded ho ses and wen ound he ma ke s. My g and a he
was he ajda back hen. I awoman wen pas his house wi hou asca , she
had o pay a ine, o he wise he himsel would pe sonally sha e he head.172
This men ion o Romani women going pas his g and a he ’shouse,
as o y handed down in he amily, may be conside ed “ angible” p oo
o he ac ual esidency o Lo a a in Teko ské Lužany. This is also con-
i med by (spo adic) a chi al inds. In he ile o he police chie ’so ice
in Le ice o 1938–1944 he case is eco ded in de ail o Simon Ra ael,
bo n in 1892 in Teko ské Lužany and domiciled he e, who om 1939 o
1941 sen p o es s o a ious au ho i ies ha his ho ses had been aken
away om him. Ra ael epea edly called o hei e u n, a guing ha he
was adisabled e e an o he Fi s Wo ld Wa , ha he needed his ho ses
o anspo and ha he had ahouse in Teko ské Lužany, whe e he had
also had as able buil o his ho ses. All his in o ma ion was con i med
as ue by he Wa Commi ee in adocumen issued o he dis ic Wa
Boa d in Le ice in 1939.173
The house as win e ing place: A combina ion o spa ial
mobili y and e i o ial ancho edness
Asligh ly di e en example o house owne ship is he la ge amily wi h
he su name S ojka who owned ahouse a numbe 11 P ázno ská S ee
in Topoľčany, acco ding o o icial eco ds and he es imonies o wi -
nesses. Al hough he wi ness s a emen s do no indica e when p ecisely
he amily acqui ed he house, se e al descendan s o he amily inde-
penden ly co obo a ed each o he s’ claims ha i was de ini ely be o e
he wa . The head o he household and my esponden s’ g and a he ,
named Michal S ojka (* in 1863, acco ding o a chi al eco ds), had
se e al child en, and hey and hei amilies used he house on aseasonal
basis. His g andson, Š e an S ojka (*1932) said:
172 Ibid. Molná was desc ibing a adi ional way o punishing Lo a a women o b eaking he
ules o i ual pu i y and o ac s conside ed as shame ul. Such beha iou was o me ly deemed
o include he non-wea ing o headsca es by Lo a a women.
173 ŠA Ni a/ Le ice, . Hla noslúžno ský ú ad Le icích zle 1938–1944, ile no. 6318/1942. Also
in a ile en i led Ale ai já ási hadigo ndozo bizo ságá ol, č. j. 6/1939. Tä gy: Ra ael Simon
nagysallói.
83
We had his huge house, he whole Romani amily li ed he e. Some people
we e s ill a elling, hey mos ly aded ho ses. We had ahouse. My pa en s
se led down and ied o li e aci ilised li e. They bough he house wi h he
money om aho se, bu e en hough we had ahouse, we s ill a elled in he
summe . I was no like [how we had a elled] be o e– summe , win e , all
yea ound. No us, no any mo e. We only wen a elling in summe , in he
win e we wen home. My a he Joze li ed he e wi h my mo he Helena.
They had 13 child en. My uncle Ond ej S ojka li ed wi h hem oo.174
This es imony con ains a ious gene ally-held judgmen s, s a ed in
ama e -o - ac way, in which he wi ness dis ances himsel in ace ain
way om a elling, al hough he himsel expe ienced i . The connec ion
be ween being a“ a elling” pe son and an “unci ilised” one e lec s he
discou se he aced as a“ a elling gypsy” in he pos wa pe iod wi h he
need o egis e as such unde Ac no. 74/1958, adiscou se he mus ha e
come ac oss in his li e epea edly. He also poin s o he highe social
s a us o his amily, which acqui ed i s own house a a ime when o he
(Vlax) Roms we e s ill “ a elling”, exp essing dis ance om hose who
did no buy ahome. An in e es ing de ail is ha he house is said o
ha e been bough wi h money om selling ho ses. This again shows ha
ho se ading could be away o easily ea ning money, which o he Roms
managed o ea n wi h g ea di icul y in hose days, al hough he idea
ha he sale o one ho se would enable he pu chase o ahouse is clea ly
an exagge a ion. Ne e heless, his in o ma ion is aluable, especially
i we compa e i wi h he ai ly limi ed, almos negligible possibili y o
Slo ak (non-Vlax) Roms, who du ing his pe iod we e equen ly limi ed
o ecei ing paymen in kind, o buy ahouse. Vain a emp s by Roms
o acqui e houses a e o en desc ibed as he esul o non-Romani un-
willingness o le Roms li e “amongs hem”. The e i o ial and also he
social bounda y be ween Roms and non-Roms ends o be desc ibed as
impe meable. Al hough we do no know he de ails o he sale desc ibed
o simila ansac ions, i is likely ha inancial weal h was, unde ce ain
ci cums ances, able o b eak h ough his bounda y.
The na a o ’s b o he F an išek S ojka (*1940), when asked whe he
his amily had a elled be o e he wa , eplied: “I wasn’ qui e like ha .
They all wen o he ai s, bu e en be o e he wa hey had houses and
hey’d ade. So e en hough we a elled, we s ill had houses o which
174 Pe sonal eco ding o Š e an S ojka (*1932) by he au ho , made on 22 Ma ch 2002 in Os a a.
Czech Republic.
84
we e u ned.”175 The es imony o F an išek S ojka shows he al eady-ou -
lined combina ion o spa ial mobili y and e i o ial ancho edness, in
o he wo ds, he ac ha owning ahouse did no ule ou “ a elling”
ca ied ou o he pu pose o ho se ading.
Acousin o bo h men (Š e an, *1940) con i med wha F an išek S oj-
ka said and enla ged upon he idea o he house as apoin o which he
amily would e u n: “We a elled when Iwas li le. We a elled, bu
a he same ime we had ahouse. I was like ou base om which we’d
se ou and o which we used o e u n. My dad deal in ho ses.”176 The
cousin o hese h ee wi nesses, M s. G .S. (*1939), also he g anddaugh-
e o Michal S ojka, said: “The amily home in Topoľčany was whe e my
g and a he li ed, M . S ojka. The amily a elled h oughou Slo akia,
bu hey’d always go back o my g and a he ’shouse a e a ime, mos ly
o he pe iod om au umn o sp ing.”177 F om he desc ip ion i can be
seen ha he house may ha e been used by (a leas some) amilies as
awin e ing place, in o he wo ds, ahouse o which he amily e u ned
o he win e pe iod, desc ibed by wi nesses as ape iod e y unsui ed
o mo ing a ound wi h wagons.
The gene a ion o my esponden s’ a he s, Michal S ojka’ssons, we e
all bo n in Topoľčany (Jose in 1884, Pa ol in 1887, Ladisla in 1888,
Ond ej in 1898, An on in 1903). Acco ding o he egis y eco ds, hei
a he was bo n he e in 1863178 and s ill li ed he e du ing he Second
Wo ld Wa . Topoľčany was also lis ed as he bi hplace o he as ma-
jo i y o Michal’sg andchild en, bo n in he in e wa pe iod. The egis y
o gypsy iden i y documen s held by he Topoľčany dis ic au ho i ies179
con i ms ha Michal and all his sons ea ned hei li ing as ho se ade s
du ing he second hal o he 1920s and he en i e 1930s. Fo i e sons
in one amily o become ho se ade s is ela i ely a e. As hey we e all
engaged in he same p o ession, he b o he s and hei a he would ha e
had o compe e agains each o he . Such asi ua ion was possible i hey
b anched ou and widened hei e i o ies o include a ious dis ic s o
175 Pe sonal eco ding o F an išek S ojka (*1940) by he au ho , made on 29 Ma ch 2002 inOs a-
a, Czech Republic.
176 Pe sonal eco ding o Š e an S ojka (*1940) by he au ho , made on 16 Ap il 2002 in Os a a,
Czech Republic.
177 VÚA-VHA P aha, . Sbí ka osobních spisů žada elů o ydání os ědčení podle zákona
č. 255/1946 Sb.
178 Pa en s’ names F an išek S ojka and Te ezia Laka ošo á. No e in egis e : Zinga us Valachicus.
Slo akia Chu ch and Synagogue Books, 1592–1935, FamilySea ch(h ps://www. amilysea ch
.o g/a k:/61903/1:1:QVNX-4T3D)), [ci . 18. 6. 2023]; mic o ilm numbe no gi en.
179 ŠA Ni a/ Topoľčany, . OÚ Topoľčany, k. 25a– kn. E idencia cigánskych legi imácií.
85
he o me Czechoslo akia, wi h aclea o ien a ion owa ds he Czech
lands, in he 1930s. The ac ha all he sons managed o main ain hei
p o ession poin s o he amily’shigh social s a us, which is also indica ed
by wi nesses and desc ibed in he p ess o he pe iod.180 They all egula ly
e u ned o Topoľčany and some amily membe s s ayed he e egula ly.
They we e all domiciled he e.
The o icial eco ds also epea edly men ion he add ess o
“11 P ázno ská” in Topoľčany du ing he Second Wo ld Wa .181 All he
amily membe s who we e egis e ed he e had o e u n he e a e he
ban on i ine ancy and li e he e oge he . Acco ding o he o icial egis-
e , in 1942 a o al o 44 people li ed a ha add ess,182 including women
and child en. A u he eco d om he same yea e en adds a u he
se en adul s.183 The ques ion a ises o how la ge his house had o be
i , acco ding o wi nesses, i was used du ing no mal imes by a ious
b anches o he ex ended amily jus as awin e ing place o empo a y
s aging pos and managed o hold mo e han 50 people in 1942. I is no
impossible, howe e , ha some amily membe s may ha e li ed in hei
wagons on land a ached o he house. This unde lines my conclusions
ha spa ial mobili y and ancho edness could be combined and could
complemen each o he . Wi hin asingle amily, o example, he less
well-o membe s migh camp on land belonging o a iche ela i e.
Ishall show asimila model when i comes o he si ua ion du ing he
wa in T enčianska Teplá.
180 In he pe iodical Neues Tagbla ü Schlesien und No dmäh en an a icle was published on page 6
o he 2 June 1937 edi ion en i led “Unsuccess ul elec ion o gypsy king in Opa a”, desc ibing
he elec ion o anew gypsy king o eplace he deceased king o Polish o igin, Michal Kwiek.
One candida e o he pos was An on S ojka, ason o Michal S ojka om Topoľčany. The
a icle s a es ha : “S ojka is a espec ed man. He is he leade o he Topoľčany dis ic and
has 2,000 Slo ak gypsy amilies subjec o him. F om his posi ion he is au ho ised o pass
judgmen s, and he has o de end he in e es s o his clan. He is helped in his dealings by an
assis an whom he has a his disposal.” Acco ding o he desc ip ion, An on S ojka was aRoma-
ni judge who ook pa in Romani cou cases. ([au o ] - chil. “Mißglück e Zigeune Kö nigs-
wahl in T oppau.” Neues Tagbla ü Schlesien und No dmäh en, ol. 4, no. 128 (2. 6. 1937), 6.).
181 Acco ding o he es imonies o all he abo e-ci ed wi nesses, he house was des oyed du ing
he wa by Ge man soldie s.
182 ŠA Ni a/ Topoľčany, . OÚ Topoľčany, Žandá ská s anica Topoľčany, e . 4408/42– Od od
asociálních osôb– p íp a a (10. 9. 1942, pa o he appendix Seznam asociálnych ži lo
acigáňo .
183 Ibid., e . 15.607/1942. Doda očný od od osob zasociálneho ži lu p e p aco ný ú a Dub-
nici nad Váhom.

86
Roms also owned houses in neighbou ing municipali ies. The na a-
i e o Helena Danišo á (*1940) shows ha he amily owned ahouse in
he municipali y o Soľčany:
Iwas bo n in he municipali y o Soľčany in he Topoľčany dis ic . We had
ahouse he e. The whole o my mo he ’s amily li ed he e, he pa en s, b o-
he , sis e s. Jus Vlax Roms, he e we e no Rumung os he e. Ou se lemen
was a he e y beginning o he illage. Be o e he wa we didn’ a el and
we didn’ e en ha e ho ses. Tha was a e he wa .184
The add ess o hei house, numbe 245 Soľčany, was lis ed nex
o hei pa en s’ names in he o icial egis y du ing he wa .185 The
wi ness’semphasis on he posi ion o he Romani se lemen poin s o
a u he impo an aspec ha needs o be aken in o accoun when
s udying he e i o ial links be ween Romani amilies and ace ain mu-
nicipali y, and ha is he spa ial loca ion o hei se lemen o houses
wi hin he municipali y. Aloca ion “a he beginning o he illage” o
in he cen e o he illage o he mos pa es i ied o he good o ac-
cep able si ua ion o Roms in he municipali y. Impo an in o ma ion,
such as whe he someone bough he house, buil i himsel , o had i
buil is no always a ailable, bu can some imes be ound in wi ness na -
a i es– as was he case abo e wi h he es imonies o Roms o iginally
om Topoľčany.
Ano he place whe e he Lo a a li ed in houses in he in e wa pe-
iod was nea by Chyno any, Topoľčany dis ic . Acco ding o a egis e
o he “gypsies” li ing in he municipali y in 1924, 29 Roms li ed he e,
o whom 16 can be iden i ied by hei su names as being Lo a a. The
head o he Lo a a amily was Ján Laka oš, “ho se me chan ”, bo n in
1871 in Chyno any and li ing wi h his wi e E ža, bo n in 1870 also in
Chyno any, and hei eigh child en and six “unlaw ul child en”. They all
had he igh o domicile in Chyno any.186 Acco ding o he wi ness M. S.
(*1945), g anddaugh e o Ján Laka oš and E ža Laka ošo á, he Roms
had hei own houses in he municipali y e en be o e he wa .187 This is
184 Pe sonal eco ding o Helena Danišo á (*1940) by he au ho , made on 29 Ma ch 2002 in
Os a a, Czech Republic.
185 ŠA Ni a/ Topoľčany, . OÚ Topoľčany, e . 15.607/1942. Doda očný od od osob zasociálneho
ži lu p e p aco ný ú a Dubnici nad Váhom.
186 ŠA Ni a/ Topoľčany, . ONÚ Chyno any, šk. 9, zn. 1924. Zoznam cigáno nachodiacich sa
obci Chyno any.
187 VÚA-VHA P aha. Sbí ka osobních spisů žada elůo ydání os ědčení podle zákona č. 255/1946
Sb., pe sonal ile o applican M. S. (*1945).
87
con i med by a epo issued by he no a y in Topoľčany in Augus 1939
conce ning he e ision o domicile o “all gypsies”, acco ding o which
he M. S.’s a he , bo n in Chyno any in 1912 and also domiciled he e,
was an inhabi an o house no. 326 and was employed as a“labou e ”.188
The e i o ial mobili y ou lined in he case o he Topoľčany S oj-
kas can also be obse ed in o he places whe e Roms spen he win e .
Howe e , such mobili y could ake a ious o ms. A ypical example o
aplace o which he Lo a a egula ly e u ned is desc ibed by wi ness
J. P. (*1939) om he municipali y o Madunice, T na a dis ic :
We li ed in Madunice in aRomani se lemen abou 300 me es om he
illage, abou six amilies o us. We would jus spend he win e in Madunice,
we we e egis e ed as esiden he e, and we had ali le house he e. Summe
was he ime o a elling and ho se-dealing.189
Adi e en ype o win e ing place was he si e in H nčia o ce, T na a
dis ic , clea ly connec ed wi h he ela i ely less in ensi e p esence o
Romani amilies in ha municipali y. Wi ness M. B. (*1932) w o e in he
s a emen : “H nčia o ce was whe e we spen he win e . We we e among
he a elling Roms. My amily ea ned i s li ing om sha pening kni es
and scisso s. We would a el o places whe e he e was ademand o
ha se ice.”190 F om wha she goes on o desc ibe, howe e , i was no
ape manen building, bu “aplace by he i e whe e we se up ou wag-
ons and ha ’swhe e we li ed”.191 Asimila expe ience is con i med by
ano he wi ness om he same locali y, I. L. (*1942), who says ha be o e
he wa he amily li ed in wagons: “We a elled, jus be o e he wa we
li ed in wagons on asi e by he illage o H nčia o ce in T na a dis ic .
We we e one big amily, i e b o he s, 20 wagons, maybe 200 o 300 peo-
ple.”192 Many o hei amily membe s we e domiciled in H nčia o ce,
which was why hey had o e u n he e a he s a o he wa .
188 Repo o OÚ Topoľčany, submi ed 30 Augus 1939 wi h e . 5922. Kep as pa o he
documen a ion/pe sonal ile o he applican in VÚA-VHA P aha. Sbí ka osobních spisů
žada elůo ydání os ědčení podle zákona č. 255/1946 Sb., pe sonal ile o applican M. S.
(*1945).
189 J. P., (*1939) eco ded 18 Sep embe 2002 in Holešo by Jana K amářo á, A chi es o Člo ěk
 isni, o.p.s.
190 VÚA-VHA P aha. Sbí ka osobních spisů žada elůo ydání os ědčení podle zákona č. 255/1946
Sb., pe sonal ile o applican M. B. (*1932).
191 M. B., emale (*1932) eco ded 4 June 2001 in P ague, Czech Republic by Jakub K čík. A chi e
o Člo ěk  isni, o.p.s.
192 I. L., emale (*1942) in H nčia o ce, T na a dis ic , Slo akia, eco ded by Milena Alinčo á
in Sadská on 11 Sep embe 2002. A chi e o Člo ěk  isni, o.p.s.
88
The e i o ial bond wi h a pa icula municipali y could ake all
kinds o o ms. The lis o Lo a a who, acco ding o o icial e idence and
es imonies, we e ancho ed in apa icula municipali y in Slo akia does
no , o cou se, end wi h hese ew cases.
I is de ini ely wo h men ioning he municipali y o Vode ady in he
T na a dis ic whe e, acco ding o he o icial egis e o “gypsies” om
1932, he e we e 31 Lo a a193 wi h he su name Ra ael, S ojka o Ho á .
Wi h he excep ion o pa ne s who had ma ied in o he amily, all o
he Roms on he lis we e bo n in Vode ady (be ween 1896 and 1928). All
adul s, wi h he excep ion o a ew housewi es, lis ed hei occupa ions
as “wo ke ” ( obo ník). Tha hey we e ac ually esiden in he municipal-
i y was con i med by he no a y’so ice in 1933 and 1934, while in 1936
ano he 10 people wi h he su name Ra ael we e added o he lis .194
The ac ha all he adul Lo a a appa en ly ea ned hei li elihoods as
“wo ke s” con adic s he gene ally- ecei ed idea ha Roms om his
sub-e hnic g oup adi ionally a oid physical labou .195 Tha his was
as e eo ype is con i med by he abo e-men ioned examples showing
Roms as b ickmake s, me alsmi hs, ag icul u al wo ke s, day labou e s
and o he manual labou p o essions. The ho se- ading amilies did no
pe o m physical wo k and anked highes among he Lo a a in e ms o
s a us and ma e ial weal h, and i is his aspec ha di e en ia ed hem
om amilies wi h alowe social s a us. Howe e , no e e y ho se ade
managed o ea n ali ing selling ho ses, and some less success ul ones
u ned o complemen a y li elihoods.
A esiden o Dolný H ičo , Žilina dis ic 196, wi ness V. S. (*1939),
desc ibes a amily o Lo a a homeowne s he e be o e he Second Wo ld
Wa , as does wi ness M. L. (bo n 1940) om he municipali y o Veľké
Lo ce, Šu any dis ic 197 and wi ness J. B. (*1934) om he municipali y
o Mý ne Ludany, Le ice dis ic , whe e he says his amily owned ahouse
193 Fo mo e on he Romani se lemen in Vode ady in he ea ly 1960s and he local Lo a a com-
muni y, see Ku lík– Ga udo 1999: 18.
194 ŠA Ni a/ T na a, ObNÚ Vode ady, kn. 27– E idencia cigáňo
195 Nina Pa elčíko á. “Vz ah Romů kp áci– kon on ace s e eo ypů shis o ickými doklady”.
Český lid 102, no. 3 (2015): 308.
196 VÚA-VHA Sbí ka osobních spisů žada elůo ydání os ědčení podle zákona č. 255/1946 Sb.,
pe sonal ile o applican V. S. (*1939).
197 “Be o e he wa we li ed in ase lemen nea he municipali y o Veľké Lo ce, abou 500 me es
om he illage. We had ali le house made o un i ed b icks, one oom.” (Ibid). Roms se ling
in Veľké Lo ce a e he Fi s Wo ld Wa a e also desc ibed by wi ness Pe e Laka oš, whose
g and a he , ablacksmi h, se led he e oge he wi h his sons. Pe sonal eco ding wi h Pe e
Laka oš (*1956) by he au ho , made on 30 Ma ch 2018 inT došo ce, Slo akia.
89
“ igh in he illage, among he gadjos [non-Roma]”.198 Ano he o icial
eco d om he Chie o Police’so ice desc ibes h ee wooden houses
belonging o Roms wi h he su name Ra ael and Banda in Ma ušo á,
Le ice dis ic being bu n down in 1938 and he subsequen expulsion
o hese Roms om he illage. The Roms we e said o ha e li ed pe -
manen ly in he houses un il ha ime.199
O cou se, he ques ion emains open as o wha he houses he Lo-
a a owned a ha ime looked like. Ibelie e we should en isage hem
as being simila o he houses ha he so-called Slo ak Roms owned and
li ed in a ha ime in Slo akia. I canno be excluded ha some o hem
we e wooden buildings and dwellings o an imp o ised na u e, some-
imes e e ed o pejo a i ely by he au ho i ies as “gypsy shacks” and
by he wi nesses hemsel es as “hu s”. I he house was made o b ick o
s one, ha ac was duly s essed by he wi nesses. I should be no iced,
howe e , ha some houses owned by Lo a a had o icially-issued and
egis e ed house numbe s, which we e no usually allo ed o non-s an-
da d buildings (shacks, ho els e c.). Ahouse numbe indica es ha he
dwelling-place was o ape manen na u e and i s owne ’s inancial si u-
a ion easonably secu e. In some places, howe e , he ele an building
and egis a ion laws and dec ees may ha e been ci cum en ed, and so
hese cases o dwelling-places mus be judged indi idually.
In luence o li elihood on spa ial mobili y
The p o ession in which apa icula amily was engaged had a unda-
men al in luence on he o m o i s spa ial mobili y. I was o en also one
o he main easons why amilies ei he mo ed e i o ially o emained
in ace ain place.
In he egis e o Roms unde aken in 1925 in he Slo ak egions,
a o al o 60,315 “se led” Roms and 1,877 “ a elling” Roms we e lis -
ed. These we e unde s ood by Nečas o be Vlax Roms.200 He said he
abo e-men ioned egis e con ained in o ma ion on 63 ho se deale s,
198 VÚA-VHA P aha, . Sbí ka osobních spisů žada elů o ydání os ědčení podle zákona
č. 255/1946 Sb., pe sonal ile o applican J. B. (*1934).
199 The houses we e said o ha e been des oyed by local esiden s who wan ed o d i e he Roms
ou o he illage by so doing. ŠA Ni a/ Le ice, . Hla noslúžno sky ú ad Le icích zle
1938–1944, složka 5744/1944, č. j. 3004/42– Rá ael An al és János o ábbá Banda Miklos
cigányok a ózkodása o 20. No embe 1942.
200 C ibo Nečas, “Slo enš í Romo é le ech 1938–1945”. Sbo ník p ací Filoso ické akul y b něnské
uni e zi y C 51 (B no: Masa yko a uni e zi a, 2004).
96
Dob á. As Iha e men ioned abo e, his municipali y immedia ely neigh-
bou ing T enčianska Teplá had al eady been se led o gene a ions by
a amily o Slo ak (non-Vlax) Roms wi h he su name Facona. This is
also whe e Zaga and Ján’s h ee eldes child en we e bo n. We may spec-
ula e whe he Zaga and he child en li ed oge he wi h he pa ne Ján
Facona’spa en s in one o he h ee houses ha he au ho i ies labelled
“gypsy shacks” (see Fig. 2), o whe he she esided in he municipali y in
adi e en way. The e a e no documen s om he beginning o he 1920s
showing he spa ial mobili y o Zaga’s amily.
Zaga’spa ne Ján Facona is asligh ly unclea igu e abou whom
he e a e only agmen a y o icial eco ds, which end in he mid-1920s
wi h he bi h o hei younges child en, G ó a (*1923) and Jose , nick-
named Jouško (*1924). A e hey we e bo n, Zaga S ojko á does no
seem o ha e had any mo e child en, p obably because when he young-
es son was bo n she was al eady 37. How old Ján Facona was when Jose
was bo n is no known om o icial eco ds, since Iha e no been able
o ind Ján’sda e o bi h anywhe e. F om he mid-1920s, he name o
Ján Facona no longe occu s in connec ion wi h Zaga S ojko á’s amily,
and so Imay su mise ha he was no longe li ing wi h Zaga and hei
child en. I is no impossible ha by his ime he had al eady died. Iha e
no been able o ind any de ailed in o ma ion ega ding his dea h.
In he 1920s, Zaga’seldes son Filo (*1907) s a s o become ano a-
ble igu e. In o icial eco ds om he Fi s Republic e a he is labelled
a“ho se ade ”, e ealing ha his b anch o he amily was in ha busi-
ness. A he beginning o he 1920s, Filo ook awi e, Anna Laka ošo á,
whose Romani nickname was Čaja and who was bo n in Veľké Os a ice
in he dis ic called Pa izánske oday.
In subsequen yea s, hei amily seems o ha e g adually become
mo e o ien ed owa ds he neighbou ing, conside ably la ge municipal-
i y o T enčianska Teplá. This is whe e Anna’sdaugh e G ó a was bo n,
seemingly in he sp ing o 1923, ollowed in 1924 by ason, g andson o
Zaga, named Vilém S ojka, wi h he Romani nickname Janino. Nex o
he eco d o his bi h in he egis e he e is ano e s a ing “bo n in a en
below Dubo ec”221, indica ing ha he amily was a ha ime camping o
li ing in a en benea h he hill called Dubo ec a he edge o he illage.
Filo S ojka was 17 when his son was bo n, and so i is likely ha Filo’s
221 Da a impa ed by employees o he egis y o ice a T enčianska Teplá. Dubo ec is awooded
hill ha di ides T enčianska Teplá om neighbou ing No á Dubnica. The mo he ini ially
old he au ho i ies he name was Má ia Kud iko á, bu la e amended his o he eal name,
Anna Laka ošo á.

97
nuclea amily was li ing a ha ime oge he wi h he amily o Filo’s
mo he Zaga and his younge siblings. F om he places o bi h o o he
child en, Zaga’syounges son Jouško (1924, T enčín) and Zaga’snex
g andson, Filo and Anna’sson wi h he nickname Bobko (1926, Se eď)
i is clea ha Zaga S ojko á’sb anch o he amily was mobile in he
1920s in he dis ic o T enčín and i s su oundings bu does no seem o
ha e exceeded he a ea o wes e n Slo akia. The amily engaged in ho se
ading. Zaga and o he women in he amily we e caugh and a es ed
o “begging and ag ancy” se e al imes, which indica es ha his was
a equen complemen a y sou ce o making ali ing. I was consis en ly
punished by he au ho i ies a ha ime and in many cases esul ed in
sho p ison sen ences, mos ly o one day o amaximum o se e al days.
The amily o Š e an S ojka, S .
Iha e managed o lea n somewha mo e om he eco ds o he 1920s
abou Zaga’sb o he Š e an S ojka (*1891) and his descendan s. Gi en
ha om his decade on he e we e se e al o he men named Š e an S oj-
ka who we e pa o he amily, I e e o he eldes Š e an, he ounde o
his amily line, as Š e an S ojka, S . The bi hda es and bi hplaces o his
amily membe s show ha Š e an S ojka S .’s h ee g andsons, he sons o
his son Ján, we e bo n in T enčianská Teplá in 1919, 1923 and 1933, and
we e also named Š e an, and ha Š e an S ojka, S . himsel had ano he
son, bo n in 1929, who was also named Š e an. They we e all domiciled
in he municipali y. Acco ding o he E idencie ydaných domo ských lis o
(Regis e o domicile ce i ica es issued), Š e an S ojka, S . applied wice,
once in 1924 and once in 1927, o adomicile ce i ica e in T enčianska
Teplá (in bo h cases he applica ion s a es: “ o eason o iden i y”).222
In he Ap il 1924 na ionwide egis e o “gypsies” domiciled in munic-
ipali ies in Slo akia, published in pa by Nečas, he numbe o Roms in
T enčianska Teplá is gi en as eigh and in Dob á, 11.223 Howe e , Roms
who we e domiciled in he municipali y bu who we e no p esen du ing
he census we e e iden ly no on he lis , so he in o ma ion on he size o
222 ŠA T enčín, . ObNÚ T enčinska Teplá, k. 62– E idencia ydaných domo ských lis o obce
T . Teplej aDob ej od oku 1924–1939.
223 This is e y p obably he Facona amily, who li ed he e in se e al houses wi h numbe s de-
sc ibed in he 1930 census as “gypsy hu s”. ŠA T enčín, . ObNÚ T enčianska Teplá, Sčí anie
ľudu z oku 1930, e . č. 6009/30. C ibo Nečas, “Ma e iál oRómech na Slo ensku z oku 1924”.
His o ická demog a ie, ol. 22, no. 1 (1998): 177–178.
98
he Romani communi y in T enčianska Teplá is clea ly incomple e. Lis s
o names om he same pe iod show ha he e we e no o he Romani
amilies li ing di ec ly in he municipali y excep o he S ojkas, so he
numbe o eigh Roms ough o co espond o he numbe o people on
he lis om his amily.
F om he o icial eco ds, howe e , i is impossible o pinpoin o wha
ex en Š e an S ojka, S . and his ela i es we e e i o ially connec ed o
T enčianska Teplá. I may be asked– and his is aques ion which Ialso
deal wi h in he case o Zaga S ojko á– o wha ex en his amily had
a ela i ely pe manen base he e and whe he hey se ou om he e o
do business (abo e all, ho se ading) in he su ounding a ea, o whe h-
e , on he con a y, hey spen mos o hei ime a elling hese ou es
and only e u ned spo adically o T enčianska Teplá. I hey did eside
he e easonably pe manen ly, did hey li e in awagon o en , o did
hey al eady ha e an imp o ised dwelling o win e ing place o which
hey e u ned?
Icanno answe hese ques ions wi h ce ain y o he pe iod o he
1920s. Ade ailed sea ch o he T enčín a chi es and he local ch onicle
yielded no esul s. I is in e es ing ha in he a chi al iles o he munic-
ipali y, all he o icial eco ds ela ing o Š e an S ojka, S . in ha decade
and he ollowing one lis his place o esidence (o ac ual esidence) as
T enčianska Teplá, bu wi h no speci ic add ess o house numbe as he
o he esiden s ha e. This indica es ha Š e an S ojka, S . and his amily
did no li e in ahouse wi h an o icially egis e ed numbe , bu we e jus
egis e ed as belonging o he municipali y, wi h hei domicile he e.
S ill, he eco ds ela ing o Š e an S ojka, S . in his and o he de-
cades in he collec ion o he no a y’so ice in T enčianska Teplá a e mo e
comple e and consis en han a e he eco ds o o he Roms om his
amily. They always lis his ull bi hda e and i is always he same, jus as
he names o his pa en s a e always he same, and his p o ession is “ho se
me chan ”. I is clea ha he o icials knew Š e an. This was no he case
wi h o he Roms, including his pa ne and child en, whose da es and
places o bi h, i s names and su names a y ac oss he eco ds.
Š e an S ojka, S . and his eldes son Ján (*1905) ea ned hei li ings
as ho se ade s, a elling wi h ho ses and awagon a ound he munic-
ipali ies o he nea by a ea. Aunique pic u e o hei li e is gi en in an
a icle published by he newspape Lido é no iny in July 1924, desc ib-
ing hei alleged con lic wi h he “gypsy blacksmi h” He ák in Veľké
Bie o ce, amunicipali y in he T enčín dis ic abou 25 kilome es om
T enčianska Teplá. The dispu e is said o ha e a isen o e asil e chain
99
wi h aho se’shead. In he a icle, Š e an S ojka is p esen ed as a“gypsy
me chan who was selling and buying ho ses he e, […] agypsy duke,
weal hy, who does no speak o e e y gypsy”, bu who because o he
desi ed jewelle y224 “lowe ed himsel and wen o He ák o ask him o sell
him he chain.” 225 The alue o his a icle as es imony is un o una ely
educed because o i s sensa ionalis one,226 bu i indica es he high
social s a us and socioeconomic posi ion o Š e an S ojka, S . (me chan ,
duke, weal hy) compa ed o He ák, whose posi ion could no ha e been
oo low, howe e , since he was ablacksmi h who had his own house and
amaid, which was ce ainly no common a ha ime among he g oup
known as Slo ak Roms. In addi ion, he epo indica es ha an added
ac o in he dispu e was he dis ance be ween he wo g oups o Roms.
These may be ecognised as he Slo ak Roms, ep esen ed by He ák and
his wi e, and he Lo a a, ep esen ed by S ojka a he and son.
The 1930s: A change o spa ial ajec o ies
While in he 1920s bo h S ojka siblings and hei amilies had been e i-
o ially connec ed o asimila deg ee wi h he municipali y o T enčian-
ska Teplá, and while hei spa ial ajec o ies clea ly did no di e much
ei he , being limi ed o he wide egion o Wes e n Slo akia a he
mos , in he 1930s he e was adi e gence be ween he spa ial mobili y
o Zaga’s amily and he b o he Š e an’s. Once again, Ishall econs uc
he spa ial mobili y o he amily’s wo b anches sepa a ely. Fi s Ishall
look a he ajec o ies o Š e an S ojka, S ., which in his decade we e
mo e connec ed no jus o he a ea o wes e n Slo akia, bu also o he
municipali y o T enčianska Teplá. I shall hen desc ibe my indings
224 Jewelle y like his is s ill hough o by Lo a a in he Czech lands and Slo akia as as a us sym-
bol, especially among high-s a us Roms (Angluno Rom, K ísako Rom, a d.), see also Ma ké a
Hajská, “The p esen a ion o social s a us on asocial ne wo k: The ole o Facebook among he
Vlax Romani communi y o Eas e n-Slo ak o igin in Leices e , UK”. Romani S udies, ol. 29,
no. 2 (2019): 135.
225 [au ho ] -el. “Cikáni S ojko é (Po o a T enčíně).” Lido é no iny, ol. 32, no. 331 (3. 7. 1924), 6.
226 I is in e es ing ha Lido é no iny– which migh be desc ibed as one o he mos se ious dailies
in Czechoslo akia in he pe iod in ques ion and o key impo ance o analysing he poli ical
si ua ion in he Czech lands– when w i ing abou Slo akia o Sub-Ca pa hian Uk aine, would
o en w i e in ap ejudiced and sensa ionalis manne abou he local inhabi an s and e hnic
mino i ies. The his o ian Ka eřina Čapko á has d awn my a en ion in his con ex o s o ies
w i en in asimila one abou Hasidic Jews and o he mino i ies om he sub-Ca pa hian
egion.
100
conce ning he mobili y o Zaga S ojko á and he child en, which be-
came mo e and mo e o ien ed owa ds he Czech lands.
T ajec o ies o he amily o Š e an S ojka, S . in he 1930s
As shown by a chi al eco ds, in he 1930s Š e an S ojka, S . and his ami-
ly mo ed a ound he a ea o Wes e n Slo akia. Acco ding o he a ailable
a chi al sou ces, hei spa ial mobili y chie ly co e ed he T enčín dis ic
and he nea by a eas. The g ea majo i y o eco ds localise Š e an S ojka,
S . and his descendan s in he 1930s in he T enčín a ea and su ounding
dis ic s: O 38 localisa ion poin s Imanaged o ind om he 1930s,
28 come om oday’sT enčín dis ic , o which 14 a e om T enčianska
Teplá i sel , while se en u he poin s include oday’s Ila a dis ic ,
P ie idza, By ča, Ma in and Žilina.227 An excep ion a e h ee eco ds
om No he n Mo a ia (Mís ek 1931, Kunčice 1931, Český Těšín 1934),
o which one conce ns Š e an228 and wo his eldes son Ján.229 This indi-
ca es ha his b anch o he amily was also mobile in pa s o Mo a ia
no oo dis an om Slo akia.
Ano he unique sou ce ha con ains much in o ma ion abou he
li e o Š e an S ojka, S . is a chap e om Slo ak jou nalis Sla o
Kalný’sbook Cigánsky plač asmich [Gypsy Tea s and Laugh e ] en i led
“Uk i deny konia ” [The w onged ho se ade ]. In i he au ho desc ibes
he main e en s in he li e o “Š e an S ojka om T enčianska Teplá”,
desc ibed as a amous ho se ade whom he au ho epea edly used o
mee and who was g owing old a he s a o he 1960s in asmall co age
in T enčianska Teplá.230 The chap e s a s wi h an ou line o he a eas in
which Š e an S ojka ca ied ou his ading ac i i ies. Gi en he con ex
o wha comes nex , he desc ip ion clea ly conce ns he in e wa pe iod:
E en oday, when you ask olde a me s in he illages, he meadows and
he hills om T na a o Lip o ský Mikuláš, om Báno ce o No é Zámky,
227 Ibase his on a chi al ma e ial in ŠA T enčín, . ObNÚ T enč. Teplá, e . č. 77, k. 19– E idencia
es aných občiano obce T enčinska Teplá 1933–1949.
228 A epo om he local au ho i y in Mís ek da ed 15 May 1931 s a es ha Š e an S ojka, S . had
a i ed he e and was asking o enew he i ine ancy documen issued o him in Ap il 1929 in
Žilina and enewed he e in Ap il 1930. Š e an was accompanied by his pa ne Ka olína and
daugh e Iboja. SOkA F ýdek Mís ek, . OÚ Mís ek, I. č. 868, Signa u a: III/1.
229 In 1931, Ján’sdaugh e Papuša was bo n in Kunčice, see ŠA T enčín, . ObNÚ T enč. Teplá,
e . č. 77, k. 19– E idencia es aných občiano obce T enčinska Teplá 1933–1949.
230 Kalný, Cigánsky plač, 60.
101
and e en on he Mo a ian side a ound Uhe ský B od, Hodonín and Vse ín
whe he hey know he old gypsy S ojka, hey will cas hei minds back, hink
ha d, suddenly come o li e, a an o w inkles will sp ead o e hei aces and
hey will say: “The ade ?... O cou se we knew him. He ou sma ed e e y
o he deale he aded so cle e ly.231
A he ime o he chap e ci ed (1960), Š e an S ojka was almos 70
and had been ading ho ses o o e 50 yea s in ahighly unique way.
The au ho o he book spends se e al pa ag aphs desc ibing how S ojka
was said o ca y ou his ade, no doub d awing on a ious s e eo ypical
anecdo es ci cula ing abou Romani ho se ade s a ha ime. Ishall
gi e wo examples which, acco ding o Kalný, showed S ojka, S .’sb il-
lian p o essional as u eness combined wi h his use o a ious uses and
sha p dealing p ac ices:
S ojka knew how o ans o m ho ses! Wi h his expe ouch, sec e d essage
and s ange odde , he would change e en aca cass in o agalloping ho se.”232
“… ew could ou wi him, ew could knock him ou in aslippe y ading duel.
His omnip esence and gypsy o iginali y had made him popula . Wi h his
dealings and me hods he was amous as a ade pa ne , ab oke , asalesman,
ea ed, ha ed, h ee hund ed imes cu sed.233
Š e an S ojka, S ., who acco ding o Kalný was p esen as a ade
li e ally e e ywhe e, appea ing a he igh ime a e e y signi ican ho se
ma ke , was said o ha e amassed no jus p es ige, bu also a ela i ely
la ge amoun o money. Kalný exp esses ho o a S ojka’sexploi a i e
p ac ices and alleges hey we e behind he amoun o money he made.
We ha e o ake in o accoun he ac ha Kalný was s a ing om he
con empo a y p inciples o socialis doc ine, which ejec ed “exploi -
a i e sel -en ichmen ” as asign o capi alism. This was ce ainly e lec ed
in he gene ally mocking one used o desc ibe Š e an S ojka, S . and his
ading me hods, combined wi h ama kedly acis disdain o his “gypsy
o igin”. This was clea ly he way in which Kalný came o e ms wi h he
ac ha Š e an S ojka, S ., as a“gypsy”, amembe o ag oup ha a ha
ime was assumed o be on he inges o socie y, had managed o amass
so much p ope y and social ecogni ion a ha ime.
231 Ibid., 59.
232 Ibid., 60.
233 Ibid., 61.

102
Kalný s a es ha Š e an S ojka, S . used o a el wi h he aid o alad-
de wagon, o which he ha nessed “ he ho oughb ed b indled ho ses,
he o he s he a ached wi h opes behind he wagon, pu his amily inside
and o hey wen .”234 These desc ip ions may, howe e , co espond mo e
o he pos wa pe iod, om which Iha e ound pho og aphs o Š e an
S ojka, S .’s amily wi h aho se ha nessed o aladde wagon. Wha ype
o wagon he owned in he 1930s is no known p ecisely.
In he municipal egis e o ho ses ha was kep be ween 1936 and
1939, he e a e h ee eco ds o ho ses ha Š e an S ojka, S . decla ed o
he au ho i ies. In 1936, he was lis ed as he owne o abay ho se wi h
ablaze, es ima ed alue 2,400 Czechoslo ak c owns, which died in 1937 in
he municipali y o Velká Udiča, Po ážská Bys ice dis ic . In July 1937,
Š e an S ojka, S . bough om Ju aj Ko lá ik o O echo é anine-yea -old
gelding d augh ho se, ches nu wi h as a , es ima ed alue 3,500 c owns.
He sold i o someone in Kunčice on 2 Decembe 1937. He bough an-
o he egis e ed ho se om his neighbou Ladisla Leho a o Teplá, ap-
pa en ly in 1937, and sold i in June 1938 o someone om Bolešo , Ila a
dis ic , bu nei he he p ice no adesc ip ion o ha ho se a e gi en.235
Ialso ha e disco e ed a ela i ely la ge amoun o in o ma ion on Š e-
an S ojka S .’seldes son Ján, bo n in 1905. In his case, oo, i is possible
o econs uc his e i o ial shi s du ing he pe iod in ques ion, abo e
all in he a ea o he neighbou ing dis ic s and in he su oundings o
T enčianska Teplá, whe e he was domiciled. In 1935, he no a y’so ice
in T enčianska Teplá issued him ace i ica e o domicile a his eques .236
While in he eco ds om 1933 o 1935 he e is ano e nex o his name
saying “ esidence uns able”, in he eco ds om he second hal o he
1930s, T enčianska Teplá is lis ed as his place o esidence.237
As can be seen om he eco ds o his p o ession in he local no a y
o ice’s egis e , Ján ea ned his li ing as aho se ade oo, and i may be
assumed ha he se ou independen ly o buy and sell ho ses, wi hou
Š e an S ojka, S . Iha e ound jus spo adic e idence o Ján’sac i i y. Fo
example, he e is an announcemen o li es ock passes los , published
in he pe iodical K ajinský es ník p e Slo ensko in 1935,238 men ioning he
234 Ibid., 59.
235 ŠA T enčín, . ObNÚ T enč. Teplá, Adminis a í ne spisy 1939, složka Klasi ikácia koní,
e . č. 5542.
236 Ibid., e . č. 77, k. 19, E idencia ydaných domo ských lis o k obci T enčinska Teplá
1933–1939.
237 Ibid.
238 “Ločaj Ju aj zHája oznámil s a u d och dobi čích paso ”, Rub ika S a y, K ajinský es ník p e
Slo ensko 8, Ap il 10, 1935, p. 187.
103
Map 1: Recons uc ion o Š e an S ojka’s amily spa ial mobili y in he 1930s.
Raško ice
1938
T enčín
1933 193 193 193
1938 1939 19 
19 1 19 $
Velká By ča
1938
Žilina
19$9
Te;lička nad VáCoA
1933
P ie idza
1933
Ila a
193 193
T enčianZka Te;lá
19$ 19$ 19$9
193ca19
Vepkm Bie o ce
19$
104
sale o aho se– an eigh -yea -old da k b own gelding wi h asmall whi e
s a – o which ali es ock pass was issued in T enčianska Teplá o Ján
S ojka, domiciled he e. Ján subsequen ly sold ha ho se o Ju aj Ločaj
o Háj nea Tu čianske Teplice. In Feb ua y 1939, Ján S ojka bough
ano he o icially- egis e ed ho se om Ján Mandinec o Vyško ec (Uh-
e ské H adiš ě dis ic ).239
I is clea ha he mobili y o Š e an S ojka S .’s amily b anch in he
1930s was chie ly connec ed wi h he e i o y o Wes e n Slo akia, o
which we e added occasional jou neys o No h Mo a ia240 a he s a o
he decade. F om coun less eco ds no ing he esidence o Š e an S ojka,
S . and his amily in he municipali y o T enčianska Teplá o a ious
easons, Iin e ha hey ei he e u ned o he municipali y equen ly
o had ape manen base he e. Once again he ques ion a ises o o wha
ex en Š e an’s amily may be p esumed o ha e esided in T enčianska
Teplá on amo e pe manen basis. Al hough hei i ine an ac i i ies we e
ca ied ou mos equen ly in he immedia e geog aphical su oundings
o he municipali y in which a ious membe s o he S ojka amily we e
egis e ed as bo h esiden and domiciled, and while his migh sugges
ha hey we e a leas pa ly se led he e, Iha e no managed o ind any
p oo ha hey had a easonably pe manen p esence in he communi y
be o e he second hal o he 1930s.
Š e an S ojka, S . applied o he no a y’so ice in T enčianska Teplá
a o al o ou imes (in he yea s 1935 o 1939) o adomicile documen
( he easons a e mos ly unspeci ied, and jus once is a eason lis ed, ha
o ma iage). In all cases, domicile and esidency in T enčianska Teplá is
lis ed nex o his name on he basis o his “ igh o domicile on he basis
o Sec ion 6, A . XXII/1886.”241
On he o he hand, he e a e no es in he o icial eco ds ega ding
he uns able esidence o Š e an S ojka, S . and his amily membe s. Fo
example, in he cases o his daugh e s, pa ne , and niece ( he daugh e
o Š e an’ssis e Má ia), he egis e some imes lis s hei esidence and
domicile as in T enčianska Teplá, al hough he no e: “domicile uns able/
239 ŠA T enčín, . ObNÚ T enč. Teplá, Adminis a í ne spisy 1939, složka Klasi ikácia koní,
e . č. 5542.
240 The jou nalis Kalný also emembe ed he a ea a ound Uhe ský B od, clea ly on he basis o
de ails gi en o him by Š e an S ojka, S . himsel (Kalný, Cigánsky plač).
241 ŠA T enčín, . ObNÚ T enč. Teplá, e . č. 77, k. 19– E idencia ydaných domo ských lis o
kobci T enčinska Teplá 1933–1939. and E idencia ydaných domo ských lis o kobci T en-
činska Teplá 1939–1945.
105
unasce ained” o “ esidence uns able” some imes appea s nex o hei
names. The epea ed no es added nex o hei names, such as “gypsy
agabond”, “gypsy– agabond”, “ a elling gypsy” and “gypsy wi hou
employmen ”, do no , howe e , mean ha hese people did no li e in
he municipali y, since he e m “gypsy agabond” was used a ha ime
as asynonym o he e m “gypsy”. The disp opo ion be ween he lack
o de ail abou Š e an S ojka S .’schild en and he women in he amily
and he igu e o Š e an himsel shows ha he was he one who had
dealings wi h he au ho i ies as head o he amily. In some cases his son
Ján migh ha e been in ol ed, bu he o he membe s o he amily we e
li le known o he non-Romani su oundings and o he au ho i ies in
pa icula . The au ho i ies a ha ime ope a ed ia he o icial heads
o such g oups, o whom he majo i y popula ion used he wo d ajda
(la e , du ing he wa , his became acompulso y, elec ed unc ion). I was
hese “heads o amilies” o ajdas who deal wi h o icials on behal o
hei amily membe s. This allowed he ajdas o keep he o he membe s
o he local communi y in ace ain limbo.
A u ning poin came in he second hal o he 1930s, when Š e an
managed o buy ahouse and land in he municipali y. This de ail i s ap-
pea s on an o icial lis o domicile ce i ica es issued wi h he da e 22 Jan-
ua y 1938, when his esiden ial add ess is gi en as “no. 273 T enčianska
Teplá”. This is he i s ime ha a esidence linked o apa icula ad-
d ess, aspeci ic house, appea s in he municipal eco ds in connec ion
wi h he S ojka, S . amily. Acco ding o Kalný, he land was bough and
he house buil in 1936 o 1937.
In 1936 o 1937, when his walle was so ull i was bu s ing a he seams and
he lea he bag he kep unde he sea o he wagon was s u ed ound and
a wi h money, S ojka h ew awedding pa y o his daugh e ha is s ill
emembe ed o his day. I las ed h ee days and h ee nigh s and no only
did he wedding gues s and he innkeepe come o he eas , bu illage s
who we e no shy o who wan ed o ha e a ee d ink and o cong a ula e
he newlyweds and a he S ojka came oo. A e he wedding he coun ed
his money and ound he s ill had ahuge amoun , no much had disappea ed
ei he om his walle o his lea he bag.
All I’m lacking is ahouse, he hough o himsel .– E en i Ine e sleep in
i , Ineed ahouse. Ahouse is ahouse, ahouse coun s o some hing. People
will say: Tha S ojka’sdi e en , he has ahouse.
One day he se ou wi h ab ickmake iend along he oad ha leads om
T enčianska Teplá o T enčianske Teplice and chose asui able piece o land.
112
ly, b oadly co esponding o nuclea amilies, mo ed a ound he e i o y
independen ly and hen me up again a a anged places.
The amily o Zaga’sdaugh e Ba bo a (*1914) and he pa ne and
la e husband, Ju aj Ho á h (*1912) spli o om Zaga’s amily in he
ea ly 1930s. Thei i s child was bo n in Feb ua y 1933. A ew yea s la -
e , Ba bo a’ssis e Kuluš (*1920) also peeled away om he amily. She
ma ied An onín Ho á , whose Romani nickname was Vido (*1914)
and who was he b o he o he b o he -in-law, Ba bo a’spa ne Ju aj.
Ishall spend ali le ime on he Ho á b o he s now. They came
om aLo a a amily domiciled in Bohdano ce, T na a dis ic . Thei
a he , Pa ol Laka oš, was bo n in Bohdano ce in 1871 o pa en s named
Joannes Laka oš and Má ia S ojka. In he egis e o bi hs he is en e ed
as Paulus Laka os ( he La in o m o his i s name), and he no e Zinga i
agi [Gypsy agabonds], hic dic i [he e called = so-called] Valachici [Wal-
lachians] RCa h [Roman Ca holic].259
Pa ol Laka oš ook awi e, Má ia, whose su name was Ho á and
who was bo n in 1885 in T na a o pa en s named Pa ol Ho á and
Má ia S ojko á. Acco ding o he eco ds, Pa ol Laka oš and Má ia
Ho á o á had ou sons– in addi ion o An onín and Ju aj he e was
he eldes , Ma in (*a ound 1910, p obably Má ia’sillegi ima e son om
he p e ious ela ionship) and he younges , Lud ík (*1918). As was he
cus om wi h unma ied couples, all he sons ook hei mo he ’ssu -
name, Ho á . Pa ol and Má ia did ge ma ied in he end, bu only a e
all hei sons we e bo n, in July 1918.260 Wi h he ma iage hei mo he
gained he su name Laka ošo á, bu he sons emained Ho á . Wi h his
amily, as wi h he S ojka amily and T enčianska Teplá, i is possible o
obse e e i o ial ies wi h amunicipali y, in his case Bohdano ce nad
T na ou. The a he o he amily, Pa ol, was bo n he e in 1871, as was
Ju aj in 1912, An onín in 1914 and he younges , Lud ík, in 1918. The
amily was las eco ded in 1931 in he o icial “ egis e o gypsies”261
li ing on e i o y alling in he adminis a i e a ea o he hen-no a-
y’so ice in Bole áz, belonging o he municipali y o Bohdano ce. This
was also he only Romani amily li ing in Bohdano ce. The head o he
amily, Pa ol Laka oš, is lis ed as a“ho se ade ” by li elihood. Ano e a
he end o he census en y o he whole amily eads: “Wande ing in an
259 Slo akia Chu ch and Synagogue Books, 1592–1935, FamilySea ch(h ps:// amilysea ch.o g
/a k:/61903/1:1:V1CR-8Y2),), [ci . 1. 6. 2023]; FHL mic o ilm 2,386,075.
260 Š á ny a chí T na a. ObNÚ Bole áz k. 48, kn. E idencia cigáňo 1931–1935.
261 Ibid.

113
unknown place”, and he eco d is da ed 2 Decembe 1931.262 Thanks o
a chi al inds in he s a e dis ic a chi e o P aha- ýchod in Přemyšlení,
howe e , Iam able o s a e wi h ce ain y he name o he place whe e he
amily was p esen a abou ha ime. I was his amily who, oge he
wi h he amily o Zaga, Filip and Anna, had been checked by policemen
in he Cen al Bohemian municipali y o Mnicho ice on 26 No embe
1931 jus acouple o days be o e his o icial eco d was made.263 On
he lis made du ing he police con ol in Mnicho ice, all he membe s
o he amilies checked we e men ioned by name. The amily headed
by Zaga included he daugh e s Ba bo a (age 17) and Kuluš (age 11).
Righ behind hem a e he names o Pa ol Laka oš, his wi e Má ia, who
by hen was al eady using he su name Laka ošo á, and hei ou sons.
I is in e es ing ha he su names o he sons a e no lis ed p ecisely, bu
eco ded as being he same as hei pa en s, Laka oš. Thei eal su name
was Ho á , which hey had used in p e ious yea s and would also use
a e he wa . I is likely ha by hen Ju aj, a 21 o icially an adul , was
al eady li ing wi h he 17-yea -old Ba bo a. Thei pa en s ( he seemingly
widowed Zaga and he couple o Pa ol and Má ia) may ha e seen each
o he al eady as chanamiku a, a e m ha es ablishes a ela ionship be-
ween he pa en s o ayoung couple. Among he Lo a a, his was a e-
la ionship adi ionally connec ed wi h mu ual espec . I is likely ha
he amily o Pa ol Laka oš and his child en, like ha o Zaga S ojko á,
mo ed a ound he Czech lands ala ge pa o he ime in subsequen
yea s, p obably mos ly in Mo a ia.264
Ne e heless, Ba bo a and Ju aj mo ed a ound independen ly om
Feb ua y 1933, when hei son was bo n in he Slo ak municipali y o
Teplička nad Váhom. This is also, o anumbe o yea s, he las o icial
eco d ha Iha e ound ega ding as ay by someone om Zaga S oj-
ko á’s b anch o he amily on Slo ak e i o y; all he o he eco ds
ind he amily in he Czech lands. Imanaged o localise he amily o
Ba bo a and Ju aj Ho á in Sep embe 1933 in B no, in Decembe 1933
in Kunš á ,265 and o he las ime in 1936 in Mo a ská Os a a, whe e
262 Ibid. The da a is con i med as s ill alid as o 3 Ma ch 1933. No o he eco d o hem was made
in his book o he municipali y o Bohdano ce.
263 SOkA Přemyšlení, . OU Říčany, i. č. 427, e . č. 246. Výkaz cikánů po ulných přis ižených
 oce 1931 če nickou s anicí Mnicho icích.
264 Iam no able o iden i y he p ecise mo emen s o Pa ol Laka oš and Má ia Laka ošo á du ing
he subsequen yea s because hei names a e oo common, making i impossible o iden i y
any poin s on hei mig a ion ajec o ies uniquely wi h ce ain y.
265 ŠA T enčín, . ObNÚ T enč. Teplá, e . č. 77, k. 19– E idencia ydaných domo ských lis o
kobci T enčinska Teplá 1933–1939.
114
ano he son was bo n o hem in Ma ch. His bi h ce i ica e con ains
he ollowing no e ( ai ly unusual o his ype o documen ) nex o
he name o his mo he Ba bo a: “agypsy agabond ade , domicile
no asce ained, esiden in T enč. Teplá. Unma ied concubine o Jiří
Ho á ”.266
When exac ly he younge sis e Kuluš sepa a ed om Zaga’s amily
is no known. An onín, oge he wi h his a he Pa ol Laka oš and his a-
he -in-law Filo S ojka, was alsely accused o s ealing ho ses in F enš á
pod Radhoš ěm in 1935,267 so hei amilies we e a ha poin bo h in he
same place a he same ime. Kuluš and An onín’sson was bo n in May
1937 no a om Opa a. In 1937 and 1938 An onín is ound epea edly
egis e ed wi h he au ho i ies in he dis ic o Mís ek268 and in July 1938
he was checked by he au ho i ies in Opa a.269
Localisa ion o Zaga S ojko á’s mobili y poin s on he map
The sca e ed eco ds ela ing o he S ojka amily in a ious Czech and
Slo ak a chi es c y ou o be mapped spa io empo ally. By analysing he
di e en poin s localised in ime and space i is possible o po ay his
amily b anch’smobili y.
In o de o localise membe s o he S ojka amily du ing his pe iod,
Iuse all he da a on he bi hda es and bi hplaces o hei child en270 and
also police epo s ( he “gypsy egis a ions”) and o he o icial eco ds
on “ agabond ho des” a i ing. An occasional a chi al sou ce ha is
complica ed om an e hical poin o iew is he eco d book om he
dis ic no a y’so ice in T enčianska Teplá en i led E idencia es aných
občiano obce T enčianska Teplá 1933–1949 (Regis e o he con ic ed ci -
izens o he municipali y o T enčianska Teplá 1933–1949), in which all
he o ences commi ed by pe sons domiciled in T enčianska Teplá ha
266 The bi h ce i ica e is pa o he pe sonal ile on he abo e-men ioned son, Sil es e S ojka,
in his applica ion o ace i ica e unde Ac no. 255/1946, Coll. o applican S. S. (*1936). Jiří
was in ac named Ju aj, q. . he end desc ibed abo e o egis a s in he Czech lands o use
he Czech equi alen s o Slo ak names.
267 Lido é no iny. B no: Vyda a elské d užs o Lido é s any B ně, 31 Ma ch 1935, 43 (165,
mo ning edi ion), p. 8.
268 Če ný, “Lo á o é”, 22–23.
269 ŠA T enčín, . ObNÚ T enč. Teplá, e . č. 77, k. 19– E idencia es aných občiano obce
T enčinska Teplá 1933–1949.
270 I ollows om hese sou ces ha child en om his pa o he amily we e bo n in 1931 in
Kunčice, in 1936 in Mo a ská Os a a, in 1937 in Opa a and in 1938 in Pasko , Mís ek dis ic .
115
ook place on Czechoslo ak e i o y we e lis ed. Idiscussed he p ob-
lema ic na u e o using his sou ce in he in oduc o y chap e .
When Iwas pu ing oge he an ou line o Zaga’sb anch o he am-
ily and i s membe s’ spa ial mobili y, his sou ce helped me o localise
indi iduals p ecisely while a he same ime saying some hing abou he
pe manence o hei ela ionship wi h he municipali y o which hey
adminis a i ely belonged. In Janua y 1933, Zaga’s amily was in Mís ek,
wo mon hs la e hey we e in F ýdek, in Sep embe 1933 hey we e in
B no, in Decembe 1933 hey we e in Kunš á , hen in Augus 1937 hey
e u ned o F ýdek, in Ma ch 1939 hey we e in Chomu o (no hwes
Bohemia, in he Sude enland) and in July 1938 hey we e in he Silesian
capi al, Opa a.271
The p esence o hese amily membe s in Mo a ia is also shown by
his o ian Ros isla Če ný in his s udy o he Lo a a communi y in he
Mís ek dis ic du ing he Fi s Czechoslo ak Republic. He ci es a chi al
police eco ds acco ding o which, in Ma ch 1933, “Anna Laka ošo á
came o he o ice wi h a eques o he issue o aduplica e i ine ancy
documen o he sel , Zaga S ojko á and Filo S ojka”.272 He goes on o
say ha Anna had an o iginal i ine ancy documen issued in 1930 in Ži-
lina ha was damaged. The dis ic o ice in Mís ek in Ma ch 1933 hen
ex ended he i ine ancy documen o ayea . In May, acco ding o he
Šumpe k police eco ds, he said Anna decla ed he loss o he i ine an-
cy documen in he municipali y o F ankš á (No ý Malín), Šumpe k
dis ic , and he los documen was o be sen o he in Ús í nad O licí,
whe e she was said o be.273 Če ný also p o ides e idence o hese amily
membe s being p esen in he Mís ek a ea in 1931 (Anna Laka ošo á and
Zaga’sdaugh e G ó a) and in 1936 (Zaga S ojko á and o he pe sons),
and adds ha g oups o Lo a a we e o be ound in he dis ic when
he ho se and li es ock ai s we e being held.274 Če ný also ci es he
chie o he Pasko police s a ion, who desc ibes egula “mo emen s
o ala ge g oup o Romani ho se ade s who pass h ough he munic-
ipali y on hei way o he li es ock ai s on he ou e Opa a-Mo a ská
271 ŠA T enčín, . . ObNÚ T enč. Teplá, e . č. 77, k. 19– E idencia es aných občiano obce
T enčinska Teplá 1933–1949.
272 Če ný, “Lo á o é,” 13–14.
273 SOkAF ýdek-Mís ek, . OÚ Mís ek, k. 723, i. č. 824– Opis úředního záznamu Policejního
komisařs í Šumpe ku z26. 5. 1934.
274 Če ný s a es ha ho se dealing was he main eason why he Lo a a egula ly, mon h a e
mon h, isi ed he dis ic own o Mís ek, whe e li es ock ai s we e held du ing ace ain
pe iod. (Če ný, “Lo á o é”, 24).
116
Os a a-Český Těšín-F ýdek/Mís ek.”275 As we can see on he map, in he
second hal o he 1930s in pa icula , he Opa a a ea became he egion
a ound which he amily epea edly mo ed, passing h ough a ious
municipali ies. I we ake in o accoun he ac ha he eason o hei
p esence in he F ýdek and Mís ek a eas was he li es ock and ho se
ai s, he e emains he in e es ing ques ion o why hei amily and o h-
e Lo a a amilies also mo ed a ound in o he dis ic s. Did he Lo a a
also a end ho se ai s in o he places? Was hei inc eased mo emen
in he Opa a and Li o el dis ic s connec ed wi h he sale and pu chase
o ho ses aded on he ma ke in Mís ek? In his ega d he a chi al
epo s a e agmen a y, and he e is no explana ion o he easons o
hei p esence in o he illages o owns. The police epo s om Mís ek
and F ýdek a e, in his espec , unusually de ailed. The epo om he
K ásná police s a ion, o example, con ains his de ailed desc ip ion:
“A each ho se ai in F ýdek aking place annually in he ma ke s, se e al male
membe s o he gypsy ho des appea ed in o de o ade ho ses. Thei women
and child en usually camped in one o he illages su ounding F ýdek, and
a e he ai he gypsies would lea e ou wa d.”276
Al hough his desc ip ion does no iden i y aspeci ic Romani g oup,
i co esponds o Lo a a es imonies desc ibing he ho se ai s as in ol -
ing Romani men who hen ook hei ea nings back o hei women and
child en.
In o ma ion on he places whe e he g oup s ayed is also p o ided by
he p ess o he ime. Despi e he undoub ed di icul ies277 o wo king wi h
such sou ces, Imanaged wi h he help o he media o he pe iod o local-
ise membe s o he amily in Ma ch 1935 nea F enš á pod Radhoš ěm,278
and in 1936 and 1937 se e al imes in he Opa a dis ic in Silesia.279
275 Ibid.
276 SOkA F ýdek Mís ek, . OÚ F ýdek, i. č. 780, k. 641, Oddělení Český Těšín, s anice K ásná
č. 27– Cikáni– podání zp á y (30. 1. 1935).
277 As Is a ed in he in oduc o y chap e on me hodology, his sou ce needs o be ea ed wi h
cau ion, since in o ma ion on “gypsy agabonds” mos o en appea ed in sec ions epo ing
on he c iminal ac i i ies o hese g oups, wi h he enden ious aim o uelling an i-Romani
eeling and exo icising hese people.
278 [au ho ] -in. “Cikán jako ydě ač a ajný.” Lido é no iny, ol. 43, no. 165 (31. 5, 1935), 8
279 [au ho n.a.] “Ausge o ich e heudiebe.” Neues Tagbla ü Schlesien und No dmäh en, ol. 4,
no. 260 (5. 11. 1937), 4; [au ho n.a.] “Diebische Zigeune .” Neues Tagbla ü Schlesien und
No dmäh en, ol. 3, no. 51 (29. 2. 1936), 9; [au ho n.a.] “Be has e e Zigeune in.” Neues Tagbla
ü Schlesien und No dmäh en, ol. 4, no. 289 (9. 12. 1937), 6.
117
B andýs nad Labem
1931
Chomu o
193
Šumpe k
193!
Kamenice nad Lipou
193!
S ěbořice
193;
B anka u Opa y
193;
Opa a
193
Pasko
193
Mo a ská Os a a
193
F ýdek
1933 193;
Mís ek
1931 1933 193!
193g 193; 193
Dob á
19q;
T enčín
19q!
Žilina
193
Zám sky
1939
Od y
1931
Kun á
1933
Humpolec
193g
Čeladná
193
T enčianska Teplá
19q¢19q!
Se e¥
19qg 193
Lho a Rapo ina
193!
F en á pod Radho ěm
193!
Teplika nad ´áhom
193!
B no
1933
Mnicho ice
1931
S akonice
193! TřeÃ
193!
Lipník nad Beč ou
193g
Map 2 Recons uc ion o Zaga S ojko á’s amily spa ial mobili y in he 1930s.

118
F om he da a a ailable, Ic ea ed alis o he ansi poin s whe e
he membe s o his g oup appea ed a ace ain ime. This map o Zaga
S ojko á’s amily b anch and i s spa ial mobili y, including he sons and
daugh e s’ nuclea amilies, who mo ed a ound independen ly, needs
o cou se o be seen as jus a e y much educed c oss-sec ion o he
g oup’s eal mo emen s, which canno be ully econs uc ed oday.
The ajec o ies o Zaga S ojko á’s amily (including he son Filo
S ojka’s amily and hose o he daugh e s Ba bo a and Kuluš) led no
jus h ough Wes e n Slo akia o no heas e n Mo a ia and Silesia, bu
also in o he Bohemian in e io . This is shown by he abo e-men ioned
eco ds o hei camping nea Mnicho ice and Kamenice nad Lipou,
as well as by he bi hda es and bi hplaces o he amily’schild en in
Lho a uCh ous o ic, Ch udim dis ic (1934) and Humpolec (1936) on
he bo de o Bohemia and Mo a ia, al hough only in Mo a ia a e he
amily o Filo S ojka was banned om Bohemia in 1934.280
The g oup managed o ge a ound ai ly quickly, conside ing ha hey
a elled in ho se-d awn wagons. O e he cou se o ayea hey mo ed
a ound o a ious places in he coun y (e.g. in 1931: 8 Oc obe Od y,
No h Mo a ia; 22 No embe B andýs nad Labem, Cen al Bohemia–
places almos 300 km apa ; o in 1934: 1 Augus Třešť, Jihla a dis ic ,
wes Mo a ia; hen 20 Augus S akonice, sou hwes Bohemia, places
abou 140 km apa ). Thei jou neys may ha e been connec ed wi h he
p o ession o ho se dealing, i.e., heading o ho se ai s o he pu pose
o buying and selling ho ses, bu hey may also ha e been a emp s o
ind new e i o ies o hei o he economic s a egies. I is likely ha he
eason hey le Slo akia was an a emp o ind anew e i o y o hei
p o essional ac i i ies om which i was ha d o ea n ali ing in hei o ig-
inal e i o y in he T enčín a ea, gi en he high deg ee o compe i ion
be ween people engaging in he same economic ac i i y (ho se ading).
Š e an S ojka, S . ea ned his li ing as aho se ade and was clea ly
ai ly well-known in he wide icini y o T enčianska Teplá. His eldes
son Ján was also aho se ade . Fo Filo S ojka, Zaga’seldes son, who
also became aho se deale , i mus ha e been ai ly p oblema ic o ind
clien s in his o iginal dis ic wi hou compe ing wi h his uncle and cous-
in. Mo eo e , he e we e also o he Romani ho se ade s in he egion.
Lea ing his a ea and ying o do business in anew e i o y mus ha e
been an a ac i e p oposi ion, indeed anecessi y. A e he c ea ion o
280 ŠA T enčín, . ObNÚ T enč. Teplá, e . č. 77, k. 19– E idencia es aných občiano obce
T enčinska Teplá 1933–1949.
119
Czechoslo akia, he logical solu ion was o mo e o he e i o y o Bo-
hemia and abo e all Mo a ia, which was jus o e he nea es moun ain
idge om T enčín.
Howe e , we should no o ge ha in No h Mo a ia in pa icula
he e we e o he ac i e ho se- ading amilies, abo e all om he Sin i
g oup, while o he Bohemian and Mo a ian Roms also ea ned hei li -
ing h ough ho se ading, and so he e was compe i ion om o he Ro-
mani amilies p o iding he same se ices and clea ly also using simila
p ac ices on he o he side o he moun ain idge, oo. We may assume
ha o e he cou se o he 1930s, when he e was a apid inc ease in he
numbe o owns and illages in he Czech lands om which “gypsy ag-
abonds” we e banned, along wi h agene al ise o an i-gypsy sen imen
in socie y, i was ha de and ha de o ind new ma ke s and o cul i a e
ape manen ci cle o clien s and e i o ies whe e i would be possible
o do business.
2.3 The ans o ma ion o he spa ial mobili y
o he Lo a a in he Czech lands a e he c ea ion
o Czechoslo akia
The pa hs o Zaga S ojko á’s amily b anch, and o alesse deg ee he
pa hs o Š e an S ojka, S .’s amily b anch owa d Mo a ia and Bohemia
om he ea ly 1930s co espond o he mo emen s o o he Lo a a ami-
lies om Slo akia in he pe iod in ques ion. As Iindica ed in he p e ious
chap e , a e he b eakup o he Habsbu g mona chy and Czechoslo ak
independence in 1918 he e was an o e all ans o ma ion in many Lo-
a a amilies’ mobili y. Abo e all, he e was ag adual change in he o e -
all composi ion o he Lo a a amilies in he Czech lands, wi h ag adual
educ ion in he numbe o Lo a a coming o e he new, sou he n bo de
wi h Aus ia and an inc ease in he numbe o Lo a a amilies coming
in o he Czech lands om he Slo ak pa o he epublic. Howe e , his
ans o ma ion also no iceably a ec ed Lo a a li ing in Slo akia, abo e
all in he bel along he newly-c ea ed Slo ak-Hunga ian bo de . Be o e
he b eak-up o Aus o-Hunga y, he Lo a a who li ed he e would also
mo e a ound in Hunga y sou h o he Danube i e , a eas which a ha
ime we e no ye sepa a ed by abo de om he u u e Slo ak e i o y
o he no h. A e he c ea ion o Czechoslo akia, hei ajec o ies no
longe included jou neys in o Hunga y. This pushed indi idual Lo a a
amilies o sea ch o new e i o y on which o do business. I was in
120
eac ion o his ac ha he Lo a a g adually mo ed om Wes e n Slo-
akia o Mo a ia and Bohemia.281 Ano he hypo hesis o hei depa u e
om Slo akia was he abo e-men ioned g owing compe i ion be ween
p o ide s o e y simila se ices in he la ge Lo a a (bu also wide Ro-
mani) communi y in Slo akia, which equi ed he e i o ial dispe sion
o his ac i i y. Some Lo a a amilies seem o ha e come o he Czech
lands mainly o business, chie ly ho se ai s, o in o de o pe o m
c a s (mos ly ke le-make s looking o sell, clean o in ke les, blade
sha pene s and so on), bu egula ly e u ned o Slo akia. Howe e ,
some amilies aimed o mo e wholesale in o his new e i o y.
Lo a a in he Czech lands in he 1920s
The Lo a a p esence in he Czech lands has so a been o only ma ginal
in e es o Czech his o ians. C ibo Nečas and Jana Ho á ho á ha e
ag eed ha i was ag oup ha did no dwell pe manen ly in he Czech
lands, bu me ely ansi ed h ough hem.282 Howe e , my esea ch shows
ha al hough he Lo a a did no o m ala ge p opo ion o Roms, his-
o ical esea ch should pay a en ion o hem because o hei con inuous
p esence in he p e-wa and pos wa pe iods. In he 1930s in pa icula ,
he Lo a a spen long pe iods in he Czech lands, some s aying he e
con inuously yea ound.
Le us e u n, howe e , o he s a o he pe iod, in o he wo ds,
he pe iod immedia ely ollowing he bi h o Czechoslo akia. Lo a a
om Aus ia con inued o a el o Bohemia and Mo a ia e en a e
he b eakup o Aus o-Hunga y, as is shown by he 1920s news epo s
ci ed abo e,283 as well as by genealogical da a om a ious Vlax Romani
wi nesses cu en ly li ing in he Czech Republic who ha e spoken abou
281 And š, “Ou God”, 71–72.
282 E.g., Jana Ho á ho á, “Mezi álečné zas a ení mezi Romy českých zemích (aneb ušení sou-
islos í).” Romano džaniben, ol. 12, no. 1 (Summe 2005): 65; Nečas, Romo é na Mo a ě. Nečas
desc ibes he example o Vlax Roms a i ing en masse in Cen al Bohemia in he summe o
1933, which Iwill discuss below. Howe e , he desc ibes he e en as mo e o less episodic,
wi h no u he epe cussions (C ibo Nečas, His o ický kalendář: Dějiny českých Romů da ech.
Olomouc: Palackého uni e zi a, 1997: 60–61).
283 Fo example, epo s desc ibing he sale and/o he o ho ses by ace ain Jose S ojka om
Fischamend in Aus ia no a om Vienna in he Znojmo a ea in he ea ly 1920s, published in
he same o m in he pe iodical Venko , [Coun yside he o gan o he Czech Ag a ian Pa y]
([au ho n.a.] “K ádeže koní.” Venko , o gán České s any ag á ní, ol. 19, no 245 (17. 2. 1924),
4.) and in The Czech, aCa holic poli ical weekly [au ho n.a.] “K ádež koní.” Čech: poli ický
ýdeník ka olický, ol. 49, no. 53 (23. 2. 1924), 6.
121
hei ances o s and o he ela i es who came om Aus ia. As my esea ch
shows, howe e , om he end o he 1920s and abo e all in he 1930s,
he Lo a a who came om Slo akia g adually s a ed o nume ically p e-
domina e. The Lo a a had al eady been coming o he Czech lands om
Slo akia o alesse ex en ea lie in he 1920s,284 bu du ing his pe iod
hey canno , o he mos pa , be clea ly iden i ied in o icial eco ds
unde he gene al epo s o “gypsy ho des” o “gypsy agabonds”. An
excep ion a e he police epo s in which he e a e indi idual names o
Roms whom my esea ch indica es may be included among he Lo a a.
An example is a epo om he F ýdek s a ion o he Český Těšín police
di ision da ed 3 Janua y 1928 s a ing ha “on 10.2.1927 Pa ol S ojka
and Š e an Ko lář om Topoľčany, ho se deale s” a i ed in he own.285
Ano he example is a epo om apolice check o An onín S ojka, also
o Topoľčany, on whom a epea ing pis ol was ound in Mís ek in he
summe o 1927.286
The mo emen s o Roms in he Czech lands du ing
he Fi s Republic
The Lo a a o med jus asmall p opo ion o he Roms who li ed in
he Czech lands du ing he in e wa pe iod. The e we e also amilies o
Bohemian and Mo a ian Roms and Sin i who ea ned hei li ing like
he Lo a a, h ough ac i i ies ha equi ed a elling– ading, se ices
(mending umb ellas, wi e wo k, making and selling slippe s and so on)
o en e ainmen (a is s, ai g ound people and so on).287 In Mo a ia,
284 Če ný, “Lo á o é”, 14 and 19–20; And š, “Ou God”, 72.
285 SOkA F ýdek Mís ek, . OÚ F ýdek i. č. 780, k. 641, odd. Český Těšín, s anice F ýdek č. 19–
Cikáni– ý oční zp á a (3. 1. 1928). Once again Id aw a en ion o he habi among Czech
policemen and o icials o eco ding he Czech o ms o Slo ak names: Ko lář is he Czech
o m o he o iginal Slo ak name Ko lá , s ill ela i ely widesp ead among Vlax Roms, bu
also ound among Slo ak (non-Vlax) Roms.
286 SOkA F ýdek Mís ek, . OÚ Mís ek, i. č. 876, k. 997,– Repo om dis ic police command in
Mís ek, c. j. 594, Zákon opo ulných cikánech, opa ření. This is he well-known igu e o An on
S ojka, alias Báno, who in 1951 was mu de ed in Komá no and sewn up inside his ho se’sskin.
This is s ill ali ing legend old among he Lo a a in he Czech lands and Slo akia. Acco ding
o a chi al eco ds, An on S ojka had agun licence, and so he was allowed o keep his gun,
pa ly o he eason ha when he was a es ed, “ he police s a ions did no ye know he new
law on wande ing gypsies o 14 July 1927, which explici ly s a es in Sec ion 6 ha wande ing
gypsies a e u e ly banned om holding weapons, muni ions, e c.” (Ibid.)
287 Jana Ho á ho á looks in de ail a Bohemian and Mo a ian Roms in he ecen publica ion
(Jana Ho á ho á, ... o jsou ěžké zpomínky. Vol. 1. B no:Vě né mlýny, 2021).
128
ha nessed o hem. They a el e y quickly and a e capable o co e ing se-
e al dozen kilome es in aday. They assemble in smalle o la ge ho des.
They also ade in ho ses, and indi iduals appea o ha e ade licences o
ha e ec .312
The epo also con ains numbe s, al hough we canno conside hese
o be p ecise, ollowed by awa ning o he secu i y h ea ha hese
g oups ep esen , in keeping wi h he con empo a y pejo a i e idea o
“gypsy agabonds”:
I is hus impossible o he police o make alis o hese gypsies, o which
he e a e ound o be mo e han 100–150 pe sons and some imes mo e han
60 wagons oge he , and so hese ho des pass h ough wi h no gua an ee ha
he e a e no among hem elemen s highly dange ous o he s a e (spying,
in elligence du ing he wa ?).313
In closing, he au ho e u ns o he subjec o i ine ancy documen s:
“F om a andom check o hese ho des i was asce ained ha hey ha e
i ine ancy documen s which, acco ding o wha is w i en in hem, pe mi
hem o a el o e he e i o y o he en i e s a e.”314 The epo also
s a es ha e e y F iday hese “gypsies” a end he ho se ai s in P ague
nea he ci y aba oi in Holešo ice.
Two days la e , abulle in om aP ague police s a ion eac ed o he
epo om Obřís í, s a ing ha :
In he depa men he e, 15 male and 14 emale gypsies om he Laka oš
amily and 31 men and 25 women om he S ojka amily ha e been egis e-
ed. Acco ding o in o ma ion om he police s a ion in Obřís í, he e a e
some imes up o 140 such amily membe s oaming in he icini y o Mělník,
wi h some o hem ha ing ade ce i ica es as ho se deale s, which makes i
di icul o he police on du y o check hem as gypsies.315
The abo e-men ioned mobili y o he S ojka and Laka oš amilies in
P ague is an in e es ing ac , gi en ha o e amon h be o e hese e en s,
312 Ibid. Zp á a zemského če nického eli els í, č. j. 1048/33 Cikánské lupy Laka ošů aS ojků–
zá ady (19. 6. 1933), ol. 44.
313 Ibid.
314 Ibid.
315 NA P aha, . MV– s a á egis a u a, 5/98/3, k. 2431, č. j. 172– Hlášení če nické s anice P aha
Veli elskému če nickému oddělení P aze (21. 6. 1933).

129
on 13 May 1933, he p o incial au ho i y in P ague issued adecision en-
i led “Designa ion o he e i o y in he icini y o G ea e P ague ha
gypsy agabonds a e o bidden o en e ”. This decision, issued unde
Sec ion 10 o Ac no. 117/1927, designa ed land ha , om he day he e-
po was issued, was ou o bounds o “gypsy agabonds”. As well as he
ci y o P ague i sel , his included he su ounding dis ic s: P aha-Ven-
ko , Říčany, Jílo é, and pa o he B andýs nad Labem dis ic .316 This
dec ee would ha e necessa ily included he P ague dis ic o Holešo ice,
which he Laka oš and S ojka amilies we e pe mi ed o en e because
hey owned ade ce i ica es, as he documen s ci ed indica e.
The ac ha membe s o he abo e-named amilies we e allowed o
a el all o e he e i o y o Czechoslo akia made i di icul o con ol
hem om he police pe spec i e. The ac ha some Slo ak dis ic s
issued i ine ancy documen s wi hou any so o e i o ial limi a ion,
alid o he whole coun y, is also con i med by ac i ical epo om he
Regional Au ho i y in B a isla a p oduced in July 1931.317 This said ha
Ac no. 17/1927 was in e p e ed di e en ly in each dis ic o Slo akia.
The i ine ancy documen s issued by some au ho i ies we e d awn up in
acu so y manne wi hou he necessa y in es iga ions being unde aken,
he epo said. I also admi ed ha i ine ancy documen s we e being
issued wi h no limi a ions, alid o he whole o Slo akia and o en o
he whole o Czechoslo akia, al hough such documen s we e mean o be
issued only o “gypsy agabonds who mee all he egula ions conce ning
he ade hey seek o ply”.318
The p ac ice o issuing i ine ancy documen s in some Slo ak dis ic s
which we e alid o he whole coun y was also con i med by my a chi-
al indings. The dis ic au ho i ies in Topoľčany lis ed people in he
“Regis e o gypsy i ine ancy ce i ica es” who had been issued i ine an-
cy documen s. Nex o hei names we e lis ed he e i o ies whe e he
documen would be alid. O se en people wi h he su name o S ojka
( he a he , Michal, and his adul sons Ladisla , Pa ol, Ond ej, Jose
and An onín) and he su name o Ko lá (Š e an; one case) who we e all
labelled “ho se ade s”, i e we e issued i ine ancy documen s alid o
Slo akia and Mo a ia in 1929–30, and he es we e issued documen s
316 Ibid. Alis o he e i o ies and municipali ies co e ed by his measu e was d awn up in de ail
o Mo a ia and Silesia by he his o ian C ibo Nečas (Nečas, Romo é na Mo a ě: 201–209).
No such lis has as ye been d awn up o Bohemia.
317 NA P aha, . MV– s a á egis a u a, k. 2431, i .č. 6501,sign. 5/98/3. K ajinsky ú ad B a isla a,
Cigáni po ulní, p e ádzanie zákona č. 117/1927 Sb. z. an. l. na iad. č. 68/1928 Sb.z. an.
318 Ibid.
130
alid o Slo akia, Mo a ia and Silesia. Ano he h ee people om o h-
e Lo a a amilies in he same dis ic , labelled “ a elling gypsies” (so
no “ho se ade s”, who clea ly had ahighe s a us) had documen s in
which he e i o ial alidi y was limi ed, o example, o he dis ic s o
Topoľčany, Báno ce, P ie izda and Ni a, o in which ace ain a ea was
de ined (such as be ween B a isla a, Žilina, Galan a and Komá no). All
hese pe mi s we e pe iodically enewed, bu hei e i o ial alidi y did
no change.319
S ill, he p inciple ha an i ine ancy documen wi h wide- anging e -
i o ial alidi y could be issued o a“gypsy agabond” jus on he condi-
ion ha such ape son al eady had a ade licence, as is indica ed abo e
in he epo om he B a isla a Regional Au ho i y, was only pa ially
ul illed o he se en men men ioned abo e. My u he a chi al indings
show ha o he se en Roms om Topoľčany who had i ine ancy doc-
umen s alid o he e i o y o Slo akia and Mo a ia (o also Silesia),
jus ou had a ade licence o li es ock dealing. This is eco ded o
1932 in he epublic-wide Gaze ee o he Czechoslo ak Republic o indus y,
ade, business and ag icul u e. This lis ed Michal S ojka, Ondřej S ojka
and Ladisla S ojka om Topoľčany and Š e an Ko lá om Soľčany as
li es ock ade s wi h hei own ade ce i ica es.320 All h ee S ojkas we e
also lis ed as ca ying on such a ade in he same gaze ee o 1935,321
wi h he name o Š e an Ko lá no longe appea ing. Ne e heless, in
he case o h ee o he men om he S ojka amily in Topoľčany, namely
Ond ej, An onín and Jose , ade licences we e no shown o he au ho -
i ies, ye hey s ill gained o icial pe mission o a el o e he e i o y
o Slo akia and Mo a ia, and in An onín’scase also Silesia.322 No one
o hem had a alid i ine ancy documen o he e i o y o Bohemia.
In July 1933, he P o incial Au ho i y in P ague issued aci cula
en i led “Incu sion o gypsy ho des om Slo akia in o Bohemia”, once
again s a ing, in line wi h he abo e-men ioned newspape a icle (A-Ze ),
ha he dis ic s o cen al Bohemia “ha e been looded wi h ho des
o gypsies, abo e all he Laka oš and S ojkas o Slo akia, o whom he
319 ŠA Ni a– pobočka Topoľčany, . OÚ Topoľčany, i. č. 25A– E idencia cigánskych kočo níckych
legi imácií.
320 Ad esář Republiky českoslo enské p o p ůmysl, ži nos i, obchod azeměděls í, 1932. P aha:
Rudol Mosse, p. 3119. NA ČR, Kniho ní ondy aslužby, Sign. 54 D 003848/1932. S . 1.
321 Ad esář Republiky českoslo enské p o p ůmysl, ži nos i, obchod azeměděls í, 1935 (P aha:
Rudol Mosse, p. 3063) and 1936 (P aha: Rudol Mosse, p. 3079), NA ČR, Kniho ní ondy
aslužby, sign. 4–0092.312.
322 ŠA Ni a– pobočka Topoľčany, . OÚ Topoľčany, i. č. 25A– E idencia cigánskych kočo níckych
legi imácií.
131
Slo ak au ho i ies ha e issued i ine ancy documen s allowing hem o
a el all o e Slo akia.” The ci cula called on s a e bodies o p oceed
acco ding o Ac no. 117/1927 wi h he aim o ejec ing hese “ho des”
om Bohemia and p e en ing hem om e u ning. I i was no possible
o p oceed acco ding o Sec ion 13 o Ac 117/1927, dis ic and o he
ele an au ho i ies we e called upon o ake he necessa y measu es lead-
ing o he ejec ion o “gypsy agabonds” om Bohemia in he in e es o
main aining public o de and secu ing p i a e p ope y. 323
Ano he ci cula om he P o incial Au ho i y in P ague, no. 456.831
o Sep embe 1933, deal wi h he “incu sion o gypsy ho des om Slo-
akia in o Bohemia” by equi ing he au ho i ies o amend he ex en
o he pe mission g an ed o he “gypsy ho des” o a el so ha hey
we e no longe allowed o a el in Bohemia. I o de ed changes o be
made o hei i ine ancy documen s and subsequen ly ha hese g oups
“be ejec ed om Bohemia in he di ec ion o Slo akia”.324 The p oposed
app oach may be conside ed ag oss b each o hei pe sonal eedoms.
Clea ly, howe e , i was his app oach ha was aken in he abo e-men-
ioned depo a ion om Bohemia o Filo S ojka and o he Lo a a in he
summe o 1934 by he S akonice dis ic au ho i ies.
The ou es o he Lo a a om Slo akia o Bohemia a e aced in
de ail in a2018 a icle by Ras isla Pi oň, who mapped he ajec o ies
o se e al speci ic people domiciled in he T na a dis ic . Pi oň’ss udy
con i ms my indings ega ding he mo emen s o Lo a a om Slo akia
no jus on Mo a ian e i o y, bu also in Bohemia be o e he summe
o 1933, when police igh ened hei app oach o “gypsy agabonds”
who did no “belong” o he egion. Apolicy was adop ed o s ic ly e-
mo e “gypsy agabond” amilies, and clea ly no jus Lo a a ones, om
Bohemian e i o y.
Le us now look a he abo e-men ioned cases om ano he angle.
The ques ion p esen s i sel as o whe he he amilies wi h he su names
o S ojka and Laka oš who we e subjec ed o equen checks in Cen al
Bohemia in he summe o 1933 may ha e included membe s o he S oj-
ka amily om T enčianska Teplá which Iam esea ching. Un o una ely,
his can be nei he p o en no disp o en, since Iha e no managed o
323 NA P aha, . MV– s a á egis a u a, k. 2431, i. č. 6501, ol. 42, sign. 5/98/3. Oběžník ZÚ P aha
334.782 ai 1933 Vpád cikánských lup ze Slo enska (14 July 1933) add essed o all local au ho i ies
in he land o Bohemia.
324 Ibid. Oběžník ZÚ P aha 456.831 ai 1933 Po ulní cikáni zá adné ys a o ání cikánských legi imací,
nesp á ný pos up OU, pád cikánských lup ze Slo enska do Čech (29 Sep embe 1933)– o all local
au ho i ies in he land o Bohemia.
132
ind, in any a chi es, he lis s o he named pe sons who we e checked
du ing he abo e-men ioned con ols in he summe o 1933. Howe e ,
gi en ha he amily was mo ing a ound he Czech lands a ha ime,325
i would no be su p ising i i o med pa o his g oup o “gypsy aga-
bonds om Slo akia”, as he g oup numbe ed up o 150 people.
He e i is necessa y o pe cei e he amily Iam s udying as o ming
pa o ala ge Lo a a communi y whose indi idual pa s would b eak
o om he amily wi h a ying equency and hen join back up wi h
i again. On hei a els hey would mee o he Lo a a who we e no
necessa ily always hei ela i es. They hen unde wen police checks
oge he wi h hem, o oge he ound hei way in o o icial epo s o
a ious o he easons. I hus belie e ha he bounda y be ween he am-
ily in ques ion and o he Lo a a amilies needs o be pe cei ed as luid
and pe meable. The Lo a a mo ing a ound Czechoslo akia in a ious
di ec ions du ing his pe iod should be conside ed acommuni y o peo-
ple who me each o he no jus a ho se ai s and designa ed camping
places, bu also in a ious o he places, and who spoke hei own dialec
o Romani no always comp ehensible o o he non-Vlax Roms. As is
clea om he wi ness na a i es and om he ac ha he au ho i ies
o en used he wo d “ ela i es” o label g oups be ween whom he e was
no ac ual amilial ela ionship, i was possible o ind highly unc ional
ela ionships o solida i y and a ious in e connec ed solida y and ecip-
ocal ne wo ks among he Lo a a. I is also impo an o no e ha k ísi
(Romani cou s) we e al eady being held du ing he in e wa pe iod, ha
espec ed Roms om a -o des ina ions would come o hem, and ha
he e exis ed sophis ica ed me hods h ough which he Lo a a le each
o he know ha hese cou s we e being held.
Lo a a mo emen s a ound he Czech lands in he second hal
o he 1930s
A emp s o deal wi h he p esence o “ a elling gypsies” om Slo akia
can also be ound in he s a e a chi es in he Czech lands in subsequen
yea s, al hough o alesse deg ee. In Janua y 1935, o example, he
P o incial Au ho i y in B no issued aci cula dealing wi h he si ua ion
325 In Ma ch 1933, Zaga’s amily b anch was in he dis ic s o F ýdek and Mís ek, bu o he
o he mon hs we lack in o ma ion. I is no un il July 1933 ha a eco d o Filo S ojka appea s
in Olomouc, while a eco d o his sis e Ba bo a appea s in B no in Sep embe 1933.
133
in he own o Polička and o de ing he police “no o ejec he Slo ak
gypsy ho des ound he e back o e he bo de in o Bohemia in gene al,
and especially no in o he Polička dis ic ”.326 The ci cula s g adually
s a ed o deal wi h “gypsy agabonds” coming om Ge many, Aus ia,
and la e om he Sude enland. G oups o “Slo ak gypsies” g adually
s opped being men ioned in o icial epo s and eco ds, sa e o com-
men s on he police checks o such amilies. Repo s on he mobili y o
indi idual Lo a a amilies and hei a i als in Mo a ian and Silesian
municipali ies in pa icula con inued o appea un il he ea ly sp ing
o 1939. We may also assume ha he mobili y o amilies om Slo a-
kia on Bohemian e i o y was made conside ably mo e di icul by he
app oaches and policies o mula ed in he abo e-men ioned ci cula s
p omo ing a es ic i e app oach owa ds he “gypsy ho des” and abo e
all he possibili y o amending such pe sons’ i ine ancy documen s wi h
ega d o hei e i o ial alidi y and legally depo ing en i e g oups
om he e i o y in ques ion.
No his o ian has ye looked a he ques ion o how many Lo a a he e
we e in he Czech lands in he in e wa pe iod, so i is di icul o gi e
any so o es ima e. Če ný has es ima ed he size o he Lo a a commu-
ni y mo ing a ound he dis ic o Mís ek a abou 100 people.327 Ialso
managed o ind eco ds o mos o he pe sons named in his s udy in
neighbou ing dis ic s such as F ýdek, Li o el and P os ějo . Ialso ound
many named in eco ds o o he a eas o Mo a ia, Silesia and Bohemia.
The police eco ds om P ague and i s su ounding a eas om he sum-
me o 1933, ci ed he ein se e al imes, men ion 100–150 indi iduals.
To s a e he o al numbe o Lo a a, howe e , we would ha e o look
h ough he comple e eco ds o he Cen al Police Pa ol Di ision, he
cen al deposi o y o eco ds o “gypsy agabonds” made on he basis o
he 1927 law. Despi e conside able e o s, Iha e no managed o ind any
such collec ions in he a chi es, jus iles con aining s a is ics in he o m
o numbe s whe e, once again, all he “gypsy ( agabonds)” a e lumped
oge he wi hou hei su names being lis ed, p o iding no oppo uni y
o ca e ully dis inguish be ween hem, he e o e.
An in e es ing egional con ibu ion o he ques ion o how many
Lo a a we e in he Czech lands in he 1930s is anewspape a icle en-
i led “Gypsies and a elle s– child en o na u e”,328 published in he
326 NA P aha, . MV– s a á egis a u a 5/98/3, k. 2431, ZÚ B no č. j. 2913/III-7 Polička, u čení
území, do něhož jes po ulným cikánům s up zakázán.
327 Če ný, “Lo á o é”, 24.
328 E. Peřina, “Cikání akočo níci– dě i pří ody”, Polední lis , no. 75 (15 Ma ch 1936), p. 7.

134
pe iodical Polední lis in Ma ch 1936. The a icle s a es he names “ ha
a e mos o en ound among gypsies”, and i s au ho allegedly ook hem
“ om he s a is ics o eas e n Bohemia o e he las h ee yea s”, in o he
wo ds, p obably om he pe iod 1933–1936. Agains each su name he
numbe o people wi h ha su name is lis ed, clea ly once again om
eas e n Bohemia, and in some cases he supposed geog aphical o igin o
he Roms wi h ha su name is also gi en. Among he dozens o names
a e su names ha occu among he Lo a a, such as: Banda (4), Bihá y
(25), Danyš (12), Ho á h (12), Laka oš (51), Ra ael (14), S ojka (70).
O e all, he e o e, 188 people a e lis ed who a e e y likely o ha e been
Lo a a. This is an in e es ing ac , gi en ha as Is a ed ea lie , a e 1933
o 1934, such amilies came om Mo a ia o he Czech lands jus occa-
sionally, so we may expec ha he Lo a a communi y mo ing a ound
Mo a ia and Silesia was much la ge han he Lo a a in eas e n Bohemia
a he ime. Fo wo names, he au ho made ano e ega ding he o igin
o he Roms wi h ha su name. Nex o he name Laka oš he w o e in
b acke s “Hunga ian gypsies”, and by he su name S ojka, “Mo a ian
gypsies”. Abo e all, he no e on he Mo a ian o igin o people wi h he
su name S ojka indica es ha om he pe spec i e o o icials in eas e n
Bohemia, hese Roms in Mo a ia now seemed o ha e “pu down oo s”
he e a e se e al yea s, which was maybe he esul o Lo a a epea edly
s a ing, when checked, ha hey we e coming om Mo a ia, o showing
i ine ancy documen s which said hey we e allowed o mo e a ound
Mo a ia. Las bu no leas , i is impo an o men ion ha he lis also
includes wo su names o he Kalde ash Roms whom Imen ioned abo e:
Běla, o whom he e we e 45 pe sons lis ed wi h he no e “ke le-make s”,
and Kwiek (22 pe sons) wi h he no e “Polish gypsies”.329
Using my own da abase o Lo a a amilies, desc ibed in de ail in he
chap e on me hodology, Iadded 196 eco ds om he 1930s om he
Bohemian and he Mo a ian a chi es showing police checks o applica-
ions ela ing o people who, on he basis o se e al indices, we e Lo a a.
These 196 people we e accompanied by a u he 580 people, acco ding
o he o icial eco ds.330 Howe e , his igu e is no pa icula ly help ul,
o wo easons. Fi s , he numbe is unde es ima ed, mos ly because
police epo s o en did no quan i y he size o he g oup accompanying
he “head o he amily”, bu ga e jus his name. O hese 196 eco ds, he
numbe o addi ional pe sons accompanying he leade is no epo ed
329 Ibid.
330 I ound hese eco ds in he ollowing a chi es: SOkA Blansko, SOkA F ýdek Mís ek, SOkA
Jindřichů H adec, SOkA Olomouc, SOkA Pelhřimo , SOkA Přemyšlení, SOkA Zám sk.
135
o 130 o hem, which is aconside able numbe . In some cases, he e o e,
Iincluded in he o e all numbe jus he “head o he amily”, al hough
i is e y likely ha hese people did no a el alone, bu we e accompa-
nied by hei amilies, o whose size we ha e no de ails. Iam also awa e
ha he numbe s could be o e in la ed, because hese no i ica ions and
lis s epea he names o some indi iduals, some imes se e al imes. As
a as he “heads o amilies” a e conce ned, (in o he wo ds, he people
who we e eco ded by s a e bodies), he e we e a leas 92 in my da abase.
Howe e , Ido no possess he necessa y da a o some, such as “gypsy”
iden i y ca ds o o he in o ma ion o compa e wi h o he eco ds, so i
is no possible o de e mine whe he ape son named, o example, Ján
Ra ael, who is lis ed h ee imes, ac ually appea ed in a ious places wi h
his amily h ee imes, o whe he he e we e h ee di e en Ján Ra aels,
each wi h his own amily. In o he cases, some names appea in a ious
places a a ious imes and i u ns ou ha , acco ding o o he da a,
hese a e in ac mul iple appea ances o one and he same pe son. Fo
example, F an išek Laka oš, bo n in 1896 in Se eď, Galan a dis ic , is
ound a o al o 11 imes du ing he 1930s on he e i o y o Mo a ia:
wice in Decembe 1931 in he dis ic o P os ějo , eigh imes in 1934
(P os ějo , Li o el and S i a y dis ic s) and wice in 1938 (Mís ek and
F ýdek dis ic s).
Rega ding he ex en o which he Lo a a mo ed abou Bohemia
compa ed o Mo a ia, i can be seen om he da abase ha o hese 196
eco ds, jus 48 a e om Bohemia, while 148 a e om Mo a ia. Wi h he
excep ion o six eco ds made by ( he same) police s a ion in he H adec
K álo é dis ic in 1938, all he o he eco ds om Bohemian dis ic s end
in he summe o 1934. This once again con i ms my hypo hesis ega d-
ing he igh ening o es ic ions on “gypsy agabonds” om Slo akia
by he Bohemian au ho i ies. O he 196 eco ds, in only 140 cases do
we know he p ecise da e on which hey we e made. In 50 cases, jus he
yea was eco ded, wi hou he day o mon h o he police check in he
e i o y in ques ion. To e u n o my hough s ega ding he seasonal
p esence o he Lo a a in he Czech lands, whe e Iin es iga ed he likely
yea - ound p esence o Zaga S ojko á’s amily in he Czech lands, my
su ey sugges s ha o he 140 cases whe e we know he p ecise da e o
an o icial check in he Czech lands, 76 we e made in he win e pe iod
( om mid-No embe un il he end o Ma ch, so less han hal he yea ).
This con i ms my p e ious conclusions ha many Lo a a om Slo akia
du ing his ime spen he whole yea in he Czech lands, a he han
being he e jus seasonally.
136
Ano he ques ion conce ns he size, a ha ime, o he amily g oups
which we e labelled, using he highly pejo a i e e minology o he pe-
iod, as “ho des” and which a elled oge he a ound he Czech lands.
The size o he accompanying g oup was gi en only o some “heads o
amily”. We see ha some amilies had ou membe s ( h ee amilies)
o i e membe s ( ou amilies). Howe e , i was much mo e common
o he e o be mo e han i e amily membe s ( o example, 12 amilies
had six membe s, while nine amilies had eigh membe s). An excep ion
was he g oup led by Ján Kud ik, s opped by police om H ozd in he
Li o el dis ic in 1934. This amily had 24 membe s and o ha eason
was aken o he police s a ion o he o ence o camping in “ho des
exceeding he amewo k o he [nuclea ] amily”.331 This wen agains
Ac no. 177/1927, whe e Sec ion 7 s a ed ha : “wande ing gypsies a e
no allowed o a el and camp in ho des exceeding he amewo k o he
[nuclea ] amily”. No in he o he cases was i excep ional o g oups o
exceed 10 membe s (six o he 92 “heads o amily” we e a elling wi h
10 people, one wi h 11 people, one wi h 14 and h ee o he s wi h 16 peo-
ple when hey we e checked by police). To make aquali ied es ima e
o Lo a a numbe s in he Czech lands du ing he Fi s Czechoslo ak
Republic is some hing Ida e no do, he e o e, no e en on he basis o
ho ough s udy. Ne e heless, Ies ima e ha he o e all numbe o Lo-
a a who, acco ding o my da abase, migh ha e unde gone s a e checks
in he 1930s was a ound se e al hund ed pe sons.
Conclusions: The si ua ion o he Lo a a in he Czech lands
in he in e wa pe iod
Se e al impo an conclusions may be d awn om he in o ma ion
abo e. While on he e i o y o Slo akia he Lo a a we e e i o ially
ancho ed in some loca ions du ing he in e wa pe iod, Iknow o no
ins ances, om he a ea o he his o ical Czech lands, o Roms om
his g oup buying o en ing ap ope y o which hey migh egula -
ly e u n. Ne e heless, i canno be comple ely uled ou ha some
weal hy Romani amilies en ed sho - e m accommoda ion o s ayed in
ho els, al hough Iha e ound no eco d o such s ays. An app oxima ely
50-membe Kalde ash amily, ela i es o he Polish “gypsy king” Michał
331 SOkA Olomouc, . OÚ Li o el, i. č. 797, k. 667, Dohled nad cikánským oby a els em
1896–1961, Če nická s anice H ozd: Úp a a S íhání cikánů– (20. 12. 1934), č. j. 2204.
137
Kwiek, b ie ly li ed in he Czech lands in he i s hal o he 1930s his
way, acco ding o Nečas, successi ely en ing apa men s in he P ague
subu b o S ašnice ( o nine mon hs), H adec K álo é, Ch udim, Ku ná
Ho a, Ka iná and Os a a.332 This once again shows ha asu icien ly
la ge sum o money was able o b eak down he o he wise impene able
social bounda ies whe eby “ a elling gypsies” we e pe cei ed as ma -
ginalized people. Acco ding o Nečas, he Kwiek amily owned wagons
(ma ingo ky), bu had hem anspo ed by ail o long dis ances ( o
example, om Pa dubice o Bohumín),333 which shows ha he mo e
a luen Roms we e able o mo e g ea e dis ances by al e na i e means
o ha o ho se-d awn anspo .
The Lo a a who emembe ed li e in he Czech lands du ing he
in e wa pe iod said hey almos always a elled only wi h ho ses and
wagons in which hey spen he nigh and li ed all yea ound. Thei way
o li e and how hey spen he nigh we e desc ibed by J. B., whose amily
ea ned ali ing making and cleaning ke les:
We had huge wagons, ca iages pulled by ho ses. We child en would a el
all wa m unde he ea he quil s and ou side i would be cold. We’d a el
like ha o maybe 20 kilome es. Then we’d s op nea awood, hey’d make
a i e and hen hey’d make abig en ou o a paulins. Tha ’swha we’d
sleep unde .334
The way o li e desc ibed by such wi nesses indica es ha Lo a a spa-
ial mobili y was ela i ely in ensi e in he in e wa Czech lands. The e
was clea ly no e i o ial ancho ing o Lo a a amilies a all, wi h he
excep ion o hei epea ed e u n o ho se ai s o o see cus ome s. The
ype o e i o ial bond common among he Lo a a amilies in Slo akia
du ing ha same ime was ne e c ea ed by Lo a a in he Czech lands.
Reco ds o hei ai ly i egula , e i o ially ex ensi e mo emen s ac oss
he Czech lands in he i s hal o he 1930s show ha Lo a a amilies
ied o ind e i o y whe e hey migh do business, bu we ha e no e -
idence ha any o hem managed o ind such an a ea. Al hough Roms
om he S ojka amily and o he Lo a a amilies mo ed a ound se e al
no he n Mo a ian dis ic s in he second hal o he 1930s, we ha e no
332 Nečas, “Cikánský k ál”, 19–22.
333 Ibid.
334 Wi ness J. B. (*1934), eco ded on 5 Feb ua y 2002 in České Budějo ice, Czech Republic by
Ma ké a Hajská. A chi e o Člo ěk  ísni, o.p.s.
144
om s aying on Czechoslo ak e i o y.337 The esul was ha in subse-
quen yea s he e was an inc ease in he equency o mo emen by Ro-
mani g oups o iginally om Ge man e i o y in he wes e n, no he n
and sou he n bo de egions o he Czech lands.338 The equency wi h
which such Romani amilies a i ed inc eased a e he Anschluss o
Aus ia in Ma ch 1938 and a e he Sude enland, he ex ensi e bo de
a ea o he Czech lands, was annexed by he Ge man Reich in Sep embe
1938.
In No embe 1938 he Cen al Police Pa ol Di ision in o med he
commands o he indi idual police di isions ha :
ollowing he occupa ion o he annexed e i o y, la ge numbe s o gypsy
and o he a elling, wo kshy ho des a e appea ing, coming om he an-
nexed e i o y and ha ing ne e p e iously appea ed on he e i o y o he
cu en s a e, o no o many yea s. Unde Sec ion 9 o he law o 14 July
1927, no. 117, ‘on wande ing gypsies’, o eign gypsies a e banned om s ay-
ing in Czechoslo akia. Unde Sec ion 4 clause 3 o he go e nmen Dec ee
o 26 Ap il 1928, no. 69, he gypsy iden i y ca d will be aken away om any
gypsy agabond ound no o be aci izen o Czechoslo akia. These p o isions
equi e all gypsies who clea ly belong o he annexed e i o y o be dep i ed
o hei gypsy iden i y ca d and he gypsies in ques ion o be handed o e o
he ele an o eign au ho i ies.339
The ci cula e e s o he si ua ion whe e a leas some o he Ge man
Roms and Sin i had clea ly managed o become Czechoslo ak ci izens
by making use o gaps in he sys em o issuing iden i y ca ds o “gypsy
agabonds”. They secu ed Czechoslo ak “gypsy” iden i y ca ds o i in-
e ancy documen s pu ely on he basis o ce ain documen s (such as
ch is ening o domicile ce i ica es) which hen se ed as o icial p oo
o hei Czechoslo ak ci izenship.340
In p ac ice, all a elling g oups on he bo de s we e p e en ed om
en e ing Bohemian o Mo a ian e i o y i hei membe s we e no
domiciled he e, and in he o he di ec ion, Roms wi h Czech domiciles
we e no allowed o en e he e i o y o neighbou ing s a es.341 In
337 Abo e all he ci cula ci ed abo e, ZÚ P aha číslo 456831 ai 1933 o 29 Sep embe 1933. NA
P aha, MV s a á egis a u a 5/98/3, k. 2432.
338 Nečas, Českoslo enš í Romo é, Nečas, Romo é na Mo a ě.
339 NA P aha, . ZÚ P aha, k. 853, ÚČPO č. j. 28.798/1938–Pos up p o i cikánům zods oupených
území p o eli els í če n. oddělení (5. 11. 1938).
340 Baloun, “Me la našeho enko a”, 292–294.
341 Nečas, Českoslo enš í Romo é, 29–31.

145
eac ion o his si ua ion, on 13 Ma ch 1939 he p o incial au ho i y in
P ague issued ci cula 36/128, en i led “Measu es agains gypsies and
o he agabond pe sons: O de s”, which called o Ac no. 117/1927
o be p ope ly upheld and s essed ha “i ine ancy on he pa o gyp-
sies wi h o eign ci izenship will no be su e ed any longe and hei
immedia e depo a ion o e he bo de is o de ed”.342 The ci cula was
he las comp ehensi e measu e ega ding “gypsies” o be issued by he
Czechoslo ak au ho i ies be o e he di ision o Czechoslo akia, which
occu ed li e ally du ing he nex ew days.
A e he P o ec o a e o Bohemia and Mo a ia was c ea ed, i s new
execu i e o gans con inued o p oceed in line wi h his ci cula ,343 wi h
he di e ence ha “gypsies wi h o eign ci izenship” now included “gyp-
sies” wi h he ci izenship o he independen Slo ak S a e. This had se i-
ous consequences o hei abili y o emain on P o ec o a e e i o y.344
Du ing he di ision o Czechoslo akia he e was also inc eased mo e-
men o Roms a he P o ec o a e’snewly-c ea ed eas e n bo de .345 Roms
and o he a elling g oups om Slo akia ound hemsel es o ced o
e u n o he newly-c ea ed Slo ak S a e. I should be men ioned ha
in he o icial eco ds, he mobili y o Roms om Slo akia is paid only
ma ginal a en ion. The e a e spo adic men ions in local police epo s
o he depa u es o ans e s o Slo ak “gypsies” being o ganised and
egis e ed by he police. The mo emen o “gypsy g oups” a ound he
new bo de s wi h Ge many ea u ed a mo e equen ly in he police
epo s, abo e all in he mon hs be ween he Sude enland seceding and
he di ision o Czechoslo akia.
Ne e heless, Imanaged o ind, a bo h he cen al and local le -
els, se e al eco ds ela ing o he depa u es o depo a ion o Ro-
mani g oups o he Slo ak S a e. The sudden depa u e o Roms a e
15 Ma ch o he newly-c ea ed Slo ak S a e unde s andably conce ned
no jus he Lo a a who had been mo ing abou he Czech Republic,
bu also o he Roms and Sin i wi h Slo ak ci izenship. This inc ease
in mobili y na u ally also conce ned Roms and Sin i who did no ha e
342 NA P aha, . ZÚ P aze– Policejní abezpečnos ní záleži os i, k. 853– Opa ření p o i cikánům
ajiným po ulným osobám, pokyny, ol. 193, č. 36/128 o he yea 1938 (13. 10. 1939).
343 Zdeněk Šípek. “Tz . Cikanská o ázka od Mnicho a do konce oku 1939.” Český lid, ol. 79,
no. 2 (1992): 163.
344 He e i ough o be men ioned ha du ing he b eakup o Czechoslo akia, hese ci cula s we e
only acollec ion o o de s designed o he execu i e au ho i ies. None was aimed in pa icula
a Roms om Slo akia and hei e u n o hei place o domicile.
345 Ibid., 163.
146
ci izenship o he o me Czechoslo akia, bu who we e jus leeing eg-
is a ion by he s a e au ho i ies and who became he main a ge o he
police pa ols, which subjec ed hem o ho ough iden i y and ci izenship
checks. In his s udy, howe e , Ishall exclusi ely ocus on he a chi al
ma e ials in which Lo a a domiciled in Slo akia can be iden i ied in some
way, al hough he g oup Iam ollowing was in ama ked mino i y in he
exis ing epo s compa ed o o he Roms and Sin i.
Unsu p isingly, we mos o en ind in o ma ion conce ning Lo a a
in he epo s om police s a ions in he Mo a ian egions close o he
Slo ak bo de . The police s a ion a F ýdek, o example, issued a epo
o 1939 s a ing ha :
du ing he yea 1939, gypsy ho des appea ed in his dis ic some 43 imes, be-
ing checked by indi idual police s a ions. They came mos ly om Mo a ia, o
alesse ex en om Bohemia, bu ea lie had also come om Slo akia. Du ing
he checks i was ound ha hey we e gypsy agabonds om he anks o
ho se deale s, umb ella mende s, kni e sha pene s, wande ing musicians, e c.
The gypsy ho des we e no pe manen ly se led in his dis ic .346
Fo he same pe iod, 1939, he police s a ion a Unčo ice, P os ějo
di ision announced:
The mo emen o gypsy ho des was g ea e his yea , gi en he excep ional
condi ions, han in p e ious yea s. In all a o al o 117 gypsy ho des we e
de ained by police. […] One o eign ho de was ans e ed o e he bo de .
Gypsies o Slo ak na ionali y e u ned back o Slo akia.347
In his documen we see ha Slo ak Roms we e no ye seen as be-
longing o he ca ego y o “ o eign gypsies”, al hough in p ac ice hey
we e al eady being depo ed om he P o ec o a e o he Slo ak S a e.
Simila news came om he Vilémo police s a ion in i s epo om he
end o Decembe 1939:
346 SOkA F ýdek-Mís ek, . Če nická s anice F ýdek, i. č. 22, Hlášení An den De Obe land a
Mah . Os au, F ýdek (31. 1. 1940), no č. j.
347 SOkA Olomouc, . OÚ Li o el, zn. ondu L 1–5, k. 667, i. č. 797, Dohled nad cikánským
oby a els em1896 až 1944– Zp á a oddělení P os ějo , s anice Unčo ice: S íhání cikánů,
(16. 1. 1940), č. j. 29035/1/III. Handw i en epo , he wo d “back” in he las sen ence was
subsequen ly c ossed ou .
147
The gypsies wi h Slo ak ci izenship whom we checked a e 15.3.1939 we
e u ned mos ly o he Slo ak bo de . In he ou h qua e o 1939 we no
longe ound gypsies wi h o eign ci izenship du ing he checks o gypsies
a elling h ough he dis ic .348
The Bouzo police s a ion s a ed ha in 1939 hey checked “gyp-
sy ho des” headed by Ján S ojka (a h ee-membe amily), Ka olina
Danišo á (10 membe s), Ma ia Laka ošo á (10 membe s) and o he
(non-Vlax) Roms and Sin i wi h he su names Růžička ( wice), Pa ne
and Ko as. Acco ding o he epo , hese “ho des” we e con olled in
Janua y and Feb ua y 1939 and om hen on we e no ound in he
dis ic .349 The epo does no s a e whe he he S ojka, Laka oš and
Daniš amilies we e conside ed Slo ak o o eign “gypsies”, bu me ely
ep esen s con i ma ion o he ac ha a e Ma ch 1939, he e was
a ans o ma ion in he spa ial mobili y o hese amilies. This ac was
also con i med by o he epo s. Mos clea ly desc ibe hei absence as
he esul o he es ic i e measu es, abo e all he limi s on en e ing
he coun y and he depo a ions o e he bo de . Likewise, he epo
om he T ojano ice police s a ion in he Mís ek dis ic con ains he
ollowing: “A e he e en s o 15 Ma ch 1939, gypsy a elling almos
s opped because gypsies om Slo akia we e p e en ed om c ossing
he bo de .”350
Conc e e examples o ans e ing “gypsy ho des” o Slo akia a e
documen ed by a epo om he F ýdlan nad Os a icí police s a ion
om 13 Decembe 1939, which s a es ha in 1939 he s a ion ca ied
ou , on he o de s o he police di ec o a e in Mo a ská Os a a, he
ans e o a“gypsy ho de” o he Slo ak bo de , he eason being ha
hey we e Slo ak ci izens. In ano he wo cases, also conce ning “Slo ak
gypsy ho des”, he s a ion checked hem and called on hem o e u n o
Slo akia, which hey appa en ly hen did.351
Repo s o Romani g oups depa ing o Slo akia also appea spo ad-
ically a he na ionwide le el. In a epo om he In e io Minis y o
he Land Au ho i y in P ague da ed 11 Ap il 1939 and en i led Gypsies–
o eign ci izens, i was announced ha “acco ding o a epo om he
Cen al Police Pa ol Di ision in P ague, wande ing gypsies ha e been
348 Ibid., Če nická s anice Vilémo , subjec : E idence cikánů, 23. 12. 1939, č. j. 1691/1939.
349 Ibid., . Če nická s anice Bouzo , ok . Li o el, subjec : E idence cikánů, č. j. 29601/1/III/39
(15. 12. 1939).
350 SOkA F ýdek Mís ek, . OU Mís ek, k. 997, i. č. 876, Úp a a s íhání cikánů, zp á a.
351 SOkA F ýdek Mís ek, . OU Mís ek, k. 997, i. č. 876, Úp a a s íhání cikánů.
148
changing hei s opping places apidly and i is possible o obse e hei
mo emen owa ds Slo akia.”352 This epo indica es ha he depa u es
o “wande ing gypsies” om he P o ec o a e in he di ec ion o Slo akia
we e spon aneous– which, as we shall see below, was one o he ways
in which his p ocess was cha ac e ised by wi nesses om Lo a a am-
ilies hemsel es. As we can see, howe e , he p e ious announcemen s
om police s a ions had equen ly men ioned he o cible ejec ion o
Romani g oups o e he Slo ak bo de and he p e en ion o hei en-
ance in o he P o ec o a e, which is wha o he Romani wi nesses also
desc ibe.
3.2 Change o ci izenship as a eason o lea ing
he P o ec o a e
The eason Slo ak Roms le he P o ec o a e o Bohemia and Mo a ia o
we e depo ed om i a e he b eakup o Czechoslo akia was he change
in hei ci il s a us. The legal amewo ks and ounding documen s o he
newly-c ea ed s a es ( he P o ec o a e o Bohemia and Mo a ia and he
Slo ak S a e) ede ined who would now be hei ci izens. A e he end
o he Second Czechoslo ak Republic, a ound 300,000 Slo aks ound
hemsel es wi hou ci izenship in he P o ec o a e (which co e ed he
e i o y o he Czech lands), suddenly becoming o eigne s unless hey
we e al eady domiciled in amunicipali y he e. As his o ian Jan Rychlík
has desc ibed, howe e , an i-Slo ak eeling appea ed only occasionally
in he P o ec o a e, and he e was no poli ical in e es in depo ing he
Slo aks who li ed he e. The Ge man au ho i ies app o ed esidency
in he P o ec o a e o non-Jewish, non-Romani Slo aks mo e o less
wi hou any di icul y and hey we e ha dly e e depo ed. Depo a ion,
Rychlík says, was used by he P o ec o a e only in he case o c iminals
such as begga s, hie es and p os i u es, in collabo a ion wi h he Czech
police.353 F om his desc ip ion i can be seen ha he ca ego y o ci izen-
ship allowed he au ho i ies a ai ly ee hand when i came o g an ing
esidence on P o ec o a e e i o y. Law ul depo a ion on he basis o
ci izenship, in o he wo ds, could be used o ge id o pe sons in he
ca ego ies lis ed abo e who we e unwan ed by local au ho i ies and he
352 NA P aha, . ZÚ P aha, k. 853, č. j. 18.676/1939–5.
353 Jan Rychlík, Češi aSlo áci e 20. s ole í. Spolup áce akon lik y 1914–1992 (P aha: Vyšeh ad, 2015),
12.
149
s a e.354 Al hough Rychlík does no explici ly men ion his ca ego y, on
he basis o my esea ch Ican add ha hese unwan ed pe sons includ-
ed people labelled “gypsies” o “gypsy agabonds” as he au ho i ies
had no poli ical in e es in hei emaining in he P o ec o a e (on he
con a y).
Roms om Slo akia we e he e o e mo ed de iu e, li e ally o e nigh ,
om he ca ego y o na i e “gypsies” o he ca ego y o o eign “gypsies”,
whose depo a ion was enabled by Sec ion 9 o Ac no. 117/1927, which
was s ill in e ec . As he announcemen s om police s a ions show,
howe e , on alocal le el police con inued o dis inguish be ween Slo ak
“gypsies” and o he o eign “gypsies”, e en hough bo h g oups we e
depo ed. The au ho i ies’ app oaches o hese g oups di e ed, and as
we shall see below, in he case o “gypsies om Slo akia”, aconside able
ole in he whole p ocess was played by hei spon aneous depa u es
om he P o ec o a e, howe e much hose migh ha e been p o oked
o a ious ex en s. The change in ci izenship esul ed in Slo ak Roms
being p e en ed om en e ing he e i o y o he P o ec o a e and being
expelled back o Slo akia should hey y o en e . Police s a ions in he
P o ec o a e managed o eac e y quickly o he new si ua ion, and in
he space o a ew mon hs a he mos , Roms wi h Slo ak domiciles o
ci izenship had been ejec ed om P o ec o a e e i o y.
Domicile became key o he ques ion o who was able o emain in he
P o ec o a e and who had o lea e. Roms wi h anewly-acqui ed o eign
ci izenship had no chance o emaining, as can be deduced om he
nume ous eco ds o in ensi e police sea ches o “gypsy ho des”, abo e
all o Roms wi h Ge man ci izenship, o e he en i e e i o y and he
subsequen depo a ion o hese “ho des”. The need o e u n o Slo akia
a ec ed all Slo ak Roms li ing on P o ec o a e e i o y. In he case o
he Lo a a, who as “wande ing gypsies” we e highly isible, depa u e
om he P o ec o a e a ec ed all he amilies li ing on he oad on Czech
e i o y ac oss he boa d. The only ones who managed o s ay in he
P o ec o a e we e indi iduals who we e able o hide hei membe ship o
such a elling g oups. In he case o en i e amilies i has o be assumed
ha hey did no s ay in he P o ec o a e.
354 Slo ak Jews we e also depo ed, howe e , and ound hemsel es in adi icul si ua ion, since
B a isla a was no in e es ed in hei immig a ion (Ibid., 224–226).

150
3.3 Re u ning o Slo akia om he poin o iew
o Lo a a wi nesses
A e he c ea ion o he Slo ak S a e, he Lo a a had o e u n o he mu-
nicipali y in which hey we e domiciled, al hough hey o en no long e
had unc ional ies o ha locali y. This si ua ion occu ed among hose
Lo a a who had been mo ing abou he Czech lands in he 1930s. Some
o hem had p obably no e u ned a all in he p e ious decade o he
Slo ak municipali y in which hey we e egis e ed, and so hei domicile
he e had become pu ely o mal. Such amilies had no social ies he e.
They we e unde s andably iewed as o eign and as no belonging o he
municipali y by bo h he local au ho i ies and he au och honous inhabi-
an s. The au ho i ies o en had an in e es in ge ing id o hese new a -
i als, who we e iewed as asecu i y isk, and hey p e en ed hem om
se ling in he municipali y. An example o such o ced e u n o he place
o domicile is he Lo a a amilies who, a he behes o he au ho i ies,
had o e u n o Pas ucho , no a om Hloho ec,355 whe e an ex ended
amily o Roms had been domiciled since he pe iod be o e he c ea ion
o Czechoslo akia. Du ing he Fi s Republic, hei ajec o ies changed
in keeping wi h hei li elihood, he manu ac u e and cleaning o ke les,
which ook hem o he Czech lands. Wi ness J. B. emembe s ha in
Pas ucho “some o my ela i es had been bo n be o e hen, some o my
uncles, when we used o a el abou he e.”356 Acco ding o my a chi al
indings, howe e , hei ies o he municipali y had been mo e in ensi e
and pe manen in he pas , and all ha emained o hem was a o mal
bond– ha o domicile. A e he c ea ion o an independen Slo akia
in Ma ch 1939, se e al Romani amilies we e o ced on he basis o his
domicile o e u n o he municipali y o which hey belonged. Howe -
e , none had li ed in he small illage in ecen yea s, and none o hem
had c ea ed any ies o he locali y. Acco ding o he wi ness ci ed, 10 o
15 ela ed amilies we e o ced o e u n o Pas ucho a he beginning
o he wa , headed by his g and a he . They we e sen o aplo o land
abou akilome e om he municipali y. Acco ding o a epo om he
355 Ilooked a his case b ie ly in my a icle (Hajská, “We had o…”), and he e Iwill look a i in
mo e de ail and om ano he pe spec i e.
356 J. B., male (*1934), eco ded 5 Feb ua y 2002 in České Budějo ice, Czech Republic by Ma ké a
Hajská. A chi e o Člo ěk  ísni, o.p.s. To econs uc he si ua ion in Pas ucho Iwill also use
he es imonies o o he wi nesses om his amily such as O. B. (*1932) eco ded on 15 Ap il
2002 in Ús í nad Labem, Czech Republic by Milada Zá odská, A chi spol. Člo ěk  ísni,
o.p.s.; and O. K. (*1932) and R. R. (*1935), bo h s o ed in he VÚA VHA P aha, . Sbí ka
osobních spisů žada elůo ydání os ědčení podle zákona č. 255/1946 Sb., os.
151
Rišňo ce police s a ion in 1941, in he municipali y o Pas ucho he e
we e “25 gypsy agabonds, all wi h domiciles in Pas ucho . These aga-
bond gypsies ha e nei he ho ses no wagons and now hey a e all li ing
in Pas ucho .”357 On he basis o his epo , we may p esume ha he
Roms had ei he sold hei ho ses and wagons o ha hey had been con-
isca ed. The numbe o pe sons in his epo does no co espond o he
numbe gi en abo e by he wi ness J. B. (10–15 amilies), bu he epo
may ha e jus coun ed he adul s. A i s i seems hey buil imp o ised
accommoda ion o hemsel es on he plo ou side he illage, as wi ness
O.B. desc ibes: “In he mean ime we had ashed, which is whe e we slep .
We didn’ ha e as o e back hen, jus acamp i e. So ha ’swhe e we
li ed be o e my a he buil ou house. I wasn’ un il 1944 ha he buil
he house.“358 Those houses seem o ha e been des oyed a he end o
he wa by Ge man oops.
A i ing in amunicipali y whe e such Roms had ne e owned any
houses, despi e he whole amily o a leas one o he pa en s being
domiciled he e, o en mean ha hey we e o icially allo ed aspeci ic
place ha had clea ly been hei camping place o win e ing place p e-
iously. This expe ience was desc ibed by Lo a a wi nesses om h ee
municipali ies in he dis ic o T na a (K ižo any, Bohdano ce and
H nčia o ce). They said ha se e al Romani amilies “ e u ned” a he
same ime o hese municipali ies du ing he pe iod in ques ion and ha
some imes hey we e ex ended amilies wi h many b anches.
Wi nesses o his ans e om he P o ec o a e equen ly desc ibed
hei depa u e o Slo akia as o ced, in eac ion o he newly-app o ed
“law”359 o de ing hem o e u n o he municipali ies whe e hey we e
domiciled.360 O he wi nesses in e p e ed his e en as an “escape”, mo-
i a ed by he a emp o “sa e hei li es”, hus indica ing hei ole
as ac o s in his p ocess who had decided o choose whe e hey would
li e.361 The same mo i a ion can be obse ed wi h Bohemian and Mo a-
ian Roms and Sin i who emig a ed o Slo akia du ing he same pe iod,
he eby a oiding he mass depo a ions o concen a ion camps and o h-
357 ŠA Ni a/ T na a, . OÚ Hloho ec 1923–1944, k. 213– Kočo ní cigáni, bezpečnos né opa -
enie, č. j. 509/4, subjec : Úp a a niek o ých pome o cigáno , še enie z16. 5. 1941.
358 O. B. (*1932) eco ded on 15 Ap il 2002 in Ús í nad Labem, Czech Republic by Milada
Zá odská. A chi e o Člo ěk  ísni, o.p.s.
359 This was no anew law, as some o he wi nesses desc ibe i , bu he ins i u ion o domicile
and he legal amewo ks go e ning i we e ans o med a e he c ea ion o he P o ec o a e
and an independen Slo akia.
360 Hajská, “We had o un away”, 70–71.
361 Ibid., 78.
152
e d as ic “solu ions o he gypsy ques ion” unde way in he P o ec o a e
o Bohemia and Mo a ia.362
The Lo a a who had mo ed a ound he Czech lands in he in e wa
pe iod and who we e ejec ed om he P o ec o a e in 1939 also su i ed
as ag oup he genocide o he Romani popula ion on hei e i o y.
Thei names did no appea on he lis s o hose in e ned in he concen-
a ion camps designa ed o Roms on P o ec o a e e i o y (Le y uPí-
sku, Hodonín uKunš á u), no we e hey anspo ed o Auschwi z.363
362 Ibid.
363 Ibid., 52.
256
The o ganisa ional measu es o he egis e also con ained lis s o
pe sons o he a ious places whe e he egis e was o be aken and hei
es ima ed numbe s, di ided in o “gypsies” (adul s and child en sepa a e-
ly) and “showmen” (again adul s and child en sepa a ely). In each MNV
he necessa y ooms we e ese ed o he egis e , and awo king g oup
was se up o pe o m he egis e consis ing o o icials om he ONV,
he sec e a y o he MNV, cle ks and apolice o ice o ensu e o de and
esco people i necessa y.642
Regis e o “ a elling” and “semi- a elling” pe sons
in Louny and Ža ec
The egis e o “ a elling” and “semi- a elling” pe sons ook place
na ionwide on 3–6 Feb ua y 1959. In Louny, all he membe s o he
amily being ollowed he e we e p ocessed on 3 Feb ua y 1959. On he
p ese ed egis e shee s643 he e is ano e nex o he h ee amilies in
Anna S ojko á’sb anch o he amily s a ing ha hey owned a“co e ed
wagon– ca a an”, and ha one also owned a“d op-sided wagon”. In
he Janua y 1959 p elimina y lis s, wo amilies had ano e nex o hei
names s a ing ha hey owned ei he a“d op-sided wagon” o “wagon
wi h a a paulin”, bu hose same amilies ha e ano e nex o hei names
in he Feb ua y egis e eading “no means o anspo .” In he in e im
hese amilies may ha e been mo ed inside he b ickwo ks. The numbe
o wagons does no co espond o he in o ma ion ha he ONV la e
p o ided in a epo o he KNV on 10 Feb ua y 1959 which s a es ha
“ i e gypsies, o which ou a e child en, s ill li e in aco e ed wagon”.644
I is in e es ing ha jus one amily (Jouško, Anna’sb o he -in-law) is
s a ed o own aho se: “one gelding, g ey 12 yea s”.645 Aho se (g ey) was
also no ed in Janua y 1959 in he case o ano he amily, bu no in he
inal egis e .
642 SOkA Louny, . ONV Louny II, ni ř. 608, k. 332– ni ř. O ganizační opa ření kp o edení
soupisu kočujících apolokočujících osob ok ese Louny lednu 1959 (wi h no da e, no č. j.).
643 The egis e documen s ha e no been p ese ed o all he amilies. Iha e documen s o
se en nuclea amilies and wo childless indi iduals o e 15.
644 SOkA Louny, . ONV Louny II, ni ř. 608, k. 332– Repo om ONV Louny: P o ádění
soupisu osob kočujících apolokočujících (10. 2. 1959).
645 Ibid.

257
In Ža ec, he egis e ook place on 4 Feb ua y 1959. Iha e managed
o ind jus wo egis e shee s in he s a e a chi es in Louny646 o he
amily o An onín (Vido) Ho á , his wi e Kuluš and hei six mino
child en, and he amily o Bak o, hei adul son. We lea n ha hey all
li ed oge he in aca a an a Os o in Ža ec and did no ha e ad i ing
licence o a ade licence. Ho ses a e no men ioned o hem and no
o he in o ma ion is a ailable. The cou se o he egis e is desc ibed in
a epo by he ONV da ed 10 Feb ua y 1959 ha s a es:
In he dis ic o Louny he egis e ook place […] in acco dance wi h he
o ganisa ional plan. Du ing he egis e no dis u bances ook place and all
hose who we e summoned u ned up o egis e a he a ious cen es. No
one was b ough by he police.647
Ano he epo o he KNV on 15 Ap il 1959 s a ed ha : “In ou dis-
ic he e we e no complain s ha anyone had been w ongly egis e ed.”
An en i ely di e en e sion o he egis e p ocess was desc ibed by
Be ci S ojka, who wi nessed his o ced seden a isa ion:
When hey b ough us o he b ickwo ks we had ho ses o s a wi h, so my
uncles could a el o ho se ma ke s and do o he business, bu hen he ban
on a elling came and hey ook ou ho ses. Policemen and soldie s came o
us, plus ci ilians, p obably om social se ices o he local au ho i y. Abou
ahund ed people. Tha was he wo s hing ha could ha e happened o us.
We couldn’ a el any mo e. Is ill emembe how we all c ied. G own-ups,
old Roms we e c ying, sc eaming. The child en we e sobbing. My g and-
mo he was c ying, wailing wi h pi y. The e was no hing we could do. They
came o us a med, wi h guns. We we e wo ied ha i we de ended he ho ses,
hey’d shoo us. The Roms an in o hei wagons. We child en hid unde he
wagons, we we e a aid hey’d ake us. My g andmo he called o me: ‘Be ci,
un away, hide!’ She was a aid hey’d ake us o achild en’shome, because
my mo he was in p ison and she was looking a e me by he sel . I an inside
and hid unde he bed. The police ook ou ho ses, eigh ho ses in o al, and
pu hem on wagons. Then hey said: ‘Righ , hey’ e going o he knacke ’s.’
They ook away all ou ho ses, e en my li le ho se F icko. He’d g own up wi h
me, om acol . And we s ayed he e in hose wagons o se e al mo e yea s.648
646 Ibid., Regis e lis s by names o pe sons.
647 Ibid., Repo om ONV Louny: P o ádění soupisu … (10. 2. 1959).
648 Pe sonal eco ding o Be ci (*1949) by he au ho made on 18 Decembe 2018 in Louny, Czech
Republic.
258
This es imony, showing he egis e as a undamen ally iolen e en
ha ook place in he p esence o he a med o ces, di e s so much om
he egis e ’so icial desc ip ion ha Iam inclined o hink i mus ha e
aken place on adi e en day om he o icially planned egis e a he
MNV p emises on 3 Feb ua y 1959. This may ha e been an inciden om
he end o Janua y 1959, when p elimina y lis s o “gypsy amilies” we e
d awn up on he spo by o icials and unc iona ies in he p esence o
secu i y o ces. Fo he wi ness, a ha ime achild, his may ha e me ged
in his memo y wi h he illing-in o o ms a he MNV in Feb ua y 1959.
In any case, he abo e-ci ed ins uc ions om he KNV called o he
Feb ua y p epa a ions o he egis e o be a ended by all so s o secu-
i y o ces and o ganisa ions, which migh accoun o he la ge numbe
o people whom he wi ness emembe s coming o he b ickwo ks. S ill,
he desc ip ion u gen ly con eys he Roms’ powe lessness and ea o he
s a e ep esen a i es, whom he S ojka amily pe cei ed as a undamen al
h ea agains which hey we e a aid o p o es in any way. Whe he his
e en ook place on 3 Feb ua y o se e al days ea lie a he end o Janu-
a y 1959, i is clea ha o hese Roms, he “ egis e ” ep esen ed an ac
o ep ession and iolence agains hem by he s a e bodies.
An impo an ques ion is how and when hei ho ses we e con isca ed.
Nei he he epo on he egis e no any o he epo s in he a chi es
con ain any u he in o ma ion on whe he , how o when he ho ses
we e con isca ed om he S ojka amily and anspo ed elsewhe e. As
Isaid abo e, ho se owne ship a he ime o he egis e is eco ded in
he case o jus one amily (one gelding, g ey, 12 yea s old, belonging o
Jose , Anna S ojko á’sb o he -in-law) and one mo e ho se (ag ey) was
on he p elimina y lis o Janua y 1958 as belonging o Anna’sson Mi-
chal. Acco ding o he wi ness, howe e , hese Roms owned eigh ho ses
ha we e con isca ed a ha ime, and 60 yea s la e , Be ci S ojka could
emembe hei names and wha hey looked like. I has o be asked
when he iolen ac he desc ibes ook place. Fo Be ci, he con isca ion
o hei ho ses was he c ucial, mos agic e en o he whole egis e
p ocess. Al hough he In e io Minis y’sins uc ions o he egis e did
con ain o de s on how o handle ho ses and wagons, he a chi al sou c-
es do no men ion he ques ion o how hey we e ac ually deal wi h a
all.
Tha ho ses we e aken om he Roms li ing by he i e Ohře is,
howe e , admi ed by a epo om Ža ec o Ap il 1959 whe e, in asec-
ion e alua ing successes in inding employmen o he Roms, he epo
says:
259
I has o be emembe ed ha in he case o pe sons om he gypsy camp,
hings we e much helped by an ope a ion in which he police seized hei
ho ses, which we e hen con isca ed. This dep i ed hem o hei pe manen ,
easy income sou ce.649
Al hough we do no know when hese ho ses we e aken away, i is
con i med he e ha his was done by he police and ha he Roms did
no ecei e any compensa ion o hei ho ses. In he b ie easons gi en
o he ope a ion, we see ha he s ep was in ended by he secu i y bodies
as an ins umen o ep ession and assimila ion, bu i s esul was me ely
o inc ease he isola ion and c iminalisa ion o he pe sons in ques ion.
I has o be asked whe e hese ho ses ended up a e hey had been
seized wi hou any p ope o icial documen a ion o he whole p ocess.
I is clea ha he Roms’ p ope y was audulen ly aken o hem and
de alued, and ha he local ep esen a i es o he s a e bodies and
secu i y o ces ook ad an age o he Roms’ diso ien ed, ma ginalised
posi ion o s eal hei ho ses. Disc epancies in he numbe o ho ses a e,
indeed, ema kable in he Feb ua y 1959 egis e on ana ionwide scale.
Acco ding o he o icial s a is ics o he egis e , a o al o 61 ho ses
we e eco ded in he Bohemian and Mo a ian egions and 11 o hem
we e seized.650 This numbe is clea ly e y unde s a ed and is en i ely a
odds wi h wha Lo a a wi nesses say. In Louny alone, acco ding o he
wi ness Be ci S ojka, eigh ho ses we e seized (and pu down), bu o he
Lo a a om o he locali ies also epo ha ho ses we e seized (and pu
down),651 al hough his unde s andably need no ha e happened on he
exac da e o egis e .
Ho ses we e e y highly p ized by he Lo a a, and no jus in he
sense o hei inancial alue, o as as a us symbol. They pe cei ed he
seizu e and pu ing down o hei ho ses as a a al incu sion in o hei
li es, and he whole e en had ahuge emo ional dimension o hem.
Some Lo a a wi nesses showed g ea e so ow a he loss and dea h o
649 SOA Li oměřice, . SKNV, odbo ni řních ěcí, zn. 608, V-10 Soupis kočujících Cikánů
1959–1965– Repo om KNV, subjec : Cikánská o ázka do schůze (7. 4. 1958, no č. j.).
650 ABS, 8. schódza kolégia MV– 23. 3. 1959. A2/1, k. 306.
651 Fo example, Ludmila Laka ošo á (*1943), eco ded in Vel uby on 3 Ap il 2009; pe sonal
eco ding o Š e an S ojka (*1940) by he au ho , made in Os a a on 30 Ma ch 2017; pe -
sonal eco ding o Š e ania S ojko á (*1936) by he au ho , made on 1 Ap il 2023 in Os a a;
pe sonal eco ding o S. L. (*1930) by he au ho , eco ded in Ko anice in Oc obe 2008: and
ape sonal eco ding o Má ia Laka ošo á (*1951) by he au ho , eco ded in Pečky on 24 Ap il
2018.
260
hei ho ses han a hei own o ced seden a isa ion, which leads us o
ealise he cul u al e o and insensi i i y o he s a e adminis a ion.
6.3 The lis ing o pe sons in he egis e
The egis e unde aken unde Ac no. 74 o 17 Oc obe 1958 “on he
pe manen se lemen o a elling pe sons” had along- e m impac on
he people included in i . They we e now on aspecial o icial egis e
es ablished in 1959 a all he ONVs and police commands. This egis e
subsequen ly eco ded all changes conce ning he people in ques ion.
The pe sons in he egis e had s ic limi a ions on hei abili y o mo e
a ound, especially in he yea s immedia ely ollowing hei egis e . Ac-
co ding o Sec ion 3 o Ac no. 74/1958, con inuing o main ain a a -
elling way o li e was punishable by six mon hs o h ee yea s in p ison.
In p ac ice, his mean aban on lea ing he municipali y and he la ge
dis ic whe e hey we e esiden a he ime o hei egis e .
F om Be ci S ojka’spe spec i e, he egis e mean his amily’s ee-
dom o mo emen came o an end:
When he Roms we e egis e ed in 1959, i mean hey w o e us all down. The
adul s go as amp on hei iden i y ca ds ha we li ed in Louny. Tha mean
we we e banned om lea ing he dis ic . I we wen ou o he Louny dis ic ,
i would be aken as i we’d ied o lee o he Wes , o example. Anyone
who wan ed o lea e had o be able o show some so o special pe mission.
Aspecial piece o pape , adischa ge, bu wha was on i Idon’ emembe . In
ime, howe e , we go used o Louny and we didn’ e en wan o lea e. E en
i we’d wan ed o, we couldn’ ha e le . We had o s ay he e.652
In he sp ing o 1959, qui e soon a e he egis e was comple ed, c i -
ical epo s began o appea ega ding he way in which Ac no. 74/1958
was being obse ed in he Ús í Region. A he dis ic le el, he egis e
agenda was he esponsibili y o he ONV in e io a ai s depa men s,
which sen egula epo s o he egional le el in Ús í nad Labem. The
epo s by he in e io a ai s depa men o he KNV council in Ús í
nad Labem included egula epo s on he supe ision o hose on he
egis e . C i ical commen s abou he egis e can be de ec ed in he
652 Pe sonal eco ding o Be ci (*1949) by he au ho , made on 18 Decembe 2018.
261
e alu ions o he egis e p ocess sen by he Louny ONV o he KNV in
Ús í nad Labem, as well as wa nings ha he law was no being upheld.
F om he pe spec i e o he s a e, he law was being insu icien ly
obse ed a he local le el, especially by ONVs in Slo akia, bu also by
some Czech MNVs and ONVs which we e a bi a ily de- egis e ing peo-
ple. The upkeep o he egis e was he e o e assessed as inconsis en . In
he Louny and Ža ec dis ic s, howe e , he people en e ed on he egis e
we e checked ai ly s ic ly. These measu es had an undeniable impac in
he Louny dis ic (which in he 1960s joined wi h wha was p e iously
he Ža ec dis ic ), abo e all on he S ojka and S ojka-Ho á amilies.
Because hey we e egis e ed as “ a elling”, which in some o icial docu-
men s was sho ened o “Kpe sons” ( o kočující, a elling), hey we e as-
sessed by he s a e bodies as he “mos backwa d” and “mos p oblema ic”
among he “pe sons o gypsy o igin”, and as such hey we e paid g ea e
a en ion. They ound hemsel es unde he sc u iny o “gypsy” com-
missions, police bodies, and he in e io a ai s depa men o he ONV,
which de o ed hemsel es in de ail o hese “gypsies” in a ious epo s
and announcemen s. The au ho i ies looked ca e ully a he ques ion o
mo ing he amilies ou side he dis ic , bu hey also ied o p e en o h-
e Roms om being mo ed in o he dis ic , abo e all ela i es o he wo
amilies. The MNVs we e called on by he ONV no o de egis e , wi hou
he ag eemen o he in e io a ai s depa men o he ONV in Louny,
any o he people on he egis e i hey we e in ending o mo e away.653
Dealing and no dealing wi h li ing in ca a ans
Al hough he egis e o “ a elling” and “semi- a elling” pe sons was
desc ibed in i s immedia e a e ma h by local bodies as ha ing been
success ully ca ied ou , one o he g ea es p oblems in he Louny and
Ža ec dis ic s was he ac ha sui able housing had no been ound o
p e iously “ a elling pe sons”, which was mean o be one o he esul s
o implemen ing Ac no. 74/1958 a he local le el. The ho n in he side
o he au ho i ies was he accommoda ion o he S ojka and S ojka–Ho -
á amilies, who con inued o li e in hei ca a ans on he same si es,
he old b ickwo ks in Louny and a Os o in Ža ec, o se e al yea s
a e being egis e ed.
653 SOkA Louny, . MNV Louny, i. č. 100– Le e accompanying he egis e shee s (5. 5. 1959)
om he In e io A ai s Depa men o he Louny ONV o he MNV.

262
An a emp o sol e he ques ion o he unsui able accommoda ion in
he Roms’ own ca a ans was decla ed o be unde way by he local and
dis ic au ho i ies om he p elimina y, p epa a o y phase o he egis-
e . Finding sui able housing o “ a elling gypsies” had been agoal o
he egion-wide mee ing “on he eeduca ion o he gypsy popula ion”
ha ook place in Decembe 1958 in Ús í nad Labem.654 On he o he
hand, in con adic ion o hese decla ed a emp s o ind sui able housing
o hese o me ly “ a elling gypsies”, he local Economy and T anspo
Depa men o he KNV council in Ús í nad Labem issued aw i en o de
o all he subo dina e depa men s o he MNV and ONV councils on
4Feb ua y 1959 as he egis e was aking place in which i s essed ha
o a empo a y pe iod, du ing he dispe sal o such pe sons, i was s ill
possible o make use o mo e subs anda d accommoda ion o hem. The
o de exp essly men ioned ha such empo a y, p o isional accommo-
da ion could include he wagons used hi he o by “ a elling” pe sons
a e he means o owing hem had been emo ed.655 As we can see, in
he case o wo ex ended amilies ha dec ee was applied using alegal-
ised excep ion. While his was mean o be jus a empo a y solu ion, no
speci ic ime limi o his app oach was se by he o de . The local and
dis ic commi ees con inued o decla e ha hey we e ying o deal
wi h he si ua ion o Roms li ing in ca a ans, bu in p ac ice he e was
minimal ac ion on his issue.
Immedia ely a e he egis e , o icials ied o mo e some o he
Roms who li ed in he ya d o he old b ickwo ks in o he building i sel ,
which was dilapida ed. In a epo o he In e io A ai s Depa men o
he Regional Na ional Commi ee Council in Ús í nad Labem in Ap il
1959,656 he ONV was able o announce ha : “wi h he excep ion o h ee
amilies who li e oge he , he gypsy pe sons a e al eady housed. The
emaining h ee amilies will, acco ding o he MNV, be gi en housing
in he space o amon h.”657 I also s a ed ha he “housing s anda d o
pe sons o gypsy o igin, abo e all he S ojkas, is no good enough, be-
654 SOA Li oměřice, . SKNV, odbo ni řních ěcí, i. č. 608, V-10 Soupis kočujících Cikánů
1959–1965– Zp á a ak i u opře ýcho ě cikánského oby a els a (18. 12. 1958, no č. j.).
655 Ibid.– Repo en i led Uby o ání občanů cikánského pů odu yp aco aná edoucím oddě-
lení MH (10. 8. 1959, no č. j.).
656 SOkA Louny, . ONV Louny II, ni ř. 608, k. 332– Zp á a p o odb. p o VV ady KNV Ús í
n. L., Kočující apolokočující osoby: zp á a (15. 4. 1959, č. j. 726).
657 Ibid., Zp á a odb. p o VV ady KNV Ús í n. L., Kočující apolokočující osoby (15. 4. 1959,
no č. j.). The epo desc ibes he mo ing o nuclea amilies om Anna S ojko á’s ex ended
amily in o he b ickwo ks building. As Ishall show below, hese amilies did no las long in
hese aw ul condi ions and e u ned o hei ca a ans.
263
cause i is di icul o b eak hei habi o leading a a elling li e and o
adap hem o no mal li e.’658
C i icising he “ a elling way o li e” was somewha absu d on he
pa o he au ho i ies, gi en ha he s a e i sel had ended hei mo-
bili y by pu ing he amily in he b ickwo ks, in en i ely unsui able
condi ions in aspa ially-excluded and socially-seg ega ed en i onmen ,
en i ely unsui able o amilies wi h child en. Al hough he au ho i ies
we e esponsible o deepening he social ma ginalisa ion o his amily,
hey somewha alibis ically epea ed hei a acks on he amily’s“bad
habi s” le o e om he pe iod o hei i ine ancy which, om he
au ho i ies’ pe spec i e, we e behind he ailed in eg a ion o he Roms
om his amily in o local socie y. This app oach once again shows ha
o icial epo s om he socialis pe iod a e un us wo hy, one-sided
sou ces.
Finding sui able accommoda ion o “ o me a elling pe sons”
became akey ask o hei planned eeduca ion and was discussed a
anumbe o local commi ee mee ings, including hose o he “gypsy
commi ees”. The “Commi ee o dealing wi h he gypsy ques ion”
me on 19 May 1959 and i s minu es e eal ha no apid solu ion o he
housing si ua ion o hese amilies had been ound. I was me ely s a ed
ha he ask o epai ing he b ickwo ks building had no been ul illed,
and so he Louny local commi ee was once again asked o esol e his
ques ion once and o all.659 The same hing was epea ed a he nex
mee ing o he commi ee in Sep embe 1959,660 when he MNV in Louny
was once again called upon o “ inally, apidly and as ama e o p io i y
deal wi h he ehousing ques ion”661 o he amily o Anna’ssis e -in-law
R. S ojko á, who had coope a ed wi h he au ho i ies, and o eloca e
hem om he b ickwo ks o ap ope la . Howe e , no such mo e ook
place ei he in he au umn o 1959 o in he subsequen yea .
In Janua y 1960, membe s o he “Commi ee o he gypsy ques ion”
checked and su eyed he accommoda ion o he “gypsies” in he b ick-
wo ks behind he ba acks. As was s a ed in ade ailed epo om ha
check on hem, “i was ound on si e ha all he amilies had mo ed om
he o me b ickwo ks in o ca a ans. The amilies who p e iously had
no ca a ans had since bough olde ones. The e a e now se en ca a ans
658 Ibid.
659 Ibid.– Zápis ze schůze komise p o řešení cikánské o ázky (19. 5. 1959, no č. j.).
660 Ibid.– Zápis zpo ady cikánské komise (3. 9. 1959, no č. j.).
661 Ibid.
264
on he si e and all a e he p ope y o he S ojka amily.” 662 The ca a ans
s ood in he cou ya d acouple o me es om he empo a ily-adap ed
in e io o he old b ickwo ks, in which he Roms had no in e es in
li ing.
The epo also desc ibed he ca a ans’ equipmen and s a e o epai
in de ail:
The i s ca a an... [whe e] [R.] S ojko á li es, was in good o de . The amily
had bough ch ome beds and mo e ecen ly leased anew, whi e s o e.663 E e-
y hing was idy and he e we e whi e bedsp eads. The loo was sc ubbed
and co e ed wi h wo n bu clean ca pe s... In he second ca a an he e was
amo he wi h a h ee-day-old baby. The child en om he whole camp we e
also concen a ed he e.664
As we lea n om he epo , “a e much nego ia ion, elec ic ligh
was a anged o hese amilies, which conside ably imp o ed he si u-
a ion o he accommoda ed pe sons o gypsy na ionali y.”665 Howe e ,
access o d inking wa e had no ye been deal wi h, no had any la a o-
ies been buil . The commi ee also su eyed hei neighbou s, summing
up i s indings as ollows:
When ci izens li ing nea by we e asked wha kind o di icul ies hey had
wi h he ci izens o gypsy na ionali y, he e we e no c i ical commen s. They
a e gene ally sa is ied wi h hei p esence in he neighbou hood. The main
commen was ha ala a o y should be buil .666
In conclusion, he “Commi ee o he gypsy ques ion” once again
passed a esolu ion ha wi h ega d o R. S ojko á, whom hey assessed
as coope a ing wi h he au ho i ies and he school, i was necessa y as
ama e o p io i y o ind he “adecen la and isola e he om he
o he s”.667 The “o he s” he e e e s o he o he membe s o he S ojka
amily, who could clea ly ha e a“bad” in luence on he . Ano he ask was
o a ange wi h he s ee commi ees neighbou ing he old b ickwo ks
662 SOkA Louny, . Ok esní p oku a u a Louny . 1960–1965, i. č. 26, Pd 460, k. 5– Zápis ze schůze
komise při adě ONV Louny (21. 1. 1960, no č. j.).
663 Au ho ’sno e: This was asolid- uel ki chen s o e wi h as o e op and o en, in he shape o
a able.
664 Ibid.
665 Ibid.
666 Ibid.
667 Ibid.
265
ha hey would ake on he esponsibili y o supe ising he amilies’
beha iou .668
The commi ee did no conclude ha sui able accommoda ion needed
o be ound o all hose li ing in ca a ans, bu jus o one amily ha
was “coope a ing well”. The c i ical una ailabili y o d inking wa e was
also no deal wi h. In a epo sen in Feb ua y 1960 o he In e nal
A ai s Depa men a he KNV Council in Ús í nad Labem on he s a e
o he eco ds ega ding hose egis e ed, he ONV once again poin s
ou ha :
The e a e s ill i e amilies o be housed. These amilies a e li ing in ca a ans
o now. The Louny MNV is no de o ing adequa e ca e o inding housing o
hese amilies al hough he Commi ee o he Reeduca ion o Gypsy Pe sons
is u ging hem o do so. The measu es aken by he ONV Council ha e also
no me wi h esul s. The a en ion o he dis ic p osecu o has been d awn
o he si ua ion. Recen ly, gypsy pe sons ha e been commi ing he and
mo al o ences, which is caused by he ac ha he MNV has no managed
o house hem p ope ly.669
The epea ed a gumen used by he Louny MNV as o why he S oj-
kas’ housing had no ye been deal wi h was ha he e we e no enough
la s ee. F om a epo by he commi ee o he dis ic p osecu o , how-
e e , we can see ha du ing his same ime o he Romani amilies (non-
Vlax, li ing ou side he b ickwo ks) had been gi en “ ou la s al eady
[…] and ye no asingle case om he S ojkas has been deal wi h.”670
The Roms we e no mo ed ou o he old b ickwo ks du ing he
ollowing yea , ei he . The u gency o dealing wi h hei o ally subs an-
da d housing and lack o basic ameni ies and equipmen , as well as he
a emp s o deal wi h his, g adually s opped being men ioned in he e-
po s o he ONVs and MNVs. F om ime o ime he p oblem eappea ed
in he epo s o he ONV and MNV in Louny and was epea edly deal
wi h by he dis ic p osecu o and he Regional Na ional Commi ee,
bu no hing changed in subsequen yea s. A epo om he Depa men
o In e io A ai s o he Louny ONV o he KNV in Feb ua y 1962 once
again admi ed ha amain sho coming o he si ua ion in he dis ic
668 Ibid.
669 SOkA Louny, . ONV Louny II, ni ř. 608, k. 332, P o odb. p o VV KNV Ús í n.L.– Zp á a
os a u e idence osob za ých do soupisu podle zák. 74/1958 (24. 2. 1960, č. j. ni ř. 99/1960).
670 SOkA Louny, . Ok esní p oku a u a Louny . 1960–1965, i. č. 26, Pd 460, k. 5– Zápis schůze
komise p o občany cikánské ná odnos i na ONV Louny (24. 2. 1960, č. j. 4/60).
272
acco ding o he au ho i ies, was no jus because o he Roms’ poo
wo king habi s, equen job-hopping and a oidance o manual labou ,
bu also because some en e p ises e used o employ hese pe sons.690
O e he cou se o a ew yea s, howe e , Roms om he S ojka amily
g adually ound posi ions ha sui ed hem ( o example, in amea -pack-
ing ac o y) and so in epo s om he ea ly 1970s he e is also p aise o
indi iduals’ good wo king habi s.
The ONV documen s also allow us o de ec he speci ic s eps leading
o he assimila ion o hese Roms. The way in which he local au ho i ies
ea ed he oldes woman in he S ojka amily, Anna S ojko á (*1902),
is edolen o social enginee ing. A epo om amee ing o he gypsy
commi ee in Sep embe 1959 men ioned ha : “All he membe s o he
commi ee ag ee ha as long as Anna S ojko á has any in luence on he
amily, he eeduca ion o he whole amily will be di icul .”691 Anna
S ojko á was a igu e o au ho i y o he whole amily, and o his
eason was pe cei ed by he employees o he commi ees as ab ake
on hei assimila ion e o s. A ew mon hs la e , acco ding o ano he
documen , “R. S ojko á and old Anna S ojko á we e aken o o Buko
o ea men ”.692 Gi en ha Buko was apsychia ic hospi al, i is no
clea whe he Anna S ojko á and he daugh e -in-law we e placed he e
olun a ily, on he basis o ac ual psychia ic p oblems, o whe he hey
we e pu he e a he ins iga ion o he s a e au ho i ies o emo e Anna
om he amily o punish he o he beha iou . Howe e unlikely his
solu ion may seem om oday’s iewpoin , du ing he pe iod in ques ion
his possibili y was no in equen ly used o dealing wi h people who
posed ap oblem o he egime. A any a e, he commi ee exploi ed he
hospi alisa ion o y and in luence he son,
bo n in 1943, who had al eady once been aken o hospi al bu who had
escaped wi h he aid o old S ojko á. The commi ee passed a esolu ion ha
he cu en si ua ion, when Anna S ojko á was away being ea ed, should
be used o ensu e an ope a ion on he boy’sc ippled leg in he hospi al.”693
The commi ee also in ended o exploi he hospi alisa ion o Anna’s
daugh e -in-law, R. S ojko á, o ake he child en in o child en’shomes.
690 SOkA Louny, .ONV Louny II, ni ř. 608, k. 332– Zápis ze schůze odbo u p aco ních sil,
zd a o nic í asociálního zabezpečení ONV Louny (20. 2. 1960, no č. j.).
691 Ibid.– Zápis zpo ady cikánské komise (3. 9. 1959, no č. j.)
692 Ibid.
693 Ibid.

273
The agenda o de egis a ion om he egis e
o “ a elling” and “semi- a elling” pe sons
People pu on he egis e in Feb ua y 1959 and subsequen ly held in he
eco ds o he s a e au ho i ies we e allowed o apply o de egis a ion.
A e being success ully aken o he egis e , he measu es o Ac no.
74/1958 ceased o ela e o he pe sons in ques ion and hey we e able
o mo e house wi hou eques ing pe mission. Many made use o his
op ion, bu hei eques s o de egis a ion we e no always g an ed: he
au ho i ies ook in o accoun he opinion o he s a e en e p ise whe e
he pe son wo ked, he local commi ee, and some imes o o he bod-
ies.694 The Louny ONV, in i s eco ds o people on he egis e , con inued
o dis inguish ho oughly be ween showmen and pe sons o “gypsy o -
igin”, con inuing o label hem in pencil, on he basis o hei e hnici y,
on hei egis e documen and o he eco ds as “s ě .” (s ě ský) o “cik.”
(cikán). The s udy o his da a om he ele an a chi es b ings me o
he conclusion ha o icials also ea ed he wo g oups di e en ly when
i came o aking people o he egis e .695 F om he sp ing o 1962, only
people egis e ed in Louny in he ca ego y “gypsies” we e s ill egis e ed.
All he “showmen” om Louny had had hei de egis a ion app o ed.
All he people s ill egis e ed and emaining in he ca ego y o “gyp-
sies” we e om he S ojka amily (as o 20 Feb ua y 1963 he e we e
30 pe sons). Those egis e ed could also be de egis e ed due o hei ha -
ing eloca ed o ano he dis ic . Fo his, howe e , he In e io A ai s
Depa men o he Dis ic Commi ee had o gi e i s app o al– and as
he documen a ion shows, hese depa men s always e used Romani
amilies’ eques s o mo e, wi h he excep ion o asingle case in which
ason mo ed in o de o be wi h his pa en s in ano he dis ic . F om he
egis e a chi es i can be seen ha in he case o amilies and indi iduals
om he “showmen” ca ego y, mo ing o ano he dis ic was allowed.
I was no un il 1964 ha he Louny ONV app o ed he emo al o
he i s Lo a a in Louny om he egis e . O he 33 egis e ed membe s
o he S ojka amily, 25 we e aken o he egis e be ween Ap il and
Augus 1964 o he eason ha hey li ed and wo ked pe manen ly in
Louny. A ha ime, howe e , he men o he S ojka amily we e al eady
looking o wo k ou side he dis ic , which he au ho i ies knew abou ,
bu his ac was no included in he a gumen a ion pu o wa d o
694 Zaple al, “Přís up o ali ního s á u”, 58.
695 Hajská, “Fo ced se lemen ”, 359.
274
hei possible emo al om he egis e . Fou people we e allowed o
be aken o he egis e in 1968. The las nuclea amily, ha o Anna
S ojko á’syounges daugh e , was s ill o icially egis e ed as li ing in
he o me b ickwo ks in Janua y 1969 when, as he las such amily in
he dis ic , hey we e o icially aken o he egis e o “ a elling” and
“semi- a elling” pe sons. 696
Roms om Ža ec we e o ced o emain on he egis e o asimila ly
long ime. O 25 Roms om he S ojka–Ho á amilies o whom we
ha e he da e on which hey we e emo ed om he egis e , h ee people
we e aken o in 1963, ano he eigh people in 1964, and 14 people no
un il 1966.697
The amily o An onín Ho á , o example, had i s eques o be ak-
en o he egis e ejec ed se e al imes. The i s applica ion was e used
by he ONV in Louny in No embe 1962, he eason gi en being ha :
“I has been ound ha he wo k habi s and beha iou o you and you
amily a e no such as o allow us o mee you eques o de egis a-
ion.”698 Ano he ejec ion ollowed in Oc obe 1963, when he Dis ic
Commi ee o he P o ec ion o Public O de s a ed ha : “The amily
has no ye been su icien ly eeduca ed o ul il all he condi ions o
de egis a ion. The e is e en adange ha a e being de egis e ed hey
migh e u n o a a elling li es yle.“699 A he ime hese de egis a ion
eques s we e made, he amily s ill li ed in aca a an by he i e Ohře
in he place known as Os o . This may ha e been one o he easons
o hei ejec ion, al hough i was no di ec ly s a ed. The amily was
no de egis e ed un il he ollowing yea , in Ap il 1964, when hey had
al eady mo ed in o a la in he cen e o own.700
These cases show ha li ing in co e ed wagons o ca a ans was
asigni ican ac o ha could p e en a amily om being aken o
he egis e o “ a elling” and “semi- a elling” pe sons. Mos Lo a a,
whe he in Ža ec o Louny, we e aken o he egis e only a e hey had
mo ed in o no mal housing. He e i is wo h poin ing ou ha almos all
membe s o he amilies in ques ion le hei place o esidence soon a e
hey we e de egis e ed and s a ed o look o wo k and housing ou side
696 SOkA Louny, . ONV Louny II, ni ř. 608, k. 331– Rozhodnu í (3. 1. 1969, č. j. 99/69). Sen
o J. Laka ošo á a he add ess “Louny– b ickwo ks”.
697 SOkA Louny, . ONV Louny II, ni ř. 608, k. 331.
698 Ibid.– Vyjádření ONV kžádos i A. Ho á a o yjmu í ze soupisu podle zák. 74/1958– zamí -
nu í (14. 11. 1962, č. j. 423/65–4).
699 Ibid.– Re usal (2. 10. 1963, č. j. 3511/63).
700 Ibid.– App o al (21. 4. 1964, no č. j.).
275
he dis ic o Louny, which had been ois ed on hem as aloca ion by
bu eauc a s a he ime o hei egis e . This, howe e , o en b ough
a empo a y e u n o hei li ing in ca a ans un il hey ound housing
ha appealed o hem.
Lea ing he ca a ans
I is no clea when he old b ickwo ks in Louny was inally abandoned
by he Roms. Be ci emembe s ha ala ge pa o he amily mo ed
in o ade ached house close o he Louny ailway s a ion, whe e some
li ed inside he house while wo o his uncles b ough hei ca a ans
in o he spacious ya d and ca ied on li ing in hem wi h hei amilies.
Acco ding o he municipal commi ee’se idence,701 he mo e mus ha e
aken place a he la es be o e June 1963, which is he da e o Anna
S ojko á’sdea h, and she li ed in he house. Be ci says he dea h o his
g andmo he Anna S ojko á was he impe us o he en i e amily o
lea e Louny. The i s amily membe s clea ly le a e he h ee nucle-
a amilies o Be ci S ojka’suncles we e aken o he egis e in Ap il
1964. The o he amilies seem o ha e ollowed hem. Be ci S ojka has
desc ibed how, a e being aken o he egis e , his uncles wo ked in
land imp o emen and di ch-digging, mo ing a ound acco ding o hei
place o wo k o Odolená Voda, Valdice and o he municipali ies, un il
a he end o he 1960s hey mo ed o P ague. Lea ing Louny pa adox-
ically mean a empo a y e u n o spa ial mobili y, since he amilies
doing land imp o emen wo k mo ed om one wo kplace o ano he by
ca a an, which hey used ac o s o ow o he des ina ion whe e hey
we e o wo k. They did so a a ime when mo ing abou in ca a ans was
banned– bu his ype o wo k was alegal excep ion. Be ci emembe s
ha he S ojka amily bough ahouse in Hos i ař, on he ou ski s o
P ague, in he la e 1960s o which hey join ly ook ou and hen epaid
aloan. “We s ill had h ee ca a ans in Hos i ař. When we mo ed in o
ou house, howe e , we sold he ca a ans.”702
701 SOkA Louny, . MěNV Louny, i. č. 100 – E idence oby a els a cikánské ná odnos i
Lounech.– This ypew i en lis o “ci izens o gypsy na ionali y” in Louny as o 1 July
1961 s ill gi es he add ess o he old b ickwo ks o all he Lo a a. In he case o wo amilies
his was la e c ossed ou (wi h no da e) and an add ess added ha is close o Louny ailway
s a ion, co esponding o Be ci’slocalisa ion o hei la e esidence.
702 Pe sonal eco ding o Be ci (*1949) by he au ho made on 18 Decembe 2018 in Louny, Czech
Republic.
276
In his new house he amily hen managed o c ea e he so o li e
hey wan ed, and hei olun a y abandonmen o spa ial mobili y and
li ing in co e ed wagons was pa o ha .
The impac o he egis e unde Ac . No. 74/1958 on Roms
in Louny and Ža ec
The implemen a ion o Ac no. 74/1958 had an undoub ed impac on
bo h b anches o he S ojka amily li ing in Louny and Ža ec. They we e
en e ed on he egis e o “ a elling” and “semi- a elling” pe sons and,
o pe iods aging om i e o 10 yea s, we e limi ed in hei mobili y
and aced a ious assimila o y ins umen s and measu es. The e was
also he con isca ion o hei p ope y when hei ho ses we e aken
om hem wi hou compensa ion, some hing ha was pe cei ed by he
Roms as apain ul in e e ence wi h hei li es. As Iha e shown abo e,
he unde es ima ed numbe o ho ses o which seizu e was indica ed on
he egis e sugges s ha he Roms may ha e been de auded, o hei
p ope y may ha e been unde alued by he s a e au ho i ies.
As we ha e seen, despi e many yea s o decla a ions om au ho i ies
on se e al le els ha hey would y o ind sui able housing o he
S ojka amily, in ea ly 1963 he amily had o deal wi h i s inadequa e
housing in he old b ickwo ks on i s own by buying ahouse oge he .
Se e al yea s la e he amily bough ahouse in he Hos i ař subu b o
P ague he same way, by aking ou aloan. This says some hing abou
he agency o hese Roms: while hey had no choice bu o s ay in hei
ca a ans in designa ed places in he Louny dis ic o he pe iod ha
hey we e on he egis e , hey s ill success ully managed o esis assim-
ila ion a emp s. A he si es allo ed o hem, hey p e e ed o keep
li ing in hei own wagons a he han in he dilapida ed building in o
which o icials ied o make hem mo e. They managed o deal wi h he
una ailabili y o wa e and ood by c ea ing unc ional ela ionships
wi h hei neighbou s and e en wi h he soldie s om he ba acks, who
b ough hem ood. A e hey we e de egis e ed, hey hen managed o
ind hei own housing, o lea e Louny and Ža ec whe e hey had li ed
unwillingly o yea s, and o ind hemsel es legal li elihoods in P ague
o hei own choice.
The au ho i ies who egis e ed hem in Louny and Ža ec ne e man-
aged o mee he equi emen s es ablished by law, wi h he excep ion o
i s es ic ions on he egis e ed pe sons. They allowed he Roms (espe-
277
cially in Louny) o li e in a o ally unsui able place. Ins ead o he basic
sani a ion and in eg a ion in o socie y ha he au ho i ies we e mean
o p o ide, hey ins ead concen a ed on he Roms’ “backwa d way o
li e” and how o change i .

278
Š e an S ojka, S . and his amily wi h his ho se and wagon in T enčín,
a ound 1955 o 1956.
279
Pa 7: Conclusions
Iha e ocused in his book on he li e s o ies o he S ojka amily which,
owa ds he end o he 19 h cen u y, gained domicile in he municipali y
o T enčianska Teplá. Ipieced oge he he amily his o y o e se e al
gene a ions on he basis o a ious agmen a y eco ds om all o e
Czechoslo akia, which I hen ied o connec in o ala ge , in e ela ed
whole. As a as possible, I ied o connec some o he e en s Icame
ac oss in he eco ds wi h his o ical ac s and he policies o he ime.
Using asingle amily wi h many b anches, piecing oge he hei s o y
om ala ge quan i y o a chi al and e hnog aphic ma e ial, Iha e de-
sc ibed he o m o hese inhabi an s’ mobili y and e i o ial ancho ing,
iden i ying hem as Vlax Roms om he Lo a a g oup who we e labelled
by he s a e bodies o he ime as “gypsies” o “gypsy agabonds/ a el-
ling gypsies”. The b oad ch onological sweep o his book, om he la e
19 h cen u y o he la e 1960s, means ha i con ibu es acomp ehensi e
iew o hei li es ac oss highly di e se poli ical egimes and changing
socioeconomic condi ions.
Ishall y o di ide my conclusions om he weal h o a chi al ma-
e ial and in e iews p esen ed in his book in o se e al in e connec -
ed le els. The diach onically-o de ed chap e s ha e al eady con ained
pa ial conclusions o indi idual pe iods, and so I shall now y o
b ie ly summa ise hem and o o mula e conclusions ha conce n he
main hemes o he book. These a e: he pa hs aken by he amilies in
ques ion; he his o ical ci cums ances and con ex s connec ed wi h he
Lo a a communi y on he e i o y o he o me Czechoslo akia; gene al
hough s abou he deba e on spa ial mobili y and e i o ial ancho ing;
and, las bu no leas , he e ec o o icial s a e measu es aimed a he
indi iduals and amilies alling in o he ca ego y o “ a elling gypsies”
280
which we e connec ed wi h he pa e nalis ic app oach o he s a e and
wi h he en enched acial p ejudices owa ds Roms in Czechoslo ak
socie y gene ally.
7.1 The in e disciplina y app oach, combina ion
o me hods, b oad spec um o sou ces
and o he inno a i e aspec s
My book o e s acon inual, dense po ayal o one Lo a a amily o e
se e al decades ac oss Czechoslo ak e i o y, c ea ed by combining
a ious sou ces. I is in hei combina ion and in he concu en choice
o an in e disciplina y app oach ha Isee an en iching, inno a i e ele-
men he e ha could inspi e u u e esea che s. P e iously, he his o ical
s udies ocusing on he Czech o Slo ak Vlax Roms and speci ically on
he Lo a a703 we e based la gely on a chi al ma e ial jus om asingle
dis ic . The au ho s did no place such mic os udies in he la ge bi-
og aphical con ex o he indi iduals and did no combine sou ces om
a ious locali ies and egions abou hem. Thei au ho s did no ha e
apa icula amily and i s a e a he cen e o hei in e es , bu we e
ocused mo e on he ela ionship be ween local go e nmen s o cen al
bodies owa ds Roms li ing in ace ain a ea and how hey deal wi h
“p oblems esul ing om coexis ence”. I end o conclude ha hese
his o ians may ha e been de e ed om unde aking amo e con inuous
acing o Vlax amilies’ ajec o ies by he e y ac ha he Lo a a we e
iden i ied as “ a elling” amilies in “pe manen mo ion”, wi hou pa -
icula ly g ea ies o any one place. The a chi al sou ces ega ding hei
li es we e, he e o e, pe cei ed as sca e ed o e ala ge numbe o e-
gional a chi es, he assump ion being ha hese Roms could ha e mo ed
p ac ically “anywhe e”. The challenge posed by such ab oadly-concei ed
s udy lies no jus in he logis ics o he esea ch, bu also in he ac ha
i may seem di icul o con inuously ollow he spa ial ou es aken. As
my s udy shows, howe e , i is possible o combine in o ma ion om
a ious egional a chi es o achie e such a esul .
Ia i ed a a ious me hodological inno a ions when w i ing his
book. An impo an me hodological en ichmen o his o ical esea ch
is he in eg a ion o socioan h opological me hods, abo e all en e ing
703 E.g. Če ný, “Lo á o é”; Pa elčíko á, “Příchod olašských Romů”; Ras isla Pi oň, “K ealizácii
zákona č. 74/1958 Zb. o alom usídlení kočujúcich osôb na území Veľkej B a isla y”. S udia
E hnologica P agensia, no. 1 (2018): 30–46; Pi oň, “Zákon č. 74”.
281
da a o indi iduals in o agenealogical diag am and, du ing a chi al
esea ch, looking o eco ds o indi iduals and amilies acco ding o
su name and o u he pe sonal da a on hese people. An example o
pa ial inno a ion is my esea ch in o how Lo a a e i o ial ancho ing
ook place. Like o he esea che s, in de e mining his a iable I ocused
mainly on whe e he membe s o he amilies in ques ion we e o icially
domiciled. This says some hing abou he si ua ion o apa icula am-
ily o communi y in ela ion o he municipali y and o en played an
impo an ole in de e mining he (im)possibili y o hei s aying mo e
pe manen ly o epea edly in apa icula place. The ies o Roms o he
communi y may also be esea ched on he basis o o he c i e ia such as
hei ac ual esidence and i s leng h as eco ded by he au ho i ies, amu-
nicipali y gi en as he bi hplace o mo e han one amily membe , and
abo e all, he ac o owning p ope y, which is bes when i is epea edly
eco ded o icially. Acon inually-gi en p ecise add ess (including house
numbe ) may also indica e long- e m esidence o abase in apa icula
municipali y– i no h ough ac ual owne ship, hen h ough en ing.
These ways o being e i o ially ancho ed hen need o be esea ched in
combina ion wi h he spa ial mobili y mo i a ed by he pe o mance o
ap o ession o by social ies.
Ano he undoub ed me hodological en ichmen ha p oduces a un-
damen al shi in he pic u e o Lo a a li e in Czechoslo akia is he
ollowing o such ac o s’ own pe spec i es, on he one hand, and he
pe spec i e o he s a e adminis a ion, on he o he . These pe spec i es
a e essen ially ai ly opposed o each o he , p o iding a ied and, on
anumbe o poin s, mu ually an agonis ic in e p e a ions o a ious his-
o ical e en s. Many esea che s w i ing abou Roms on he e i o y o
he o me Czechoslo akia ocus mos ly on he pe spec i e o he s a e.
Al hough hese au ho s y o objec i ely jus i y he mo i a ion o he
Roms’ ac ions, hey a ely p esen acomp ehensi e pic u e o he Roma-
ni pe spec i e. Including he ac o s’ pe spec i e o he Roms hemsel es
is some hing Iconside o be a undamen al shi ha has so a been
en i ely absen om he li e a u e on his geog aphical e i o y and
om he deba e on “ a elling” Roms. The ac ha Iha e used no jus
da a om a chi al esea ch, bu also analyses o e hnog aphic na a i es,
wi ness es imonies conce ning he wa ime genocide agains he Roms
and in e iews made on he basis o o al his o y me hods means ha
adynamic, luid pic u e o he subjec in ques ion has been c ea ed he e.
My book also en iches esea ch in o he his o y o he Roms. Du ing
my g adual ocus on he di e en his o ical e en s ha in ol ed he
288
The pos -wa pe iod: Facing a emp s a o ced
seden a isa ion by s a e bodies
A e he dea h o Zaga S ojko á, he successo s we e symbolically led
by he daugh e -in-law Anna S ojko á, née Laka ošo á. A e he Roms
we e expelled om T enčianska Teplá hey e u ned wi h hei ho se-
d awn wagons o he Czech lands. Howe e , hey did no come as inex-
pe ienced mig an s, bu we e e u ning o he places a ound which hey
had a elled in he 1930s. A e an ini ial phase o ela i ely ex ensi e
e i o ial mobili y a ound he whole Bohemian pa o he epublic, hei
ou es g adually na owed o he no he n Bohemian a ea, especially he
dis ic s o Louny, Ža ec and he su ounding a ea. Du ing he pe iod in
ques ion, ew Lo a a led an “i ine an ” way o li e. In mos cases, as wi h
he S ojkas, his was he esul o hei wa ime and pos wa paupe isa-
ion and hei a emp o ind abe e li elihood han he ones o e ed
hem by he wa o n Slo ak coun yside.
The las Lo a a o lea e T enčianska Teplá was he nuclea amily o
Š e an S ojka, S . who, a e losing lawsui s seeking compensa ion o
he des uc ion o his p ope y, se ou a he end o he 1940s wi h his
ho se and ca o No h Mo a ia, whe e he ied o ind ali elihood and
aplace whe e he and his amily migh s ay. In he mid-1950s, howe e ,
he e u ned o unknown easons wi h his wi e and child en o T enčian-
ska Teplá. Fi s , hey camped in hei wagon on he si e o hei o me
house, which by hen had been comple ely azed o he g ound. Š e an
con inued o y and ea n ali ing as acollec o o a ious hings wi h his
ho se-d awn ca , bu in 1959 his ho se was con isca ed. A app oxima ely
he same ime a e p essu e was pu on he local au ho i ies by local
non-Romani esiden s, his amily was mo ed o amo e dis an place in
he illage, whe e he MNV buil hem aco age. Ne e heless, Š e an
managed o pu chase ano he ho se and o d i e ound he neighbou -
hood o alimi ed ex en , collec ing hings. Š e an died in T enčianska
Teplá in Janua y 1969 in his co e ed wagon and in a ela i ely impo e -
ished social si ua ion. A e he dea h o bo h pa en s, his child en le
he illage and i is no known whe e hey wen .
Du ing he 1950s, Romani amilies mo ing a ound in ho se-d awn
wagons o in o he ways became he a ge o a emp s by s a e bodies
o seden a ise and employ hem. Fo he whole o he 1950s, such Roms,
who we e no pa icula ly nume ous, bu we e highly isible, a elled
wi h ho ses and ca s acing a ious police checks, a emp s o seize hei
ho ses and, abo e all, a emp s o employ hem and o he p essu es o

289
ge hem o lea e hei “ a elling” way o li e, which came o ep esen
e e mo e clea ly apossible escape om he pa e nalis ic app oach o
he s a e. By mo ing o o he egions in he i s hal o he 1950s, he
Lo a a ied o esis he o cible a emp s o end hei mobili y, o e-
educa e hem and he o he o ms o social enginee ing by s a e bodies
which a ge ed hem. F om he ea ly 1950s, he e we e epea ed a emp s
a he o ced se lemen o hese Roms, oge he wi h o ced employmen
in a ious economic and ag icul u al p ojec s. When “ a elling” and
“semi- a elling” pe sons we e being egis e ed in Feb ua y 1959, he
majo i y o Lo a a li ing in he Czech lands had al eady been o cibly
(o in some cases p obably olun a ily) seden a ised in ace ain place.
The egis e led o he o ced con i ma ion o such e i o ial ies and
p ohibi ed hem om lea ing hei o ced esidences, aban ha o he
indi idual amilies las ed o se e al yea s un il he dis ic commi ees
allowed hem o be aken o he egis e o “ a elling” and “semi- a -
elling” pe sons.
The se ling o he S ojka amily in he la e 1950s
In he second hal o he 1950s, one S ojka amily b anch was o cibly
se led by he i e Ohře in Ža ec, whe e hey we e allowed o s ay in hei
co e ed wagons. The o he b anch o he amily was o cibly placed, also
in hei co e ed wagons and ca a ans, in he o me b ickwo ks in Louny,
in inhospi able condi ions wi h no job oppo uni ies o basic ameni ies
o adigni ied li e, such as wa e , elec ici y, oile s and so on. In bo h
locali ies he Roms we e en e ed on he egis e unde Ac no. 74/1958
and o ha eason we e o ced o s ay he e o yea s. Du ing he egis e
hey we e de auded o hei p ope y when hei ho ses we e aken om
hem wi h no compensa ion, which was seen by he Roms hemsel es as
apain ul incu sion in o hei li es.
The law on he pe manen se lemen o “ a elling pe sons” had an
undoub ed impac on bo h b anches o he S ojka amily, whose mem-
be s we e in subsequen yea s kep on he egis e o “ a elling” and
“semi- a elling” pe sons. While hey we e egis e ed hey we e limi ed
in hei mobili y and had o ace a ious assimila o y ins umen s and
measu es om he municipal, dis ic and egional adminis a ions wi h-
ou he issue o hei housing being deal wi h. Pa adoxically, by limi ing
hei mo emen and o cing hem o se le in locali ies whe e i was no
possible o gain digni ied housing and employmen , he adminis a ions
290
deepened he social ma ginalisa ion o hese Roms and also con ibu ed
o asha p ise in hei c iminal beha iou . The in e en ions and checks
by ep esen a i es o he au ho i ies and secu i y o ces a e emembe ed
by wi nesses o his day wi h g ea bi e ness, and i is clea ha i he im-
plemen a ion o Ac no. 74/1958 in hese conc e e cases had any impac ,
i chie ly con ibu ed o he c ea ion o ba ie s and dis us be ween he
Lo a a and ep esen a i es o he majo i y socie y.
7.3 The posi ion o Roms in socie y: The pa e nalism
o he s a e, an i-gypsy policies and he agency
o Roms
Iha e ied o gi e space in he di e en pa s o his book (wi h he
excep ion o he chap e co e ing he ea lies pe iod) o wo di e en
pe spec i es: he desc ip ion o e en s acco ding o s a e eco ds on he
one hand, and he ac o s’ pe spec i e o he Roms on he o he hand. As
Iha e al eady men ioned, hese wo pe spec i es p o ide ai ly con a-
dic o y explana ions o he e en s desc ibed as hey embody mu ually
an agonis ic alues. While om he ou side poin o iew he Lo a a, as
“ a elling gypsies”, we e pe cei ed as ag oup si ua ed on he e y edge
o socie y, he Lo a a pe cei ed hemsel es as he mos p es igiously-si -
ua ed g oup, ollowed by he non-Vlax Roms (Rumung i) and non-Roms
(Gadjos) in much lowe posi ions. The Lo a a na a i e desc ibes he
his o ical line o hei mo emen a ound he o me Czechoslo akia as
an a emp o ind hei own space, despi e he limi a ions and hu dles
wi h which hey we e me on an almos daily basis. The wi nesses gen-
e ally did no hink abou he ques ion o whe he hei pa en s and
ela i es, in a ious his o ical pe iods, had wan ed o adap o and ul il
he demands o he majo i y socie y, bu a he hough abou how hey
could de end hei posi ion in such away as o main hei own mo al
in eg i y and alues, as a as possible while minimalising con lic s wi h
hei su oundings. F om hei poin o iew, he su ounding socie y was
desc ibed as an en i onmen ha was none oo accommoda ing and, a
he same ime, po en ially h ea ening, dange ous o Roms in many ways,
o which hey ied o be pe manen ly p epa ed. Re lec ing on he Ro-
mani es imonies and hei pe cep ion o he ou side socie y’sapp oach
owa ds hem, wha eme ges clea ly a e examples o a ious seg ega ion
mechanisms and displays o he an i-gypsy measu es which Roms ac oss
ime ha e had o ace almos con inuously. Anumbe o hese ac s a e
291
e idenced by eco ds in he a chi es, bu hei aim was di e en ly in e -
p e ed he e ( o example, he a emp s o eeduca e Romani child en by
aking hem in o child en’shomes we e desc ibed as an a emp o ake
he child en on “holiday”, and so on).
This book p esen s he conc e isa ion in de ail o he pa ial bu in-
e connec ed esul s o such “an i-gypsy” policies and he s e eo ypical
app oach o Roms ha was en enched in socie y in gene al (o in acco -
dance wi h he concep o he ime, he app oach o “gypsies”), which can
bo h be summa ised unde he heading o an igypsyism. I e eal he ein
i s local-le el epe cussions o he daily li e o he Lo a a, mo e o less,
in he Czech lands and Slo akia o e along pe iod o ime. Howe e , i
should be s essed ha an igypsyism, as an umb ella concep desc ibing
p ejudicial, acis and disc imina o y a i udes owa d Roms, canno be
pe cei ed as ahomogenous, uni o m ac o . On he con a y, in a ious
pe iods o his o y i in ol ed a ious o ms o c iminalisa ion and ma -
ginalisa ion, as well as a ious concep ions o “gypsies”.
Wi h ega d o he s a e sys em, i is possible o obse e he con inu-
ous iew o “ a elling gypsies” ac oss a ious egimes, s a e o ma ions
and geog aphical a eas. They we e pe cei ed h oughou he pe iod in
ques ion as he pe pe a o s o a ious o ences and as asecu i y isk o
he au och honous popula ion. A a ious imes hey we e also labelled
using subhuman ca ego ies such as “packs” and “ho des”, he “wa es”
and “ loods” o which local popula ions had o ace. Thei i ine ancy
was pe cei ed as inna e and he endency owa ds i as ceaseless, and so
he s a e, du ing a ious his o ical pe iods, ied o limi i o con on
i using a ious measu es. A e he coming o communism, he s a e
ook wha migh be desc ibed as ahea ily pa e nalis ic app oach, aimed
a he iolen assimila ion o “ a elling” people ha esul ed in Roms
ha ing o ace p essu e om local unc iona ies and o he poli ically-ac-
i e people o ge id o hei “old cus oms”, in o he wo ds, o ace hei
managed accul u a ion. I is his ha he Lo a a ied, mos ly success-
ully, o de y. The esea che E a Thu ne has s a ed ha as a esul o
hei “hos socie y” subjec ing hem o disdain and s igma isa ion o
many yea s, he Roms ha e igno ed i s ules, he eby gi ing up on ying
o be accep ed by he majo i y socie y and o in eg a e in o i .708 In he
con ex o he ma e ial in his book, Iconclude ha hei con inuous
expe ience o ep ession, seg ega ion mechanisms and (abo e all in he
1950s) pa e nalis ic a emp s a social enginee ing which o en included
708 Thu ne , “Bez s á ní příslušnos i”, 67–68.
292
di ec displays o e hnic o acial disc imina ion as well as he cu ailmen
o hei basic human igh s and eedoms mean he Lo a as’ lack o us
when i comes o he wo ld o non-Roms is en i ely legi ima e, whe he
we a e discussing he s a e, local au ho i ies, o indi idual non-Roms.
In he s o y o he S ojka amily as desc ibed abo e, he Roms’ ac i e
app oach o ying o esol e hei si ua ions hemsel es is some hing
ha uns h oughou he book as apowe ul mo i . As ong posi ion as
an ac o can be seen in he case o Š e an S ojka, S ., always sea ching
o and choosing a ious ways o imp o ing and dealing wi h his and
his amily’ssi ua ion wi hou ha ing o wai o he local au ho i ies o
come up wi h some hing. The highly ac i e app oach o he Roms is also
desc ibed a he e y end o his s o y in he 1960s when, despi e local
adminis a ions decla ing ha hey would deal wi h he Roms’ housing
si ua ion, he Roms inally ook ca e o hei own housing by buying
ade ached house in Louny. An ac i e app oach and an a emp o ind
asolu ion also helped hem in he p ocess o de egis a ion, lea ing
Louny, and subsequen ly buying hei own house in P ague.
All hese pa ial p obes in o and examples om he li e o he Lo a a
also poin o ano he impo an eali y. The e is aneed o dis inguish
be ween he app oaches and subsequen p ac ices o he a ious s a e
bodies, which di e ed e y conside ably in he case o he cen al, e-
gional and local adminis a ions, and indeed ac oss he egions (abo e all
be ween he Czech lands and Slo akia). Fo a ious pe iods o his o y,
Iga he ed e idence on he highly inconsis en o no ably di e se ap-
p oaches o he implemen a ion and en o cemen o exis ing legisla ion
and on he con lic ing in e es s hese componen s o he s a e had. In
p ac ice, p ima ily a he local le el, s a e pa e nalism and social engi-
nee ing could depend on he ac i i y o a ew indi iduals. This book
e eals he c acks in he unc ion o s a e policy in p ac ice ins ead o
jus c i icising i as apowe ul ac o , e ealing how he Lo a a managed
o ind hose c acks and op imise hei si ua ion as a esul .
Fig. 1: The a m a Ho ní S omka in he P ague subu b o K álo ské Vinoh ady,
whe e in 1913 he amily o F an išek S ojka was egis e ed as li ing, and whe e
du ing app oxima ely he same pe iod he Romani amily o Jan Schube
also li ed.
Appendix

Fig. 2: Hand-d awn map o “gypsy shacks” in Dob á nea T enčianska Teplá, 1936.
Fig: 3: Census o m o he house a no. 273, T enčianska Teplá, om he 1930 census.
Fig. 4: The egula ion o he Teplička s eam in T enčianska Teplá, 1930s. In he
backg ound on he igh -hand side he gable o Š e an S ojka’s house is isible.
Fig. 5: Teplická s ee in T enčianska Teplá in he in e wa pe iod. The pho og aph
is aken om he qua y, on he hillside abo e he si e o Š e an S ojka’s house.
Fig. 6: Pho og aph o a young woman om Š e an S ojka’s amily, i s name
un eco ded, o iginal desc ip ion by he au ho : “Gypsy S ojko á, 1950”. The pho o
was aken in he su oundings o T enčianska Teplá.
Fig. 7: Š e an S ojka’s amily in a meadow nea T enčianska Teplá. The pho o-
g aph shows Š e an S ojka, S ., his wi e K is ína and hei younges child en,
and is da ed by he au ho : 1955.
Fig. 8: Š e an S ojka, S . on his wagon in T enčianska Teplá. In he backg ound
is he hal -buil house o ano he owne . Mid-1960s.
Fig. 17: A p o iso y “gypsy iden i y ca d” o he so ha we e issued by he local
na ional commi ee (ONV) in Lo osice in 1952 o all Roms camping on he banks
o he i e Elbe, in o de o keep eco ds o hem. The pho og aphs, which we e
aken wi hou any legal basis, we e s uck on he back o he documen s om
a den is y ca d index.

293
Bibliog aphy and sou ces
Li e a u e
Abou , Ilsen and Abakuno a, Anna. The Genocide and Pe secu ion o Roma and Sin i.
Bibliog aphy and His o iog aphical Re iew. In e na ional Holocaus Rememb ance
Alliance, 2016.
And š, Zbyněk. “Ou God is Gold: Vlashika Rom a aC oss oads?” E hnologia Ac ualis,
ol. 16, no. 2 (Decembe 2016): 66–80. h ps://doi.o g/10.1515/eas-2017–0005.
Asséo,Hen ie e. “La Gypsyness une cul u e de comp omis en e l’A e l’éclec isme
sa an .” InBohémiens und Ma ginali ä /Bohémiens e Ma ginali é, edi ed by Sidonia Baue
andPascale Au aix-Jonchiè e, Be lin:F anck & Timme, 2019, 111–130.
Baloun, Pa el. ‘Cikáni, me la enko a!’ T o ba aupla ňo ání p o icikánských opa ření
mezi álečném Českoslo ensku, za d uhé epubliky a počá eční ázi P o ek o á u
Čechy aMo a a (1918–1941). (PhD diss., Cha les Uni e si y, 2020).
——. “Me la našeho enko a!” K iminalizace Romů od p ní epubliky až po p o ní ázi
p o ek o á u (1918–1941). P aha: FHS UK– Sc ip o ium, 2022.
Bodná o á, Zuzana. G ama ický náč omského dialek u maďa ské obce Ve send.
Diplomo á p áce. P aha: FF UK, 2009.
Bo e zky, No be . Die Vlach-Dialek e des Romani. S uk u en, Sp achgeschich e, Ve wand -
scha s e häl nisse, Dialek ka en. Wiesbaden: Ha assowi z, 2003.
B ubake , Roge s. “E hnici y wi hou g oups.”Eu opean Jou nal o Sociology/A chi es
eu opéennes de sociologie, ol. 43, no. 2 (2002): 163–189. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017
/S0003975602001066.
——. “Nei he Indi idualism no ‘G oupism’ AReply o C aig Calhoun.”E hnici ies,
ol. 3, no. 4 (2003): 553–557. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1468796803003004006.
Cla k, Colin and Taylo , Becky. “‘Is Nomadism he P oblem’? The Social Cons uc ion
o Gypsies and T a elle s as Pe pe a o s o An i-Social Beha iou in B i ain.” In: An i-
Social Beha iou in B i ain: Vic o ian and Con empo a y Pe spec i es, ed. Sa ah Picka d,
166–178. Basings oke: Palg a e Macmillan, 2014.
Čajánko á, Emília. “Ži o akul u a ožko ianských Cigáno .” Slo enský ná odopis, ol. 2,
no. 1–2 (1954): 149–175 and 285–306.
Če ný, Ros isla . “Lo á o é době p ní epubliky– na příkladu ok esu Mís ek.” Romano
Džaniben, ol. 19, no. 1 (Summe 2012): 9–28.
Če enka, Jan. “‘Cikán, Gypsy & Rom’– dynamika pojmeno á ání Romů  ůzných
disku zech.” In: Čie no-biele s e y. Rómo ia majo i nej spoločnos i na Slo ensku,
294
ed. Ta iana Podolinská and Tomáš H us ič, B a isla a: Veda, Ús a e nológie SAV,
2015, 324–345.
Da ido á, E a. Bez kolíb ašia o . Košice: Východoslo enské yda a eľs o, 1965.
——. Romano d om. Ces y Romů 1945–1990. Olomouc: Uni e zi a Palackého, 1995.
——.“Po álečný ži o aosudy Romů le ech 1945–1989.” In: Če nobílý ži o , 67–78. P aha:
Galle y, 2000.
Done , Celia. The Righ s o he Roma: The S uggle o Ci izenship in Pos wa Czechoslo akia.
Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2017.
Dudeko á, Gab iela. “P á o alebo milos dens o? Domo ská p íslušnosť ako základný
p incip sociálnej s a os li os i Uho sku.” In: Sondy do slo enských dejín dlhom
19. s o očí, ed. Dušan Ko áč e al., B a isla a: His o ický ús a SAV, 2013, 196–213.
Dzu ko, Rudol . “Sa man ile and o supisis / Jak mě zali do soupisu.” Romano džaniben,
ol. 1, no. 4 (Sp ing 1994).
Džambazo ič, Roman. “Rómo ia Uho sku koncom 19. s o očia (Výsledky Súpisu
Rómo z oku 1893).” Sociológia, ol. 33, no. 5 (2001): 491–506.
Elšík, Vik o . “In e dialec con ac o Czech (and Slo ak) Romani a ie ies.” In e na ional
Jou nal o he Sociology o Language, 162 (Janua y 2003): 41–62. h ps://doi.o g/10.1515
/ijsl.2003.037.
Elšík, Vik o , Wagne , Pe and Wagne o á, Ma gi a. Olašská omš ina. Vlašské dialek y.
(online). P aha 2005. A ailable a h p://ulug. .cuni.cz/ling is ika/elsik/Elsik_2005
_HO_Vlax.pd .
Elšík, Vik o and Beníšek, Michal. “Romani dialec ology.” In: The Palg a e handbook o
Romani language and linguis ics, edi ed by Ma as, Ya on and Tense , An on, 389–427.
London: Palg a e Macmillan. 2020.
Fo a, Ma in.“On ne peu plus pa cou i le monde comme a an ”: au-delà de la dicho omie
nomadisme/séden a i é. B ésil(s). Sciences humaines e sociales, no. 2 (2012): 11–36.
F ase , Angus. “The Rom mig a ions.” Jou nal o he Gypsy Lo e Socie y 5, ol. 2, no. 2:
131–145.
——. Cikáni. T ansl. Ma a Miklušáko á. P aha: NLN, 1998.
Glassheim, Eagle. Cleansing he Czechoslo ak Bo de lands: Mig a ion, En i onmen , and Heal h
in he Fo me Sude enland. Pi sbu gh: Uni e si y o Pi sbu gh P ess, 2016.
Gon a ek, Alicja. “Ma ejasz Kwiek (ca. 1887–1937). A“Ba on” and “Leade o he Gypsy
Na ion” in In e bellum Poland.” In Roma po ai s in his o y: Roma ci ic emancipa ion eli e
in Cen al, Sou h-Eas e n and Eas e n Eu ope om he 19 h cen u y un il Wo ld Wa II, ed.
Elena Ma ushiako a and Veselin Popo , B ill, Schöningh: Pade bo n, 2022, 327–344.
Gu ňák, Daniel. “Špeci ické č y ý oja územia Slo enska očami egionálneho geog a a.”
In Regionálne dimenzie Slo enska, edi ed by Viliam Lauko, e al., 11–32. B a isla a:
Comenius Uni e si y, 2014.
Guy, Will. “Ways o looking a Roma: he case o Czechoslo akia.” In: Gypsies: ABook
o In e disciplina y Readings. Edi ed by Diane Tong, 13–48, New Yo k: Ga land, 1998.
——. “The Czech lands and Slo akia: Ano he alse dawn?” In: Be ween pas and u u e: The
Roma o Cen al and Eas e n Eu ope, edi ed by Will Guy, 285–332. Ha ield: Uni e si y
o He o dshi e P ess, 2001.
Hajská, Ma ké a. “Ame sam lašika haj o binas lašika! (My jsme Olaši amlu íme
olašsky!) Nás in jazyko é si uace olašských Romů z ýchodního Slo enska e nicky
smíšené komuni ě.” Romano Džaniben, ol. 19, no. 2 (Win e 2012): 35–53.
——. “Gažikanes aj omanes? Jazyko é pos oje olašských Romů jedné ýchodoslo enské
komuni y ke řem mís ně uží aným jazykům.” In: Čie no-biele s e y. Rómo ia majo i nej
spoločnos i na Slo ensku. Ed. Ta iana Podolinská and Tomáš H us ič, 347–373. B a isla a:
Veda, Ús a e nológie SAV, 2015.
295
——. “‘Polokočo níci’. Mig ační ajek o ie olašských Romů na P ešo sku od polo iny
19. s ole í do současnos i.” Romano džaniben, ol. 23, no. 2 (Win e 2016): 7–37.
——. Gaga in.Romano džaniben24, no. 2 (Win e 2017): 131–138.
——. “H anice jazyka jakož o h anice e nické iden i y. Vz ah uží aní jazyka ae nické
ka ego izace uolašských Romů na ýchodním Slo ensku.” (PhD diss., Cha les
Uni e si y, 2018).
——. “The p esen a ion o social s a us on asocial ne wo k: The ole o Facebook among
he Vlax Romani communi y o Eas e n-Slo ak o igin in Leices e , UK.” Romani
S udies, ol. 29, no. 2 (2019): 123–158
——. “Fo ced se lemen o Vlach Roma in Ža ec and Louny in he la e 1950’s.” Slo enský
ná odopis 68, no. 4 (2020): 340–64. h ps://doi.o g./10.2478/se-2020–20.
——.“O ajo si ‘al pes í o/ Ži o musí bý pes ý. Vyp á ění Vik o a Salinase.” Romano
džaniben, ol. 27, no. 2 (Win e 2020): 141–164.
——. “‘We had o un away’: The Lo á a’sdepa u e om he P o ec o a e o Bohemia
and Mo a ia o Slo akia in 1939”. Romani S udies, ol. 32, no. 1 (2022): 51–83.
Hancock, Ian. The Pa iah synd ome: an accoun o Gypsy sla e y and pe secu ion. Ann A bo ,
Mich.: Ka oma, 1987.
——. Země u pení. T ansl. Ka olína Ry olo á and Helena Sadílko á. P aha: Signe a, 2001.
Ho á h, Rudol . Amagya o szági kóbo czigányok nyel ana Czigány-Magya Szó á . Szeged:
P imawa e Kiadó, 2014.
Ho á ho á, Emília. Cigáni na Slo ensku. His o icko-e nog a ický náč . B a isla a:
Vyda a eľs o Slo enskej akademie ied, 1964.
Ho á ho á, Jana. 2000. “Kdo byli češ í Romo é?” In: Če nobílý ži o . P ague: Galle y:
47–66.
——. Kapi oly zdějin Romů. P aha: Člo ěk  ísni, 2002.
——. “Mezi álečné zas a eni mezi Romy českých zemích (aneb ušení sou islos í).”
Romano džaniben, ol. 12, no. 1 (Summe 2005): 63–84.
——. “Rozho o sTony Lag ynem: Já už dneska se nedí ám, kdo co jí, ale kdo jakej je,
o mě ži o naučil. Ži o ní příběh Tonyho Lag yna.” Romano džaniben, ol. 20, no.1
(Summe 2012): 105–139.
——. ... o jsou ěžké zpomínky. I. S azek. B no:Vě né mlýny, 2021.
Hübschmanno á, Milena. “Rozho o sTe ou Fabiáno ou.” Romano džaniben, ol. 7,
no. 1–2 (Sp ing, summe 2000): 32–38.
Hübschmanno á, Milena. “Vz ahy mezi Romy aŽidy na ýchodním Slo ensku před
d uhou s ě o ou álkou.” Romano džaniben, ol. 7, no. 1–2 (Sp ing, summe 2000):
17–23.
——. Šaj pes do ake as. Můžeme se domlu i . Olomouc: Uni e zi a Palackého, 2002.
——. Roma: Sub e hnic g oups: Index o appella ions. In Rombase. Didac ically edi ed
in o ma ion on Roma (online). G az: Rombase, 2003. h p:// omani.uni-g az.a
/ ombase/index.h ml.
——. (ed). “Po židoch cigáni.” S ědec í Romů ze Slo enska 1939–1945. I. díl (1939–s pen 1944).
P ague: T iáda, 2005.
——. “Roma in he so-called Slo ak S a e (1939–45).” In: Gypsies du ing he Second Wo ld
Wa , ol 3: The Final Chap e . Ed. Donald Ken ick. Ha ield: Uni e si y o He o shi e
P ess, 2006, 3–44.
Janas, Ka ol. “Pokusy lády slo enského š á u olik idáciu obchodu skoňmi  okoch
1939–1941 (mik oš údia).” Romano džaniben, ol. 10, no. 2 (Win e 2003): 89–92.
Ju o á, Anna. “Niek o é aspek y súpisu kočujúcich apolokočujúcich osôb  oku 1959.”
Romano džaniben, ol. 16, no. 1 (Summe 2009): 13–36.
296
——. “Domo ské p á o o zťahu kRómom p edmnícho skej ČSR.” In His o ický ý oj
súk omého p á a Eu ópe: zbo ník p íspe ko zmedziná odnej edeckej kon e encie konanej
dňoch 27.-28. mája 2011 na P á nickej akul e UPJŠ Košiciach, edi ed by E ik Š enpien,
121–144. Košice: P á nická akul a UPJŠ, 2011.
——. Rómska menšina na Slo ensku dokumen och 1945–1975. Košice: Spoločensko edný
ús a SAV, 2008.
Ká a, Ka el (ed.). Ke společenské p oblema ice Cikánů ČSSR. P aha: Ús a p o iloso ii
asociologie ČSAV, 1975.
Ka lík, Joze . T enčianská Teplá. Z olen: Slo akiap in , 1990.
Kabachnik, Pe e and Ryde , And ew. “Nomadism and New Labou : cons aining Gypsy
and T a elle mobili ies in B i ain.” In: Romani mobili ies in Eu ope: Mul idisciplina y
pe spec i es. In e na ional Con e ence, Uni e si y o Ox o d: Con e ence P oceedings,
2010, 110–125.
Kalný, Sla o. Cigánsky plač asmiech. B a isla a: Os e a, 1960.
Ka z, Ka alin. “S o y, his o y and memo y: acase s udy o he Roma a he Koma om
camp in Hunga y”, in The Roma, aMino i y in Eu ope. His o ical, Polical and Social
Pe spec i es, ed. Roni S aube and Raphael Vago, Budapes , Cen al Eu opean
Uni e si y P ess, 2007, 69–87.
Kobes, Tomáš. “‘Naši Romo é’– di akční zo ce odlišnos i ýchodoslo enského
enko a.” Romano džaniben, ol. 19, no. 2 (Win e 2012): 9–34.
Kochano ski, Jan. Gypsy S udies, pa 1. New Delhi: In e na ional Academy o Gypsy
Cul u e, 1963.
K amářo á, Jana (ed.) (Ne)bolí: zpomínky Romů na álku aži o po álce. P aha: Člo ěk
 ísni, 2005.
K á ký, Ján. K onika obce Dob á. Dob á: las ní náklad, 2000.
Ku lík-Ga udo, Igo . “Olaskí, alašskí alebo lašickí Rómo ia?”Romano džaniben, ol. 4,
no. 1–2 (Summe 1997): 35–38.
——. “Lunga i sku a lo á enge gila andal Ved éda / Lo á ske piesne ipope ky
zVode ád.” Romano džaniben, ol. 6, no. 1 (Summe 1999): 18–30.
Laka ošo a, Ma gi a. 1994. “Něk e é z yklos i olašských Romů.” Romano džaniben, ol. 1,
no. 3 (Au umn 1994): 2–13.
Liegeois, Jean-Pie e. Gypsies: an illus a ed his o y. London: Al Saqi, 1986.
——. Roma in Eu ope. S asbou g: Council o Eu ope, 2007.
Lípa, Jiří. Cikánš ina jazyko ém p os ředí slo enském ačeském. Ko ázkám s a ých ano ějších
složek její g ama ice alexiku. P aha: Naklada els í Českoslo enské akademie ěd, ed.
Rozp a y Českoslo enské akademie ěd, seši 11, oč. 75, 1965.
Mann, A ne. 2013. “Význam spomienko ého ozp á ania p e ýskum dejín ómskeho
holocaus u.” Romano džaniben, ol. 20, no. 2 (Win e 2013): 37–51.
——. “His o ický p oces o mo ania ómskych p iez ísk na Slo ensku.” In: Milý Bo e…
p o eso u C ibo o i Nečaso i kjeho sedmdesá ým na ozeninám ěnují přá elé, kolego é ažáci,
B no: HÚ AV ČR, HÚ FF MU, Ma ice mo a ská, 2003, 273–282.
Mann, A ne and Kumano á, Zuzana (eds.). Ma bis e en! P ipomínanie ómskeho holokaus u.
B a isla a: Občianske zd uženie In mino i a, 2014.
Ma ušiako a, Jelena. “Rodinný ži o alašských.Cigáno naSlo enskuajeho ý ino é
endencie.” Slo enskýná odopis 34, no. 4 (1986): 604- 634.
Ma ushiako a, Elena, and Popo , Veselin. ”The Gypsy Cou in Eas e n Eu ope.” Romani
S udies, ol. 17, no. 1 (2007): 67–101.
——. “Segmen a ion s. consolida ion: The example o ou Gypsy g oups in CIS,”
Romani S udies, ol. 14, no. 2 (2004): 145–191.
297
——. Gypsies in he O oman Empi e:ACon ibu ion o he His o y o he Balkans. He o dshi e:
Uni o He o dshi e P ess, 2001.
Ma as, Ya on. Romani: Alinguis ic in oduc ion. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess,
2002.
——.“Mapping he Romani dialec s o Romania”, Romani S udies, ol. 23, no. 2 (2013):
199–243. h ps://doi.o g/10.3828/ s.2013.11.
Nečas, C ibo . Nad osudem českých aslo enských cikánů le ech 1939–1945. B no, 1981.
——. Českoslo enš í Romo é le ech 1938–1945. B no: Masa yko a uni e zi a, 1994.
——. Romo é České epublice če a adnes. Olomouc: Palackého uni e zi a, 1995.
——. His o ický kalendář: Dějiny českých Romů da ech. Olomouc: Palackého uni e zi a,
1997.
——. “Ma e iál oRómech na Slo ensku z oku 1924.” His o ická demog a ie, 22, no. 1
(1998): 169–199. P aha: Komise p o his o ickou asociální demog a ii, 1998.
——. “Slo enš í Romo é le ech 1938–1945.” In: Sbo ník p ací Filoso ické akul y b něnské
uni e zi y C 51, B no: Masa yko a uni e zi a, 2004, 153–178,.
——. Romo é na Mo a ě a e Slezsku (1740–1945). B no: Ma ice mo a ská, 2005.
No áček, Jose . Cikáni če a, dnes azí a. P aha:Socialis ická akademie,1968.
O , Jan. 2021. “Romo é jako mís ní oby a elé? Přináležení, cikáns í apoli ika p os o u
e esnici na ýchodním Slo ensku.” Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Re iew,
ol. 57, no. 5 (2021): 1–28. h ps://doi.o g/10.13060/cs .2021.040.
Pa elčíko á, Nina. 1999. “Příp a a ap o ádění zákona onásilném usazo ání Romů na
Os a sku.” Os a a 19, sbo ník kdějinám asoučasnos i měs a, 34–48. Šeno uOs a y:
Tilia, 1999.
——. Romo é českých zemích 1945–1989. P aha: Úřad dokumen ace a yše řo ání zločinů
komunismu, 2004.
——. “Příchod olašských Romů na Os a sko padesá ých le ech 20. s ole í ( e s ě le
dobo ých zp á ).” Romano džaniben, ol. 16, no. 1 (Summe 2009): 37–66.
——. Vz ah Romů kp áci– kon on ace s e eo ypů shis o ickými doklady. Český lid, ol. 102,
no. 3 (2015): 307–328.
Piase e, Leona do. 1986. “Les slo ensko oma: en e séden a i é e nomadisme.”Nomadic
Peoples, no. 21/22 (Decembe 1986): 37–50.
Picke , Gio anni. “Nomads’ land? Poli ical cul u es and na ionalis s ances is-à- is Roma
in I aly.” In Mul i-disciplina y pe spec i es on Romany S udies, edi ed by Michael S ewa
and Ma on Ro id, 211–27. Budapes : Cen al Eu opean Uni e si y P ess, 2010.
Pi oň, Ras isla . “K ealizácii zákona č. 74/1958 Zb. o alom usídlení kočujúcich osôb
na území Veľkej B a isla y.” S udia E hnologica P agensia no. 1 (2018): 30–46.
——. “Zákon č. 74/1958 Zb. ajeho ýkon niek o ých obciach na ského egiónu (aj
sohľadom na p áce iných báda eľo ).” S udia E hnologica P agensia no. 1 (2021): 78–106.
Rychlik, Jan. Češi aSlo áci e 20. s ole í. Spolup ace akon lik y 1914–1992. P aha: Vyšeh ad,
2015.
Sadílko á, Helena. “Wa Tes imonies by Slo ak Roma– AClose Analysis.” Mas e Thesis,
Cen al Eu opean Uni e si y, 2003.
——. “Čí jsou o dějiny? Dosa adní přís upy kin e p e aci po álečných dějin Romů
ČS(S)R.” Romano džaniben, ol. 13, no. 2 (Win e 2013): 69–86.
——. “Rese ling he se lemen : ecen his o y o aRomani se lemen in sou h-eas
Slo akia“. In Das amen godi pala Le Če enko : Romani his o ija, čhib aj kul u a. Ed. Ki ill
Kozhano , Mikhail Oslon and Die e W. Halwachs, G az: Ka l-F anzens-Uni e si ä
G az– e punk sp achen, 2017, 339–351.
——. “(Ne)ch ění spoluobčané. Romo é po álečném Českoslo ensku.” In: „Nech ění“
spoluobčané. Skupiny oby a el pe zek o aných zpoli ických, ná odnos ních náboženských

298
ijiných dů odů le ech 1945–1989, edi ed by Ja osla Pažou and Ka eřina Ko mann,
98–115. P aha, Libe ec: Ús a p o s udium o ali ních ežimů– Technická uni e zi a
Libe ci, 2018.
——.“Holocaus o he Roma and Sin i on he e i o y o Czechoslo akia.” Fac shee s on
Romani cul u e, his o y, language, li e a u e and Roma ela ed g oups, Uni e zi y o G az,
2020. h p:// oma ac s.uni-g az.a .
——. “The Pos wa Mig a ion o Romani Families om Slo akia o he Bohemian Lands.
Acomplex legacy o wa and genocide in Czechoslo akia.” In: Jewish and Romani
Families in he Holocaus and i s A e ma h. Ed. Eliyana R. Adle and Ka eřina Čapko á,
190–217. Ru ge s Uni e si y P ess: New B unswick, Camden, Newa k, New Je sey,
London, 2020.
Sadílko á, Helena, Slačka, Dušan and Zá odská, Milada. Aby bylo isnámi počí áno.
Společensko-poli ická angažo anos Romů asnahy ozaložení omské o ganizace po álečném
Českoslo ensku. B no: Muzeum omské kul u y, 2018.
Se inek, Jose and Tesař, Jan. Česká cikánská apsodie. I.–III. S azek. P aha: T iáda, 2016.
Sidi opulu Janků, Ka eřina. Nikdy jsem nebyl podceňo anej. Ze slo enských osad do českých měs
za p ací. Po álečné zpomínky. B no: Masa yko a uni e zi a, 2015.
Shmid , Vic o iaand Jawo sky, Be nade e Nadya. His o icizing Roma in Cen al Eu ope:
be ween c i ical whi eness and epis emic injus ice. London and New Yo k: Rou ledge, Taylo
& F ancis G oup, 2021.
Sche el, Da id. “Belonging and domes ica ed e hnici y in Veľký Ša iš, Slo akia.” Romani
s udies, ol. 25, no. 2 (2015): 115–149. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/1467–8322.12483.
Schus e , Michal. “Jinak bychom ady nebyli.” Příběh odiny Dycho y zobce H ušky
(ok . Břecla ). Romano džaniben, ol, 27, no. 2 (Win e 2020): 7–53.
Slačka, Dušan. “Usazení kočo níků nebo řešení „cikánské o ázky“? Kočo níci na
Hodonínsku ap o ádění opa ření podle zákona č. 74/1958 Sb.” Bulle in Muzea Romské
kul u y, no. 23 (2014): 57–70.
Sokolo á, Vě a. Cul u al Poli ics o E hnici y Discou ces on Roma in Communis Czechoslo akia.
S u ga : Ibidem-Ve lag, 2020.
Spu ný, Ma ěj. Nejsou jako my. Česká společnos amenšiny poh aničí (1945–1960). P aha:
An ikomplex, 2011.
Spu ný, Ma ěj. “Pokus opře ýcho u: Romo é obje i s alinské péče očlo ěka 50. le ech.”
Paměť adějiny: e ue p o s udium o ali ních ežimů, ol. 11, no. 3 (2017): 3–14.
S ojka, Pe e and Pi oň, Ras isla . Náš ži o . Ama o ajo. B a isla a: Sd s udio, 2003.
Sus, Ja osla . Cikánská o ázka ČSSR. P aha: S á ní naklada els í poli ické li e a u y,
1961.
Su e, Adèle. “‘They gi e ahis o y o wande ing o e he wo ld’. ARomani
clan’s ansna ional mo emen in he ea ly 20 h cen u y”. Quade ni S o ici, ol. 49, no. 2
(Decembe 2014): 471–498.
Šípek, Zdeněk. “Tz . Cikanská o ázka od Mnicho a do konce oku 1939.” Český lid,
ol. 79, no. 2 (1992): 161–9.
——. “Cikánské legi imace Čechách mezi álečném období.” Český lid, ol. 76, no. 3
(1989): 133–137.
Šus e o a, I ana. Ži o olašskych žien. B a isla a: Veda, 2015.
Theodosiou, Aspasia. “‘Be-longing‘in a‘doubly occupied place‘: The Pa akalamos Gypsy
musicians case.”Romani s udies, ol. 14, no. 1 (Decembe 2004), 25–58. h ps://doi.o g
/10.3828/ s.2004.2
Thu ne , E a. “Bez s á ní příslušnos i ( éměř) až do konce ži o a. Z láš ní úp a y p á a
na získání s á ního občans í p o „Romy“ („Cikány“).” Romano džaniben, ol. 16, no. 1
(Summe 2009): 67–93.
299
Tche enko , Le and Laede ich, S éphane. The R oma. O he wise known as Gypsies, Gi anos,
Tsiganes, Tigani, Çingene, Zigeune , Bohemiens, T a elle s, Fah ende, e c. Volume 1: His o y,
language, and g oups. Basel: Schwabe, 2004.
Tkáčo á, Anna. “Rómo ia období od lády Ma ie Te ézie po znik I. ČSR.” In: Čačipen
pal oRoma. AGlobal Repo on Roma in Slo akia, edi ed by Michal Vašečka, 23–34,
B a isla a: Inš i ú p e eřejné o ázky, 2003.
Tlamso á, Hanka. Lexikon s ě em jdoucích. B no: Naklada els í PhD . Jose Spe á , 2020.
T e isan, Paola. “Aus ian “Gypsies” in he I alian a chi es. His o ical e hnog aphy on
mul iple bo de c ossings a he beginning o he wen ie h Cen u y.” Focaal—Jou nal
o Global and His o ical An h opology, ol. 87 (2020): 61–74. h ps://doi.o g/doi:10.3167
/ cl.2020.012806
an Baa , Hugo. “Eu ope’sRomaphobia: p oblema iza ion, secu i iza ion, nomadiza ion.”
En i onmen and Planning D: Socie y and Space, ol. 29, no. 2 (2011): 203–212. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1068/d2902ed1.
——.“The Pe pe ual Mobile Machine o Fo ced Mobili y: Eu ope’sRoma and he
Ins i u ionaliza ion o Roo lessness.” In: The I egula iza ion o Mig a ion in Con empo a y
Eu ope: Depo a ion, De en ion, D owning. Edi ed by Yolande Jansen, Joos de Bloois
and Robin Celika es, 71–86 (London / New Yo k: Rowman & Li le ield, 2015).
Vaněk, Mi osla and Mücke, Pa el.Tře í s ana ojúhelníku: eo ie ap axe o ální his o ie.
2. ed., P aha: Ka olinum, 2015.
Viko á, Lada and Zá odská, Milada. “Dokumen ace genocidy Romů za 2. s ě o é álky
Českoslo ensku– nálezo á zp á a: diskon inui a akon inui a odhalo ání his o ie
Romů po oce 1946.” Romano džaniben, ol. 23, no. 2 (Win e 2016): 107–124.
Viko á, Lada. “Dlouhá ces a za důs ojným pos a ením: Příspě ek apliko ané e iky
k ýzkumu holokaus u Romů osmdesá le od událos í.” (PhD diss., Cha les Uni e si y,
2020)
Vossen, Rüdige . Zigeune . F ank u : Ulls ein, 1983.
Yıldız, Can, De Geno a, Nicholas. “Un/F ee mobili y: Roma mig an s in he Eu opean
Union.” Social Iden i ies, ol. 24, no. 4 (2017): 425–441. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/1350463
0.2017.1335819.
Zah a, Ta a.“Condemned o Roo lessness and Unable o Budge”: Roma, Mig a ion
Panics, and In e nmen in he Habsbu g Empi e.” Ame ican His o ical Re iew, ol. 122,
no. 3 (2017): 702–726.
Zaple al, Tomáš. “Přís up o ali ního s á u ajeho bezpečnos ních složek kRomské
menšině Českoslo ensku (1945–1989).” Sbo ník A chi u bezpečnos ních složek, no. 10
(2012): 13–83.
Zdařilo á, E a. “Fak o y o li ňující na a i na příkladu ži o ních příběhů několika
omských pamě níků álky.” Romano džaniben, ol . 20, no. 2 (Win e 2013): 13–36.
A chi es
AM (A chi měs a) B no, . Z1.
A chi žada elů oodškodnění za genocidu době d uhé s ě o é álky, uložený e
společnos i Člo ěk  ísni, o.p.s.
NA (Ná odní a chi ) P aha, ondy KSČ Ús řední ýbo 1945–1989 P aha, oddělení
ideologické; MV (Minis e s o ni a) II P aha, MV– s a á egis a u a, Policejní
ředi els í II– šeobecná spiso na, Zemské če nické eli els í, ZÚ (Zemský úřad)
P aha
300
SOkA Mladá Bolesla , ond OÚ (Ok esní úřad) Mladá Bolesla
SOA H adec K álo á, AO Zám sk, ond KNV H adec K álo é 1949–1960
SOA Li oměřice, ond SKNV,
SOA Olomouc, ond OÚ Li o el (L 1–2)
SOkA Benešo , ondy ONV Vlašim; OÚ Benešo
SOkA Blansko, ond AO Lho a Rapo ina
SOkA F ýdek Mís ek, ondy OÚ F ýdek; OÚ Mís ek; Če nická s anice F ýdek
SOkA Li oměřice, pobočka Lo osice, ond ONV Roudnice n.L; ONV Lo osice
SOkA Louny, ondy KSČ OV Ža ec; MěNV (Měs ský ná odní ýbo ) Louny;
Ok esní p oku a u a Louny . 1960–1965; ONV (Ok esní ná odní ýbo ) Louny II; ONV
Ža ec; OÚ Louny I
SOkA Mělník, ondy ONV K alupy nad Vl a ou; OÚ Mělník
SOkA Nymbu k, pobočka Lysá n.L., ond ONV Poděb ady
SOkA Olomouc, ond MěNV Li o el
SOkA Opa a, ond OÚ Opa a
SOkA Pelhřimo , ond OÚKamenice n. L.
SOkA Přemyšlení, ond OÚ Říčany
SOkA Teplice, ond ONV Teplice
SNA B a isla a, ond Sčí anie ľudu 1930
ŠA (Š á ny a chí ) Ni a, pobočka Le ice, ondy Hla noslúžno ský ú ad Le icích zle
1938–1944; ONÚ Dolná Seč
ŠA Ni a, pobořka No é Zámky, ond ONV No é Zámky
ŠA Ni a, pobočka Topoľčany, ond OÚ Topoľčany
ŠA Ni a, pobočka T na a, ondy ObNÚ Vode ady; OÚ Hloho ec; ObNÚ Bole áz
ŠA T enčín, ondy Domo ská Daň T enčín; OÚ T enčín; ObNÚ T enč. Teplá; MNV
T enčianska Teplá
VÚA-VHA P aha, . Sbí ka osobních spisů žada elů o ydání os ědčení podle zákona
č. 255/1946 Sb.
ZA Opa a– pob. Olomouc, ond KNV Olomouc
Jou nal a icles
[au ho n.a.] “Ausge o ich e heudiebe.” Neues Tagbla ü Schlesien und No dmäh en, ol. 4,
no. 260 (5. 11. 1937), 4.
[au ho n.a.] “Be has e e Zigeune in.” Neues Tagbla ü Schlesien und No dmäh en, ol. 4,
no. 289 (9. 12. 1937), 6.
[au ho n.a.] “Ciganska o ázka.” T enčianske no iny: o gán OV KSS a ONV T enčíne, ol. 2,
no. 28 (28. 6. 1961), 3.
[au ho n.a.] “Cikánská k ádež koní.” Veče , lido ý denník, ol. 11, no. 46 (25. 2. 1924), 3.
[au ho n.a.] “Diebische Zigeune .” Neues Tagbla ü Schlesien und No dmäh en,” ol. 3,
no. 51 (29. 2. 1936), 9.
[au ho n.a.] “Kza čení cikána Jose a Schube a (Kři ě nařčen.).” Venko : o gán České
s any ag á ní, ol. 12, no. 67 (21. 3. 1917), 7.
[au ho n.a.] “K ádež koní.” Čech: poli ický ýdeník ka olický, ol. 49, no. 53 (23. 2. 1924), 6.
[au ho n.a.] “K ádeže koní.” Venko , o gán České s any ag á ní, ol. 19, no 245 (17. 2.
1924), 4.
[au ho n.a.] “Ločaj Ju aj z Haja oznamil s a u d och dobi čich paso .” Rub ika S a y,
K ajinský es ník p e Slo ensko, ol. 8, no. 11 (10. 4. 1935), 187.
301
[au ho n.a.] “Mladé cikánky ančily, s omy se zimě ba ily na zeleno.” Zblízka.cz
(31. 12. 2020). h ps://no iny-zblizka.cz/louny/cikanky-p ed adely-s ip yz-na
-doupo e-25-pod-nulou-sk ele-byly-sil es y-chlapi- zpominaji-na- ojnu- -lounech/.
[au ho n.a.] “Ob iněn z aždy.” Čech: poli ický ýdeník ka olický, ol. 42, no. 73 (16. 3.
1917), 7.
[au ho n.a.] “Po de í i le ech za čen p o zločin zabi í.” Veče , ol. 4, no. 61 (15. 3. 1917),
6.
[au ho n.a.] “P o loupežnou aždu.” Mo a ská o lice, ol. 36, no. 287 (18. 12. 1898), 5.
[au ho n.a.] “Tajems í cikánské odiny Schube ů Libni.” Ná odní lis y, ol. 57, no. 73
(16. 3. 1917), 4.
[au ho n.a.] “Uk adl d a pá y koní.” Čech: poli ický ýdeník ka olický, ol. 42, no. 190,
(14. 7. 1917), 8.
[au ho ] -el. “Cikáni S ojko é (Po o a T enčíně).” Lido é no iny, ol. 32, no. 331
(3. 7. 1924), 6.
[au ho ] -in. “Cikán jako ydě ač a ajný.” Lido é no iny, ol. 43, no. 165 (31. 5, 1935), 8.
[au o ] - chil. „Mißglück e Zigeune Königswahl in T oppau.” Neues Tagbla ü Schlesien
und No dmäh en, ol. 4, no. 128 (2. 6. 1937), 6.
Peřina, E. “Cikáni a kočo níci – dě i pří ody.“ Polední lis , ol. 9, no. 75 (15. 3. 1936), 7.
In e ne sou ces
A olsen a chi es (h ps://eguide.i s-a olsen.o g/)
A las ómskych komuni na Slo ensku (ARK) 2019[online]. Ú ad splnomocnenca lády
SR p e ómske komuni y, 2019
Familysea ch (www. amilysea ch.o g)
His ó ia obce– O iciálna s ánky obce Kálna nad H onom (www.kalna.eu).
h p://www.go e nmen .go .sk/ omo ia/lis _ ak o .php
h ps://mondonomo.ai/ o ename/Zaga
h ps://pama ky.p aha.eu/jnp/cz/pama ko y_ ond/usedlos i_na_uzemi_hla niho
_mes a_p ahy/ inoh ady/index.h ml,)
Uni ed S a es Holocaus Memo ial Museum– Holocaus Su i o s and Vic ims Da abase
(Uni ed S a es Holocaus Memo ial Museum– h ps://www.ushmm.o g)
Dachau One-S ep Sea ch Resul s– h ps://s e emo se.o g.
308
Ma ušo á, Le ice dis ic 89
Mělník 31, 128, 199, 234
Milo amily 178, 180, 182, 196
Mís ek 34, 100, 114–116, 121, 132–133,
135, 147, 285
Mnicho ice, Říčany dis ic 108, 111, 113,
118
Molná , Jose 81–82, 173, 218
Mo a ská Os a a 108, 113–115, 147
Mos 229, 250
Mý ne Ludany, Le ice dis ic 88, 172
Na zweile -S u ho 173
Nečas, C ibo 28, 89–90, 94, 97, 120, 137,
170, 174
Ni a dis ic 16, 75, 77, 130
nomadisa ion 23, 46, 50–51, 201, 217
No é Měs o nad Váhom 228
No é Zámky dis ic 16, 31 53, 77, 100,
169–172
Obřís í, Mělník dis ic 127–128
Od y, No ý Jičín dis ic 108, 118
Opa a 114–116, 221, 223, 268, 285
Os a a 137, 228
pa isan mo emen 28, 160, 187–188
Pasko , Mís ek dis ic 114–115
Pas ucho , Hloho ec dis ic 14, 91–92,
150–151, 166, 231
Pa elčíko á, Nina 16, 215, 221, 246–248
Pečky, Kolín dis ic 250
Pezinok dis ic 53, 77
Pi oň, Ras isla 19, 91, 131, 249
police check 23, 34, 51, 113, 121, 132–135,
149, 219, 236, 288
Popo , Veselin 18
P ague 57–58, 110, 124, 127–129, 133, 137,
208–213, 229, 233–234, 275–276, 292
P ie idza dis ic 100
p o essions 33, 51, 75–77, 87–88, 91–94,
120, 137, 146, 150, 201, 235, 284–285
P os ějo 133, 135, 210–214
Py lík, Pa ol 224–226
acial disc imina ion 30, 32, 42, 101, 124,
157, 169, 170, 193, 203–204, 227, 280,
291–292
Ra no ce, Piešťany dis ic 166
Ra ensb ück 173
egis e o “gypsy agabonds” 123, 125
egis e o a elling and semi- a elling
pe sons (unde Ac no. 74/1958) 11,
14, 236, 240, 256, 261, 268, 274, 276,
289
Říčany 39, 108, 129, 231, 233–234
Roudnice nad Labem, Li oměřice dis ic
228–229, 235–237, 250
Rumung o, Rumung i 21, 65–66, 86, 122,
290
Sachsenhausen 173
Šaľa 16, 169
Salinas, Vic o 72, 79–80, 90, 93, 171, 248
Schömbe g 173
Schus e , Michal 32
seden a isa ion 11, 43, 45–47, 49–50,
75–76, 79, 83, 92, 104, 204–205,
217–218, 229, 254, 288–289
semi- a elling gypsies see semi- a elling
pe sons
semi- a elling pe sons 14, 16, 46, 166, 185,
246–248
showmen 23, 121–122, 215, 237, 246–247,
250–256, 273
Slaný 234
Slo ak Na ional Up ising 165, 184, 187,
192
Slo ak Roms 45, 65, 89, 99, 122, 178, 216,
237, 248, 254
social hie a chy 43, 47, 48, 203, 219, 270,
286
social s a us 14, 48–49, 64, 73, 85, 88, 93,
99, 181, 193, 282, 286–287
Soľčany, Topoľčany dis ic 86, 94, 130,
166, 190, 218
spa ial mobili y 11–12, 47–51, 53, 63,
71–74, 76–78, 84–85, 89–90, 95–96,
99–100, 103, 108, 111, 115–119, 147,
199, 215–218, 222, 237–241, 275–276,
279–285
S ojka amily om Topoľčany 60, 79,
82–85, 90, 129–130, 167–168, 185, 221,
231
S ojka Ján 36–37, 61–62, 64, 97–98, 100,
102, 104–105, 147, 167–168, 176,
178–179, 183, 186, 196, 199, 220–221,
236, 250, 305
S ojka, (Be ci) 25, 190, 228–230, 235–236,
238, 240, 242, 257–260, 271, 275, 304

309
S ojka, (Bobko) 25, 97, 191, 228–229, 234,
304
S ojka, (Janino) 25, 96, 191, 228, 230, 234,
236, 304
S ojka, An on (Báno) 84–85, 121, 129–130
S ojka, Filo 36, 62, 66, 96, 97, 108,
110–111, 113–115, 118, 131–132,
177–178, 183, 190, 228, 285, 304
S ojka, Ja osla 214, 228, 235, 305
S ojka, Ju aj (Něguš) 183, 214, 235, 305
S ojka, Pe e 61, 62, 305
S ojka, Š e an (Tu ko) (*1919) 37–38, 97,
188, 220, 235, 305
S ojka, Š e an (*1923) 37, 97, 188, 231,
234, 305
S ojka, Š e an (*1933) 37, 97, 186, 188,
231, 305
S ojka, Š e an, S . (*1891) 26, 36–37,
61–65, 95–108, 118, 121, 176–193,
196–199, 219–227, 282–283, 287–288,
292, 305
S ojka, Jose (Jouško) 25, 40, 66, 96–97,
108, 177, 191, 228–230, 232, 240, 256,
258, 305
S ojko á, Agnesa 61–62, 305
S ojko á, Anna (Čaja), neé Laka ošo á
(*1902) 25, 36, 95–96, 108–111, 115,
178, 183, 190, 196, 220–221, 228,
230–234, 238, 240, 245, 256, 258, 262,
272, 274–275, 288, 304
S ojko á, G ó a 36, 38–39, 66, 96, 115, 183,
228, 235, 253, 305
S ojko á, Má ia 61–64, 107, 305
S ojko á, Zaga 35–39, 61–66, 95–98,
108–113, 117–119, 132, 164, 177–178,
183, 189–192, 195, 198–199, 214, 221,
227, 283, 285, 287–288, 305
S akonice 110–111, 118, 131
Šumpe k dis ic 115, 213
Šu any 88, 169, 171
Šú o ce, T na a dis ic 166, 177,183, 228
Su e, Adėle 44
S i a y dis ic 135
Teko ské Lužany, Le ice dis ic 14, 54,
81–82, 172–173
Teplice 233, 250
Teplička nad Váhom, Žilina dis ic 113
e i o ial ancho ing 71–72, 78–89, 137,
279, 281, 283
e i o ial ies 12, 48, 72–73, 95, 112, 163,
289
Theodosiou, Aspasia 47
Topoľčany 14, 16, 31, 37, 39, 42, 79, 82,
84–87, 121, 129–130, 161, 167–168
a elling gypsies 11–12, 14, 22, 32–35, 45,
62, 126, 130, 132, 143, 147, 161–162,
166, 192, 197–219, 231, 233, 237, 239,
242, 249, 252, 270, 290–291
a elling p o essions see p o essions
T enčianska Teplá, T enčín dis ic 11,
26–27, 36, 39, 42–43, 60–66, 85, 95–107,
112, 114, 118, 164, 174–193, 195–199,
217, 219–227, 279, 282–283, 287–288
T enčianské Teplice, T enčín dis ic 187,
196
Třešť, Jihla a dis ic 110, 118
T e isan, Paola 29
T na a dis ic 312, 112, 131, 151
T došo ce, No é Zámky dis ic 91, 93
Uhe ský B od 101, 104
Uhříně es, P aha- ýchod dis ic 231, 234
Ús í nad Labem Region 234, 250–251,
260, 267
ajda (chie ) 64, 82, 105, 159, 181, 192,
225, 227
Veľké Lo ce, No é Zámky dis ic 88, 91
Vienna 57–59
Villo 76–77
Vode ady, T na a dis ic 88
V áble, Ni a dis ic 169
Vse ín 101
win e ing place 82, 84–87, 98, 109, 151,
166, 185
Ža ec 11, 25, 228–230, 235–239, 247,
250, 254–258, 261, 266–271, 274, 276,
288–289
Žilina dis ic 100, 106, 130

[Document text truncated for crawler view.]