Balkan Egyptians and Gypsy Roma Discourse

Nationalities Papers, Vol. 33, No.
1, March 2005
Balkan Egyptians and Gypsy/Roma Discourse

Sevasti Trubeta
Introduction
Events and Questions

Since the 1990s, yet another entity has emerged among the wide range of groups and
minorities in the Balkans attracting the attention of politicians, scholars and the public.
Known as “Egypcani” in Macedonia and Kosovo, or as “Jevgs/Jevgits” in Albania,
these Albanophone Muslims are usually identified as Albanianised “Gypsies” by
the societies in which they live, although they consider themselves to be descendents
of Egyptian immigrants to the Balkans. Today, Balkan Egyptians are officially recog-
nised as a distinct population group in the Republic of Macedonia, while they enjoy
political influence through representative and cultural organisations in Kosovo and
Albania.
Given the unstable power relations in the former Yugoslavia, particularly in Kosovo
after 1989, the emergence of this entity has had political consequences. According to
press reports,1 the Egyptians gained sympathy in Belgrade because they were per-
ceived to be distinct from the larger Albanian population and potential allies of
Serbian nationalists. Specifically, in October 1990, the German magazine Der
Spiegel reported that then Yugoslav President Milošević had decided to recognise
the Egyptians as a distinct population group in advance of the forthcoming elections:
“The Serbian leader suddenly claims that the Albanian majority in Yugoslavia are in
reality Egyptians . . . The chief of the federal commission for the next census, Hisein
Ramadani, comes closer to the truth: The hundreds of Egyptians represent at best a
handful of Gypsies who have been Albanianised for a long time but suddenly do
not want to be Albanians.”2
At the end of the Kosovo crisis, regional tensions turned tragic as the Albanian
population expelled the Egyptians, Ashkali and Roma and accused them of having col-
laborated with Serbian militias.3 The consequences of this persecution included vio-
lence and forced displacement as well as the deterioration of living conditions for
those who remained behind or have since returned.4 As a result of the Kosovo
crisis, many Egyptians sought refugee status in other European countries.5 The result-
ing formation of an Egyptian diaspora has in turn led to and even sustained the
creation of elites and gained some measure of international political support for
the groups in question.6 Given the ongoing and problematic situation in Kosovo,
ISSN 0090-5992 print; ISSN 1465-3923 online/05/010071-25 # 2005 Association for the Study of Nationalities
DOI: 10.1080/00905990500053788
S. TRUBETA
the debate about the “true identity” of the Balkan Egyptians continues to reflect a
variety of political interests.
In addition to the charged question of minorities in the Balkans after 1989 and, as a
result of the political implications the “Egyptian issue” possessed in the former Yugo-
slavia, the Egyptians have also attracted the attention of Human Right Institutions,
public and scholars, as attested by the numerous publications and references
devoted to this group.7 It is worthy of note that, regardless of whether or not the Egyp-
tians are construed as Gypsies/Roma, scholars usually treat them as one particular
aspect of a larger Gypsy/Roma problematic. In a debate that has taken on increased
intensity since the 1990s, one central issue is whether the Egyptians are “in reality”
Gypsies/Roma or descendants of immigrants (or former slaves) from Egypt who
arrived in the Balkans centuries ago. A majority of scholars tend to argue (or
imply) that those currently called Egyptians are simply Gypsies/Roma claiming a
“more prestigious identity,” in effect seeking to free themselves of the Gypsy
stigma.8 Although this view reflects the dominant paradigm in social-scientific dis-
course, some scholars have also looked for traces of and historical evidence for a
long-standing Egyptian presence in the Balkans in order to find a possible link
between early migration from Egypt and the current groups in question. As Duijzings9
and Marushiakova et al. 10 note, Serbian and other scholars from the former Yugosla-
via supported the claims of the Egyptian elites, and tried to establish the early presence
of Egyptians in the Balkans as well as “to draw up a specific interpretation of historical
documentation that can serve as the basis of an account of the creation and develop-
ment of this community.”11 It is questionable, however, whether such attempts furnish
any evidence for the relationship between Egyptians who arrived in the Balkans in the
fifth century BC, those who were present in the Macedonian, Roman, Byzantine and
Ottoman Empires, and the recently emerged Egyptian communities, even if it is
claimed that “[h]istory gives us some material that can be used to argue for the
arrival of these people from Egypt to Balkans. The first historical source is probably
one noted by Herodotus.”12 What factors and circumstances could explain such a con-
tinuity of communities over centuries? Would they comprise some perpetuating and
traceable social forms of life, or a common Egyptian memory and consciousness
demonstrable across the Balkans and over centuries, or maybe in an Egyptian geneal-
ogy based on biological continuity?
The view expressed by the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) report13 concern-
ing the Albanian Jevgs/Jevgjits illustrates the tendency to consider Egyptians to be
Gypsies/Roma attempting to dissociate from the “Gypsy” label. While the self-ascribed
“Jevgs” form of identification is considered to be “an ideology cultivated by a minority
in response to persecution and the stigma associated with one’s native identity,”14 the
ERRC report calls attention to a further issue, i.e. a “political correctness” that obliges
social majorities to respect any form of self-identification. In the words of the report,
one “must be cautious in denying the assertions of a person or group of people
about themselves.”15 And yet this politically sensitive attitude is absent in the
72
BALKAN EGYPTIANS AND GYPSY/ROMA DISCOURSE
ERRC’s report on the Egyptians in Macedonia,16 which characterises “the appearance

in 1991 of 3307 people from the south-western Macedonian towns of Struga and Ohrid
who declared themselves to be ‘Egyptians’ in the census” as “[p]erhaps the most
perplexing aspect of the question of Romani identity in Macedonia.”17
The question of the Egyptians, their origins and relationship to the Gypsies/Roma, is
not new, nor does it solely concern Kosovo and the Republic of Macedonia. As a result
of the publicity the Egyptian issue has generated in theses areas, similar questions
have surfaced in other Balkan states, specifically in Albania (with respect to the
Jevgs/Jevgits), Bulgaria (with respect to the Agupti) and, to a far lesser degree, in
Greece. As will be shown in the following, groups of Muslim Roma with supposedly
Egyptian origins were mentioned in early twentieth-century travel reports and essays
on Thrace and Albania. There is a new quality in the current debate, however, owing to
the dynamism the Egyptian form of identification has recently attained (although in
varied degrees in each country) as a result of its institutionalisation, its national styli-
sation and, more importantly, its involvement in the nationalistic conflicts in several of
the Balkan countries.
Terminological Clarification, Methodological Approach and Working Hypothesises

The focus of this article is upon processes of identification potentially leading to the
constitution of large communities and, in particular, of “imagined communities.” Des-
ignations such as “Gypsies,” “Roma,” Egyptians, etc. will be employed here by con-
vention as discursive categories rather than as terms to describe (homogeneous) social
groups. Accordingly, the category “Gypsies” will refer to a collective stereotype con-
structed and employed by social majorities.18 The term “Roma” will refer primarily to
a collective form of self-identification with a distinct set of political implications
arising from the Romani emancipation movement (conventionally defined as having
commenced with the First World Romani Congress in 1971). “Roma” is also the “pol-
itically correct” term employed by the larger societies in which those designated as
Roma live. The category Egyptians (written in italics) will refer to those actors
who, although resident in various Balkan countries, are potentially objects of the
recent debate and who share at least a common characteristic: they define themselves
as descendents of Egyptians but they are perceived by others as Gypsies/Roma.
Taking this common form of identification as starting point, the following analysis
aims to call attention to the conditional character of its development as well as to
demonstrate that its diverse implications in the Balkans are effects of its being
embedded in different political discourses in each country.
The present article also treats the continuity and discontinuity of forms of identifi-
cation (and not of groups) and approaches the question of the Egyptians principally as
a discourse. 19 In concrete terms, as a public debate occurring in a pre-structured
societal order (discursive field) in which diverse sets of actors (discursive commu-
nities) participate, interacting with each other and representing distinct (or even
73
S. TRUBETA
controversial) standpoints and concerns. A crucial aspect here is that the actors
involved in the discourse possess more or less distinct social positions within the dis-
cursive field as a consequence of differing degrees of access to social resources and
power structures. At the same time, they are collectively initiators and agents of rep-
resentations of (differently perceived) societal events. A key issue in this context con-
cerns the (possible) existence of leading groups within discursive communities and the
strategies they employ in order to serve their political ends and collective interests,
and, in particular, to achieve the legitimacy of the forms of identification they intro-
duce by embedding them in institutional systems.
Consistent with Brubaker/Cooper’s critical analysis of the term “identity,”20 the
present article will employ the term as a “category of practice” in order to characterise
contextual, discursive and intentionally stylised forms of identification, i.e. of self-
understanding and perception by others. Diverse forms of identification shall be
regarded as dynamic processes encompassing various historical phases through the
course of time. In doing so, both particular qualities and symptoms of potential
change within specific historical contexts can be made conspicuous.
In attempting to apply the method of discourse analysis to the issue of the Balkan
Egyptians, this article will, in keeping with the current debate, distinguish convention-
ally between two qualitatively distinct phases concerning this form of identification,
each corresponding to its distinct societal relevance. The first phase covers the
period until the late 1980s when the term Egyptians was deployed to denote a
group lacking political and economic elites and, consequently, any power ambitions
(what Otto Bauer has termed a “folk without history”).21 During this period, the Egyp-
tian form of identification had scarce political and social relevance.
The second phase covers the relatively brief, but qualitatively distinct, period start-
ing in the 1990s. It is characterised by the dynamic employment of this form of identi-
fication after the rise of political elites and their engagement in the construction,
stylisation and legitimacy of a unique Egyptian identity in some Balkan countries.
On the basis of these methodological caveats, the subsequent analysis focuses on
discursive communities and their strategies, and will provide the following main
arguments:
The recent debate on the Egyptians occurs on the basis of a common acceptance and
internalisation by all participants in the debate of the dominant European national
concept. Hence, treating nations as “imagined communities,”22 the debate as a
whole tends to concentrate on whether the disputed entity is entitled to participate
as an actor within the national arena, and in what position. At the same time,
parties to the debate in question all share the same Gypsy stereotype. Independent
of whether the actors involved in this discourse are defending, rejecting, constructing
or deconstructing the Egyptian form of identification, they all project a common,
stereotypical Gypsy image upon the Egyptians. Given both the pejorative connotations
entailed by this Gypsy image and the hierarchical character of the national concept,
current discourse about the Egyptians is inherently evaluative.
74
Early Debates on the Egyptians in Various Balkan States
It is well known that speculation about the origins of Gypsies/Roma and their possible
connection to Egypt dates to the first recorded evidence of their presence in the Byzan-
tine Empire.23 Later, Ottoman documents refer to groups named “Çingene” and/or
“Kipti/Kiptiyân.” Scholars tend to identify both terms with the Gypsies/Roma and
hypothesise that the term “Kipti” in particular refers to the Coptic confession of Egyp-
tians.24 In his famous Seyāhat-nāme (Book of Travels, 1668), Evliya Çelebi refers to
groups named both çinganeler and qipţı̄ler, particularly in Anatolia and Rumelia.25
However, because they left no written records, it is an open question whether the
groups in question used such terms to identify themselves. Consequently, our know-
ledge of them is based only on data obtained and interpreted by members of a then
dominant society. Furthermore, the secondary literature often provides interpretations
of the past that are based on anachronistic analytical models devised for quite different
historical frameworks and largely expressed in confusing ethnic terms.26
Some authors attempt to solve the riddle—posed in studies and travel reports
throughout the twentieth century—of the origins of groups called Egyptians by com-
paring their phenomenological characteristics with the stereotypical Gypsy image. As
will be shown below, scholars usually treat this issue by employing as criteria the ten-
dency of the groups in question to be sedentary or roaming, and the relative degree to
which each group has been marginalised. Another criterion often employed is the
relationship between such Egyptians and self-identified Roma.
Several articles concerning groups settled in Albania reflect this tendency. Accord-
ing to Stuart Mann,27 Albanian society at large distinguishes between Arli (called
“Jevg” or “Magjỳp”) and Roma (called “Kurbát,” “Tsergetár” or “Aleği”).28 Mann
describes Jevgs as “dark, reddish-skinned people”29 who “stoutly deny any connection
with the Roms, and to call them ‘Tsikán’ is the worst possible insult. Their traditions
seem to point to an African origin.”30 From a conversation with an “old Jevg” who
claimed that his “tribe came from a land ‘a two day’s journey towards the sun,’”31
the author concludes that this country “must be Egypt.”32 The claim, however, that
Jevgs have nothing whatsoever to do with the Roma “seems to be borne out by the
fact that in type and feature the two tribes do not resemble one another in the
slightest.”33 Consistent with Gypsy discourse, Mann describes Jevgs as possessing
qualities that are the inverse of the negative Gypsy stereotype and claims that they
are “clean, honest, hard-working, and fairly intelligent. Many of their children go
to school.”34 Jevgs, however, are said to suffer marginalisation and exclusion by
the Albanian majority and to lead a “communal life in colonies quite apart from the
Albanian settlements.”35 But even if they are despised by the Albanians, they see
themselves (“justly” according to Mann) “to be above the Roms.”36 The author
seems to be so convinced of the Jevgs’ Egyptian descent that he even claims to see
Nefertiti in the face of every Jevg woman. He writes, “I have seen many who are
the living image of Queen Nefertiti, with the same high eyebrows converging
75
S. TRUBETA
towards the middle of the forehead, the large eyelids and the oval face and small
chin; but how far my comparison is due to imagination, I can not say. Unfortunately
I did not take any photographs.”37 Responding to Mann, Margaret Hasluck38 argues
that Jevgs are Gypsies. She does, however, ascribe to them some basic differences
vis-à-vis other Gypsy groups insofar as they are “sedentary” and speak Albanian,
whereas the latter are “nomadic” and speak Romanes.39
A similar problematic is evident with groups in Bulgaria named “Agypti.”40 One of
the earliest41 known references to the Agupti is probably contained in Konstantin
Ireček’s Principality Bulgaria. 42 Ireček classifies them as Gypsies who live scattered
throughout the country leading either a sedentary or nomadic existence. He notes
that they are generally called “Ciganin,” though in Turkish they are referred to as
“Čingene.” They are only called “Aguptin” in Rhodops and “Gjube” in Macedonia.
Ireček claims that the two names derive from the Greek word “Yyftos”43 and the old
Turkish word “Kipt,” respectively, and reflect the Gypsies’ alleged Egyptian origins.
Indicative of the discourse of the post-1945 period and the way in which Bulgaria’s
Agupti were perceived by scholars is Primovski’s folkloristic study of Muslim black-
smiths referred to as “Agupti” in the Bulgarian town of Madan (in the Rhodops).44 In
this study, Primovski implies that he considers members of this group to be Gypsies
even if he ascribes to them distinguishing characteristics of other local Gypsy
groups. Primovski is not able to say with any certainty whether the origins of the
Agupti are Indian or not. According to their own legends, however, Agupti are the des-
cendants of Egyptian immigrants. In addition to its stereotypical view of Gypsies,
Primovski’s study is also indicative of the problematic of the Muslim minority in
Bulgaria. Agupti are Muslims and Bulgarophones, and, according to the social
majority in Bulgaria, their language is an old Bulgarian dialect, even older than the
current national language.45 Here, it is interesting to note the relevance of the linguis-
tic aspect of the minority issue in Bulgaria in the post-1945 era. The case of the
Pomaks provides an illustrative example. Since their language is regarded as an
ancient Bulgarian dialect, it is cited as evidence of their “Bulgarian national charac-
ter.”46 By contrast, the Bulgarian national belongingness of the Agupti of Madan is
not discussed, despite the supposedly “Bulgarian authenticity” of their language. It
seems that the ascription of positive qualities to the Agupti (“hard-workers,” “believ-
ers,” “clever,” etc.)47 may be able to call into question their relation to designated
Gypsies but is insufficient to associate them with the Bulgarian nation. The probable
reason for this is that, to an even greater extent than other Muslim groups in Bulgaria,
the Aguptis are marginalised and live in conditions of extreme poverty and therefore
lack prestige.48
Marushiakova and Popov49 consider the Bulgarian Agupti to be members of a larger
group of Gypsies/Roma called “Jerlii” and to be “probably the descendants of an older
wave of immigrants to the Balkans, considerably different from the other Gypsy
groups and sharply distanced from them.”50 What is thought to distinguish them
from the Roma is their remarkable tendency towards acculturation and integration
76
into local society. According to the authors, the “Agupti are distinguished by their
strong inspiration to integrate into the surrounding Turkish or Bulgarian Muslim
(Pomaks) population and adopt the Turkish or Bulgarian language.”51
At this point, a remarkable similarity between the Bulgarian Agupti and certain
Gypsy/Roma groups in Greece should briefly be noted. E. Zeginis52 discusses
groups named “Eguptin” (feminine “Agupka”) or “Yeguptin” (feminine
“Yagupka”) settled in Greek Thrace, even in villages of the Pomak-dominated prefec-
ture of Xanthi.53
Nevertheless, not every group of supposedly African origin has been associated
with the Egyptian discourse. In a travel report on Albania, Jonny Behm54 gives an
account of a “former nigger quarter” in the Albanian town of Berat inhabited by a
heterogeneous population living in conditions of extreme poverty. According to
Behm, the inhabitants of this quarter (who were about to disappear at the time of
his travel) were descendants of slaves brought from Egypt during the Ottoman era
in the service of a Pasha.55 Behm, however, does not associate this group with the
Gypsies/Roma and, as the context of his report suggests, there is no indication of
any relevance of this designation among the few remaining members of this group
of supposedly Egyptian origins.
Behm’s account of Berat contains similarities with the cases of some Turcophone
members of the Muslim minority in Greek Thrace who, due to their self-described
“dark skin colour,”56 believe that their ancestors arrived from Africa during the
Ottoman era, perhaps as slaves from present-day Sudan,57 though they could not
state this with any certainty. This conviction, however, does not seem to play a signifi-
cant roll in their own self-identification. By contrast, a group of (today bilingual)
Slavophones living in a Greek Macedonian area close to the town of Serres claim to
be of “Egyptian descent” whereas the local society considers them Gypsies.58
Comparing the Egyptian issue in the various Balkan states, the distinctively discur-
sive character of this form of identification becomes apparent. Despite the differences
between them, each case provides evidence of an ascribed and internalised character-
istic “otherness.” In each of the countries where these groups are present, they are not
considered to be members of a titular nation.59 Furthermore, such groups are socially
positioned more or less on the margins of their respective societies. According to the
texts just examined, any self-perceived (hence internalised) “otherness” of Egyptians
(Agupti, Jevgs, etc.) seems to have two aspects: a manifest sense of superiority vis-à-
vis the actors labelled as “Gypsies,” on the one hand, and a perception of inferiority
vis-à-vis the dominant societies in which they live as a result of discrimination and
exclusion, on the other. Given their lack of elites and thus of strategies for confronting
their societal surroundings, the self-ascribed identification of the Egyptians retains its
social relevance only among local populations of Egyptians and in relation to other
local population groups. The extent of this relevance is expressed as solidarity with
or dissociation from other groups with respect to social practises, e.g. in marriage
strategies/practices, the building of (closed) professional systems, etc. In sociological
77
S. TRUBETA
terms, however, such “groups” would undergo political transformation when pre-
sented with an appropriate set of circumstances.
A Dynamic Identification as Egyptians
In the 1990s, the Egyptian form of identification began to have political implications
and subsequently to assume greater social relevance as a consequence of its being
linked to contemporary nationalist conflicts in several of the Balkan states. This devel-
opment may be regarded as part of a larger context that included both confrontations
of rival nationalist ideologies and the widespread political movement of several
minority groups subsequent to the upheaval in many Balkan states after 1989.
The following analysis attempts to distinguish the main actors of the discursive
communities within which recent political discourse concerning Egyptians has
occurred, focusing mainly on the strategies of these communities’ elites and leading
representatives.
Self-Identification: Strategies of the Elites

More recent discourse about Egyptians has been determined by a process of gradual
collectivisation (which is a prelude to the typical nationalistic demand for homogenis-
ation), institutionalisation and, finally, national stylisation of an Egyptian identity. Col-
lectivisation and institutionalisation have emerged with the relatively recent formation
of numerous Egyptian representative associations. The first one was founded in 1990
in Ohrid and a short time later (October 1990) a sister association in Prishtina followed,
both attaining influence among Albanophone Muslims identified as Gypsies.60 During the
same period, similar associations of Evgjit were also founded in Albania, the first one of
them (was founded) in Korcha (June 1992) while (the founding of) a number of other
regional organisations soon followed.61 At the end of the decade, there was an attempt
to effect a collective Egyptian form of identification extending beyond the limited
regional level, and in doing so several associations united and, at “a congress in Ohrid
[1998], the formation of the Balkan Union of the Egyptians was announced.”62 The
resulting Association of the Balkan Egyptians in West Europe has existed in Germany
(Mülheim/Ruhr) since 1999.63 However, the most important event in the broader institu-
tionalisation of the Egyptian form of identification (one providing it with legitimacy)
occurred in the Republic of Macedonia with the introduction of the designation “Egyp-
tian” as a particular population category in the census of 1991.64
The intention to disassociate from the Gypsy label seems to make up just one aspect
of the Egyptian movement. A more decisive aspect, mainly characterising the strat-
egies of Egyptian elites, is the declaration of a collective “identity” with national
implications as well as a claim (albeit only partially established) to legitimacy.
Thus, the recent phenomenon can be regarded as an emancipatory act with two
basic dimensions: deconstructive and constructive.
78
The transition from the deconstruction of the Gypsy stigma to the construction of a
modern and prestigious collective identity allowing the Egyptians to link themselves
to a national group-building discourse began as soon as the necessary conditions were
fulfilled. These conditions included the historical framework of nationalist ideologies
in which minorities participated in order to gain recognition, as well as the formation
of a leadership able to create a national profile. The latter was achieved through the
formation of national myths,65 references to an external “original homeland” and
the attempt to establish connections with Egyptian state authorities.66 These con-
ditions surfaced after 1989 and made possible a new, dynamic form of Egyptian
identification in precisely those countries where the question had hardly been an
issue before, namely in Macedonia and Kosovo.
As such, the proclamation of “Egyptian identity” currently lacks any conflict poten-
tial and hence remains neutral as a form of identification, since Egypt is not involved
in the Balkan conflicts. Yet such neutrality ends when the actors or elites of a particu-
lar discursive community become involved in events in centres of political conflict.
This is exactly what occurred in Kosovo, where an explosive nationalist conflict
and accompanying crisis left very little room for any neutral actors.
Identification by Others
Roma leaders. The emergence of the Egyptian issue in recent years has also attracted
the attention of Roma leaders, among whom it has provoked differing reactions. Such
reactions were only to be expected given the ascendancy of the Romani movement in
the region during the same period. Particularly in the Republic of Macedonia, the
Romani elites stylised a Roma identification free of pejorative connotations and
partially (re)articulated nationalistic aspirations.67
The former secretary-general of the World Congress of Roma and later president
of the Romano-Rat (Berlin), Dr Rajko Djurić, characterised discourse about the
Egyptians as a “comedy,” an act that lacked seriousness but served political purposes:
above all the division and subsequent weakening of the Romani movement.68 From
Djurić’s point of view, the Egyptian movement is the symptom of a “divide and
conquer” strategy deployed by politicians in order to gain influence over and thus
to instrumentalise large numbers of the Romani population in the service of their
own interests.
However, not all Roma representatives seem to share this opinion. As reported by
the European Roma Rights Centre,69 Pëllumb Fortuna and Marcel Courthiade claimed
in an unpublished letter70 to Le Monde that in Albania, Roma and Jevgjit are distinct
groups who are usually perceived as indistinguishable by the dominant society.
According to the same source, the authors of the mentioned letter suppose that the
difference between the two groups concerns their origins, since the former came
from India while the latter are descendants of Copts resident in the Balkans for cen-
turies. Furthermore, Jevgjit are said to “only speak the language of their adopted
79
S. TRUBETA
country. They consider themselves superior to the Gypsies.”71 Nevertheless, both

groups are thought to share a common feature, namely their “skin colour.” Just this
is believed to cause confusion, since “[i]gnorant people in Albania see the colour of
the skin but are incapable of distinguishing to what origin a colour belongs. They
cannot understand that the Evgjits or Jevgs, although they have a dark skin like us,
constitute a completely different ethnic group.”72 Obviously such an argument
employs a mode of discourse in which “descent,” “colour” and “language” are per-
ceived as decisive and even “objective” criteria of group membership.
Rival titular nations: serving nationalistic purposes. In Albania, the main actors in
the recent debate over the Jevgs are members/elites of both the Jevgs themselves and
the Roma rather than of the dominant society. This may be due to the low relevance
such a form of identification possesses with respect to national questions in post-
socialist Albania. In Bulgaria, the Agupti form of identification seems to possess
even less social relevance and to be raised as an issue only in scholarly debate.
By contrast, in the cases of Macedonia and Kosovo, the controversy over the “true
identity” of the Egyptians—at least in the 1990s—can only be explained in the context
of attempts by national rivals to instrumentalise population groups in order to legiti-
mate competing claims of sovereignty. The debate on the Egyptians is in this respect
only one aspect of a more comprehensive issue in which the attention of a dominant
society towards minorities increases as soon as the potential significance of the latter
rises, e.g. due to greater electoral importance or the formation of minority elites and
their involvement in directing social developments, etc. Such an interest does not
necessarily indicate the willingness of a dominant society (or titular nation) to
accept these groups as equal members of society or as actors in and writers of national
history, but rather reflects the intention to instrumentalise them.73 In the explosive
conflict in divided Yugoslavia and particularly in Kosovo, construing the disputed
groups as “Egyptians” allows for their disassociation from Albanians, whereas iden-
tifying them as “Albanianised Gypsies” has the effect of distinguishing them from
Serbs via a two-fold distinction.
According to Duijzings’s study, the political support the Egyptian issue has
received from Serbian nationalists has been echoed in the discourse of the scientific
community as well.74 Since the 1990s, there have been notable attempts by several
scholars to make the Egyptian form of identification the subject of biologically deter-
mined discourse. Duijzings discusses the example of an ethnologist at the University
of Skopje who claimed to be able to trace the origins of this group to ancient Egypt by
verifying their supposed cultural continuity with their “predecessors” in ancient Egypt
by means of archaeological evidence and even blood testing. Such biological argu-
ments are symptomatic of the revival of racial discourse in the last decade, which,
especially in Southeastern Europe, has been adopted in order to legitimise nationalist
agendas.75 This development goes hand in hand with recent emphasis on ethnic
characteristics76 and the central position “heritage” plays in argumentation for the
historical continuity of titular nations.77
80
A further criterion in the argument for an Egyptian (that is, non-Albanian) origin is
religious confession. Serbian scholars assume that “many beliefs, rituals and magical
practices among Macedonian Egyptians show close similarities with those of the
Copts.”78 Moreover, instances of Christian belief and the celebration of Christian holi-
days by Muslim Egyptians are emphasised in order to construct a link to Christian
Serbs or at least to disassociate the former from the Muslims Albanians.79
The practice of Christian rituals by Muslims is also an issue in other Balkan
Christian states in the context of the debate over minorities.80 In this respect, the
Muslim minority living in Greek Thrace81 bears the closest resemblance to the Egyptian
one. In both cases, there is the intention of the titular nations to dissociate Muslim
minorities from rival (Muslim) nations that function as (potential) “external home-
lands” for these minorities. In the ensuing discourse, both religious belief and its mani-
festation are retrospectively interpreted to suit current nationalistic principles and then
equated with institutional religion. The latter is subsequently associated with systems
of power and, in the national context, is construed ideologically as a representative of a
rival nation.82 However, such a view overlooks at least one crucial point, i.e. that
religious behaviour and expressions of belief depend on the actors’ relationship to
(religious) power centres. The impact of both syncretism and religious brotherhoods
emphasising “the equality of religions” seems to be of great relevance to socially
deprived and marginalised people in the Balkans. Islamic (like Christian) brother-
hoods that deviated from orthodoxy and were often therefore excluded from power
centres frequently won influence among socially deprived or marginalised groups.83
The unorthodox religious practices of such groups have been the object of an “inves-
tigation of folk religiousness” focusing on “religious movements from below.”84
In such nationalistic settings, the religious factor is highly important in the case of
the Egyptians. Although confession has played only a minor role in the Slavic–
Albanian conflict in Macedonia (probably due to the relatively low degree of rel-
evance of religion to Albanian nationalism), it is currently used to distinguish
between Macedonian and Albanian nationalisms.85 Accordingly, the supposedly
once (Coptic) Christian confession of the Egyptians functions to link them potentially
to the Slavs. Hence the emphasis on Christian cults implemented by Egyptians (e.g.
the worship of Christian saints) aims to dissociate the Egyptian population from a
rival nationalism.
Patterns of Scholarly Explanation and “Ethnic Mimicry”

Several scholars tend to explain the Egyptian phenomenon by employing terms
such as “falsified identity by Gypsies”86 or “camouflage.”87 Another widely used
term seems to be “ethnic mimicry.”88 Such patterns of explanation are an inherent
ingredient in the discourse about Gypsies who are perceived by social majorities
as attempting to “imitate the life of the rich Gadže,”89 to “negotiate identities,”90 to
attain a “preferential ethnic conscience,”91 etc.
81
S. TRUBETA
In addressing these views, three key terms arise: “identity,” “ethnicity” and
“mimicry.” All three terms and their combination with one another entail the distinc-
tions “inclusion– exclusion” and “sameness –diversity” and imply boundaries that are
predetermined and unchangeable. As a symptom of inclusion and exclusion,
“identity” (a “plastic word,” as Pörksen terms it)92 asserts both the sameness of
members of a group or category and diversity with respect to others involved in the
same discursive field. “Identity” does not, however, imply a mere identification but
rather prescribes affiliation; essentially it shapes a topos in which social actors are
obligatorily classified after it has been predetermined which of their experiences,
characteristics, etc. are important and worthy of representation. The attribution of
sameness leads to the treatment of identity as a “reality” or even as a quality attaching
to individuals or collective subjects and possessing an ontological dimension.93
The imperative of sameness is also facilitated by ethnic categories that prescribe
affiliation on the basis of cultural, linguistic, religious and similar characteristics as
well as of descent or even explicitly of race. As associated with concepts of nation
and race,94 ethnic categories mediate between both by means of an idea of descent
which is employed to establish genealogies and codify them in “collective identi-
ties.” In doing so—whether on the basis of national or racial traits—descent pre-
scribes an unchangeable character to ethnic affiliation. In this context, the question
is not asked of whether these “ethnic groups” are “face-to-face communities,” that
is, bounded entities with immediate exchange and possibly kinship relations
among their members or “imagined” communities according to Max Webers’ defi-
nition,95 a definition that is close to the concept of nation. The frequent juxtaposition
of these different types of groups facilitates the projection of characteristics of the
first onto the latter with the effect that face-to-face and kinship relations as well
as a primitive character are attributed to imagined communities. This very confusion
occurs quite often in studies of the Rom,a in which scholars frequently emphasise
ethnic characteristics such as culture, kinship, etc., often basing their assertions on
fieldwork conducted in particular settlements, though considering their results to
be universally valid.96
The term “mimicry” (borrowed from biology and psychology) has become quite
prominent in the social sciences via postcolonial studies.97
The term “ethnic mimicry” as applied to the Gypsies/Roma seems, however, to be
introduced by Vukanović in his study on the “Gypsy Population in Yugoslavia”
(1963),98 rather than to be adapted from the post-colonial studies. Vukanović’s
article is indicative of the merger of racial and ethnic characteristics and the allegedly
objective (and thus immutable) character of “group membership.” Vukanović com-
plains about the lack of statistical data based on “ethnic characteristics” which pre-
vents an accurate estimate of the “real size” of the Gypsy population in Yugoslavia.
He considers the most important reason for this deficit to be the “very characteristic
problem . . . [of] ethnical mimicry among Gypsies,”99 i.e. a widespread tendency
among the “Gypsy population . . . to hide its real racial character, pretending to
82
belong to some other Balkan ethnical group . . . which results in reducing the estimated
number of Gypsy inhabitants.”100 With respect to the criterion of racial belonging,
Vukanović complains that a “number of persons belonging to the Gypsy race is
included in some other ethnical group.”101
Although both issues—the claim of “objectivity” on the basis of the quantification
of data102 as well as the debate about the “true Gypsy”—have long traditions,103 it is of
particular significance that Vukanović’s assertion could be expressed only a few years
after the Second World War even though it applies the same arguments used by
National Socialist “experts” who complained about the lack of statistical data on
the Balkan Gypsies with respect to racial and völkisch criteria.104 The use of the
concept of “ethnic mimicry” by many current scholars without reflecting upon its con-
notations is no less significant. Such usage can be attributed to a set of factors, the most
important of which may be the positive connotative potential both terms—“ethnicity”
and “mimicry”—enjoyed after the Second World War, a potential apparently deriving
from the interplay of politics and science. While ethnic categories have been associ-
ated to a wide extent with “alterity,” “otherness” and “minorities” and refer to entities
to be protected, they have gained positive political implications. At the same time,
“race” has not been cancelled from mainstream Anglo-American (as distinguished
from German) discourse after the Second World War.105 On the contrary, “race”
has emerged as a key notion, particularly in the postcolonial discourse and “cultural
and racial studies” which currently have a great deal of influence on social and
human sciences.106 In light of these developments, ethnic and to some extent racial
terminology appears to have been dissociated from negative connotations, thus allow-
ing for the possibility of racial or even genetic arguments about the Roma. A symptom
of these multidimensional connections is that ethnologists have participated in
research on the genetic characteristics of the Roma.107
Whether consciously or not, use of the term “ethnic mimicry” finally has the same
effect: it ascribes to the Roma an “immutable character” that they allegedly acquire at
birth and never lose; it denies the “‘right of exit’ from the group.”108 Even if the racial
element is not always mentioned explicitly by current participants in this debate,109 it
is nevertheless present and is effectively perpetuated by the ascription of a fatal char-
acter to “Gypsy identity.” Such an ascription is best expressed by Lockwood who
claims in his well-known article on the Balkan Gypsies that some “Gypsies have
made their way in the gadje world, nevertheless maintaining a sense of their Gypsy
distinctiveness.” Lockwood goes on to assert that Roma have adapted to the con-
ditions of their surrounding society, “[a]nd adapt they have, all the while maintaining
their distinctive Gypsy identity”.110
Such use of the term “ethnic mimicry” is indicative of both the racial character of
the stereotypical Gypsy image and the racist or biological character of the concept of
nation. Moreover, the standpoint typical of scholars is symptomatic of the dominant
patterns of majority self-identification via national attributes,111 since just such an
identification contains a fatal element of descent in which group and national
83
S. TRUBETA
affiliation is considered a destiny, since it is regarded as inborn and therefore cannot be

lost or acquired. That such a view is not self-explanatory and not applicable generally
becomes clear when it is compared with other, including political, conceptualisations
of nationality. Terms such as “ethnic mimicry,” “falsification of identities” or “camou-
flage” have not been used to characterise second or third generations of immigrants in
Canada or the U.S., when they simply perceive themselves as Canadians or Ameri-
cans. Yet such terms are applied to members of the disputed groups (Egyptians as
well as Roma) who have been native to the Balkans for centuries.
Concluding Reflections
The presence of (groups called) “Egyptians” in the Balkans is well documented

through various historical periods, so it is hardly a controversial issue per se. By con-
trast, the question that has recently arisen concerning the possible connection between
current Egyptians and immigrants from Egypt arriving in the Balkans centuries ago is
a current political issue. Such a connection, typically established by myth-making, has
relevance to the present insofar as a particular concept of the past serves as a means of
entitling minority groups to participate as equal members in mainstream societies. In
other words, “[m]yth and invention are essential to the politics of identity by which
groups of people today, defining themselves by ethnicity, religion or the past or
present borders of states, try to find some certainty in an uncertain and shaking
world by saying, ‘We are different from and better than the Others.’”112
It is certainly the task of historians and social scientists to explore the pasts of par-
ticular settlements and communities and to investigate their histories as well as the
processes and conditions that could have lent support to the formation and perpetu-
ation of a group consciousness. Yet without necessary archival information, there
can only be speculation about the origins of (ancestors of) groups such as the Egyp-
tians (Agupti, Jevgs, etc.). However, the key question of how the preservation of
the memory of an ancient origin is facilitated (if indeed it is) by communities
lacking elites and institutions capable of preserving and updating collective memories
remains unanswered.
While such an exploration is the task of historians, attaching synchronic signifi-
cance to historical events in order to establish a correspondence with contemporary
groups is the work of politicians and ideologues. Historical events serve in this
instance as the basis for myth and invention, since the “most usual ideological
abuse of history is based on anachronism rather than lies.”113
The Egyptian issue as it has arisen in the post-1945 period (and particularly since
the 1990s) may be regarded as occurring within the context of nationalist conflicts
as well as the emancipation movements of minorities and diverse population groups
in the Balkans. The attempt to establish a link between past and present by asserting
historical continuity and objectifying this through the concept of descent is a classic
84
case of myth-making that is treated differently by each set of actors involved in

the discourse as a whole. Egyptian elites try to construct their own national
profile through a particular interpretation of the past and the positing of a historical
continuity between this past and their present circumstances. At the same time,
the larger societies in which the Egyptians live also make use of the concept of the
past, even if only to refute the identity proclaimed by Egyptians, replacing it with
a different one implying a naturalistic or biological form of continuity, i.e. of
Gypsy descent. Hence, both actors “turn the past into the present,” and yet they do
so for opposed reasons: the Egyptians in order to gain the legitimacy required for
entrance into the world of established and prestigious large communities, the societies
in which they live in order to justify the exclusion of the Egyptians from that same
arena.
The same employment of the past and its genealogical implications is apparent in
scholarly discourse, irrespective of the acceptance, denial or exploration of the Egyp-
tian form of identification. In the context of the use of the past just discussed, the
search for historical evidence of Egyptian immigration to the Balkans in Herodotus’s
texts or in the histories of the Macedonian, Roman or Byzantine Empires without con-
sidering the mechanisms that make possible the perpetuation of communities is essen-
tially the same as simply ascribing an Illyrian origin to contemporary Albanians or an
ancient Hellenic one to present-day Greeks.
Beyond the discourse of elites and with respect to the necessity for the groups and
actors in question to counter their own marginalisation in order to participate equally
in mainstream societies, it is hardly important whether such groups and actors are “in
reality” Gypsies/Roma or descendants of Egyptian immigrants. The question about
such a “reality” points to the “regime” and “politics of truth”114 in each society.
Thus, the matter of their “real identity” implies a more fundamental question: How
shall community membership be defined? The “reality” that possesses a primary
social relevance is that the actors in question have been perceived and treated as
Gypsies by the societies in which they live. In that same framework, any treatment
of them as either Gypsies/Roma or Egyptians would essentially be a hierarchical
ascription of otherness, all the more so because the option of affiliating them with
the titular nation is not considered. Yet both Egyptians and Roma are essentially as
native as the other inhabitants of the regions in which they live. At that point,
shared collective representations become significant within discourses in which
group affiliation is regarded as immutable in character because it is thought to
derive from a genealogy perpetuated through the centuries. However, by considering
group affiliation from the perspective suggested by David A. Hollinger,115 one reacts
“against prescribed affiliation on the basis of descent.”116 Such a “postethnic perspec-
tive challenges the right of one’s grandfather or grandmother to determine primary
identity. Individuals should be allowed to affiliate or disaffiliate with their own com-
munities of descent to an extent that they choose, while affiliating with whatever non-
descent communities are available and appealing to them.”117
85
S. TRUBETA
The focal point of the discourse about Egyptians seems to concern not merely the
distinctiveness of Egyptians with respect to Gypsies, but primarily their being alien as
construed by a dominant society and internalised by the affected groups themselves.
Finally, Roma have recently also formed a group profile that emphasises an Indian
origin and “homeland,” even though historical sources date their arrival in Europe
to approximately the eleventh century. The ascription and internalisation of exclusion
prove to be the most acceptable option for all participants in the discourse, i.e. for
dominant societies, for both Egyptian and Roma elites and as well as for the scholarly
community.
Such an attitude seems to be an elite perspective owing its legitimacy to the fact that
it is a norm of national ideology. The effect of its enforcement is such that when
groups of inferior social status (such as a large part of the Roma or Egyptians) perceive
themselves as members of titular nations, it is interpreted as “mimicry.” Consequently,
the dominant societies in respective national contexts full participatory status to such
actors. At the same time, minority elites commit themselves to the goal of political
emancipation without developing alternative strategies. In effect, the entire process
is a vicious circle that begins and ends with national concepts.
NOTES
1. Der Spiegel, 15 October 1990. See also the reference to Svet, 18 April 1990, pp. 56–57 in
G. Duijzings, Religion and the Politics of Identity in Kosovo (London: Hurst, 2000),
pp. 132–133.
2. Der Spiegel, 15 October 1990, p. 197. My translation.
3. See G. Duijzings, “Die Erschaffung von Ägyptern in Kosovo und Makedonien,” in
U. Brunnbauer, ed., Umstrittene Identitäten. Ethnizität und Nationalität in Südosteuropa
(Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2002), p. 148; St. Müller, “Die Situation der Roma in Kosovo,”
Südost-Europa Zeitschrift für Gegenwartsforschung, Nos 9 –10, 1999, p. 512; European
Roma Rights Centre, “Roma in the Macedonian Conflict,” press release, 13 July 2001,
,http://www.errc.org/publications/letters/2001/on_macedonia_july_13_2001.shtml.;
ibid., “ERRC Press Statement: Roma in the Macedonia Conflict,” ,http://www.errc.org/
rr_nr2-3_2001/advo3.shtml . .
4. The European Roma Rights Centre has reported regularly on the situation of Roma in
Kosovo since 1999. See e.g. ,http://errc.org/publications/indices/kosovo.shtml.. One
of the most recent assessments of the situation of Egyptians, Ashkali and Roma in
Kosovo is Paul Polansky’s report for the Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker entitled
“Roma, Ashkali und ‘Ägypter’—ohne Zukunft im Kosovo. Ergebnis einer Recherche
vom 1. März bis 30. September 2003,” October 2003. See also “The Current Plight of
the Kosovo Roma,” written by Carol V. Bloom, Sunil K. Sharma, E. Ann Neel on the
basis of former field research and reports by Paul Polansky, Voice of Roma, Sebastopol,
California, 2002 ,http://www.voiceofroma.org.. Human Rights Watch, “Out of
Limbo? Addressing the Plight of Kosovo Roma Refugees in Macedonia,” Human
Rights Watch Briefing Paper, 10 December 2003, ,http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/
eca/macedonia1203/.. On the excesses in Kosovo in March 2004 and the renewed
attacks against Roma and Ashkali, see Human Rights Watch, “Failure to Protect:
86
Anti-Minority Violence in Kosovo,” March 2004, ,http://hrw.org/reports/2004/

kosovo0704/..
5. See ,http://www.refugees.org/news/crisis/kosovo_e.htm..
6. The establishment of the Association of Balkan Egyptians in West Europe is indicative of
such support. See ,http://www.balkanaegypter.de..
7. See e.g. E. Marushiakova et al., Identity Formation among Minorities in the Balkans: The
Cases of Roms, Egyptians, and Ashkali in Kosovo (Sofia: Minority Studies Society Studii
Romani, 2001), pp. 30 –39; Müller, Die Situation der Roma in Kosovo, p. 507; H. Poulton,
The Balkans. Minorities and States in Conflict (London: Minority Rights Group, 1991),
p. 91; H. Poulton, “The Roma in Macedonia: A Balkan Success Story?” RFE/RL
Research Report, Vol. 2, No. 19, 1993, p. 43; European Roma Rights Centre, “A Pleasant
Fiction. The Human Rights Situation of Roma in Macedonia,” Country Reports Series,
No. 7, 1998, p. 34. See also G. Duijzings, “Egyptians in Kosovo and Macedonia,” in
E. Hardten, ed., Der Balkan in Europa (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1996), pp. 103–121, as
well as Duijzings, Religion and the Politics of Identity, and Duijzings, Die Erschaffung
von Ägyptern in Kosovo. Duijzings seems to be the first scholar to have dealt substantially
with the Egyptian question in the context of nationalist conflicts in the divided
Yugoslavia. He is also the first to have called attention to the new quality of the dynamism
of this form of identification. The success of his study is attested by the repeated occasion
of its publication (see above). The present article will refer to the publication from 2000
(Religion and the Politics of Identity).
8. See below, as well as e.g. Z. Barany, “The Roma in Macedonia: Ethnic Politics
and the Marginal Condition in a Balkan State,” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 18,
No. 3, 1995, p. 517; A. Fraser, The Gypsies (Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell, 1992),
p. 298; Poulton, The Balkans, p. 91; and Poulton, The Roma in Macedonia, p. 43.
E. Marushiakova and V. Popov, “Myth as Process,” in Th. Acton, ed., Scholarship
and the Gypsy Struggle. Commitment in Romani Studies (Hatfield, Hertfordshire:
University of Hertfordshire Press, 2000), pp. 81–93, esp. pp. 84–85.
9. Duijzings, Religion and the Politics of Identity, p. 143.
10. Marushiakova et al., Identity Formation among Minorities, p. 30.
11. Ibid., p. 30, my emphasis.
12. Ibid., my emphasis.
13. European Roma Rights Centre, “Roma in Albania,” Country Reports Series, No. 5, 1997,
p. 11.
14. Ibid., p. 11.
15. Ibid.
16. European Roma Rights Centre, A Pleasant Fiction.
17. Ibid., p. 34.
18. See e.g. W. D. Hund, Zigeuner. Geschichte und Struktur einer rassistischen Konstruktion
(Duisburg: DISS, 1996); J. Giere, ed., Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion des Zigeuners: zur
Genese eines Vorurteils (Frankfurt: Campus, 1996); K. Hölz, Zigeuner, Wilde und
Exoten. Fremdbilder in der französischen Literatur des 10. Jahrhunderts (Berlin: Erich
Schmidt Verlag, 2002).
19. M. Schwab-Trapp (“Diskurs als soziologisches Konzept. Bausteine für eine soziologisch
orientierte Diskursanalyse,” in R. Keller, A. Hirseland, W. Schneider, W. Viehöver, eds,
Handbuch Sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse, Vol. 1: Theorien und Methoden
[Opladen, Germany: Leske Budrich, 2001], pp. 261–283) has developed a very useful
conception of discourse derived from Foucault. See e.g. M. Foucault, L’ ordre du discours
87
S. TRUBETA
(Paris: Gallimard, 1971). The present article is based in large part on Schwab-Trapp’s
methodological proposals.
20. R. Brubaker and F. Cooper, “Beyond ‘Identity,’” Theory and Society. Renewal and
Critique in Social Theory, Vol. 29, 2000, pp. 1–47. For further critical consideration
of the term “identity,” see L. Niethammer, Kollektive Identität. Heimliche Quellen
einer unheimlichen Konjunktur (Hamburg: Rowolt Taschenbuch, 2000).
21. O. Bauer, Die Nationalitätenfrage und die Sozialdemokratie (Vienna: Marx-Studien 2,
1924). Bauer’s study is important insofar as it may be viewed as an initial analysis of
the ethnicisation processes. On the notion of ethnicisation, see S. Trubeta, “‘Minoriza-
tion’ and ‘Ethnicization’ in Greek Society: Comparative Perspectives on Moslem
Migrants and the Moslem Minority,” History and Culture of South Eastern Europe—
An Annual Journal, Vol. 5, 2003, pp. 95 –112.
22. B. Anderson, Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.
(London and New York: Verso, 1991).
23. G. Soulis, “The Gypsies in the Byzantine Empire and the Balkans in the Late Middle
Ages,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 15, 1961, pp. 143–165; I. Rochow and K.-P.
Matschke, “Neues zu den Zigeunern im Byzantinischen Reich um die Wende vom 13.
zum 14. Jahrhundert,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, Vol. 41, 1991,
pp. 241–254.
24. See e.g. Tayyib M Gökbilgin, “Çingeneler,” İslâm Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul), Vol. 3, 1945, pp.
420–426; the Turkish journal Trih ve Toplum, No. 137, 1995; E. Zeginis, Oi mousoulmanoi
Athiganoi tis Thrakis (The Muslim Athigani of Thrace) (Salonica: Institute for Balkan
Studies, 1994); E. Marushiakova and V. Popov, Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire (Paris:
Centre de recherches tsiganes and University of Hertfordshire Press, 2001).
25. V. A. Friedman and R. Dankoff, “The Earliest Known Text in Balkan (Rumelian)
Romani: A Passage from Evliya Çelebi’s ‘Seyahat-name,’” Journal of the Gypsy Lore
Society, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1991, pp. 1–20.
26. The most problematical point in such a consideration is the frequent confusion
between primordial and modern components of ethnic categories. The present article
is, however, not concerned with a closer examination of this issue. See here
S. Trubeta, Die Konstitution von Minderheiten und die Ethnisierung sozialer und
politischer Konflikte. Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel der im griechischen Thrakien
ansäßigen Moslemischen Minderheit (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1999), pp. 26–57; and
Trubeta, “‘Minorization’ and ‘Ethnicization.’”
27. St. E. Mann, “Albanian Romani. Introduction,” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Vol.
12, No. 1, 1933, pp. 1– 32.
28. See also Duijings (Religion and the Politics, p. 134), who notes that in “Albania, Gypsies
are called ‘Evgitë’ or ‘Magjypë’, both derived from ‘Egyptian.’”
29. Mann, “Albanian Romani,” p. 2.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid., p. 3.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
38. M. Hasluck, “I. The Gypsies in Albania,” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Vol. 17,
No. 2, 1938, pp. 49–61.
88
39. Hasluck, “Gypsies in Albania,” p. 49.

40. E. Marushiakova and V. Popov, Gypsies (Roma) in Bulgaria (Frankfurt: Peter Lang,
1997).
41. According to Primovski (“Kovačite Agupti v gr. Madan” [Egyptian Blacksmiths in
the Town of Madan), Iztestija na ethnografskija institut s muzej, Vol. 2, 1955, p. 217),
an early text by Benventura Vulkanija dated to the beginning of the seventeenth
century mentions groups in Bulgaria called “Agupti” and supposes that they are of
Egyptian origin. (For the translation of Bulgarian references and an invaluable exchange
of information, I am grateful to Dr Evangelos Karagiannis.) Marushiakova and Popov
(Gypsies (Roma) in Bulgaria) address the case of the misinterpretation of a document
from 1378, namely the Rila charter (“Rilska Gramota”) of Char Ivan Shishman
(Šišman), which allegedly refers to the existence of Agupti in a Bulgarian province.
They argue that the “place mentioned in the text as ‘Agupovi kleti’ has often been
associated with Gypsies (including its reading as ‘Agupti kleti’ (‘poor Egyptians’) both
by Bulgarian and foreign scholars” (p. 18). The authors are, however, critical of the
unverifiable conclusions drawn by scholars who claim a settlement of “Agupti” in the
region in question.
42. K. Ireček, Knjažestvo Bălgarija, Čast părva, Bălgarska dăržava, (Principality Bulgaria,
First Part, The Bulgaria State) (Plovdiv: Danov, 1899), p. 148.
43. See G. Messing, “Tsinganos and Yiftos: Some Speculations on the Greek Gypsies,”
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Vol. 7, 1981, pp. 155–167.
44. Primovski, Kovačite Agupti v gr. Madan.
45. Ibid., p. 219.
46. See C. Vakarelski, “Altertümliche Elemente in Lebensweise und Kultur der bulgarischen
Mohammedaner,” Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, Vols 1–2, 1966, pp. 149–172. Cf.
E. Karagiannis, Zur Ethnizität der Pomaken Bulgariens (Münster: Spectrum, 1997),
p. 38 and passim.
47. Primovski, Kovačite Agupti v gr. Madan, p. 248.
48. Ibid., passim.
49. Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies (Roma) in Bulgaria.
50. Ibid., p. 73.
51. Ibid. The authors regard Agupti as Gypsies “who have almost forgotten their own
language and adopted Turkish or Bulgarian together with a corresponding Turkish, Bul-
garian or Agupti ethnic consciousness” (p. 97).
52. Zeginis, Oi mousoulmanoi Athiganoi tis Thrakis, p. 54.
53. It should be kept in mind that, especially in the post-war era, numerous Bulgarian
Muslims migrated to Greek Thrace. They usually settled in suburbs inhabited by
Turkish-speaking Muslims who were perceived as Gypsies by both Greeks and other
Muslim groups. However, further groups of Romanes speakers also migrated from Bul-
garia both before and after World War II. See Trubeta, Die Konstitution von Minderheiten
und die Ethnisierung, p. 184; and S. Trubeta, Kataskevazontas Taftotites gia tous Musul-
manus tis Thrakis. To Paradeigma ton Pomakon kai ton Tsiganon (Constructing Identities
for the Thracian Moslems. The Cases of the Pomaks and the Gypsies) (Athens: Kritiki,
2001), p. 165.
54. J. Behm, “Durch den Epirus und das neue Albanien. VIII. Im Negerviert von Berat—
Aberglaube—Die Zigeuner von Berat—Im Christenviertel—Abreise mit Hindernissen,”
Durch alle Welt, No. 43, 1931, pp. 11 –13.
55. Compare this with Hasluck’s assertion (I. The Gypsies in Albania) that Jevgs also lived in
Berat.
89
S. TRUBETA
56. Cited from interviews of members of this “group” conducted during my fieldwork in
spring 1997. See also S. Trubeta, Die Konstitution von Minderheiten und die Ethnisierung,
and S. Trubeta, Kataskevazontas Taftotites gia tous Musulmanus.
57. D. Lafazani (“Mikta xoria tou kato Strymona: Ethnotita, Koinotita, Entopiotita,” Sygxrona
Themata, No. 63, 1997, pp. 96–107) and P. Y. Péchoux (Les Paysans de la rive orientale
du bas Nestos, Thrace Greque, Études rurales [Athens: Centre National de Recherches
Sociales, 1969]) also claim that some members of this group originated in the Sudan.
58. This information comes from several colleagues who have conducted research in the
region of Greek Macedonia. I am especially grateful to Ms Miranda Terzopoulou (anthro-
pologist, Academy of Athens). To date, there is no literature on this topic and it is not yet
possible to say approximately how long this phenomenon has existed. My first acquain-
tance with Roma groups of supposedly Egyptian origin in Greece occurred during my
fieldwork in Thrace (1997). One interviewee made reference to his encounter with an
author who had voiced the intention of writing a study in which he would argue that
the Roma of Greek Thrace originally came from Egypt. It seems likely that this intention
was an expression of the Greek nationalist attempt to keep away a numerically consider-
able segment of the Muslim minority from the Turkish nationalism by ascribing to them
an “objectively” distinct, i.e. Egyptian, that is, non-Turkish, ancestry.
59. The case of the Ottoman Empire in particular should be examined with respect to both the
following factors: the lack among Ottoman rulers of an assimilation strategy for popu-
lation groups; and the social status of the assimilated groups referred to.
60. H. Poulton, The Balkans, p. 9, and Poulton The Roma in Macedonia, p. 43. Duijzings
(Religion and the Politics of Identity, p. 145) claims that in Kosovo “all data indicates
that the Egyptians recruit their members mainly from the Ashkali . . . a term that most
of these ‘Albanian’ Gypsies use for themselves.” See also Marushiakova et al., Identity
Formation among Minorities in the Balkans, esp. p. 38, about the relationship between
Ashkali and Egyptians. For more on such “identity switching,” see Bloom et al., The
Current Plight of the Kosovo Roma.
61. Marushiakova et al., Identity Formation among Minorities in the Balkans, p. 34.
62. Ibid., p. 35.
63. See ,http://www.balkanaegypter.de . .
64. According to Duijzings (Religion and the Politics of Identity, p. 139), Egyptian leaders in
Ochrid claimed that earlier they had already attempted to be included in the census ques-
tionnaires as a separate category, but without success. In this way, they attempted to gain
official recognition as a nationality (narodnost): “Although their demands had not been
granted by the government of Macedonia, at least 200 of them declared themselves to
be Egyptians, thus ending up in the category ‘unknown.’” As for the census of 1991,
“only Macedonia published the census figures for Egyptians: the 1991 figures list
3,307 Egyptians in Macedonia” (ibid., p. 140) while Serbia did not publish figures for
Egyptians. See also Z. Barany, The Roma in Macedonia, p. 518.
65. See ,http://www.balkanaegypter.de.. In 1991, a book of Egyptian folktales, legends
and customs was published in Macedonia. The author was Stojan Ristekis, “a Macedonian
from Ohrid, one of the main defenders of their [the Egyptians’] cause.” Duijzings
(Religion and the Politics of Identity, p. 133) argues that this is obviously a characteristic
form of national myth-making, in its typical pattern of European nation building. See
also Marushiakova and Popov, Myth as Process, p. 85.
66. According to Duijzings (ibid., pp. 132– 133), the Egyptian ambassador in Belgrade twice
invited Egyptcani to the Egyptian embassy in 1990 and 1991 for the Egyptian national
holiday on 23 July. In the spring of 1991, they presented the ambassador with a copy
90
of Stojan Risteskis’s book. The Egyptians also extended their congratulations to Boutros-
Boutros-Ghali (a Copt from Egypt) after his election as United Nations secretary-
general (December 1991) and asked him to do his utmost to solve the Yugoslav crisis
peacefully.
67. In September 1990, leaders of the Romani community appealed to all Roma “to stop iden-
tifying themselves as Albanians simply on the basis of a common religion and declared 11
October—already a Macedonian public holiday—of that year to be the first official day of
recognition of the cultural achievements of Romano Macedonia” (Poulton, The Roma in
Macedonia, p. 43). See also Poulton, The Balkans, p. 91 with reference to Tanjug on 1
September 1990. Furthermore, in a letter to the U.N. from March 1993, the Party for
the Complete Emancipation of Roma in Macedonia (the main vehicle for Romani
political aspirations despite the founding of a rival party in the 1990s) called for “the
establishment of a Romany nation and a state, to be called ‘Romanistan’” (Poulton,
The Roma in Macedonia, p. 45 with reference to Tanjug, 27 March 1993). Nationalistic
tendencies among Roma leaders are not a new phenomenon, however. On Romani nation-
alism, see I. Hancock, “The East European Roots of Romani Nationalism,” Nationalities
Papers, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1991, pp. 251–267. On the Romani political movement, see
M. Sewering-Wollanek, “Die Roma in Ostmittel- und Südosteuropa,” in G. Brunner and
H. Lemberg, eds, Volksgruppen in Ostmittel- und Südosteuropa (Munich: Südosteur-
opa-Studien, 1994), pp. 253–263; G. Puxon, “The Romani Movement: Rebirth and
the First World Romani Congress in Retrospect,” in Th. Acton, ed., Scholarship
and the Gypsy Struggle. Commitment in Romani Studies (Hatfield, Hertfordshire:
University of Hertfordshire Press, 2000), pp. 94–113.
68. Interview with Rajko Djuric, Berlin, 11 March 2002.
69. European Roma Rights Centre, “Roma in Albania.”
70. The letter is dated 2 January 1997 and signed by both Pëllumb Fortuna and Marchel
Courthiade.
71. European Roma Rights Centre, “Roma in Albania,” p. 11.
72. Ibid.
73. Cf. K. Clewing, “Mythen und Fakten zur Ethnostruktur in Kosovo—Ein geschichtlicher
Überblick,” in J. Reuter and K. Clewing, eds, Der Kosovo Konflikt. Ursachen, Verlauf,
Perspektiven (Klagenfurt, Austria and Vienna: Wieser, 2000), p. 17.
74. Duijizings, Religion and the Politics of Identity, p. 143.
75. Chr. Promitzer, “Vermessener Körper: ‘Rassenkundliche’ Grenzziehungen im südostli-
chen Europa,” in K. Kaser, D. Gramshammer-Hohl and R. Pichler, eds, Europa und
die Grenzen im Kopf (Klagenfurt, Austria: Wieser, 2003), pp. 357–385. Chr. Promitzer,
“The Body of the Other: ‘Racial Science’ and Minorities in Southeastern Europe,” History
and Culture of South Eastern Europe, Vol. 5, 2003, pp. 27–40.
76. Indicative of the connection between ethnic categories and racial discourse is P. L. van
den Berge’s view (“Race and Ethnicity: A Sociobiological Perspective,” Ethnic and
Racial Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1978, pp. 401–411) and the controversial debate it has
caused (e.g. G. Fischer and M. Wölflingseder, eds, Biologismus, Rassismus, Nationalis-
mus, rechte Ideologien im Vormarsch (Vienna: Promedia, 1995)). On the central
concept of “heritage” in ethnic categorisation, see also E. Balibar and I. Wallerstein,
Race, Nation, Classe. Les identités ambiguës (Paris: La Découverte, 1988); E. J. Dittrich
and F.-O. Radtke, eds, Ethnizität (Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1990). On
Macedonia in particular, see E. Kofos, “National Heritage and National Identity in Nine-
theenth and Twentieth-Century Macedonia,” in M. Blinkhorn and T. Veremis, eds,
Modern Greece: Nationalism and Nationality (London: Sage, 1990).
91
S. TRUBETA
77. L. Danforth, The Macedonian Conflict. Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995). With respect to the Republic of Macedonia,
the recent currency of this tendency is reflected in the term “ethnic Macedonian space,” i.e.
the so-called “Makedonski etnički prostor” as expressed by St. Kiselinovski, Etničkite
promeni vo Makedonija (Skopje, 2000), 49, cited by Chr. Voss, “Der albanisch-
makedonische Konflikt in der Republik Makedonien in zeitgeschichtlicher Perspektive,”
Südosteuropa Mitteilungen, Vol. 3, 2001, p. 275. Ethnogenesis and historical continuity
have been crucial aspects of Macedonian nationalism since 1991 due to the dispute
with Greece regarding Macedonia’s origin and historical past. Voss (ibid. p. 279) calls
the proclamation of the Albanian “Republika Ilirida” in Struga (Macedonia) an instance
of “delusional continuity and aboriginalness” (Kontinuitäts- und Autochthonizitätswahn).
See also K. S. Brown, “Seeing Stars: Character and Identity in the Landscapes of Modern
Macedonia,” Antiquity, Vol. 68, No. 261, 1994, pp. 784–796. For an overview of Mace-
donian historiography before and after 1991, see V. Roudometof, ed., The Macedonia
Question: Culture, Historiography, Politics (New York: Columbia University Press
2000); St. Troebst, “Geschichtspolitik und historische ‘Meistererzählungen’ in Makedo-
nien vor und 1991,” in A. Ivaniševič, A. Kappeler, W. Lukan and A. Suppan, eds, Klio
ohne Fesseln? Historiographie im östlichen Europa nach dem Zusammenbruch des
Kommunismus. Österreichische Osthefte, Vol. 16 (Vienna: Peter Lang, 2002), pp. 453–
472.
79. It is worth mentioning that the attempt to divide the Muslim community has been legit-
imised by emphasising linguistic divergence among Muslims. Support for Macedonian
speakers is not a new phenomenon and occurred as early as the 1970s. See E. Kraft,
“Die Religionsgemeinschaften in Makedonien,” Österreichische Osthefte Special
Edition (Vienna: Böhlau, 1998), pp. 339–376.
80. For details of this debate in Bulgaria see e.g. Karagiannis, Zur Ethnizität, and Marushia-
kova and Popov, Gypsies (Roma) in Bulgaria.
81. Part of the Muslim minority in Grecian Thrace is regarded by both the larger Greek
society as well as the other members of the minority as “Gypsies,” whereas they define
themselves as Turks. In the Greek –Turkish conflict over the Thracian Muslim minority,
the Turkish state claimed the presence of a unified Turkish minority. Subsequently,
Muslim Roma were declared by Turkish politicians to be Turkish. The Greek state,
attempting to counter the Turkish claim, ascribed a political neutrality and even a folklo-
ric “Gypsiness” to these groups. In support of this tactic, Greek scholars argued for sup-
posedly objective differences between “Turks” and “Gypsies” and included the
controversial groups in the latter category. In the framework of this discourse, scholars
tended to argue with a general bias toward Gypsies, especially concerning the alleged
“lack of real faith” and “ostensible” conversion to Islam by the groups in question. The
latter were thought to practise Christian rituals. Furthermore, it was asserted that they
did not convert to Sunni Islam but to that form of Islam practised by the Bektashi broth-
erhoods (Zeginis, Oi mousoulmanoi Athigganoi). See Trubeta, Die Konstitution von
Minderheiten, pp. 208–215, and Trubeta “‘Minorization’ and ‘Ethnicization.’”
82. See G. G. Arnakis, “The Role of Religion in the Development of Balkan Nationalism,” in
B. & C. Jelavich, eds, The Balkans in Transition (Berkeley: Elgar, 1974), pp. 115–144;
V. Roudometof, Nationalism, Globalisation and Orthodoxy. The Social Origins of Ethnic
Conflict in the Balkans (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001).
83. Classical studies on unorthodox Christian and Islamic brotherhoods and their
secular tendencies with respect to social issues of poverty, wealth, power, etc., include
92
D. Angelov, Der Bogomilismus auf dem Gebiete des Byzantinischen Reiches—Ursprung,

Wesen und Geschichte, Ist Part: Ursprung und Wesen (Sofia: Imprimerie de l’Université,
1948 and 1950; G. Jacob, “Die Bektaschijje in ihrem Verhältnis zu verwandten
Erscheinungen,” Abhandlungen d. I.Kl.d.K.Ak.d.Wiss, XXIV, Vol. 3, 1909, pp. 1–52;
H. J. Kissling, “The Sociological and Educational Role of the Dervish in the Ottoman
Empire,” American Anthropologist, Vol. 56, No. 2, 1954, pp. 23 –35; M. D. Lembert,
Ketzerei im Mittelalter. Eine Geschichte von Gewalt und Scheitern (Freiburg im Breis-
gau: Herder, 1991).
84. P. Dinzelbacher, “Zur Erforschung der Geschichte der Volksreligion. Einführung und
Bibliographie,” in P. Dinzelbacher and D. R. Bauer, eds, Volksreligion im hohen und
späten Mittelalter (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1990), pp. 9–27.
85. K. S. Brown, “Seeing Stars: Character and Identity in the Landscapes of Modern Mace-
donia,” Antiquity, Vol. 68, No. 261, 1994, pp. 784–796. Cf. K. Buchenau, “Verspätete
Ernüchterung: Die serbisch-orthodoxe Kirche im Kosovokonflikt 1960 –1999,” Arbeit-
spapiere Geschichte und Kultur des Osteuropa-Instituts der Freien Universität Berlin,
Vol. 2, 1999, pp. 5– 43. Recent violent events (March 2004) in Kosovo and Serbia in
which churches and mosques were destroyed by Albanian and Serbian nationalists are
indicative of the increasing relevance of religion at least in symbolic terms.
86. Barany, The Roma in Macedonia, p. 517.
88. See e.g. ibid., pp. 147–150.
89. A. Petrović, “Contributions to the Study of the Serbian Gypsies. ‘Bijeli’ or white
Gypsies,” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1940, p. 89.
90. C. Silverman, “Negotiating Gypsiness. Strategy in Context,” Journal of American
Folklore, Vol. 101, No. 399, 1988, pp. 261–275.
91. V. Popov, “La conscience ethnique préférentielle des Tsiganes,” Études Tsiganes,
Vol. 38, No. 2, 1992, pp. 38–43.
92. Uwe Pörksen, Plastikwörter. Die Sprache einer internationalen Diktatur (Stuttgart: Klett-
Cotta, 1998), p. 11.
93. For more on this controversial debate, see Rogers Brubaker and Frederic Cooper,
“Beyond ‘Iidentity,’” Theory and Society. Renewal and Critique in Social Theory, Vol.
29, 2000, pp. 1–47; Lutz Niethammer, Kollektive Identität. Heimliche Quellen einer
unheimlichen Konjunktur (Hamburg: Rowolt Taschenbuch, 2000); Stuart Hall, “Who
Needs identity?” in Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay, eds, Questions of Cultural Identity
(London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage, 1996), pp. 1– 17; Lawrence Grossberg,
“Identity and Cultural Studies—Is That All There Is?” in Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay,
eds, Questions of Cultural Identity (London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage, 1996),
pp. 87 –107.
94. The relationship between national, ethnic and racial concepts has been addressed in
several works. See “‘Minorization’ and ‘Ethnicization’ in Greek Society: Comparative
Perspectives on Moslem Migrants and the Moslem Minority,” History and Culture of
South Eastern Europe/Jahrbücher für Geschichte und Kultur Südosteuropas (Munich),
Vol. 5, 2003, pp. 95 –112; Die Konstitution von Minderheiten und die Ethnisierung
sozialer und politischer Konflikte. Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel der im griechischen
Thrakien ansässigen “Moslemischen Minderheit” (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1999), esp.
pp. 26 –57; “Minorities and ethnic identification” (in Greek: “M1ionótht1ç kai
1unotikh́tay topoı́hsh”), Journal of the Greek Society for Ethnology (Athens),
Vol. 8, 2001, pp. 173–219.
93
S. TRUBETA
95. Max Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. (Tübin-
gen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1972), p. 237.
96. On ethnic categorisation in the case of the Roma, see Thomas Acton, Gypsy Politics
and Social Change. The Development of Ethnic Ideology and Pressure Politics among
British Gypsies from Victorian Reformism to Romani Nationalism (London and Boston:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974), esp. pp. 9– 24.
97. See Michael Taussig, Mimesis and Alterity. A Particular History of the Sciences
(New York and London: Routledge, 1993); Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture
(London and New York: Routledge, 2004).
98. T. P. Vukanović, “The Gypsy Population in Yugoslavia,” Journal of Gypsy Lore Society,
Vol. 42, Nos 1–2, 1963, pp. 10 –27.
99. Ibid., p. 11.
100. Ibid.
101. Ibid., p. 12.
102. Theodore M. Porter, Trust in Numbers. The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public
Life (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).
103. Acton, Gypsy Politics and Social Change, pp. 93– 53.
104. S. Trubeta, “‘Gypsiness’, Racial Discourse and Persecution: Balkan Roma during the
Second World War,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2003, pp. 495–514.
105. One of the best analyses of this discourse is Robert J. C. Youngs, Colonial Desire.
Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race (London and New York: Routledge, 1995).
106. See the interesting remarks about postcolonial discourse by Jonathan Friedman and in
particular his thesis on “postcoloniality and cultural elitism” (pp. 242–245) in his
article “The Hybridization of Roots and the Abhorrence of the Busch,” in Mike Feather-
stone and Scott Lash, eds, Spaces of Culture: City, Nation, World (London/Thousand
Oaks/New Delhi: Sage, 1999), pp. 230–256
107. See e.g. D. Gresham, B. Morar et al., “Origins and Divergence of the Roma (Gypsies),”
American Journal of Human Genetics, Vol. 69, 2001, pp. 1314 –1331, ,http://
www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v69n6/013258/013258.html..
108. David A. Hollinger, Postethnic America. Beyond Multiculturalism (New York: Basic
Books, 2000), p. 117.
109. This is not to imply that racial/biologistic elements in recent scholarly treatments of the
Roma are infrequent. See e.g. E. Sunderland, “The Population Structure of the Romany
Gypsies,” in M. H. Crawford and J. H. Mielke, eds, Current Developments in Anthropo-
logical Genetics, Vol. 2: Ecology and Population Structure (New York: Plenum Press
1982), as well as the often quoted A. Fraser, The Gypsies (particularly the chapter
“Physical Anthropology,” pp. 22 –25) and Gresham et al., “Origins and Divergence of
the Roma (Gypsies).” With respect to the Bulgarian Roma, see e.g. I. Tournev,
A. Todorova et al., “C283Y Mutation and Other C-Terminal Nucleotide Changes in
the g-Sarcoglycan Gene in the Bulgarian Gypsy Population,” Human Mutation,
Vol. 14, 1999, pp. 40–44; A. Todorova, I. Tournev et al., “Screening for C283Y
Gamma-Sarcoglycan Mutation in High Risk Group of Bulgarian Gypsies: Evidence for
Geographical Localization and Non-random Distribution among Gypsy Subgroups,”
Community Genetics, Vol. 5, No. 4., 2002, pp. 217–221. Concerning Greek groups
see K. N. Zafeiris and N.I. Xirotiris, “Oi Pomá toy Arátoy: Dhmografikh́ kai
g1n1alogikh́ m1l1́th” [Oi Roma tou Aratou: Dimografiki kai genealogiki meleti
(“The Roma of Aratos: A demographic and genealogical study”)]. In: Oi Pomá sthn
Elláda [Oi Roma stin Ellada (The Roma in Greece)], edited by Greek Society of
Ethnology, Athens, 2002, pp. 25– 109.
94
110. William G. Lockwood, “An Introduction to Balkan Gypsies,” Giessener Hefte für
Tsiganologie, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Giessen, 1985) pp. 17–23.
111. As Troebst “The Politics of Macedonian Historiography,” in James Pettifer, ed., The New
Macedonian Question (Basingstoke, England: Macmillan Press, 2001, p. 62) has argued,
historical conceptions of “Egyptian Roma,” just like those of Balkan titular nations and
other groups such as Aromunians, Torbeshs, etc., “assume one single line of tradition
that . . . is considered to be decisive and is extended rigorously in both directions along
the axis of time. Contemporary ideas are easily projected back into the past, just as
historical facts are extrapolated into the present and then on into the future.”
112. E. Hobsbawm, On History (London: Abacus, 1998), pp. 9–10.
113. Ibid, p. 8.
114. M. Foucault, Dispositive der Macht (Berlin: Merve-Verl., 1978), p. 51.
115. Hollinger, Postethnic America.
116. Ibid., p. 117.
117. Ibid., p. 116.
95

Balkan Egyptians and Gypsy Roma Discourse

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Balkan Egyptians and Gypsy Roma Discourse

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Balkan Egyptians and Gypsy Roma Discourse

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nationalities Papers, Vol. 33, No.

Balkan Egyptians and Gypsy/Roma Discourse

Events and Questions

ERRC’s report on the Egyptians in Macedonia,16 which characterises “the appearance

Terminological Clarification, Methodological Approach and Working Hypothesises

Early Debates on the Egyptians in Various Balkan States

A Dynamic Identification as Egyptians

Self-Identification: Strategies of the Elites

country. They consider themselves superior to the Gypsies.”71 Nevertheless, both

Patterns of Scholarly Explanation and “Ethnic Mimicry”

affiliation is considered a destiny, since it is regarded as inborn and therefore cannot be

The presence of (groups called) “Egyptians” in the Balkans is well documented

case of myth-making that is treated differently by each set of actors involved in

Anti-Minority Violence in Kosovo,” March 2004, ,http://hrw.org/reports/2004/

39. Hasluck, “Gypsies in Albania,” p. 49.

77. L. Danforth, The Macedonian Conflict. Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World

D. Angelov, Der Bogomilismus auf dem Gebiete des Byzantinischen Reiches—Ursprung,

You might also like