Damir Josipovič , Marina Perić Kaselj , Nikola Šimunić , Filip Škiljan TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES RAZPRAVE IN GRADIVO REVIJA ZA NARODNOSTNA VPRAŠANJA 93 / 2024, p. 105–146 Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene Population in the Wider Area of Čabar: A Historical Overview in Contemporary Perspective Abstract The paper discusses the impact of recent socio-economic and geopolitical changes on cultural ties and ethnic identity formation in the wider area of Čabar, Croatia. It emphasises the importance of understanding the historical context of cross-border relations in this geographically peripheral border region. To assess the specific position of relative isolation, a robust interdis- ciplinary methodological approach was used, combining the analysis of his- torical documents, registry books, and population censuses with qualitative methodology like in-depth semistructured interviews with local residents. To assess the specific local interrelations, the patterns of population migration and cross-border marriages (presented in the appendix) were reconstructed and exa-mined. Changes that occurred after the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the establishment of new independent states shed new light on how the local populace reproduced their identity. Keywords  Slovene-Croatian cross-border marriages, cross-border migration, ethnic iden- tity, linguistic relations, Upper Kolpa/Kupa Valley, Čabar/Čeber Corresponding author Filip Škiljan, Institute for Migration Research (IMIN), Zagreb, Croatia; e-mail: filip.skilijan@imin.hr, Or CiD https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7979-1359 Institute for Ethnic Studies, Ljubljana Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies, Zagreb DOI:10.2478/tdjes-2024-0014 © Author 2024. This is an open access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivs License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). 1 2 1 2 2 2 D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... The people on both sides of the Slovene-Croatian border re- presented the same ethnic group. In everyday communication, they spoke the same language, shared the same customs, enjoyed the same music, and had the same names and surnames; cross-border family ties were also not uncommon (Slavko Malnar 2007, 9). 1. introduction: Geographic Position of the Čabar r egion and a Brief History of its Settlement All borders in the world are artificial, political creations imposed based on the balance of power. Some may follow natural features like water- courses, ridges, crests, and forests to serve as natural markers (Bognar & Bognar 2010). The border between Slovenia and Croatia is no excep- tion. While some old segments reflect loose medieval delimitations of great powers like the Franconian Empire or, later, the Holy Roman Em- pire, the interrepublic border was established only after 1956 when the last portions in Istria were negotiated. With no pre-existing proto-eth- nic cleavages, the border rests on recent appropriations based on the nation-building process of the late 19 th century (Josipovič 2024). While it has no coherent geographical basis, the 670-kilometre border basi- cally follows the cadastral boundaries or nearby physical-geographical features. From the Adriatic to the Pannonian Basin, the border line fol- lows water canals (St. Odorik of the Dragonja River), rough river valleys, ravines, gullies, unnamed slopes (in Čičarija/Ćićarija), forests (Snežnik- Risnjak mountain range), streams (Čabranka, Sotla/Sutla), brook, creeks (Šantavec, Presika), crests (Gorjanci/Žumberak), ridges (Macelj), and major Pannonian rivers (Drava, Mura, partly Kupa/Kolpa). The Čabar area is located in the central part of the southern por- tion of the Slovene-Croatian border. Owing to its previous inclusion into the Habsburg crownland of Carniola until the 17 th century (Kos 1933), it is surrounded by Slovenia on three sides (west, north, and east). The municipality of Čabar (Grad Čabar) developed along two axes of population settlement: the Notranjska Dinaric karstic plateau valley (from Cerknica and Lož to Prezid, Trstje/Tršće and Gerovo) and the axis along the Kolpa/Kupa and Čabranka valleys (from Čabar proper to Plešce and Zamost). The Čabar region is sparsely populated (12 inhabit- ants per square kilometre), with its central and western forested and mountainous area completely uninhabited. With its high-altitude relief (elevations above 1000 metres) and high humidity (average yearly pre- 107 cipitation up to 3000 millimetres), the area is characterised by rough mountainous climate. Owing to rough relief and harsh climate topped with the region’s remoteness, the traffic infrastructure is poorly devel- oped. The main axis follows the settlement pattern from Cerknica and Lož in Slovenia to Prezid. Near the climate station of Parg, the road from Prezid branches towards Gerovo and Čabar proper. From Čabar, there is a connection to Brod na Kupi along the Čabranka and Kupa/Kolpa river valley towards Kočevje in Slovenia. The connection between Čabar and the rest of Croatia was established only in 1977 when the Delnice– Prezid road was completed. 1 The neighbouring Slovene area across the stream of Čabranka is similarly sparsely populated, with relatively poor traffic connectivity. Some disambiguation arises in certain Croatian sources regarding Čabar region’s historical belonging. The Croatian Historical Atlas places it in the medieval Kingdom of Croatia, while Hungarian historians con- sider it no man’s land (Bognar & Bognar 2010, 209). According to Slo- vene researchers (Bufon 1994), the area belonged to the Patriarchate of Aquileia before being ceded to the Auerspergs, the Counts of Tur- jak in Carniola (Kranjska). As the area was obviously Slavicized during early Slavic settlement waves, more specific data on migration appears from the 13 th century onward, first with immigration from the wider Škofja Loka area (the Freising property) in nowadays Slovenia under the aegis of Ortenburgs (from Ortnek in today’s Slovenia), and later, in the 15 th century, with a secondary inner migration from Kočevje area (Gotschee Germans and Slavs) to the forested area of the then almost uninhabited Gerovo estate (Malnar 2007, 65–74). One of the surnames that has survived from that period and remains in use today is Žagar, initially written in German orthography (Sager) yet with the colloquial pronunciation Žagar (from svn. žagati, to saw; cf. cro. piliti), designating timbermen and log rollers. By the 16 th century, six minor central settlements had already emer- ged, which later became parochial administrative seats: Čabar proper, Trstje/Tršće, Prezid (in the 17 th century still part of the Stari Trg pri Ložu parish), Plešce, Gerovo, and Hrib. The Gerovo estate followed an in- triguing path of ownership. Initially inherited by the Habsburgs after the Ortenburg family line died out, it was soon relinquished to Georg (Juraj/Jurij) von Thurn, who transferred it to Kristof Frankopan. In 1577, the latter ceded the property to the Zrinski family, who gradually con- solidated most estates in Čabar except the Prezid area. They system- atically settled ironworkers and blacksmiths, especially from the towns in western-central Carniola (today’s Slovenia) renowned for their iron- TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 108 works (Lož, Idrija, Cerkno, Škofja Loka, and Tolmin). This migration reaf- firmed the Kajkavian linguistic base element which has persisted to the present day. Together with the neighbouring parishes of Babno Polje, Draga, Trava, and Osilnica in Slovenia, the Čabar region represents an ethnically unified territory (Malnar 2007, 9). With the rapid expansion of the Zrinski estates at the end of the 16 th century, the Carniolan prince-bishop and the ruling nobles began questioning the delimitation of feudal jurisdiction over the Čabar area. As Malnar (2007) pointed out, in the beginning of the 17 th century, a se- ries of documents emerged which reveal the extent of economic impor- tance of the Čabar region with newly established ironworks and black- smith manufactures. On the other hand, these documents reveal how meaningless territorial boundaries were, except in case of an economic value for exploitation. The conflict over feudal jurisdiction culminated in the confiscation of Zrinski assets. After the execution of the Zrinskis and the Frankopans, the Austrian Chamber bought Čabar and the sur- rounding areas. By the late 18 th century, the Čabar ironworks ceased to operate, primarily due to competition from other ironworks in the region and its geographic isolation from the port of Bakar. After the ironworks closed, the population of the Čabar region shifted primarily to animal husbandry and agriculture. In addition, they engaged in the sale of salt that they procured in the Littoral, as well as various herbs and resins (e.g. the collection of spruce resin). Advancements in wood processing enabled the survival of the population in this territory even after the closure of the mine and ironworks. In 1777, Čabar ceased to be administered by the Austrians and was included into Severin County, bringing it under Hungarian administration, as was the rest of Croatia (previously under Austrian administration as a major part of Slovenia). In 1798, the area passed into the ownership of the Paravić family, and in 1866, it passed to the Gheczy family, who retained ownership until 1945. At the end of the 17 th century, a census of the inhabitants of the Čabar region was conducted. Among the 144 surnames, the majority were also mentioned elsewhere in Carniola. Only about five percent of the surnames of the Čabar region at that time are assumed to be of Croatian origin (Malnar 2007, 65–74). During this period, the territory around Čabar was inhabited by numerous tradesmen and craftsmen who had immigrated from various parts of the Habsburg Monarchy (Bo- hemia, Moravia, Silesia) in the flourishing era of the local ironworks. Ac- cording to the Hungarian census of 1818, the largest settlement of the Čabar region was Prezid with 632 inhabitants, followed by Gerovo with D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... 109 489 inhabitants, while Čabar had only 179 inhabitants (Malnar 2007, 128). By 1860, there were as many as 95 craftsmen in the Čabar district. According to the 1910 census, the district had an illiteracy rate of 29%, the lowest in the region compared to neighbouring districts (Malnar 2007, 235). This low illiteracy rate can be attributed to the Čabar iron- works as well as sawmills in Lividraga, Milanov Vrh and other locations. With the reorganization of districts in 1868, Čabar was dissolved and incorporated into the sub-county of Delnice. In 1871, the district was re-established within the Modruš-Rijeka County and divided into four municipalities: Čabar, Plešce, Gerovo and Prezid. There were also out-migrations from the Čabar region in the 15 th and 16 th centuries. During the Ottoman incursions, a considerable part of the region’s inhabitants resettled to Carniola (to present-day Slove- nia). The first Ottoman incursion into or through the Čabar region was recorded back in 1472, when the nearby valley of Lož (Stari Trg) was dev- astated. The Ottoman threat persisted until the Battle of Sisak in 1593. Ethnographic evidence from 17 th and 18 th centuries indicates some re- turn migration of Carniolans whose ancestors had fled the Ottomans, yet the extent of emigration was far greater. The Ottoman conquest and suppression spurred the emigration of Kajkavian-Ikavian refugees from Turkish Croatia – areas conquered by the Ottomans in the 16 th century, including present-day Bosnia between Una and Vrbas rivers – from both northern and southern parts. These refugees populated the area around Sava and Sutla/Sotla rivers, influencing the reflexes of jat (ě) and bringing extensive ikavian linguistic elements (e.g. vmej: vmes) into a wider trans-border Kajkavian (Slovinski) language area. This is evident in 16 th -century texts by prominent protestant writers like Trubar, Bohorič, Dalmatin (Zečević 2000, 149–150; Ahačič 2024, 223, 258–260). The con- cept of Slovenski/Slovinski as encompassing all Kajkavian and Šćakavian population was affirmed by Ramovš and Popović (Lončarić 2005, 36). By the 10 th and 11 th centuries, there were already clear distinction be- tween Kajkavian and Šćakavian on one hand and Čakavian on the other, with Slovene forming an integral part of Kajkavian, including that of the wider Čabar area (Lončarić 2005, 37–42). At the turn of the 20 th cen- tury, emigration started to gain momentum. However, there was also lasting immigration from the Čakavian-speaking Croatian Littoral. These immigrants brought their dialects and contributed to the Ikavisation of bordering villages. However, the dominant Kajkavian linguistic setting remained intact (Crnić Novosel 2019, 7–24). With the strengthening of national movements in the 19 th and early 20 th centuries, the population of the Čabar region underwent a process TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 110 of Croatisation, as witnessed by the modern census data which only re- affirmed the definite break from the former Carniola and, consequently, Slovenia and its dominant ethnicity despite the fact that Kajkavian was spoken throughout the region (Josipovič & Kržišnik-Bukić 2010). Thus, regional belonging and the inter-entity boundary played a decisive role in the formation of Čabar’s Croatian identity (Josipovič 2001). The slowly forging Croatian national orientation of the local inhabitants was shaken only after the establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (SHS) in 1918 and the subsequent introduction of the nine banovinas (banates) in 1929 when the district of Čabar, now expanded to include the municipalities of Draga, Trava, and Osilnica from the Lju- bljana County, was incorporated into the Slovene administrative unit of Dravska Banovina. This gerrymandering was soon abolished (late 1931) and the whole cross-border district was transferred to the Savska Ba- novina – one of the two predominantly Croatian administrative units within the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (Josipovič 2001; Bognar & Bognar 2010, 216). World War II brought new boundaries and the annexation of the Čabar district to the Kingdom of Italy. Only five days after the initial joint invasion of Nazi-Fascist forces (6 April 1941), the Italian army en- tered Prezid. The whole district, enlarged with the northwestern areas of Delnice, Kastav and Sušak, was occupied and incorporated into the Kingdom of Italy together with the provinces of Ljubljana, Primorska, and Istria. The objective was to ethnically cleanse the area of its in- digenous population to make way for Italian settlers loyal to the Fas- cist regime. The Italian language was forcibly imposed in schools and churches. In response to the increasingly violent Italianisation of both Croatian and Slovene populations, a strong supranational, cross-border liberation movement emerged. The first Partisan units were founded in Cerknica, Rakek and Loška dolina in 1942, along with the first local organisation of the Slovene Communist Party in Prezid. However, Italian reprisals were brutal. In July 1942, numerous villages suspected of sup- porting the Partisans were burnt. The most devastating arson occurred in Tršće/Trstje, with as many as 80% of its 250 houses burnt down. Half of the district’s population (3651) was interned in Italian concentration camps, especially the notorious camp of Kampor on Rab Island, as well as camps in Treviso, Gonars, Padova, Visco, and Palmanova. The sur- viving returnees to incinerated settlements were provided support by fellow neighbours from Rakek and its surroundings (Malnar 2022, 126– 129; 2009; 2016). The total war losses amounted to 1799 inhabitants, with 1539 civilian victims of Fascist terror and 260 killed Partisans. The D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... 111 Čabar district never demographically recovered from the consequences of the war. War losses not only reduced the positive natural balance but diminished the fertile contingent and thus the potential future fertil- ity. Even the postwar baby boom and partial demographic recovery by 1961 (+661 persons) could not offset the intercensal (1931–1948) loss of 1637 inhabitants (Chart 1 and Table 1 in the Appendix). The 1960s marked a new era of socialist industrialization and urbanization, but triggered deagrarisation and pronounced depopulation of the area. By 1991, approximately 20% of the local population had emigrated to Slovenia’s urban centres, such as Cerknica, Lož, Ribnica, Kočevje, and Ljubljana (Josipovič 2001). After the break-up of Yugoslavia, emigration and depopulation continued in freefall. 2. Conceptual-Methodological Framework This paper explores cross-border cultural ties, especially cross-border marriages, between Croatian and Slovene populations who historically shared a common space and perceived themselves as one people, al- though ethnically/nationally belonging to two peoples of two republics of the joint state of Yugoslavia. The paper also examines the influence on ethnic identity following the establishment of a border after the dis- integration of Yugoslavia. The focus is on ethnic identity, as it forms an important component of the broader spectrum of social identities. An individual’s self-identification with a particular ethnic group determines his or her ethnic identity. According to Smith (1988), an ethnic group consists of a population that is subjectively and objectively bound by factors such as a common name, a myth of common ancestry, elements of common history, group loyalty to the name, identity, territory. How- ever, the term “ethnic group” implies contact and relationship (Eriksen 2004, 28). Barth suggested that ethnic difference can be viewed as cultural difference, closely tied to ethnic differentiation as defined by perceived boundaries (Barth 1969). The paper examines how the two seemingly different components (cultural and ethnic identity) actually interact in the context of the newly established state border after the dissolution of Yugoslavia. The differ- entiation took on various social forms, as the dissolution of the joint state fundamentally altered the legal status of the two peoples. In the new framework, Slovenes are no longer a constituent people in Croatia, just as Croats are no longer a constituent people in Slovenia. They now enter the category of ethnic/national minority. As shown in the ear- lier section, the area along the border is characterised by an apparent TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 112 ethnic mix and a cross-border preservation of the local customs and cultural identity. The combined methodological approach included the analysis of historical documents, registry books, and population cen- suses, as well as qualitative methodology like in-depth semi-structured interviews with the residents. To assess the specific local interrelations, the patterns of population migration and cross-border marriages (pre- sented in the appendix) were reconstructed and examined. Based on an analysis of the censuses (number of Slovenes) in the Čabar area between 1880 and 2021, we identified the popularity of self-declaring as Slovenes in Croatia and the settlements to which Slovenes migrated the most. This is followed by an analysis of the data from marriage and death registers in the areas of Čabar, Gerovo, Hrib, Prezid, Plešce, and Tršće. Our purpose was to determine the flow and extent of migration from Slovenia to the Čabar area. Another method used was the qualita- tive method of semi-structured interviews with members of the Slo- vene national minority in the Čabar area, who are also members of the Gorski Kotar Slovene Cultural Association based in Tršće/Trstje. Eight interviews were conducted with respondents born between 1937 and 1978 from Tršće/Trstje, Prezid, and Mandli. 3. Migration of Slovenes to the Areas of Čabar and Prezid Analysing the censuses from 1880 to 2021, it can be easily concluded that the largest number of individuals who declared themselves as Slo- venes lived in the small towns of Čabar and Prezid in close proximity to the border. A smaller number of Slovenes also lived in Gerovo, which is further from the border and had a less significant Slovene population. Among other settlements, Slovenes could be found in the border vil- lages of Gornji Žagari and Plešce. In other locations, they appeared only sporadically and in very small numbers (e.g., in Trstje/Tršće). It should be noted that a significant number of Slovenes in the region are descen- dants of cross-border marriages. However, many declared themselves as Croats, identifying with the region where they lived – Croatia. The situation on the Slovene side of the border was reciprocal: individuals born as Croats declared themselves as Slovenes. The population of the Čabar region has been decreasing since 1961. The decline in population is a consequence of emigration from the area of Čabar and its surroundings (see section 1). During the second half of the 20 th century, emigration fist affected settlements farther away from D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... 113 factories and industry. Later, even parish centres experienced signifi- cant depopulation. Today, in most settlements, the number of inhabit- ants has dropped to single digits (e.g. in Kamenski Hrib, Bazli, Brinjeva Draga, Kraljev Vrh, Kranjci, Okrivje, Prhci, Prhutova Draga, Smrekari, Sokoli, and Tropeti). By 2021, several settlements, including Fažonci, Požarnica, and Pršleti, were left without any inhabitants. 3.1 Migration from Slovenia to the Čabar r egion Based on Civil r egisters In this section we concentrate on Slovene immigration to the Čabar region based on records from what is known as Stališ duša, a method recently applied by Riman. She prepared an overview of the locations to which Slovenes migrated in the Čabar region, as well as settlements in Slovenia where individuals from the parishes in the Čabar region relocated. For each parish, Riman meticulously listed the settlements from which settlers migrated (Riman 2013, 63–88). The goal here is to reconstruct immigration patterns through marriage and death registers preserved for the parishes of Čabar/Čeber, Gerovo, Tršće/Trstje, Prezid, and Plešce. Specifically, we aim to identify individuals who migrated from Slovenia to the Čabar region. As Riman indicated, in many cases. registers and records, especially the registers of deaths, often only re- corded the settlement where an individual died, while the place of birth – or the exact name of the settlement or the parish of origin of the groom or the bride – was often omitted (Riman 2013, 63–88). In parishes located just a few kilometres from the border, such as Gerovo, the number of migrants from Slovenia was relatively low. However, it should be noted that the original parish records for Gerovo were destroyed during World War II, and the data were derived from the transcripts of death and marriage registers. Hence, no definite conclusions can be made. For the parish of Gerovo, founded in 1404, eight registers were reviewed: marriage registers for 1900–1920, 1921– 1928, 1931–1940 and 1946–1948, and death registers for 1900–1912, 1912–1925, 1926–1928 and 1931–1940. The registers are transcripts produced after World War II since the originals were burnt down during the war. Data suggest that most individuals who settled in Gerovo origi- nated from nearby areas. Unlike other parishes, Gerovo did not attract significant numbers of Slovenes, except those involved in cross-border marriages, for whom records are missing (Table 3 in the Appendix). TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 114 The Čabar parish, founded in 1663, had two death registers (1899–1933 and 1934–1948) and two marriage registers (1858–1923 and 1923– D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... Figure 1: Migration flows in the area of the Čabar region (1858-1949) Figure 2: Migration in the Gerovo Area (the registry of marriages) 115 1948) examined. According to records from Slovenia, most migrations to the parish occurred from nearby settlements along the border, e.g. from Črni Potok, Podplanina, Novi Kot, etc., primarily to Čabar proper and Gornji Žagari. A smaller number of immigrants came from more distant parts of Slovenia, such as Ljubljana and Celje. Occasionally, the parish priest in Čabar married couples from Slovenia, although they did not decide to settle in Croatia but returned to Slovenia. Over 50 years, the registers recorded 42 deaths of persons originating from Slovenia and 146 persons who married and thus entered into a cross-border and presumably hetero-ethnic marriage (Tables 3 and 4 in the Appendix). For the parish of Prezid, founded in 1807 after separating from the Stari Trg pri Ložu parish, three death registers and one marriage register were examined. The death registers relate to 1857–1894, 1894–1936 and 1936–1949. Between 1857 and 1949, 110 individuals originally from Slovenia died on the territory of the parish of Prezid. Most of the deceased came from Babno Polje, the nearest settlement in the same karstic valley. Some settlement names in the death register are re- corded in German (Novi Vinkl/Binkl (Novi Kot), Babenfeld (Babno Polje), Montpreis (Planina pri Sevnici) etc.). Prezid, as the largest settlement, attracted the largest number of migrants from Slovenia (Tables 5 and 6 in the Appendix). TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 Figure 3: Migration in the area of the Čabar region (the registry of births/ deaths) 116 D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... Figure 4: Migration in the area of the Čabar region (the registry of marriages) Figure 5: Migration in the area of the Prezid region (the registry of births/deaths) 117 TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 Figure 6: Migration in the Area of the Plešce region (the registry of births/deaths) Figure 7: Migration in the area of the Plešce region (the registry of marriages) 118 For the parish of Plešce, also founded in 1807, only two registers were available for review: the marriage register for 1858–1948 and the death register for 1858–1949. Plešce, being a small parish, recorded only 33 deaths of Slovene settlers during this period. Most of the deceased originated from Bezgovica in the neighbouring Osilnica parish, with Mandli and Donji Žagari being the most common settlements of origin. In contrast, the marriage register recorded 109 nationally cross-border marriages. Unfortunately, data on the place where the newlyweds settled were unavailable (Table 7 in the Appendix). Five registers were examined for the parish of Tršće/Trstje which, like Prezid, was founded only in 1807. Three death registers (1858–1904, 1905–1934 and 1935–1948) and two marriage registers (1858–1934 and 1935–1948) were reviewed. Most recorded deaths and marriages involved individuals from the immediate surroundings, mainly the small settlements of Loški Potok (Table 8 in the Appendix). In addition to the above, the Čabar area comprised another small parish, Hrib. For this parish, no registers were available for analysis. D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... Figure 8: Migration in the area of the Tršće region (the registry of marriages) 119 4. Life on the Border: Everyday Life of the Croatian and Slovene Population in the Joint State During the autumn of 2023, semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with members of the Gorski Kotar Slovene Cultural Associa- tion, based in Tršće. Since most of the association’s members are origi- nally from Prezid, the interviews were conducted in the Prezid area. The issue of forming and preserving the ethnic identity of the population in the area along the Croatian-Slovene border presents a duality that is both simple and complex: the concept of US and THEM is sometimes merged into US, and at other times, THEM and US are indistinguishable. Interconnection and othering at the micro level were strongly pres- ent, with the area’s inhabitants historically relying on each other due to shared challenges, a common language, and intertwined daily lives. The unique geographical and natural features of the Kupa and Čabranka valleys only symbolically delimited the territory, as one could easily cross to the other bank even without a bridge. For the people of these two banks, everything else felt distant, including distinctions based on ethnicity. The main narrative was that “they are Slovenes because they live on the other bank” and the other way around for Croatians. Yet, TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 Figure 9: Migration in the area of the Tršće region (the registry of births/deaths) 120 this had no real impact on perceived cultural uniqueness, regardless of the administrative boundaries imposing the population to declare themselves differently at a regional level. In interviews, respondents emphasised their emotional closeness/affection to Slovenes and Slove- nia since childhood and did not consider them other or different, nor was there a distinction or otherness based on ethnicity/nationality. In real life, the mere fact that one lived on the Croatian or Slovene side of the border placed them in one or the other ethnic/national category, although the inhabitants were often ethnically/nationally mixed, having coexisted for centuries. 2 The language spoken by locals in the Čabar region is specific and was granted the status of protected cultural heritage in 2015. It is one of the most archaic forms of the Kajkavian dialect group in Croatia, preserved solely due to the region’s geographical remoteness. The Čabar dialect is divided into five local idioms – tršćanski, čobrski, gerovski, prezidan- ski and plešćanski – all of which are very similar and not really distinct (Crnić Novosel 2019, 19–23). Today, about four thousand people com- municate using this speech on both sides of the border. Respondents from Prezid described their language as follows: Our prezidanski speech is more Slovene than Croatian. The old prezi- danski speech and the old ribniški speech are very similar. Prezid and Babno Polje spoke the same language, our children and grandchildren still speak the local dialect in Prezid. However, the children from Gerovo no longer speak the old gerovski dialect.” The incomprehensibility of the čabarski dialect is illustrated by an anec- dote shared by respondent Damjan Malnar. Namely, during the Home- land War, when the enemy overheard Čabar inhabitants speaking on the radio (in their dialect), they thought that the speakers were foreign mercenaries from Asia. The inhabitants of the Čabar region also have a good command of standard Slovene, as many of them work or have worked in Slovenia. In cross-border marriages, where one spouse originated from a more distant part of Slovenia, communication often took place in standard Croatian or Slovene. Such was the case of the dentist in Prezid whose wife was from Novi Kot, singled out by the respondents as an example: “With her, the dentist speaks Croatian, but he uses the local dialect when speaking with us.” Respondent Slavko Malnar recalled his childhood and the time when there was no radio or television, and the Croatian language was rarely D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... 121 heard, except when individuals from the Littoral area came to exchange salt for potatoes. So I thought that the Croatian language was the one spoken by people from the Littoral area. I only spoke the local dialect. During the war, we were in Gonars among Slovenes, so I learned their Slovene there. There were no transmitters for radio and television Zagreb in the Čabar area, so residents could only listen to Radio Ljubljana and watch the Slovene television. Slavko Malnar recounted how, in 1960, his village still lacked electricity, and even after its introduction, Slovene-language radio was listened to on Sundays, with the volume turned to maximum. The Slovene-Croatian cultural ties in the border area were extremely strong. The people of Prezid were more oriented towards Slovenia than towards local centres (in Čabar). Administrative boundaries did not al- ways reflect the real connections between people who shared customs, language, and everyday life. Infrastructure, such as rail links and joint events, further facilitated these ties. The train was a means of transport people used to travel to major centres. The interviewees recalled that the train stopped at the stations in Žlebič and Ortnek near Ribnica in the Dolenjska region connecting the Čabar basin with the rest of the world. These railway stops were at least 25 kilometres from Prezid, but were nevertheless close enough to have significant importance for the in- habitants of the Prezid and Čabar regions. Slavko Malnar described the separation and isolation of the Čabar region, recalling how his fellow residents would say they were “going to Croatia” when heading to Sla- vonia to fell trees for the winter, and “going to Carniola” when travelling to Slovenia for work. Respondent Mirko Malnar from Prezid also noted: A long time was always needed to reach Rijeka. Passengers boarded the train in Rakek and had to transfer in Pivka. In the 1980s, we had eight direct lines to Ljubljana and one line to Rijeka, but this line was also closed in winter via Crni Lug. It is easy to agree with Mirko Malnar saying that the Čabar region was the largest Croatian island due to its isolation: “However, you have cata- marans on the islands, while Čabar only has one bus. When we travel to Zagreb, we travel via Ljubljana because it’s closer.” Social and cultural aspects, such as schooling, religious ceremonies, fairs and parties, were also common, often taking place on both sides of the border. The settlements of Babno Polje and Prezid were a single TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 122 settlement in Yugoslavia. Mirko Malnar recalled the close ties between the people of Prezid and Stari Trg and Loški Potok: “We also had land and fields across the road. The border passed between our houses, so it was impossible to separate us.” In the event of childbirth, serious ill- ness, or medical complications, people also went to Slovenia, to Posto- jna or Ljubljana. Our children were born in Postojna because the maternity ward in Postojna is the closest to us. Our doctors were also in Ljubljana, because Ljubljana can be reached within an hour without taking the motorway. The composition of children in schools was also transnational. Slovenes from Babno Polje and Novi Kot attended elementary school in Prezid. There were also joint cemeteries, with residents of settlements in Slo- venia nearest to Čabar burying their deceased in Croatia. Respondents noted: “The Slovenes from Črni Potok and Podplanina were thus buried in the Čabar cemetery.” They even shared priests. A child born in Babno Polje who was in poor health was baptised in Prezid, as the parish cen- tre of Babno Polje Stari Trg was too far away. Similarly, during harsh winter conditions with heavy snow, burials for people from Babno Polje were conducted by the priest from Prezid. Conversely, the bishop of Ljubljana, Anton Alojzij Wolf, delivered sacraments to children in the church of Babno Polje six times in the first half of the 19 th century. On these occasions, many children from Čabar received sacraments as well (Malnar 2007, 198–200). Mass services and church holidays were shared. Certain feasts were well-known in the Čabar region. Locals from Čabar and its surroundings would go to Žalosni vrh and Trsat for the Assumption. For the feast of St. Rochus, they would go to Stari Kot and Nova Štifta, and for the Nativity of the Blessed Mother, they would go to Sveta Gora. A solemn mass in Slovene language was held on the Nativity of the Blessed Mother at Sveta Gora at 9 a.m., and it was customary for Slovenes to attend that mass. Slovenes gladly visited the Trsat shrine. The shrine in Brezje was connected to Trsat, Nova Štifta, and Sveta Gora. Another important meeting point for Croats and Slovenes were fairs, especially the one held on Cvetni petek in Čabar. In Ribnica, the fair was held on the first Sunday in September. Larger fairs in these settlements were linked to church celebrations. Trade was based on the principle of the exchange of goods. For example, locals from Prezid exchanged to- bacco for piglets in Cerknica in Notranjska. They cultivated potatoes and traded them for apples grown by Slovenes. From the settlements along the Kupa and Čabranka rivers, on both sides, watchmakers (vurmaheri) D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... 123 came to the Čabar area to repair umbrellas, sharpen saws and knives, and patch pots. The Čabar dialect and music were strongly rooted in Slovene culture, while education and employment in Slovenia were common among the local population. Organised parties were occasions and places to so- cialise. Slavko Malnar recalled the popular gatherings held opposite the church in Prezid. Parties were held every Saturday, and there was also fun in Osilnica in Slovenia. Later, cultural centres were built where young people also gathered. Slovenes from Postojna attended. Young people met at parties. Many girls married in Slovenia. A very important social hub for the inhabitants of the Kupa and Čabranka valleys was Osilnica, especially the Kovač Inn. Its significance was men- tioned by respondent Blaženko Ožbolt from Mandli. Vera Malnar from Selo near Tršće described a typical weekend: Everyone went to Kovač’s in Osilnica. The girls would stand around until the accordion started playing, and then each boy would come for his girl. Every tenth or fifteenth dance, it was the girls’ turn to choose. Cinema shows were held in Prezid, Čabar, Tršće, and Gerovo. After the cinema, people would go dancing at Kovač’s in Osilnica. Mirko Malnar from Prezid recounts how, after the closing of the popular night club in Prezid in the 1970s, people started going to dances in Babno Polje. The town of Čabar also organised parties at its local cultural centre (kulturni dom). On Labour Day on 1 May, it was customary to organise joint gatherings. On that day, Croats and Slovenes together raised the Majban (May tree), followed by socialising and football matches. Slo- vene culture was deeply rooted in the lives of Čabar’s inhabitants. This is illustrated by an example from the father of Damjan Malnar who did not know a single Croatian song. The melodies and instruments in the Čabar area were of the Alpine type – accordion, waltz and polka, just like those found throughout Gorski Kotar and neighbouring Slovenia. 5. Dissolution of the Joint State and Change in the Legal Status of Croats and Slovenes With the dissolution of the former joint state of Yugoslavia in 1991, re- lations between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 124 underwent significant changes. The establishment of the border be- tween the two countries created obstacles to the previously free flow of daily life and work between Slovene and Croatian populations, espe- cially for those who owned property on both sides of the border. Cross- ing the border to access their own land was subject to strict controls, drastically changing and complicating everyday life. The situation in the Čabar region was even more difficult due to its continued remoteness from major traffic routes. Respondent Zoran Ožbolt from Prezid spoke about the problems faced by what are known as dual property owners (cross-border owners) in transporting hay across the border. Initially, it was not possible to reach properties through the so-called gates; it was necessary to use larger border crossings, which required more time and longer distances. The establishment of the state border also had negative legal implications. The legal status of residents who had previ- ously worked or lived in the territory of the other state became more complex, as they were no longer considered constituent people. Most inhabitants of the Čabar basin and Prezid region were em- ployed in Slovenia. Mirko Malnar recalled that in 1985, three full buses of workers from the Čabar region travelled to Slovenia: “They worked in Lož in the Notranjska region, in the wood and metal industries.” Vera Malnar highlighted that some of the people worked in the forests of Slovenia: “Most of them worked at the Snežnik firm.” She personally was less tied to Slovenia because she finished school in Croatia. “For me, Rijeka was the centre since I was born in Tršće. I worked at the Čabar Veterinary Station, and we serviced the entire Slovene part along the border to Brod Moravice. We worked in modest conditions, and there were more cattle across the border than on our side”. 3 During la- bour migrations, workers from other parts of Yugoslavia came to Čabar in search of employment. According to respondent Zoran Ožbolt, new workers came every six months, mostly from the Dalmatinska Zagora region in Dalmatia, from Bosnia, and from Serbia. However, few of them remained in Čabar and its surroundings, as evidenced by the small num- ber of residents from other ethnic/national groups in this area today. The migration of inhabitants of the Čabar region to Slovenia to con- tinue their education was commonplace. Secondary school children from Čabar often enrolled in schools in Slovenia. Some Slovene second- ary schools and municipalities offered scholarships enabling children from low-income backgrounds to complete secondary school. They enrolled in higher education institutions in Ljubljana, but also in other larger Slovene cities. This trend continues to this day. With the dissolu- tion of Yugoslavia and the establishment of the two republics, Croats D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... 125 became a national, i.e. cultural minority in Slovenia. 4 Many Croats em- ployed in Slovenia had to undergo administrative checks as Croatian citizens to continue working there. The loss of previously held rights further aggravated and worsened their working and living conditions. Respondent Mirko Malnar described the position of the workers of the Čabar basin during the disintegration of Yugoslavia, when Croats lost all previous employment-related rights. Our children were covered by our insurance. If we wanted to work, work visas were obligatory, but they were initially granted for three months only. They were granted for a longer period only later. Around 2003, we went to Cerknica to complain about our status in Slovenia. The municipality was very rude to us, so we complained to the Government in Ljubljana. We received answers within three days. Daily commuting from Croatia to Slovenia is still common today. Mem- bers of the Gorski Kotar Slovene Cultural Association estimate that around 300 people from the Čabar area commute to Slovenia. The distance from Prezid to Cerknica is 36 kilometres, and 78 kilometres to Ljubljana. Although some also work in Rijeka, the road to Rijeka is longer and more challenging than the route to Ljubljana. The creation of the state border between the two newly established countries also impacted language and dialects that began to differ, although they were practically the same. Respondents noted that, “since the border has been established, some new words have been introduced on both sides.” While the dialect has been preserved, the Slovene and Croatian languages have drifted apart, which means that the younger genera- tions’ linguistic expressions have also partially drifted apart, especially when they use standard Croatian or Slovene. Despite the new challeng- es, many residents of the area continue to commute daily to the neigh- bouring country, fostering resilience and strengthening the connections between the inhabitants of both neighbouring areas/countries. Respondents Slavko Malnar and Damjan Malnar pointed out that “in terms of nationality, they were previously all automatically Croats”. After the border was established and nationality, i.e. citizenship, be- came an important part of ethnic identity, a process of changing nation- ality/citizenship among certain residents with ties to Slovenia through work, education or family history started. Slavko and Damjan Malnar described this process as follows: It was only a few years ago that we became Slovenes. Namely, Slovenes showed greater understanding towards us. Many people pursued their TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 126 education in Slovenia, and many trace their origins to the other side of the border, so many have only recently started declaring themselves as Slovenes. Historical sources also highlight that the origins of the population in this region can be traced back to Slovenia. In 2007, to preserve their ethnic identity and protect their national/ ethnic status, residents of the Čabar region who felt ethnically Slovene or identified as Slovene, i.e. who had Slovene roots, founded their own ethnic association – the Gorski Kotar Slovene Cultural Association. Most of its members come from Prezid, as Prezid is the settlement most con- nected with the Slovene municipalities in the area. The reasons for the establishment of the association were described by respondent Damjan Malnar, who is also its current president: There were about thirty of us, mostly people who had problems because they worked in Slovenia but lived in Croatia. Public opinion in Čabar was not in our favour, so we started our activities very modestly. At first, we held courses, and after a longer period of time, we were barely given a space. Now the situation is different. Soon we will offer a Slovene language course according to the C model in the primary school in Čabar. We also held Slovene language courses for about 60 people from Tršće, Čabar and Prezid. Then we started the construction of the large premises of the Agricultural and Education Centre in Prezid. This is our largest investment, fully funded by Slovenia. The Agricultural and Education Centre can accommodate from 60 to 100 people and is equipped to pro- vide accommodation in several rooms. In the basement, there is a meat freezer and a dry-aging cabinet. Attention was also paid to landscaping, so we have a garden with medicinal plants and a beekeeping area with five or six hives. The entire complex has been erected on 5000 square meters, and the plan is to open it to the public by Easter 2024. Members of the Gorski Kotar Slovene Cultural Association are volun- teers. Support is provided by the Council of the Slovene National Minor- ity of the City of Čabar. The activities of the Gorski Kotar Slovene Cultural Association ac- tively contribute to the preservation of Slovene culture and identity among the locals of the Čabar region and promote cooperation and ties between Croatia and Slovenia at the local level. 6. Conclusion The Čabar area is geographically remote from all major centres in both Croatia and Slovenia, although it is closer to those in Slovenia. The D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... 127 situation is similar in the nearby Notranjska centres of Cerknica, Lož and Rakek and the Upper Dolenjska centre in Kočevje. Due to their re- moteness, the Notranjska region and the northwestern part of Gorski Kotar intrinsically rely on each other. The result of this isolation is the development of a distinct dialect that the locals of the Čabar region and the Notranjska border area use when communicating with each other. Historically, Čabar and its surroundings were once part of Carniola, i.e. under Slovene governance. At the time of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Čabar maintained connections with Delnice and Ljublja- na. However, its distance from Croatia’s macro centre in Rijeka led many Čabar valley residents to seek work in Slovenia. After the establishment of the border between Croatia and Slovenia following their indepen- dence, the Čabar region became even more isolated than before. What was specific to the Kupa Valley around Delnice and Vrbovsko was even more pronounced in the Čabar region. Settlements along the Čabranka and Kupa rivers along the border with Slovenia found themselves cut off from their natural neighbours on the other side of the rivers. The bor- der distanced Slovenes from Croats, yet the inhabitants of both sides managed to preserve their shared dialect. Despite the interruption of intensive cooperation, over the past three decades, they have managed to maintain their language and customs thanks to their past and former coexistence. Today, Slovene identity in the Čabar region has regained popularity. Despite a declining overall population, the number and share of individuals identifying as Slovenes in census data are steadily increasing. r eferences Ahačič, K., 2024. Stati inu obstati: prvih petdeset slovenskih knjig. Cankarjeva založba, Ljubljana. Arlović, M., 2020. Nove nacionalne manjine u Republici Hrvatskoj i Hrvati kao nacionalna manjina u novonastalim državama raspadom SFRJ. Institut za mi- gracije i narodnosti, Zagreb. Barth, F., 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Little, Brown and Company, Boston. Bognar, H. I. & Bognar, A., 2010. Povijesni razvoj i političko-geografska obilježja gra- nice i pograničja Republike Hrvatske s Republikom Slovenijom na Žumberku i u kupsko-čabranskoj dolini. Geoadria 15 (1), 187–224, doi: https://doi.org/ 10.15291/geoadria.549 Bufon, M., 1994. Theory and Practice in Central-European Border Area: The Slo- venian Example. In I. Crkvenčić, M. Klemenčić & D. Feletar (eds.) Croatia – A TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 128 New European State: (Proceedings of a Symposium in Zagreb and Čakovec, September 22–25, 1993). Prirodoslovno-matematički fakultet, Zavod za geo- grafiju i prostorno uređenje, Zagreb, 173–182. Čabar Parish Death Registers (1899–1933, 1934–1948). Čabar Parish Marriage Registers (1858–1923, 1923–1948). Crnić Novosel, M., 2019. Štokavski ikavski govori u Gorskome kotaru. Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje, Zagreb. DZS RH – Državni zavod za statistiku Republike Hrvatske. Popis stanovništva, ku- ćanstva i stanova 2001., 2011., 2021. god., https://web.dzs.hr/ (accessed 13 December 2024). Eriksen, H. T., 2004. Etnicitet i nacionalizam. Biblioteka XX vek, Belgrade. Gelo, J., Crkvenčić, I., Klemenčić, M. & Platužić, D., 1998. Narodnosni i vjerski sa- stav stanovništva po naseljima: 1880.–1991. Državni zavod za statistiku Re- publike Hrvatske, Zagreb. Gerovo Parish Death Registers (1900–1920, 1921–1928, 1931–1940, 1946–1948). Gerovo Parish Marriage Registers (1900–1912, 1912–1925, 1926–1928, 1931–1948). Josipovič, D., 2001. Čezmejno sodelovanje in vpliv nove slovensko-hrvaške državne meje na območju zgornjega Obkolpja. Annales. Series historia et sociologia 11 (2), 301–308. Josipovič, D., 2024. Migration within the Area of Contemporary Slovenia and Cro- atia from a Historical Perspective: How Historical Migration Influenced the National Narratives. In S. Klempić Bogadi, S. Gregurović & D. Mlinarić (eds.) Migracije na rubu Europe: trendovi, politike i izazovi. Institut za migracije i narodnosti, Zagreb, 11–27. Kos, M., 1933. Zgodovina Slovencev: od naselitve do reformacije. Jugoslovanska knjigarna, Ljubljana. KJ ODS – Kraljevina Jugoslavija, Opšta Državna Statistika, 1932. Definitivni rezultati popisa stanovništva od 31. januara 1921. god. Državna štamparija, Sarajevo, https://www.sistory.si/publication/35116 (accessed 13 December 2024). KJ ODS – Kraljevina Jugoslavija, Opšta Državna Statistika, 1938. Definitivni rezultati popisa stanovništva od 31. marta 1931. godine, knjiga II: Prisutno stanovništvo po veroispovesti. Državna štamparija, Beograd, https://publikacije.stat.gov.rs/ G1938/Pdf/G19384002.pdf (accessed 13 December 2024). Krallert, W., 1941. Volkstumskarte von Ungarn und Jugoslawien. P-Stelle, Wien. KSH – Központi statisztikai hivatal. Népszámlálási Digitális Adattár – Központi Sta- tisztikai Hivatal Könyvtára, https://library.hungaricana.hu/hu/collection/koz- ponti_statisztikai_hivatal_nepszamlalasi_digitalis_adattar/ (accessed 13 De- cember 2024). Lončarić, M., 2005. Kajkaviana & alia: ogledi o kajkavskim i drugim hrvatskim go- vorima. Zrinski, Čakovec; Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje, Zagreb. D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... 129 Malnar, D., 2022. Čabarske žrtve fašizma. Poučavanje povijesti 1 (2), 126–129. Malnar, S., 2007. Povijest čabarskog kraja. Matica hrvatska – Ogranak Čabar, Čabar. Malnar, S., 2009. Čabarske žrtve fašizma. SDP Čabar; UABA Čabar; Matica hrvatska – Ogranak Čabar, Čabar. Malnar, S., 2016. Povijest čabarskog kraja. Matica hrvatska – Ogranak Čabar, Čabar. Plešce Parish Death Registers (1858–1948). Plešce Parish Marriage Registers (1858–1949). Prezid Parish Death Registers (1857–1894, 1894–1936, 1936–1949). Riman, B., 2013. Doseljavanje stanovništva iz slovenskih krajeva u Čabarski kraj na temelju zabilješki u knjigama Status animarum. Migration and Ethnic Themes 29 (1), 63–88, doi: https://doi.org/10.11567/met.29.1.3 Smith, A. D., 1988. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Škiljan, F. & Perić Kaselj, M., 2018. Hrvati u Sloveniji. Savez hrvatskih društava u Sloveniji, Ljubljana. Tršće Parish Death Registers (1858–1904, 1905–1934, 1935–1948). Tršće Parish Marriage Registers (1858–1934, 1935–1948). Zečević, V., 2000. Hrvatski dijalekti u kontaktu. Institut za hrvatski jezik i jeziko- slovlje, Zagreb. Notes 1 The traffic isolation of the Čabar region is rooted in its recent past. While geographically closer to centres in Slovenia (Cerknica, Kočevje) and historically part of Carniola until the 17 th century, modern roads only began to emerge in the 19 th century when the idea was to connect the region through the Čabranka– Kupa valley to Brod na Kupi. Most of the roads emerged in the 19 th century, yet the connection between Gerovo and Osilnica in Slovenia (the section Mali Lug–Zamost) was only built between 1921 and 1923 as an employment initiative for the impoverished and decimated local population (half of the local male population in their twenties was lost as a direct consequence of war, the Spanish flu, or emigration). Modern asphalt roads appeared only after WWII, primarily built by the Yugoslav People’s Army. 2 According to Slavko Malnar, at the time of Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia, no one paid attention to the border. The only demarcation was a border stone in Prezid that, until 1918, marked the border between the Austrian and Hungarian parts of the monarchy, and at the time of Yugoslavia, the border between two banates and later two socialist republics. The border held little significance for the local population since they all cooperated with each other, lived together, entered into mixed marriages, and felt like one people. 3 Thus, those who worked in Croatia often also served the needs of residents from the area of neighbouring Slovenia, whose municipal centres were far TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 130 from the border zone (e.g. Cerknica is 34 kilometres from Prezid, Postojna 46 kilometres, and Kočevje 54 kilometres). 4 The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia does not recognise national minority status to the new national minorities that, once part of the peoples of the former socialist republics and constituent elements of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, found themselves in the Republic of Slovenia and continued living there. Croats, although permanently settled in the territory of the Republic of Slovenia and despite the fact that their language, combined with Serbian, was once an equal and official language in Slovenia until its independence, do not have the status of a national minority, nor the rights and freedoms enjoyed by members of national minorities under international law. Unlike Croats in Slovenia, Slovenes in the Republic of Croatia are a constitutionally recognised national minority with guaranteed rights and freedoms (Arlović 2020, 34–35; Škiljan & Perić Kaselj 2018). Acknowledgements The article is a result of the research programme Ethnic and Minority Studies and the Slovene Studies (P5-0081), the project Assessing Ethnic Vitality in the Border Area along the Slovene-Croatian Border: Selected Spaces of Minority Populations (J5-3118), and the Slovene-Croatian bilateral project Ethnic Minorities in the Slovenian-Croatian border re- gion (BI-HR/23-24-050), all financed by the Slovenian Research Agency (ARIS). Appendix i Table 1: Census – Number of Slovenes in Čabar district/municipality/town, 1880–2021 1880 1890 1900 1910 1921 1931 1948 1953 Total inhabitants 5971 6848 6917 7632 6747 7678 6041 6360 Slovenes 196 225 201 281 157 612 128 146 Share (in %) 3,28 3,29 2,91 3,68 2,33 7,97 2,12 2,30 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 Total inhabitants 6702 6083 5465 5169 4387 3770 3226 Slovenes 121 173 154 168 79 85 106 Share (in %) 1,81 2,84 2,82 3,25 1,80 2,25 3,29 Sources for 1880–1910: Hungarian censuses (KSH), data for 1880 extrapolated; so- urces for 1921–1931: Kingdom of Yugoslavia censuses (KJ ODS 1932; 1938), data for 1931 reworked after Krallert (1941); sources for 1948–1991: Gelo et al. 1998; sources for 2001–2021: Croatian censuses (DZS RH). D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... 131 Appendix ii Chart 1: Number of Slovenes in Čabar district/municipality/town Sources for 1880–1910: Hungarian censuses (KSH); sources for 1921–1931: Kingdom of Yugoslavia censuses (KJ ODS 1932; 1938), data for 1931 reworked after Krallert (1941); sources for 1948–1991: Gelo et al. 1998; sources for 2001–2021: Croatian censuses (DZS RH). Appendix iii Table 2: Marriage registers, Gerovo parish Year of marriage Place of birth of groom or bride Place of residence after marriage 1900 Ljuben and Tršće Smrečje 1901 Drage and Gerovo Gerovo 1903 Gerovo and Žurge Gerovo 1906 Gerovo and Šegina Gerovo 1906 Žalec pri Sv. Vidu and Gerovo Gerovo 1911 Boštanjska Vas and Kraj 1928 Ribnica and Gerovo Ribnica 1932 Bosiljeva (Bosljiva) Loka and Vode 1932 Idrija and Vode Idrija 1934 Stari Trg and Gerovo Stari Trg 1939 Bosljiva Loka and Gerovo Sources: Gerovo parish marriage registers (1900–1920, 1921–1928, 1931–1940, 1946–1948); Gerovo parish death registers (1900–1912, 1912–1925, 1926–1928, 1931–1948). TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 132 Appendix iV Table 3: Death registers, Čabar parish Year of death Place of birth Place of death 1899 Novi Kot Gorači 1899 Novo Mesto Gornji Žagari 1899 Cerknica Čabar 1900 Babno Polje Čabar 1902 Babno Polje Čabar 1902 Črni Potok Gornji Žagari 1903 Bezuljak (Cerknica) ? 1911 Loški Potok Čabar 1913 Ljubljana Čabar 1913 Soska (Socka?) Gorači 1914 Žurge Čabar 1914 Podplanina Gornji Žagari 1916 Iga Vas (Stari Trg) Čabar 1920 Podgora pri Gorici Čabar 1921 Pungert Tropeti 1923 Dobrava pri Ljubljani Čabar 1926 Sodražica Čabar 1927 Stari Kot Čabar 1929 Mengeš Čabar 1929 Trava Čabar 1930 Zalog (parish of Sveti Nikolaj) Čabar 1931 Osilnica Gornji Žagari 1931 Stari Kot Čabar 1933 Podplanina Tropeti 1934 Podplanina Gornji Žagari 1936 Pungert Tropeti 1939 Srednja Vas (Draga) Čabar 1939 Podplanina Gornji Žagari 1941 Trava Čabar 1942 Stari Kot (občina Trava) Gorači 1942 Ljubljana Čabar 1942 Novi Kot Čabar 1942 Novi Kot Čabar 1942 Črni Potok Crni Potok D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... 133 1943 Lazec Trava 1943 Viševek (Stari Trg) Čabar 1944 Potplanina Gornji Žagari 1944 Bezgarji Čabar 1945 Cerknica Čabar 1945 Pungert Gornji Žagari 1946 Vici (parish Draga) Gornji Žagari 1948 Podplanina Gornji Žagari Source: Čabar parish death registers (1899–1933, 1934–1948). Appendix V Table 4: Marriage registers, Čabar parish Year of marriage Place of birth of groom or bride Place of residence after marriage 1861 Stari Kot and Gorači Trava 1861 Vrh and Gorači Gorači 1862 Črni Potok and Gornji Žagari Črni Potok 1862 Pungert (Draga) and Tropeti Tropeti 1862 Postojna and Gornji Žagari Čabar 1863 Gornji Žagari and Babno Polje Babno Polje 1863 Ribnica and Čabar Plešce 1864 Črni Potok and Gornji Žagari Črni Potok 1865 Gorači and Podplanina Gorači 1865 Nova Vas and Podplanina Podplanina 1866 Gorači and Podplanina Gorači 1868 Podplanina and Tropeti Podplanina 1868 Vinkl (Stari Kot) and Tropeti Stari Kot 1868 Ribnica and Gorači Gorači 1869 Čabar and Trava Čabar 1869 Podplanina and Gorači Podplanina 1870 Podplanina and Tropeti Podplanina 1871 Podplanina and Tropeti Podplanina 1871 Podplanina and Gorači Podplanina 1871 Podplanina and Gorači Podplanina 1871 Stari Kot and Gorači Stari Kot 1871 Babno Polje and Gorači Babno Polje 1873 Stari Kot and Čabar Stari Kot 1873 Novi Kot and Gorači Novi Kot TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 134 1873 Novi Kot and Gorači Novi Kot 1875 Gerovo and Stari Trg pri Ložu Čabar 1875 Podplanina and Gornji Žagari Gornji Žagari 1879 Novi Kot Novi Kot 1883 Pungert Pungert 1887 Gornji Žagari and Podplanina ? 1887 Gornji Žagari and Podplanina ? 1888 Gornji Žagari and Žurge ? 1888 Gorači and Logatec Logatec 1889 Bezgarji and Gornji Žagari Bezgarji 1891 Srednja Slivnica and Gornji Žagari Čabar 1891 Sodražica and Donji Daruvar Čabar 1892 Mozelj (Kočevje) and Gornji Žagari Otočac 1892 Črni Potok and Gornji Žagari Črni Potok 1892 Črni Potok and Gornji Žagari ? 1893 Pungert and Gornji Žagari ? 1893 Gorači and Novi Kot ? 1893 Črni Vrh nad Idrijo and Gornji Žagari Čabar 1894 Podplanina and Gornji Žagari ? 1894 Žlebič and Čabar Čabar 1895 Prezid and Babno Polje Čabar 1895 Podplanina and Gornji Žagari ? 1896 Podplanina and Gornji Žagari ? 1896 Pungert and Gornji Žagari ? 1897 Draga and Podplanina Gornji Žagari 1897 Črni Potok and Črni Potok Črni Potok 1897 Parg and Podplanina Parg 1897 Gornji Žagari and Črni Potok Gornji Žagari 1898 Čabar and Srednja Vas Čabar 1899 Novi Kot and Gorači Novi Kot 1899 Gornji Žagari and Pungert Gornji Žagari 1899 Vipava and Lož (Stari Trg) Lož 1899 Čabar and Podplanina Čabar 1900 Črni Potok and Gornji Žagari Črni Potok 1900 Bezgarje and Črni Potok Bezgarji 1901 Iga Vas (Stari Trg) and Čabar Stari Trg 1901 Gornji Žagari and Podplanina Gornji Žagari 1901 Trava and Tršće Trava D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... 135 1901 Novi Kot and Gorači Gorači 1901 Pungert and Novi Kot Pungert 1902 Stari Kot and Gorači Stari Kot 1902 Novi Kot and Gornji Žagari Novi Kot 1902 Novi Kot and Gorači Novi Kot 1903 Čabar and Podplanina Gornji Žagari 1903 Črni Potok and Gornji Žagari Črni Potok 1903 Stari Trg and Stari Trg Čabar 1904 Gornji Žagari and Novi Kot Gornji Žagari 1905 Črni Potok and Delnice Črni Potok 1906 Gornji Žagari and Bezgarje Gornji Žagari 1906 Gornji Žagari and Srednja Vas Gornji Žagari 1906 Gornji Žagari and Podplanina Gornji Žagari 1907 Novi Kot and Gorači Gorači 1907 Gornji Žagari and Podplanina Gornji Žagari 1909 Črni Potok and Čabar Črni Potok 1910 Trava and Stari Kut Podplanina 1910 Tršće and Crni Potok Gornji Žagari 1910 Tropeti and Podplanina Tropeti 1910 Pungert and Gornji Žagari Pungert 1911 Podplanina and Gornji Žagari Gornji Žagari 1911 Crni Potok and Gornji Žagari Gornji Žagari 1911 Tropeti and Pungert Tropeti 1911 Tropeti and Pungert Tropeti 1912 Šmarata (Stari Trg) and Gorači Gorači 1913 Zavrh (Štajerska) and Parg Čabar 1913 Pungert and Vrhovci (Tršće) Pungert 1913 Crni Potok and Tropeti Crni Potok 1913 Igavas (Stari trg) and Gorači Milanov Vrh 1914 Vrh (parish Stari trg) and Gorači Milanov Vrh 1914 Gornji Žagari and Podplanina Gornji Žagari 1916 Parg and Prezid Crni Potok 1918 Tršće and Podplanina Tršće 1919 Babno Polje and Gorači Gorači 1919 Lazec and Parg Lazec 1919 Gornji Žagari and Pungert Gornji Žagari 1920 Gotenica and Parg Kostajnica 1920 Babno Polje and Gorači Gorači TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 136 1920 Pungert and Crni Potok Pungert 1920 Padovo pri Osilnici and Gornji Žagari Gornji Žagari 1920 Donji Žagari and Podplanina Donji Žagari 1921 Ravnice and Crni Potok Ravnice 1921 Podplanina and Gornji Žagari Podplanina 1921 Gornji Žagari and Stari Kut Gornji Žagari 1922 Gornji Žagari and Babno Polje Gornji Žagari 1923 Žalec and Čabar Zagreb 1924 Sveti Jakob kod Celja and Gorači Čabar 1924 Crni Potok and Gornji Žagari ? 1925 Stari Kot and Gornji Žagari ? 1925 Parg and Podplanina ? 1925 Gornji Žagari and Crni Potok ? 1926 Podplanina and Gorači ? 1926 Podplanina and Čabar ? 1926 Pudob (Stari Trg pri Ložu) and Gornji Žagari ? 1926 Crni Potok and Parg ? 1926 Crni Potok and Parg ? 1926 Podplanina and Gorači ? 1926 Podplanina and Čabar ? 1926 Pudob and Gornji Žagari ? 1929 Pungert and Gorači ? 1929 Ravnice and Crni Potok ? 1930 Babno Polje and Gorači Gorači 1930 Podplanina and Parg ? 1931 Stari Kot and Gornji Žagari Gornji Žagari 1932 Crni Potok and Tropeti ? 1934 Vinivrh and Čabar ? 1935 Žurge and Crni Potok Babina Greda 1936 Ljubljana and Zagreb Čabar 1936 Crni Potok and Tropeti ? 1937 Crni Potok and Tropeti Gorači 1937 Crni Potok and Gornji Žagari ? 1938 Stari Kot and Tropeti ? 1938 Gornji Žagari and Srednja Vas (parish Draga) ? 1939 Stari Kot and Gorači Stari Kot 1939 Šegova Vas and Gorači Šegova Vas D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... 137 1943 Čabar and Crni Potok Čabar 1945 Kranj and Gorači Kočevska Reka 1945 Parg and Novi Kot Čabar 1946 Gornji Žagari and Podplanina ? 1946 Derventa and Št. Jakob ob Savi Gornji Žagaru 1947 Podplanina and Tropeti Trava 1947 Crni Potok and Čabar Čabar 1948 Tropeti and Ljubljana Čabar 1948 Podplanina and Okrivje ? Source: Čabar parish marriage registers (1858–1923, 1923–1948). Appendix Vi Table 5: Death registers, Prezid parish Year of death Place of birth Place of death 1877 Babenfeld (Babno Polje) Kranjci 1877 Stari Trg (Alten Markt) Prezid 1877 Planina pri Postojni Prezid 1878 Podgora pri Ložu (Stari Trg) Prezid 1880 Cill (Celje) Prezid 1881 Draga parish Prezid 1882 Crni Potok Prezid 1884 Novi Vinkl (Novi Kot) Kozji Vrh 1884 Pudob Gorači 1885 Novi Vinkl (Novi Kot) Prezid 1885 Babno Polje Kranjci 1886 Babno Polje Prezid 1886 Markovec Prezid 1887 Ložki potok (Medaja Vas ?) Prezid 1887 Obergurk (Krka) Prezid 1887 Ložki Potok Zbitke 1889 Babno Polje Prezid 1889 Vrhnika Prezid 1890 Ložki Potok Prezid 1890 Babno Polje Tajčari 1890 Novi Kot Prezid 1890 Žužemberg Prezid 1890 Ložki Potok Prezid TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 138 1891 Babno Polje Prezid 1891 Montpreis (Planina pri Sevnici) (Štajerska) Prezid 1891 Podcerkev (Lož) Prezid 1892 Novi Kut Prezid 1892 Viševek (Stari trg) Kozji Vrh 1892 Mahneti (Cerknica) Prezid 1893 Trebnje Prezid 1893 Babno Polje Zbitke 1894 Stari Kot Prezid 1895 Stari Kot Kozji Vrh 1895 Ložki Potok Prezid 1897 Babno Polje Prezid 1898 Novi Kot Prezid 1898 Trnovo Lautari 1899 Kozarče (Stari trg) Prezid 1899 Preska Prezid 1902 Brežice Prezid 1902 Golac Prezid 1903 Novi Kot Prezid 1903 Podpreseka Zbitke 1904 Nadlesk Zbitke 1904 Planina (Rakek) Prezid 1904 Babno Polje Kozji Vrh 1904 Novi Kot Lautari 1905 Novi Kot Prezid 1905 Postojna Kranjci 1906 Markovec Prezid 1906 Postojna Kranjci 1907 Novi Kot Prezid 1907 Igavas Milanov Vrh 1907 Igavas Milanov Vrh 1908 Babno Polje Prezid 1908 Kranjska Prezid 1909 Novi Kot Kozji Vrh 1909 Janeži (Sodražica) Prezid 1909 Vrh (Stari Trg) Prezid 1909 Loški Potok Prezid 1910 Babno Polje Prezid D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... 139 1910 Cerknica Prezid 1910 Babno Polje Tajčari 1911 Ljubljana Milanov Vrh 1912 Novi Kot Lautari 1912 Stari Trg Prezid 1912 Šmarata (Stari Trg) Milanov Vrh 1915 Babno Polje Kranjci 1915 Vrhnika 1917 Novi Binkl (Novi Kot) Prezid 1917 Trava Prezid 1918 Novi Kot Milanov Vrh 1922 Kočevje Kozji Vrh 1922 Planina Prezid 1923 Stari Trg Milanov Vrh 1924 Rakek Kranjci 1926 Sveta Trojica nad Cerknico Kranjci 1926 Babno Polje Lautari 1927 Velike Poljane (Ribnica) Milanov Vrh 1932 Babno Polje Prezid 1932 Novi Kot Prezid 1933 Babno Polje Milanov Vrh 1934 Sveti Vid nad Ljubljano (Šentvid) Prezid 1935 Lipovšica (Sodražica) Zbitke 1935 Poljane (Stari Trg) Prezid 1936 Babno Polje Prezid 1936 Trnovo (Ilirska Bistrica) Milanov Vrh 1936 Ljubljana Milanov Vrh 1936 Novi Kot Prezid 1937 Babno Polje Kranjci 1938 Babno Polje Prezid 1938 Babno Polje Žalosni Vrh 1939 Topol (Bloke) Prezid 1939 Babno Polje Žalosni Vrh 1939 Babno Polje Milanov Vrh 1939 Nadlesk (Stari Trg) Milanov Vrh 1940 Nadlesk (Stari Trg) Prezid 1940 Postojna Prezid 1941 Dolnje Poljane (Stari Trg) Prezid TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 140 1941 Babno Polje Milanov Vrh 1941 Stari Trg Prezid 1942 Babno Polje Prezid 1943 Babno Polje Prezid 1944 Rogatec (Štajerska) Prezid 1945 Dolnja Vas (Primorska) 1946 Podgora (Stari Trg) Prezid 1947 Mokronog Prezid 1947 Novi Kot Kranjci 1948 Belane kod Babnog Polja Tajčari 1948 Babno Polje Prezid Source: Prezid parish death registers (1857–1894, 1894–1936, 1936–1949). Appendix Vii Table 6: Death register, Plešce parish Year of death Place of birth Place of death 1858 Osilnica Mandli 1864 Ložki Potok Mandli 1872 Osilnica Mandli 1874 Vas Mandli 1877 Viševek (Stari Trg) Plešce 1878 Bezgovica (Osilnica) Mandli 1879 Belica (Osilnica) Okrivje 1882 Bezgovica (Osilnica) Zamost 1882 Papeži Gornji Žagari 1884 Papeži Kamenski Hrib 1884 Ložki Potok Plešce 1885 Crni Potok Plešce 1887 Bezgovica Mandli 1891 Bernheim (Kranjska) Dolnji Žagari 1891 Strojiči (Osilnica) Plešce 1891 Belica Dolnji Žagari 1893 Grintovec (Osilnica) Dolnji Žagari 1895 Papeži Dolnji Žagari 1897 Črni Potok Mandli 1898 Sela Mandli 1898 Papeži Dolnji Žagari D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... 141 1899 Papeži Dolnji Žagari 1903 Bezgarji Okrivje 1909 Novi Kot 1920 Celje Zamost 1929 Križmani (Osilnica parish) Okrivje 1929 Bezgarji Zamost 1930 Papeži Mandli 1932 Babno Polje Okrivje 1936 Bezgarji Mandli 1937 Bezgovica Mandli 1940 Osilnica Požarnica 1944 Bezgovica Plešce Source: Plešce parish death register (1858–1948). Appendix Viii Table 7: Marriage register, Plešce parish Year of marriage Place of birth of groom or bride Place of residence after marriage 1858 Strojiči and Okrivje 1858 Bezgovica and Okrivje 1858 Osilnica and Gerovo Zamost 1865 Bezgarji and Požarnica 1865 Bezgarji and Mandli 1865 Zamost and Bezgovica 1866 Crni Potok and Žagari 1866 Žurge and Žagari 1866 Bosljiva Loka and Zamost 1867 Papeži and Mandli 1868 Osilnica and Mandli 1870 Papeži and Mandli 1871 Bezgarji and Okrivje 1872 Draga and Plešce 1874 Sela and Okrivje 1874 Malinišče and Plešce 1874 Čačiči and Okrivje 1874 Bosljiva Loka and Donji Žagari 1874 Donji Žagari and Stari Trg pri Ložu 1875 Papeži and Okrivje TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 142 1875 Podplanina and Okrivje 1875 Kostel and Smrekari 1875 Crni Potok and Plešce 1876 Grbajel and Ložac (Osilnica) Mandli 1876 Obloke and Požarnica 1876 Žurge and Kamenski Hrib 1877 Viševek (Stari Trg) and Požarnica 1879 Sela and Smrekari 1880 Žurge and Zamost 1880 Srednja Vas and Plešce 1880 Papeži and Okrivje 1882 Parish Ribnica and Zamost 1882 Plešce and Čačiči (Osilnica) 1883 Mandli and Križmani (Osilnica) 1883 Bezgarji and Okrivje 1883 Bezgarji and Donji Žagari 1885 Bezgovica and Papeži 1885 Bezgovica and Kamenski Hrib 1885 Žurge and Mandli 1886 Okrivje and Bezgovica 1886 Velika Slevica and Plešce 1886 Bosljiva Loka (Ložac) and Plešce 1888 Donji Žagari and Srednja Vas 1888 Papeži and Okrivje 1888 Pirče and Plešce 1889 Vipava and Stari Trg Plešce 1890 Okrivje and Bezgarji 1891 Črni Potok and Plešce 1891 Ribjek and Mandli 1892 Ribjek and Donji Žagari 1892 Strojiči and Mandli 1892 Bezgovica and Plešce 1892 Petrina and Plešce Čabar 1895 Žurge and Donji Žagari 1895 Okrivje and Bezgarji 1896 Loški Potok and Okrivje Mandli 1896 Bezgarji and Okrivje Žurge 1896 Draga and Okrivje D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... 143 1896 Okrivje and Bezgovica 1896 Pirče and Okrivje Plešce 1896 Toplice (Kranjska) and Plešce 1896 Novi Kot and Okrivje 1897 Sela and Mandli 1897 Bezgarji and Mandli 1897 Mirna Peč and Smrekari 1897 Gorniki and Čačič Podstene 1898 Donji Žagari and Šmarata kod Loža 1898 Pirče and Okrivje 1898 Sela and Smrekari 1898 Bezgovica and Plešce 1898 Osilnica and Kamenski Hrib 1899 Bosljiva Loka and Zamost 1901 Žurge and Mandli 1901 Žurge and Donji Žagari 1901 Papeži and Mandli 1901 Crni Potok and Okrivje 1901 Bezgovica and Podstene 1902 Žurge and Okrivje 1902 Žurge and Okrivje 1903 Bezgarji and Mandli 1904 Črni Potok and Donji Žagari 1904 Osilnica and Donji Žagari 1905 Podgorje (Stari Trg) and Zamost 1905 Strojiči and Plešce 1905 Bezgovica and Zamost 1910 Okrivje and Ribjek 1913 Padovo and Zamost 1917 Osilnica and Plešce 1918 Dobec (Cerknica) and Okrivje 1919 Dobec (Cerknica) and Hrvatsko 1921 Plešce and Čačič 1921 Smrekari and Loški Potok 1921 Mandli and Pungert 1921 Papeži and Mandli 1923 Plešce and Osilnica 1924 Pungert and Donji Žagari TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 144 1926 Plešce and Strojiči 1929 Podplanina and Mandli 1929 Črni Potok and Plešce 1930 Belca and Zamost 1930 Hrib and Bezgarji 1930 Pungert and Plešce 1932 Osilnica and Požarnica 1933 Žurge and Donji Žagari 1934 Crni Potok and Mandli 1939 Mandli and Čačiči 1939 Osilnica and Mandli 1942 Osilnica and Zamost 1947 Plešce and Padovo Source: Plešce parish marriage registers (1858–1949). Appendix iX Table 8: Death registers, Tršće parish Year of death Place of birth Place of death 1867 Babno Polje Črni Lazi 1874 Idrija Tršće 1874 Idrija Tršće 1887 Ribnica Tršće 1888 Postojna district 1914 Loški Potok Ravnice 1937 Trbovlje Selo 1937 Babno Polje Prhutova Draga 1937 Loški Potok Ravnice 1938 Žurge Lazi 1938 Stari Kot Ravnice Source: Tršće parish death registers (1858–1904, 1905–1934, 1935–1948). Appendix X Table 9: Marriages registers, Tršće parish Year of marriage Place of birth of groom or bride Place of residence after marriage 1860 Babno Polje and Gorači 1868 Šempavel (Štajerska) and Tršće 1869 Cerknica and Sokoli Lokve D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ... 145 1873 Trava and Vrhovci 1884 Crni Potok and Vrhovci 1884 Podplanina and Vrhovci 1885 Poljana parish and Kraljev Vrh 1885 Gorači and Čačič 1886 Postojna and Ravnice 1887 Loški Potok and Tršće Gerovo 1888 Loški Potok and Brinjeva Draga Brinjeva Draga 1889 Loški Potok and Vrhovci Vrhovci 1890 Lož parish and Vrhovci 1896 Babno Polje and Vrhovci 1897 Stari Trg and Selo Stari Trg 1899 Vrhovci and Babno Polje 1901 Loški Potok and Žikovci (?) 1902 Pungert and Tršće 1902 Dolenja Vas (Senožeče) and Frbežari Gerovo 1904 Babno Polje and Lazi 1906 Kostel and Tršće Tršće 1912 Male Laščiče and Tršće Milanov Vrh 1913 Fara and Sokoli 1920 Kostel and Sokoli Tršće 1921 Crni Lazi and Trava 1922 Markovec (Stari Trg) and Ravnice Milanov Vrh 1922 Šmarata (Stari Trg) and Lazi 1924 Babno Polje and Tršće 1926 Osilnica and Crni Lazi Požar (Turke parish) 1927 Osilnica and Kraljev Vrh Okrivje 1929 Markovec (Stari Trg) and Ravnice Milanov Vrh 1930 Ribnica and Crni Lazi Sodražica 1931 Veliko Širje and Selo Tršće 1931 Poljane and Selo 1938 Strojiči and Tršće 1938 Sela (Osilnica) and Sokoli 1939 Prhutova Draga and Črni Potok 1946 Iga Vas and Crni Lazi 1947 Iga Vas and Crni Lazi Source: Tršće parish marriage registers (1858–1934, 1935–1948). TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 93 / 2024 146 Kulturne vezi hrvaškega in slovenskega prebivalstva na širšem območju Čabra: zgodovinski pregled v sodobni perspektivi Povzetek Članek obravnava vpliv nedavnih družbeno-ekonomskih in geopolitičnih sprememb na kulturne vezi in oblikovanje etnične identitete na širšem območju Čabra/Čebra na Hrvaškem. Poudarja pomen razumevanja zgo- dovinskega konteksta prekomejnih odnosov v geografsko periferni ob- mejni regiji. Za oceno specifičnega položaja relativne izolacije je bil up- orabljen robusten, kombiniran interdisciplinarni metodološki pristop: analiza zgodovinskih dokumentov, matičnih knjig in popisov prebivalstva ter kvalitativna metodologija, kot so poglobljeni polstrukturirani inter- vjuji z lokalnimi prebivalci. Za oceno specifičnih lokalnih medsebojnih odnosov so bili rekonstruirani in preučeni vzorci migracij prebivalstva in prekomejnih porok (predstavljeni v prilogi). Spremembe, ki so sledile po razpadu Jugoslavije in ustanovitvi novih samostojnih držav, osvetljujejo načine, kako lokalno prebivalstvo reproducira svojo etnično identiteto. Ključne besede Slovensko-hrvaške prekomejne poroke, prekomejne migracije, etnična identiteta, jezikovni odnosi, Zgornja Kolpa/Kupska dolina, Čabar/Čeber D. JOSIPOVIč, M. PERIć KASElJ, N. ŠIMUNIć, F. ŠKIlJAN Cultural Ties of the Croatian and Slovene ...