ONOMÀSTICA 6 (2020): 163-189 | RECEPCIÓ 27.10.2019 | ACCEPTACIÓ 10.7.2020
Evaluation by means of appreciation. Geographical names as (intangible) cultural heritage Martina Piko-Rustia Urban Jarnik Slovene Ethnographic Institute, Klagenfurt a.W. (Austria) [email protected]
Abstract: In 2010, Slovene field and house names in Carinthia [Kärnten] were included in the Austrian National Inventory of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (Austrian Commission for UNESCO, 2010). The inclusion of these names in UNESCO’s Inventory for Austria aroused great interest in the Carinthian and Austrian media alike. Until that date, because of the often conflictive debates about bilingual place name signs, Slovene denominations of places in Carinthia had been a largely political question. But when these names were included in the UNESCO Inventory, the preservation of traditional Slovene names and denominations became an important cultural matter. In short, UNESCO has made a major contribution not only to the preservation, but also to a respectful discourse, of bilingual place names. Key words: Carinthia, Slovene minority, bilingual place name signs, intangible cultural heritage, Austrian UNESCO-Commission
Avaluació mitjançant l’apreciació. Els noms geogràfics com a patrimoni cultural (immaterial) Resum: El 2010, els noms eslovens de camps i cases a Caríntia [Kärnten] van ser inclosos a l’Inventari nacional austríac del patrimoni cultural immaterial (Comissió austríaca per a la UNESCO, 2010). La inclusió d’aquests noms a l’Inventari de la UNESCO d’Àustria va despertar un gran interès en els mitjans de comunicació de Caríntia i Àustria. Fins a aquesta data, a causa dels debats sovint conflictius sobre els rètols de topònim bilingües, les denominacions de llocs eslovenes de Caríntia havien estat una qüestió en gran part política. Però quan aquests noms es van incloure a l’Inventari de la UNESCO, la preservació dels noms i denominacions tradicionals eslovens es va convertir en una qüestió cultural important. En resum, la UNESCO ha fet una contribució important no només a la preservació, sinó també a un discurs respectuós en relació amb els topònims bilingües. Paraules clau: Caríntia, minoria eslovena, retolació de noms bilingües, patrimoni cultural intangible, Comissió UNESCO austríaca.
169 Martina Piko-Rustia
1 Contempt and appreciation. Evaluation of (geographical) names
In 2010, Slovene field and house names in Carinthia [Kärnten, Koroška] were included in the Austrian National Inventory of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (Austrian Commission for UNESCO, 2010). The inclusion of these Slovene names in Carinthia in the UNESCO Inventory, however, took place before the dispute about bilingual place name signs was resolved. Yet, the positive media coverage given to the inclusion of Slovene denominations of places in Carinthia among UNESCO’s cultural heritage had the effect that these names were also re-evaluated as an intangible cultural asset among the general public. People started to develop an increasingly positive attitude toward this special regional culture in Carinthia – particularly at the level of the municipalities. In this article, the dispute about bilingual place names and the recognition of Slovene field and house names in Carinthia as part of UNESCO’s cultural heritage are compared to show how public discourse influences inner (personal and common) attitudes and, therefore, determines the acceptance or rejection of minority names in public spaces. Visible signs of names (e.g. on place name signs, signposts, maps, etc.) are sources of invisible reactions which may be positive, negative or neutral and are an expression of an inner personal or common attitude towards the names (in the private or public space). Such attitudes have a critical effect on either the acceptance (respect for) or the rejection (contempt) of denominations.
2 Bilingual place signs in Carinthia. Visible signs of mixed language areas
The Slovene and Croatian minorities’ entitlement to bilingual place name signs is binding under international law and is enshrined in Article 7, point 3 of the 1955 Austrian State Treaty. However, Article 7 does not specify the percentage the Slovene-speaking population needs to constitute for this right to be implemented (Tichy, 1996; Vouk, 2015; RIS, 2019a).
170 Evaluation by means of appreciation. Geographical names as intangible heritage In 1972, the Austrian government under Bruno Kreisky (SPÖ) decided to set up bilingual place name signs in villages and towns where at least 20% of the population was Slovene-speaking. The “Ortstafelstreit” (dispute about place name signs) escalated in that same year, when the Austrian National Council adopted a Federal Act including provisions for the erection of bilingual topographical denominations in areas of Carinthia (against the will of two parties – the ÖVP and the FPÖ). This Federal Act was meant to support the erection of bilingual place name signs as authorised under Article 7 of the 1955 Austrian State Treaty. Originally, 205 places and localities in 36 municipalities were supposed to receive bilingual place name signs. During the so-called “Ortstafelsturm”, bilingual place name signs were dismantled or destroyed, in some cases in the presence of the police. More than 200 place name signs were torn down during the night of the 9th to the 10th October. On the morning of the 10th October, not a single bilingual place name sign was left standing (Hren, 2004; Gstettner, 2004a; Gstettner 2004b; Hellwig 2013; Stergar, 2013). In 1976, a minimum figure of 25% of Slovene-speaking inhabitants was established as a precondition for setting up bilingual place name signs under the Austrian Ethnic Group Act (Volksgruppengesetz 1976) (RIS, 2019b). The regulation on topography in Carinthia (Topographieverordnung 1977) (RIS, 1977) provides for 91 bilingual place name signs, which, however, were never all erected. In the year 2000, bilingual place name signs were erected in Burgenland in places with a minimum figure of 25% of bilingual inhabitants (47 German-Croatian and 4 German-Hungarian place name signs). The Carinthian Slovenes demanded an amendment to the Austrian Ethnic Group Act, which was rejected by the Carinthian governor Jörg Haider. When the lawyer Rudi Vouk filed a complaint against a penalty for speeding through the village of St. Kanzian/Škocijan, which had only monolingual place name signs in 2001, the Austrian Constitutional Court (VfGH) ruled the 25 per cent quota to be too high and repealed parts of the 1976 Austrian Ethnic Group Act and the 1977 regulation on topography (Hauer, 2006; Winkler, 2006). This event was followed by ten years of intense and prolonged debates during which both sides sought to reach a compromise. There
171 Martina Piko-Rustia were also several attempts to carry out a scientific study on the issue of bilingual topography in Carinthia (Pandel, 2004; Jordan, 2004). In 2002, three “Consensus Conferences” were organised by the Austrian State, the Carinthian political parties, Carinthian Slovene organisations and “homeland associations”, but ultimately they were unsuccessful because the Slovene representatives could not agree to a compromise proposal of 147 bilingual place name signs. Later, in 2005, the so-called “Karner-Paper” proposed 158 bilingual place name signs. As a result of the “Carinthian Consensus Conference”, eventually bilingual place name signs were solemnly erected in three places (Entner, 2005; Karner, 2007).
Fig. 1: Ceremonial erection of the place name sign in Windisch Bleiberg/Slovenji Plajberk in 2005. Photo: Peter Rustia, 2005.
In 2006, most of the Carinthian political parties (ÖVP, BZÖ and SPÖ) sought to implement a constitutional solution agreeing to erect 141 place name signs before 2009. The constitutional amendment failed, however, because of opposition to the so-called “Öffnungsklausel” (“opening clause”), which would have allowed for more place name signs after 2009.
172 Evaluation by means of appreciation. Geographical names as intangible heritage The solution though was rejected by the Slovene representatives who considered it insufficient (Stainer-Hämmerle, 2006; Funk, 2008; Hafner & Pandel, 2008 and 2011; Kert-Wakounig, 2010a and 2010b). According to a Constitutional Court (VfGH) decision, place name signs had to be erected in Bleiburg/Pliberk and Ebersdorf/Drveša vas in 2006. The Carinthian governor Jörg Haider, tried to circumvent the Constitutional Court by relocating the place name signs several centimetres in Bleiburg. During the 2006 general election campaign, Haider ordered that all bilingual place name signs be changed for German ones with small additional plates being hung in Slovene at the bottom. The Constitutional Court ruled that these additional plates in Bleiburg/ Pliberk and Ebersdorf/Drveša vas were illegal and, in 2007, the Court held that the additional plate erected in Schwabegg/Žvabek (municipality of Neuhaus/Suha), replacing the bilingual place name sign, did not conform with the law either. The place name signs were re-designed in 2007, and the additional plates were installed under the actual place name sign. In 2010, the Constitutional Court also declared the additional plates in Bleiburg/Pliberk to be unconstitutional. Four days after the decision, correct bilingual place name signs were erected in Bleiburg/Pliberk, Ebersdorf/Drveša vas and Schwabegg/Žvabek (ORF Kärnten, 2015). From 2005 on, the Consensus Group started a new dialogue that was joined by two Carinthian Slovene organisations and the Kärntner Heimatdienst (Feldner & Sturm, 2007). In 2011, the Group agreed to a compromise, according to which a bilingual place name sign should be erected in settlements in which 17.5% or more of the population was Slovene speaking. This solution represented 164 bilingual place name signs in 24 Carinthian municipalities (NSKS 2011; Pirker, 2011; Hren & Pandel, 2012; Jordan 2012).
173 Martina Piko-Rustia
3 Rejection of and demand for minority rights. The long path towards a compromise 3.1 Rejection of bilingual place name signs The 1972 “Ortstafelsturm” resulted in the rejection of bilingual place name signs during the decades that followed (until the conflict was resolved in 2011). People and politicians publicly expressed their rejection by tearing down and damaging or defacing the signs, and by printing the place names in different sizes (the German name in large font; the Slovene name in small font). This public debate was fuelled by Carinthian homeland associations (Kärntner Heimatdienst and Kärntner Abwehrkämpferbund), the Carinthian media, and political representatives. Until the compromise on place name signs was reached, bilingual signs were an important issue in the region’s election campaigns as well – political parties promising not to set up any more bilingual signs dominated and won elections on the strength of their stand on this question. Public statements and political speeches, daily newspapers and leaflets delivered to every single Carinthian household helped create an entirely negative attitude to the putting up of bilingual name signs (Menz et al., 1989; Konrath, 2003; Glantschnig, 2006; Prelogar, 2007; Pührer, 2007). One of the main arguments for rejecting bilingual place name signs was the so-called “Carinthian Urangst” (the fear that Slovene place name signs would tempt Slovenia to make territorial claims). Politicians, with the Carinthian governor Jörg Haider at the forefront, used this fear to their benefit, even after Slovenia had entered the EU. This negative attitude of parts of the majority population (though, note, that most German-speaking Carinthians showed solidarity with the Slovene minority or were neutral in their attitude towards them) was expressed publicly by acts of vandalism as well: Place name signs were daubed with slogans, such as “No Slovene names here” or “Place name signs in German only”. Indeed, the most common form of visible rejection of bilingual signs was to paint over the Slovene denomination. These acts of protest continued in part after the compromise solution was reached. In October 2011, a place name sign was torn down and another one was defaced in the municipality of Eberndorf/Dobrla vas. At the same time,
174 Evaluation by means of appreciation. Geographical names as intangible heritage
Fig. 2: This poster saying “KEIN SLOWENISCH KÄRNTEN” (“NO SLOVENE CARINTHIA”) was put up shortly after the ceremonial erection of the bilingual place name sign in Windisch Bleiberg/ Slovenji Plajberk in 2005. Photo: Peter Rustia, 2005. the bilingual place name sign in St. Michael ob Bleiburg/Šmihel pri Pliberku was daubed with Nazi symbols (ORF Kärnten, 2011b). In February 2006, governor Haider tried to circumvent the Constitutional Court’s decision by relocating the place name signs in Bleiburg/Pliberk – an act that was later declared illegitimate by the Constitutional Court. In August 2006, German place name signs with additional small Slovene plates, the use of which was also declared illegal, were erected in Bleiburg/Pliberk and Ebersdorf/Drveša. In February 2007, the small Slovene plates were taken down and placed within the blue area of the place name sign. The Constitutional Court declared this solution to be unconstitutional in July 2010, and, eventually, the illegal place name signs were replaced by correct ones (ORF Kärnten, 2015).
175 Martina Piko-Rustia Daubing the Slovene place name on monolingual place name signs was also one of the most common forms of protest by the minority. In 2006, Slovene place names were written on the place name sign in order to protest about the different font sizes used for the German and Slovene denominations.
Fig. 3: Place name sign in Bleiburg/Pliberk with small additional plate and “additional” Slovene place name in the same font size. Photo: Thomas Cik (Kleine Zeitung, archive photo from 2006). The most visible form of rejection was the tearing down of signs during the so-called “Ortstafelsturm” in 1972 (the forceful removal of all place name signs). More than 200 place name signs were torn down during the night of the 9th to the 10th October. In 1977, a non-official bilingual place name sign that had been set up on private property in Bleiburg/Pliberk and which was being guarded by the property owner was forcefully torn down. In fact, the young protesters who had locked themselves to the sign in order to protect it were taken away by the police (Naš tednik, 1977). In October 2011 (after the compromise on place name signs had been reached), the bilingual place name sign of Eberndorf/Dobrla vas was torn down (ORF Kärnten, 2011a).
176 Evaluation by means of appreciation. Geographical names as intangible heritage
3.2 Demand for minority rights and defending the bilingual place name sign
When the Carinthian Provincial Commissioner for public transport Gerhard Dörfler wanted to dismantle the bilingual place name sign „Vellach/Bela“ in the municipality of Eisenkappel-Vellach/Železna Kapla- Bela in 2005, Franz Josef Smrtnik (he became mayor of the municipality in 2009) chained himself to the signpost – and saved it (Der Standard, 2005). The erection of unofficial place name signs was one of the actions taken by members of the Slovene minority who sought to publicise the non-fulfilment of the rights upheld by the Ethnic Groups Act. Indeed, minority rights have always been defended by the Slovene ethnic minority, who claim their Slovene language to be an autochthonous language – for example, with slogans such as “I (love to) live here” on the place name sign in Sielach/Sele (municipality of Sittersdorf/Žitara vas). In Sielach/Sele, 30% of the people reported being in favour of a bilingual place name sign after the 2011 compromise was reached. However, the
Fig. 4: Altered place name sign in Sielach/Sele (January 2018) Photo: Franc Kukovica, 2018 (archive photo: NSKS = Council of Carinthian Slovenes)
177 Martina Piko-Rustia majority of members on the local council rejected the idea, even if the municipality were to strive for a positive solution within the framework of self-government (Kleine Zeitung, 2017). In March 2019, Franc Kukovica, who had stuck an additional inscription to the place name sign, (Krone, 2018), had to defend himself against charges of criminal damage (ORF Kärnten, 2019). Although acquitted, the case has been taken to the Court of Appeal. In March 2019 – at an event held in Klagenfurt that virtually coincided with the trial – Peter Jordan spoke of the emotionally binding effect of geographical names for minorities and of the need for the majority population to recognize this effect: “People feel at home, in their homeland, where their community’s name is visible on a place name sign or in other public spaces (and on maps as well). Just as their language represents home, place names (as a part of that language) represent their home too” (Jordan, 2019).
3.3 Proactive initiatives as another form of making Slovene denominations visible in public
After the Constitutional Court’s decision in 2001, the Slovene ethnic minority and a group of majority members in solidarity with the Slovenes increasingly switched their strategy from that of mere protest to proactive initiatives for making Slovene denominations more visible in public. For example, the bilingual place name sign Universität Klagenfurt/Univerza v Celovcu was erected on the campus of Klagenfurt University in 2002. Since that day, the signpost has been dismantled and destroyed several times, but the University has not given in and has responded by erecting a new sign each time (Universität Klagenfurt, 2005). An additional sign, showing the university’s name in sign language, was also erected some time ago. In 2005, the non-party committeeVidna domovina / Sichtbare Heimat (Visible Homeland) was established. Private individuals can order small- size bilingual place name signs from the committee to erect on their private property, but these place name signs too have also been vandalised and damaged on occasions (Enotna lista, 2009).
178 Evaluation by means of appreciation. Geographical names as intangible heritage
Fig. 5: Bilingual place name sign Universität Klagenfurt/Univerza v Celovcu. Photo: Martina Piko-Rustia, 2018.
Fig. 6: Vidna dvojezičnost / Sichtbare Zweiprachigkeit (Visible bilingualism). Photo: Peter Rustia, 2005.
179 Martina Piko-Rustia Another committee promoting visible bilingualism was established in January 2006. The platformpro Kärnten/za Koroško (pro Carinthia) succeeded in collecting 40,000 symbolic “adoptions” of place name signs within a period of several months (Der Standard, 2006). On the initiative of Georg Holzer (internet blog k2020.at), symbolic place name signs were set up on beaches and in other leisure facilities in July 2010, using the slogan “Dieser Sonntag für Kärnten – This Sunday for Carinthia” as a symbol of the people’s desire for a forward-looking solution. Print templates were available Holzer’s website (Holzer, 2010). Apart from these initiatives, various art projects were organised to raise awareness of the unsolved question of bilingual place name signs – for example, the project “All about Bananas” by Klaus Pobitzer on 12th January 2007 in Bleiburg/Pliberk. Place name signs in a special “banana font” were set up in Bleiburg/Pliberk within the framework of this project. The art project was carried out as a reaction to the campaign “Kärnten wird einsprachig” (“Carinthia is becoming monolingual”), which was run in Carinthian newspapers by governor Haider in September 2006
Fig. 7: Project “All about Bananas” by Klaus Pobitzer on 12th January 2007 in Bleiburg/Pliberk. (Video: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=zARkn41xybI) (Photo: Milan Piko, 2007)
180 Evaluation by means of appreciation. Geographical names as intangible heritage (ORF Kärnten, 2006). Under the slogan “Kärnten wird dreisprachig” (“Carinthia is becoming trilingual”), Pobitzer invented his own “banana font”, a form of writing that was supposed to become a new means of communication in “this banana republic, where laws apparently don’t need to be obeyed” (ORF News, 2007).
4 The solution to the question of bilingual place name signs in 2011 and subsequent developments
The question of bilingual place name signs in Carinthia was eventually solved when a political compromise was reached in 2011. According to this agreement, bilingual place name signs should be erected in places where at least 17.5% of the population was Slovene-speaking. In line with this “solution”, a total of 164 bilingual place names could be erected. The new Ethnic Groups Act was adopted at a constitutional level in July 2011 (RIS 2019b). The population census of 2001 served as the basis for the list of places that appeared in the appendix of the memorandum. In addition to place name signs, bilingual traffic signs were also put up in the municipalities.
4.1 Additional place name signs
The memorandum itself contains a provision stating that, within the framework of self-government, the municipalities are allowed to decide on the erection of additional bilingual place name signs or other topographical denominations if the local government adopts a resolution to do so. The place name sign for the village of Tschemernitzen/ Čemernica was set up in St. Jakob im Rosental/Šentjakob v Rožu in January 2016 (ORF Kärnten, 2016). All villages in the municipality of Bleiburg/Pliberk became bilingual on Austria’s National Holiday (26th October 2018), the decision having been adopted unanimously by the local government five years previously (ORF Kärnten, 2018).
181 Martina Piko-Rustia
4.2 Dialect/Standard language on place name signs
One of the most important books about Slovene place names in Carinthia is, undoubtedly, Pavel Zdovc’s “Slovenska krajevna imena na avstrijskem Koroškem – Die slowenischen Ortsnamen in Kärnten” (Zdovc, 1993), a fundamental study that helped standardise and unify the notation of Slovene place names in Carinthia. Since its first publication in 1993, Pavel Zdovc’s book has been used as a standard reference by the media, educational institutions, academics, cultural workers as well as by the wider public. When the question of bilingual place name signs was resolved in 2011, Zdovc’s updated work (Zdovc, 2010) was also used as the basis for the 164 place name signs that were set up in Carinthia.1 On the place name signs previously erected in 1977, in accordance with the 1976 Austrian Ethnic Groups Act, non-standard Slovene forms
Fig. 8: Incorrect spelling Plajberg instead of Plajberk on the bilingual place name sign in Windisch Bleiberg/Slovenji Plajberk. Photo: Peter Rustia, 2005.
1 For an annotated bilingual list of names of places, mountains and waters in Carinthia see: Pohl (2000, 2010, 2011/12).
182 Evaluation by means of appreciation. Geographical names as intangible heritage had been used in part – for example Vidra ves (dialectal) instead of Vidra vas (standard language) or Vočilo (dialectal) instead of Ločilo (standard language). The bilingual place name sign that was put up in 2005 in Windisch Bleiberg/Slovenji Plajberk contains the incorrect spelling Plajberg instead of Plajberk.
4.3 The idea of the Alps-Adriatic region on place name signs
One of the latest trends has been the formation of partnerships between municipalities throughout the Alps-Adriatic region (Slovenia, Italy) recorded on small additional signs placed on the place name signs themselves.
Fig. 9: Place name sign of Arnoldstein/Podklošter with partner municipalities Tarcento (IT), Mežica and Črna (SLO). Photo: Martina Piko-Rustia, 2018.
183 Martina Piko-Rustia
5 Names as cultural assets. Slovene field and house names as UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage
The case of Slovene field and house names in Carinthia is a good example of just how differently the question is perceived when names are recognised as cultural heritage. In 2010, Slovene field and house names in Carinthia [Kärnten] were included in the Austrian National Inventory of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. These traditional Slovene names form part of the living cultural heritage and are deeply rooted in the minds of both the Slovene- and the German-speaking Carinthian population. The names are an essential element of the linguistic and cultural identity of the Carinthian Slovenes. The preservation of local Slovene microtoponyms is a matter of major concern for many individuals, communities, associations, institutions and researchers in Carinthia. Indeed, they seek not only to document the traditional Slovene field and house names, but also to consolidate them in daily use. To this end, maps and hiking maps featuring the names of the locations in their dialect form and in standard Slovenian have been created in the past years. The documented toponyms, the maps and other useful information are also available on the web portal www.flurnamen.at, www.ledinskaimena.si (FLU-LED, 2019). Since the first Slavs settled in Carinthia in theth 6 century, Slovene denominations and names in the region have been constantly changing and adapting to historical developments. Slavic denominations are important and well-preserved cultural assets and have remained a natural part of everyday life in Carinthia. Due to social change – particularly the very strong processes of assimilation of the 20th century – these cultural assets are today kept alive in their natural setting by an increasingly smaller group of people. The most endangered place names are field names, which only the older generation of farmers are familiar with today. Due to the restructuring of agricultural production (mechanisation, merging of properties, monocultures, etc.), the size of the agricultural areas to which the names were once linked have changed. In this way, references to landscape diversity, formerly expressed in part by place names, are also being lost.
184 Evaluation by means of appreciation. Geographical names as intangible heritage This is why the preservation of Slovene names for farms and houses, fields, mountain ranges, lakes, landscapes and valleys, trails, paths, canyons, rocks, etc. is an issue of major concern for many individuals, groups, associations, institutions and academics. Considerable academic efforts have been made to document this insightful intangible cultural heritage and many articles have been published on the subject. In Carinthia, traditional field and house names were extensively documented throughout the 20th century, when they were already slowly disappearing but still in use among some people in their local setting. The academic documentations serve as an important basis for the preservation of the cultural and linguistic heritage. In the 21st century, the younger generation no longer uses traditional place names in their everyday language and so it was important to find new ways for passing them down. Most new initiatives for the preservation of field and house names were started by local associations and communities (not academic or central institutions representing the minority), which has ensured their integration among local communities. Examples of the creative transfer of traditional place names include printed maps and wall maps, internet portals featuring audio samples, signposts in the outdoors and on private properties, lectures for adults and in schools, permanent and temporary exhibitions, the dissemination of maps by tourist offices and municipalities, (cross border) EU-projects, public relations and media work (newspapers, radio, television) (Piko-Rustia 2016 and 2017). To date, a total of nine maps for eight bilingual municipalities have been published in the last ten years: Zell/Sele and Köttmannsdorf/Kotmara vas (2008), Schiefling am Wörthersee/Škofiče and St. Margareten im Rosental/Šmarjeta v Rožu (2011), Finkenstein am Faaker See/Bekštanj, St. Jakob im Rosental/Šentjakob v Rožu, Feistritz im Rosental/Bistrica v Rožu and St. Margareten im Rosental/Šmarjeta v Rožu (2015 within the framework of the project FLU-LED2) and a map of Radsberg/Radiše and its surrounding with an additional folder (2017).
2 Between 2011 and 2015, the cross-border EU project “Cultural portal of field and house names” (Kulturportal der Flur- und Hausnamen/Kulturni portal ledinskih in hišnih imen, FLU-LED) was carried out within the framework of the program Austria- Slovenia (OP SI-AT 2007–2013). Its main aim was to document field and house names in Carinthia and the Slovenian region of Gorenjska and to make them available to
185 Martina Piko-Rustia
Fig. 10: Printed map of St. Margareten im Rosental/Šmarjeta v Rožu. Photo: Vincenc Gotthardt, 2016.
All names of places, water bodies and mountains are bilingual on these (non-official) maps. Field and house names are, apart from a few exceptions, passed on from generation to generation only in Slovene, and are therefore documented in this language on the maps as well. They are also used as non-translated Slovene “quotation words” by the German-speaking population in everyday life as well (e.g. “I am going into the “Rut”). However, the official Slovene place names were not originally included on the official topographical maps of Austria. Only when members of the Parliament started a political campaign in 1988 by raising questions in parliament did the official position change. According to a directive from the Office of the Federal Chancellor, the official Slovene names were included in the Austrian index of places (published by the former Austrian Statistical Central Office, nowStatistik the interested local and international public by means of a joint database and a joint multilingual cross-border web portal including an interactive web mapping application (www.flurnamen.at, www.ledinskaimena.si) as well as on analogous maps. In Slovenia, the project area covered the municipalities of Jesenice, Kranjska Gora and Tržič in the Gorenjska region.
186 Evaluation by means of appreciation. Geographical names as intangible heritage Austria) first. Later, the official Slovene names were included in the official topographical maps issued by the Austrian Federal Office of Metrology and Surveying (Jordan 1988 and 1992). Interestingly, while the debate about place names led only to divisions between the opinions of the majority and the minority populations, public discourse on the subject of maps bearing Slovene field and house names (that is, in the media, the political arena and the population in general) has been positive from the outset. Thus, these Slovene names are regarded as important cultural assets worth preserving, their connections to the natural landscape are valued, and the reasons behind their denominations are investigated and discussed with interest. Furthermore, the relevance of these Slovene denominations for the “identity of the landscape” has gained considerable credence. By using Slovene denominations, the ethnic minority’s language (dialect and standard) and culture can be integrated into everyday life in the region and be kept alive. This debate is taking place largely at the local level (at the level of the municipalities) and is supported and facilitated by the local communities. When these names were included in the UNESCO Austrian Inventory (Austrian Commission for UNESCO 2010), an event that enjoyed wide media coverage, the preservation of traditional Slovene names and denominations became an important cultural issue. The UNESCO Convention of the Intangible Cultural Heritage enhances local communities as bearers of the cultural heritage and motivates them to preserve traditions and to pass them on. As a consequence, the most important organisations for the preservation of the cultural heritage are not (scientific) institutions or central umbrella organisations, but local associations and municipalities. In order to ensure the best possible preservation and further development of the heritage, extensive cooperation and interaction between local bearers and the institutions that provide them with their expertise and organisational support are necessary.
6 Conclusions and Outlook
In summary, it is evident that contempt for names and languages develops first into disdain and then into aggression, while appreciation leads to respect and acceptance of names, languages and minorities. Feelings of
187 Martina Piko-Rustia disdain emerge from the conviction that people or, in this case, names are themselves somehow “unworthy”; appreciation, on the other hand, corresponds to a positive recognition or estimation of another person, or, in this case, a name. The appreciation of names (and languages) is of critical importance because it expresses an actual attitude or feeling. This overview has shown that as a result of a highly negative public discourse, Slovene place names have, in the recent past, been perceived and experienced as alien, non-autochthonous names. On the other hand, Slovene field and house names, associated with a respectful discourse backed by UNESCO, are regarded as forming part of the common local cultural heritage of both the Slovene- and German-speaking populations. In this way, UNESCO has made a major contribution not only to the preservation, but also to the respectful discourse, of bilingual place names.
Literature Austrian Commission for UNESCO 2010. Slowenische Flur- und Hofnamen in Kärnten. Mündliche Traditionen in Kärnten, aufgenommen 2010. 188 Evaluation by means of appreciation. Geographical names as intangible heritage tafel_kappel_an_der_draukapla_ob_dravi_beschmiert> [15. 4. 2018] Feldner, J. & Sturm, M. 2007. Kärnten neu denken: Zwei Kontrahenten im Dialog. Mit einem Vorwort vom Bundespräsidenten Heinz Fischer und und dem Friedensforscher Johan Galtung. Eds. Graf, W. & Kramer, G. Klagenfurt/Celovec: Drava, Heyn. FLU-LED 2019. Kulturportal der Flur- und Hausnamen / Kulturni portal ledinskih in hišnih imen, OP SI-AT 2007–2013; 189 Martina Piko-Rustia Klagenfurt–Laibach–Wien / Celovec–Ljubljana–Dunaj: Hermagoras/ Mohorjeva. Hauer, W. 2006. Der Ortstafelstreit. Zum Verhältnis von Rechtsstaat und Demokratie. Wien: Linde. Hellwig, V. 2013. Am Rande des Bürgerkrieges. Der Kärntner Ortstafelkonflikt 1972 und der Sturz Hans Simas. Klagenfurt–Laibach–Wien / Celovec– Ljubljana–Dunaj: Mohorjeva. Hren, K. 2004. Die SPÖ und der Kärntner Ortstafelsturm. Anderwald, K. et al (eds.). Kärntner Jahrbuch für Politik / Koroški politični zbornik, 2004: 100–110. Klagenfurt: Kärntner Druck- und Verlagsgesellschaft. Hren, K. & Pandel, M. (eds.) 2012. Ein Jahr danach. Die Ortstafelregelung 2011 und was daraus wurde = Leto kasneje. Ureditev krajevnih napisov 2011 in kaj je iz tega nastalo. Klagenfurt–Laibach–Wien: Hermagoras / Celovec–Ljubljana–Dunaj: Mohorjeva. Holzer, G. 2010. Blog k2020, 14. 07. 2010; 190 Evaluation by means of appreciation. Geographical names as intangible heritage kasneje. Ureditev krajevnih napisov 2011 in kaj je iz tega nastalo: 125–146. Klagenfurt–Laibach–Wien: Hermagoras / Celovec–Ljubljana–Dunaj: Mohorjeva. Jordan, P. 2019. Geographische Namen – ihr kultureller und gesellschaftlicher Wert. Die Bedeutung geographischer Namen als Mittler zwischen Mensch und Raum unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihrer Bedeutung für Minderheiten. Vortrag am 12. 3. 2019 in Klagenfurt/Celovec. Veranstalter/Organizatorji: Hermagoras/Mohorjeva & Slowenisches Volkskundeinstitut Urban Jarnik/Slovenski narodopisni inštitut Urban Jarnik und Mitveranstalter/in soorganizatorji. Karner, St. 2007. Die Bemühungen zur Lösung der Kärntner Ortstafelfrage. Österreichisches Jahrbuch für Politik 2006: 359–374. Wien: Böhlau. Kert-Wakounig, S. 2010a. Dvojezični napisi na Koroškem – od pogroma do konference konsenzu. Opis in ocena dogodkov od leta 1972 do 2007. Empirična raziskava. Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt, Diplomarbeit. Kert-Wakounig, S. 2010b. Zweisprachige Aufschriften in Kärnten. Vom Ortstafelsturm zur Konsenskonferenz. Razprave in gradivo – revija za narodnostna vprašanja = Treatises and documents – journal of ethnic studies, 63/2010: 76–102. Ljubljana: Inštitut za narodnostna vprašanja = Institute for Ethnic Studies. Kleine Zeitung 2017. Keine zweisprachige „Ortstafel“ für Sielach; Kleine Zeitung, 18. 12. 2017; 191 Martina Piko-Rustia von Vorurteilen und Feindbildern (= Slowenisches Wissenschaftliches Institut Dissertationen und Abhandlungen, 20). Klagenfurt/Celovec: Drava. Naš tednik 1977. To so „ortstafelštürmerji“ leta 1977. Naš tednik 1. 9. 1977, XXIX/35. Klagenfurt/Celovec. NSKS 2011. 10 Jahre Ortstafelerkenntnis. Die zweisprachigen Aufschriften in Kärnten Koroška – eine Information. Klagenfurt/Celovec: Narodni svet koroških Slovencev / Rat der Kärntner Slowenen / Council of Carinthian Slovenes. ORF Kärnten (2006): „Kärnten wird einsprachig“. [email protected], 03.09.2006; 192 Evaluation by means of appreciation. Geographical names as intangible heritage Pandel, M. et al. (eds.) 2004. Ortstafelkonflikt in Kärnten – Krise oder Chance? (= Ethnos, Bd. 64). Wien: Braumüller. Piko-Rustia, M. 2016. Slovene field and house names in Carinthia [Kärnten]. Intangible cultural heritage of the Austrian Commission for UNESCO. Bangkok, 25 – 29 April 2016, WP 11/16. Bangkok, United Nations. 193 Martina Piko-Rustia Studia Carinthiaca, Bd. XIX. Klagenfurt/Celovec: Mohorjeva/ Hermagoras. 194 Evaluation by means of appreciation. Geographical names as intangible heritage und die Nation Österreich / Koroški Slovenci in avstrijska nacija. Klagenfurt/Celovec: Hermagoras/Mohorjeva. Universität Klagenfurt 2005. Zweisprachige UNI-Tafel zum 4. Mal aufgestellt. Universität Klagenfurt, 19. 12. 2005; 195