Evaluation by Means of Appreciation. Geographical Names As (Intangible
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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