sign in sign up
<<
Home , Carinthia, Carinthia (Slovenia), Gail (river), Sherman Miles

The place-name conflict in (): Symbolic surface of historical burdens

Peter JORDAN*

On the background of critical toponomastics, the paper highlights at first reasons, why the representation of place names in public space has a special meaning for linguistic minorities in principal and from a cultural-geographical point of view, before it enters into describing and explaining the minority situation in the Austrian federal province of Carinthia [Kärnten] and the reasons for toponymic conflict there. The Carinthian minority situation is up to the present day – albeit with declining intensity – marked by the fact that a Slavonic population present since the 6-7th centuries has later been socially overlayed by . The newcomers, supported by political powers, formed the upper strata of the society including traders and craftsmen while the Slavonic population remained the rural ground layer. Up to the end of the Middle Ages an ethnically/linguistically mixed situation persisted. Assimilation towards local majorities resulted in an ethnic/linguistic patchwork. This shapes Carinthian culture in many respects also today. This is also reflected by the namescape, which is a mixture of Slavonic and German names all over the province. In general, however, linguistic assimilation towards German-speakers, the upper strata of the society, proceeded. Social ascend was only possible by using the – very similar to the situation of under Venetian rule in what is today , where Venetian, later Italian were the languages of the dominating group. By the end of the Middle Ages a distinct language boundary within Carinthia had developed – very much coinciding with ecclesiastical boundaries between and Aquileia. This boundary still exists, but also at the Slovenian side of the boundary the Slovenian population has decreased substantially. According to the 2001 census (by colloquial language, not by ethnicity or mother tongue) 12,554 have declared to speak Slovene, i.e. 4.7% of Carinthia’s population. The strong decline is not only due to social stratification as mentioned before, but also to societal change in general (conversion of rural societies by industrialisation and tertiarisation) and the peripheric situation of the Slovenes in Austria in socio-economic terms. In addition, political events and forces had their strong impact: the rise of nationalism during the 19th century and national homo

*Professor, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria.

Peter JORDAN 1 -genization after almost all over Europe and also in Austria; the fact that Austria had to cede some parts of Carinthia populated predominantly by Slovenes to the first Yugoslavian state (with the effect that the rest of the area populated by Slovenes was regarded as “ours” and subjected to Germanization); repeated attempts of the Yugoslavian states (after World War I and II) to occupy at least larger parts of Carinthia; the National-Socialist regime between 1938 and 1945. Efforts to establish and improve minority rights after World War II met already a very small and further declining Slovenian group. As regards minority toponymy, the Austrian State Treaty as of 1955 included in its Article 7 a principal statement, which needed to be specified by additional federal legislation. After a first unsuccessful attempt in 1972, federal laws passed in 1976 and 1977 ruled that 91 settlements [Ortschaften] in Carinthia had to have officially bilingual names. The threshhold relevant for this number was 25% of Slovene-speaking population in communes [Gemeinden] as of 1955 and according to the population census of 1951. The Austrian Supreme Court passed in 2001 a decision stating that a percentage of 25% was too high and recommended to reduce it to 10% according to an average of results of more recent population censuses. Long-lasting negotiations and several unsuccessful attempts to find a solution followed. Only in 2011 a compromise could by achieved and implemented accordingly.

INTRODUCTION

Before entering into this case study, I will refer to the principal question: Why is public representation of their place names important for linguistic minorities? When linguistic minorities, non-dominant or identity groups want to have their place names represented in public space (on signposts in front of populated places, on street signs), they wish to document their presence, their share in the identity of the place. Without conflict this is only possible if this claim is accepted by the majority, if the majority feels comfortable with a shared or common identity of the place (see Jordan 2012b, 2014). A conflict – as it occurred and occurs in many cases (Eller et al. 2008; Horn 2004; see Figures 1-3) – indicates that such acceptance is not (sufficiently) given or the dominant group is not ready to share. It is also important to note that the dispute over place names is usually only the symbolic expression of deeper conflict. Names would not be regarded as so important and offensive, if not something else was in the background. For the non- dominant group, it is usually more important than for the dominant to see its presence recognized by names, because it is in a defensive position, has to defend its rights against the stronger one; requires a higher level of self-assurance. While a majority has all the means to preserve its identity, a minority needs to be very attentive in this respect. A characteristic of place names in general, but especially important for minorities, is also that place names support emotional ties of a group to its place (Helleland 2009; Jordan 2012a).

2 SESSION III

Figure 1, 2. Damaged bilingual Italian/Resian signposts in the Resia Valley [Val di Resia], -Venezia Giulia, Italy (Photos: Peter Jordan 2008)

Figure 3. Damaged bilingual Italian/Slovenian signpost in the Valcanale, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Italy (Photo: Peter Jordan 2017)

Figure 4. Austria – current administrative subdivision (Source: Hölzel-Universalatlas 2004)

Peter JORDAN 3 If members of non-dominant groups find place names in their own language (on signposts and street signs and in the linguistic landscape in general), a sense of familiarity, a feeling of attachment to the place arises. Since only groups established in a place for generations have developed their own place names, they regard their public representation also as recognizing their presence for generations, the fact that their group has contributed to the shaping of culture and scape of this place. It is for these last two reasons also a wise decision on the side of the dominant group to grant the non-dominant group this right. It will satisfy the non-dominant group, it will promote its sense for co-operation, its loyalty (Jordan 2012b, 2014). Let me now present you the case study of Carinthia, Austria’s southernmost federal province and a very historical entity – older than Austria herself (see Figure 4). What I would like to elaborate by this case study is that historical burdens aggravate the relations between minority and majority and that this expresses itself also in conflict on place names, more specifically on the representation of minority place names in public space. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The great migration of Slavonic people in the 6-7th centuries brought a Slavonic population (later called “Slovenes”) also to the eastern (Lukan & Moritsch 1988). They established their own principality (see Figure 5), but had in the middle of the 8th century to acknowledge Bavarian/Frankonian domination and were by the end of the 8th century fully integrated into the political system of the Frankonian Empire.

Figure 5. Alpine-Slavonic settlement in the 6th and 7th centuries, principality of (Source: Lukan & Moritsch 1988)

4 SESSION III This resulted also in their in the sense and in Bavarian (German- speaking) colonization. The Bavarian newcomers became politically and socially dominant, while the Slavonic population remained the rural ground layer. Thus, an ethnically determined social stratification existed from the moment, when the Bavarians had settled down. It shouldn’t be too important until the middle of the 19th century, when the two communities underwent their “national awakening”. Up to the end of the Middle Ages, however, an ethnically/linguistically mixed situation persisted shaping Carinthian culture in many respects up to the present day. This is also true for the namescape, which is a mixture of Slavonic and German elements all over the province (Kranzmayer 1956, 1958; Pohl 2008, 2009a, b, 2010; see Figure. 6). But linguistic assimilation towards German-speakers, the dominant group, proceeded. Social ascend was only possible by using the German language. By the end of the Middle Ages a distinct language boundary within Carinthia had developed (Lukan & Moritsch 1988; see Figure 7).

Figure 6. Toponyms of Slavonic origin in Carinthia (Source: Kranzmayer 1956)

Figure 7. Ethno-linguistic structure of Carinthia in the middle of the 19th century. – red, Slovenes – blue (Source: Czoernig 1855)

Peter JORDAN 5 Later, also on the Slovenian side of the boundary Slovenian consciousness eroded substantially. According to the 2001 census (by colloquial language, the last one in Austria) ca. 12,000 have declared to speak Slovene, i.e. 4.7% of Carinthia’s population (Statistik Austria; Wonka; see Figure 8). This strong decline is not only due to social stratification resulting in assimilation towards the dominant group (as mentioned before), but also to societal change in general (conversion from rural to industrial and service-oriented societies) and the peripheric situation of the lands, where the Slovenes in Austria live, in socio-economic terms with some out-migration. In addition, political events had their strong impact on the relations between majority and minority – and I want to present them in detail, since historical burdens resulting from them are the focus of this paper. The fact that Austria lost after World War I (without a referendum) some parts of Carinthia settled predominantly by Slovenes to the first Yugoslavian state as well as to Italy (see Figure. 9) resulted in the attitude to regard the remaining parts as “ours” where it was justified to promote Germanization.

Figure 8. Austrian census 2001: Slovene speakers in Carinthia (Source: Wonka)

Figure 9. Formation of Austria 1918-1921 (Source: Hölzel-Universalatlas 2004)

6 SESSION III Attempts of the first (after World War I) to occupy larger parts of Carinthia followed. Only a referendum in 1920, granted by the Saint Germain Peace Treaty (1919) after local armed resistance against the Yugoslavian occupation and the findings of a US mission (led by , thus called “Miles Mission”) that a vast majority was in favour of remaining with Austria and indeed resulting in a clear vote for Austria prevented that these parts of Carinthia became Yugoslavian. National homogenization was common practice in most European countries, when national ideas culminated in the interwar period. This was also true for Carinthia and Austria that conceived itself (at least after its inception) as a second German state. The National-Socialist regime 1938-1945 promoting Germanization of southern Carinthia not only by ethnic and linguistic imperialism, but also by expulsion, resettlement and physical liquidation of nationally conscious Slovenes, i.e. ethnic cleansing, resulted also in Slovenes affiliating themselves to the Communist Tito partisans, who in turn committed atrocities against German-minded persons. After the defeat of the German Reich, Tito partisans penetrated to Carinthia and Communist Tito Yugoslavia claimed up to 1955 (Austrian State Treaty) entire Carinthia as a Southern-Slavonic region. It was only due to British forces (as a part of allied forces, who occupied all of Austria until 1955 – the British were the occupation forces in Carinthia) that Tito partisans could not proceed further and were finally pushed back. These repeated partisan activities in Carinthia and the involvement of some Carinthian Slovenes in them was/is on the German-speaking side frequently used for stigmatizing Carinthian Slovenes as illoyal and traitors. Thus, there are many historical burdens that rest on the relationship between minority and majority in Carinthia – in addition to the historically-rooted social stratification. They are all the more relevant as they result from events in the recent past and are remembered by divergent historiographies. How do they express themselves in current social and political relations? CURRENT SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RELATIONS BETWEEN MAJORITY AND MINORITY At least up to the most recent past, German-speakers felt a kind of superiority over Slovenes, and Slovenes felt not to be adequately recognized as the old autochthonous population that had essentially shaped the culture of the region (Hren & Pandel 2012). Up to the present day, many Slovenes have the impression that their language is less valuable and important than German and that to speak German conveyed a higher prestige. It was also not easy to grant adequate minority rights. After World War II, efforts into this direction were primarily driven by the “international community”, more specifically by the allied forces granting in 1955 the Austrian State Treaty with its Article 7 on minority rights, and the Austrian federal government in , i.e. external powers, while they met at times the fierce opposition of the majority population in Carinthia (rather their political representatives) (Veiter 1980; Land Kärnten 1990; Hren & Pandel 2012).

Peter JORDAN 7 THE TOPONYMIC LEVEL In the field of toponymy, the late 19th century and the period up to World War I was a heyday of official bilingualism – at least on official topographical maps and in gazetteers. Thus, the maps of the 3rd Austrian Military Survey (it terminologically equals the 1st Austro-Hungarian Survey) practiced intensive bilingual naming – even beyond the contemporary bilingual area (Ormeling 1983; Jordan 1988, 1992; see Figure. 10). This attitude, based on the Constitutional Law of the Austrian part of the dual monarchy passed in 1867 granting language rights to most of the regional communities in Austrian crownlands, can be understood as a defensive measure against the rising ethnic and national awareness in this multi-ethnic empire. Never before and never afterwards as many Slovenian place names had official status in Carinthia. Already the first survey of the interwar period saw a full backlash: only one Slovenian place name remained – very likely by error (see Figure 11).

Figure 10. Special Map 1: 75,000, Sheet 53 51 (Source: Ö sterreichisches Staatsarchiv)

Figure 11. General Map of Central Europe 1: 200,000, Sheet 32 47 (Source: Ö sterreichisches Staatsarchiv)

8 SESSION III In the post-WWII period it lasted up to 1972 that an attempt to implement the minority-related intentions of the Austrian State Treaty (as of 1955) was undertaken: 205 bilingual signposts for populated places with at least 20% Slovene-speaking population in 1951 were installed, based on a law passed by the Austrian federal parliament (see Veiter 1980). But after some days of a “place-names war” fought by Carinthian “homeland defenders”1 the law was withdrawn, and the bilingual signposts disappeared (Veiter 1980; Land Kärnten 1990; Hren & Pandel 2012). A second, much less ambitious attempt in 1976/77 to implement 91 bilingual signposts for populated places with at least 25% Slovene-speaking population in 1951 was slightly more successful, but failed to be executed completely neither “on the ground” (i.e. in public space) nor on maps or in gazetteers (Veiter 1980; Land Kärnten 1990; Hren & Pandel 2012; Jordan 1988). Only in 2011 a compromise satisfying all parties could be achieved, calming down the politically delicate situation, for which Carinthia had already acquired a negative reputation inside Austria and beyond. It ruled that 164 villages and in southern parts of Carinthia have official bilingual names, based on a share of 17.5% Slovene- speaking population according to the population census 2001 (see Figure 12). Minor deviations from this percentage were admitted, when they were locally acceptable (Hren & Pandel 2012).

Figure 12. Bilingual German/Slovenian Figure 13. Bilingual German/Slovenian signpost in the Valley [Gailtal] tourist signage in the Karawanken implemented according to the compromise mountains (Photo: Martina Piko-Rustia of 2011 (Photo: Maciej Zych 2014) 2017)

1 The term “war” is very likely an exaggeration, since violence occurred not against or among people, but was just directed towards bilingual signposts that were partly damaged or demolished.

Peter JORDAN 9 It seems that political conflict on bilingual place names in Carinthia has thus been terminated, and there are hopeful indications of a better mutual understanding, e.g. promotion of Slovene house and field name collection also by many majority- dominated in southern Carinthia; promotion of non- mandatory, voluntary bilingual tourist (see Figure 13) and bus-stop signage (see Figure 14); promotion of bilin- Figure 14. Bilingual German/Slovenian bus- gual tourist maps (see Piko-Rustia stop sign in the Karawanken mountains 2017). (Photo: Martina Piko-Rustia 2017) However, in our Czech-Austrian research project with the focus on the question, which meaning minority members associate with finding their place names in public space,2 co-conducted by the author and Přemysl Mácha and in the Carinthian study area essentially carried out by Alexis Sancho Reinoso and Marika Balode, it is still difficult to make ordinary people frankly speaking about this issue. They are afraid of affiliating themselves to one of the groups, to be ethnically categorized. Obviously, the his-torical burdens have not yet completely vanished.

REFERENCES

Czoernig, K. Freiherr von. (1855). Ethnographische Karte der Oesterreichischen Monarchie [1: 864,000]. Wien: Direction der administrativen Statistik. Eller, N., Hackl, St. and M. Ľupták. (eds.) (2008). Namen und ihr Konfliktpotential im europäischen Kontext. : Edition vulpes. Helleland, B. (2009). Place names as means of landscape identity. In Jordan, P., Bergmann, H., Cheetham, C., and Hausner, I. (eds.), Geographical Names as a Part of the Cultural Heritage (pp. 25-31). Wien: Institut für Geographie und Regionalforschung der Universität Wien, Kartographie und Geoinformation. Hren, K. and Pandel, M. (eds.) (2012). Ein Jahr danach. Die Ortstafelregelung 2011 und was daraus wurde. Klagenfurt/Celovec, /Laibach, Wien/Dunaj: Hermagoras/Mohorjeva. Horn, J. (2004). Ortsnamenkonflikte. Lösungswege für mehrsprachige Gebiete. St. Augustin: Asgard. Jordan, P. (1988). Möglichkeiten einer stärkeren Berücksichtigung slowenischer Ortsnamen in den heutigen amtlichen topgraphischen Karten Ö sterreichs. Wien: Ö sterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Kartographie Jordan, P. (1992). Slowenische Ortsnamen in den amtlichen topographischen Karten Ö sterreichs. Heutiger Zustand und Vorschläge zu seiner Verbesserung. In Pohl, H.-D.

2 Research project "The politics and poetics of toponymy, identity and place in multilingual areas. A comparative study of Carinthia, Austria, and the Těšín Region, Czech Republic" supported by the Czech Science Foundation (grant no.16-34841L) and the Austrian Science Fund (grant no. I 2366- G23).

10 SESSION III (ed.), Kärnten – Deutsche und slowenische Namen (pp. 89-105). Klagenfurt: UBW Klagenfurt, Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Jordan, P. (2004). Ortsnamen als Kulturgut – Die symbolische Wirkung von Ortsnamen auf Ortstafeln und in Karten. In Pandel, M. (ed.), Ortstafelkonflikt in Kärnten – Krise oder Chance? (pp. 216-229). Wien: Braumüller. Jordan, P. (2006). Zur amtlichen Verwendung von Minderheitennamen. Ein Vergleich von Situationen in Mitteleuropa. In Kriz, K., Cartwright, W., Pucher, A., and Kinberger, M. (eds.), Cartography as a Communication Medium (pp. 98-106). Wien: Institut für Geographie und Regionalforschung der Universität Wien, Kartographie und Geoinformation. Jordan, P.(2009). Place names as ingredients of space-related identity. In Jordan, P., Bergmann, H., Cheetham, C., and Hausner, I. (eds.), Geographical Names as a Part of the Cultural Heritage (pp. 33-39). Wien: Institut für Geographie und Regionalforschung der Universität Wien, Kartographie und Geoinformation. Jordan, P. (2012a). Geographische Namen als Ausdruck menschlicher Raumbindung. Mitteilungen der Ö sterreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft, 154, pp. 67-88. Jordan, P. (2012b). Zur Bedeutung zweisprachiger geographischer Namen für die kulturelle Identität. In Hren, K., Pandel, M. (eds.), Ein Jahr danach. Die Ortstafelregelung 2011 und was daraus wurde (pp. 125-146). Klagenfurt/Celovec, Ljubljana/Laibach, Wien/Dunaj: Hermagoras/Mohorjeva. Jordan, P. (2014). The meaning of bilingual naming in public space for the cultural identity of linguistic minorities. Review of Historical Geography and Toponomastics IX (17-18), pp. 21-24. Kranzmayer, E. (1956). Ortsnamenbuch von Kärnten. I. Teil: Die Siedlungsgeschichte Kärntens von der Urzeit bis zur Gegenwart im Spiegel der Namen. Klagenfurt: Verlag des Geschichtsvereines für Kärnten. Kranzmayer, E. (1958). Ortsnamenbuch von Kärnten. II. Teil: Alphabetisches Kärntner Siedlungsnamenbuch. Klagenfurt: Verlag des Geschichtsvereines für Kärnten. Land Kärnten. (ed.) (1990). Die Minderheiten im Alpen-Adria-Raum. Klagenfurt: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Alpen-Adria. Logar, T., and Rigler, J. (2001). Slovene . In Fridl, J. et al. (eds.), National Atlas of (p. 119). Ljubljana: Rokus. Lukan, W., and Moritsch, A. (eds.) (1988). Geschichte der Kärntner Slowenen. Klagenfurt/Celovec, Wien/Dunaj: Hermagoras/Mohorjeva. Mitchell, D. (2000). Cultural Geography. A Critical Introduction. Malden, Oxford, Carlton: Blackwell Publishing. Ö sterreichisches Staatsarchiv. (ed.) (1982-2013). “The Historical Map Portal”, Accessed 2017- 5-12: http://mapire.eu/de Ormeling, F. (1983). Minority Toponyms on Maps. The Rendering of Linguistic Minority Toponyms on Topographic Maps of Western Europe. Utrecht: University of Utrecht. Pan, Ch., and Pfeil, B.S. (2000). Die Volksgruppen in Europa. Ein Handbuch. Wien: Braumüller. Piko-Rustia, M. (2017). Slovene field and house names in Carinthia: measures for the preservation and creative transfer of the intangible cultural heritage (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 11th United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names, E/CONF.105/56. Accessed 2017-02-12: https://unstats.un.org/UNSD/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/11th-uncsgn- docs/E_CONF.105_56-1709342E.pdf Pohl, H.-D. (2008). Sekundäre Umformungen von (Kärntner) Ortsnamen im deutsch- slowenischen Sprachkontaktgebiet. In Ernst, P. (ed.), Namenarten in Ö sterreich und

Peter JORDAN 11 Bayern. Vorträge der 4. Tagung des Arbeitskreises für bayerisch-österreichische Namenforschung am 28. und 29. September 2006 in Wien (pp. 95-105). Wien: Praesens. Pohl H.-D. (2009a). Ortsnamen in einer historisch gewachsenen Kulturlandschaft unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Kärntens und Osttirols. Europäisches Journal für Minderheitenfragen, 2(2), pp. 72-88. Pohl H.-D. (2009b). Sprachkontakt in Kärnten. In Elmentaler, M. (ed.), Deutsch und seine Nachbarn (pp. 117-132). Frankfurt a. M. et al.: Peter Lang. Pohl H.-D. (2010). Unsere slowenischen Ortsnamen – Naša slovenska krajevna imena. Klagenfurt: Hermagoras/Mohorjeva. Reiterer, A.F. (2003). Sprache ist auch Heimat. Raum, 51, pp. 24-26. Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Tuan, Y-F. (1990 [1974]). Topophilia. A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. New York: Columbia University Press. Tuan, Y.-F. (1991). Language and the Making of Place: A Narrative-Descriptive Approach. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, LXXXI, pp. 684-696. Veiter, Th. (1980). Die Kärntner Ortstafelkommission. Klagenfurt: Hermagoras/Mohorjeva. Weichhart, P., Weiske, Ch., and Werlen, B. (2006). Place Identity und Images: Das Beispiel Eisenhüttenstadt. Wien: Universität Wien, Institut für Geographie und Regionalforschung. Wonka, E. (2002). Die räumliche Verteilung der Ö sterreicher mit slowenischer Umgangssprache in Kärnten auf der Grundlage einer detaillierteren Statistik als der auf Gemeindebasis. Mitteilungen der Ö sterreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft, 144, pp. 101-124.

WEBSITES VISITED http://www.statistik.at (Accessed May 12, 2017).

12 SESSION III