The Place-Name Conflict in Carinthia (Austria): Symbolic Surface of Historical Burdens
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The place-name conflict in Carinthia (Austria): 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 Bavarians. 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 German language – very similar to the situation of Slovenes under Venetian rule in what is today Italy, 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 Salzburg 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 World War I 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], Friuli-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 Alps (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 Carantania (Source: Lukan & Moritsch 1988) 4 SESSION III This resulted also in their Christianization in the Latin 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. Germans – 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.