Page 16 - Hrobat Virloget, Katja, et al., eds. (2015). Stone narratives: heritage, mobility, performance. University of Primorska Press, Koper.
P. 16
stone narratives
the landscape contributes to shaping, strengthening and introducing local, national and
wider European identities.
From the anthropological point of view, the landscape is considered a social practice,
or rather a result of historical activities which shape human experiences. Landscapes reflect
social relations (e.g., the relationship between the Karst people and non-autochthonous in-
habitants who have created their second home in the Karst), which shape the landscape im-
age in the consciousness of the society. Certain individuals or groups are influential enough
to define meanings embodied by physical, natural and human elements of the landscape
by making their cultural truths universal through traditions, texts, monuments, pictures,
and landscapes (Grahem et al., 2000, p. 31). Consequently, landscapes are considered cul-
tural constructs with symbolic meanings which people use to better personify, understand
and conceptualize landscapes. A symbolic or iconographic approach to the landscape clear-
ly shows that the policy of presentation and interpretation depends on the power of certain
involved actors, such as politicians, the media, tourists, experts, and economists. A repre-
sentative example of the changing of the Karst landscape which depended on the political
power was afforestation of the Karst in the 19th century. According to the state authorities
and experts of the time, the Karst wasteland depreciated the former landscape that once
boasted oak forests, and as such needed to be afforested with black pine trees (Marušič,
1999, p. 1).
This paper deals with the issue of stone as a significant identification element in the
representation of the Karst. It presents different meanings of stone for the Karst and focus-
es on how the attitude of the local population, experts, political authorities and economists
to stone and stone products was changing over a period of time and how this attitude was
reflected in everyday life. Today, stone is not merely a basic building material for construct-
ing residential dwellings; moreover, in the discourse of strengthening the Karst identity af-
ter the independence of Slovenia and confronting globalisation, stone has also become a
principal identification symbol. There is not a single inhabitant of the Karst who would not
answer stone, if asked what the Karst is characterised by. In the 1970s and the 1980s, howev-
er, this was not the case because people did not pay much attention to stone.
Attitude to and importance of stone in the Karst before
World War II
Before World War II, stone in the Karst was a basic building material for constructing res-
idential and commercial buildings, and dry stone fences (ograde), which separated proper-
ties of different owners and protected the soil from the burja wind. Some villagers earned
their daily income from quarrying and working with stone in stonemason’s workshops.
There was hardly a family whose member was not employed in the quarry, either in the
large quarries in Aurisina, Kopriva, Gabrovica, and Škrbina, or in the smaller ones (the
so-called jave), which were intended for use in small-scale stonemasonry. There were plen-
ty of master stonemasons, who made skilled products from stone, such as stone stairs, win-
dow frames ( jerte), stone corbels (konzole) supporting the balcony (ganjk), the upper, vis-
ible part of the well – the stone rim (šapa), stone portals of the Karst courtyards (kalune),
tables, vessels for storing dried meat products, etc. Limestone was calcined in lime kilns
( frnaže) in order to produce lime, which was used to limewash residential and commercial
14
the landscape contributes to shaping, strengthening and introducing local, national and
wider European identities.
From the anthropological point of view, the landscape is considered a social practice,
or rather a result of historical activities which shape human experiences. Landscapes reflect
social relations (e.g., the relationship between the Karst people and non-autochthonous in-
habitants who have created their second home in the Karst), which shape the landscape im-
age in the consciousness of the society. Certain individuals or groups are influential enough
to define meanings embodied by physical, natural and human elements of the landscape
by making their cultural truths universal through traditions, texts, monuments, pictures,
and landscapes (Grahem et al., 2000, p. 31). Consequently, landscapes are considered cul-
tural constructs with symbolic meanings which people use to better personify, understand
and conceptualize landscapes. A symbolic or iconographic approach to the landscape clear-
ly shows that the policy of presentation and interpretation depends on the power of certain
involved actors, such as politicians, the media, tourists, experts, and economists. A repre-
sentative example of the changing of the Karst landscape which depended on the political
power was afforestation of the Karst in the 19th century. According to the state authorities
and experts of the time, the Karst wasteland depreciated the former landscape that once
boasted oak forests, and as such needed to be afforested with black pine trees (Marušič,
1999, p. 1).
This paper deals with the issue of stone as a significant identification element in the
representation of the Karst. It presents different meanings of stone for the Karst and focus-
es on how the attitude of the local population, experts, political authorities and economists
to stone and stone products was changing over a period of time and how this attitude was
reflected in everyday life. Today, stone is not merely a basic building material for construct-
ing residential dwellings; moreover, in the discourse of strengthening the Karst identity af-
ter the independence of Slovenia and confronting globalisation, stone has also become a
principal identification symbol. There is not a single inhabitant of the Karst who would not
answer stone, if asked what the Karst is characterised by. In the 1970s and the 1980s, howev-
er, this was not the case because people did not pay much attention to stone.
Attitude to and importance of stone in the Karst before
World War II
Before World War II, stone in the Karst was a basic building material for constructing res-
idential and commercial buildings, and dry stone fences (ograde), which separated proper-
ties of different owners and protected the soil from the burja wind. Some villagers earned
their daily income from quarrying and working with stone in stonemason’s workshops.
There was hardly a family whose member was not employed in the quarry, either in the
large quarries in Aurisina, Kopriva, Gabrovica, and Škrbina, or in the smaller ones (the
so-called jave), which were intended for use in small-scale stonemasonry. There were plen-
ty of master stonemasons, who made skilled products from stone, such as stone stairs, win-
dow frames ( jerte), stone corbels (konzole) supporting the balcony (ganjk), the upper, vis-
ible part of the well – the stone rim (šapa), stone portals of the Karst courtyards (kalune),
tables, vessels for storing dried meat products, etc. Limestone was calcined in lime kilns
( frnaže) in order to produce lime, which was used to limewash residential and commercial
14
