Page 19 - Hrobat Virloget, Katja, et al., eds. (2015). Stone narratives: heritage, mobility, performance. University of Primorska Press, Koper.
P. 19
interpretations of stone in the karst yesterday, today and tomorrow
Due to wider socio-political changes, brought about by self-governing socialism, and
the introduction of new architectural modernist styles, stone became a symbol of poverty
for the Karst people, reminding them of the past, in particular of the period of fascist dic-
tatorship, when due to high taxes they could not afford to renovate the existing buildings,
let alone build new residential or commercial buildings. The first decade after World War
II brought more poverty and other reasons for difficult times. Besides the necessary renova-
tion of buildings that had been demolished during the War, a new state border was estab-
lished which separated the Slovenian Karst from Trieste, where the farmers from the Karst
went to sell their agricultural surpluses to get additional earnings. The industry in the area
was not sufficiently developed to enable a decent life. When the borders opened in 1955,
some people tried to save their economic position by selling architectural stone objects to
Italians, particularly to the inhabitants of Trieste, whose attitude to stone products was dif-
ferent from that of the locals. An elderly man from Volčji Grad, a small village in the Karst
of Komen, which used to be known for its stonemasonry, described the attitude to stone:
Nothing was appreciated. That was old, the modern has come. I remember so many times – and
I feel bad – all those stone-framed windows, we threw them all out, broke them up and used the
stone to build walls. Just so that the house would be finished as soon as possible.2
An elderly man from the village of Kobdilj justified the negative attitude to stone on
the basis of the introduction of new, mostly cheaper building materials, in particular con-
crete and steel – symbols of modernisation. A question arises as to why the residents of Tri-
este and its surroundings, mostly middle-class people, valued stone and stone products in-
somuch that they bought them, while the inhabitants of the Karst did not cherish any
valuable family memory, sold stone products and were often even tricked in doing so, be-
cause they sold the products below the price. The answer lies in the (lack of) education and
sophistication of the locals, who did not consider elements from the past as a historic mem-
ory which would be important for the future identification of the community. Due to the
fascist dictatorship in the Primorska region, educated people fled to the interior of Slove-
nia or abroad, and did not return after the annexation of the region. The peasant class and
the middle class, which similarly evolved from the lower, peasant stratum, were not aware
of the importance of the material past; without thinking, they would often act in accord-
ance with the values and actions of the political discourse in order to industrialize and ur-
banize the countryside as soon as possible and strengthen the broader Yugoslavian identity.
The reasons why stone and stone products lost their value can also be found in the so-
cially weak and small-numbered professional staff, whose task was, apart from preserving
and evaluating elements of the past also educating and raising awareness among people. The
tasks of museum documentation and research of the history and lifestyle in the Karst were
performed by the Gorica Museum, founded in 1952, which covered the Gorica region, the
northern Primorska, the Upper Vipava Valley and part of the Karst. Due to a small num-
ber of experts,3 who had to cover an extensive area of four municipalities,4 their research
work among the Karst people was not persuasive enough to stimulate interest and a posi-
tive attitude in the people to the remnants of the past. In the times of Yugoslavia, the eth-
2 From an interview with a retired farmer born in 1929 (August 2005).
3 An ethnology graduate was only employed in 1972, because the museum failed to find one before.
4 The municipalities of Nova Gorica, Tolmin, Ajdovščina, and Sežana.
17
Due to wider socio-political changes, brought about by self-governing socialism, and
the introduction of new architectural modernist styles, stone became a symbol of poverty
for the Karst people, reminding them of the past, in particular of the period of fascist dic-
tatorship, when due to high taxes they could not afford to renovate the existing buildings,
let alone build new residential or commercial buildings. The first decade after World War
II brought more poverty and other reasons for difficult times. Besides the necessary renova-
tion of buildings that had been demolished during the War, a new state border was estab-
lished which separated the Slovenian Karst from Trieste, where the farmers from the Karst
went to sell their agricultural surpluses to get additional earnings. The industry in the area
was not sufficiently developed to enable a decent life. When the borders opened in 1955,
some people tried to save their economic position by selling architectural stone objects to
Italians, particularly to the inhabitants of Trieste, whose attitude to stone products was dif-
ferent from that of the locals. An elderly man from Volčji Grad, a small village in the Karst
of Komen, which used to be known for its stonemasonry, described the attitude to stone:
Nothing was appreciated. That was old, the modern has come. I remember so many times – and
I feel bad – all those stone-framed windows, we threw them all out, broke them up and used the
stone to build walls. Just so that the house would be finished as soon as possible.2
An elderly man from the village of Kobdilj justified the negative attitude to stone on
the basis of the introduction of new, mostly cheaper building materials, in particular con-
crete and steel – symbols of modernisation. A question arises as to why the residents of Tri-
este and its surroundings, mostly middle-class people, valued stone and stone products in-
somuch that they bought them, while the inhabitants of the Karst did not cherish any
valuable family memory, sold stone products and were often even tricked in doing so, be-
cause they sold the products below the price. The answer lies in the (lack of) education and
sophistication of the locals, who did not consider elements from the past as a historic mem-
ory which would be important for the future identification of the community. Due to the
fascist dictatorship in the Primorska region, educated people fled to the interior of Slove-
nia or abroad, and did not return after the annexation of the region. The peasant class and
the middle class, which similarly evolved from the lower, peasant stratum, were not aware
of the importance of the material past; without thinking, they would often act in accord-
ance with the values and actions of the political discourse in order to industrialize and ur-
banize the countryside as soon as possible and strengthen the broader Yugoslavian identity.
The reasons why stone and stone products lost their value can also be found in the so-
cially weak and small-numbered professional staff, whose task was, apart from preserving
and evaluating elements of the past also educating and raising awareness among people. The
tasks of museum documentation and research of the history and lifestyle in the Karst were
performed by the Gorica Museum, founded in 1952, which covered the Gorica region, the
northern Primorska, the Upper Vipava Valley and part of the Karst. Due to a small num-
ber of experts,3 who had to cover an extensive area of four municipalities,4 their research
work among the Karst people was not persuasive enough to stimulate interest and a posi-
tive attitude in the people to the remnants of the past. In the times of Yugoslavia, the eth-
2 From an interview with a retired farmer born in 1929 (August 2005).
3 An ethnology graduate was only employed in 1972, because the museum failed to find one before.
4 The municipalities of Nova Gorica, Tolmin, Ajdovščina, and Sežana.
17
