Page 41 - Hrobat Virloget, Katja, et al., eds. (2015). Stone narratives: heritage, mobility, performance. University of Primorska Press, Koper.
P. 41
fireplaces in the vipava valley
til the second half of the 19thcentury. It started to disappear after 1880. It was maintained in
some places also in the first decades of the 20th century, but it definitely died out when fire-
places were no longer in use (Kuret, 1998, p. 279–280).5
Multigenerational extended families were common in the countryside of the Vipa-
va Valley in the first half of the 20th century; fireplaces were therefore often a scene of in-
tergenerational agreements and disagreements. Children were raised and socialized at the
fireplace and two generations of housewives would meet there regularly. Arguments be-
tween the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law were even sharper because, due to a viri-
local residence pattern, the two would interact more frequently. The tension between the
old and the young was pointed out already in the early 20th century by Filip Terčelj, who
wrote: »The ‘’young’’ one came to the house and wanted a ‘’stylish’’ stove. An argument
sprang up between the young and the old, who had over time somehow grown used to the
fireplace and would not be separated from it without difficulty« (Terčelj, 1927a, p. 49). It
was necessary to constantly adapt, withdraw, consider and accept one another. The daugh-
ter-in-law was supposed to take over the running of the household and daily meal prepara-
tion immediately after she was married into the family. However, she most often took over
only when the mother-in-law could not perform her duties any longer and until then, she
would take care of other kitchen chores and farm work. In the first half of the 20th centu-
ry, due to an established division of labour in agrarian households, women performed most
of the household chores, such as food preparation on the fireplace; however, if women from
nuclear family households were engaged in profitable activities, men would take over the
household chores.
The fireplace was a meeting place, where the household would interact with a wider
community and the domestic would meet the foreign. It was a place of informal contact
with relatives and neighbours. In long winter evenings, it was not only household members
that would gather around the hearth, but also other villagers, so that they saved firewood.
They would warm up at the fireplace, tell each other stories, crack walnuts and hazelnuts,
roast chestnuts and perform certain other household chores or farm work. This is how Fil-
ip Terčelj described the fireplace of the first half of the 20th century: »Here, bargains are
struck, and secretly, like embers under ashes, first love is kindled « (Terčelj 1927a: 49). In
order to represent the household well, people would pay special attention to the stonework
decoration of fireplaces and a decorative role of the upturned pots and copper lids, which
were shelved in order of size on the hood and on the wall, and embroidered wall napkins
with ornamental motifs and encouraging inscriptions. The kitchen did not only reflect,
shape and adjust intergenerational, gender and other kinds of relationships among house-
hold members, but also relations between the household and the community and, due to
the representational role of the kitchen, also wider social relations.
Conclusion
The fireplace was a place of household chores as well as social interaction; it was a diverse re-
presentation of personal and common cultural meanings. Due to its multi-purpose charac-
ter – a cooking, meeting and working place for women, men, children and the elderly, and
a place that was passed through and filled with diverse objects, people and activities – the
5 However, according to Niko Kuret, some people would still put a thick log in the stove on Christmas Eve in the
second half of the 20thcentury (1998, p. 283).
39
til the second half of the 19thcentury. It started to disappear after 1880. It was maintained in
some places also in the first decades of the 20th century, but it definitely died out when fire-
places were no longer in use (Kuret, 1998, p. 279–280).5
Multigenerational extended families were common in the countryside of the Vipa-
va Valley in the first half of the 20th century; fireplaces were therefore often a scene of in-
tergenerational agreements and disagreements. Children were raised and socialized at the
fireplace and two generations of housewives would meet there regularly. Arguments be-
tween the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law were even sharper because, due to a viri-
local residence pattern, the two would interact more frequently. The tension between the
old and the young was pointed out already in the early 20th century by Filip Terčelj, who
wrote: »The ‘’young’’ one came to the house and wanted a ‘’stylish’’ stove. An argument
sprang up between the young and the old, who had over time somehow grown used to the
fireplace and would not be separated from it without difficulty« (Terčelj, 1927a, p. 49). It
was necessary to constantly adapt, withdraw, consider and accept one another. The daugh-
ter-in-law was supposed to take over the running of the household and daily meal prepara-
tion immediately after she was married into the family. However, she most often took over
only when the mother-in-law could not perform her duties any longer and until then, she
would take care of other kitchen chores and farm work. In the first half of the 20th centu-
ry, due to an established division of labour in agrarian households, women performed most
of the household chores, such as food preparation on the fireplace; however, if women from
nuclear family households were engaged in profitable activities, men would take over the
household chores.
The fireplace was a meeting place, where the household would interact with a wider
community and the domestic would meet the foreign. It was a place of informal contact
with relatives and neighbours. In long winter evenings, it was not only household members
that would gather around the hearth, but also other villagers, so that they saved firewood.
They would warm up at the fireplace, tell each other stories, crack walnuts and hazelnuts,
roast chestnuts and perform certain other household chores or farm work. This is how Fil-
ip Terčelj described the fireplace of the first half of the 20th century: »Here, bargains are
struck, and secretly, like embers under ashes, first love is kindled « (Terčelj 1927a: 49). In
order to represent the household well, people would pay special attention to the stonework
decoration of fireplaces and a decorative role of the upturned pots and copper lids, which
were shelved in order of size on the hood and on the wall, and embroidered wall napkins
with ornamental motifs and encouraging inscriptions. The kitchen did not only reflect,
shape and adjust intergenerational, gender and other kinds of relationships among house-
hold members, but also relations between the household and the community and, due to
the representational role of the kitchen, also wider social relations.
Conclusion
The fireplace was a place of household chores as well as social interaction; it was a diverse re-
presentation of personal and common cultural meanings. Due to its multi-purpose charac-
ter – a cooking, meeting and working place for women, men, children and the elderly, and
a place that was passed through and filled with diverse objects, people and activities – the
5 However, according to Niko Kuret, some people would still put a thick log in the stove on Christmas Eve in the
second half of the 20thcentury (1998, p. 283).
39
