Inja Smerdel

OSELNIKI

Zbirka Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja





Ljubljana 2015





VSEBINA

CONTENTS





Oselnik. Drobna obrobna oda: delu, znanju, ustvarjalnosti, svojosti, erosu



Whetstone holders. An ode to labour, skill, creativity, individuality and Eros





Uporabljeni viri in slovstvo



References





Katalog



Catalogue





Kazala kraja uporabe, oblikovnih tipov in materialov



Indexes of places of use, types of objects and materials





Slikovna priloga



Illustrations





Francka Benedik, Slovenska narečna imena za oslo in oselnik



Slovene dialectal words for whetstones and whetstone holders





Karta



Map





Krajevna preglednica oblikovnih tipov oselnikov



Geographical survey of various whetstone holder types





OSELNIK. DROBNA OBROBNA ODA: DELU, ZNANJU, USTVARJALNOSTI, SVOJOSTI, EROSU

_____________________________________



Uvodna beseda; poglavitni pojmi, izhodiščni pogledi in preučenost



Muzejska zbirka; oris njene zgodovinskosti in zgodovine



Oselnikova zgodovinskost (drugod v Evropi in na Slovenskem) ali o kosah, oslah in oselnikih



Oblikovni tipi in likovno oblikovanje oselnikov ali o skupnem in svojem



O izdelovalcih oselnikov, o tehnikah izdelovanja in krašenja, o prodaji in vrednotenju



O izdelovanju osel, o njihovi prodaji in vrednotenju



In še o ognjilih



Košnja (delo in praznik), kosec in njegov oselnik



Drugačen čas, nov pomen



Uporabljeni viri in slovstvo





OSELNIK. DROBNA OBROBNA ODA: DELU, ZNANJU, USTVARJALNOSTI, SVOJOSTI, EROSU


Uvodna beseda; poglavitni pojmi, izhodiščni pogledi in preučenost

Oselnik, drobna obrobna oda delu, znanju, ustvarjalnosti, svojosti, erosu - je morda malce nekonvencionalen naslov za uvodno razpravo h katalogu muzejske zbirke. V njem je ubesedena izhodiščna intuicija (potrjena s spoznanji raziskave), premišljanje o večpomenski povednosti tega - med kmečkimi orodji sicer obrobnega, pomožnega, a v strukturah življenja na kmetih ne nepomembnega predmeta.

Oselnik je kljub strojem v kmetijstvu orodje, ki ga še danes rabijo marsikod na Slovenskem. Vendar je mnogim (različno izobraženim) ljudem popolna neznanka; beseda, ki ji ne vedo pomena. V mestu je neznana večini in na deželi prebivalcem tistih vasi, v katerih ta predmet imenujejo čisto drugače. A povsod in vsakdo pozna koso. Orodja, ki so z njo najtesneje povezana, mikavno razkriva metaforičen rek, dejansko uganka, ki jo je v zadnji četrtini 19. stoletja v goriški okolici zapisal Fran Erjavec (1883: 331): »Železna gospodinja, kámena dékla, lesén studênec.« V oklepaju je metafore po vrsti pojasnil: kosa, osla in oselnik. Glavnemu orodju, gospodinji - kosi, je pomožno dekla - osla in z njo vir njene učinkovitosti, studenec - oselnik, lesena posoda z vodo. Kosi, staremu orodju za košnjo (in žetev), za rezanje povečini trave, drugih krmnih rastlin in tudi žit je med rabo (tako kot srpu) potrebno vzdrževati ostrino rezila. Tu in tam ga sklepljejo s klepalnimi orodji in pogosto ga brusijo. Orodje, podolgovat kos kamna (naravnega ali umetnega) za brušenje zlasti kose (pa tudi srpa), se imenuje OSLA. Zaradi pogoste rabe mora biti osla med delom neprenehoma v dosegu koščevih rok. Nosi jo ob telesu, povečini v leseni ali v roženi (v pločevinasti ali v plastični) posodi z vodo, obešeni za pas. Ta posoda se imenuje OSELNIK. Osla in oselnik, obe besedi, ki sta uveljavljeni v knjižni rabi, sta (v mnogih fonetičnih različicah) najbolj razširjeni tudi v narečjih, na večini ozemlja, koder so naseljeni Slovenci. OSLI drugače ponekod pravijo še kamen (na Koroškem, Štajerskem in v Prekmurju), brus (v Beli krajini), ostrivnik (v Mislinjski dolini) in kosják (v okolici Rogatca). OSELNIKOVA druga imena pa so: vodir oziroma voder (vzhodno od Drave in v Rožu), tobolec (v Beli krajini), kumf (v delu Savinjske doline) špu, šepun, šepur, čepur, čepun (na vzhodnem Koroškem in srednjem Štajerskem) in čepon (na Tolminskem). Vseh različic (besed osla in oselnik), fonetičnih in oblikovnih, je na Slovenskem zapisanih okoli štiristo (gl. prilogo, karto in gradivo iz zbirke za Slovenski lingvistični atlas). Oselnik in drugo orodje te dvoedine celote, osla, sta nedvomno kulturni prvini, ki sta v jeziku pustili opazno sled. Malo manj vidna je zadevna sled OGNJILA, šilastega jeklenega orodja za ravnanje kose pred brušenjem. Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika besede ognjilo sploh ne omenja v takem pomenu. Pleteršnikov slovar (1894: 673, 801) pa vsebuje ustrezno razlago besede in ima poleg ognjila zapisano tudi drugo ime zanj, natezilo (na Tolminskem). Ustno izpričani fonetični različici sta še: vognil (v Bohinju), vognila (v Baški grapi) in oblikovne: nagnilo (v Baški grapi), gladilu (v okolici Žerovnice) in štrajher (v Robanovem kotu). Ognjilo morda res ni tako znano in razširjeno orodje, kot sta osla in oselnik, saj ni povsod v rabi in ni vedno potrebno (na primer pri košnji travnikov brez kamnov, skal). A tam, koder so ga rabili (ali ga še uporabljajo), z obema sestavlja troedino celoto in je celo orodje, ki je narekovalo posebno izvedbo nekaterih oselnikov; takih z izvrtano odprtino ali s pritrjeno zanko za ognjilo.

Trije razloženi pojmi označujejo tri skupine medsebojno odvisnih predmetov v muzejski zbirki Oselniki. Slednji so poleg nekaj osel in nekoliko ognjil najbolj številna in najbolj pričevalna skupina v njej. Oselnik pa je tudi tisti predmet izmed treh, ki je najtesneje povezan s človekom; ki je med delom, med košnjo telesu priležen. In je sestavina koščeve oprave.

Ta mikavna bližina, telesni stik med človekom in predmetom - med koscem in njegovim oselnikom - je bil eden izmed virov premišljanja o oselnikovi večpomenski povednosti. Takšen pogled nanj je raziskavo zbirke usmeril v naslednje: poleg temeljnih védenj o oselniku kot gospodarski in kulturni prvini - o njegovi zgodovini, o geografski razprostranjenosti posameznih oblikovnih tipov - in poleg eksplicitnih, »vidnih« pričevanj o njegovi izdelavi, likovnem oblikovanju in rabi, razkriti še implicitno, »skrito« povednost te kulturne prvine. Ugotoviti različna razmerja med človekom (izdelovalcem, uporabnikom, družbeno skupino) in oselnikom oziroma vloge in pomene oselnika v posameznem družbenem okolju in času. Povednost muzejske zbirke o tem je omejena, je le posredna. Oselniki kot primarni tvarni vir z neposredno vidnim: z obliko, z okrašenostjo, z vrezanimi začetnicami imen in priimkov, z drugimi znamenji osebnega lastništva in s sledmi vzdrževanja za rabo kljub nastalim poškodbam posredno sprožajo vprašanja o slutenem, o skritem: o erotičnem simbolnem pomenu oblike; o morda prav s tem povezanim krašenjem in vrezovanjem znakov lastništva (z željo, biti vidno drugačen, razpoznaven posameznik v skupini) in o navezanosti, navajenosti na »svoj« oselnik (ali morda le o pomanjkanju denarja ali časa za nakup ali izdelavo novega).

Za odgovore na ta vprašanja, za potrditev hipotetičnega premišljanja o tovrstni povednosti oselnikov - tako kot za strnjen pregled nekaterih osnovnih vedenj o njih - pa je bilo treba poleg muzejske zbirke preučiti še druge vire in različno, povečini posredno pričevalno slovstvo. Takšno, ki bi obravnavalo neposredno oselnike, je namreč borno (tako slovensko kot tuje). Neobhodna je bila tudi terenska raziskava, ki je omogočila kritično presojo prebranega, preučenega in dopolnitev z ustnimi pričevanji.

V splošnejših in v nekaterih lokalno zamejenih slovenskih etnoloških delih je oselnik omenjan redko in obravnavan skopo. Ali kot eno izmed orodij, rabljenih pri košnji in pri žetvi ali kot eden izmed izdelkov domače obrti. Nekaj več o njem zvemo le v treh besedilih, ki so (oziroma, ki vsebujejo) svojske drobne monografije o tej kulturni prvini. V prvem, v filološki študiji O oselniku, Ivan Koštiál (1937-39) niza slovenska, hrvaška, srbska, češka, nemška, nizozemsko in angleško, italijanska, francoska in madžarska imena zanj; nekaterim išče izvor, jih primerja in razlaga njihov pomen. Posamezna imena povezuje z erotično simbolno obliko predmeta. V drugem, v članku Izumrle panoge domače obrti v okolici Turjaka, Tone Ljubič (1951) v posebnem poglavju z naslovom Osovnikarji predstavi tamkajšnje izdelovalce oselnikov, opiše njihove izdelke, tehniko izdelovanja in prodajo. Okrašene oselnike omeni kot najbolj cenjene pri kupcih. V tretjem, v kompleksnem delu Gorazda Makaroviča Slovenska ljudska umetnost (1981) pa je v sklopu umetnostne skupine Likovno oblikovanje pri delu poglavje, Oselniki, v katerem avtor strnjeno oriše nekatera znanja in domneve o tem pogosto likovno oblikovanem orodju: o možnem času njegove pojavitve v zgodovini (v evropskem okviru in na Slovenskem), o znanih oblikovnih tipih, o izvedbi in motivih okrasja, o možnem pomenu dekorja kot znaku lastništva. Vprašanje o pomenu krašenih oselnikov postane še bolj prisotno ob branju Makarovičeve ugotovitve (1981: 268), da je na Slovenskem velika večina orodij in naprav zgolj uporabnih oblik in da so v večjem številu likovno oblikovali le oselnike, kolovrate, preslice in preše.

Med tujimi deli velja omeniti dve monografiji, vira primerjalnega gradiva in nekaterih primerljivih spoznanj: Die Tiroler Wetzsteinkumpfe und ihre Verzierung (Tirolski oselniki in njihov okras) Franza Collesellija (1958) in Bosansko-hercegovački vodijeri (Bosansko-hercegovski oselniki) Cvetka Ð. Popovića (1952). Obema študijama sta bili temeljni vir muzejski zbirki, obe začenjata kratka fragmentarna pregleda o pojavljanju oselnika (in osle) v zgodovini. Pri Colleselliju se potem poučimo o oblikovnih tipih tirolskih oselnikov (ob tem zvemo tudi nekaj o njihovi izdelavi) in o različnih načinih krašenja, Popović pa je bolj izčrpen. Njegov vir je bila poleg muzejske zbirke še razposlana anketa. V delu so tako zbrana pričevanja o izdelavi in orodju, o narečnih imenih (»narodna imena«) za oselnik, o načinih nošnje in rabe, o verovanju v zvezi z njim. Preučeno je krašenje (orodje in tehnike, osnovni motivi in ornamenti) in spoznani regionalni oblikovni tipi.

Najbolj presenetljiv vir znanja in branje inspirativnih domnev in tez pa pomenijo poglavja o brusilnih orodjih v delu Gestaltheiligkeit im bäuerlichen Arbeitsmythos (Oblikovna svetost v kmečkem delovnem mitu) izpod peresa Leopolda Schmidta (1952). Besedilo je sintetičen evropski kulturnozgodovinski pregled pojavljanja osel, njenih severnoevropskih različic (brusilnega lesa - deščice, palice s peščeno oblogo), ognjil in oselnikov, opremljen s kartografskimi ponazorili. Njihovo zgodovino, razvoj raznih oblik, razprostranjenost, veljavo in pomen Schmidt razlaga s pomočjo (v njegovem času) obstoječih znanj (arheoloških, etnoloških, etimoloških), upodabljajočih virov, ljudskega slovstva in posameznih ustnih pričevanj. Središčna sestavina njegovega razpravljanja je erotična simbolika orodij: moške osle in ženskega oselnika.

Vse drugo prebrano slovstvo in viri so le fragmentarno pričevalni; ali o različnih oblikah, tipih oselnikov ali o zgodovinskosti (in sodobnosti) osle in oselnika. Večina jih je povedna prav o tem slednjem in podatki dajejo vtis, da jih je mogoče sestaviti v skoraj dve tisočletji staro podobo zgodovine oselnika in še starejšo podobo zgodovine osle v Evropi (pričevalno tudi za slovenski del njenega prostora, kljub neobstoju zadevnih starejših neposrednih virov na Slovenskem); da jih je moč sestaviti v podobo »dolgega trajanja«, v predpostavko o kontinuiteti obstoja predmeta zaradi kontinuitete njegove osnovne funkcije. Tiste, ki jo ima ta stara kulturna prvina zaradi različnih vzrokov ponekod še danes.


Muzejska zbirka; oris njene zgodovinskosti in zgodovine

Oselniki iz zbirke Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja so kot priče o svojem obstoju v času dokaj natančen vir; vendar le za zadnjih sto petdeset let zamišljene skoraj dvatisočletne zgodovinske podobe. Najstarejši datiran predmet (št. 10) v zbirki določa vrezana letnica 1842, najmlajše (št. 118, 119, 126, 138) zapisani podatki o izdelavi pozimi v letih 1992/1993. (Podobno stari, povečini iz druge polovice 19. in prve polovice 20. stoletja, so tudi primerki v kolekcijah nekaterih slovenskih pokrajinskih muzejev.) Bistvena vzroka za tako omejen časovni izvor oselnikov v zbirki sta dva: čas začetkov zbiranja in preprosti dejstvi iz vsakdanjega (tudi sodobnega) življenja, ko so odsluženo orodje le redko hranili še po koncu njegove uporabnosti in ga neradi dali iz rok, dokler jim je še dobro služilo. O slednjem je zbirka prav otipljiv dokaz. Skoraj polovica oselnikov v njej je vsaj počenih, če ne tudi mašenih in krpanih, popravljanih na vse mogoče načine. Med preostalimi je dosti čisto novih, pridobljenih od izdelovalcev. Čas prihoda oselnika v zbirko je tako najpogosteje tudi čas njegovega nastanka ali pa konca njegove rabe, od katerega začetek povečini ni daleč odmaknjen. (Najdlje naj bi na primer zdržali v rabi izdelki iz nagnojevega lesa; po ustnih pričevanjih vsaj po dvajset let.) Navedena vzroka za omejen časovni izvor predmetov v kolekciji sta torej medsebojno odvisna. Zgodovinskost oselnikov v zbirki pogojuje zgodovina njihovega zbiranja. Slednja pa je povedna še o nečem: o odnosu zbiralcev do te kulturne prvine (tako muzejskih strokovnjakov kot individualnih kolekcionarjev), o njihovih teoretskih vidikih.

Najstarejši oselnik, datiran z letnico 1842, ni bil obenem tudi prvi v muzeju. Pridobljen je bil med leti 1937-43 (v času, ko je bil kustos Kraljevega etnografskega muzeja Franc Kos), kupljen v starinarnici. Začetek zbirke oselnikov sodi v leto 1907, ko je tedaj še (leta 1821 ustanovljeni) Kranjski deželni muzej Rudolfinum (od katerega se je leta 1923 oddvojil Kraljevi etnografski muzej, po 2. svetovni vojni preimenovan v Etnografski in po letu 1963 v Slovenski etnografski muzej) pridobil devet primerkov iz Bohinja - s Koprivnika in z Gorjuš (št. 2-9). Walter Šmid jih v svojem poročilu v prvem letniku Carniole (1908: 7, 8) omenja kot rezljane in čeprav jih sicer uvršča med predmete v skupini »Zug- und Ackergerät, verschiedene bäuerliche Gebrauchsgegenstände« ali »vprežno in poljedelsko orodje, razni kmečki uporabni predmeti«, je bil poglavitni vidik njihove nabave estetski in ne morda funkcijski. (V isti skupini so omenjeni še: medeninasto okrasje konjskega komata, številni okrašeni oblici...) O enakem odnosu do oselnikov je mogoče sklepati ob kasnejših pridobitvah. Rezljan ali drugače izveden dekor jih je - sicer poljedelskemu delu namenjene izdelke domače obrti - umeščal v področje ljudske umetnosti.

Enak pogled nanje je povečini vodil tudi zasebne zbiralce. Od slednjih je muzej v raznih letih pridobil kar štiri bolj ali manj obsežne zbirke: leta 1948 Peršinovo kolekcijo šestih oselnikov iz Bohinja (št. 11-16); med leti 1954 in 1957 do tedaj (od leta 1929) v Narodnem muzeju v Ljubljani hranjeno, »posebnemu obrtno zgodovinskemu muzeju« (nikoli ustanovljenemu) namenjeno Grebenčevo zbirko (Makarovič, 1962: 243) trinajstih primerkov z Gorenjskega (večinoma s Koprivnika in iz Selške doline) in enega z Dolenjskega (št. 40-53); leta 1990 Strgarjevo zbirko šestih oselnikov, razen enega vseh iz zgornje Savinjske doline (št. 35-39, 87) in leta 1993 Turkovo kolekcijo triindvajsetih primerkov zelo različnega krajevnega izvora, zbranih bolj s tipološkega kot z estetskega zornega kota (št. 93-115). (O njem vidno priča ureditev zbirke, ko je bila še »razstavljena« v zbiralčevem domu. Gl. Sl. 1.)




Sl. 1: Turkova zbirka oselnikov na steni domačega hodnika. (Foto C. Narobé, 1993)

Ill. 1: The Turk collection of whetstone holders as it was arranged on a wall in the corridor. (Photo C. Narobé, 1993)

O prevladi tipološkega vidika nad estetskim v muzeju pa je mogoče sklepati ob oselnikih, pridobljenih med terenskim delom muzejskih ekip pod vodstvom Borisa Orla med leti 1948 in 1961. Usmeritev moža, ki je slovensko etnologijo opredelil kot znanost o »kulturnih tvorbah našega ljudstva« in o zakonih njihovega razvoja (1948: 7) in ki si je prizadeval zapolniti vsebinske in krajevne (pokrajinske) vrzeli v zbirkah Etnografskega muzeja, tedaj ni bila bistveno drugačna od sočasnih prizadevanj v nekaterih drugih evropskih (tudi jugoslovanskih) etnologijah. Opredmetenje teh prizadevanj so bili etnološki atlasi posameznih regij, dežel, ki so - kot kaže (da bi z njimi pokrili vso Evropo) - še vedno aktualni (Lerche, 1993).

Posledica Orlovih pogledov je bila rast števila oselnikov različnih oblikovnih tipov v muzejski zbirki, njihov raznoliki krajevni izvor in sorazmerno dobra dokumentiranost. Leta 1948 je prišel v kolekcijo, v kateri je danes skoraj polovica neokrašenih, prvi tak primerek (št. 18) in poleg zbirke predmetov je nastal v času terenskih ekip (ki so jih spremljali risarji) tudi fond narisanih oselnikov (katalog risb št. 2-29). A ostalo je le pri zbiranju.

S slednjim je v skromnejšem obsegu nadaljeval Angelos Baš, prvi formalni kustos za ljudsko gospodarstvo (od leta 1963 do leta 1979). Glede oselnikov je menil, da jih ima muzej »bogato zbirko«. Tako jo je tu in tam dopolnjeval, ustrezno njegovi definiciji muzejskega predmeta, ki da mora imeti študijsko ali razstavno vrednost (Smerdel, 1983: 8, 18).

Drugače so bila sedemdeseta in še del osemdesetih let nekakšno obdobje »negacije« predmeta v etnologiji. Besede o »že dokaj uveljavljenem prepričanju, da so poglavitni predmet etnološkega zanimanja ljudje, ne reči«, o prenosu poudarka od kulturnih sestavin na njihove nosilce in o pojavih in predmetih le kot o sredstvih za razkrivanje načina življenja (Kremenšek, 1973: 122, 123) - besede, ki so pomenile metodološki premik - so se pogosto brale izločevalno. Čeprav sintagma »prenos poudarka« nikakor ni pomenila izločitve predmetov; le drugačen vidik pri njihovem obravnavanju, dokumentiranju, pri »branju« njihovih sporočil. Predmet je postal za etnologa pač eden izmed možnih virov (pisanih, ustnih, slikovnih, tvarnih), njegova interpretacija pa odvisna od posameznikove teoretske usmeritve (prim. Makarovič, 1983: 63, 64).

Ko sem tako na začetku devetdesetih let začenjala z raziskavo muzejske zbirke oselnikov - v okviru načrtovanega izdajanja komentiranih zbirk virov (zlasti tvarnih) Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja - sem s pomočjo predmetov, z razkrivanjem njihove povednosti poskušala poleg drugega ugotavljati zlasti vloge in pomene oselnikov v življenjih njihovih izdelovalcev in uporabnikov; njih znanja in spretnosti. Zavoljo vsega tega je bila potrebna dopolnitev zbirke. Izvedla sem jo v znanih krajih izvora obstoječih primerkov iz slednje (kot svojsko preverjanje) in v tistih, v katerih je doma nekaj njihovih današnjih izdelovalcev. Do leta 1993 je kolekcija številčno narasla z osemdesetih na sto štirideset oselnikov, osem osel in štiri ognjila. Na njenem začetku so primerki, ki s svojim rezljanim dekorjem porajajo premišljanja o posebnem mestu, ki bi ga naj zavzemali v strukturah življenja na kmetih v drugi polovici 19. stoletja; in na koncu, zadnji trije so oselniki (tak, ki sicer novodobno krašen sporoča enega izmed starih pomenov - erotičnega, in taka, dva plastična, pomensko skrčena na golo uporabnost), ki na različne načine pričajo o sodobnih vsebinah.


Oselnikova zgodovinskost (drugod v Evropi in na Slovenskem) ali o kosah, oslah in oselnikih

Da bi uzrli začetke oselnikov, njihovo pojavitev v zgodovini, so muzejske zbirke nezadosten vir. Kolikor je bilo mogoče ugotoviti iz objavljenega gradiva iz raznih dežel, v njih ni starejših primerkov od posameznih - na primer švicarskega s konca 17. stoletja (Benker, 1976: 187) - ki so datirani v stoletji pred devetnajstim.

Nedvomno oselnikov ni bilo pred oslami; in teh - v funkciji ostrenja srpov in kos - najverjetneje ne dosti pred pojavitvijo železnih orodij. Axel Steensberg (1943: 160) v svojem delu o starih orodjih za rezanje žit in krmnih rastlin na primer piše, da so na mnogih najdenih bronastih srpih le sledovi klepanja s kamnom ali z majhnim kladivom in kako le izgleda, da je bil rob še brušen, morda z mehkim peščenjakom. V starejši železni dobi (8.-4. stol.p.n.št.) pa raba osel ni več samo domnevna; dokazujejo jo številne najdbe iz raznih grobišč (npr. Jacobi, 1974: 130). In v ta čas sodijo tudi začetki razvoja kos.

Kosa, zgodovinsko najmlajše izmed orodij za sečnjo oziroma za rezanje pridelkov, se je v srednji Evropi pojavila v poznem halštatu (Pohanka, 1986: 147). V stoletjih zatem je moč slediti le še njenemu razvoju (različnih oblik kose in kratkega ali dolgega kosišča), nikakor ne premočrtnemu, vendar tudi ne prekinjenemu. Kose so se pojavile, se uveljavljale in so še danes tu. Za označitev njihovega razvoja se zdijo najbolj primerne besede Fernanda Braudela (1988: 95), tiste, ki jih je napisal o tehniki. Le-ta je tako silovito kot potrpežljivo in enolično vplivanje ljudi na zunanji svet; tako nagle spremembe (morda malce prehitro imenovane revolucije) kot počasne izboljšave postopkov in orodij ter naposled nešteti gibi, ki gotovo nimajo novotarskega pomena, a so plod nakopičenega znanja. Pojavitev kose nedvomno pomeni svojsko »revolucijo« v kmetijstvu. Med to prvo in med agrarno-tehnično revolucijo ter postopno mehanizacijo kmetijstva pa so stoletja počasnih izboljšav in »neštetih gibov«.

O vzrokih prve »revolucije« je premišljal in jih utemeljeval Steensberg (1943: 179, 180). Ugotovil je, da tehnična znanja orodjarjev bronaste dobe niso bila nezadostna, da bi poleg srpov ne mogli izdelovati tudi bronastih kos. Potreba po hitrejšem in učinkovitejšem orodju, kakršno je kosa (ki trave ne seče kot srp, temveč jo reže), naj bi se pojavila šele v železni dobi zato, ker je takrat prišlo do bistvenih sprememb v gospodarjenju (ki naj bi jih vsaj v severni Evropi poleg drugega povzročalo tudi spreminjanje klime): do le poletnega bivanja živine na prostem ter zimskega v hlevih, kar je posledično pomenilo več gnoja in večji pridelek žit, hkrati pa so se pojavile potrebe po večjih količinah sena za zimsko krmljenje živine. Postopoma se je uveljavljal »rastlinski determinizem zahodne civilizacije«, posledica pšenice in trave, in kmečko življenje, temelječe tako na poljedelstvu kot na živinoreji; na »oranju in paši« (Braudel, 1988: 136, 182), na žetvi in košnji.

Oporo vsem tem spremembam v kmetovanju in osnovo izboljšavam orodij pa je nedvomno pomenilo razvijajoče se železnodobno železarstvo. Latenski kovači so v svojem času osvojili prelomno umetnost: tehnično znanje kaljenja - ojeklenitve železa; njegovo kovanje v ostrine in rezila (Petru, 1979: 60). In kaljena rezila kos (in srpov) so posledično zahtevala posebno vzdrževanje svojih ostrin; poleg občasnega klepanja (dediščine bronaste dobe) še pogosto brušenje z mokrim brusilnim orodjem. S tehniko kaljenja namreč železo postane bolj trdo in odporno proti vdoru tujega predmeta. Pri močnem segrevanju, kakršnega pomeni brušenje, ko le en poteg z oslo lahko koso lokalno segreje čez tisoč stopinj Celzija, omenjena lastnost popusti. Da bi se to ne zgodilo, je potrebna voda, ki med brušenjem hladi. (Tekočina obenem omoči peščene delce; tako ti rezila ne razijo, temveč ga polirajo. Po brušenju je manj krhko in zdržljivost kovinske površine je večja.)1 Pojavitev oselnikov, posod, v katerih je bila potrebna moča koscem nedvomno najbolj pri roki, je torej mogoče domnevno postaviti v čas po odkritju pomena vode (ali druge tekočine) pri brušenju rezil kos (in srpov).

Takšno domnevo podpirajo tudi arheološke najdbe brusnih kamnov. Tisti iz halštatskih grobišč so bili skoraj še vsi na enem koncu preluknjani, izdelani za obešanje na pas, v poznem latenu pa osle z odprtino izginejo (jacobi, 1974: 130). In od tedaj dalje je moč premišljati o njihovi nošnji v oselnikih. Prvi vir, ki jo nedvoumno sporoča, je antično enciklopedično delo Plinija starejšega (živečega od 23. do 79. leta našega štetja) Naturalis historiae (XVIII, 28(261)). V poglavju o travnikih, v katerem pisec omenja na primer »cotes oleariae« - osle za brušenje z oljem, v Italiji uveljavljene »cotes aquariae« - osle za brušenje z vodo in kot najbolj cenjene osle tiste s Krete, so zapisane še pričevalne besede o koscih, ki med košnjo nosijo ob goléni privezane rogove. Slednji so bili kot kaže prve, naravne posode za nošenje osle.

O oslah je bilo sicer splošno spoznano (Schmidt, 1952: 67), da je mogoče rastoči pogostnosti njihove rabe slediti od severa proti jugu, oziroma da so bile najprej uveljavljene v južnih evropskih deželah, od koder se je njihova raba širila proti severu. Osla in z njo oselnik sta tako zlasti južno in srednjeevropski kulturni prvini. V severnejših deželah Evrope (v severni Franciji in Nemčiji, v Belgiji, na Nizozemskem, Škotskem, Švedskem, Danskem in Finskem, v baltiških deželah, v Rusiji...) so namreč za brušenje kos uporabljali zlasti »brusilni les« (na primer nemški Wetzholz, škotski straik...), deskasto, paličasto orodje (povečini iz hrastovega lesa), obdano s peskom (vdrgnjenim v nabrazdano, omočeno površino; posutim na površino, premazano s smolo, s katranom) (prim. Schmidt, 1952: 71-80; Fenton, 1976: 61; Zelenin, 1927: 34). Drugače pa je bilo kot kaže na Norveškem, kjer sta kosce vsaj od okrog leta 600 (n.št.) spremljala osla in oselnik. V ta čas je bila datirana najdba, ki najbolj neposredno priča o rabi oselnika; tudi v tem primeru roga. Gre za »oslo iz Strøma« (dvorca na otoku Hitteren ob koncu fjorda Strøm) z vrezanim napisom v runski pisavi (Schmidt, 1952: 69). Njegovo besedilo sporoča: »Ta kamen se moči v rogu! Poškoduje otavo! Položi košnjo!« Glede na njegovo povednost in na zapisane Plinijeve besede o nošnji, o rabi rogov, je mogoče z gotovostjo skleniti, da so bili prvotni oselniki kar rogovi. Te že od narave izgotovljene (sicer večnamenske) posode so bile (so ostajale in so še) za željeno rabo nedvomno najbolj priročne. Ponujale so se pač z glav živali, zaradi katerih so - za pridobivanje krme zanje - kot nepogrešljivo orodje sploh obstajale.

Drugih o oselnikih pričevalnih virov je kasneje v srednjem veku sorazmerno dosti; zlasti upodabljajočih (npr. v Hansen, 1974: 118, 119), popisov inventarjev in povednih odlomkov iz ustnega slovstva (prim. Schmidt, 1952: 81-87). Fragmentarno, vendar dokaj povezano, je mogoče po njih slediti oselnikom do stoletij, ko postanejo stvarno otipljivi; do spoznavanja tvarnih virov iz muzejskih zbirk. Ustaviti pa se velja še pri enem pomembnem vprašanju: kdaj so se pojavili oselniki, izdelani iz lesa. Pisani viri, ki oselnike povečini le imenujejo in ne opisujejo, o tem ne povedo dosti. Leopold Schmidt (1952: 82) je tako za nemško govoreče dežele izrazil domnevo, da je mogoče o lesenih primerkih govoriti od tedaj, ko se zanje v jeziku pojavi ime Kumpf. Slednje naj bi ne bilo izpričano pred 13. stoletjem. Mikaven dokaz o obstoju lesenih oselnikov naj bi pomenila šele uganka, zapisana v staronemškem rokopisu iz 14. stoletja. Rešitev zastavljenega vprašanja, kaj je »lesena kamnita hiša« (kamnova hiša)2, ne pušča dvoma: to je oselnik, »Kumpf«, nosi ga kosec, v njem leži osla. O pojavitvi lesenih oselnikov pa vendarle priča še bolj zgodnji vir: miniatura iz Koledarja Wandelbertovega Martyriologiuma iz začetka 10. stoletja, iz samostanov Prüm/Eifel ali St.Gallen (Bentzien, 1990: 40), ki je obenem (kot kaže) prva znana upodobitev kosca z oselnikom (in oslo v njem) sploh. Sklepanje, da je iluminator upodobil prav lesen oselnik, omogoča njegova oblika (sl. 2).




Sl. 2: Upodobitev kosca z oselnikom (in oslo v njem) iz začetka 10. stoletja. Miniatura je prerisana iz Koledarja Wandelbertovega Martyriologiuma, ki ga hrani Vaticana v Rimu (po Bentzienu, 1990: 40, slika 21).

Ill. 2: Illustration of a mower carrying a whetstone holder (with a whetstone in it), dating from the early 10th century. Drawn after a miniature from the Calendar of Wandelbert’s Martyriologium, kept by the Vaticana in Rome (after Bentzien, 1990: 40, Ill. 21).

Zgodovinska zgodba o oselniku na Slovenskem oziroma o tem, kdaj so začeli pri nas uporabljati za pasom nošene oselnike z vodo in z oslo za mokro brušenje kose, domnevno ne more biti bistveno drugačna od splošne evropske. Ko jo je sestavljal Makarovič (1981: 269), je sicer ugotavljal, da na Slovenskem ne moremo domnevati splošnejše rabe oselnikov pred 17. stoletjem. Svoje mnenje je utemeljeval z dvema upodobitvama koscev brez oselnikov: s sliko za mesec julij v radovljiškem koledarju iz leta 1415 in s fresko sv. Nedelje (na zunanjščini cerkve v Pristavi pri Polhovem Gradcu) iz prve tretjine 16. stoletja. Vendar odsotnost starejših neposrednih virov o oselnikih ne pomeni nujno, da slednji tedaj niso obstajali. Če namreč še enkrat posledično retrogradno povežemo pojavitev oselnikov s potrebnostjo mokrega brušenja kaljenih rezil kos, pridemo ponovno do latena. Od tedaj dalje pa tudi na Slovenskem ne manjka virov in posameznih spoznanj, ki vsaj posredno sporočajo možno rabo oselnikov.

Začnemo lahko že z najdbo poznolatenske kose iz Idrije pri Bači in po tem večjega števila kos, ki domnevno pričajo o domačih izdelovalcih v Posočju ter o pomembni rabi kos ob koncu poznega latena in na začetku rimske dobe (Guštin, 1991: 62). Povedna so še spoznanja o antični industriji slovenskih severozahodnih predelov (Koroškega in okolice Bohinja); o izdelovanju noriškega železa in kaljenega, ojeklenelega orodja (Petru, 1979: 75). Tedanje kose so nedvomno mokro brusili in Plinijevo (XVIII, 28(261)) pripoved o v Italiji uveljavljenih »cotes aquariae«, o njihovi nošnji v rogu, je najverjetneje moč premestiti tudi v slovenske predele rimske države. Naseljevanje slovanskega prebivalstva od 6. stoletja dalje naj ne bi prineslo bistvenih sprememb v gospodarjenje s travniki in v za to potrebna orodja. Staroselci so bili sicer posredniki marsikaterih antičnih znanj (prim. Petru, 1979: 93; Grafenauer, 1979: 108, 109), a koso in oslo naj bi slovanski prišleki že poznali (Novak, 1978: 128). O košnji potem neposredno priča malce kasnejši vir, listina o zboru pri Rižani blizu Kopra iz prvih let 9. stoletja. Med branjem pritožb, ki so jih romanski Istrani izrekli vojvodi Joanesu (upravitelju Karla Velikega) na račun naseljenih Slovanov, je moč zaslediti besede: »...ti kosijo naše travnike...« (Kos, 1985: 322, 323). V skoraj isti čas (v začetek 9. stoletja) sodi še podobno pričevalen tvarni vir, najdba iz Sebenj pri Bledu, tako imenovani Sebenjski zaklad, štiriindvajset zakopanih železnih predmetov (večinoma raznih orodij), katerih lastnik naj bi bil svobodnjak, gospodar staroslovenske kmetije. Najdeni kosirji (obročki za pričvrščanje kose na kosišče) kažejo, da je kosil travnike in si tako pripravljal zimsko krmo za živino (Pleterski, 1987: 291). Dva žličasta svedra, orodji za obdelavo lesa, ki naj bi ju uporabljal pri postavljanju lesenih poslopij (Pleterski, 1987: 289, 291) pa morda sporočata še drugo rabo; na primer vrtanje luknje v leseni oselnik. Glede na še danes znano enako tehniko takšna domneva ni nemogoča.

Takó sporočeno gospodarjenje s travniki in kontinuirana raba kos kot domnevana obrtna znanja in nekatera od rimskih časov izpričana orodja za obdelavo lesa (na primer: ročna žaga, mala sekira, dleto, žlebilo, rašpa, šestilo in druga, ki naj bi bila vsaj od 14. stoletja dalje takšna, kakršna poznamo; Velter, Lamothe, 1979: 96) so nesporno dejstva, ki ne preprečujejo, temveč kvečjemu vabijo k sklepanju, da so oselnike na Slovenskem uporabljali že davno pred 17. stoletjem; morda prav od tedaj, ko so spoznali pomembnost mokrega brušenja rezil svojih kos. Poleg roženih so si lahko nedvomno in celo brez zahtevnejših (gotovo ne vsakomur dostopnih) orodij izdelovali tudi lesene oselnike. Luknje za vtikanje osle so morda kar izžigali v obtesane kose lesa; tako kot kmet s Koprivnika, ki si je na tako prazgodovinski način - ker ni imel svedra - izgotovil svoj oselnik še v sedemdesetih letih 20. stoletja (št. 116). Možne »poklicne« izdelovalce oselnikov pred 17. stoletjem pa lahko morda zaslutimo v Ribničanih in Kočevarjih, ki so od leta 1492 svobodno trgovali z raznimi domačimi lesnimi izdelki (Bras, 1979: 6).

Drugače o oslah in o oselnikih neposredno priča le nekaj virov. O prvih je iz srede 16. stoletja sporočeno, kako naj se »kose in brusi« v Ljubljani »ob sejmih prodajajo na tržnem prostoru pri mestnem mlinu« (Arhivi, 1953: 66). In v zadnjem desetletju 16. stoletja je Hieronim Megiser za oslo zapisal v slovar množinsko ime aßli in edninsko o∫liza, »Wetzstein« (Bezlaj, 1976: 257).3 Drugi, oselniki, postanejo končno resnično vidni v predzadnjem desetletju 17. stoletja, na eni izmed upodobitev v Valvasorjevi Slavi (1689: 397). Na tisti, na kateri sta risar (Ivan Koch) in bakrorezec (Andrej Trost) v ozadje zgodovinskega prizora vojvodskega ustoličevanja postavila tri kosce v kmečkih oblekah 17. stoletja.4 Prvi z leve ima opasan oselnik z oslo (Sl. 3). In temu slikovnemu sledi še en primaren vir, inventar velike kmetije iz Selške doline, sestavljen leta 1723. V njem stoji zapisano: »2 Sensen sambt dem Dentl ossounik Und Zurgehor« ali »dve kosi skupaj z oselnikom (nemško tudi Dentl) in kar sodi zraven« (Andrejka, 1934: 38, 49).




Sl. 3: Žanrski prizor treh koscev, detajl bakroreza (vojvodskega ustoličevanja) iz Valvasorjeve Slave (1689: 397).

Ill. 3: Genre scene of three mowers, detail of a copper engraving (depicting the inauguration of a new duke) from Valvasor’s The Glory of the Duchy of Carniolia (1689: 397).

V 19. stoletju pa postanejo viri o oselniku na Slovenskem otipljivi. Pomenijo jih tvarni primerki iz muzejskih zbirk s svojo večpomensko pričevalnostjo. Čas, v katerem so številni izmed njih nastali (19. in v marsičem še prva polovica 20. stoletja), je bil na Slovenskem čas postopnega spreminjanja kmečkega gospodarstva, ponekod počasnejšega in drugod hitrejšega sprejemanja umnih fiziokratskih naukov iz druge polovice 18. stoletja (prim. Smerdel, 1991: 25, 34, 38, 40). Glede gospodarjenja s travniki in polji, pridelovanja žit in živinske krme - opravil, pri katerih so uporabljali tudi oselnike - je agrarno-tehnična revolucija prinesla nekaj bistvenih sprememb. Uvajanje hlevske živinoreje (odprava pašne živinoreje in pospeševanje govedoreje) je na primer posledično zvečalo potrebe po krmi, dvignilo pomen krmskih rastlin (detelje, drugih) in sena. In nedvomno je zrasla veljava delu, s katerim so seno pridobivali - košnji.

V orodjih za rezanje žit in krmskih rastlin in v njihovi rabi pa tedaj še ni prišlo do pomembnejših sprememb. Vse 19. stoletje so na večini kmečkih posestev želi s srpi. Žitne kose, s katerimi so ponekod poskušali žeti sredi 19. stoletja, so mnogi zavračali (Britovšek, 1964: 183).5 Kosa je povečini ostajala orodje za košnjo; in z njo roženi ali leseni oselnik z oslo, nepogrešljivi del koščeve oprave.

Šele zadnja med navedenimi »revolucijami« v kmetijstvu: pojavitvijo kose, agrarno-tehnično revolucijo in mehanizacijo kmetijstva v 20. stoletju je prinesla zmanjšanje pomena kose s pomožnimi orodji, skorajda konec njihove rabe. Konjske vprežne kosilnice, ki so jih na večjih ravninskih kmetijah začeli uporabljati v času med svetovnima vojnama, in motorne, ki so se v raznih koncih Slovenije uveljavljale V šestdesetih letih (po ustnih pričevanjih; Oselniki, 1993 in Šarf, 1974: 144) - v nekaterih drugih evropskih deželah, na primer v Švici, kakšno desetletje pred tem (Kruker, 1992: 1023) - so sicer bistveno spremenile življenje v času košnje, vendar kose, osle in oselnika iz njega niso povsem izrinile. V rabi ostajajo tam, koder posamezni kmetje vztrajajo pri košnji strmih senožeti, rovtov (na primer na Koprivniku, v Baški grapi; Sl. 38), za košnjo domačije obdajajočih sadovnjakov (Sl. 5), sveže krme »za sprot«, »za frišno« in za »popravljanje« robov (Sl. 6).




Sl. 4: Košnja z motorno kosilnico na travniku pri vasi Selce na Pivki. (Foto I. Smerdel, 1982)

Ill. 4: A mowing-machine on a meadow near the village of Selce in the Pivka region (Photo I. Smerdel, 1982)




Sl. 5: Zabukovec Lojz kosi v sadovnjaku ob domači hiši v Gradežu 9.

(Foto I. Smerdel, 1993)

Ill. 5: Lojz Zabukovec mowing the orchard next to his home in Gradež no. 9.

(Photo I. Smerdel, 1993)

Poleg roženih in prevladujočih lesenih oselnikov, metaforičnih »lesenih studencev«, pa so si začeli v desetletjih po sredi 20. stoletja opasovati v zadrugah (in v podobnih trgovinah) prodajane pločevinaste in v zadnjih letih kar na policah »marketov« ponujane plastične oselnike.




Sl. 6: Sterle Lojz iz Gradeža se vrača na travnik, ki ga je pokosil s kosilnico. »Grem mal popravit s koso.« (Foto I. Smerdel, 1993)

Ill. 6: Lojz Sterle from Gradež on his way to a meadow after he mowed it with a mowing-machine. “I’m going to trim it with the scythe.” (Photo I. Smerdel, 1993)


Oblikovni tipi in likovno oblikovanje oselnikov ali o skupnem in svojem

Ob pogledu na muzejsko zbirko (Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja), ob odkrivanju povednosti predmetov, so najbolj neposredna, jasna sporočila posameznih oselnikov tista o snovi in o obliki; in potem, v večini primerov, še o medsebojni zvezi med obliko, likovnim motivom in kompozicijo.

Po snovi so oselniki roženi, leseni, pločevinasti in plastični; izjemen med njimi je lončen. Prve, najštevilnejše druge in tu in tam tretje je mogoče najti v večini zbirk; tudi slovenskih pokrajinskih in muzejev iz drugih evropskih dežel6. V zbirki Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja je roženih primerkov šestnajst; večinoma so iz govejih rogov v njihovi naravni obliki. Le posamični so kakorkoli oblikovani - na primer tako, da je vrh roga odrezan (št. 54) ali da je cel oselnik malce sploščen, klinast (št. 21, 35, 36) - in le posamični so na različne načine označevani - na primer s križcem (št. 34), z letnico in začetnicama (št. 35, 36) - ali celo likovno oblikovani (št. 36). Pločevinasti štirje (št. 73-76) in dva plastična (št. 139, 140) so povsem očitno le posode, namenjene nošnji vode in osle; po obliki jih večina ustreza nekaterim lesenim - valjastim in klinastim. Valjast, enako oblikovan kot podobni leseni, je tudi edini lončen primerek (št. 1), krašen tako kot nekateri drugi lončarski izdelki. Vsi leseni oselniki pa so na prvi pogled osupljivo raznoliki; zdi se, da jih je toliko različnih po obliki in po dekorju. Vendar jih je bilo le mogoče združiti v skupine, ugotoviti posamezne oblikovne tipe (in zanje značilen okras) ter jih (vsaj osnovne med njimi) umestiti v določene pokrajine.

Tipologija oselnikov je kompromis med skupnim in svojim, med splošnim in posameznim; ko splošno ne pomeni posploševanja, temveč seštevanje, vsoto posameznega. Vsak oselnik je namreč v nečem svoj, vsaj malce drugačen od ostalih; in tudi če je opazno, da ga je morda izdelal isti izdelovalec kot še dva ali tri druge primerke, jih ni napravil popolnoma enakih. Pri večini oselnikov - najsi gre za izdelke domačih obrtnikov ali za take posameznega gospodarja in kakega kosca - celo pri nekaterih dokaj svojskih (npr. št. 61, 97, 104) pa je vendarle mogoče videti skupne oblikovne značilnosti. Te ponavadi sodijo v prav določen predel naše dežele in ustrezajo tamkajšnjim naravnim danostim, gospodarskim dejavnikom, obrtni (ponekod celo rezbarski) tradiciji, pokrajinskemu pojmovanju lepega in celo jezikovnim značilnostim (prim. krajevno preglednico oblikovnih tipov in karto imen za oslo in oselnik). Ustrezajo vsemu tistemu, kar ljudje preprosto strnejo v stavek: »Take smo pri nas (v naših krajih) delali od nekdaj.«

Oblikovna tipologija slovenskih oselnikov, dognana za lesene in prenešena na primerke iz drugih snovi,7 je bila določena na podlagi dveh meril: prisotnosti oziroma odsotnosti ene ali dveh koničastih nog (gl. uvodno pripombo h katalogu) za vtikanje v zemljo in oblike posodinega trupa. Tako je bilo ugotovljenih osem osnovnih tipov, poleg njih pa še štiri manj pogoste različice (in šest takih, zastopanih le s posamičnimi primerki).


Osnovni oblikovni tipi so naslednji:

1. Breznog, škatlast (z dvonogo različico) je tip oselnika, ki ima trup v vodoravnem zunanjem prerezu skoraj kvadraten, pravokotniški ali trapezast (in v notranjem prerezu enak ali elipsast). Njegova hrbtna, ob nošnji telesu priležna stranica se spodaj pogosto konča v enega ali dva rezljana polžasta svitka (pri enostavnejših izvedbah kar ravno ali v dve konici), zgoraj pa je največkrat oblikovana v okrasni nastavek. (Risbe 1, 2, 3.) Taki so znani v vaseh vzhodno od Kranja (št. 120, Sl. 12), uveljavljeni so bili na Štajerskem, zlasti v zgornji Savinjski dolini (npr. št. 37-39), in po posameznih primerkih so sporočeni še za Posavje (Sl. 10), za Posotelje in za del Dolenjskega (št. 57, 58; katalog risb št. 5, 21).




Risbe 1, 2, 3: Oselnika breznogega, škatlastega tipa (št. 120, 93) in primerek njegove dvonoge različice (št. 58).

Drawings 1, 2, 3: Two whetstone holders of the legless, box-like type (nos. 120, 93) and a specimen of the two-legged subvariety (no. 58).

2. Breznogi, klinasti so primerki, pri katerih se trup od širšega vrha, ki je v vodoravnem zunanjem prerezu mnogokoten, elipsast ali okrogel (in v notranjem ponavadi okrogel ali elipsast), enakomerno, klinasto oža do dna. (Risba 4.) Znani so v krajih, koder so bili uveljavljeni tudi škatlasti oselniki (št. 121), v okolici Celja in na obronkih Pohorja (št. 94, 95).




Risba 4: Oselnik breznogega, klinastega tipa (št. 96).

Drawing 4: Whetstone holder of the legless, wedge-shaped type (no. 96).

3. Breznog, oblo-stožčast je tip oselnika, katerega obel, skoraj valjast trup (okrogel v vodoravnem notranjem prerezu), v dolnjem delu oblikovan v stožec, ima hrbtno (ob nošnji telesu priležno) stran oblikovano kot nastavek, kot plosko deščico, zraslo s trupom. (Risba 5.) Taki primerki so sporočeni povečini le za Belo krajino (št. 98, Sl. 9).




Risba 5: Primerek breznogega, oblo-stožčastega tipa (št. 98).

Drawing 5: Specimen of the legless, round-conical type (no. 98).

4. Enonogi, tenko-valjasti so oselniki z vitkim, v celoti struženim trupom (okroglim v vodoravnem notranjem prerezu), ki spodaj v sredini mehko preide v konico. (Risba 6.) Znani so v Prekmurju (št. 1, 26, 102).

5. Enonog, valjasto-nabrekel tip oselnika (z valjasto različico) je tisti, ki ima gornjo polovico trupa (okroglega v vodoravnem notranjem prerezu) oblo in na hrbtni strani plosko, dolnja polovica pa je bolj ali manj valjasta, stružena, enakomerno nabrekla od sredine trupa ali niže in spodaj na sredi preide v konico. (Risba 7.) Taki primerki so se uveljavili v Bohinju, v Blejskem kotu in Dolini (npr. št. 2-9).




Risba 6: Oselnik enonogega, tenko-valjastega tipa (št. 102).

Drawing 6: Whetstone holder of the one-legged, thin-cylindrical type (no. 102).




Risba 7: Enonog, valjasto-nabrekel primerek (št. 46).

Drawing 7: One-legged, cylindrical-swollen specimen (no. 46).

6. Enonogi, valjasto-mnogokotni so oselniki z mnogokotno oblikovanim gornjim delom ali le gornjo četrtino trupa (okroglega v vodoravnem notranjem prerezu) in z valjastim, struženim dolnjim delom, ki spodaj v sredini mehko preide v konico. (Risbi 8, 9.) Ti ne pomenijo tipa, značilnega prav za določeno pokrajino. Izpričani so na Gorenjskem (št. 43), v okolici Ljubljane (št. 90), na Dolenjskem (št. 20), Notranjskem (št. 99), na Pivki (št. 124), Krasu (št. 100, 101), v Vipavski dolini (katalog risb št. 22) in Črnem Vrhu nad Idrijo (katalog risb št. 23).




Risba 8: Oselnik enonogega, valjasto-mnogokotnega tipa (št. 66).

Drawing 8: Whetstone holder of the one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal type (no. 66).




Risba 9: Oselnik enonogega, valjasto-mnogokotnega tipa (št. 90).

Drawing 9: Whetstone holder of the one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal type (no. 90).

7. Dvonog, mnogokoten in 8. dvonog, obel pa sta tipa oselnikov (z različicama, zlasti z oblo-mnogokotno), ki imajo naslednje bistvene značilnosti: plosko hrbtno stranico z mehko posnetima stranskima robovoma, mnogokoten ali obel zunanji (in okrogel notranji) vodoravni prerez in dve nogi, konici (v kateri se izteče hrbtna stranica), iz spredaj ostro (skoraj pod pravim kotom) posnetega dolnjega dela trupa. (Risbe 10-15.) Oba tipa sta na Slovenskem pomembno razširjena. Mnogokotni so znani zlasti na delu Dolenjskega in v Suhi krajini (npr. št. 28-33); tako mnogokotni kot obli so sporočeni za Belo krajino, Notranjsko, Pivko, Brkine, Brda; obli pa so se najbolj uveljavili v Selški in Poljanski dolini (npr. št. 41, 91, 137), na Cerkljanskem in Idrijskem (katalog risb št. 15, 24, 26), v Baški grapi (št. 134, 135), na Tolminskem in Bovškem (sl. 41), v Trenti (št. 110) in v Beneški Sloveniji (št. 25).




Risbi 10, 11: Oselnika dvonogega, mnogokotnega tipa (št. 30, 125).

Drawings 10, 11: Whetstone holders of the two-legged, polygonal type (nos. 30, 125).

Posameznemu oblikovnemu tipu oselnika ponavadi ustreza tudi prav določeno oblikovan ali v mnogih primerih nanj pričvrščen del, namenjen pretikanju pasu (vrvice) ali obešanju, zatikanju oselnika za koščev pas. Pri breznogih škatlastih, enonogih valjasto-nabreklih in dvonogih mnogokotnih primerkih sta temu namenjeni povečini dve ozki odprtini (skozi kateri je mogoče napeljati pas), zarezani pod vrhom oselnika v vogala njegove hrbtne strani (Risbe 2, 10, 12) ali v še izrazitejši štrlini, kot pri bohinjskih primerkih (Risba 7). Večina drugih oselnikov ima v vogala (npr. enonogi valjasto-mnogokotni in dvonogi obli; Risbe 8, 9, 13-15) ali v steno (npr. roženi in leseni enonogi tenko-valjasti; Risbe 16a-c, 6) izvrtani le dve luknjici; skoznju je lahko pretaknjena vrvica (Risba 9), vanju zataknjen žičnat kavelj (Risba 14) ali pričvrščena lesena deščica (Risbi 13, 14). Slednje skoraj praviloma sodijo k oblemu dvonogemu tipu oselnikov. Nekateri posamični primerki, neglede na oblikovni tip, pa imajo za obešanje na pas na hrbtno stranico (s kovicami ali z vijaki) pritrjene pločevinaste kavlje (Risbi 11, 16d), ali iz nje štrleče izrezljane lesene kavlje.




Risba 12: Primerek dvonoge, oblomnogokotne različice (št. 107).

Drawing 12: Specimen of the two-legged, round-polygonal subvariety (no. 107).




Risbi 13, 14: Oselnika dvonogega, oblega tipa (št. 40, 136).

Drawings 13, 14: Whetstone holders of the two-legged, round type (nos. 40, 136).




Risba 15: Oselnik dvonogega, oblega tipa (št. 137).

Drawing 15: Whetstone holder of the two-legged, round type (no. 137).




Risba 16: Rožen oselnik z žičnatim kavljem za obešanje na pas (št. 54);

a - rožen primerek z vrvico (št. 89),

b - z leseno deščico (št. 24),

c - z roženo ploščico (št. 42) in

d - s pločevinastim kavljem (št. 35).

Drawing 16: Horn whetstone holder with wire hook to suspend it from the belt (no. 54);

a - horn specimen with string (no. 89),

b - with little wooden board (no. 24)

c - with horn little board (no. 42) and

d - with sheet-metal hook (no. 35).


Tolikšna raznolikost v oblikovanju naših oselnikov, razvejanost oblikovnih tipov, njihova sorodnost ali različnost postane najbolj vidna na drugi ravni skupnega in svojega; skupnega evropskega in svojega slovenskega. Za večino evropskih dežel je namreč mogoče ugotavljati le tri ali štiri osnovne, splošne tipe oselnikov.8 Omenjani so roženi, leseni bolj ali manj valjasti z eno konico, paralelepipedni (Škatlasti) in bolj ali manj klinasto oblikovani (gl. posamezne primerke na Risbah 17-26). Tako so na primer našemu breznogemu škatlastemu tipu sorodni italijanski primerki iz Piemonta (prim. Risbi 18e, f in Priuli, 1988: 234), nekateri iz francoskih Alp (Risba 19d) in posamičen slovaški (Risba 22); breznogim klinastim so blizu podobni oselniki, značilni za vso spodnjo Koroško (Risba 20b) in sporočeni za Češko in Slovaško (Risba 21b) in enonogim, valjasto-nabreklim in valjasto-mnogokotnim so sorodni primerki, uveljavljeni na Tirolskem (prim. Risba 17c, d in Colleselli, 1958: 332-334), v Furlaniji in Trentinu (prim. Risba 18a in Scheuermeier, 1943: 57), na gornjem Koroškem ter drugod v Avstriji (prim. Risba 20a in Schmidt, 1952: 88), V Nemčiji (Gebhard, 1969: 69), na Češkem (prim. Risba 21a) in na Madžarskem (po korespondenci), na Hrvaškem in v Bosni (Risba 23c in Topali, 1942: 241; Popović, 1952: 171).

Svojski, da bi bolj ne mogli biti, pa so naši dvonogi oselniki; oblega in mnogokotnega oblikovnega tipa. Niti v podobi niti v besedi jim (kot kaže) nikoder drugod ni enakih. Obstaja le ena izjema; na junijski upodobitvi brušenja kose na miniaturi iz koledarskega dela Psalterja iz Bonmonta9 iz prve polovice 13. stoletja (Sl. 7) je na desnem koščevem boku jasno prepoznaven primerek z dvema konicama. In znajdemo se pred vprašanjem o kulturnih vplivih, o prenašanju kulturnih prvin.




Sl. 7: Junijska upodobitev brušenja kose (po Wiet, Elisseeff, Wolff, Nandou, 1975: priloga 7). Miniatura iz prve polovice 13. stoletja, iz koledarskega dela Psalterja iz Bonmonta, ki ga hrani Bibliothèque d’étude et de conservation v Besançonu.

Ill. 7: Illustration for the month of June, depicting the whetting of a scythe (after Wiet, Elisseeff, Wolff, Nandou, 1975: annex 7). Miniature dating from the first half of the 13th century, taken from the calendar section of the Bonmont Psalter, kept by the Bibliothèque d’étude et de conservation in Besançon.

O oselnikih je bilo za marsikod spoznano (prim. Schmidt, 1952: 90-93), da so njihove različne oblike prenašali potujoči trgovci, obrtniki in sezonski kosci. Na izoblikovanje enonogih valjasto-nabreklih slovenskih primerkov iz Bohinja in okoliških krajev naj bi tako na primer vplivali potujoči rezbarji iz Leške doline na avstrijskem Tirolskem (Schmidt, 1952: 92). Je torej mogoče podobno domnevati, da so dvonoge oselnike k nam zanesli srednjeveški menihi? Bonmont, iz katerega je psalter z upodobljenim dvonogim primerkom, je bil namreč cistercijanski samostan (ustanovljen leta 1123) z vznožja francoske Jure (Gauthier, 1894: 120). Stiki naših krajev s Francijo tistega časa pa so izpričani.10 Od tam so prišli na Slovensko v Žiče prvi kartuzijani (žička kartuzija je nastala okoli leta 1160, Jurklošter okoli leta 1170, Bistra leta 1260) in še v času sv. Bernarda iz Clairvauxa (umrl je leta 1153) so se v Stični naselili cistercijani (okoli leta 1230 je tej sledila cisterca Kostanjevica). Oba redova sta cenila fizično delo; kartuzijani so se mu bili dolžni posvečati vsak dan, cistercijani le ob pomembnejših gospodarskih opravilih (na primer ob žetvi, košnji...). In oba redova ter samostani z veliko posestjo nasploh so pomenili vpliven gospodarski dejavnik ter bili zgled svetni zemljiški gosposki in podložnikom. Ti naj bi jih posnemali v obdelovanju zemlje, reji živine...in v raznih obrtnih panogah (Mlinarič, 1993: 24, 32). Domneva o samostanskem posredništvu, o takem izvoru dvonogih oselnikov torej ni neutemeljena. Premišljanje o samoniklosti in o prenosu v obratni smeri je manj verjetno. Nedvomno pa je, da se je dvonogi oblikovni tip na Slovenskem prijel in ostal marsikod vraščen v kulturno podobo vsakdanjega življenja na kmetih do današnjih dni.




Sl. 8: Tabla z majhnimi modeli »na Krainskim navadniga kmetouškiga orodia«, iz leta 1835, s Planine pri Rakeku. Višina 48 cm, širina 47 cm. Slovenski etnografski muzej, Ljubljana, inv.št. E 2298. (Foto C. Narobé, 1993)

Ill. 8: Board with miniature models of “farming tools common in Carniolia”, 1835, from Planina by Rakek. Height 48 cm, width 47 cm. Slovene Ethnographic Museum, Ljubljana, inv. no. E 2298. (Photo C. Narobé, 1993)

Dvonogo obliko oselnikov sporoča tudi prvi zadevni tvarni vir (pričevalen za dokajšen del Slovenije, za nekdanjo vojvodino Kranjsko), tabla z majhnimi modeli »na Krainskim navadniga kmetouškiga orodia«, iz leta 1835, s Planine pri Rakeku (Sl. 8). Spremlja jo popis (Popis, 1835). Na tabli je kot »navadno« orodje - v pomenu uveljavljenega, razširjenega - predstavljen triinpolcentimetrski oselnik z dvema konicama.

Dvonoga oblika je verjetno najbolj ustrezala obrtnim znanjem domačih izdelovalcev; zlasti razpoložljivosti potrebnih orodij, naprav. In nedvomno so jo vzljubili, jo ljubili naši kosci, kajti oselnik »na dve špici je boljši, bolj v ravnotežju, boljše stoji«.

V nadaljevanju tega poglavja pa kaže poleg razčlenitve oblikovnih tipov slovenskih primerkov in topoglednih besed o skupnem in svojem orisati še nekaj; njihovo likovno oblikovanje. Spoznano je že bilo, da se je krašenje oselnikov na Slovenskem in drugod splošneje uveljavilo šele v 19. stoletju (Makarovič, 1981: 269). Navedbe o bolj zgodnjih dekoriranih primerkih iz Švice in iz nekaterih avstrijskih dežel sicer obstajajo (Haberlandt, 1911: 139; Benker, 1976: 187), a večina zadevnega gradiva, zbranega v Slovenskem etnografskem muzeju in v drugih kolekcijah ali objavljenega (gl. op.6), vendarle sodi v 19. stoletje (ter v prvo polovico 20. stoletja). Krašeni oselniki poleg drugega pomenijo enega izmed odrazov časa, ki je od zadnje tretjine 18. stoletja dalje prinašal spremembe v kmečko gospodarjenje (Smerdel, 1991: 25, 26), v večji meri sprožal proces individuacije kmečkega prebivalstva (Makarovič, 1993: 134, 145, 150) in velja za čas razcveta ljudske umetnosti oziroma umetnosti na kmetijah.

Občutja večje svobodnosti in rastočega samozavedanja so bila nedvomno plodna podlaga za umetniško ustvarjanje. Táko, kakršnega odražajo oselniki, v mnogih primerih daje le vtis spontanega, radoživega krašenja uporabnega predmeta z različnimi, povečini geometrijskimi ornamenti ter tu in tam s cvetličnimi, rastlinskimi motivi. Spontanosti, podobni tisti, ki jo izpričujejo besede enega izmed današnjih izdelovalcev oselnikov o pisanju verzov nanje: »Tist moment, ko misliš, da boš neki napisu, pa se spomniš.«

Vendar krašenje oselnikov ni bilo samo sebi namen; ali je šlo za željo imeti lep, drugačen, svoj oselnik ali za sporočanje drugih vsebin, povezanih povečini s časom košnje, »vse u zvezi s košnjo«. O tem pričajo tudi nekateri motivi, ki jih lahko razvrstimo (po Brocherelu, 1937: 21) na: 1. geometrijske, 2. cvetlične, rastlinske, 3. simbolične, 4. živalske figuralne in 5. človeške figuralne motive. Na oselnikih iz zbirke Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja so spoznavni (povečini tudi drugod najpogostejši) prvi in drugi ter le na posamičnih primerkih tretji in četrti. Petega motiva, človeške figure, znane na primer z južnotirolskih primerkov (Benker, 1976: 186) in z nekaterih španskih (Ponsoda, 1984: Fig.361-364), na slovenskih oselnikih ni videti. Tudi četrti, živalski figuralni motiv na njih skorajda ne obstaja. Sporoča ga le risba (gl. katalog risb št. 1) primerka s Koprivnika ali z Gorjuš, z izrezljanim konjem. Dva oselnika iz muzejske zbirke pa imata upodobljeni samo živalski glavi. Roženi iz zgornje Savinjske doline (št. 36) ima izrezljano morda kačjo (žival časa košnje!), vendar glede na nedoločno obliko lahko tudi glavo kakšne druge živali (jazbeca, medveda), na novejši primerek (št. 127) iz notranjske Žerovnice pa je vžgana glava konja. Enako redek je tretji, simboličen motiv. Dva križa v takem pomenu ima vrezana le en oselnik iz muzejske zbirke (št. 35, rožen, iz zgornje Savinjske doline). Križ se pojavi še na primerku iz Belokranjskega muzeja v Metliki (sl. 9) in kot arbor vitae na oselniku iz Posavskega muzeja v Brežicah (sl. 10). Kristusov monogram (IHS) s križem pa krasi le en znan primerek iz Pokrajinskega muzeja v Celju (sl. 11). Kot religiozno simbolne je mogoče pojmovati še nekatere sicer cvetlične motive, na primer šmarnico, enega izmed Marijinih simbolov (Menaše, 1971: 2100). Spoznamo jo na oselniku iz zgornje Savinjske doline iz muzejske zbirke (št. 39) in na primerku iz Gorenjskega muzeja v Kranju (sl. 12). (V mesecu maju je znano na Slovenskem priljubljeno obhajanje šmarnic, vsakodnevnih pobožnosti v Marijino čast (Kuret, 1989: 279). Je pa šmarnica tudi le majniška cvetlica; roža meseca maja, časa, ko so se ponekod že pripravljali na košnjo.) Simbolen, vendar pri oselnikih najverjetneje ne religiozen, temveč star pomen svetne ljubezni (prim. Karlovšek, 1935: 35, 57) ima še srce. Slednje je pogost motiv na okrasno oblikovanih nastavkih primerkov škatlastega oblikovnega tipa; tistih iz muzejske zbirke (št. 37-39, 92, 93, 120) in onih iz nekaterih pokrajinskih muzejev (prim. sl. 10, 12). Izjemen simbolen motiv s slovenskih oselnikov pa pomenita heraldična znaka, upodobljena na primerku iz celjskega Pokrajinskega muzeja (sl. 13). (Morda sporočata naročnika iz nekmečkega okolja.)




Sl. 9: Oselnik iz zbirke Belokranjskega muzeja v Metliki (inv.št. E 694), iz Zapudja, »zelo star«.

(Foto C. Narobé, 1994)

Ill. 9: Whetstone holder from the Bela Krajina Museum in Metlika (inv. no. E 694), originating from Zapudje, “very old”.

(Photo C. Narobé, 1994)




Sl. 10: Oselnik iz zbirke Posavskega muzeja v Brežicah (inv.št. 277), iz Pijavškega pri Krškem.

(Foto C. Narobé, 1993)

Ill. 10: Whetstone holder from the collection of the Posavje Museum in Brežice. (Photo C. Narobé, 1993).




Sl. 11: Primerek iz zbirke Pokrajinskega muzeja v Celju (inv.št. 120), brez zapisane provenience, najverjetneje iz zgornje Savinjske doline.

(Foto C. Narobé, 1993)

Ill. 11: Specimen from the collection of the Provincial Museum in Celje (inv. no. 120), origin unknown, probably from the Upper Savinja Valley. (Photo C. Narobé, 1993)




Sl. 12: Oselnik iz zbirke Gorenjskega muzeja v Kranju (inv.št. 255), iz Stiške vasi, iz srede 20. stoletja. (Foto C. Narobé, 1993)

Ill. 12: Whetstone holder from the collection of the Gorenjska Museum in Kranj (inv. no. 255), Stiška vas, early 20th century.

(Photo C. Narobé, 1993)




Sl. 13: Oselnik iz zbirke Pokrajinskega muzeja v Celju (inv.št.783), iz Šmihela nad Mozirjem. (Foto C. Narobé, 1993)

Ill. 13: Whetstone holder from the collection of the Provincial Museum in Celje (inv. no. 783), Šmihel nad Mozirjem (Photo C. Narobé,1993)

oselnikih je slednje bolj malo. (Od drugod so po bogati poslikavi znani na primer nekateri tirolski primerki; prim. Colleselli, 1958: 336.) Taki s poslikanimi motivi (z večimi oljnimi barvami) so redki in skorajda samo cvetlični; več je enobarvnih oselnikov, celih popleskanih. Med izjemne prve sodita na primer v zbirki Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja dva izmed breznogih škatlastih primerkov; tisti s stiliziranim cvetjem in letnico 1842 (št. 10) in oni s cvetočo šmarnico v lončku (št. 39). Njuno preprostejšo različico pomeni še oselnik iz zamejskega krajevnega muzeja v Bardu, z motivom nerazpoznavne cvetlice (sl. 14). Med pogostejšimi drugimi, enobarvnimi, jih je v muzejski zbirki kar nekaj (štirinajst) in so različnih oblikovnih tipov. Enobarvno pleskanje je sporočeno povečini za 20. stoletje. Največ takih oselnikov je zelenih; nekaj je rjavih, rdečih oziroma rdeče rjavih in črnih (gl. kazalo materialov). Te barve so bile sicer v navadi že pred sredo 18. stoletja (Makarovič, 1973/74: 13), a rdeča in zlasti zelena sta močno priljubljeni še danes. Zelena barva »je moja barva«, je pripovedoval kmet s Koprivnika med košnjo. Oselnik njegovega sorodnika je bil poslikan z rdečo in pravijo, da »tko mora bit«; zato, da se med sabo razlikujejo.

O posebnem likovnem okusu, o svojskem pokrajinskem pojmovanju lepega pa pričajo dvonogi obli primerki; povečini tisti iz Selške doline, Sorice in bližnjih krajev (iz muzejske zbirke npr. št. 40, 83, 111, 137). Njihov edini okras (ter del, ki jim je drugače povečeval trdnost) so bili največkrat le obroči (ali trakovi), na enih kovani in na drugih medeninasti. Tako, »da se je lepo svétlo«.




Sl. 14: Oselnik z oslo iz zbirke (v urejanju) krajevnega muzeja v Bardu v Beneški Sloveniji. (Foto C. Narobé, 1993)

Ill. 14: Whetstone holder with whetstone from the collection (which is presently being arranged) of the local museum in Bardo (Italy) in Venetian Slovenia. (Photo C. Narobé, 1993)

Slovenski oselniki - posamezni in sešteti v oblikovne tipe, ki v določenih pokrajinah veljajo za tradicionalne - so zaradi svoje razvejane tipologije ter nekaterih drugih oblikovnih in okrasnih prvin lahko spoznani za dokaj svojske v evropskem okviru. Tudi oni morda izpričujejo že v večih zvezah omenjano (prostorsko, kulturno zgodovinsko in psihološko pogojeno) nagnjenost Slovencev k individualizmu (prim. npr. Cevc, 1993: 13, 14; Trstenjak, 1991: 142). A o tistem prav svojem, o posamičnem, so oselniki najbolj povedni drugje, z drugim; ne toliko s tipologijo in z likovnim oblikovanjem kot z ustno sporočenimi posebnimi znanji, z mnogimi modrostmi in različnimi »recepti« nekaterih njihovih stvarnih izdelovalcev.


O izdelovalcih oselnikov, o tehnikah izdelovanja in krašenja, o prodaji in vrednotenju

»Svet je sicer organiziran v družbah, a v njih je individuum tisti, ki ustvarja,« je zapisala Grith Lerche (1993).

Na Slovenskem, v preteklih in sodobnih strukturah podeželskega življenja, so bili (in so ponekod še) posamezniki, ki so izdelovali lesene oselnike (in jih pogosto tudi krasili), poleg kakega kmečkega gospodarja in kakega kosca povečini domači obrtniki, mojstri katere izmed lesnih obrti. Ti so bili po svojem družbenem položaju največkrat manjši kmetje pa kajžarji, bajtarji in gostači, ki so - da bi si izboljšali življenje ali da bi sploh preživeli - kmetijo oziroma kmečka dela pozimi dopolnjevali z obrtjo (prim. Bogataj, 1989: 7).

Med izdelovalci oselnikov so bili nedvomno različni ribniški suhorobarji - najverjetneje orodjarji, strugarji, posodarji (prim. Rus, 1941: 4-6) - ter mojstri omenjenih ali morda katere izmed ostalih lesnih obrti iz drugih po teh dejavnostih znanih slovenskih krajev. Poleg Ribnice na Dolenjskem (pomembne vsaj od konca 15. stoletja) in njej bližnjega Kočevja (s Kočevarji, slovečimi škafarji ter izdelovalci krašenih nečk) so bili ti še po posodarjih znani Črni Vrh nad Idrijo, Tolminsko in Bovško, Bohinj in okolica Bleda, Selška dolina in Tacen pri Ljubljani, zgornja Savinjska dolina (s svojimi posodarji, tesarji ter samouškimi mojstri za vse) pa okolica Maribora, Ptuja in Prekmurje (prim. Bras, 1979: 4-20). Tako so za zadnjo pokrajino kot izdelovalci oselnikov sporočeni »domači kolarji ali sami gospodarji« (Šarf, 1967: 49); iz Soče na Bovškem je na primer zapis o »pintarju«, posodarju, ki je poleg pinj in podobnega »delal vósenoke« (Trenta, 1952: 71); v Zadlogu pri Črnem Vrhu nad Idrijo je za leto 1959 izpričan mojster, ki jih je »drakslal«, stružil, drugače pa je delal grablje, kosišča...(Črni Vrh - Vojsko, 1959) in za dolenjski Gradež, v katerem ter v bližnjih vaseh na pobočju Ahacove gore naj bi bili doma številni izdelovalci oselnikov, je kar nekajkrat sporočen mož (npr. Ljubič, 1951: 71, 72; Gradež, 1964), ki je sicer delal tudi nekatera druga orodja, a na daleč znan je bil (pred in po 2. svetovni vojni) prav po svojih oselnikih.

Izdelovalci roženih primerkov so bili (in so) povečini kar njihovi uporabniki sami; zanje namreč niso bila (in niso) potrebna neka posebna znanja niti spretnosti.11 Kot izdelek obrtnika, mojstra glavnikarja, je izpričan le izjemen oselnik iz Škofje Loke, iz leta 1845 (iz zbirke Loškega muzeja, sl. 15). O proizvajalcih pločevinastih (in plastičnih) primerkov, ki sodijo večinoma med industrijske ali obrtne strojne izdelke, pa ni sporočenega nič takega, kar bi proizvajalce označevalo kot ustvarjalne posameznike.

Med mojstri, ki še danes naredijo kak lesen oselnik, je tu in tam posamičen gospodar, ki bi ga sicer nedvomno lahko kupil, a si ga še vedno rad izdela sam; in so kot nekdaj razni izučeni ter samouški lesni obrtniki, ki jih napravijo zase, za sovaščane in za prodajo.

Izmed posameznih gospodarjev je tak na primer Miro Mahne (r. 192?), kmet Rot iz Goričic blizu Cerkniškega jezera. Že leta kosi s kosilnico, vendar oselnik še vedno rabi za košnjo sveže krme; in čeprav zna izdelati bolj robate primerke, si najraje opaše svojega (št. 126). Oselnik samoukega kolarja in mizarja Janka Lunke iz sosednje Žerovnice pa mu visi za okras na kuhinjski steni. Na Koprivniku mu je bil podoben kmet Mečnik, Franc Beznik (r. 1933, u. 1993). Kljub temu, da ni imel niti vsega potrebnega orodja - luknje za osle je na primer širil z izžiganjem - je domače oselnike rad napravil (in jih okrasil) sam (št. 116). Če je izdelal kak primerek več, ga je podaril sorodnikom. Tretji tak gospodar je bil na primer kmet Alojz Jagodic (u. 1983) iz Stiške vasi pod Krvavcem. Ker kmetije ni dopolnjeval z delom »dol u fabriki«, je v prostem zimskem času rezljal okvirje za slike, pletel koše in za domačo rabo napravil kak oselnik (št. 120). Imel je veselje ter »svoj ponk in rihtengo«, mizarsko delovno mizo in vsa orodja.




Sl. 15: Oselnik iz zbirke Loškega muzeja v Škofji Loki (inv.št. E 3464), glavnikarski izdelek iz leta 1845. (Foto M. Kambič, 1993)

Ill. 15: Whetstone holder from the collection of the Škofja Loka Museum (inv. no. E 3464), made by a comb-maker in 1845. (Photo M. Kambič, 1993)

Izmed lesnih obrtnikov, ki najsibo le tu in tam najsibo v večjem obsegu še delajo oselnike, pa so taki na primer izučen kolar Alojz Sodja (r. 1931), Vangus iz Bohinjske Češnjice, ki jih nekaj napravi vsako zimo, oblikuje na električni stružnici ter jih potem rad še z nekaj vrezi okrasi (št. 119); izučen tesar Valentin Benedičič (r. 1935), mojster Tine iz Zalega Loga, ki izdela nekaj oselnikov (št. 137), kadar ima pozimi čas in ne dela drugega (grabelj, kosišč, pručk, klopi...); kmet Janko Primožič (r. 1927), Javor iz Davče, ki se ukvarja z domačo obrtjo, z izdelovanjem košev, grabelj, kosišč in oselnikov (št. 138) - po kakih petdeset v eni zimi; pa še samouki kolar in mizar Janko Lunka (r. 1923), »ta dolenj Njučoh« iz Žerovnice, ki jih strojno, »kar na cirkular«, napravi okoli tristo na zimo in z ženino pomočjo posamezne tudi okrasi.

Vsem izdelovalcem oselnikov - tako nekdanjim kot sedanjim, najsibo posamičnim gospodarjem najsibo domačim ali izučenim lesnim obrtnikom - je skupno, da so jih kljub dvema osnovnima, stoletja ne dosti spremenjenima tehnikama vsi delali malce po svoje. Naučili so se ali tako, da so lahko posnemali kakega že izkušenega mojstra, kot je na primer Lojz Zabukovec iz Gradeža hodil opazovat svojega soseda in znanega osovnikarja Jožeta Šmuca, Bajdeta (Ljubič, 1951: 72; Oselniki, 1993), ali tako, da so tehniko izdelovanja preizkušali sami. »Delo te uči - právjo,« je o tem menil Tone Sedmak iz Jurišč in mojster Tine iz Zalega Loga je dodal: »Morš praktično sam probat. Nobena teorija ne vela pr vósunikih.« (Oselniki, 1993.)




Sl. 16: Jože Šmuc, mojster Bajde iz Gradeža sedi na rezilnem stolu in kaže, kako izvrta luknjo v oselnik. (Iz arhiva B. Kuharja; fotografirano leta 1964.)

Ill. 16: Jože Šmuc, master Bajde from Gradež, sitting on a cutting bench and boring a hole in a whetstone holder. (From the archive of B. Kuhar, photograph taken in 1964).

Osnovni tehniki izdelovanja lesenih primerkov sta bili in sta na Slovenskem dve; ločuje ju raba dveh različnih naprav: ali rezilnega stola (in pri nekaterih mizarske delovne mize) ali stružnice (na nožni pogon - v Evropi znane od 13. in pomembneje v rabi od 16. stoletja dalje (Born, 1989: 7) - ter sodobne električne). Raba prve naprave je pri nas najverjetneje starejša in je morala biti pomembneje razširjena, posameznikom bolj dostopna, saj je ni bilo težko izdelati. Rabo druge na primer sporočajo bohinjski, koprivniški in gorjuški oselniki iz druge polovice 19. stoletja (št. 2-9). (Nožno stružnico, ki se na Gorjušah še vrti, je sam napravil oče piparja Koritarja, Vinka Beznika, tudi pipar ter izdelovalec oselnikov.) In iz Zadloga pri Črnem Vrhu nad Idrijo je zapis (Črni Vrh - Vojsko, 1959), v katerem je mogoče prebrati, kako so tam, pri Lipetu, stružili oselnike že pred 1. svetovno vojno, pred tem, »po starem«, pa so jih obdelovali le z rezilnikom.

Orodja, ki so jih izdelovalci oselnikov rabili (oziroma jih še rabijo) poleg prve ali druge naprave, so naslednja: sekira (malarin), različni svedri (vijačni in žličasti), žaga, rezilnik, različna dleta, rašpa; in potem za krašenje: različne vrste žlebil s profili različnih rezov, nožek, punca. Poleg obeh naprav, rezilnega stola in stružnice, so morali najprej jemati v roke sekiro, s katero so navzkrižno razcepili večji kos lesa ter obtesali štiri (ali več, če je bil kos večji) v vodoravnem prerezu kvadratne količke. Sledilo je vrtanje luknje za oslo: najprej z manjšim, potem z večjim vijačnim in nazadnje z žličastim svedrom. (Tam, kjer so izdelovali škatlaste oselnike, so izvrtano luknjo - do njene pravokotniške ali elipsaste oblike v vodoravnem prerezu - dodelali z dletom.) Vsa ostala navedena orodja, namenjena nadaljni obdelavi, so sicer tudi lahko spremljala eno ali drugo napravo, a najbolj običajni sta bili vendarle zvezi: rezilni stol - rezilnik in stružnica - dleta. Med struženjem se je pri takih oselnikih sproti oblikovala tudi konica za zatikanje v zemljo, pri tistih, obdelovanih na rezilnem stolu, pa so morali povečini dve konici posebej oblikovati z žago in z izbijalnim dletom. Odprtini za pretikanje pasu (ali morda lesen kavelj) so izdelovali s svedrcem, z dletom in luknjici za vrvico (za zatikanje žičnatega kavlja, za pričvrščanje deščice) so vrtali z manjšim vijačnim svedrom (Oselniki, 1992, 1993).




Sl. 17: Frančiška Krampelj iz Gradeža (8) natika ostremu svedru zaščitni lesen tok. (Foto I. Smerdel, 1993)

Ill. 17: Frančiška Krampelj from Gradež (8) puts a wooden protective sheath over a sharp borer. (Photo I. Smerdel, 1993)




Sl. 18: Njeni trije svedri za vrtanje oselnikov so vedno nabrušeni. Tu in tam še kdo pride ponje. (Foto I. Smerdel, 1993)

Ill. 18: Her three borers for boring holes in whetstone holders are always sharp. Now and then someone comes round to borrow one of them. (Photo I. Smerdel, 1993)

Na kmetijah navedenih orodij ponavadi ni manjkalo.12 Le velikih svedrov za vrtanje luknje za oslo ni imel vsakdo. Tako je na primer iz Gradeža iz let po 2. svetovni vojni sporočeno (Male Lipljene, 1948), kako so sijih izposojali. Pri Škindrovih, na kmetiji, ki je bila »bol pri ta vélcih« in kjer je gospodar sam izdeloval domače oselnike, gospodinja še danes skrbno čuva tri take svedre. Tu in tam še kdo pride prosit zanje, saj je »cela okolca vedla, da so tile svedri pri nas že od nekdej pri hiši« (sl. 17, 18). Na Juriščah na gornji Pivki pa so pripovedovali, kako so - ker ni bilo niti v hiši niti pri sosedih pravega svedra - po vrtanju z velikim, a pretankim »igličarjem« luknjo kar »palili z vrelim železarm«, da so jo povečali (Oselniki, 1993).

Najbolj usodna za izdelavo in potem za rabo oselnika pa je bila izbira primernega lesa in njegova pravilna priprava. Les se je moral namreč lahko obdelovati, biti volján za morebitno rezbarjenje, odporen na poletno pripeko, na temperaturne spremembe in na neprenehno močo. Med trdimi lesovi so pri nas za oselnike najraje (prim. s kazalom materialov) izbirali orehovino, gosto, elastično in težko, priljubljeno pri rezbarjih; nagnojevino, s podobnimi lastnostmi, izjemno odporno na vlago in jesenovino, trdo in močno, primerno za krivljenje ter za rezbarjenje. Med mehkimi lesovi so radi uporabljali zlasti lipovino, najljubšo rezbarjem in topolovino, sicer lahko za obdelovanje, a neodporno na vlago in temperaturne spremembe (prim. Donzelli, Munari, Polato, 1983: 64, 66, 68; Popović, 1952: 170). Med prvimi so tu in tam segali še po hrastovini, kostanjevini, javorjevini, hruškovini, jablanovini, brestovini in med drugimi še po jelševini in brezovini.

O izbiri lesa, o njegovi pravilni pripravi ter obdelavi so najbolj povedne, najbolj slikovite kar besede posameznih izdelovalcev; njihove osebne modrosti in znanja. Les so si (tisti, ki so ga imeli) izbirali v svojem gozdu, v sadovnjaku ali ga kupovali pri sosedih (kot na primer gradežki osovnikar, kočar Bajde). V dolenjskem Gradežu še danes najbolj cenijo orehovino. »Tle so največ iz oreha delal; oreh se jako fino obdeluje; mizarji so rekli, da je oreh tak les, da bi ga ju (jedel).« Lojz Zabukovec, ki je dokajšen del svojih znanj pridobil pri sosedu Bajdetu, je razlagal, da je bistveno delo pri oselniku vrtanje luknje za oslo. Da njene stene prekmalu ne počijo, da je osla, »ko skače« (med koščevim gibanjem), in voda spodaj ne »prejé«, je treba paziti, da pri vrtanju »ne zaideš«, da ne narediš pregloboke luknje. Potem pa je treba les še od pol do enega leta sušiti v senci. Sušijo se že obsekani, za oselnik primerno visoki in široki kosi z izvrtanimi luknjami, narejenimi »u frišen« les. Ti kosi morajo biti vedno do dveh centimetrov višji od končnega izdelka, ker rob luknje med sušenjem razpoka in ga je treba pred dokončno obdelavo (na rezilnem stolu) odžagati (Oselniki, 1993).




Sl. 19: Kolar Alojz Sodja, mojster Vangus iz Bohinjske Češnjice (60) pripoveduje, kako oblikuje oselnik na električni stružnici.

(Foto N. Valentinčič, 1993)

Ill. 19: Cartwright Alojz Sodja, master Vangus from Bohinjska Češnjica (60) explaining how a whetstone holder is shaped on an electric lathe.

(Photo N. Valentinčič, 1993)

Na Koprivniku, Gorjušah in v Bohinju so pripovedovali o cenjenem lesu orehove korenine ter o hruškovini, ki zlepa ne razpoka na vročini (piparsko znanje) in je zato tako primerna »za ta polétensk čas«. Kolar Vangus iz Bohinjske Češnjice, ki pri izdelovanju oselnikov (na električni stružnici) s pridom uporablja svoja poklicna znanja, v obsekane kose lesa tudi najprej izvrta luknjo za oslo. »Mejhno prej ga morš izvrtat in morš met mero,« da je ne narediš postrani. Pravi, da je po sušenju les pretrd za uspešno vrtanje. Posušene izvrtane kose potem pred obdelavo še prekuha (kolarsko znanje), ker na tak način pripravljen les »manj rad poči«.

V Zalem Logu, Davči in v Baški grapi pa so doma izdelovalci, ki prisegajo na nagnojevino. Tesarski mojster Tine (iz prvega kraja) je na primer omembo oselnika iz topolovine pospremil z besedami: »To ni vósunik - to je dru (poleno).« In takega iz lipovine: »Lipovga maš pa lóhk sam za eno košnjo.« Cenjeni nagnojev les je sicer težko dobiti, »u mál ktermu kráj, da rase«, a on dela oselnike le iz njega. Izučen mizar Kaltnekar iz Kuka ga je označil kot les, ki najdlje traja, ki ne preperi. »Nagnoj je ku jeklo.« Nažagane kose debla, razcepljene na četrtine, v teh krajih povečini vsi sušijo pred vrtanjem luknje. Mojster Tine dve do tri leta in tudi dlje, kmet ter domači obrtnik Javor iz Davče pa je o tem pomodroval, da je še toliko premalo, da »pravjo, da les - vsak centimeter se leto suši«. Tine ga potem, ko ima že luknjo in je »na ta véč obdelan«, še kuha. V velikem loncu, v katerega da naenkrat pokončno do osem oselnikov, jih ima v vodi deset ur. Če medtem kateri poči, »gre u peč«. Po kuhanju jih pred dokončno obdelavo (s krožno in obodno žago, z obličem ali z rezilnikom) še enkrat, še eno leto suši.

Poleg vseh teh drobnih modrosti in znanj pa je večini izdelovalcev oselnikov lastno še nekaj: veselje za dekoriranje - tudi če gre le za okrasitev svojega primerka. Mojster Tine iz Zalega Loga jih je na primer, če je »meu cajt mau okrasil, mau okoval«, kot je bilo vedno v navadi v teh krajih, s svetlečo medenino (gl. št. 137). Pipar Cena, Vinko Beznik z Gorjuš in kmet Mečnik s Koprivnika sta si svoja oselnika dekorirala, slednji »po starem«, z luskastimi vrezi (št. 116) in prvi delno na star način, delno po svoje: z luskastimi vrezi, narejenimi z »dlétucem« (z malim žlebilom), s struženimi »risi« ter z drugimi »vzorčki«, izvedenimi z nožičem in z zvezdasto punco (št. 118). Svoje izdelke rad okrasi tudi kolar Vangus iz Bohinjske Češnjice; z nekaj luskastimi vrezi (št. 119), s »ciri« (iz nem. Zier - okras). Bajdetov učenec Lojz iz Gradeža je izdelal oselnik bratu in ga okrasil, kot je pri tem opazoval učitelja. »Opraskal« ga je z »nožčkom« (z majhnim žlebilom), mu črtno vrezal vejice, cvetlico... in letnico ter začetnici bratovega imena in priimka (št. 131). Kmet ter domači obrtnik Javor iz Davče in po tehniki krašenja njemu podoben samouki kolar in mizar Lunka iz Žerovnice pa sta novodobna okraševalca. Na sicer tradicionalno (čeprav strojno) oblikovane oselnike pišeta, oziroma rišeta z »električno iglico«. Vžiganje naj bi »čez mejo (iz Avstrije) prinesli k nam« Ribničani. Lunki, ki se je pred leti navdušil nad njim pri sorodnikih v Sodražici, je napravo za vžiganje izdelal kar sin električar. Mojster, ki pozimi naredi za prodajo do tristo oselnikov, povečini okrasi le tiste, ki jih trži kot spominke. Pri krašenju mu pomaga žena, saj »je več dela za ožgat, koker za nardit«. Ona »piše robčke« (črtne ornamente, znane s starih primerkov), on »figurce« (št. 127). Kmet Javor iz Davče, h kateremu prihajajo po oselnike okoličani - za rabo - pa nanje z vžiganjem piše verze. »Vse u zvezi s košnjo«, kar se »tist moment« spomni. Na primer: »Je kosa topa, reže nič in kosca jemlje že hudič!« ali: »Če mož pri košnji omaga, ›žena‹ mu pomaga« in še mnogo podobnih, večkrat polnih erotične vsebine (»Če ni za zajtrk žgancov, cvička, neboš zvečer imela ›Tička‹.« Gl. št. 138).




Sl. 20: Tesar Valentin Benedičič, mojster Tine iz Zalega Loga (10) razlaga svojo tehniko izdelovanja oselnikov. (Foto I. Smerdel, 1993)

Ill. 20: Carpenter Valentin Benedičič, master Tine from Zali Log (10) explaining his technique of making whetstone holders. (Photo I. Smerdel, 1993)




Sl. 21: Pod stopnicami suši razžagana in razcepljena debla nagnojevine.

(Foto I. Smerdel, 1993)

Ill. 21: Sawn and split pieces of a broom trunk are drying under the stairs.

(Photo I. Smerdel, 1993)




Sl. 22: Mojster Vangus (iz Bohinjske Češnjice 60) s svojim izdelkom, okrašenim s »ciri«. (Foto N. Valentinčič, 1993)

Ill. 22: Master Vangus (from Bohinjska Češnjica 60) with his whetstone holder, decorated with ornaments. (Photo N. Valentinčič, 1993)

Svojskost posameznih izdelovalcev oselnikov je nezgrešljiva. Njihove individualne drobne modrosti, tehnična spoznanja pa so vendarle vpeta v skupno; če drugega ne, so vsi nadaljevalci tistih oblik oselnikov, tistih tipov, ki so bili in so še domači v njihovem okolju. Možni kupci mojstrov, ki oselnike napravijo tudi za prodajo, so namreč skorajda le njihovi sovaščani in prebivalci sosednjih vasi. Oboji si pridejo izbrat svoj primerek kar na izdelovalčev dom. Med znanimi mojstri je samo Lunka iz Žerovnice tak, da oselnike trži še drugje; povečini na raznih semnjih v tednih pred začetkom košnje (sl. 23).

Nič bistveno drugače kot danes jih niso prodajali tudi nekdaj. O osovnikarju Bajdetu iz Gradeža je na primer za šestdeseta leta sporočeno, da si jih k njemu ljudje kar »sami pridejo iskat, kdor rabi« (Gradež, 1964). O brezimnem, »vase zamišljenem možu« iz istih krajev je zapisano, kako je v nekdanjih časih (verjetno med obema svetovnima vojnama) v dneh med semnji hodil po vaseh in od hiše do hiše »ponujal svojo robo«. Drugače je »luknje« prodajal na Tihem semnju (po tihi nedelji na sv. Antona, 13. junija) na Rebri v Dobrépoljah, na Alojzijevem (21. junija) v Velikih Laščah in na Kresnem sejmu v Ribnici (Ljubič, 1951: 71, 72). Na Pivki po prodaji oselnikov pomnijo semenj na sv. Petra (29. junija v Pivki, nekdanjem Št. Petru na Krasu), »tákrat«, ko so »začeli košnjo« (Oselniki, 1993), na Cerkljanskem je bil tak semanji dan sv. Marka (18. junija) v Cerknem (Turnšek, 1952: 103), iz Zadloga pa je za konec petdesetih let še sporočeno, kako so mojstri dajali svoje stružene primerke naprodaj kar v črnovrško zadrugo (Črni Vrh - Vojsko, 1959).




Sl. 23: Vsakega desetega v mesecu je v Pivki sejem. Na semanji dan v mesecu juniju Ribničan prodaja tudi oselnike, izdelke mojstra Lunke iz Žerovnice. (Foto I. Smerdel, 1993)

Ill. 23: The fair in Pivka is held every tenth of the month. In June a market-vendor from Ribnica sells whetstone holders made by master Lunka from Žerovnica.

(Photo I. Smerdel, 1993)

Kljub temu, da je v izdelavo oselnika vloženega dosti dela in tudi material, njegova cena kot kaže nikoli ni bila prav visoka. Današnja, ki se giblje od 250 do 500 tolarjev, je nizka tako pri notranjskem mojstru Lunki - pri katerem »čist« stane 250 in »opisan« 350 tolarjev, njegov izdelovalec pa mora topolov les zanj kupiti, ga sušiti, ga obdelati (sicer strojno, ko za en primerek zadoščata dve uri), preparirati in morda še krasiti - kot pri gorenjskem mojstru Vangusu, pri katerem je enotna cena 500 tolarjev, les boljši (hruškov), njegova priprava še zamudnejša (kuhanje) in obdelava (strojna) enako dolga (dve uri). Na osnovi podatka, sporočenega za Pivko za leto 1947, da je bila tedaj cena struženega javorjevega oselnika 100 dinarjev (Oselniki, 1993) in potem drugega, zapisanega na Črnem Vrhu nad Idrijo za leto 1959, da je lipov oselnik stal 76 dinarjev ter stružen nagnojev 150 dinarjev (Črni Vrh - Vojsko, 1959), je bilo mogoče v primerjavi s plačilom za celodnevno delo, »za šiht al pa dnino« - ki je bila na primer v Davči leta 1954 400 dinarjev - ugotoviti, da cena oselnika tudi pred desetletji ni bila visoka; da so morali v štiridesetih in petdesetih letih zanj odšteti le od četrtine do tretjine dnevnega zaslužka. In vendar so si jih ponekod (na primer v odmaknjenih Juriščah na gornji Pivki in v dolenjskem Gradežu) v desetletjih med svetovnima vojnama v marsikateri hiši izdelovali doma tudi zato, ker »za vósunik kupit je blo treba dnarja«, a »včasih je blu tešku za dnár, pa so si kar sami delal« (Oselniki, 1993).

Niti pri tistih, ki so si jih kupovali nekdaj, niti pri sodobnih kupcih pa o izbiri ni odločala cena. »Vsak gospodar si je izbral raje ›ta opraskanega‹, to je zrezljani osovnik« (le nekaj dinarjev dražji od neopraskanega) je bilo zapisano za čas med svetovnima vojnama za vasi s pobočja Ahacove gore (Ljubič, 1951: 71). In koder jih rabijo danes (ter o njih marsikod pravijo kar: »Tisto nucamo, kar je.«), se za oselnike odločajo ali jih zavračajo zaradi drugega: iz pocinkane pločevine jih nekateri ne vzamejo radi, ker »se odspodi predrgne, zarošta, dve leti in je preč«; o roženih menijo, da so boljši, da »saj spoč ne«; eni kupijo »zdej bol ta plastične«, ker so lahki in nekaj je še takih, da »vsak raj leseno vzame«. So možaki, ki iz podedovanih in iz lastnih izkušenj vedo, da le v lesenem oselniku v poletni vročini voda ostane mrzla; takšna, kakršna mora biti, da osla dobro nabrusi koso (Oselniki, 1992, 1993).


O izdelovanju osel, o njihovi prodaji in vrednotenju

Drugače kot oselniki, ki so nastajali povečini za svoje okolje in se v njem tudi prodajali, so osle pogosto končavale daleč stran od kraja svojega nastanka. Povsod so jih rabili, a le malokje so imeli najdišča zanje primernega kamna. Iz bavarskega Unterammergaua na primer, koder je bilo izdelovanje osel izpričano že v 16. stoletju (do srede dvajsetega), so jih vsako leto transportirali s splavom (kasneje, v 19. stoletju po železnici) po Donavi do Dunaja (Rautenberg, 1987: 7, 38) in morda je posamezna izmed teh osel prišla tudi v kako severnejšo slovensko vas. Iz bližine italijanskega Bergama, iz Pradalunge, pa so z njimi trgovali še dlje in z mnogimi deželami. Najstarejši pisani vir, v katerem se omenja »vena di coti«, žila (kamna) za osle, njihovo izdelovanje sporoča že v letu 1385 (Nicefori, 1988: 16, 96). Pomembna raba prav »bergamaških osel« je za 20. stoletje ustno izpričana marsikje na Slovenskem. Je morda na njé mislil tudi Levstikov Martin Krpan, ko se je avstrijskemu cesarju izgovoril, da s svojo kobilico tovori v vrečah le nekaj brusov,13 zavitih v slamo? (Levstik, 1981: 6.) Alije morda pisatelj, ki je svojega Krpana napisal leta 1858, vedel za vas Mune v Čičariji, v kateri so v 19. stoletju v kamnolomu skrilavca delali osle ter jih nosili na prodaj na Kranjsko in celo na koroške trge (Urbas, 1884: 27). Starejši vir, ki sporoča domačo proizvodnjo, je besedilo o slovenskem trgovstvu na Štajerskem in Koroškem (O slovenskem, 1907: 135). V njem je za leto 1907 omenjena »večja domača industrija z brusnimi kamni okoli Rogatca«. Osel, imenovanih kosnjaki, se je tedaj izdelalo »nad dva vagona na leto« ter »razpečavalo po vseh alpskih deželah do Trsta in Pulja in na Ogrsko«. V Logu in Dobovcu naj bi na desetine večjih in manjših kamnolomov, »štangrb« (iz nem. Steinbruch - kamnolom), obstajalo približno od druge polovice 18. stoletja. In še danes je tam posamičen kamnosek, ki iz »plavega brusnega kamna«, kremenovega peščenjaka, skleplje kakšen ploščnat in okrogel (v vodoravnem prerezu) »kosják« (Rogatec, 1993; gl. Sl. 24 a-d).

O drugih bolj ali manj uspešnih poskusih izdelovanja osel na Slovenskem - ali celo prave proizvodnje in prodaje - obstajajo povečini le ustna pričevanja. Tu in tam so bile verjetno gorske kmetije, zaradi samotnosti dokaj samozadostne, kakršni sta Vršnik v Robanovem kotu in Jamnik pod Olševo, kjer je na primer na prvi domači stric vztrajno preizkušal »ta in oni kamen, pa ni naredu dobre osle«, vse so bile pregladke, in kjer obstaja o drugi zapis (Robanov fond, 8), da so v votlini, imenovani Pekel, »dobivali brusne kamne«. Tu in tam je bila verjetno tudi vas, kakršen je na primer odmaknjeni Koseč nad Kobaridom. Tam so ob potoku, ki ima prav ime Brsnik, Brusnik, njeni prebivalci »klali ta črn kámn«, iz katerega »so delal oslê enkrat« (Oselniki, 1993).

In bili so še posamezniki, ki so jih izdelovali zase in za prodajo (za dopolnilni zaslužek), doma iz krajev, blizu katerih so ležala nekdaj znana nahajališča pravega brusnega kamna. Zanja so izvedeli ali od »starejših ljudi« - kot je na primer kmetu Žvanu, Martinu Zupanu (r. 1919) iz Srednje vasi v Bohinju za tisto v Senožetah (med Rudnico in Šavnico), v grapi proti Brojskemu polju, povedal starejši mož iz sosednje vasi - ali so jih pomnili iz lastnega otroštva, iz opazovanja mož, ki so v njih lomili kamne za osle - kot je pokojni velik kmet Majdelc (r. 1898) s Podporezna, doma iz Gornjih Novakov, v tamkajšnjem kamnolomu še pred 1. svetovno vojno gledal Rezijane, kako so osle napol obdelovali kar sredi skal. Prvi, Žvan, se je začel s tem ukvarjati pred okrog tridesetimi leti, skupaj z enim izmed sovaščanov. Znanec iz Vipavske doline mu je povedal za nekoga, ki je tedaj delal osle v Lokavcu. Napotil se je k njemu, videl orodja, spoznal tehniko izdelovanja in potem poskusil še sam. »Mau je bla radovednost«, malo pa tudi želja po dodatnem zaslužku. Nekaj osel je uspel prodati v Tržiško tovarno kos in srpov. In »pol ko sem enkrat spoznau tehnologijo, pol pa kšefta ni blo več«. V šestdesetih letih so se namreč pomembneje uveljavile motorne kosilnice. Drugi, Majdelc s Podporezna, oče današnjega gospodarja, je osle delal le nekaj let po 2. svetovni vojni. Zato, ker »takrat se ni moglo prit do bergamaških«, ki so bile vendarle najbolj cenjene. Tako se je mož, velik kmet in človek, ki je znal narediti vse - »od poročnega prstana do puške« - lotil še izdelovanja osel; tudi za dodaten zaslužek. Leta 1954, ko je veljal »šiht al pa dnina« štiristo dinarjev, je za oslo iztržil po sto.




Sl. 24: Franc Križanec iz Loga (30) s »krampičem« kleplje brusni kamen, ki ga na koncu oblikuje še s koso. (Iz fototeke Muzeja novejše zgodovine Celje; foto M. Lorenčak, 1993)

Ill. 24: Franc Križanec from Log (30) sharpening a grinding stone with a “little pickax”. To finish its shape he will use a scythe. (From the photo library of the Museum of Recent History in Celje; photo M. Lorenčak, 1993)




Sl. 25: Aleksander Prezelj, današnji gospodar Maj dele s Podporezna (6) drži v rokah ploščo kremenovega peščenjaka (iz kamnoloma v Gornjih Novakih), ki je obležala ob hiši od let, ko je njegov oče izdeloval osle.

(Foto I. Smerdel, 1993)

Ill. 25: Aleksander Prezelj, farmer Majdelc from Podporezen (6) holding a plate of quartz (from the quarry in Gornji Novaki) which has been in the house since the time his father used to make whetstones. (Photo I. Smerdel, 1993)




Sl. 26: Majdelčev brus za dokončno obdelavo osel. (Foto I. Smerdel, 1993)

Ill. 26: Majdelc’s grindstone, used for the final shaping of whetstones.

(Photo I. Smerdel, 1993)




Sl. 27: Martin Zupan, kmet Žvan iz Srednje vasi (11) v Bohinju na svojem »skep zbitem stolu« z vidia krožno žago kaže, kako je na bolj grobo zrnatem brusu ročno drgnil osle, da so dobile končno obliko. (Foto I. Smerdel, 1993)

Ill. 27: Martin Zupan, farmer Žvan from Srednja vas (11) in Bohinj on the bench with vidia circular saw he “put together”, showing how he used to grind whetstones on a coarse-grain grindstone to give them their final shape. (Photo I. Smerdel, 1993)

Oba, tako Žvan kot Majdelc, sta imela svoji zadevni delavnici kar v domačih gospodarskih poslopjih; prvi poleg hleva in drugi na podu. Od kamnoloma do doma pa sta si morala kamnite plošče znositi in zvoziti. »Kamen je blo treba z grape ven na hrbtu nanosit, da se je s konjem prevozu sem do doma,« je pripovedoval prvi; drugemu so pri tem pomagali domačini iz ne tako bližnjih Gornjih Novakov in mu ga »v koših nosili domov«. Plošče sta lomila z jeklenimi klini in krampi, »nekaj je blo pa tud takih, da se jih je najdlo; od zime«. »Se u praksi naučiš, ker je ta prav.« Majdelc je imel potem v delavnici »ena taka rezilka in en tak brus«, da je narezal plošče ter jih dokončno obdeloval (npr. št. 148). Žvan si je »zbou skep en tak stou kot za cirkularko«. Na njem seje vrtela vidia krožna žaga (namesto jeklene). Ob njej je napeljal cev, iz katere je na kamen brizgala voda. »Kamen se ne sme segret, da ne poč.« Za osle narezane, »bol kot jelenov jezik« oblikovane ploščice je pred dokončnim brušenjem vedno še pregledal, da ne bi imele »bele lase«, tankih belih žil, saj je vedel, da prav po njih drugače rade počijo. Take ploščice so bile le »kala«, za odpad (Oselniki, 1993).

Poleg bohinjskega Žvana in podporezenškega Majdelca pa so z obrobja Vipavske doline sporočeni še eni povojni izdelovalci osel, njih skupinica, povečini vaščanov Stomaža, ki so leta 1948 ustanovili Krajevno podjetje brusnega kamna Čaven, imenovano po domače »Oslarija«, čeprav so v njem delali tudi velike okrogle bruse. Živelo je le pet let (zaradi različnih, tudi medosebnih razlogov), a zraslo iz stare tradicije. V teh krajih so »vósle delali že poprej, že pod Italijo«. Eden izmed stomažkih posameznikov, ki je že takrat hodil po brusni kamen zanje pod Čaven, je bil na primer Peter Rustja (r. 1871), lastnik »nekej malga kmetije«, zgubljene, ker ni zmogel plačevati davkov. Osle je delal v upanju, da bo lahko z zaslužkom preživljal družino, a jih je ob neenakovredni konkurenci bolj cenjenih bergamaških le malo prodal. V letih pod italijansko oblastjo, ko je bila malo boljša »žrnada«, dnina deset lir, je malokatero prodal za pet. Dajal jih je »tud za eno liro, sám da je dobu sold«.

V Stomažu je odgovor na vprašanje: »Kako se vósla rodi?«, kratek: »Iz lukne (iz grape na Potókovšah) je pršla pod Čavnom.« V njej je bil pravi kamen, ki se ga »je dalo klat lepo na deskice, po en prst do dva debele«. Člani »Oslarije« so ga lomili s krampi in s »špicami«, z jeklenimi klini, po katerih so tolkli z macolami. Potem so ga naložili na voz in ga »peljali z volmi u Stomaž«. Tam so imeli za delavnico star hlev s praznimi jaslimi, v katere so namestili velike in bolj grobe brusne kamne. Kamnite plošče, »skalce so ble prvo obrezane s škarjami«. Dobljeno obliko so drgnili na brusih v jaslih, »gor polivali vodo«, potem pa oprali, posušili in zložili v zabojčke, po petdeset osel v enega. Tako so šle naprodaj; povečini v Solkan in v Brda.




Sl. 28: Stomažani, delavci Krajevnega podjetja brusnega kamna Čaven, imenovanega tudi »Oslarija«, pred svojo delavnico. Na fotografiji, posneti leta 1949, so od leve proti desni: Jože Batagelj, Hilarij Bratina, Franc Batagelj (z oslo v roki), Vincenc Bratina, Ernest Rovtar, Mario Volk in Peter Lukančič. (Iz družinskega albuma J. Batagelja, Cesta 27)

Ill. 28: Stomaž. The workers of the Local Grindstone Company Čaven, also called “Oslarija” in front of their workshop. Photograph taken in 1949. From left to right: Jože Bagatelj, Hilarij Bratina, Franc Batagelj (holding a whetstone), Vincenc Bratina, Ernest Rovtar, Mario Volk and Peter Lukančič. (From the family album of J. Batagelj, Cesta 27).




Sl. 29: Na pivški semanji dan, 10. junija, »potnik« prodaja osle iz Bergama. Za morebitne kupce jih namesto z nožem preizkuša kar z vžigalico.

(Foto I. Smerdel, 1993)

Ill. 29: A “salesman” selling whetstones at the June fair in Pivka. Their quality is demonstrated to potential buyers by striking a match on them instead of whetting a knife.

(Photo I. Smerdel, 1993)

A vsa ta stomažka in druga prizadevanja niso mogla tekmovati z marsikod na Slovenskem izpričano veljavo bergamaških osel (Oselniki, 1992, 1993; Vel.Lipljene, 1964). Iz stomažkih so na primer ljudje brili norca: »Osle stomaške bergamaške.« In članom »Oslarije« je prijatelj šaljivo napisal na dopisnico: »Ej Stomažani, vi ste tiči, po celmu sveti poznani vaši so rožiči. Če kosa ne odreže, ne jo zavreč. Al je vósla kriva, al kuósc zaneč.« (Oselniki, 1993).

O tem, kako in kje so se prodajale osle iz okolice Bergama, obstajajo le ustna pričevanja. Pisani viri sporočajo sicer prodajo »kos in brusov« ob sejmih v Ljubljani sredi 16. stoletja (Arhivi, 1953: 66) ali pa podobno za leto 1639, da je po ceniku za mostnino na Čevljarskem mostu »pet krajcarjev veljal tovor brusnih kamnov« in še, kako je kupec, ki je prišel ob koncu 19. stoletja ob petih letnih semnjih v Ljubljano, natanko vedel, da bo na primer »kose in brusne kamne« našel na trgu sv. Jakoba (Cizelj, 1992: 86). A sporočena je le njihova prodaja, ne pa tudi podatek, kakšni, od kod so bili. Bergamaške osle so si nekdaj kosci najverjetneje izbirali tako kot si jih lahko še danes, povečini na raznih semnjih; na primer na tistem v Pivki, desetega dne v mesecu juniju, ko jih iz Italije pripelje »potnik« (sl. 29). Po sredi 19. stoletja je bilo sejmov »vedno več po deželi« (Cizelj, 1992: 83) in osle so ob kosah ali morda tudi ob oselnikih (gl. str.43) prodajali pač na tistih, ki so padli v čas dnevov pred košnjo. V Koseču na primer kot takega pomnijo velik semenj na praznik sv. Antona (13. junija) v Kobaridu in še »svojega«, na Srce Jezusovo (prvi petek v mesecu juniju) v bližnji Drežnici. Drugače pa so se osle prodajale kar »k nogám«, peš od hiše do hiše. Tako kot je s svojimi pred 2. svetovno vojno hodil stari Stomažan Peter Rustja, ki jih je - zavite v pšenično slamo in zvezane »z beko«, z vrbovo šibo, nosil v oprtniku do Postojne, Kopra, Trsta, »po celmi Krasi«. Podobno je za Koprivnik ustno sporočeno, kako so jih prinašali ribniški krošnjarji; za Srednjo vas v Bohinju, kako so z njimi po drugi vojni prihajali prekupčevalci iz Bosne in za vasi ob Cerkniškem jezeru, kako so v času med obema vojnama prav po bergamaške osle sami hodili tja, koder so vedeli, da jih imajo; v tedaj italijanski Št. Peter na Krasu (v današnjo Pivko), od koder so jih potem »ob kontrabantu s konji« nosili čez mejo na Javornikih domov.

»Osle Bergamo so ble (pač) najbolš.« Njihov prestiž je bil tolikšen, da je bilo znano, kako so bosanski prekupci črnili svoje premehke, slabše brusne kamne in jih celo napravljali enako obtolčene, čimbolj podobne bergamaškim, da bi jih le lahko dobro prodali. Podobno je v svoji nuji počel tudi stari Stomažan Rustja. Oblikovane osle je kuhal v kotlu vode, v katero je dal »bažiliko«, baziliko. Postale so »bol lepe, temnejše, koker une bergamaške« in lažje jih je unovčil (Oselniki, 1993).

Takšno vrednotenje bergamaških osel na Slovenskem niti ne preseneča ob védenju, za kako visoko cenjeno, v mnogih deželah znano tržno blago so veljale v Italiji (zlasti od zadnje četrtine 19. do srede 20. stoletja). In kako so v Bergamu in okolici sprejemali pravo oslo iz Pradalunge kot eno najlepših, najvrednejših daril; kot izraz posebne pozornosti (Nicefori, 1988: 10).

Bistvo njihove kakovosti je bilo v sestavi kamnin zanje; v visoki vsebnosti kremena (60-90%) in v pomenu dveh različnih oblik njegovih kristalov. Take osle ohranijo vso svojo celotnost, se zelo počasi zrahljajo in popolno brusijo (Nicefori, 1988: 9). Pri nas jih na primer na Vipavskem cenijo zaradi njihove trdosti. Znana je celo tamkajšnja zmerjavka, ki slednjo sporoča: »Vásu bergamaški!«, osel bergamaški. Neumen (ali trd) kot osel, tako trd (torej najbolj trd oziroma najbolj neumen) kot osla iz Bergama. S takimi oslami so pač preizkušeno dobro brusili svoje kose. »Mi mormo kupit bergamaško váslo,« so pripovedovali, ker »naše trave so poredne« (Oselniki, 1993).




Sl. 30: Bergamaška osla »mora met slona«. Ljudje verjamejo, da je taka sigurno prava. (Foto C. Narobé, 1993)

Ill. 30: Bergamo whetstones “must have an elephant”. People believe this confirms they are original Bergamo whetstones. (Photo C. Narobé, 1993)

Drugače ponekod menijo, da je osla »kmau dobra, če je kosec dober«. A kolikšen je bil prav zanj pomen dobre osle, ni mogoče napak razbrati iz pripovedi, kako so jo posamezniki čuvali in kaj so storili, če se jim je zlomila. »Če vósla nei bla za n(e)č, se jo je vrglo hudiči u r(e)t,« saj je bilo s slabo tako, »k(o) b(i) z leséna drgnu«. Med slabe uvrščajo tudi tiste »ta pêčene«, iz umetnega kamna. O njih menijo, da so preostre, »tist šmirgl koso pobere«. Razlika med slabo in dobro oslo je namreč »ku noč pa dan«. In kadar so imeli dobro, je kod kak gospodar zabičeval gospodinji (če so kaj prenašali): »Merkej, da ne boš oslo ubila!« »Vsak jo je pazu ku vrag!«, saj »Bog ne dej, da se je ubiva!« A če se je vendarle zlomila, so jo »nasadili na štil«, jo podaljšali z lesenim ročajem (Oselniki, 1993; npr. št. 146).

Pomen dobre osle, pomembnost njenega deleža pri koščevi učinkovitosti, je ob nakupu zahteval njeno nadvse skrbno izbiro. Znana sta celo dva preizkusa, po katerih je bilo mogoče presoditi, ali je osla v roki dobra ali slaba. Prvi je tak, da po osli potegnejo z nožem in če ob tem nastanejo iskre, je prava (gl. sl. 29). »Vóslo je primu u roko in s foučem po njej - je mogla dat iskro.« Pri drugem preizkusu pa jo malce zmočijo, na njen rob dajo »senéno bilko« in če se ta zasuče »kot kompasova igla«, potem je osla dobra. »Ma tisto je bol vraža,« pravijo eni; a drugi menijo, da »to ma kamen eno tako moč« (Oselniki, 1993).

Najpomembnejši pa je vendarle tudi tu človek; za najboljše razsodnike so veljali možje s slovesom dobrih koscev. »Pravi kosci so jo (dobro oslo) poznali od daleč.«


In še o ognjilih

Kosca med košnjo poleg opasanega oselnika in vanj vtaknjene osle ponekod še danes spremlja na oselnik obešeno ali skozi njegovo posebno odprtino, skozi zanko viseče jekleno ognjilo. Povsod, koder imajo travnike, na katerih kosa lahko zadene ob kamen, je slednje tako pomembno, da pravijo: »Ognilo je pu (pol) vósle.« »Vósla pa vógnila mora bit.« Če bi namreč ob kamnu poškodovano, skrhano koso brusili le z oslo, bi ji odbrusili udarjena, malce ukrivljena mesta ter jo napravili škrbinasto. Zato morajo pred tem vzeti v roke ognjila in z nekaj potegi z njimi kosam poravnati, nategniti rezila.

O ognjilih je le malo sporočenega, čeprav si je težko misliti, da bi njihove potrebnosti ne bili odkrili že davno. Najstarejši spoznani vir, ki jih nedvoumno izpričuje, je kot kaže inventar iz leta 1596, iz Wietinga na Koroškem, voden v dvorcu Dratrumer. S Koroškega je potem še več podobnih popisov (v katerih je ognjilo oziroma »gladilno železo«, Streicheisen, navedeno poleg oselnika, osle in kose), ki sodijo v drugo četrtino 17. stoletja (Schmidt, 1952: 71). V zapuščinskem inventarju Kalanove kmetije iz Selške doline, iz leta 1723, v katerem je zapisano: »2 Sensen sambt dem Dentl ossounik Und Zurgehor« (Andrejka, 1934: 49) pa lahko domnevamo pod tistim, »kar sodi zraven«, poleg osle tudi ognjilo. Med nekaj primerki iz zbirke Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja je namreč najstarejši, z začetka 20. stoletja (št. 149), prav iz Selški dolini sosednje Baške grape.




Sl. 31: Kovač iz Podrošta v Selški dolini s svojima ognjiloma. Niti enega ni mogel pogrešati (da bi postalo del muzejske zbirke). Bilo je tik pred košnjo. (Foto I. Smerdel, 1993)

Ill. 31: A blacksmith from Podrošt in the Selška Valley with his two straighteners. Asked if he could let our museum have one of them for its collection, he said he could not spare either of them. Photograph taken just before the hay harvest. (Photo I. Smerdel, 1993)

Ustno je sporočeno, da so ognjila izdelovali povečini vaški kovači. Le na nekaterih večjih in na odmaknjenih gorskih kmetijah, ki so bile tako samozadostne, da so imele kot na primer Vršnik v Robanovem kotu tudi lastne kovačije, so jih oblikovali ponavadi kar gospodarji sami. Ker so morala biti jeklena, so v ognjila pogosto prekovali stare odslužene pile (Oselniki, 1993).




Risba 28: Primerki starejših ognjil (a - št. 149, b - »natezilo« po katalogu risb št. 8 in c - št. 150).

Drawing 28: Specimens of older straighteners (a - no. 149, b - “tightener” after the catalogue of drawings no. 8, and c - no. 150).

Na Slovenskem so znana v dveh temeljnih starejših in v dveh mlajših, sodobnih oblikah. Pri prvih je vodoravni prerez njihovega iglastega funkcionalnega dela lahko čolničast, kvadraten (Risba 28) in po pripovedovanju celo trikoten, pri drugih je najpogosteje le kvadraten. Starejša ognjila so pogosto še sukana (tordirana), najsibo da bi bila bolj trdna najsibo za okras. Ena izmed njih so oblikovana šilasto; njihov ročaj je okroglo uho (št. 149, 150). Ta so spremljala povečini enonoge, valjasto-nabrekle oselnike iz Bohinja in od drugod, pri katerih so sedala v zanja izvrtane odprtine in dvonoge oble primerke iz Selške doline, Sorice, Baške grape ter drugih krajev, pri katerih so zdrsevala v zanja pribite usnjene ali pločevinaste zanke (katalog risb št. 15, 24, 26). Druga izmed starejših ognjil imajo ročaj oblikovan v kavelj. Taka so nosili na Dolenjskem, na Notranjskem in še drugod, koder so jih rabili, obešena na rob luknje za oslo (katalog risb št. 8, 9). Obe sodobni obliki ognjil - kot črka L in kot kladivce (št. 151, 152) - pa sta nastali pred desetletji in pomenita umno prilagoditev novodobnim kosam. Slednje se namreč pričvrščajo na kosišče z vijakom ter z matico, ki jo morajo med košnjo (če popusti) zatezati. In temu poleg njihovega osnovnega namena služijo posebno, delno v ključ oblikovana ognjila.




S1. 32 a-d: Stanko Peternel, mojster podkovstva in kovaštva, je v kovačiji Tehniškega muzeja Slovenije v Bistri rekonstruiral postopek izdelave ognjila. (Foto I. Smerdel, 1993)

Ill. 32: a-d: Stanko Peternel, trained horseshoer and smith, reconstructed the making of a straightener in the smithy of the Slovene Technical Museum in Bistra. (Photo I. Smerdel, 1993)

Njihovo nihanje, zvok ob oselnik udarjajbčega ognjila, pa danes povečini samotnega kosca poveže s preteklostjo izpred nekaj desetletij in več. Iz spomina mu prikliče harmonijo večih podobnih zvokov, ko »je ruštálu, da je blu šlišat«; ter senožet, polno koscev in grabljic.


Košnja (delo in praznik), kosec in njegov oselnik

O košnji na Slovenskem ni malo zapisov.14 Najsibo da je v njih opisovana nižinska najsibo hribovska košnja, »séčnja« - ali neposredno, na osnovi doživljanja, opazovanja, ali posredno, na podlagi pripovedovanja - jo opisi sporočajo povečini takšno, kakršna je bila v drugi polovici 19. in v prvi polovici 20. stoletja; v času, o katerem so ustrezno pričevalni tudi tvarni viri, oselniki iz muzejskih zbirk. In v času, ki je bil na svojem začetku, sredi 19. stoletja, še vedno obdobje uvajanja hlevske živinoreje ter povečanih potreb po krmi (prim. str.18), hkrati pa čas, ko je govedoreja, ki je bila še v prvi polovici 19. stoletja na razmeroma nizki stopnji, postajala na Slovenskem najpomembnejša živinorejska panoga, usmerjena posebej v pitanje in prodajo volov (zlasti na Dolenjskem) in v mlekarstvo (prim. Smerdel, 1991: 40-43). Pomen krme je tedaj nedvomno precej narasel.

Velika je bila zlasti veljava sena; ter veljava košnje, prizadevanja, da bi ga pripravili čimveč za hrano domači živini. Kolikšen je bil ponekod pomen sena, priča na primer star pregovor iz Bohinjske Bele, koder so po njegovem pridelku cenili kmečkega gospodarja. »Trjášk voz, fest mož« so jedrnato označevali tistega - dobrega gospodarja - ki je imel na trjáke, v začetku maja, še en voz lanskega sena (Šarf, 1974: 134, 135). S Pivke pa sta sporočena spomina, kako so v vasi Slavina še po 2. svetovni vojni, dokler so »na roke kosili«, pokosili vse, »cel Rávnik, okol vseh grmov«, da bi le pripravili dovolj sena in kako so zavoljo tega na Juriščah »tudi gmajno kosili okol vseh grmov na Kršičevcu« ter še »laze« sredi gozda (Oselniki, 1993). Ne nazadnje je mogoče pomen sena luščiti iz zbranih pregovorov in rekov, zapisanih o vremenu. »Mnogo snegá, mnogo sená,« so kot kaže veselo že vnaprej ugibali gospodarji, ko so gledali v nebo, ali se ob tem žalostili, saj »o véliki noči če deži, kosec suhe bilke le kosi« (Kocbek, 1887: 92). Pa tudi skrbelo jih je: »Če sv. Marjete (13. julija) deževalo bo, težko boš pod streho spravil seno« in z otavo so raje pohiteli, ker »kdor po mali maši (8. septembra) kosi, ta za pečjo suši« (Kocbek, Šašelj, 1934: 227, 231).

Kmečki delovni koledar je bil kar dosti tednov izpolnjen s košnjo. Z njo so v ravninskih krajih začenjali že o sv. Vidu (15. junija), v hribih o sv. Petru in Pavlu (29. junija), navadno pa šele meseca julija ali še pozneje (kot na primer na Pohorju in na Koroškem) (Kuret, 1989: 438) ter končavali v mesecu septembru ali »doklèr ni voslá zamrz(e)nla« (kot so pripovedovali o košnji otave v Koseču nad Kobaridom) (Oselniki, 1993). Tako je o vaseh velikolaškega okraja za štirideseta leta 20. stoletja sporočeno, da v njih v prvi polovici junija začno s košnjo nemške detelje, potem pride na vrsto črna detelja, nato »omejki« okrog njiv in končno senožeti, kar vse traja tja do konca julija (Mrkun, 1943: 32). Kmetje iz gornjesavske doline na primer pa naj bi »od nekdaj« začenjali sredi junija s košnjo detelje, nadaljevali s travo prve košnje (»ledino«) in končavali v drugi polovici septembra s travo druge košnje (otavo) ter še enkrat z deteljo (Novak, 1974).

Poleg tega, da je bila košnja gospodarsko zelo pomembna in da je veljala za enega najtežjih kmečkih opravil, jo je označevalo še nekaj - njena prazničnost: posebne jedi, pražnja delovna oblačila, petje, ples in šaljenje. Prazničnost je bila morda posledica obeh prvih sestavin, gospodarske veljave in zahtevnosti dela; morebiti je k njej prispeval tudi poseben sloves tistih, ki so to delo dobro opravljali, koscev, in še dejstvo, da je bilo pri košnji ponavadi skupaj mnogo ljudi; moških in žensk, fantov in deklet. Prav to zadnje je verjetno v največji meri pogojevalo njeno prazničnost, saj se opisi košnje iz krajev, v katerih je v svojem času obarvala življenjski utrip celih vasi - kjer so se naprošali za medsebojno pomoč, v katere so se prihajali udinjat sezonski kosci in kjer so na travnike s kosci ali za njimi prihajale še grabljice (prim. npr. Mrkun, 1943: 34, 35; Koprivec, 1939: 159-165; Kuhar, 1972: 115, 116; Oselniki, 1993) - opazno razlikujejo od pripovedi o košnji na posameznih odmaknjenih kmetijah (na primer v Robanovem kotu), na katerih je družina sama poprijemala za delo ter kjer so morali kositi tudi večji otroci in ženske, ali v posameznih samotnih gorskih vaseh (po ustnem pričevanju iz Beneške Slovenije), iz katerih so moški odhajali za delom drugam in so v njih (kadar ni šlo drugače) kosile celo same ženske (Oselniki, 1993).

Prav prazničnost košnje - z vsem, kar je prinašala - je bila po vsej verjetnosti vzrok krašenju oselnikov, njihovi večpomenskosti; in njena navadnost vzrok njihovemu zgolj uporabnemu pomenu. Táko domnevo potrjuje na primer ugotovitev o cvetličnih motivih v ljudski umetnosti (Makarovič, 1973/74: 34), po kateri so upodobljene cvetlice pomenile znak, simbol praznika (ali izjemnega dogodka) in so v tem smislu povzdigovale pomen krašenega predmeta. Na krašenih slovenskih oselnikih pa motiv stilizirane cvetlice ni redek. In domnevo potrjujeta še utrinka iz Bohinja, iz dveh bližnjih krajev, a iz različnega časa: pripoved o tem, kako so se Belani v letih po sredi 19. stoletja odpravljali na košnjo v rovte (Tušek, 1860: 9, 10) in odgovor današnjega izdelovalca oselnikov iz Bohinjske Češnjice na vprašanje, ali svoje izdelke tudi krasi. Prva je opis praznika: »Pred nekaj leti sem se peljal skoz Bohinjsko Belo, ko je ravno bilo vse živo v gostivnici. Dekleta v novo oprani obleki so sedele krog miz in so jedle pogačo; fantje v belih rokavih, s strašno velikimi šopovi cvetlic za klobuki...Nekaj jih je tudi v veži plesalo. Vsak možak je imel oselnik za pasom.« Nedvomno takega z rezljanim dekorjem, kakršni so primerek za primerkom iz Bohinja, s Koprivnika in z Gorjuš (iz druge polovice oziroma s konca 19. stoletja) v zbirki Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja (št. 2-9, 11-17, 45-48, 50-52). Drugi, odgovor kolarja Vangusa, pa ustreza sodobni vsakdanjosti povečini mehanizirane, »na roke« le še obrobne košnje, pri kateri je ljudem vseeno, ali je njihov oselnik okrašen ali ni, »sej je za kméčk deu«. Željo po opasovanju lepega, likovno oblikovanega oselnika je torej nedvomno porajala zlasti praznična košnja. Tam, kjer so slednjo opravljali kot navadno, kot le »kmečko delo«, ali koder je taka sčasoma postala, je oselnik bil in je povečini zgolj uporaben predmet, pomožno orodje, posoda za vodo in za oslo, slečena pomenov, kakršne je drugače moč razkrivati pri krašenih primerkih.




Sl. 33: Kosci in grabljice na sliki Ivana Groharja, naslovljeni Grabljice (iz leta 1902, o.pl., 133,5 x 107 cm). Hrani jo Mestni muzej v Ljubljani, inv.št.63 (št.neg. NG15060).

Ill. 33: Mowers and women rakers in a painting by Ivan Grohar, entitled Raking women (1902, oil canvas, 133.5 x 107 cm). Kept by the Ljubljana City Museum, inv. no. 63 (neg. no. NG15060).




Sl. 34: »Ževke« (žanjice) trave na gmajni na Škratlovci okrog leta 1937. Moški jim brusi srpe. (Foto S. Ličen, Branik 126)

Ill. 34: Women reaping grass on the common in Škratlovca around 1937. Their sickles are whetted by men. (Photo S. Ličen, Branik 126)

Večpomenskost oselnikov je skrita v nekaterih sicer vidnih (ali le tu in tam uveljavljenih ali iz večine opisov ter ustnih pričevanj znanih) sestavinah košnje kot dela in kot praznika: v delitvi na moško in na žensko delo, na opravilo koscev in grabljic; v koščevem znanju in delovni spretnosti; v prihajanju sezonskih koscev; v tem, da so dekleta poklanjala koscem šopke cvetlic ter v igrah in šalah, v početju, pogosto polnem erotične vsebine.

Kljub posamičnim pričevanjem, da so ponekod na Slovenskem, če je bila nuja, tudi ženske poprijemale pri košnji, je bila slednja (tako pri nas kot v drugih evropskih deželah, prim. npr. Fél, Hofer, 1974: 212) vendarle izrazito moško delo. (Takšnega sporočajo že razne srednjeveške upodobitve in na nekaterih izmed njih - na primer na nemškem lesorezu iz leta 1493 in na francoskih koledarskih podobah iz drugega desetletja ter s konca 15. stoletja (prim. Bartels, 1900: 48; Hansen, 1984: 118-121) - je jasno razpoznavna tudi delitev dela: moški kosi, ženska grabi ali trosi z vilami.) V slovenskem jeziku beseda kosec niti nima svoje ženske oblike (medtem ko smo poleg žanjic, ki so bile zlasti ženske, imeli tudi žanjce); dekleta in žene so bile pač tiste, ki so trosile, grabile in obračale. Bile so grabljice, »grabíče« (Koseč), »gráblojce« (Koprivnik) in podobno. Pri košnji sta bili njihovi orodji lesene vile in grablje, medtem ko so fantje in možje prihajali na travnike vsak s svojo koso, s svojim oselnikom ter oslo (in ponekod še z ognjilom). »Nisi kosec, če nimaš svojga vodirja pa svojga kamna.« Dober kosec je moral biti tudi dober brusač in ostrenje kose, oziroma brušenje orodij za rezanje pridelkov nasploh je - enako kot košnja - veljalo za izrazito moško delo.

Tako so tudi pri drugače zlasti ženski žetvi, najsibo žit najsibo trave - žetvi, kakršna je na primer izpričana na kamnitem Krasu v letih med svetovnima vojnama (gl. Sl. 34) - kot brusači srpov sporočeni povečini moški (prim. npr. Koprivec, 1939: 172; Mrkun, 1943: 32). Le če so bile žanjice same, brez moškega pomočnika, je ponavadi ena (tista, ki je znala) brusila vsem, oselnik z oslo pa jih je spremljal zapičen v zemljo. Pri žetvi žit je iz Slovenskih goric in s Pohorja (Koprivec, 1939: 172; gl. op. 15), sporočen še posebno visok, »velik voder«, ki je ves čas ostajal na istem mestu in je tistemu, ki je ostril srpe, lajšal seganje za brusnim kamnom.

Kosci so sicer svoj oselnik nosili vedno opasan; le med počitkom in med jedjo so ga snemali ter ga zapikovali v tla, da bi se jim ne izlila voda. Nekaterim je ustrezala nošnja na trebuhu, ponekodje bilo tako morda celo v navadi, povečini pa so ga nosili zadaj na desni strani. S Štajerskega, iz Središča, je na primer za drugo polovico 19. stoletja v pesmi (Štrekelj, 1908-1923: 232) sporočeno: »Koso mam na rami, vodir opasan na strani.« Iz Slovenskih goric so iz tridesetih let 20. stoletja opisani »voderji«, ki jih imajo kosci zataknjene za predpasnike, da jim vise »po trebuhih« (Koprivec, 1939: 162) in nekaj let kasneje je oselnik, »zataknjen za pasom na trebuhu« izpričan tudi za velikolaški okraj (Möderndorfer, 1946: 77). Iz dolenjskega Gradeža je ustno sporočeno, da so jih nosili povečini zadaj, »tako da je z desna hodu po osla«. »Kaj je kosci na rit napot?« so si zastavljali šaljivo uganko in vsakdo je prepričano odgovarjal, da je to oselnik. (Aje bil v zmoti; rešitev je bila »narita« zemlja, krtina.)(Oselniki, 1993.) Pogosto nošnjo za pasom zadaj na desni pa poleg drugih ustnih pričevanj potrjuje še zbirka oselnikov Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja; večina primerkov v njej ima namreč rob luknje za oslo izlizan (od njenega izvlačenja) prav na desni strani.




Sl. 35: Na trebuhu visi oselnik Selčanu, ki je blizu vasi kosil »za sveže«. (Foto I. Smerdel, 1982)

Ill. 35: This mower from Selce carries his whetstone holder on his belly while mowing near the village to get some “fresh fodder”. (Photo I. Smerdel, 1982)




Sl. 36: Zadaj na desni ima opasan oselnik kosec, ki je kosil v rovtu Mrzli potok blizu Koprivnika. (Foto I. Smerdel, 1992)

Ill. 36: Whetstone holder worn on the right side of the back by a mower on the clearing called Mrzli potok near Koprivnik. (Photo I. Smerdel, 1992)

Da bi kosa bolje rezala, da bi jo osla bolje nabrusila, so vodi v oselniku marsikod prilivali malce kisa, vendar le takrat, če so imeli pretrdo oslo. »Z jéshom uničiš trdoto kamna.« Dodati ga je treba, »če ni dovelj huda vósla«. Voda v oselniku mora biti še mrzla (táko dolgo časa ohranjajo leseni oselniki) in ponekod pravijo, da je najboljše, če je mehka kapnica. (Vode z več kalcija namreč povzročajo korozijo.) (Oselniki, 1993.) Od marsikod na Slovenskem pa je sporočena še stara vera, da je kosa najbolje rezala, če je bila v oselniku v vodi potopljena glava strupene kače. Je šlo morebiti za vero o prenosu ostrine kačjih zob oziroma jezika v ostrino kose? Morda res. Nedvomno kač v času košnje ni manjkalo. O dveh julijskih svetnikih, o sv. Urhu (4. julija) in o sv. Marjeti (13. julija) je prav veljalo, da »kače paseta« (Kocbek, Šašelj, 1934: 228). Tako naj bi v okolici Novega mesta (Novo mesto, 1955) v oselnik dajali gadovo glavo, v Rožu modrasovo ali gadovo in v Prekmurju je ostrino kose zagotavljala glava kače, ki so jo morali ujeti že pred Jurjevim (24. aprila), ji izdreti jezik ter ga dati v »vodir« (Mäderndorfer, 1946: 76).

Pravi kosci so tudi dobro vedeli (in vedo), kdaj je čas, da sežejo za oslo. Če je bilo vreme zelo suho ter trava trša, so morali koso kmalu znova nabrusiti in ko niti po brušenju ni bila več zadosti ostra (kot preizkus ostrine je znan poteg po nohtu, ki ga mora dobro nabrušeno rezilo tenko posneti), je nastopil čas za klepanje. Marsikod - posebno tam, kjer je bilo mnogo koscev na travniku - jih je zato spremljal kar izurjen klepač (Mrkun, 1934: 35; Kuhar, 1972: 115). Klepanje je bilo potrebno le malokrat, če so kosili svežo in mokro travo. »S travo se dela, dokler je rosa.« S šopom rosne trave se pred brušenjem tudi najlepše očisti kosino rezilo (Oselniki, 1993).




Sl. 37: Mirko Maver, kmet Jófil, kleplje koso pred košnjo okrog domače hiše v Grantu (15) v Baški grapi. (Foto I. Smerdel, 1993)

Ill. 37: Mirko Maver, farmer Jófil, sharpening his scythe before mowing round his home in Grant (15) in the Bača Ravine (Baška grapa). (Photo I. Smerdel, 1993)





Sl. 38: Mečnikovi s Koprivnika kosijo svoj rovt, »rot« v Mrzlem potoku. Poleg gospodarja Franca Beznika sta bila kosca še svaka Franc in Ciril, trosili, grabili in obračali pa so: gospodinja, gospodar, njuna hči, vnukinja, vnuk in soseda. (Foto I. Smerdel, 1992)

a - Kosci, b - Mečnik izvlači ognjilo, z njim ravna koso in jo brusi z oslo, c - med košnjo se še vedno radi pošalijo in med počitkom pokadijo cigareto ali dve, d - trosijo, grabijo in obračajo, e - gospodinja in gospodar pripravljeno seno vežeta »u rjuho« in f - gospodar seno znosi v svisli.

Ill. 38: The Mečniks from Koprivnik mowing their clearing in Mrzli potok. The three mowers are the farmer Franc Mečnik, his sons-in-law Franc and Ciril; tossing, raking and turning over the hay is done by the farmer, his wife, their daughter, granddaughter, grandson and a neighbour. ((Photo I. Smerdel, 1992)

a - The mowers, b - Mečnik draws out the straightener, straightens the blade with it and whets it with his whetstone, c - they enjoy joking and smoking a cigarette or two during breaks, d - tossing, raking and turning over, e - the farmer and his wife binding the prepared hay into a “blanket”, and f - the farmer taking the hay up to the hayloft.


Zavoljo tega so s košnjo povečini začenjali še predno se je zdanilo; tu ob četrti, tam ob peti uri zjutraj ter ponekod še bolj zgodaj. Pisateljsko slikovit in eden izmed najbolj pričevalnih je na primer opis začetka košnje iz Slovenskih goric (Koprivec, 1939: 161, 162): »Ne dani se še, le zvezde zgubljajo na izrazitosti...Na travnike lega megla. Rosa, ki je prekrila trato, moči koscem strgane obuši...Na travniku odlože kose, si zajamejo vode v voderje, pijejo, nabrusijo kose in gospodar pregazi mejo, da bi ne delali škode sosedu... Za prvim koscem, ki mu pravijo prednjak, se raz vrste ostali po socialnem stanju in po vlogi, ki jo imajo pri gospodarju. Največji siromaki kose navadno zadnji, če kateri izmed njih ni morda najboljši kosec, da bi se ga radi tega bali, zakaj če je zadnji boljši od prednjega, mu lahko nagaja...Sedemnajst koscev se postavi v vrsto drug ob drugega in vsi zamahnejo s kosami naenkrat...Na vsakih dvajset korakov je treba brusiti.« Pričujoči opis je obenem edini tak izmed znanih, da sporoča razvrstitev koscev po njihovi družbeni veljavi; čeprav pomen slednje izniči z besedami: ...če kateri izmed njih (izmed največjih siromakov, ki kose navadno zadnji) ni morda najboljši kosec, da bi se ga radi tega bali (in ga zato uvrstili raje drugam). Znanja in spretnost, sešteta v veljavo dobrega kosca so bila kot kaže pri košnji pomembnejša od družbenega položaja. Pri podiranju redi se je hitro videlo, kdo je dober in kdo slab. In vsak je bil rajši dober; slabim koscem so se namreč radi posmehovali. »Ma ki delaš, sej paseš?« so jih na primer dražili v Koseču (Oselniki, 1993); v Labinju na Cerkljanskem pa so za pačasneže pravili kar, da jih »odsečejo« (Cerkljansko, 1954/1). Kako neljub je bil sloves slabega kosca, razodeva ustno slovstvo; cela vrsta različic pesmi z refrenom »jaz pa le odzaja kimam in kosim« (Štrekelj, 1908-1923: 231-235). V njih se tisti, ki kosi zadnji, izgovarja na slabo postrežbo (»Dekla vino nese, meni nič ne nese. Kak se meni streže, tak mi kosa reže.«) pa na travo in na slabo koso (»Velka vam je trava, kosa pa arjava.«). A v različici s Pohorja je jedrnato zatrjeno: »Kak kosec kosi streže, tak mu kosa reže.« Bistven je bil pač dober kosec in dober brusač, vse drugo je bilo postransko. Ko »so šli kosce naprosit«, sporoča spomin na odraščanje v Medvedcah (ob vznožju Haloz, po koncu 2. svetovne vojne), »so včasih ata prav čakali, da so prave dedce vkup dobli« (Oselniki, 1993). Dober kosec je bil sinonim za pravega možaka.




Sl. 39: Lesena kosa (dolžina kosišča - 99 cm, dolžina kose - 38 cm), ki jo je petletnemu vnuku Tilnu napravil kmet Mečnik s Koprivnika. Za oselnik mu je odrezal plastično embalažo tekočega gnojila Cvetal (tako, da je ohranil nalepko s cvetlico!) ter mu oblikoval še leseno oslo in ognjilo. (Foto C. Narobé, 1993)

Ill. 39: The wooden scythe (length of snath - 99 cm, length of blade - 38 cm) farmer Mečnik from Koprivnik made for his five-year old grandson Tilen. To make a whetstone holder he cut off part of a plastic box of Cvetal liquid fertilizer (taking care to preserve the flower-sticker!). He also made him a wooden whetstone and straightener. (Photo C. Narobé, 1993)

Za kosca so se pripravljali, se učili že od malega. Iz Slovenskih goric je sicer pripoved (Koprivec, 1939: 163), kako so »mlajši fantje, ki še niso za košnjo«, prihajali na travnike skupaj z dekleti le kot spravljači sena. (Podobno je sporočeno na primer za madžarski Atany, koder so fantje šele pri štirinajstih ali petnajstih letih dobivali v roke pravo koso; pred tem so lahko zamahovali po travi le z njenim posnetkom, z igračo.: Fél, Hofer, 1974: 212.) A v gorskih vaseh je bilo kot kaže drugače. Glede na ustno sporočeno in videno na Koprivniku (Oselniki, 1992, 1993), kjer sta dva stara očeta pripovedovala, kako sta svojima vnukoma pri petih oziroma šestih letih napravila mah kosi - eden leseno z leseno oslo in ognjilom v plastičnem malem oselniku (sl. 39a, b), drugi kratko pravo koso - da sta ju fantiča lahko igraje posnemala ter se učila koščevih zamahov in drugih gibov, so v takih krajih z ukom za košnjo začenjali v ranih letih. Desetletni fantje pa naj bi ob svojih očetih že zares kosili. Gorjuškemu piparju Bezniku na primer je oče desetletnemu napravil oselnik (št. 117), mu ga opasal in začel je postajati kosec.

Kot dobri kosci so se morali neprenehoma potrjevati zlasti tisti fantje in možje, ki so odhajali kosit kot dninarji, za zaslužek. Slabih kmečki gospodarji prav gotovo niso radi najemali; in za dobre delavce so se verjetno potegovali. Sodeč po različicah pesmi, zapisanih na Blokah pri Cerknici in v Ščednju (Štrekelj, 1908-1923: 235), so namreč kosci, ki so se zavedali svoje veljave, izbirali, h kateremu gospodarju bodo šli podirat redi. »Ne griém kosit, ne griém kosit po piét in štierdesiet; po piét in štierdesiet pa ja, pa še tobák, pa še tobák, pa še tobák nej da!« Po spominu na odraščanje v notranjski Hotedršici (Albreht, 1945: 55) so ljudje radi prihajali v dnino le na kmetije, katerih gospodinje so jih dobro postregle; ne le s hrano, temveč zlasti s tobakom, »...za mater (sem) oprezoval po bajtah, kakšni vrsti tobakarskega užitka je vdan kdo izmed njih, ki bodo prišli k nam kosit.« Tobak, ta nekdaj le moški atribut, je zaokrožal možato podobo pravega kosca.

Sezona košnje je ponekod pomenila sezono živahnega preseljevanja. Sporočeno je, kako so na primer Štajerci prihajali kosit na Kranjsko (Robanov fond, 4); na Gorjancih, koder je bilo premalo domačih delavcev, so najemali »Kranjce«, fante in može iz dolinskih, podnožnih gorjanskih vasi (Pirnat, 1941: 171); v Štandrež v goriški kotlini so prihajali »moški s hribou« (Budal, Paulin, 1993: 60) in v Nabrežino pri Trstu kosci s Tolminskega (Oselniki, 1993). Barjanski kmetje (z ravnimi, a vgrezajočimi se travniki, na katerih raba vprežnih kosilnic ni bila mogoča) pa so si še v štiridesetih letih v Ljubljani lahko najemali delavce, ki so se ob košnji s koso postavljali pod Trančo in na obrežje pri Šuštarskem mostu (Möderndorfer, 1946: 75). Kmetica, doma iz Ljubljani bližnjih Zapog se iz otroštva v letih med svetovnima vojnama tako spominja soseda, bajtarja, ki ga po štirinajst dni ni bilo domov z Barja. Tja je odhajal s koso na rami in z opasanim oselnikom (Oselniki, 1993).




Sl. 40: Izplačevanje koscev. Jožef Petkovšek, 1884. (O.pl., 96,4 x 127 cm, sign. 1.sp.: J. Petkovich d’après L. Lhermitte Paris 884.) Narodna galerija, Ljubljana, inv.št. 301. Petkovška, kmečkega sina iz Verda, z roba Barja, kamor so pogosto prihajali sezonski kosci, je slika Léona Lhermitta morda prevzela prav zato, ker mu je bil prizor znan. Svojo kopijo pa je kot kaže še »podomačil«; kosišču sedečega kosca je pod vrhom naslikal drugi ročaj. (Prav to Lhermittovo podobo je namreč Steensberg (1943: 227) navedel kot pričo, da se je v Franciji »do teh dni« ohranila kosa z ravnim kosiščem in enim samim ročajem.)

Ill. 40: Paying the mowers their wages. Jožef Petkovšek, 1884 (oil canvas, 96.4 x 127 cm, signature bottom left: J. Petkovich d’après L. Lhermitte Paris 884.) National Gallery, Ljubljana, inv. no. 301. Petkovšek, the son of a farmer from Verd, situated on the fringe of the marshland, must often have seen seasonal mowers and was perhaps impressed by Léon Lhermitte’s painting because the scene was so familiar to him. He made it even more familiar by adding a second handle at the top of the snath held by the sitting mower. (Steensberg (1943: 227) used Lhermitte’s painting to prove that scythes with a straight snath and one single handle had been preserved in France up to “these days”).

Poletni tedni košnje, ko so se ob delu, dobrem jelu in zabavi srečavali fantje in dekleta; možje in žene; znani in taki, ki so prihajali od drugod; kosci z veljavo »pravih dedcev« in grabljice, ki »bol so ble mlade pa lepe, bol je blo«, so bili nedvomno tedni, čas, nabit z erotiko. Dihali so jo z »vzduhom na soncu se parečih planinskih trav«; bila je v pogledih na grabljice, »vse bele kot nežne golobice« (Pirnat, 1941: 117, 172); bila je v spanju kar v kopicah sena in »tud po cel teden« v senikih (Oselniki, 1993); bila je v dotikih med plesom pred začetkom košnje (Tušek, 1860: 9, 10; Šarf, 1974: 139) ter v tistih, ko so se kosci z ulovljenimi grabljicami objeti valjali po bregu (Albreht, 1945: 54-56), ko so metali »spravljačice« v travo, da »jih nadevljejo z njo« (Koprivec, 1939: 163), ali ko so fantje izbrano dekle grabili za roke in noge ter jo zibali, »trotili« (Na poti, 1994: 50). Na tako različne načine in vendar tako nedvoumno sporočena od marsikod: z Gorjancev, iz Posočja, Bohinja, z Notranjskega, iz Slovenskih goric in iz koroškega Šentjanža, Bilčovsa je bila erotika dokaj vidna sestavina košnje na Slovenskem; vidna tudi v šopkih, v »pušelcih« (prav tako pogosto in marsikod izpričanih16), ki so jih sicer po šegi dobivali vsi kosci, njihovo sporočilo - govorica zanje uporabljenih cvetlic - pa je bila v svojem bistvu ljubezenska. Šopek iz gojenega cvetja z ustreznim simboličnim pomenom, zlasti iz rožmarina in nageljnov, žeravca ali roženkravta, je (vsaj od 18. stoletja dalje) namreč veljal za potrdilo ljubezni (Makarovič, 1973/74: 30, 31). V tistih, ki so jih dobivali kosci, so bili na primer v notranjski Hotedršici »nageljni z roženkravtom« (Albreht, 1945: 54); v Zakojci na Cerkljanskem in v Šentjanžu na Koroškem nageljni in rožmarin (Turnšek, 1952: 104; Na poti, 1994: 50); v velikolaškem okraju so jih dekleta napravljala »iz svežih cvetlic, ki rastejo na oknih v loncih« (Mrkun, 1943: 34) in v Slovenskih goricah so pripenjala na klobuke koscev šopke, sestavljene »iz fajgla, pelagonije«, povezane z rdečo nitjo (Koprivec, 1939: 163). Bilo je pač tako, da se je med košnjo »tud lubezen delala«. Iz Škocjanskih hribovje zapis, da so si nekoč dekleta »prav ob košnji izbirale fante« (Kuhar, 1972: 115) in po hotedrškem valjanju se je neredko zgodilo, »da je bil tak par brž po novem letu na oklicih in nato kmalu pred oltarjem zvezan« (Albreht, 1945: 55). V ustnem izročilu, v pesmih o košnji (in žetvi) (Štrekelj, 1908-1923: 230, 231), pa se verjetno ni brez osnove ohranilo opozorilo: »Vsaka naj varje si krancelček svoj!«

V prepletu eksplicitnih in implicitnih sestavin kulture košnje, življenja v njenem času, so bili tudi nekateri oselniki - na primer primerki s simbolnim motivom srca (ali na primer znana francoska oselnika z motivom, imenovanim »anneaux de mariage«, poročni obročki17) - tako na Slovenskem kot v drugih deželah vidni nosilci erotičnih sporočil; ter vsi drugi - s svojo in z obliko osle, v erosa polnem času košnje - njihovi morda manj vidni, a zato nič manj odkriti nosilci; pri ljudeh, v pogovoru skriti v smehu in v iskrivih pogledih, a v povedanih starih šalah dokaj odkriti. »Dej tista osla (penis) ven!«, so se dražili ter ponujali svojo moškost: »Smo kašno žensko nagnal, če nucaš oslo (penis)?« (Oselniki, 1993.)

»Foeniseca immittit cotem in cotarium sicut iuvenis penem suum in cunnum puellae« ali: »Kosec vloži oslo v oselnik kot fant svoj ud v nožnico dekleta,« stoji zapisano pri Koštiálu (1937-1939: 23), ki je odkrival spolni simbolni pomen osle in oselnika v njunih imenih v različnih jezikih. Leopold Schmidt ga je razlagal z njuno obliko in rabo (1952: 66, 67). Ugotavljal je, da ravnanje z orodjem (brušenje z oslo, ko je dober kosec vedno tudi dober brusač) skoraj simbolno prehaja v govor, v opise moške spolne dejavnosti, in domneval, da so bila zato prav brusilna orodja pojmovana kot počlovečena. Osla je bila oblikovno in funkcionalno enačena z moškim spolnim udom in oselnik - njena shramba, posoda z močo (kot vagina), brez katere osla ni dobro brusila - je bil enačen z žensko nožnico. O njunem prav takem pomenu nedvomno priča na Slovenskem, na Dolenjskem, v sedemdesetih letih 19. stoletja zapisana vraža (Trdina, 1987: 373): »Oče napravijo sina ako pripašejo in actu oselnik.« S slednjim, ki daje moč osli, naj bi preneseno dobival moči (zadosti za sina) očetov spolni ud.

Semiotična pripovednost obeh predmetov - osline in oselnikove oblike - njun erotični simbolni pomen tako nikakor ni le domneva, le teoretski domislek, temveč ima dokaj pričevalno osnovo v orisanih sestavinah košnje, v nedvoumnih šalah, v povedni vraži.

In ne zdi se nenavadno, da naj bi bila imela osla posledično tudi falični simbolni pomen. Mogoče je namreč domnevati, da je pomenilo zdravljenje obolelega kravjega vimena s polaganjem osle nanj kasnejšo vzporednico srednjeveške falične šege (izpričane na spovednem listku iz bavarskega samostana Scheyern, iz leta 1468), po kateri so razbolele ženske dojke gladili z moškim spolnim udom ali z »nadomestno roko« tujega moškega (Schmidt, 1952: 66, 67). Polaganje, glajenje z oslo (z nadomestnim udom) po vimenu je sporočeno na primer iz Loborja na Hrvaškem (Schmidt, 1952: 66) in iz Sežane na Krasu (v spominu na odraščanje v letih med svetovnima vojnama; Oselniki, 1993). Zdravljenje z oslo nasploh - z dotikanjem, s polaganjem predmetov z zdravilno močjo (na primer kamnov) in z zagovarjanjem, kar sodi med čarovne zdravilske postopke (Makarovič, 1991: 504-507) - pa je bilo izpričano še marsikod na Slovenskem. Z oslo so povečini gladili ter z njo »trikrat križali« otekline v dimljah (imenovane kar osla, »maš vóslo«) in podobno (Cerkljansko, 1954/2; Vipava, 1957; Brkini, 1955; Oselniki, 1993). Kot čarovni predmet, kot falični simbol, tudi vir življenja (in zdravja), je imela osla očitno falusov uravnoteževalni pomen za ustroj človeka (Chevalier, Gheerbrant, 1993: 143).

Faličnega pomena osle, erotičnega simbolnega pomena slednje in oselnika bi verjetno ne bilo, če bi - poleg njunih nemo povednih oblik - delo, za katero sta bila potrebna, če bi košnja ne bila izrazito družbena sestavina življenja na kmetih. Erotičnost koscev, simbolnih nosilcev spolne vloge »pravih dedcev«, je dobila svoj smisel šele v družbeni skupini, v kakršni je bil prisoten tudi nasprotni spol; v sicer neformalni skupini, pogosto sestavljeni iz ljudi od tu in tam, a vendar v skupini z jasno, po spolu določeno delitvijo delovnih nalog. V takšnem družbenem okolju in zaradi takega simbolnega pomena koscev so si slednji nedvomno prizadevali biti individualno razpoznavni; biti osebnosti v skupini. Njihovo obeležje, tisto, kar jih je vidno ločevalo od ostalih v vrsti, pa je bil njihov oselnik.

O stremljenju po tovrstni drugačnosti priča na primer dokajšnja različnost oselnikov v zbirki Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja (in v drugih znanih kolekcijah); veliko število krašenih primerkov v njej ter nekaj takih, označenih še bolj osebno: z začetnicama koščevega imena in priimka (npr. št. 20, 30-32, 35, 36; katalog risb št. 3), z nizom starih hišnih znakov (št. 107), s hišno številko (št. 117; katalog risb št. 24), s križcem (št. 34). Izjemen, najbolj svoj med slednjimi, je oselnik z vrezanim imenom Franc (št. 61). In še izjemnejši, personificiran, je primerek iz Tolminske zbirke (sl. 41); z rezljanima besedama: »Pikču sem«, s pomenom: »sem od Pikca« oziroma »Pikčev je moj gospodar«. (Sorodna sta mu oselnika, znana iz španskih zbirk, z napisoma »Soy de Jose« ali »Jožev sem« in »Es mi dueño Candido Bueno Garcia« ali »Moj gospodar je C.B.G.« (gl. Risbo 26c).: Ponsoda, 1984; Violant i Simorra, 1981.)




Sl. 41: Oselnik z vrezanima besedama PIKČU SEM iz Tolminske zbirke (inv.št. T 2150).

(Foto C. Narobé, 1994)

Ill. 41: Whetstone holder with the carved words PIKČU SEM (I’m Pikec’s) from the Tolmin collection (inv. no. T 2150).

(Photo C. Narobé, 1994)

Kako zelo so si kosci prizadevali biti drugačni, priča zapis iz okolice Turjaka (Ljubič, 1951: 71, 72): »Kdor se je hotel bolj postaviti, je primaknil še nekaj dinarjev in se pogodil z osovnikarjem, da mu je kar na mestu vrezal njegov monogram.« In »posebno bahati« so se domenili za okrasitev celega oselnika. S Koprivnika je na primer ustno sporočena pripoved (Oselniki, 1993), kako se kosci med seboj še vedno ločujejo vsaj po različno pobarvanih primerkih. »Tko mora bit.« Takšno in drugačna osebna označevanja pa so imela nedvomno tudi prav preprost pomen: ko so kosci po jedi ali po počitku znova segali po oselnikih, tačas zapičenih v tleh, so svojega - z razpoznavnim znakom, črko, številko, dekorjem - takoj prepoznali. A bistven pomen označevanja vendarle ostaja: ni bilo vseeno, po katerem oselniku so segli; moral je biti njihov.

Oselnik je bil pač (kar pomnijo) izrazito osebno orodje; predmet v osebni lasti, »zraščen« s svojim gospodarjem koscem (bolj kot del njegove osebne oprave kot pa zgolj orodje). Njegov osebni pomen jedrnato izpričujejo naslednji stavki, zapisani za štajerske Medvedce, v dolenjskem Gradežu in v gorenjski Stiški vasi (Oselniki, 1993): »Nisi kosec, če nimaš svojga vodirja pa svojga kamna.« Vsak mora imeti »svoj vósunik in vsak svoja vósla«. »Jaz sem dobiu svojga, ko sem začel kosit; oče je imel svojga.« Oselnik kot izrazito osebno orodje sporoča tudi spomin na »nonota« iz Kala nad Kanalom (Oselniki, 1993), na dogodek med košnjo izpred nekaj let. Drugače v mestu živeči sin je prišel očetu pomagat kosit. V roke je vzel koso, a ko je segel za oselnikom, mu ga oče ni dal. »Ne, ta je pa moj!« In na koncu, kot prav nenavadno pričo o povezanosti kosca z njegovim oselnikom, velja navesti še vero o njegovi zdravilni moči, zapisano v okolici Postojne (Hrašče, 1981): »Najbolj se ga tako kaznuje, kdor te hodi tlačit (›vedanc›), da se žebelj razbeli in vtakne v oselnik, napolnjen z vodo; v svoj oselnik.«

Po vseh nanizanih pričevanjih, razkrivanju in utemeljevanju različnih pomenov oselnika (in osle) v strukturah življenja na kmetih na Slovenskem vsaj od srede 19. do šestdesetih let 20. stoletja je izhodiščna intuicija, premišljanje o njegovi večpomenski povednosti gotovo potrjeno. Oselnik, ta droben obrobni predmet, kosi pomožno orodje, je bil skupaj s svojim gospodarjem koscem dokaj izjemen del tedanje vaške kulturne podobe; oselnik kot takó osebno, pomenov polno orodje med večinoma zgolj uporabnimi drugimi in kosec kot posameznik, kot osebnost s posebno veljavo v podeželski družbi, neglede na svoj siceršnji družbeni položaj. Poleg drugih pomenov, poleg svoje uporabnosti, je bil oselnik zunanji znak, zunanji odraz koščeve zavesti o lastni individualnosti in želje po prepoznavnosti njegove svojosti.


Drugačen čas, nov pomen

Na koncu kaže zapisati še nekaj besed o oselnikih v sodobnosti; v letih, ko eni izmed njih ostajajo v stari rabi, medtem ko drugi dobivajo čisto spremenjen, nov pomen. Poleg tistih, ki jih opasujejo vztrajni kosci, ostajajo namreč nekateri izmed takih cenjeni kot starine in nastajajo novi, ponujani kot spominki. Oboji zadnji imajo povečini le pomen dekoracije, stenskega okrasa bivalnih prostorov.




Sl. 42: Oselnika-spominka, izdelka Jerneja Kosmača iz Tržiča in Otona Svetlina iz Radomelj. (Foto C. Narobé, 1993)

Ill. 42: Whetstone holders - souvenirs - made by Jernej Kosmač from Tržič and Oton Svetlin from Radomlje. (Photo C. Narobé, 1993)




Sl. 43: Oselnik mojstra Lunke iz Žerovnice krasi kuhinjsko steno Rotove domačije v bližnjih Goričicah. (Foto I. Smerdel, 1993)

Ill. 43: A whetstone holder made by master Lunka from Žerovnica decorates the kitchen wall of the Rot farm in nearby Goričice. (Photo I. Smerdel, 1993)




Sl. 44: Mala oselnika-spominka (visoka 15 in 7 cm), izdelka Janka Beguša, Tomažonovega iz Podbrda (41) v Baški grapi. (Foto C. Narobé, 1993)

Ill. 44: Little whetstone holders - souvenirs (15 and 7 cm high) made by Janko Beguš from Podbrdo (41) in the Bača Ravine (Baška grapa). (Photo C. Narobé, 1993)

Prve, stare oselnike, je tu in tam mogoče najti v starinarnicah; druge, nove spominke, izdelujejo posamezni obrtniki. Prvi so kot kaže dokaj pogost okras počitniških hišic. Iz dolenjskega Gradeža je na primer pripoved, da so stare oselnike »vse vikendaši pobral; pa jim tam visi na stenah«. Lastniki vikendov, povečini mestni prebivalci, so sicer tudi med kupci novih primerkov, vendar jim »jih morš znat ponudit; morš dat ljudem idejo, za kaj jih lahko imajo (na primer kot ›vaze› za šopke suhih rož, kot puščice za svinčnike)«. Kupci oselnikov-spominkov, ki jih izdelujejo posamični domači obrtniki na podeželju, pa so pogosto njihovi sokrajani in okoličani; vzamejo jih za darilo, za okras. Obesijo sijih povečini na stene domačih kuhinj in dajo vanje suhe trave, oves, pšenico; »tisto noter, kar smo kosili in želi« (Oselniki, 1993). Oselniki jih spominjajo na košnjo (in žetev), kakršna je bila, na življenje, kakršnega ni več.

In tudi taki primerki, zgolj spominki, so prav nenavadno cenjeni; kot da bi se na kmetih njihova nekdanja veljava tako ohranjala. Ko je na primer sin velikega kmeta s Podporezna dobil od obiskovalca, domačega obrtnika iz Podbrda, miniaturen oselnik-spominek, je bil »(ta mal) bol vesel vósovnika, koker da bi pršou stric iz Amerike«. Amerika in »strici iz Amerike« pa so vedno pomenili nekaj najbolj posebnega, vrednega.


Opombe:


- 1 Zadevne podatke mi je posredoval metalurg mag. Rado Turk.

- 2 Morda sta enako stari, le da sta bili zapisani kasneje, tudi dve podobni uganki iz naših krajev. V obeh gre za lesen oselnik. V prvi, iz dediščine goriških okoličanov (Erjavec, 1883: 331), je skrit v metafori »lesen studenec« in v drugi, iz dediščine Kočevarjev (Koštiál, 1937-1939: 23), v besedni figuri »lesena jama«.

- 3 Bezlaj na istem mestu potem navaja še novejšo izdajo Megiserjevega slovarja iz srede 18. stoletja, v kateri je edninsko ime o∫la. Omenja tudi cerkvenoslovansko osbla (?). In na strani 256 razloži: »Oselnik je izvedeno od o∫la.« Zanj navede ime o ∫lenek, ki ga je v 18. stoletju zapisal Gutsmann. Tako za oslo kot za oselnik pa ugotavlja osnovo »cos« (lat. cos, cotis; cotarium).

- 4 Risar, slikar Ivan Koch iz Novega mesta, je kot kaže tudi pri nekaterih drugih zgodovinskih prizorih združeval preteklost in sodobnost. Umor rimskega cesarja in njegovega sina je na primer upodobil v sodobni postelji namesto v rimski. Valvasor je take »napake« dopuščal na račun razumljivosti (Škafar, 1988: 34, 39, 40). Žanrski prizor treh koscev lahko tako upravičeno upoštevamo kot primarni slikovni vir.

- 5 Menili so, da se je z njimi uničevala slama, ki jim je pomenila potrebno kritino za strehe. V Evropi pa je kosa, ki so jo obtoževali, da razsipava zrnje, postala običajno žetveno orodje na začetku 19. stoletja (Braudel, 1988: 97).

- 6 Za primerjavo so bila uporabljena naslednja dela: Hahm, 1928; Nemec, 1980; Colleselli, 1958, 1982; Der steirische, 1966; Benker, 1976; Haberlandt, 1911; Popović, 1952; Topali, König-Reis, 1942; Schmidt, 1952; Holz, 1981; Gebhard, 1969; Kierdorf-Traut, 1977; Brunhes Delamarre, Hairy, 1971; Martel, 1979/80; Hyčko, 1973; Bednárik, 1943, 1956; Podolák, 1967; Fél, Hofer, 1974; Vakarelski, 1969; Priuli, 1988; Scheuermeier, 1943; Brocherel, 1937; Calderon, 1990; Ponsoda, 1984; Vazquez, 1992; Violant i Simorra, 1981; Raffaelli, 1990; in poleg njih še korespondenca z muzeji, navedenimi ob koncu seznama uporabljenih virov in slovstva.

- 7 Dognana je bila na osnovi zbirke Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja, terenske raziskave in zbirk pokrajinskih muzejev, navedenih v seznamu ob Krajevni preglednici oblikovnih tipov oselnikov.

- 8 Po delih, navedenih pod opombo (6) in po korespondenci z muzeji, navedenimi ob koncu seznama uporabljenih virov in slovstva.

- 9 Hranijo ga v fondu rokopisov (pod št. 54) v Bibliothèque d’étude et de conservation (Bibliothèques municipales de Besançon) v Besançonu v Franciji (Catalogue général, 1897: 34).

- 10 Naj na primer omenim le Hermana de Carinthio in njegovo znanstvo s Petrusom Venerabilisom, opatom v Clunyju (Gantar, 1965: 226).

- 11 Rog je pomembno dobro izbrati, dovolj dolgega, da ga ni potrebno še poglabljati. Za slabše so vedno veljali krajši kravji rogovi. Če je rog svež, ga je treba skuhati (najbolje kar celo glavo), da kost in koža lepo odstopita. Kuhan rog se da tudi oblikovati. (Sterle, 1976: 98, 99; Oselniki, 1993.)

- 12 V inventarju Kalanove kmetije iz Selške doline iz leta 1723 lahko na primer preberemo: »2 borrer«, dva svedra in »2 Schnizmesser resiunik«, dva rezilnika (Andrejka, 1934: 49). Mnoga izmed navedenih orodij najdemo tudi v zapuščinskih popisih (iz 18. stoletja) podložnikov z zahodnejših predelov Slovenskih goric in s severnega obrobja Dravskega polja; na primer: žatlake, žage, svedre, dleta...(Baš, 1955: 119).

- 13 Levstik je pod »brusi« najverjetneje mislil na osle in ne na bistveno večje okrogle bruse.

- 14 Npr.: Cevc, 1992; Albreht, 1945; Na poti, 1994; Koprivec, 1939; Budal, Paulin, 1993; Kuret, 1989; Kuhar, 1972; Turnšek, 1952; Prešeren, 1933; Möderndorfer, 1946; Pirnat, 1941; M(išič), 1951; Novak, 1974; Šarf, 1974; Smerdel, 1984; Mrkun, 1943 in še nekaj rokopisnih virov: Robanov fond, 4; Trenta, 1952; Oselniki, 1992, 1993.

- 15 Edini znani slovenski primerek je robat klinast oselnik iz Skomarij v Pokrajinskem muzeju v Celju, inv. št. 1287, ki meri v višino 82 centimetrov. Od drugod so tako veliki sporočeni s Tirolskega (prim. Colleselli, 1958: 334; 1982: 15).

- 16 Prim. npr.: Turnšek, 1952: 104; Mrkun, 1943: 34; Kuhar, 1972: 115; Koprivec, 1939: 163; Na poti, 1994: 50.

- 17 Po pisni konzultaciji z Musée Dauphinois iz Grenobla, primerka iz dela »Le Guepas«, Collections du Musée de Gap.





WHETSTONE HOLDERS. AN ODE TO LABOUR, SKILL, CREATIVITY, INDIVIDUALITY AND EROS

_____________________________________



- Introduction: principal concepts, premises and available sources



- The museum collection: outline of its historicity and history



- The historicity of whetstone holders (in Slovenia and elsewhere in Europe) or, On scythes, whetstones and whetstone holders



- Types of shape and design of whetstone holders. On the common and individual



- About the makers of whetstone holders, their production and decoration techniques, sales and valuation



- About the making of whetstones, their sale and valuation



- And now something about straighteners



- The hay harvest (labour and festivity), the mower and his whetstone holder



- Another time and a new meaning



- References





WHETSTONE HOLDERS. An ode to labour, skill, creativity, individuality and Eros


Introduction: principal concepts, premises and available sources

“Whetstone holders, an ode to labour, skill, creativity, individuality, and Eros” might be a slightly unconventional heading for a treatise to accompany the catalogue of a museum collection. It articulates certain intuitive premises (subsequently verified by research findings) and reflections on the multifold knowledge communicated to us by a tool which plays but a marginal, auxiliary role among agricultural implements, but is far from insignificant in the structures of peasant life.

Notwithstanding the level of mechanisation of modern agriculture, whetstone holders are still in use in many places throughout Slovenia. However, to many people - of different levels of education - the word oselnik sounds unfamiliar. This is generally true of people in urban centres, but also of those living in villages where the object has a quite different name. Everybody, though, knows what a scythe is. A metaphorical saying, actually a riddle, written down by Fran Erjavec (1883: 331) and dating from the late 19th century, reveals the tools which are closely connected with the scythe in a most delicate way: “An iron mistress, a stone maid and a wooden well.” The metaphor is explained in brackets: a scythe, a whetstone and a whetstone holder. The principal implement, the mistress, is assisted by a maid, the whetstone, and by the source of the latter’s effectiveness, a whetstone holder, i.e. a wooden vessel containing water. The scythe, an age-old tool used to harvest, to mow primarily grass and other fodder plants as well as grain, has to be whetted (as has the sickle) during the process of cutting in order to keep its blade sharp. In many places it is whetted with whetting implements and often also ground. The tool, a longish piece of (natural or artificial) stone, used to grind primarily scythes (but also sickles) is called a WHETSTONE. Because of its frequent use, the whetstone must be at hand to the mower. He therefore carries it close to his body, in a horn or wooden (sheet-metal, plastic) container, filled with water, and suspended from his belt. This container is what we call a WHETSTONE HOLDER. The words osla and oselnik, (whetstone and whetstone holder), both belonging to standard Slovene, are - in numerous phonetic varieties - most frequent in the dialects throughout the territory settled by Slovenes in the course of time. Other names for the whetstone are kamen (in Koroška, Štajerska and Prekmurje), brus (in Bela Krajina), ostrivnik (in the Mislinja Valley) and kosjak (around Rogatec). There exists a large variety of names for the whetstone holder: vodir or voder (to the West of the Drava River and in the Rož Valley), tobolec (in Bela Krajina), kumf (in parts of the Savinja Valley) špu, šepun, šepur, čepur, čepun (in East Koroška and Central Štajerska) and Čepon (around Tolmin). The phonetic and orthographic varieties of these words amount to a total of about 400 (see supplement, Map and material from the collection for the Slovene Linguistic Atlas). The whetstone holder and its companion in this two-in-one entity, the whetstone, certainly are cultural elements which left behind significant traces in our language. Less obvious, though, are the traces of the word ognjilo (blade STRAIGHTENER), a conic steel implement used to straighten the blade of the scythe before whetting it. The Dictionary of Standard Slovene Language even fails to mention this meaning of the word. Pleteršnik’s dictionary (1894: 673, 801) contains an adequate definition of the word and lists a second name for it, natezilo (in the Tolmin Region). Other confirmed phonetic varieties are: vognil (Bohinj), vognila (the Bača Ravine); and there are also different words: nagnilo (the Bača Ravine) gladilo (Žerovnica) and štrajher (Robanov kot). The straightener probably was not as well-known and widespread as whetstones and whetstone holders due to the fact that it was not in use everywhere and not always necessary (for instance, for mowing meadows with no stones or rocks). Wherever it was used (or still is) it constitutes - together with the whetstone and whetstone holder - a three-in-one entity. And more, it inspired a special type of whetstone holders: those in which a hole was bored or to which a loop for the straightener was attached.

The three concepts we explained above each designate a group of interdependent objects in the museum collection of whetstone holders. The majority of the collection consists of whetstone holders; it is supplemented by a few whetstones and even fewer straighteners. The whetstone holders also are the most telling group in the collection. In addition, the whetstone holder is the object most closely linked to its user. During his work the whetstone holder rests on his body and it is part of a mower’s basic outfit.

The tempting intimacy - the physical contact between man and object (mower and whetstone holder) - was a source of reflections on the multifold significance of whetstone holders. And this particular perception of the object guided the research of the collection in a certain direction: besides fundamental knowledge about the whetstone holder as an economic and cultural element - i.e. the history and geographical distribution of individual types of shape - and besides an investigation of the explicit “visible” evidence of its making, design and use, the question arose of the implicit, “hidden” message of this cultural element. The aim was to determine the different relationships between person (maker, user, social group) and whetstone holder, as well as the role and importance of the whetstone holder in individual social environments and periods. In this respect the museum collection offers but little and basically indirect evidence. Whetstone holders are a primary material source with directly visible aspects: there is their shape, decoration, carved initials and surnames, there are other signs of personal ownership and traces of maintenance (and repair) for further use despite incurred damages. And all these aspects indirectly raise questions about those other, hidden aspects we can merely suspect: about the erotic and symbolic meaning of their shape; or, perhaps, about the decoration and carved signs of ownership and how these relate - if at all - to the shape’s erotic symbolism (whether they reflect the owner’s desire to be a noticeably different, unmistakable individual within his social group); questions, too, how deeply someone becomes accustomed and attached to his own whetstone holder. And let us not forget that there might be quite prosaic reasons for a whetstone holder being used on and on: lack of money or time to either buy or make a new one.

To answer these questions and verify hypothetical considerations on the kind of story whetstone holders might reveal - as well as in order to create a concise survey of the existing essential knowledge about them - it was necessary to review - besides the museum collection - many other sources and different written sources which frequently proved to convey only indirect evidence. Sources (Slovene and foreign alike) dealing directly with whetstone holders are indeed scarce. Thus field research was essential for a critical perception of all matters read and studied, and in order to complement them with oral reports.

Ethnological studies of a more general nature - including some geographically specific Slovene works - either make little mention of whetstone holders or deal with them scantily. Where mentioned at all, they are noted simply as one of the implements used during the hay harvest or as a handcrafted product. There are only three works that provide more information about them because they are (contain) specific minor monographs on this cultural element. The first is Ivan KoštiaTs philological study of the whetstone holder (1937-1939), listing the Slovene, Croatian, Serbian, Czech, German, Dutch and English, Italian, French and Hungarian names for a whetstone holder; Koštial traces the origin of some of these words, compares them and explains their meaning. Individual names are linked to the erotic and symbolic shape of the object. In the second source, the article “Extinct branches of domestic handicrafts in the surroundings of Turjak”, Tone Ljubič (1951) describes the local makers of whetstone holders, their products, production techniques and sales in a special chapter entitled “Whetstone makers”. According to Ljubič buyers preferred decorated holders. Our third major source is Gorazd Makarovič’s elaborate work Slovene Folk Art (1981). In the section on design a chapter is dedicated to whetstone holders, in which the author briefly reviews the existing knowledge and some premises about this tool which is so often given a special design; he discusses assumptions about the likely time of emergence in history (in Europe and in Slovenia), known types of shape, the decoration’s execution and motifs, and whether decoration was an earmark of ownership. The argument about decorated whetstone holders becomes even more prominent because of Makarovič’s finding (1981: 268) that the majority of tools and implements in Slovenia have merely functional shapes, and that actual design appears at least in greater numbers - only with whetstone holders, spinning wheels, distaffs and (wine) presses.

Among foreign works mention must be made of two monographs, sources of comparative material and some comparable findings: Die Tiroler Wetzsteinkuempfe und ihre Verzierung (Tyrolean whetstone holders and their decoration) by Franz Colleselli (1958) and Bosansko-hercegovački vodijeri (Bosnian and Herzegovinian whetstone holders) by Cvetko D. Popović (1952). Both studies are based on museum collections and both open with a short fragmentary survey of the emergence of the whetstone holder (and of the whetstone) in history. Colleselli then introduces us to the types of shape of Tyrolean whetstone holders (and we also learn something about their making) and different methods of decorating. Popović’s work is more exhaustive because he used a questionnaire as an additional source to the museum collection. His work thus contains collected oral reports about the tool and its manufacture, dialect names (“popular names”) for whetstone holders, ways of wearing and use, and superstitions associated with them. The author also investigates the decoration (tools and techniques, basic motifs and ornaments) and determines regional types of shape.

The most remarkable source of knowledge and inspiring reading are the assumptions and theses we encounter in the chapter on grinding implements in Gestaltheiligkeit im baeuerlichen Arbeitsmythos (The sanctity of design in the peasant labour myth) by Leopold Schmidt (1952). This work is a synthetic European cultural-historical survey of the emergence of whetstones, their North-European varieties (grinding wood: a narrow little board or stick covered with sand), straightener and whetstone holders, and is equipped with cartographical illustrations. Schmidt explains the history of these tools, the development of various shapes, their distribution, reputation and importance based on the archeology, ethnology and etymology of his time, illustrations, folk literature, and individual oral sources. Central to his treatise is the erotic symbolism of the two implements: the male whetstone and female whetstone holder. The remaining literature and sources examined contain only fragmentary information: either about various shapes and types of whetstone holders or about the historical and present nature of whetstones and whetstone holders. Most of them refer primarily to the latter and the data suggest that they can be fitted into an almost two-thousand-year-old history of whetstone holders and an even older history of whetstones in Europe (including the Slovene part of Europe, despite the absence of relevant direct sources in Slovenia proper); the data also support an image of long duration, and the assumption of the continued existence of the object because of the continuity of its basic function. It is exactly this function of the ancient cultural element which has been preserved up to today, for a variety of reasons.


The museum collection: outline of its historicity and history

The whetstone holders of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum’s collection are quite accurate sources on their own existence in time; however, this is true only of the past 150 years of their presumed nearly two thousand-year old history. The oldest dated object (no. 10) in the collection is determined by the carved year 1842, the youngest (nos. 118, 119, 126, 138) by records that they were made in the winter of 1992/1993. (Most specimens in the collections of Slovene regional museums belong to the same period - the second half of the 19th and first half of the 20th century). There are two basic reasons for such a limited period of origin of the whetstone holders in our collection: the time collecting started, and the trivial fact of daily (even modern) life: worn implements are rarely kept once they have been replaced and, on the other hand, people are reluctant to give them away as long as they serve them well. The latter fact is amply demonstrated by the collection. Nearly half of the whetstone holders are at least cracked, if not stuffed and mended, repaired in all possible ways. Of the other half, many are brand new and were acquired directly from their makers. As a rule, whetstone holders became part of our collection either at the time of their making or when their use came to an end. The functional lifetime of a whetstone holder is rather short: oral records attribute the longest lifetime - at least twenty years - to whetstone holders made of broomwood. The reasons stated for the relatively limited period of origin of the holders in our collection are thus interdependent. The historicity of the whetstone holders in our collection is determined by the history of how (and when) they were collected. And this history is also telling about another aspect: about the collectors’ attitude towards this cultural element (museum experts and individual collectors alike), about their theoretical views.

The oldest whetstone holder, dated 1842, was not the first one to be kept by our museum. It was acquired between 1937 and 1943 (when Franc Kos was the Royal Ethnographic Museum’s curator), and bought in an antique shop. The origins of the collection reach back to 1907 when (as it was then called) the Carniolian Regional Museum Rudolfinum (founded in 1821) acquired nine specimens from Bohinj, i.e. from Koprivnik and Gorjuše (nos. 2 to 9). (In 1923 a separate Royal Ethnographic Museum originated from the Rudolfinum, after the Second World War it was renamed Ethnographic Museum, and its present name - Slovene Ethnographic Museum - goes back to 1963). Walter Schmidt’s report in the first Carniolia Yearbook (1908: 7, 8) describes them as carved and although he classifies them among objects constituting the group “Zug- und Ackergeraet, verschiedene baeuerliche Gebrauchsgegenstaende” i.e. “draught-implements and agricultural tools, miscellaneous functional objects” the main reason for their purchase was their aesthetic, not functional nature. (The same group also contains brass decorations of horse collars, numerous decorated planes etc.). Acquisitions of a later date betray a similar attitude towards whetstone holders. Because of their carved or otherwise executed ornamentation they are classified - despite their being handcrafted products, intended for agricultural labour - as folk art.

Most private collectors shared identical views of whetstone holders. In the years to follow the museum bought four largish collections from private collectors: the Peršin Collection of six whetstone holders from Bohinj (nos. 11 to 16) in 1948; the Grebenc Collection (between 1954 and 1957) containing thirteen specimens from Gorenjska (most of them from Koprivnik and the Selška Valley) and one from Dolenjska (nos. 40-53). They have all been kept (since 1929) by the National Museum in Ljubljana and were intended to be part of a (never to be founded) “special historical museum of craftsmanship” (Makarovič, 1962: 243). Other collections are the Strgar Collection of six whetstone holders, all but one from the Upper Savinja Valley (nos. 35-39, 87) in 1990; and, in 1993, the Turk Collection of 23 specimens from widely different areas, primarily collected because of their type rather than because of their aesthetic aspects (nos. 93-115). (Distinct evidence of this is the way the collection was arranged while it was still “exhibited” at the collector’s home. See ill. 1).

The museum’s interest in the typological rather than aesthetic aspect can also be derived from the whetstone holders which were acquired when museum teams headed by Boris Orel performed extensive field work between 1948 and 1961. Orel had defined Slovene ethnology as the science of the “cultural achievements of our people”, and of the laws governing their development (1948: 7). Therefore, his efforts aimed to fill in the essential and geographical (regional) blanks in the Ethnographic Museum’s collection. As such Orel’s views did not really differ from contemporary endeavours in (some) other European (including Yugoslav) ethnologies. The concrete result of these efforts were ethnological atlases of individual regions which still seem to be fashionable (in order to cover the whole of Europe) (Lerche, 1993).

Orel’s views led to an increase of the number of whetstone holders of various types of shape in the museum collection, a greater variety of their geographic origin and a relatively satisfactory documentation. The first undecorated whetstone holder (no. 18) joined the collection in 1948 (today, nearly half of the holders are undecorated). While collecting objects the field teams were accompanied by artists who produced a collection of drawings of whetstone holders (catalogue of drawings nos. 2-29). However, little more than collecting was actually achieved.

Collecting was continued - though in smaller numbers - by Angelos Baš, the first formal curator for rural economy (from 1963 to 1979). His view on whetstone holders was that the museum had a “rich collection” which he enlarged by adding specimens here and there, quite in line with his definition that a museum object should have a certain value from the point of view of research and exhibition (Smerdel, 1984: 8, 18)

On the whole, the seventies and part of the eighties were a period in Slovene ethnology which “ignored” objects. From this period originate opinions like “the conviction seems to have prevailed that the principal subject of ethnology are people, not things”, and statements that the emphasis in ethnology is transferred from cultural elements to their makers and users, whereas phenomena and objects were merely a means of revealing ways of life (Kremenšek, 1973: 122, 123). Such opinions meant a shift in methodology and were often understood as being discriminating. But the expression “transfer of emphasis” did not at all mean that objects were being discriminated; it merely advanced a different attitude towards dealing with objects, how to document them and how to “read” the messages they contain. To the ethnologist objects merely became one among many potential sources (written, oral, pictorial, material). How objects were interpreted depended on the individual’s theoretical orientation (see Makarovič, 1983: 63, 64).

My research of the Museum’s collection of whetstone holders started some three years ago as part of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum’s project to publish annotated catalogues of its (primarily material) sources. My main intention was to establish their role and meaning in the life of their makers and users, and what knowledge and skills were developed. This was to be achieved by analysing the objects and trying to reveal the message(s) they carry. In order to do so the collection had to be added to and I selected whetstone holders from the same regions the existing specimens originated from (to cross-check my premises), as well as regions where they are still made. By 1993 the collection reached a total of one hundred forty whetstone holders, eight whetstones and four straighteners. The oldest whetstone holders with their carved decoration stimulate consideration of the specific status they might have had in the structures of peasant life in the second half of the 19th century. The three most recently made holders (one of them shows modern decorations revealing one of the old meanings - the erotic one - whereas the two plastic ones are limited to their merely functional meaning) bear witness to modern content in various ways.


The historicity of whetstone holders (in Slovenia and elsewhere in Europe) or, On scythes, whetstones and whetstone holders.

Museum collections are a poor source when attempting to establish the origins of whetstone holders or their emergence in history. As far as it was possible to determine judging by published material from various countries, there are but a few whetstone holders - for instance the Swiss one dating from the end of the 17th century (Benker, 1976: 187) - that can be dated prior to the 19th century.

There can be hardly any doubt that whetstone holders did not exist before there were whetstones, or whetstones before the emergence of iron tools. In his work on ancient tools for mowing and fodder plants, Axel Steensberg (1943: 160) writes that the only traces many bronze sickles show are those of whetting with a stone or small hammer, and continued that the edges seem to have been ground, perhaps with soft sandstone. During the Early Iron Age (8th to 4th century B.C.) the use of whetstones is no longer a matter of assumptions; there are numerous finds from various burial-places (see, for instance, Jacobi, 1974: 130). The early stages of the development of the scythe belong to the same period.

The scythe, historically the youngest among mowing implements, emerged in Central Europe in the later Hallstatt period (Pohanka, 1986: 147). During the centuries that followed we can trace its development (various forms, longer or shorter handles). Though its development was not linear, it was never discontinued either. Scythes emerged, became popular and are still around in our days. The most fitting words to characterize them are probably Fernand Braudel’s (1988: 95), writing on the technique of using scythes. The technique symbolizes the force of people’s patient and monotonous efforts to control the outside world; swift changes (perhaps prematurely called revolutions), painstaking enhancement of procedures and tools; and, finally, countless movements which certainly have no innovative meaning, but are the fruit of accumulated knowledge. The emergence of the scythe undoubtedly meant a kind of “revolution” in agriculture. From the time of this first revolution, up until the agricultural-technical revolution and the gradual mechanisation of farming, centuries of patient improvements and “countless movements” passed.

Steensberg first reflects on the causes of the first “revolution”, trying to explain them, and then establishes that the production of (bronze) scythes (besides sickles) was not beyond the technical skills of the Bronze Age tool-makers. But the pressure for a quicker and more efficient tool than the scythe (which does not cut grass like a sickle but mows it) seems to have emerged as late as the Iron Age when a fundamental shift in the economy occurred. This shift, supposedly due to climate changes (at least in North Europe) had the following consequences: cattle were kept in the open air only in summer, and in stables in winter, meaning more dung and hence higher yields of crops and, simultaneously, a need for larger quantities of hay for feeding the cattle in winter. The “plant determinism of Western civilisation” gradually asserted itself; it resulted from wheat and grass and led to a peasant life based on cultivating land as well as breeding cattle, upon “ploughing and pasturage” (Braudel 1988: 136, 182), on harvesting and mowing.

These changes in agriculture and the improvement of tools were undoubtedly enhanced by the development of iron-working in the Iron Age. And it was La Tène blacksmiths who achieved the breakthrough: the technical skill to temper iron and hammer it into cutting edges and blades (Petru, 1979: 60). Now, once scythes (and sickles) were tempered, their blades required maintenance; besides periodical sharpening (a heritage of the Bronze Age) they often had to be whetted with wet grinding implements. Tempered iron is much harder and shock-resistant. But when overheated - one single stroke with a whetstone can heat (a part of) a scythe to over a thousand degree Celsius - this characteristic is substantially reduced. To avoid this, water is needed to cool the iron while it is being ground. (In addition, the liquid also moistens the stone’s sand particles: they do not cut the blade, but polish it. After grinding the blade is less brittle and the metal surface’s resilience is higher).1 We can thus arguably presume that whetstone holders - vessels containing water, ready for the mower to use - emerged soon after the importance of water (or another liquid) in grinding scythes (and sickles) was discovered.

The presumption is indeed supported by archaeological finds of whetstones. Those originating from Hallstatt burial-places are almost all punctured at one end in order to be suspended from the belt, but there are no pierced stones from the later La Tène period (Jacobi, 1974: 130). It is from then on that we may presume that they were carried in whetstone holders. The first straight reference can be found in the Roman encyclopedic work of Pliny the Elder (23-70 B.C.) Naturalis Historiae (XVIII, 28(261). The chapter on meadows mentions, for example, “cotes oleariae” - whetstones for grinding with oil; “cotes aquariae” as in Italy well established whetstones for grinding with water; and, highly valued, whetstones from Crete. But there is more: Pliny tells us that the mowers wore horns fastened to their shins. These horns seem to have been the first and natural vessels to carry whetstones.

It has been generally established about whetstones (Schmidt, 1952: 67) that their increasing use can be traced from South to North: they first found their way in the South of Europe and then spread to the North. The whetstone and its holder are thus above all Southern and Central European cultural elements. In the North (Northern France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the Baltic States and Russia) people mainly used “grinding wood” to whet their scythes (for example the German Wetzholz or the Scottish straik). This was a (mostly oak) stick, shaped like a board, covered with sand (the sand was rubbed into the wood’s furrowed and moistened surface; or, the sand was strewn on the stick’s surface after it had been covered with pitch) (see Schmidt, 1952: 71-80; Fenton, 1976: 61; Zelenin, 1927: 34). In Norway, however, the evolution seems to have taken a different course: mowers used whetstones and whetstone holders from as early as about 600 A.D.. The date refers to a find which bears direct witness to the use of whetstone holders, and once more it is a horn. The “Strøm whetstone” (Strøm was a mansion on Hitteren island near the end of Stromfjord) carries an inscription in runes (Schmidt, 1952: 69), reading: “This stone must be moistened in a horn!” These words, together with Pliny’s statement about the use of horns, lead us to the firm conclusion that the first whetstone holders were horns. Nature obliged by offering horns as ready-made, multipurpose and highly practical vessels (even today) for the intended use. And they came from the heads of cattle, the very cause of their existence since horns were used in the process of gathering fodder for them.

More evidence on whetstone holders is to be found in later, mediaeval sources: many illustrations (for example, in Hansen, 1974: 118, 119), inventory lists and relevant passages from oral tradition (see Schmidt, 1952: 81-87). However fragmentary these bits of information are, they are nevertheless connected and enable us to trace the history of whetstone holders right up to the time when they are there for us “bodily”, i.e. as material sources in museum collections. There remains, however, one more question to be answered at this stage: when were the first wooden whetstone holders made? Our written sources provide but little evidence: whetstone holders may be mentioned but there is no description. Leopold Schmidt advocates the thesis (limited to the German-speaking countries) that the only real evidence of wooden specimens is the introduction of the word Kumpf in the German language and this is supposed to have taken place in the 13th century. A tempting piece of evidence of the existence of wooden whetstone holders might be read in a riddle from an Old German manuscript dating from the 14th century. The answer to the question “What is a wooden stone house (stone’s house)”2 certainly is: a whetstone holder, “Kumpf”, worn by a mower and carrying a whetstone. But there is an even older source to prove the existence of wooden whetstone holders: a miniature in Wandelbert’s Martyriologium Almanach, dating from the early 10th century and originating from either the Praem / Eifel or St. Gallen monastery (Bentzien, 1990: 40). This seems to be the first known illustration of a mower carrying a whetstone holder (with a whetstone in it). That the illustrator depicted a wooden whetstone holder can be concluded from its shape, which does not resemble that of a horn (ill. 2).

The story of the whetstone holder in Slovenia, i.e. when did our ancestors start to use whetstone holders carrying water and a whetstone attached to their belt, can presumably not differ materially from the general European story. When Makarovič (1981: 269) tried to reconstruct our version he came to the conclusion that a more or less general use of whetstone holders cannot be assumed prior to the 17th century. To support this opinion there are two illustrations of mowers carrying no whetstone holders: one is the illustration for the month of July in the Radovljica Almanach, dating from 1415; the other is from the fresco of Holy Sunday (on the external wall of the church in Pristava near Polhov Gradec), dating from the first third of the 16th century. The absence of older direct sources on whetstone holders, however, does not necessarily mean that they did not exist earlier. If, indeed, we follow our steps back and once again link the emergence of whetstone holders to the fact that tempered scythe-blades had to be wet before grinding, we have to go back as far as the La Tène period. From that time onwards there is no lack of sources or individual findings in Slovenia which are, if nothing else, at least indirect evidence of the possible use of whetstone holders.

To start with there is the late La Tène scythe found in Idrija near Bača, furthermore a greater number of scythes, possible evidence of domestic makers in the Soča basin and of extensive use of scythes towards the end the La Tène period and the early Roman age (Guštin, 1991: 62). Further evidence is provided by the discovery of ancient industry in Slovenia’s northwestern regions (Koroška and around Bohinj), of the production of iron and tempered, steeled tools in Noricum (Petru, 1979: 75). There is little doubt that the scythes of that time were wet before grinding and Pliny’s information (XVIII, 28(261)) on the well-established use of “cotes aquariae” in Italy, and on their being worn in horns, are most probably also true of the Slovene parts of the Roman Empire. The settling of Slavs in the area from the 6th century onwards can hardly have caused significant changes in the cultivation of meadows and the tools used. The indigenous peoples may well have been mediators of many ancient skills (see Petru, 1979: 93; Grafenauer, 1979: 108, 109), but the Slav newcomers are thought to have known scythes and whetstones (Novak, 1978: 128). Evidence that meadows were mowed comes from a not much older source, the document on the assembly at Rižana near Koper, dating from the first years of the 9th century. Reading the complaints Romanic Istrians addressed to their duke Joanes (Charlemagne’s vassal) about the newly settled Slavs, we find the following statement “...they mow our meadows...” (Kos, 1985: 322, 323). An equally telling, this time material source, dating from almost the same period (early 9th century), is the Sebenje Treasure, found near Bled. It consists of twenty four buried iron objects (most of them tools) and the owner is believed to have been a freeman and owner of an Old-Slovene farm. The kosirji (rings used to fix scythes to scythe-handles) found among the objects confirm that he mowed meadows to gather winter fodder for his cattle (Pleterski, 1987: 291). Two spoon-shaped borers, tools used to work wood in constructing buildings (Pleterski, 1987: 289, 291), may carry a message about a second use: that of boring holes in wooden whetstone holders. The presumption is not entirely without foundation if we think of techniques which are still in use.

The cultivation of meadows, the continued use of scythes, the reasonable presumption of relevant craftsmanship, the evidence of wood-working tools existing from the Roman era onwards (for example: handsaws, little axes, chisels, gouges, rasps, compasses and other tools, all of which are thought not to have changed since the 14th century; Velter, Lamothe, 1979: 96); all these are indisputable facts which tend towards the conclusion that whetstone holders were used in Slovenia long before the 17th century; perhaps since the times when people learned how important it was to wet scythe-blades before grinding them. Even in the absence of more sophisticated tools - these were not generally accessible - they certainly must have been capable of making wooden whetstone holders in addition to using horns. One way of making holes for the whetstone is to burn them in hewn pieces of wood: having no borer at hand, a farmer from Koprivnik used this prehistorical method to finish a whetstone holder in the seventies of our century (no. 116). And is it not also conceivable that the itinerant craftsmen from Ribnica and Kočevje were “professional” manufacturers of whetstone holders long before the 17th century? After all, they traded freely with domestic wooden products as early as 1492 (Bras, 1979: 6).

Direct sources on whetstones and whetstone holders are scanty. Evidence of the first dates from the middle of the 16th century: “scythes and whetstones” were to be sold during market-days in the market place near the town’s mill in Ljubljana (Archives, 1953: 66). And there is Hieronim Megiser’s entry into his dictionary of the plural aßli and singular o∫liza, “Wetzstein” (Bezlaj, 1976: 257)3, dating from the last decade of the 16th century. The whetstone holder, on the other hand, becomes at last really visible in the last but one decade of the 17th century, in one of the illustrations in Valvasor’s Glory of the Duchy of Carniolia (1689: 397). The illustrator (Ivan Koch) and copperplate engraver (Andrej Trost) depict three mowers in peasant clothes of the 17th century in the background of the historical scene of the duke’s inauguration.4 The first peasant from the left carries a whetstone holder with whetstone attached to his belt (ill. 3). Besides this graphic source there is one more primary source: the inventory of a large farm in the Selška Valley, made up in 1723. Here we read: “2 Sensen sambt dem Dentl ossounik Und Zurgehor” meaning “two scythes together with whetstone holder (Dentle in German) and all that goes with them” (Andrejka, 1934: 38, 49).

In the 19th century, then, the sources on whetstone holders in Slovenia become tangible. There are now material specimens from museum collections with their multiple meanings and messages. The period most of them date from (the 19th and largely the first half of the 20th century) was one of gradual changes in Slovene agriculture. The clever physiocratic teachings of the second half of the 18th century (see Smerdel, 1991: 25, 34, 38, 40) found their way, in some places slowly, elsewhere quickly. The agricultural technological revolution brought about fundamental changes in the working of meadows and fields, the production of grain and cattle fodder, i.e. processes which involved the use of whetstone holders. The gradual introduction of livestock breeding in stables (which ended the breeding of pasture-fed animals and encouraged cattle breeding) among other things generated increased demand for fodder, thus intensifying the importance of fodder plants (clovers and others) and hay. There is little doubt then that the process which produces hay - mowing - gained significance.

At that time, however, the tools used to reap grains and fodder plants were not modified in any significant way. Throughout the 19th century farms generally reaped with sickles. Grain-scythes were introduced here and there towards the middle of the century but rejected by many (Britovšek, 1964: 183)5 The scythe remained a hay-harvesting tool and so did its companions, the whetstone horn or wooden holder and whetstone, indispensable parts of a mower’s outfit.

If we can call the emergence of the scythe, the agrarian-technical revolution and the mechanization of agriculture in the 20th century revolutions in agriculture, then it was not until the last revolution that the role of the scythe and its auxiliary tools diminished to an extent where their use almost came to an end. Horse-drawn mowers were first used on large flat fields in the interwar period; machine-mowers, used here and there in Slovenia in the sixties (oral evidence; Oselniki, 1993 and Šarf, 1974; 144) and in some other European countries, for instance in Switzerland, a decade earlier (Kruker, 1992: 1023) may have brought about intrinsic changes of life during the hay harvest, but they did not completely supplant scythes, whetstones and whetstone holders. These still come in handy where steep hay- meadows have to be harvested, in clearings (for instance in Koprivnik, the Bača Ravine), for mowing the orchard around the farmhouse (ill. 5), fresh fodder “to keep the little beasts going”, “let them have a fresh dinner” or “to trim the edges” (ill. 6).

Besides horns and the prevailing wooden whetstone holders - the metaphorical “wooden wells” - mowers have used sheet-metal and plastic whetstone holders from their cooperatives or from the shelves of the local shops since the second half of the century.


Types of shape and design of whetstone holders. On the common and the individual

An analysis of the (Slovene Ethnographic Museum’s) collection shows that the most distinct and direct information communicated by individual whetstone holders concerns the material they are made of and their shape; and, secondly, that the shape, design and composition of most of them are interconnected.

As far as material is concerned, there are whetstone horns and holders made of wood, sheet-metal or plastic, and there is one single earthen specimen as well. The majority of collections in Slovenia’s regional museums and in other European countries contain horns and wooden holders, with some metal ones.6 The Slovene Ethnographic Museum’s collection includes 16 whetstone horns, most of them cowhorns used in their natural shape. Some have been shaped in one way or another - for instance, by cutting the top (no. 54) or by slightly flattening the entire horn to make it wedge-shaped (nos. 21, 35, 36) - and only a few bear any marks - for example, a cross (no. 34), a year and initials (nos. 35, 36), or show signs of real design (no. 36). The four sheet-metal holders (nos. 73-76) and the two plastic ones (nos. 139, 140) are obviously plain vessels for carrying water and a whetstone; their shape generally corresponds to that of some wooden-cylindrical and wedge-shaped representatives. The only earthen specimen (no. 1) is also cylindrical, designed like similar wooden ones and decorated like numerous other earthenware. The wooden whetstone holders are remarkably variegated at first sight; there seem to be so many different shapes and decorations. It has been possible, however, to classify them into groups, establish individual types of shape (including decoration, characteristic of individual shapes) and (at least for the basic groups) pin down their region of origin.

The typology of whetstone holders is a compromise between common and particular aspects, general and individual ones. General, however, does not stand for generalization but rather the sum of all individual aspects. Each whetstone holder is its very own in some way, and differs from all others in at least one tiny aspect; even when it is obvious that the same craftsmen made two or three specimens of our collection, he made sure that they were not identical. The fact that they were made by domestic craftsmen or belonged to individual farmers or mowers, does not prevent them from showing common characteristics of design, and this is even true of the most peculiar ones (e.g. nos. 61, 97, 104). Every set of common characteristics originates from a distinct part of our country and is in line with local natural conditions, economic factors, the tradition of the crafts (even carving itself), regional concepts of what is beautiful and even linguistic attributes (see the geographical survey of whetstone holder types and the map of names for whetstones and whetstone holders). They agree with everything people usually sum up in one sentence: “That’s the way we’ve always made them (in these parts).”

The typology of the shape of Slovene whetstone holders was first established for wooden ones and later included specimens made of other materials.7 It was determined on the basis of two principal criteria: the presence or absence of one or two pointed legs (see introductory note to the catalogue) - these serve to stick the holder in the ground - and the shape of the holder’s trunk. In this way we determined eight basic types, four less frequent subvarieties, and six types each represented by a single holder.


The basic types of shape are the following ones:

1. Legless, box-shaped (subvariety: two-legged) whetstone holders: The outside section of the holder’s trunk is almost square, rectangular or trapezoid, whereas the inside section is either of the same shape or ellipsoid. The back - the side that touches the user’s body - often ends in one or two carved spiral coils at the bottom (specimens of a simpler make have a straight end or two points); the top is mostly shaped into a decorative extension. (Drawings 1, 2, 3). Such holders are known in the villages east of Kranj (no. 120, ill. 12), prevalent in Štajerska, especially in the Upper Savinja Valley (e.g. nos. 37-39), and there is evidence of individual specimens in the Sava and Sotla basins (ill. 10) and in part of Dolenjska (nos. 57, 58; catalogue of drawings nos. 5, 21).

2. Legless, wedge-shaped whetstone holders: Their trunk progressively narrows from the top to the bottom, giving the holder the shape of a wedge (Drawing 4) and the horizontal outside section (of the top part) is polygonal, ellipsoid or round, the inside section usually round or ellipsoid). Such holders are known in the same areas as box-shaped holders (e.g. no. 121), around Celje and on the slopes of Pohorje (nos. 94, 95).

3. Legless, round-conical whetstone holders.

Round, almost cylindrical trunk (the inside horizontal section is round), at the bottom shaped into a cone; their back (the body- side) is shaped into a board-like extension, as if grown together with the trunk (Drawing 5). Most of the specimens come from Bela Krajina (no. 98, ill. 9).

4. One-legged, thin-cylindrical whetstone holders:

Slim trunk, worked with a turning-lathe over its entire length (round horizontal inside section); the bottom ends in a delicate cone (Drawing 6). Known in Prekmurje (nos. 1, 26, 102).

5. One-legged, cylindrical-swollen whetstone holders (cylindrical subvariety):

The upper half of the trunk is round (with a round horizontal inside section), the back flat; the bottom part is more or less cylindrical and turned, evenly swollen from the centre of the trunk or lower downwards, and ends in a central cone (Drawing 7). These specimens are known in Bohinj, Blejski kot and Dolina (nos. 2-9).

6. One-legged, cylindrical-polygonal whetstone holders:

The top quarter of the trunk is of polygonal shape (the horizontal inside section is round); the bottom part is cylindrical, and lathe-turned, ending in a soft, central cone (Drawings 8, 9). This type is not characteristic of a special region. It is known in Gorenjska (no. 43), around Ljubljana (no. 90), Dolenjska (no. 20), Pivka (no. 124), the Karst (nos. 100, 101), the Vipava Valley (catalogue of drawings no. 22) and Črni Vrh near Idrija (catalogue of drawings no. 23).

7. Two-legged, polygonal and 8. two-legged, round whetstone holders (both with subvarieties, especially round-polygonal ones): Essential characteristics: flat back with bevelled side edges, polygonal or round outside (and inside) horizontal section, two legs (or points the back ends in) made of the trunk’s bottom part, which is cut sharply, almost at a ninety- degree angle (Drawings 10-15). Both types are well known throughout Slovenia; the polygonal specimens especially in part of Dolenjska and in Suha Krajina (e.g. nos. 28-33): the polygonal-round ones in Bela Krajina, Notranjska, Pivka, Brkini, Brda; round specimens prevail in the Selška and Poljanska Valleys (e.g. nos. 41, 91, 137), the Cerkno and Idrija regions (catalogue of drawings nos. 15, 24, 26), in the Bača Ravine (nos. 134, 135), around Tolmin and Bovec (ill. 41), in Trenta (no. 110) and Venetian Slovenia (no. 25).

Each individual type of whetstone holder shape usually has either a specifically designed part or something fastened to it that serves a special purpose: to thread a belt (or string) through it, to suspend the holder from the mower’s belt or to stick it behind the mower’s belt. The legless, box-shaped, one-legged cylindrical-swollen and two-legged polygonal specimens mostly have two narrow openings for this purpose (to thread a belt through). The openings are either cut below the holder’s top, in the corners of its backs (Drawings 2, 10, 12), or in its protruding part as we see with the Bohinj specimens (Drawing 7). Most other whetstone holders have only two little holes bored in the corners (e.g. one-legged cylindrical-polygonal and two-legged round specimens; Drawings 8, 9, 13-15) or in the side (e.g. the horns and the wooden one-legged thin-cylindrical ones; Drawings 16 a-c, 6). Through these holes a string can be threaded (Drawing 9), a wire hook stuck (Drawing 14) or a little wooden board fastened (Drawings 13, 14). The latter as a rule belong to the round two-legged type of whetstone holders. There are a few individual specimens of various types of shape which have sheet- metal hooks fastened (with rivets or screws - Drawings 11, 16d) to their backs or carved wooden hooks protruding from them. Their purpose is to suspend the holder from the belt.

How great the variety in the design of our whetstone holders is, how diversified their types of shape, and how many similarities as well as differences there are between them, becomes quite obvious when we consider another level of common and individual aspects: that of common European and specific Slovene aspects. In most European countries there are only three or four known basic types of whetstone holder.8 These basic types are horns, wooden whetstone holders which are more or less cylindrical and have one leg, parallelepiped (box-shaped) holders and more ore less wedge-shaped ones (see individual specimens in Drawings 17-26). Our legless, box-shaped type corresponds with the Italian specimens from Piedmont (see Drawing 18e, f and Priuli, 1988: 234), with some from the French Alps (Drawing 19d) and with one Slovak specimen (Drawing 22); our legless, wedge-shaped holders correspond to similar ones in Lower Carinthia (Drawing 20b), the Czech Republic and Slovakia (Drawing 21b); the one-legged, cylindrical-swollen and cylindrical-polygonal, finally, correspond to specimens from Tyrol (see Drawing 17c, d and Colleselli, 1958: 332-334), Friuli and Trentino (see Drawing 18a and Scheuermeier, 1943: 57), Upper Carinthia and elsewhere in Austria (see Drawing 20a and Schmidt, 1952: 88), from Germany (Gebhard 1969: 69), the Czech Republic (see Drawing 21a) and Hungary (confirmed by correspondence), from Croatia and Bosnia (Drawing 23c and Topali, 1942: 241; Popović, 1952: 171).

Specific beyond comparison are our two-legged whetstone holders of the round and polygonal type of shape. As far as it has been possible to establish such holders are neither depicted nor mentioned in any foreign source. There is one single exception: the illustration for the month of June - depicting the whetting of a scythe - in a miniature from the calendar section of the Bonmont Psalter,9 dating from the 1st half of the 13th century (ill. 7). The holder on the mower’s right hip can be identified beyond any doubt as a two-legged specimen. And this fact opens up the issue of cultural influences and transmission of cultural elements.

Many researchers (see Schmidt, 1952: 90-93) have established that different types of shape of whetstone holders were spread by itinerant tradesmen, craftsmen and seasonal mowers. The Slovene one-legged, cylindrical-swollen specimens from Bohinj and surrounding villages might be explained by the influence of itinerant carvers from the Lechtal Valley in Austrian Tyrol (Schmidt, 1952: 92). Can we then presume that the two-legged whetstone holders were brought to these parts by medieval monks? The Psalter depicting a two-legged holder originates from Bonmont, a Cistercian monastery (founded 1123) at the foot of the French Jura (Gauthier, 1894: 120). And there is ample evidence of contacts between Slovenia and France in that period.10 It is indeed from France that the first Carthusians came to Žiče (the Žiče monastery was founded around 1160, the Jurklošter monastery around 1170 and the Bistra monastery in 1260). Cistercian monks settled in Stična during the lifetime of Bernard of Clairvaux (who died in 1153) and the Cistercian monastery of Kostanjevica was founded around 1230. Both orders insisted on manual labour; the Carthusians were obliged to carry out labour manually every day, the Cistercians engaged in it only during important farming tasks (for instance the harvesting, haying). But there is more: both orders and their monasteries with their large estates were a very influential economic factor and served as models for the secular landlords and their subjects. It is certain that the monks showed them how to work the land, breed cattle and perform other agricultural tasks, as well as the secrets of various crafts (Mlinarič, 1993: 24, 32). Thus the assumption that two- legged whetstone holders were transmitted by monasteries is not without foundation. That they originated in Slovenia and were passed on in the other, opposite direction, seems less probable. There is no doubt, however, that the two-legged type of whetstone holders found its way to Slovenia and has since remained part of the cultural image of daily farm life, in many parts up to today.

The two-legged type of whetstone holders is also mentioned (and depicted) in our first material source (relevant for a large part of Slovenia, the former Duchy of Carniolia): a board with miniature models of “peasant tools common in Carniolia”, originating from Planina near Rakek and dating from 1835 (ill. 8). There is also a list of items with the board (Popis, 1835). The “common” tool - meaning well-known and widespread - represented on the board is a 3,5 cm whetstone holder with two points.

The two-legged shape was probably more suited to the skills of domestic makers than others; especially with regard to available tools and implements. And there is no doubt that our mowers thought the world of it since “the one with two points is better, has a better balance, stands better”.

Besides analyzing the types of shape of Slovene whetstone holders and establishing their common and particular aspects, this chapter is also dedicated to outlining their design. As we have seen before, decoration of whetstone holders became general in Slovenia and elsewhere in the 19th century (Makarovič, 1981: 269). References to earlier decorated specimens from Switzerland and some Austrian states do exist (Haberlandt, 1911: 139; Benker, 1976: 187), but the bulk of the relevant material, collected in the Slovene Ethnographic museum and in other collections and publications (see note 6), belongs to the 19th century (and the first half of the 20th). Decorated whetstone holders are among other things a reflection of the period (starting in the last third of the previous century) which brought about changes in farming (Smerdel, 1991: 25, 26) and generated the individuation process of the peasant population (Makarovič, 1993: 134, 145, 150). This period is also held to be the golden age of popular (folk) art or art-on-the-farm.

Feelings of greater liberty and increasing self-confidence were no doubt a fertile soil for artistic creativity. That reflected by whetstone holders gives the impression that people often spontaneously and cheerfully decorated these utensils with different, mostly geometric ornaments, here and there with flower or plant motifs. A spontaneity which is exemplified by the words of a contemporary maker of whetstone holders about his writing verses on them: “The very moment you think of writing something, the words come to your mind.”

But whetstone holders were not decorated simply for the sake of decoration; the decoration either expresses people’s aspiration to have a fine, different, very own whetstone holder, or it aimed at communicating quite different things related to the harvest, to “everything that has to do with harvesting”. This is confirmed by some of the decorations’s motifs. One possible classification of motifs (Brocherel 1937: 21) ranks them as follows: 1. geometric motifs, 2. flower and plant motifs, 3. symbolic motifs, 4. animal figure motifs, 5. human figure motifs. Applying this classification to the motifs on the whetstone holders of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum’s collection, we see that the most frequent motifs that can be identified belong (as is the case elsewhere) to the first and second groups, and only individual specimens to the third and fourth. The fifth motif - human figures - is known from South-Tyrolean specimens (Benker, 1976: 186) and some Spanish ones (Ponsoda, 1984: Fig. 361-364), but absent from Slovene whetstone holders, and even the fourth - animal figure motifs - are very rare. The only instance of an animal motif is the drawing (see catalogue of drawings no. 1) of a specimen from Koprivnik or Gorjuše, depicting a carved horse. Two whetstone holders in the museum’s collection carry animal heads. The horn from the Upper Savinja Valley (no. 36) perhaps depicts the head of a snake (snakes are frequently encountered at in harvest time!), but its uncertain shape may also represent the head of another animal (a badger or bear). A younger specimen (no. 127) from Žerovnica (in Notranjska) displays the head of a horse, branded into the wood. Equally rare is the third, symbolic motif. Two crosses with a symbolic meaning are carved on one whetstone holder in the collection (no. 35, a horn from the Upper Savinja Valley). A cross also appears on a specimen from the Bela Krajina Museum in Metlika (ill. 9) and as arborvitae on a whetstone holder from the Posavje Museum in Brežice (ill. 10). Jesus Christ’s monogram (IHS) and a cross decorates one specimen in the Provincial Museum in Celje (ill. 11). Some flower motifs can be interpreted as religious: for instance, the lily of the valley, one of Mary’s attributes (Menaše, 1971: 2100). It can also be seen on a whetstone holder from the Upper Savinja Valley in our collection (no. 39) and on a specimen from the Gorenjska Museum in Kranj (ill. 12) (In Slovenia the month of May is associated with the popular “šmarnice” (literally: lilies of the valley) - daily devotions to Mary Kuret, 1989: 279). But the lily of the valley is also a plain May flower, the flower of the month when people are preparing for the hay harvest). And then there is the heart, a symbol indeed but probably not a religious one; it rather conveys the ancient meaning of worldly love (see Karlovšek, 1953: 35, 37). It is a frequent motif on the decorated extensions of box-shaped specimens; this is true of those in the collection (nos. 37-39, 92, 93, 120) as well as of those from various provincial museums (see ill. 10, 12). A quite exceptional symbolic motif are the two heraldic signs on a specimen in the Provincial Museum in Celje (ill. 13) (they perhaps refer to an owner not of peasant background).

On all other decorated whetstone holders the first - geometric motifs - and, though somewhat less, the second group - flower and plants motifs - prevail. They are often combined. The most frequent geometric decorations are horizontal, vertical, zigzag lines of different width, and singular scale-like, crescent-shaped cuts, sometimes composed into wave patterns. A recurrent motif in the second group are stylized twigs, plants and flowers. The flower decorations cut in whetstone holders rarely resemble known flowers and they are never - this is true of farm art in general - naturalist (Makarovič, 1973/74: 29). The only identifiable flowers on the museum’s whetstone holders are the already mentioned lily of the valley (no. 39), on a whetstone holder from Gorjuše, dating from the interwar period (the time of “folk art”), the alpine edelweiss (no. 117) and the very popular carnations (nos. 118, 127) on two holders of more recent date, one from Gorjuše and one from Žerovnica (in Notranjska). Some holders feature a six-leaf rosette, known also from specimens in other alpine countries (where it appears on a great variety of objects). The arch-symbol of the sun (Rubi, s.a.: 14) is depicted only as a decorative geometric or flower motif; as just a geometric motif it appears on one whetstone holder (no. 93) from the museum’s collection (and on one from the Provincial Museum of Celje, inventory no. 355, from Podvolovljek); the rosette as a flower motif appears on two whetstone holders (nos. 38, 92) in the form of a flower at the top of a small stalk.

Though they are stylized and do not resemble known flowers it seems that flower (and plant) motifs on whetstone holders are quite naturally related to mowing; related to everything going on during the hay harvest and to the meadows in full blossom; for instance, to the custom that girls used to give bunches of flowers to the mowers, or to the plants and flowers that fell victims to the scythes. A interesting piece of information comes from the comments a whetstone maker from Dolenjska reportedly made while decorating. Carving - as he usually did - a stylized flower in the central vertical field of the trunk of a two-legged, polygonal holder, he said: “Here is the edelweiss when we are mowing.” And when he was carving scale-like bunches in the fields to the right and left of the central field and stylized twigs in the neighbouring ones, he added: “Here are the grapes and here is the vine.” And wasn’t he thinking of the wine the mowers certainly liked to drink?

Individual motifs are not only informative by themselves, but also as a rule closely connected with the composition and with a certain type of shape of holder. Alternating thick and thin horizontal lines and ring-like, lathe-turned ornaments, for instance, feature exclusively on one-legged, cylindrical specimens, regardless of whether these are thin-cylindrical, cylindrical-swollen or cylindrical-polygonal. Among them the Bohinj swollen holders stand out for their decoration and distinctiveness. Their trunk’s bottom part is encircled by a series of turned rings, and their upper part is mostly decorated with a composition of horizontal, carved (scale-shaped) bands resembling waves and zigzag bands. The symbolic motif of the heart only appears on the decoratively shaped extensions of legless, box-shaped specimens (with the exception of a more recent swollen specimen from Gorjuše, no. 118, with two carnations growing out of a heart). They are nearly all from the Upper Savinja Valley. The other motifs featured on these whetstone holders - primarily symbolic and flower motif - are concentrated on the front of the trunk. Combinations of flower, plant and geometric motifs are uniquely characteristic of two- legged, polygonal specimens from Dolenjska (in the museum’s collection, especially those from Gradež). The latter generally show (as do the box-shaped ones) carved large initials (of the owner’s name and surname) and the year they were made. As a rule, two pairs of fields on a whetstone holder have the same vertical composition of equal motifs; and the field in the centre between them is usually enhanced and decorated in a different way.

Design embodies one more decorative element: paint. There is, however, little paint on Slovene whetstone holders. (Richly painted are for instance some Tyrolean specimens; see Colleselli, 1958: 336). Holders with painted motifs (painted with several oil paints) are rare and almost exclusively flower motifs; more frequent, however, are unicoloured holders which are painted all over. Among the rare exceptional holders with painted flower motifs are two legless box-shaped specimens from the museum’s collection: one with stylized flowers that bears the year 1842 (no. 10) and one with a lily of the valley in blossom in a little flower-pot (no. 39). A simpler variety is the holder from the local Slovene museum in Bardo (Italy) which shows an unrecognizable flower (ill. 14). The Museum’s collection features 14 unicoloured whetstone holders, belonging to different types of shape. Evidence shows that monochromatic painting is something that mainly belongs to the 20th century. Most painted holders are green, a few are brown or red (or brown-reddish) or black (see index of materials). These colours were widespread as early as the first half of the 18th century (Makarovič, 1973/1974: 13). Red and especially green are still very popular today: green’s “my colour”, a peasant from Koprivnik said while mowing. His relative’s holder was painted red and they said “that’s the way it must be” in order to know which is which.

The two-legged, round specimens bear witness to a special taste for design and special regional concepts of what is beautiful. Most of them are from the Selška Valley, Sorica and its surroundings (nos. 40, 83, 111, 137 in the collection). In most cases their only decoration (which also enhances their solidness) are forged or brass rings (or strips). They “make them shine brightly.”

If we consider Slovene whetstone holders within the European framework - whether as individual specimens or classified in groups which are traditional and characteristic of one region or another - they stand out because of their diversified typology and because of some elements of shape and decoration. They may indeed bear witness to the Slovene disposition towards individualism, a feature which has often - and in various connections - been said to be determined spatially, cultural-historically and psychologically (see e.g. Cevc, 1993: 13, 14; Trstenjak, 1992: 142). But evidence on this very individual aspect comes not so much from typology or design as from orally communicated special skills, wisdom and various “recipes” of their makers.


About the makers of whetstone holders, their production and decoration techniques, sales and valuation

“The world is organized in societies, but it is the individual who creates,” (Lerche, 1993).

In the past and present structures of rural life in Slovenia, those individuals who made wooden whetstone holders (and often decorated them as well) mainly were (there are some left) - besides a few farmers and mowers - domestic craftsmen, skilled in one of the woodworking crafts. Their social position generally was that of small farmers, cottagers or tenants, and they used their skill in winter in order to make a better living or simply to survive (see Bogataj, 1989: 7)

Among the makers of whetstone holders there certainly must have been woodworkers from Ribnica - probably toolmakers, turners, bowl-makers (see Rus, 1941: 4-6) - and craftsmen of the above mentioned or other woodworking crafts from other Slovene places renowned for these crafts. Besides Ribnica in Dolenjska (its importance goes back to at least the end of the 15th century) and nearby Kočevje (craftsmen from the area were famous for their tubs and decorated kneading-troughs), there are Črni vrh near Idrija, the Tolmin and Bovec regions, Bohinj and Bled, the Selška Valley and Tacen near Ljubljana, the Upper Savinja Valley (bowl-makers, carpenters and self-taught all-round craftsmen) as well as Maribor, Ptuj and Prekmurje (see Bras, 1979: 4-20). In Prekmurje the makers of whetstone holders were “local cartwrights or the peasants themselves” (Šarf, 1967: 49); from Soča in the Bovec region we have evidence of a churn-maker who also made whetstone holders (Trenta, 1952: 71); in Zadlog near Črni vrh a craftsman is recorded (in 1959) who turned whetstone holders besides rakes, scythe-handles and the like (Črni Vrh-Vojsko, 1959); in Gradež (Dolenjska) and its surroundings (the slopes of Ahacova gora) there seem to have been numerous makers of whetstone holders. One of them is reported (see e.g. Ljubič, 1951; 71, 72; Gradež, 1964) to have been widely known for his whetstone holders (before and after the Second World War).

Most horn whetstone holders were (and still are) made by their subsequent users since no special training or skill is needed to make them.11 There is, however, an exception: a whetstone holder made of a horn by a craftsman, a qualified comb-maker. The holder dates from 1845 and is kept by the Škofja Loka Museum (ill. 15). But there are no reports of makers of sheet-metal (or plastic) specimens - these are mostly machine-made - that would characterize them as creative people.

Among those who try their hand at making a wooden whetstone holder there are for example a few farmers. Though they could certainly afford to buy one, they prefer to make them themselves. Besides these farmers there are - as there used to be in the past - trained and self-taught woodworking craftsmen who make whetstone holders for themselves, their neighbours and to sell.

One of the farmers is Miro Mahne (born 192?), house name “Rot” from Goričice near Lake Cerknica. Mahne has been using a mechanized mower for years, but still needs a whetstone holder when mowing fresh fodder. Though he makes quite rough specimens, he prefers to use his own product (no. 126). The whetstone holder he bought from self-taught cartwright and joiner Janko Lunka from neighbouring Žerovnica only serves to decorate his kitchen wall. The farmer Franc Beznik, house name “Mečnik” (1933-1993) from Koprivnik was of the same sort. Though he did not have the necessary tools - for instance, he widened the whetstone-holes by burning - he preferred to make (and decorate) his own whetstone holders (no. 116). When he made a few more, he gave them away to relatives. The third farmer of this sort was Alojz Jagodic (died 1983) from Stiška vas below Mount Krvavec. Unlike many others he did not work “down there in the factory” and used his spare time in winter to carve frames for paintings, weave baskets and make a whetstone holder for his own use now and then (no. 120). And he really enjoyed it, having his own woodworker’s bench and all the necessary tools.

Among woodworking craftsmen who either now and then make a whetstone holder or still produce them in considerable numbers are: trained cartwright Alojz Sodja (born 1931), house name “Vangus” from Bohinjska Češnjica, who makes a few every winter, shapes them on an electric turning-lathe and likes to add a few carved ornaments (no. 119); trained carpenter Valentin Benedičič (born 1935), “master Tine” from Zali Log, who makes whetstone holders (no. 137) when he has got a little time left over in winter and is not doing anything else in particular (like making rakes, scythe-handles, benches, footstools etc.); the farmer Janko Primožič (born 1927), house name “Javor” from Davča, who makes baskets, rakes, scythe-handles and whetstone holders (no. 138), some fifty every winter; and last but not least, the self-taught cartwright and joiner Janko Lunka (born 1923), house name “ta dolenj Njučoh” from Žerovnica who every winter makes some three hundred whetstone holders “just like that, with a circular saw” and, assisted by his wife, also decorates some of them.

All these makers of whetstone holders - past and present, farmers, self-taught or trained woodworking craftsmen - have one thing in common: although the two basic techniques have been the same for centuries, each and every one of them has changed them at least a little. They learned how to make them by either watching and copying an experienced craftsman, as did Lojz Zabukovec from Gradež who used to go and watch his neighbour the well-known “osovnikar” (maker of whetstone holders) Jože Šmuc, house name “Bajde” (Ljubič, 1951: 72; Oselniki, 1993), or by trying out the technique all by themselves. “They say work itself teaches you, don’t they?” was Tone Sedmak’s (from Jurišiče) comment and master Tine from Zali Log added: “You’ve got to try it all on your own. Theory’s no good when it comes to making whetstone holders.” (Oselniki, 1993)

There are two techniques of making whetstone holders in Slovenia; what distinguishes them is the use of two different basic implements: a cutting bench (or woodworker’s bench) or a turning- lathe (the treadle-driven lathe known in Europe since the 13th century and much used since the 16th (Born, 1989;7) - or a modern, electric lathe). The use of a cutting bench probably goes back further in Slovenia and must have been quite widespread and accessible since they were not difficult to make. The use of the second implement (a lathe) is confirmed for the Bohinj, Koprivnik and Gorjuše whetstone holders dating from the second half of the 19th century (nos. 2-9). (The treadle-driven turning-lathe which is still turning in Gorjuše was made by the father of pipe-maker Vinko Beznik, house name “Koritar”. The father also made pipes and whetstone holders). It is also recorded that whetstone holders were made on a turning lathe “at Lipe’s” in Zadlog near Črni Vrh (Črni Vrh - Vojsko, 1959) before the First World War. Before that time they were made there “the old way”, with a cutter.

The tools the makers of whetstone holders used (or still use) besides the above-mentioned implements, are the following: an axe, various drills (twist and spoon bits) a saw, cutter, various chisels, rasps; and for decorating: various kinds of gouges with profiles of different cuts, knives, punches. Besides using a cutting bench or turning lathe, they first had to use an axe to split a thick piece of wood into four (or more if the piece of wood was very thick) pieces with rectangular edges. Then a hole for the whetstone had to be bored: first with a small twist bit, later a larger twist bit, and finally with a spoon bit. (Those who made box-shaped whetstone holders finished the drilled hole with a chisel up to its horizontal section of rectangular or ellipsoid shape). All tools, mentioned here and intended to further work these pieces of wood, may have been used together with either of the implements, but the most usual pairs were two: cutting bench with cutter and turning-lathe with chisels. If the whetstone holder was made on a turning-lathe, the point serving to stick it in the ground was executed in the same process, whereas with those made on a cutting bench the two points usually had to be shaped with a saw and chisel. The openings which serve to thread a belt through (or perhaps a wooden hook) were executed with a little bore and chisel, and the holes for the string (serving to hold a wire hook or fasten a little board) were bored with a small twist bit (Oselniki, 1992, 1993).

On most farms there was no shortage of the above-mentioned tools,12 though not everybody had the large drills used to bore the whetstone-hole. Records from Gradež (Male Lipljene, 1948) which date from the first years of the Second World War show that people borrowed them from neighbours who had such drills. The Škindra family, owners of a large farm, made their own whetstone holders and the farmer’s wife still carefully keeps three large drills. Now and then someone comes around to borrow one of them “because the whole neighbourhood knows we have these drills of old” (ill. 17, 18). And there goes a story told by people from Jurišče near Upper Pivka that - since no one in the neighbourhood had a large enough drill - whetstone-holes were widened after boring them with a large but still too thin “needle-bit” “by burning them out with a hot iron” (Oselniki, 1993).

Of crucial importance for the execution and later use of whetstone holders was (and is) the wood the makers chose and its proper preparation. The wood had to be easily worked, also for carving, resist the heat of summer, temperature changes and constant moisture. The kinds of hardwood preferred in Slovenia for making whetstone holders (see index of materials) were (are) walnut, broomwood and ash. Walnut is thick, elastic and heavy, and very popular with carvers; broomwood has similar properties and is extremely moisture-resistant; ash is tough and strong, suitable for bending and carving. Favoured kinds of softwood are especially linden, which is most popular with carvers, and poplar, which is easily worked but has a poor resistance to water and temperature changes (see Donzelli, Munari, Polato, 1983: 64, 66, 68; Popović, 1952: 170). Other hardwoods used here and there are: oak, chestnut, maple, pearwood, applewood, elm; and other softwoods: birch and alder.

The most enlightening and picturesque information on how the wood is chosen, properly prepared and worked comes from individual makers and reflects their personal wisdom and knowledge. They selected wood from trees in their own piece of forest or orchard - if they owned any - or bought it from their neighbours (as did, for instance, the “osovnikar” from Gradež, the cottager “Bajde”). In Gradež walnut is still preferred. “We’ve always used walnut; it’s easy to work; joiners used to say, walnut is so good you could eat it.” Lojz Zabukovec, who acquired most of his skill from his neighbour “Bajde”, explains that the crucial moment is that of boring the whetstone hole. One must be careful not to make the walls too thin, make sure that the whetstone does not fall wear a hole in the bottom “when it is jumping about” (because of the mower’s movements), and that the holder does not leak at the bottom. All this depends on the right size and depth of the hole, so precision is crucial. Afterwards, the wood has to be dried in the shade for 6 to 12 months. Pieces of wood of a length and thickness suitable for whetstone holders are dried after the little holes are bored in the “fresh” wood. These pieces must always be up to two centimetres longer than the final product because the whetstone-hole’s edge cracks during the process of drying and it has to be sawn off before finishing the holder (on the cutting bench) (Oselniki, 1993).

In Koprivnik, Gorjuše and Bohinj people used to praise the wood of walnut roots and pearwood because it hardly ever cracked due to heat (this knowledge comes, of course, from making pipes) and is therefore “fit for the summer”. Cartwright Vangus from Bohinjska Češnjica makes good use of his professional skills when he is making whetstone holders (on an electric lathe) and always first bores the whetstone-hole in the hewn pieces of wood. “You’ve got to drill it just before finishing and do it with care.” He says that after it has been dried, wood is too hard for accurate boring. Before he continues his finishing of the dried pieces he boils them for several hours (again a cartwright’s specific knowledge), because after such preparation the wood is less prone to crack.

In Zali Log, Davča and the Bača Ravine the local makers swear by broomwood. Trained carpenter Tine’s (Zali Log) comment of a whetstone holder made of poplar was, for example: “That’s not a whetstone holder, that’s a log.” And of a holder made of linden: “You can throw it away after just one hay harvest.” The highly prized broomwood is not easy to get by, since “it grows in few places”, but he insists on making his whetstone holders exclusively from broomwood. Trained joiner Kaltnekar from Kuk characterized it as the wood which lasts longest and does not rot. “Broom’s like steel.” Sawn pieces of a tree’s trunk are cut into quarters and in these villages the wood is dried before the holes are drilled. Master Tine dries them for two or three years or even longer while the self-taught craftsman Javor from Davča holds that even three years is not enough because “they say each centimetre needs a full year to dry. When the hole is drilled and trimmed Tine places the whetstone holders, some eight at a time, upright in a big pot and boils them for about ten hours. If any of them crack “they end up as firewood”. When they are cooked he lets them dry once more for a whole year and then finishes them with a circular saw, plane or cutter.

Besides all these bits of wisdom and skill most makers of whetstone holders have something else in common: they enjoy decorating them - even if they make only one specimen for themselves. Master Tine from Zali Log, for instance, says “if there’s time, I decorate them a little and strengthen them “, the latter is usually done with shiny brass in these parts (see no. 137). The pipe-maker Vinko Beznik from Gorjuše and the farmer Mečnik from Koprivnik decorated their own whetstone holders: Mečnik “the old way” with scale-like cuts (no. 116) and Beznik partly the old way, partly his own way with scale-like cuts, made with a small gouge, with turned lines and other “patterns”, made with a little knife and a star-shaped punch (no. 118). Cartwright Vangus from Bohinjska Češnjica also likes to decorate his products: with a few scale-like cuts (no. 119). Bajde’s pupil, Lojz from Gradež, made a whetstone holder for his brother and decorated it as he had seen his teacher do. He “scratched” (carved) it with a “little knife” (a small gouge), carved linear twigs, a flower, and the year and initials of his brother’s name and surname (no. 131). The farmer and self-taught craftsman Javor from Davča as well as the self-taught cartwright and joiner Lunka from Žerovnica, who uses similar techniques of decoration, are “new-age” decorators. They make their whetstone holders the traditional way (with machines though) and write, i.e. draw decorations on them with an “electric needle”. This branding technique, they say, was passed on to these parts from “over the border” (Austria) by people from Ribnica. Lunka had seen it used with relatives in Sodražica and loved it; and so his son, a trained electrician, made him his own “electric needle”. Lunka makes some three hundred whetstone holders for sale each winter and decorates only those meant to be sold as souvenirs. His wife assists him with the decorating since” it takes more time than to make the holder”. She “writes little edges” (linear ornaments, known from old specimens), he himself does the “pretty figures” (no. 127). The farmer Javor from Davča - his clients come from neighbouring villages and actually buy them for their original purpose - brands verses on them. About “anything that has to do with the hay harvest” or “whatever comes to my mind”. For instance “The only thing a blunt scythe downs is the mower” or “When the mower is down, his ‘wife’ puts him up again.” and many others, mostly full of erotic associations (“Eat and drink well in the morning, or your ‘cock’ won’t dance in the evening”. See no. 138).

The distinctly individual nature of these makers of whetstone holders is unmistakable. Their personal bits of wisdom and technical skill are, however, part of the common. If nothing else, they all preserve those shapes of whetstone holders and types which were and still are traditional in and specific to their environment. Potential buyers from those craftsmen who make whetstone holders for sale are indeed mostly only people from their own and nearby villages. Often these people come to the maker’s home to choose a whetstone holder. Of all the well-known makers only Lunka from Žerovnica trades his whetstone holders elsewhere; mainly at fairs that take place in the weeks before the hay harvest (ill. 23).

The way whetstone holders were sold never changed much either. Records show that people used to come to “osovnikar” Bajde’s place in Gradež “whenever they needed one”. And about the unidentified “thoughtful” man of the same area the story goes, how in the old times (probably in the interwar period) he used to go from door to door and offer “his goods” in between fairs. Otherwise he sold his “holes” (whetstone holders) on Silent Fair (so called after Silent Sunday on St. Anthony’s day, June 13), at the fairs in Dobrepolje, St. Louis’ Fair (June 21) in Velike Lašče and Midsummer Night Fair in Ribnica (Ljubič, 1951: 71, 72). In Pivka people recall whetstone holders being sold on St. Peter’s Fair (June 29th in Pivka, the place’s earlier name was Sv. (St.) Peter na Krasu). All these fairs took place at a time when the hay harvest started (Oselniki, 1993): in the Cerkno region it was held in Cerkno on June 18th (St. Mark) (Turnšek, 1951: 103); while from Zadlog it is reported that craftsmen used to sell their turned whetstone holders in the cooperative of Črni Vrh (Črni Vrh - Vojsko, 1959).

Despite the fact that the making of a whetstone holder requires a lot of work and material, its price never seems to have been high. Today’s prices, ranging from 250 to 500 tolars are indeed low: Lunka from Notranjska charges 250 tolars for a “clean” (undecorated) specimen and 350 for a decorated one, despite the fact that he has to buy poplarwood, dry it, work it (with a machine, every holder takes about two hours), prepare and, perhaps, also decorate it. The same is true of the maker from Gorenjska, Vangus, who has a unit price of 500 tolars and uses better wood (pearwood), spends more time on preparing (cooking) the holders and takes as much time (2 hours) to work them. Information from Pivka for the year of 1947 reports that the price of a whetstone holder made of turned maplewood was 100 dinars (Oselniki, 1993); and another piece of information from Črni Vrh near Idrija for the year 1959, states that a linden whetstone holder cost 76 dinars and a turned broomwood specimen 150 dinars (Črni Vrh - Vojsko, 1959). If we compare these figures with the payment for a whole day’s labour - 400 dinars in Davča in 1954 - it is obvious that whetstone holders were not at all expensive in the Forties and Fifties since it cost only a third to a fourth of a day’s wages. Nevertheless, in many places people made them themselves in the interwar decades (e.g in remote Jurišče in Upper Pivka, and in Gradež in Dolenjska) because “you needed money to buy a whetstone holder” and “there wasn’t much money around” (Oselniki, 1993).

However, the price did not really matter to those who bought them in past times and does not to those who buy them nowadays. Farmers preferred “scratched “, i.e. carved whetstone holders (just a few dinars more expensive than plain ones), it has been written of the time between the two world wars of villages on the slopes of Ahacova gora (Ljubič, 1952: 71). But in places where whetstone holders are still used - and although people often say” we use whatever is available” - the decision for or against one or another whetstone holder is based on other reasons: some do not like sheet-metal ones because “the bottom gets thin and rusty and you can throw it away after two years; they think better of horns because “they don’t crack”; some prefer “those plastic things” because they are light, and there are still a few left who prefer “to take a wooden one”. Older people know from their parents and from their own experience that in the heat of summer water remains cool only in a wooden whetstone holder; and that’s the way water should be to keep the whetstone ready for whetting a scythe well (Oselniki, 1992, 1993).


About the making of whetstones, their sale and valuation

Unlike whetstone holders, which were mostly made and sold in a specific limited environment, whetstones often travelled far from their place of origin. They were needed everywhere, but there were few deposits of suitable stone. In Bavarian Unterammergau, for example, the production of whetstones existed (according to some records) from the 16th century to the middle of the 20th, they were transported to Vienna by raft on the Danube (by train in the 19th century) (Rautenberg, 1987: 7, 38) and, perhaps, some of these whetstones eventually found their way to a village of North Slovenia. Other whetstones, originating from Pradalunga near Bergamo, were traded to many countries for an even longer period. The oldest written source which mentions “vena di cote”, a vein of stone suitable for whetstones, informs us that they were made as early as 1385 (Nicefori, 1988: 16, 96). Oral sources prove that “Bergamo whetstones” were used in many places in Slovenia in the 20th century. Perhaps it were these stones Levstik’s Martin Krpan had in mind when pleading to the Austrian emperor that all his mare was carrying were a few “grindstones”,13 wrapped in straw (Levstik, 1981: 6). Or had the author, who wrote Martin Krpan in 1858, perhaps learned of the village of Mune in Čičarija, where in the 19th century whetstones were made in the local slate-quarry and taken to Carniolian and even Carinthian markets for sale (Urbas, 1884: 27). An older source, referring to domestic production, is a document about Slovene trade in Štajerska and Koroška (O slovenskem, 1907: 135). The article mentions (for 1907) “a substantial domestic industry of whetstones near Rogatec”. Over “two wagons of whetstones a year” (there they were called “kosnjaki”) were produced and “sent to all Alpine states from Trieste to Pula and to Hungary”. Dozens of larger and smaller quarries, “štangrbe” (from the German Steinbruch - quarry) existed in Log and Dobovec from approximately the second half of the 18th century onwards. And even a stone cutter can be found here and there, who cuts a flat and round (the horizontal section) “kosjak” from “blue whetting stone”, i.e quartz (Rogatec, 1993; see ill 24a-d).

There have been other more or less successful attempts to make whetstones in Slovenia, including production and sale, but written evidence on these attempts is very scanty. Mountain farms, due to their remoteness, had to be self-sufficient, for instance the farms Vršnik in Robanov kot and Jamnik under Mount Olševa. On the first, an uncle of the owner kept on testing “this stone and that stone, but none made a good whetstone”, they were all too smooth. About the latter farm (Jamnik) it is recorded (Robanov fond, 8) that whetstones were gained from a depression called Pekel (“Hell”). And there must have been more villages like outlying Koseč above Kobarid. The inhabitants of this village “cut those black rocks” and “made whetstones of it once upon a time” along a stream of the name Brsnik or Brusnik (“hone”) (Oselniki, 1993).

There were also individuals who made whetstones for themselves and to sell (to earn a little extra money). They were from places with known deposits of actual grindstone and had learned of them from “older people” - as did, for instance, Martin Zupan, house name “Žvan” (born 1919) from Srednja vas in Bohinj. He was told of a deposit in Senožete (between Rudnica and Šavnica), in a ravine opposite Brojsko polje, by an older man from a nearby village. Or they may have had recollections of their own childhood, of watching how men cut rock to obtain whetstones. The late farmer Majdelc (born 1898) from Podporezen was a native of Gornji Novaki, where he must have watched people (before the First World War) from Resia roughly working rock into whetstones right there among the rocks before the first world war. Žvan started making and trading whetstones together with a neighbour some thirty years ago. It was then that an acquaintance from the Vipava Valley told him of someone who made whetstones in Lokavec. Žvan went to see this man, saw the tools, learned the technique, how to make whetstones and had a go at it himself. “Out of curiosity, for one thing” he claims and because of the extra money. He managed to sell a few whetstones to the Scythes and Sickles Factory in Tržič. But “as soon as I had learned the technique, the business went down” because there were - in the sixties - more and more mechanized mowers. The other maker and trader, Majdelc from Podporezen, father of today’s farmer, made whetstones just for a few years after the second world war because “you couldn’t get those from Bergamo then”. The Bergamo whetstones were most highly prized. And so this owner of a large farm, who was said to be capable of making just about everything “from a wedding ring to a gun”, tried his hand at making whetstones, for himself and for sale. In 1954, when a day’s wages was four hundred dinars, he made a hundred per whetstone.

Both Žvan and Majdelc had workshops in their own outbuildings; the first next to the stable and the latter in the loft. Both had to carry and cart stone rock chunks from the quarry to their homes. “I had to carry the rock out of the ravine on my back and then take it home on horseback.” says Žvan; Majdelc was assisted by people from the village of Gornji Novaki, which was not quite near. They carried the rocks home in baskets on their backs. Chunks of rock were broken off by applying steel wedges and pickaxes, but “some you could just pick up, brought down after the winter” and “you get an eye for the right ones”. Majdelc had “one cutter and one grinder” in his workshop, to cut the chunks and finish them (see no. 148). Žvan “put together a bench like for a circular saw” and used a special saw for cutting stones (instead of a steel one). He connected a hose to the saw to spray the rock. “The rock mustn’t get too hot or it breaks.” Before the final grinding he always checked the thin plates he had cut (“like a deer’s tongue”) for “white hair”, thin white veins, knowing that whetstones easily broke in such spots. Those with white hair were “waste” and discarded. (Oselniki, 1993).

Besides Žvan from Bohinj and Majdelc from Podporezen there are records on other postwar makers of whetstones from the margins of the Vipava Valley. A small group of them, mainly from the village of Stomaž, founded the local grindstone company “Čaven” in 1948. The locals called it Oslarija (after “osla” or whetstone) though also large round grindstones were made here. The company may have existed for only five years (it went down for various, also interpersonal reasons), but had its origins in an old tradition. “Whetstones were made here before, when this was Italy” (1920-1943). One of the locals who used to go for rocks at the foot of Mount Čaven was Peter Rustja (born 1871), the owner of “something you could hardly call a farm” for which he could not manage the taxes. He started making whetstones, hoping to maintain his family, but sold little because of the unequal competition from the more prized Bergamo whetstones. During the Italian period, when “žrnada” (Italian giornata) or day-wages amounted to 10 lira, he was able to sell but a few whetstones for five lira apiece. And he often practically gave them for free, “for one single lira, just to get a little cash.”

In Stomaž, the answer to the question “How is a whetstone born? is: “Out of a hole (the ravine in Potokoše) from under (Mt.) Čaven”. There was the right stone, one “you could cut nicely into plates, one to two fingers thick.” The members of “Oslarija” broke pieces off the rock with pickaxes, steel wedges and sledge hammers. Then they put it on carts and “the oxen took it to Stomaž”. Their workshop was in an old stable with empty cribs and there they put the big and rough grindstone. The rock chunks “were first cut with scissors” and the pieces they obtained in this way were scraped at the grindstones in the cribs “while pouring water over them”. Then they washed, dried and packed them in cases, 50 whetstones in each. And so they were sold, mostly to Solkan and the Brda Region.

Despite their efforts and those of other people, they were no match for the traditional Bergamo whetstones (Oselniki, 1992, 1993; Velike Lipljene, 1964). People ridiculed the Stomaž whetstones, calling them “Bergamo whetstones from Stomaž”. A friend of the “Oslarija’s” members made fun of them on a postcard: “Hey, you from Stomaž, you really are too clever by half, the whole world knows of your little horns. If your scythe does not cut, don’t throw it away. Either the whetstone is no good or the mower” (Oselniki, 1993).

How and where whetstones from Bergamo were sold is a matter of oral sources. Written sources mention that “scythes and grindstones” were sold on market-days in Ljubljana in the middle of the 16th century (Archives, 1953: 66); that (in 1639) the bridge-toll on Shoemakers’ Bridge was “five kreutzer for a load of whetstones”; that a customer who visited all five annual fairs in Ljubljana towards the end of the 19th century knew exactly that he would find “scythes and grindstones” in St. Jacob’s square (Cizelj, 1992: 86). But this is only evidence that whetstones were sold there, not on what they were like and where they came from. Bergamo whetstones were probably picked out and bought by mowers as is done nowadays: at fairs; for instance the one in Pivka (June 10th) when a “salesman” (ill. 29) brought them there from Italy. In the second half of the 19th century the number of fairs in the countryside increased (Cizelj, 1992: 83), and whetstones, scythes and, here and there, also whetstone holders were sold at those which took place before the hay harvest. In Koseč, for example, people can recall a big fair in Kobarid on St. Anthony’s Day (June 13th) and their “own” fair, Jesus’s Heart (the first Friday of June) in nearby Drežnica. The other way of buying a whetstone was when they were sold “at your very feet” i.e. from door to door. Before the Second World War, Peter Rustja from Stomaž wrapped his whetstones in wheat straw, tied them with willow and carried them in a rucksack all the way to Postojna, Koper and Trieste, “all over the Karst” as he said.

Oral sources claim that peddlers from Ribnica brought whetstones to Koprivnik in much the same way; or, how jobbers from Bosnia used to sell them in Srednja vas in Bohinj some time after the Second World War; and, at the other extreme, how people from villages near Lake Cerknica used to travel (between the two world wars) to places where they knew they could buy whetstones: to (the then) Italian town of Sv. Peter na Krasu (now Pivka), and how they “smuggled them home on horseback” over the border on Mount Javornik.

“The Bergamo whetstones were the best, that’s all there is to say.” Their prestige was so high that the jobbers from Bosnia were known to blacken their soft and inferior whetstones, and even took pains to hammer them into shapes similar to those from Bergamo so they could sell more. Such tricks were not beneath old Rustja from Stomaž either. He boiled his whetstones in a kettle, adding basil to the water. That made them “nicer, darker, like those from Bergamo” and then he managed to sell a few more (Oselniki, 1993).

That Bergamo whetstones were so highly valued does not come as a surprise when we know that their prestige in Italy and many other countries was unsurpassed (especially between roughly 1875-1950). In Bergamo and its surroundings, a real whetstone from Pradalunga was one of the finest and most valuable presents one could be given, an expression of someone’s true devotion (Nicefori, 1988: 10).

The high quality of Bergamo whetstones comes from their structure, their high percentage of quartz (60-90%) and from the two different shapes of their crystals. They remain intact for a long time, wear very slowly and whet perfectly (Nicefori, 1988: 9). In these parts, people from the Vipava Valley appreciate them because of their hardness. A common abuse is to call someone a “vasu bergamaški”, a Bergamo ass. The Slovene word for hard, “trd”, also means dumb (slow-witted) and what’s “harder” than a Bergamo whetstone? People knew from experience that Bergamo whetstone did a perfect job. “We have to buy Bergamo whetstones,” they used to say “because our grass is naughty” (Oselniki, 1993).

In other places, however, people say that a whetstone “is as good as the mower is”. How important a good whetstone was to a mower, is quite obvious from how they were looked after and what was done when they broke. “When a whetstone’s bad, all you can do is throw at the devil,” because using a bad whetstone “is like rubbing your scythe with a piece of wood”. Bad whetstones were “those baked ones” i.e. artificial stones. They were held to be too sharp, “they eat your scythe away”. The difference between a bad and a good whetstone is “like day and night”. And when a farmer had laid his hands on a good one, he wouldn’t stop telling his wife (when she carried his things) “Watch you don’t break the whetstone!” “Everybody watches it like hell” because “God forbid that should break!” And if it broke anyway, it was fixed on a wooden handle to make it last longer. (Oselniki, 1993; e.g. no. 146).

So important was a good whetstone, so essential its contribution to the mower’s efficiency, that it had to be chosen very carefully when a new one was to be bought. There are two ways of testing a whetstone. The first is to run a knife over the whetstone and if it sparks, it’s a good one (see ill. 29). “He took the whetstone in his hand, struck his knife over it and drew sparks.” The second way of testing is to slightly wet the whetstone and then put a straw on its side. If the straw turns like “a compass’s needle” it’s a good whetstone. That’s “silly superstition,” some say, but others claim that “it’s the stone’s (secret) power” (Oselniki, 1993).

The most important factor, however, remains man himself; those who were renowned to be excellent mowers were also considered to be the best judges of a whetstone. “A real mower can tell (a good whetstone) from afar.”


And now something about straighteners

In the past - and sometimes even nowadays - a mower had, besides his whetstone holder with a whetstone in it, a third companion: a steel straightener. It is either suspended from the whetstone holder or from a loop threaded through an opening made in the holder for that very purpose. On all meadows where the mower’s scythe is likely to hit stones, the straightener is of such importance that people say: “Without a straightener a whetstone is not half so good as with it”. “You’ve got to have both, whetstone and straightener”. Indeed, if a scythe is jagged from hitting a stone and a whetstone is applied to it, the damaged, slightly bent spot will be ground off and the scythe will be notched. The mower, therefore, has to take his straightener to straighten and tighten the scythe’s blade with it before whetting.

Sources on straighteners are scanty, though it is hard to imagine that people did not realize their importance long ago. The oldest direct source on straighteners seems to be an inventory from Wieting (Carinthia) which was kept by the Dratrumer mansion and dates from 1596. Several similar Carinthian inventories, dating from the second quarter of the 17th century, mention straighteners or “flattening irons” (German Streicheisen) besides whetstone holders, whetstones and scythes (Schmidt, 1952: 71). The inventory of the estate left by the farmer Kalan in the Selška Valley (1723) lists among other things: “2 Sensen sambt dem Dentl ossounik Und Zurgehor” (2 scythes with whetstone holders and all that goes with it” (Andrejka, 1934: 49). There is certainly reason to assume that “all that goes with it” were a whetstone and an straightener. For the oldest (no. 149) of the handful of straighteners in the Slovene Ethnographic Museum’s collection - it dates from the early 20th century - originates from the Bača Ravine (Baška grapa) which borders on the Selška Valley.

Oral sources indicate that straighteners were mostly made by local blacksmiths. Only large and remote mountain farms - for example the Vršnik farm in Robanov kot - were self-sufficient to the extent that they had a smithy and forged their own straighteners. They had to be made of steel and quite often worn files were reforged into straighteners (Oselniki, 1993).

There are four different shapes of straighteners known in Slovenia: two basic, older ones and two younger, modern ones. The first of the old shapes features a boat-like horizontal section of the needle-like functional part (Drawing 28), but triangular sections are also reported; the second basic shape generally was that of a square. The older straighteners were often twisted in order to be more solid or for the sake of decoration. Some are shaped like a needle and their handle is forged into a little round loop (no. 149, 150). These straighteners were mostly used with one-legged, cylindrical- swollen whetstone holders from Bohinj and elsewhere - with these they rested in openings made for that purpose - and with two-legged round specimens from the Selška Valley Sorica, the Bača Ravine and other places - where they were suspended from leather or sheet-metal loops, fixed to the whetstone holder (catalogue of drawings nos. 15, 24, 26). Some of the older straighteners have hook-shaped handles. This is the way they were worn in Dolenjska, Notranjska and everywhere where they were suspended from the whetstone-hole’s edge (catalogue of drawings nos. 8, 9). The more modern shapes of straighteners - L-shaped or in the shape of a tiny hammer (no. 151, 152) - are but a few decades old and are an ingenious adaptation to modern scythes. The blade of a modern scythe is indeed fixed to the handle with a screw and nut. When the nut loosens during mowing it has to be tightened. And the part of the straightener which is shaped into an Allen wrench serves this purpose.

The swinging of the scythe and the beat of the straightener bouncing against the whetstone holder link today’s lone mower with a past decades and longer gone. And to his memory it brings back the harmony of multiple similar sounds, of a time when meadows were dotted with mowers and women raking and “you could hear the bustle from afar”.


The hay harvest (labour and festivity), the mower and his whetstone holder

There is no lack of written sources on the hay harvest in Slovenia.14 Whether they relate to the harvest in the plains or in the mountains, and whether they come from direct personal experience and observation or are based on hearsay, their descriptions in general depict the hay harvest as it took place in the second half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century; our material sources, the whetstone holders in museum collections, refer to the same period. The middle of the 19th century saw the first stages of the introduction of livestock- breeding in stables and a consequentially increased need for fodder (see page 85, 86). Cattle-breeding, which had been relatively limited in the first half of the same century, became the most important animal husbandry branch in the same period: it was directed at fattening oxen for sale (especially in Dolenjska) and at dairy farming (see Smerdel, 1991: 40-43). There is little doubt that these changes substantially increased the importance of fodder.

Hay became the mainstay of cattle-breeding and elevated the importance of the hay harvest, indeed of all efforts aimed at preparing as much hay as possible to feed the domestic cattle. How important hay was in some places is exemplified by an old proverb from Bohinjska Bela, where a farmer was valued by his hay crop. “A cart of hay on the first day of May, that’s a fine farmer, need I say” was said of farmers who still had a cart of previous year’s hay at the beginning of May (Šarf, 1974: 134, 135). People from Pivka recollect how the village of Slavina mowed “the whole of Ravnik, round “every single bush”, in times - some years after the Second World War - when they still “did it by hand”. The aim was to gather enough hay, and for the same reason people in Jurišče “mowed the common and around every bush on Kršičevec hill” and even strips of cleared woodland in the forest (Oselniki, 1993). And last but not least, the importance of hay is obvious from proverbs and sayings related to the weather. “Many a snow-day brings us lots of hay” farmers pleased to say looking at the sky or, if things did not look so well, “If it rains during Easter mass, you’ll mow only dry grass” (Kocbek, 1887: 92). But that was not the end of their worries: “If it rains on St. Margaret (July 13th), we’ll have a hard time getting the hay in”. They were also quick with the second mowing because “Who mows after Little Mass (September 8th), will dry the hay behind his oven” (Kocbek, Šašelj, 1934: 227, 231).

Every calendar of farming activities features several weeks dedicated to the hay harvest. In the plains some started as early as St. Vidus (June 15th), in the hills on St. Peter and Paul (June 29th), but in general harvesting was started in July or even later (Pohorje and Koroška) (Kuret, 1989: 438) and it ended in September or “when the whetstone froze” (as was said about the second hay harvest in Koseč near Kobarid) (Oselniki, 1993). It is reported about the villages of the Velike Lašče district (related to the forties) that they started harvesting alfalfa in the first half of June, continued with clover, then mowed the fringes of the fields and finally the hay meadows, and all this lasted until the end of July (Mrkun, 1943: 32). Farmers from the Upper Sava Valley started harvesting - from of old, they say - clover in the middle of June, then mowed the first grass (“ledina”) and finished by harvesting the second grass (“otava”) and clover once more in the latter part of September (Novak, 1974).

Besides the fact that harvesting was very important in a farm’s economy, and that it was considered to be one of the most trying farming jobs, something else was characteristic of the hay-making season: its festive mood. Special dishes were served and people, attired in festive working clothes, were singing and dancing and joking. The festive mood perhaps had its roots in both above-mentioned aspects: the economic importance and the hard labour; but it may also have been enhanced by the particular reputation of those who did the job so well, the mowers, and by the fact that the harvest brought together so many people: men and women, boys and girls. The latter aspect probably contributed most to the high spirits. There are descriptions of the hay-making season changing the ambience of entire villages - with people asking each other for help, seasonal mowers hiring themselves out, and with women joining the mowers in the meadows to rake up the hay (see e.g. Mrkun 1943: 34, 35; Koprivec, 1939: 159-165; Kuhar, 172: 115, 116; Oselniki, 1993). Something quite different are the descriptions of the hay harvest on individual, remote farms (for example, in Robanov kot), where whole families tackled the job and older children as well as women had to mow. Equally different were things in remote mountain villages (oral sources about Venetian Slovenia) where the men were absent and working in faraway places, and the women had to do the mowing (when there was no other alternative) (Oselniki, 1993).

It is highly probable that the reason why whetstone holders were decorated and why they embody so many different meanings can be traced to the festive mood in the hay-making season and to everything it brought with it. And it also explains why some of them are not decorated: their owners thought of them only as mere utensils. This assumption is confirmed by the analysis of flower motifs in folk art (Makarovič, 1973/74: 34): the depicted flowers indicate festivities (or some other remarkable event) and, in this sense, accentuated the special importance of the decorated object. Stylized flowers are far from being a rare motif on decorated Slovene whetstone holders. Furthermore, there are two pieces of information from neighbouring villages in Bohinj - though from different periods - which represent additional confirmation of this double assumption. The first is a description of how the people from Bohinjska Bela prepared to go and harvest cleared strips of land (Tušek 186: 9, 10): “Some years ago I travelled through Bohinjska Bela and people were swarming in the local inn. Girls in freshly washed clothes were sitting round the tables and eating cake; the lads were in white sleeves and had enormous bunches of flowers pinned to their hats .... several couples were dancing in the hall. Every man had a whetstone holder stuck behind his belt.” There is little doubt that these whetstone holders were decorated specimens since all those from Bohinj, Koprivnik and Gorjuše (dating from the second half of the 19th century) in the Slovene Ethnographic Museum’s collection (nos. 2-9, 11-17, 45-48, 50-52) are. The piece of evidence that proves the second part of the assumption is the answer of one of today’s makers of whetstone holders, cartwright Vangus from Bohinjska Češnjiča, to the question whether he decorates his holders: “it’s for a peasant’s job.” This attitude corresponds with our mechanized world, in which hay is mown with a scythe but here and there and people “don’t care whether their whetstone holder is decorated or not.” The wish to have a fine, specially designed whetstone holder therefore undoubtedly originates from the hay-making season’s festive mood. But where the hay harvest was seen as a mere” peasant’s job” or came to be seen like that in the course of time, the whetstone holder was and, as a rule, still is a plain utensil, an auxiliary tool, used to hold water and a whetstone, totally deprived of all other meanings communicated by decorated specimens.

Many of the meanings a whetstone holder may communicate are implied by those visible and tangible aspects of the hay harvest that made it a job and a festivity all in one. (Some of them are of a local nature, others are evidenced by the majority of written and oral sources.) Firstly there is the division of labour: men mow, women rake; then there is the mowers’ reputed skill and, in other places, the arrival of strangers, seasonal mowers; the custom that girls presented bunches of flowers to the mowers; and, finally, there was the constant joking and fooling, often full of erotic implications.

In spite of individual reports (from a few places in Slovenia) that, when necessary, even women had a go at mowing, it essentially was a man’s job (as it was in other European countries, see e.g. Fél, Hofer, 1974: 212). (This is also confirmed by various medieval illustrations: a German woodcut from 1493, for example, and French calendar illustrations dating from 1420-1430 and from the late 15th century (see Bartels, 1900: 48; Hansen, 1984: 118, 121) show the obvious division of labour: the men are mowing, the women raking or tossing hay with a hay- fork.) The Slovene language has no feminine form for the word kosec (mower) (though it has a masculine form for the word žanjica - women raker -žanjec.) A girl’s or a woman’s job was to toss, rake and turn over the hay. They were called “grabljice” (Koseč), “grablojce” (Koprivnik) and the like (all words indicating women who rake). Their tools were wooden hay-forks and rakes, whereas the men who came on the meadows each carried a scythe, a whetstone holder and whetstone (and, some of them, a straightener). “You can’t be a mower without your own whetstone holder and whetstone.” And, of course, a good mower also had to be good at whetting his scythe. Whetting scythes and all other tools, used to cut crops, was considered to be the job of men only.

Even when it was women who harvested, whether grain or hay - women reaped grass in the Karst in the interwar period (see ill. 34) - it were mostly men who whetted the sickles (see e.g. Koprivec, 1939: 172; Mrkun, 1943: 32). Only when women were alone in the fields with no man around, one of them whetted for all of them (at least one of them knew the job) but the whetstone holder remained stuck in the ground in the same spot. It is reported that when grain was reaped in Slovenske Gorice and Pohorje (Koprivec, 1939: 172; see note 15) a very tall “big whetstone holder” was used. It also remained in the same spot and made it easier for the whetter-on-duty to carry out his (her) job.

Mowers generally carried their whetstone holder stuck behind their belt and took it off only for resting and eating. It was then stuck in the ground to prevent the water from spilling. Some preferred to carry it on their belly - in some places this was the custom - but it was mostly worn on the right side of one’s back. A poem from Središče in Štajerska, dating from the second half of the 19th century (see Štrekelj, 1908-1923: 232) reads: “A scythe on my shoulder, a whetstone holder on my hip.” In the thirties it was the custom in Slovenske Gorice that mowers stuck their “voderji” (whetstone holders) behind their aprons, and “they hung on their bellies” (Koprivec, 1939: 162), and there is a description, dating from the next decade, of whetstones holders “stuck up front, behind the belt” from the Velike Lašče district (Möederndorfer, 1946: 77). Oral sources from Gradež confirm that whetstone holders were mostly worn on the back and “the mower had to reach out to his right for his whetstone”. An untranslatable riddle asks: What hinders a mower on his arse (“na rit”)? and everybody’s answer is a whetstone holder. (But the correct answer has nothing to do with his back: molehills or “narit(a zemlja)” (literally: what has been dug up). (Oselniki, 1993). That whetstone holders were mostly worn on the right side of one’s back is also proved - besides by oral sources - by our collection of whetstone holders: with most of the specimens the whetstone’s hole is worn through extraction on the right side.

To make the scythe cut better and the whetstone whet well, a little vinegar was poured in the whetstone holder in many places, but only when the whetstone was too hard. “Vinegar kills the stone’s hardness”, people used to say. It had to be added only “if the whetstone wasn’t effective enough”. The water in the whetstone holder had to be cold (wooden whetstone holders kept it that way) and in some places soft rain-water was preferred. (Water with a high percentage of calcium corrodes). (Oselniki, 1993). And there also is an old superstition in many places in Slovenia that a scythe cuts best if a snake’s head is put in the whetstone holder’s water. Did people believe that the sharpness of a snake’s teeth or tongue was transmitted to their scythes? Perhaps. There is no doubt, however, that there was “no lack” of snakes during the harvest. In July there are two saints, St. Ulric (July 4th) and St. Margaret (July 13th) who are said to “herd snakes” (Kocbek, Šašelj, 1934: 228). Around Novo mesto (Novo mesto, 1955) heads of vipers were put into whetstone holders, in Rož an adder’s or viper’s head, and also in Prekmurje people expected their scythes to draw additional sharpness from a snake’s head. Here, however, the snake had to be caught before St. George (April 24th), its tongue removed and put in the “voder” (whetstone holder) (Möederndorfer, 1946: 76).

Experienced mowers of course knew (and still know) when it is time to apply their whetstone. When the weather was very dry and the grass harder, they had to whet their scythes more often. And if even after whetting the blade did not cut well enough (its sharpness was tried out on a finger-nail: a properly whetted blade cut off a very thin slice) it was time to sharpen it. When there were many mowers together in the meadows an experienced sharpener accompanied them (Mrkun, 1934: 35; Kuhar, 1972: 115). But sharpening was not often needed when fresh, wet grass was mown. “Grass has to be mown when it’s wet with dew. And a tuft of grass, wet with dew, was the most efficient help to clean a scythe’s blade before whetting it (Oselniki, 1993).

All this meant that harvesting usually started before day-break; in some places at four or five o’clock or even earlier. A literary description (Koprivec, 1939: 161, 162) of how the hay harvest starts in Slovenske gorice is most picturesque and revealing: “Dawn is still far, only the stars are growing less distinct..Patches of mist lie on the meadows. The dew on the grass wets the mower’s torn shoes... They put their scythes down, fill their whetstone holders with water, drink, whet their scythes and the farmer marks the border so no damage will be done to his neighbour’s grass. Behind the first mower, who is called the leader, the others step in the line according to social status and their job on the farm. The poorest are usually the last in line; for if the last is better than the first, he may annoy him. Seventeen mowers stand in line and they start swinging their scythes at the same time... Every twenty steps the scythes have to be whetted.” The present description is also the only known source which informs us that mowers were ranked according to their social status; though the author immediately corrects himself with the words: ....unless one of them (of the poor devils who usually mow at the end of the line) happens to be the best mower and is feared by the others (and, for this reason, will be given another place in the line). When it came to mowing, the experience and skill of a good mower were, so it appears, more important than his social position. And it was, of course, evident who did well and who did not once they started mowing. Everybody wanted to do a good job because those who did not were exposed to derision: “What are you doing, man? Grazing perhaps?” was a common way to scorn the slower ones in Koseč (Oselniki, 1993); in Labinj (the Cerkno area), it was said of slow mowers that it would be better to “cut them loose” (Cerkljansko, 1954/1). How embarrassing it was to have a reputation of being slow at mowing is revealed by oral tradition. There are many versions of a song with the following refrain “and all I do is drowse and mow at the back” (Štrekelj, 1908-1923: 231-235). In the same song the mower who’s last in line blames the bad service (“The maid brings wine, but she doesn’t bring me any. The way I’m served, that’s the way my scythe cuts.”. Or he will blame the grass and the inferior scythe he was given (“Your grass is too high and my scythe rusty.”) A version from Pohorje is short and to the point: “A scythe is as good or as bad as the man who swings it.” After all, only two things really mattered: skill at mowing and whetting; everything else was of secondary importance. A native of Medvedce (at the foot of the Haloze hills) recollects that soon after the Second World War her father had “to go and beg mowers”, but that “he waited and waited until, in the end, he got real men” (Oselniki, 1993). Being a good mower meant as much as being a real man.

Boys learned the skill from childhood. In Slovenske gorice (Koprivec, 1939: 163) “young boys, who weren’t ready for mowing yet” came to the meadows together with the girls to bring in the hay. (In Hungarian Atany boys got a real scythe in their hands at the age of fourteen or fifteen; before that, all they were allowed to swing was an imitation scythe, a toy.: Fél, Hofer, 1974: 212). Things seem to have been different in mountain villages. In Koprivnik (Oselniki, 1992, 1993) two grandfathers made little scythes for their respective grandsons: the first a wooden one with a wooden whetstone and straightener in a little plastic whetstone holder (Ill. 39a, b), and the second a real, though short scythe. The boys could easily imitate them and learn how to swing a scythe and other movements. This shows that - at least in some places - mowing was taught in early childhood. Ten-year-old boys were expected to actually mow. The father of Vinko Beznik, pipe-maker from Gorjuše, made him a whetstone holder (no. 117) when Vinko was ten years old, stuck it behind his belt and in this way set him on his way to become a mower.

Especially those lads and men who travelled around to mow as day- labourers had to prove themselves constantly. Farmers certainly did not like to hire inefficient labourers, and they probably competed to get the best ones. Judging from the various versions of a folk song written down in Bloke near Cerknica and in Ščedenj (Štrekelj, 1908-1923: 235), mowers who were aware of their value decided which farmer could hire them: “Oh no, I won’t mow, I won’t mow for forty five; but for forty five and tobacco, oh yes, there must be tobacco, then I’ll mow!” Childhood recollections of a native of Hotedršica (Notranjska) (Albreht, 1945: 55) confirm that day-labourers liked to work only on those farms where the housewives served them well, not just with food but specifically with tobacco: “...mother sent me out to observe the cottagers at home, to get to know in what kind of smoking pleasure those indulged who would come to mow for us.” Tobacco, at that time an exclusively male attribute, completed the manly image of a real mower.

The hay-making season brought about a lot of coming and going in some parts. People from Štajerska came to Carniolia (Robanov fond, 4) to mow; in the Gorjanci hills, where there were few domestic labourers, “Carniolians” were hired, men and lads from the villages down in the valley (Pirnat, 1942: 171); in Štandrež near Gorica “men from the hills” used to come (Budal, Paulin, 1993: 60); and in Nabrežine near Trieste the mowers came from the Tolmin region (Oselniki, 1993). The meadows of farms in the marshland near Ljubljana were in the plains but the yielding ground made it impossible to use mowers drawn by horses or oxen. As late as the forties of this century farmers from this area could hire labourers in Ljubljana. In the harvest season mowers would stand and wait with their scythe to be hired in two places: “pod Trančo” (“under the jail”) and on the bank of the Ljubljanica near Shoemakers’ bridge (Möederndorfer, 1946: 75). A peasant woman, native of Zapoge near Ljubljana, recollects from her childhood that their neighbour, a cottager, used to go down to the marshland for a fortnight every year in the interwar period. He set off with a scythe on his shoulder and a whetstone stuck behind his belt (Oselniki, 1993).

The weeks of the hay-making season were a time when boys and girls met, men and women, people who knew each other and strangers; and meet they did at work, at a well-spread table and when amusing themselves. There were the mowers with their reputation of being “real men” and the women raking up the hay who “the younger and prettier they were, the better”, and so these were indeed weeks bursting with sensuality. They breathed it on “the steaming mountain meadows baking in the sun”; it shone in the mowers’ glances at the women, “all in white like frail little doves” (Pirnat, 1941: 117, 172); they dreamed of it when sleeping in haystacks or haylofts “for a whole week” (Oselniki, 1993); and it sparkled in hasty touches when they danced before the harvest began (Tušek, 1860: 9, 10; Šarf, 1974: 139), when a mower caught one of the women and they rolled down a slope together (Albreht, 1945: 54-56), when the men threw the women in the grass “to stuff them with it” (Koprivec, 1939: 163) or when the lads caught a girl by the arms and legs and swung her to and fro (Na poti, 1994: 50). No matter how different the forms it took, eroticism is evidently reported from so many places (Gorjanci, the Soča basin, Bohinj, Notranjska, Slovenske gorice, Šentjanž and Bilčovs in Carinthia) that it was certainly a pretty outspoken element of the hay harvest in Slovenia. It revealed itself in the bunches of flowers given to all mowers (reported by numerous sources and from many places); a custom indeed, but their individual message - communicated by the “flower language” - often was an essentially amorous one. A bunch of cultivated flowers indicating a corresponding symbolic meaning, especially rosemary and carnations, various geraniums, was (at least from the 18th century onwards) a token of love (Makarovič, 1973/74: 30, 31). Bunches given to mowers in Hotedršica (Notranjska) contained, for example, “carnations and geraniums (Albreht, 1945: 54); in Zakojca (the Cerkno area) and Šentjanž (Carinthia), carnations and rosemary (Turnšek, 1952: 104; Na poti, 1994: 50); in the Velike Lašče district the girls made them of “fresh flowers, grown in pots on window sills” (Mrkun, 1943: 34); and in Slovenske gorice the bunches pinned to the mowers’ hats were composed of “violets and geraniums” tied with a red thread (Koprivec, 1939: 163). There is little doubt, then, that the hay harvest was a time when “love was born”. A written source reports on the hills of Škocjan that girls used “to chose their bridegrooms-to-be during the hay harvest” (Kuhar, 1972: 115) and in Hotedršica the rolling in the hay often ended by “the banns being put up early in the following year and the couple being wed soon afterwards” (Albreht, 1945: 55). The oral tradition of songs about the hay (and grain) harvest (Štrekelj, 1908-1923: 230, 231) has preserved an evidently sound warning: “Every girl is her own wreath’s (=virginity) keeper!”

In this blend of explicit and implicit elements of the culture of hay-making, of life during the hay harvest, some whetstone holders contributed their own, visible erotic messages as for instance those with the symbolic motif of the heart (or the known French whetstone holders featuring a motif which is called “anneaux de marriage - “wedding ‘rings’”17). But these were not the only ones: the shape of whetstone holders and whetstones in general made them into - perhaps less visible, but certainly outspoken - exponents of the sensuality which was in the air and everywhere during the harvest. The eroticism may have been hidden in people’s laughter and sparkling glances, but it certainly was explicit when the men were bragging. “Take out your whetstone (penis)!” they would tease and offer their own “tool”: “We’ve got a woman here, need a whetstone (penis)?” (Oselniki, 1993).

“Foeniseca immittit cotem in cotarium sicut iuvenis penem suum in cunnum puellae” or: “A mower enters his whetstone into the whetstone holder like a boy enters his penis into a girl’s vagina,” writes Koštial (1937-1939: 23) who saw the sexual symbolism of whetstones and their holders in their names in different languages. Leopold Schmidt explained their symbolic meaning by their shape and use (1952: 66, 67), establishing that handling the tool (whetting with a whetstone since a good mower necessarily is a good whetter too) almost symbolically becomes part of the spoken language in describing a man’s sexual activities; he assumes that this is the very reason why whetting tools became “humanized” in speech. The whetstone’s shape and function associated it with the male sexual organ, and the whetstone holder - its depository, a moist vessel (like the vagina) that made it whet (function) well - was identified with the vagina. Direct evidence of this interpretation in Slovenia is articulated by a piece of superstition from Dolenjska, dating from the seventies of the 19th century (Trdina, 1987: 373): “To father a son, put on your whetstone holder in actu.” The whetstone holder was to give strength to the whetstone, i.e. figuratively spoken (enough) strength to the penis to father a son.

The semiotic story of both objects - the whetstone’s as well as the whetstone holder’s shapes - proves that their erotic symbolic meaning is not just something we merely assumed or a theoretical fancy, but is demonstrated by the aspects of the harvest we described, by the explicit jokes and the revealing superstition.

Hence it hardly comes as a surprise to learn that whetstones also had a phallic symbolic meaning. We may indeed presume that treating a cow’s infected udder by laying a whetstone on it is the more recent equivalent of the medieval phallic practice (reported by a confessional note from the Bavarian monastery Scheyern and dating from 1468) of caressing a woman’s painful breasts with the penis or “substitute hand” of a stranger (Schmidt, 1952: 66, 67). Laying whetstones on udders or stroking them (as with an alternate penis) is verified by reports from Lobor in Croatia (Schmidt, 1952: 66) and Sežana in the Karst (in childhood recollections related to the interwar period, Oselniki, 1993). Treating illnesses with a whetstone in general, touching or laying on objects with healing power (for example stones) and conjurations, all these are examples of magic healing procedures (Makarovič, 1991: 504-507) which have been authenticated in many places in Slovenia. A whetstone usually served to stroke or “cross thrice” swellings in the groins (the swellings themselves were called whetstones, “you’ve got a whetstone there”) and similar ailments (Cerkljansko, 1954/2; Vipava, 1957; Brkini, 1955; Oselniki, 1993). Being magic objects, phallic symbols and sources of life (and health) whetstones clearly had a phallic balancing role in man’s structure (Chevalier, Gheerbrant, 1993: 143).

Whetstones and their holders probably would not have phallic or erotic symbolic meanings, if - besides their mute but revealing shape - they were not used for the hay harvest, this eminently social segment of life in the country. The eroticism associated with mowers, these symbolic exponents of the sexual role of “real men”, could have such significance only within a social group in which the other sex was also represented; though these were informal groups, often made up of people from various places, they nevertheless were groups with a clear division of labour according to sex. In such a social environment and enhanced by their symbolic meaning, mowers certainly took great pains to be distinct individuals, to be recognizable personalities within the group. And what clearly separated any of them from all the others in a line of mowers was his whetstone holder.

The wealth of different whetstone holders in the collection of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum (and in other collections) bears witness to these efforts to be different; and so does the fact that the majority of them are decorated while a few feature even more personal tokens: the mower’s initials (e.g. nos. 20, 30-32, 35, 36; catalogue of drawings no. 3), a series of house signs (no. 107) house numbers (no. 117, catalogue of drawings no. 24), or a little cross (no. 34). An outstanding specimen is the whetstone holder with the carved name Franc (no. 61). And even more exceptional and personified is the whetstone holder in the Tolmin collection (Ill. 41) showing the carved inscription “I’m Pikec’s”, i.e. Pikec is my master. (See also two whetstone holders from Spanish collections, carrying the inscriptions “Soy de Jose” or “I’m Jose’s and “Es mi dueño Candido Bueno Garcia” or “Candido Bueno Garcia is my master” (see Drawing 26c).: Ponsoda 1984; Violant i Simorra, 1981).

How far mowers went in order to be different from others is confirmed by a record from around Turjak (Ljubič, 1951: 71, 72): “Those who wanted to show off, added a few dinars and the “osovnikar” (maker of whetstone holders) carves their monogram in the holder right there.” And those who were really “flashy” arranged to have their whetstone holders decorated all over. Oral sources from Koprivnik (Oselniki, 1993) confirm that mowers are still told apart by the colour of their whetstone holder. “That’s the way it’s got to be”. Of course, these and other personal tokens also had a very simple function: when the mowers went back to their holders - these were stuck in the ground - after eating or resting, they could instantly tell which was which from the marks, letters, numbers or decoration. But the essential purpose of marking one’s whetstone holder remains the same: it really mattered which whetstone holder someone took, it had to be their very own.

As far as memory goes back whetstone holders always were a distinctively personal tool: an object that is part of one’s own personal possessions, inseparable from its master, the mower (rather in the sense of being part of his personal outfit than being just a tool). Its personal meaning is succinctly corroborated by the following sentences, recorded in Medvedce (Štajerska), Gradež (Dolenjska) and Stiška vas (Gorenjska) (Oselniki, 1993): “You’re not a (real) mower, if you don’t have your own whetstone holder and whetstone.” “Everybody must have his own whetstone holder and whetstone.” “I got mine when I started mowing, my father had his own.” The whetstone holder as a very personal tool is also confirmed by an informant’s recollections of his “nono” (grandfather) in Kal near Kanal (Oselniki, 1993), in particular of an event that took place during the hay harvest a few years ago. The son - he lives in a town - took his father’s scythe but when he stretched out his hand to take the whetstone holder as well, his father stopped him. “Hey, that’s mine!” Finally, possibly the most intriguing item of information about a mower’s close connection with his whetstone holder was written down near Postojna (Hrašče, 1981) and concerns the belief in its healing power: “The worst punishment for someone who has cast a spell on you, is to heat a nail until it’s white-hot and then put it in a whetstone holder, filled with water; in your own whetstone holder.”

All these reports have revealed and explained the many different meanings whetstone holders (and whetstones) had in the structures of life in the country in Slovenia from at least the middle of the 19th century to the sixties of the present century. And they have certainly confirmed our initial intuition and reflections on their various meanings and messages. The whetstone holder may have been a minor, marginal object, an aid to the scythe, but together with its master, the mower, it had a quite exceptional role in the cultural image of the villages of the time; among the various implements the whetstone holder was a very personal tool with many meanings, and the mower was - regardless of his social status - an individual, a personality with a particular reputation in the rural community. Besides all its other meanings and, of course, besides being simply useful, a whetstone holder was the external token and reflection of a mower’s consciousness of his own personality and of his wish to be recognized as such.


Another time and a new meaning

In concluding I would like to dedicate a few words to whetstone holders in modern times. Some are still used in their original function, others have acquired a totally different, new meaning. Besides those which persistent mowers still strap on, others are valued as antiques while new ones are made to be sold as souvenirs. The latter two are meant for decoration only, to adorn the wall of a living-room.

Old whetstone holders can now and then be found in antique shops whereas new ones - souvenirs - are made by various craftsmen. The old ones often decorate weekend cottages. In Gradež, people say the area was cleared out of old whetstone holders by the owners of weekend cottages “who put them on their walls”. These (mostly) townspeople also buy new whetstone holders, but “you must know how to make them buy them; you have to give them an idea, what they can use them for (for example as “vases” for bunches of dried flowers, as pencil holders)”. But whetstone holders, made as souvenirs by individual domestic craftsmen in the country, are often bought by local people; they buy them as a present for someone or to decorate their own home. There they mostly “live” on kitchen walls, filled with dry herbs, oats or wheat, i.e. “what we mowed and harvested” (Oselniki, 1993), The holders remind people of the hay (and grain) harvest as it used to be in times long gone.

And even these specimens - mere souvenirs, after all - are valued in a quite unusual way; as if people try to preserve the value they once had in the country. When a visitor, a domestic craftsman from Podbrdo, gave the son of a well-to-do farmer in Podporezen a miniature whetstone holder - a souvenir - the boy “was as excited as if his uncle from America had come”. America and “uncles from America” (= unexpected, generous benefactors) have always meant something very special and valuable.


Notes:


- 1 Relevant information provided by Rado Turk, M.A. in Metallurgy

- 2 Two Slovene riddles might be of the same period, but were written down later. In both cases the answer is a wooden whetstone holder. The first is part of the oral tradition around Gorica (Erjavec, 1883: 331) and the metaphor is “wooden well”, the second comes from Kočevje (Koštial, 1937-1939: 23) and the riddle speaks of a “wooden cave”.

- 3 Franc Bezlaj (famous Slovene etymologist) quotes a more recent edition of Megiser’s dictionary, dating from the middle of the 18th century, which mentions the singular form o ∫la. He also mentions Old Church Slavonic osbla (?) and explains, on page 256: “The word oselniki is derived from osla”. He also quotes the name o∫lenek, written down by Gutsmann in the 18th century. In his opinion, the root for both osla and oselnik is the Latin word “cos” (cos, cotis; cotarium).

- 4 Drawer and painter Ivan Koch from Novo mesto seems to have combined past and present in other historical scenes too. The murder of a Roman emperor and his son, for instance, is depicted as taking place in a modern instead of a Roman bed. Valvasor excused such “errors” for the sake of intelligibility (Škafar, 1988: 34, 39, 40). The genre scene of three mowers is considered to be a legitimate primary picture source.

- 5 People feared scythes would ruin the straw they badly needed for their roofs. Elsewhere, scythes were blamed for wasting grain and they did not become a common grain-reaping tool before the early 19th century (Braudel, 1988: 97).

- 6 For the sake of comparison the following works were consulted: Hahm, 1928; Nemec, 1980; Colleselli, 1958, 1982; Der steirische, 1966; Benker; 1976; Haberlandt, 1911; Popović, 1952; Topali, Koenig-Reis, 1942; Schmidt, 1952; Holz, 1981; Gebhard, 1969; Kierdorf-Traut, 1977; Brunhes Delamarre, Hairy, 1971; Martel, 1979/80; Hyčkom 1973; Bednárik, 1943, 1956; Podolak, 1967; Fél, Hofer, 1974; Vakarelski, 1969; Priuli, 1988; Scheuermeier, 1943; Brocherel, 1937; Calderon, 1990; Ponsoda, 1984; Vazquez, 1992; Violand i Simorra, 1981; Raffaeli, 1990; besides these, there also is the correspondence with museums, listed at the end of the bibliography.

- 7 Elaborated based on the collection of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum, field research and the collections of the provincial museums, mentioned in the list beside the Geographical survey of whetstone holder types.

- 8 According to the works mentioned in note (6) and our correspondence with the museums, mentioned at the end of the list of the bibliography.

- 9 Preserved in the archives of manuscripts (under no. 54) by the Bibliothèque d’étude et de conservation (Bibliothèques municipales de Besançon in France (Catalogue général, 1897: 34).

- 10 Let us, for instance, mention only Herman de Carinthia and his connection with Petrus Venerabilis, abbot of the Cluny monastery (Gantar, 1965: 226).

- 11 It is important to choose a good, long horn so that it is not necessary to further hollow it out. Short cowhorns were considered to be a bad choice. If the horn is fresh, it has to be boiled (preferably while still attached to the head), to make the bone and skin come off neatly. After being boiled the horn is ready to be shaped. (Sterle, 1976: 98, 99; Oselniki, 1993).

- 12 The inventory of the Kalan farm in the Selška Valley, dating from 1723, mentions among other things: “2 borrer” (two borers), and “2 Schnizmesser resiunik” (two cutters) (Andrejka, 1934: 49). Many of the mentioned tools can be found in (18th century) legacy inventories of serfs in the western parts of Slovenske gorice and the northern fringes of the Drava basin; e.g.: small axes, saws, borers, chisels... (Baš, 1955: 119).

- 13 When he referred to “grinding stones” Levstik probably had in mind whetstones and not the much bigger round grindstones.

- 14 E.g.: Cevc, 1992; Albreht, 1945; Na poti, 1994; Koprivec, 1939; Budal, Paulin, 1993; Kuret, 1989; Kuhar, 1972; Turnšek, 1952; Prešeren, 1933; Möederndorfer, 1946; Pirnat, 1941; M(išič), 1951; Novak, 1974; Šarf, 1974, Smerdel, 1984; Mrkun, 1943 and manuscripts: Robanov fond, 4; Trenta, 1952; Oselniki, 1992, 1993.

- 15 The only known Slovene specimen is a roughly-made, wedge- shaped whetstone holder from Skomarje in the Provincial Museum of Celje, inv. no. 1287, which is 82 cm tall. Similarly tall whetstones are known in Tirol (see Colleselli, 1958: 334; 1982: 15).

- 16 See e.g.: Turnšek, 1952: 104; Mrkun, 1943: 34; Kuhar, 1972: 115, Koprivec, 1939: 163; Na poti, 1994: 50.

- 17 Based on written consultation of Musée Dauphinois in Grenoble; both specimens are from the work “Le Guepas”, Collections du Musée de Gap.





UPORABLJENI VIRI IN SLOVSTVO * / REFERENCES *


* Navedeni so v treh skupinah, v vsaki po abecednem vrstnem redu. / * Listed in three groups.


TISKANI VIRI IN SLOVSTVO: / PUBLISHED BOOKS AND ARTICLES:

AGRICOLA, Georgius, 1950

De re metallica, Translated from the First Latin Edition of 1556, With Biographical Introduction, Annotations and Appendices by H.C. HOOVER, L.H. HOOVER. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.

ALBREHT, Ivan, 1945

Umirajoči in izumrli običaji. V: Vodnikova pratika. Ljubljana: Vodnikova družba.

ANDREJKA, Rudolf, 1934

Star kmečki inventar iz 18. stoletja. V: Etnolog VII. Ljubljana: Kr. etnografski muzej, str. 38-50.

Arhivi, 1953

Arhivi pripovedujejo. V: Kronika, Časopis za slovensko krajevno zgodovino, I, 1. št. Ljubljana.

BARTELS, A., 1900

Der Bauer in der deutschen Vergangenheit. Leipzig.

BAŠ, Angelos, 1955

Orodja na kmečkih gospodarstvih pod Mariborom v 18. stoletju. V: Slovenski etnograf VIII. Ljubljana: Etnografski muzej, str. 109-127.

BEDÁRIK, Rudolf, 1943

Duchovná kultúra Slovenského l’udu, Slovenská vlastiveda II. Bratislava.

BEDNÁRIK, Rudolf, 1956

Pastirske rezbárske umenie, Knižnica l’udového umenia 6, Práce Národopisného ústavu Slovenskej akadémie vied v Bratislave 4. Bratislava: Slovenské vydavatel’stvo krásnej literatúry.

BENKER, Gertrud, 1976

Altes bäuerliches Holzgerät. München: Callwey.

BENTZIEN, Ulrich, 1990

Bauernarbeit im Feudalismus, Landwirtschaftliche Arbeitsgeräte und -verfahren in Deutschland von der Mitte des ersten Jahrtausends u.Z. bis um 1800. Vaduz: Topos Verlag.

BEZLAJ, France, 1976

Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Inštitut za slovenski jezik.

BOGATAJ, Janez, 1989

Domače obrti na Slovenskem. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije.

BORN, Erwin, 1989

Die Kunst zu Schnitzen: Technik der Schnitzerei und Holzbildhauerei. München: Callwey.

BORN, Erwin, 1989

Die Kunst zu Drechseln: Entwurf, Ausführung, Beispiele. München: Callwey.

BRAS, Ljudmila, 1979

Lesne obrti na Slovenskem, Vodnik po razstavi. Ljubljana: Slovenski etnografski muzej.

BRAUDEL, Fernand, 1988

Strukture vsakdanjega življenja: mogoče in nemogoče, Materialna civilizacija, ekonomija in kapitalizem, XV.-XVIII. stoletje, I, II. Ljubljana: ŠKUC, Filozofska fakulteta.

BRITOVŠEK, Marijan, 1964

Razkroj fevdalne agrarne strukture na Kranjskem. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica.

BROCHEREL, Giulio, 1937

Arte Popolare Valdostana, Catalogo Generale della Mostra di Arte Popolare. Roma: Edizione dell’O.N.D.

BRUNHES DELAMARRE, Mariel J., HAIRY, Hughes, 1971

Techniques de production: l’agriculture, Guides ethnologiques 4/5. Paris: Éditions des Musées Nationaux.

BUDAL, Lučana, PAULIN, Damjan, 1993

Iz kmečkih korenin sem pognal, Pričevanja o preteklosti Štandreža. Štandrež: Prosvetno društvo »Štandrež«.

CALDERÓN, Jose Luis Mingote, 1990

Catálogo de aperos agricolas del Museo del Pueblo Español. Madrid.

Catalogue, 1897

Catalogue général des bibliothèques publiques de France, Besançon, T. XXXIII. Paris.

CEVC, Emilijan, 1980

Likovna umetnost. V: A. Baš, ur., Slovensko ljudsko izročilo. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, str. 232-247.

CEVC, Tone, 1992

Bohinj in njegove planine: srečanja s planšarsko kulturo. Radovljica: Didakta.

CEVC, Tone, ČOP, Jaka, 1993

Slovenski kozolec / Slovene Hay-rack. Žirovnica: Agens.

CHEVALIER, Jean, GHEERBRANT, Alain, 1993

Slovar simbolov. Ljubljana: Založba Mladinska knjiga.

COLLESELLI, Franz, 1958

Die Tiroler Wetzsteinkumpfe unf ihre Verzierung. V: Der Schlern, 32. Jahrang, 8., 9. Heft. Bozen.

COLLESELLI, Franz, 1982

Begleiter durch das Tiroler Volkskunstmuseum.

Innsbruck: Selbstverlag des Tiroler Volkskunstmuseums.

Der Steirische, 1966

Der Steirische Bauer, Katalog der Ausstellung. Graz.

DONZELLI, Rinaldo, MUNARI, Bruno, POLATO, Pietro, 1983

Delajmo z lesom. Koper: Lipa.

ERJAVEC, Fran, 1883

Iz pótne torbe. V: Fr. Levec, ur., Letopis Matice slovenske za leto 1882. in 1883. Ljubljana: Matica slovenska, str. 195-351.

FÉL, Edit, HOFER, Támaš, 1974

Geräte der Átányer Bauern. Kopenhagen: Komission der Königlich Dänischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zur Erforschung der Geschichte der Ackerbaugeräte und der Feldstrukturen (Publikation Nr. 2).

FENTON, Alexander, 1976

Scottish Country Life. Edinburgh: John Donald publishers LTD.

FENTON, Alexander, 1992

Wirds an’Wark ’e Seasons Roon on an Aberdeenshire farm.

GANTAR, Kajetan, 1965

Herman de Carinthia. V: Jezik in slovstvo, X., št. 8 Ljubljana, str. 225-232.

GAUTHIER, Jules, 1894

Le psautier de Bonmont. Notice sur un manuscrit à peintures de la première moitié du XIIIe siècle. V: Bulletin archéologique.

GEBHARD, Torsten, 1969

Alte bäuerliche Geräte. München / Basel / Wien: BLV.

GRAFENAUER, Bogo, 1970

Orodje in načini. V: Gospodarska in družbena zgodovina Slovencev, Zgodovina agrarnih panog, I. zv. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije, str. 201-218.

GRAFENAUER, Bogo, 1979

Razmerje alpskih Slovanov do staroselcev in vpliv staroselcev na razvoj slovanskega gospodarstva. V: Zgodovina Slovencev. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, str. 108-111.

GUŠTIN, Mitja, 1991

Posočje. Posočje in der jüngeren Eisenzeit / Posočje v mlajši železni dobi. Ljubljana: Narodni muzej.

HABERLANDT, Michael, 1911

Österreichische Volkskunst I, Aus den Sammlungen des Museums für Österreichische Volkskunde in Wien. Wien.

HAHM, Konrad, 1928

Deutsche Volkskunst. Berlin: Deutsche Buch-Gemeinschaft.

HANSEN, Wilhelm, 1984

Kalenderminiatur en der Stundenbücher, Mittelalterliches Leben im Jahreslauf. München: Callwey.

HOLYNSKI, Nada, ŽONTAR, Majda, 1992

Gorenjska industrija od manufaktur do danes. Kranj: Gorenjski muzej.

Holz, 1981

Holz Naturformen, Katalog Nr. 6 (Sonderausstellung Schloß Stainz). Graz: Landesmuseum Joanneum.

HORVAT, Jasna, 1992

Muzejske razstave - nadomestek ali nova resničnost? V: Argo, XXXIII-XXXIV(1992). Ljubljana: Narodni muzej, str. 4-7.

HYČKO, Ján, 1973

Žatevné a mlatobné náradie. Osveta.

JACOBI, Gerhard, 1974

Werkzeug und Gerät aus dem Oppidum von Manching. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.

KARLOVŠEK, Jože, 1935

Slovenski ornament, Zgodovinski razvoj. Ljubljana: Udruženje diplomiranih tehnikov v Ljubljani.

KIERDORF - TRAUT, Georg, 1977

Volkskunst in Tirol, Alpenländische Kunsttradition zwischen zwei Kulturströmungen. Bozen: Verlagsanstalt Athesia.

KOCBEK, Fran, 1887

Pregovori, prilike in reki. Ljubljana: Anton Trstenjak.

KOCBEK, Fran, ŠAŠELJ, Ivan, 1934

Slovenski pregovori, reki in prilike. Celje: Družba sv. Mohorja.

KOPRIVEC, Ignac, 1939

Kmetje včeraj in danes, Narodopisne črtice iz Slovenskih goric. Sv. Lenart v Slovenskih goricah: Glavna hranilnica.

KOS, Milko, 1985

Slovani na zboru pri Rižani. V: Srednjeveška kulturna, družbena in politična zgodovina Slovencev, Izbrane razprave. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica.

KOŠTIÁL, Ivan, 1939

O oselniku. V: Etnolog X-XI (1937-1939). Ljubljana: Kr. etnografski muzej, str. 22-24.

KRECH, David, CRUTCHFIELD, Richard S., BALLACHEY, Egerton L., 1962

Individual in Society. New York / San Francisco / Toronto / London: McGraw-Hill.

KREMENŠEK, Slavko, 1973

Obča etnologija. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani.

KRUKER, Robert, 1992

Alpine Kultur und Gesellschaft. V: P. Hugger, ur., Handbuch der schweizerischen Volkskultur, III. Zürich: Offizin.

KUHAR, Boris, 1972

Odmirajoči stari svet vasi. Ljubljana: Prešernova družba.

KURET, Niko, 1989

Praznično leto Slovencev, Starosvetne šege in navade od pomladi do zime, I. Ljubljana: Družina.

LERCHE, Grith, 1993

Documentation of Traditional Crafts. V: H. Cheape, ur., Tools and Traditions, Studies in European Ethnology Presented to Alexander Fenton. Edinburgh: National Museums of Scotland.

LEVSTIK, Fran, 1981

Martin Krpan z Vrha. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga.

LJUBIČ, Tone, 1951

Izumrle panoge domače obrti v okolici Turjaka. V: Slovenski etnograf III-IV, Ljubljana: Etnografski muzej, str. 68-74.

L’uomo, 1988

L’uomo e il legno / Človek in les. Katalog razstave, ur. Odsek za zgodovino pri Narodni in študijski knjižnici. Trst.

MAKAROVIČ, Gorazd, 1973

Cvetlice v ljudski umetnosti, Motivi v oblikovanju za kmetije, Vodnik po razstavi. Ljubljana: Slovenski etnografski muzej.

MAKAROVIČ, Gorazd, 1981

Slovenska ljudska umetnost. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije.

MAKAROVIČ, Gorazd, 1983

Razmerje med etnologijo in muzeologijo oziroma o etnološkem muzejstvu danes, Pismo (odgovor) Ralfu Čeplaku. V: Glasnik SED, 23 (1983) 3/4. Ljubljana: Slovensko etnološko društvo, str. 63, 64.

MAKAROVIČ, Marija, 1962

O Grebenčevi zbirki v Etnografskem muzeju v Ljubljani. V: Slovenski etnograf XV. Ljubljana: Etnografski muzej, str. 243-253.

MAKAROVIČ, Marija, 1991

Zdravstvena kultura agrarnega prebivalstva v 19. stoletju. V: Slovenski etnograf, XXXIII - XXXIV (1988-1990). Ljubljana: Slovenski etnografski muzej, str. 481-528.

MARCHANDIAU, Jean - Noël, 1984

Outillage agricole de la Provence d’autrefois. Aix-en-Provence: ÉDISUD La Calade.

MARTEL, Pierre, 1979/80

Les blés de l’été, L’été des paysans en Haute-Provence. Aix-en-Provence: Les Alpes de lumière.

MARTEL, Pierre, 1982/83

Les blés de l’été, Les moissons en Haute-Provence. Aix-en-Provence: Les Alpes de lumière.

MENAŠE, Luc, 1971

Evropski umetnostno zgodovinski leksikon. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga.

MESESNEL, France, 1940

Jožef Petkovšek, slovenski slikar. Ljubljana: Akademska založba.

M(IŠIČ), F(ran), 1951

Ko poje kosa na zahodnem Pohorju. V: Kmečki glas 9, št. 34, str. 4. Ljubljana.

MLINARIČ, Jože, 1993

Srednjeveški samostani na Slovenskem in njihova dejavnost. V: Samostani v srednjeveških listinah na Slovenskem. Ljubljana: Arhiv Republike Slovenije, str. 23-35.

MOSZYŃSKI, Kazimierz, 1967

Kultura ludova Slowian I, Kultura materialna. Warszawa.

MÖDERNDORFER, Vinko, 1946

Verovanja, uvere in običaji Slovencev (Narodopisno gradivo), V. knjiga, Borba za pridobivanje vsakdanjega kruha. Celje: Družba sv. Mohorja v Celju.

MRKUN, Anton, 1940

Kmetsko delavstvo v Dobrépoljah in okolici. V: Etnolog XIII, Ljubljana: Kraljevi etnografski muzej, str. 116-124.

MRKUN, Anton, 1943

Etnografija velikolaškega okraja, 1. zv., Kmetijstvo. Videm - Dobrépolje.

Na poti, 1994

Na poti v vas / Unterwegs ins Dorf. Vsakdanja kultura v Šentjanžu in Bilčovsu s poudarkom na prvi polovici 20. stoletja, Bilten etnološke raziskovalne delavnice osnovnošolcev iz Ljubljane in Roža / Alltagskultur in St. Johann und Ludmannsdorf in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts, Bulletin der ethnologischen Forschungswerkstätte für Schülerlinnen aus Ljubljana und dem Rosental. Slovenska prosvetna zveza.

NEMEC, Helmut, 1980

Alpenländische Volkskunst. Wien: Prisma Verlag Gütersloh.

NICEFORI, Franco, 1988

Dalla cava alia campagna, Quaderni dell’archivio della cultura di base 10. Bergamo: Sistema Bibliotecario Urbano.

NOTHDURFTER, Johann, 1979

Die Eisenfunde von Sanzeno im Nonsberg. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

NOVAK, Anka, 1974

Kmečko gospodarstvo v Dolini, Vodnik po razstavi. Kranjska gora.

NOVAK, Anka, 1976

Spreminjanje vrednotenja etnoloških predmetov. V: Glasnik SED, 16 (1976) 3. Ljubljana: Slovensko etnološko društvo, str. 48, 49.

OREL, Boris, 1948

V novo razdobje. V: Slovenski etnograf I, Ljubljana: Etnografski muzej, str. 5-8.

ORTNER, Sherry B., WHITEHEAD, Harriet, 1992

Preface, Introduction: Accounting for sexual meanings. V: S. B. Ortner, H. Whitehead, ur., Sexual Meanings, The Cultural Construction of Gender and Sexuality. Cambridge: University Press (First published 1981), str. IX-X, 1-29.

O slovenskem, 1907

O slovenskem trgovstvu na Štajerskem in Koroškem. V: Slovenski trgovski vestnik, št. 11 (15.11.1907).

PÄRDI, Heiki, 1993

Museum object as a source in ethnological research. V: Pro ethnologia I, Papers of the 35th scientific conference of Estonian National Museum. Tartu: Publications of Estonian National Museum, str. 53-56.

PETRU, Peter, 1979

Obdobje selitve ljudstev. V: Zgodovina Slovencev. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, str. 88-94.

PIRNAT, Viktor, 1941

Med gorjanskimi kosci. V: Planinski vestnik 41(1941). Ljubljana, str. 117, 118; 171-174.

PLETERSKI, Andrej, 1987

Sebenjski zaklad. V: Arheološki vestnik, 38. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Inštitut za arheologijo, str. 237-330.

PLETERŠNIK, Maks, 1894

Slovensko-nemški slovar, 1. del. Ljubljana: Knezoškofijstvo.

PLETERŠNIK, Maks, 1895

Slovensko-nemški slovar, 2. del. Ljubljana: Knezoškofijstvo.

PLINIUS, Secundus C., 1892

Naturalis historiae, Vol. III., Libri XVI-XXII. Lipsiae: B.G. Teubneri.

PODOLÁK, Ján, 1967

Pastierstvo v oblasti Vysokych Tatier. Bratislava: Vydavatel’stvo Slovenskej akadémie vied.

POHANKA, Reinhard, 1986

Die eisernen Agrargeräte der Römischen Kaiserzeit in Österreich, Studien zur römischen Agrartechnologie in Rätien, Noricum und Pannonien. BAR International Series 298.

PONSODA, Matilde Escortell, 1984

Catálogo de la colección etnográfica del Museo Arqueológico de Oviedo. Consejeria de Educación, Cultura y Deportes del Principado de Astúrias.

POPOVIĆ, Cvetko Đ., 1952

Bosansko-hercegovački vodijeri. V: Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu, n.s., zv. VII. Sarajevo.

PORTER POOLE, Fitz John, 1994

Socialization, Enculturation and Identity. V: T. Ingold, ur., Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology. London / New York: Routledge, str. 831-861.

PREŠERN, Jakob, 1933

Imenoslovje okrog Begunjščice in Stola. V: Planinski vestnik 33 (1933). Ljubljana, str. 94-98.

PRIULI, Gherardo, 1988

I Legni Antichi Della Montagna. Ivrea.

RAFFAELLI, Umberto, 1990

I legni antichi delle genti del Trentino, (Ur. Umberto Raffaelli, fot. Attilio Boccazzi - Varotto). Ivrea: Priuli & Verlucca.

RAUTENBERG, Ute, 1987

Die Wetzsteinmacherei in Unterammergau. V: Schriften des Freilichtmuseums des Bezirks Oberbayern, Nr. 13. Grosweil: Freilichtsmuseum des Bezirks Oberbayern, str. 7-44.

RUBI, Christian, s.a.

Beschnitzte Geräte, Berner Heimatbücher Nr. 22. Bern: Verlag Paul Haupt.

RUS, Jože, 1941

Suha roba ali ribniški mali človek. Ljubljana: Ribniški klub.

SASSU, Pietro, 1979

II racconto di una cultura. V: Mondo popolare in Lombardia, 10, Premana, Ricerca su una comunità artigiana. Milano: Silvana Editoriale, str. 9-88.

SCHEUERMEIER, Paul, 1943

Bauernwerk in Italien, der Italienischen und Rätoromanischen Schweiz, Eine sprach- und sachkundliche Darstellung landwirtschaftlicher Arbeiten und Geräte, I. Erlenbach - Zürich: Eugen Rentsch Verlag.

SCHEUERMEIER, Paul, 1980

Il lavoro dei contadini Longanesi. Milano.

SCHMIDT, Leopold, 1952

Gestaltheiligkeit im bäuerlichen Arbeitsmythos, Studien zu den Ernteschnittgeräten und ihrer Stellung im europäischen Volksglauben und Volksbrauch. Wien: Verlag des Österreichischen Museums für Volkskunde.

SCHRADER, O., 1929

Reallexikon der Indogermanischen Altertumskunde, II. Berlin / Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

SMERDEL, Inja, 1983

Ljudsko gospodarstvo. V: Slovenski etnograf, XXXII (1980-82). Ljubljana: Slovenski etnografski muzej, str. 1-27.

SMERDEL, Inja, 1984

Soseska vasi Selce. V: Traditiones 10-12 (1981-1983). Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, str. 5-34.

SMERDEL, Inja, 1991

Prelomna in druga bistvena gospodarska dogajanja v zgodovini agrarnih panog v 19. stoletju na Slovenskem. V: Slovenski etnograf, XXXIII-XXXIV (1988-1990). Ljubljana: Slovenski etnografski muzej, str. 25-60.

SORDI, Italo, 1979

II mondo degli oggetti. V: Mondo popolare in Lombardia, 10, Premana, Ricerca su una comunità artigiana. Milano: Silvana Editoriale, str. 547-600.

STEENSBERG, Axel, 1943

Ancient Harvesting Implements, A Study in Archaeology and Human Geography. København: Bianco Lunos Bogtrykkeri A/S.

STERLE, Meta, 1976

Glavnikarstvo od sredine 18. stoletja do sredine 20. stoletja na Loškem. V: Loški razgledi XXIII. Škofja Loka: Muzejsko društvo, str. 86-108.

ŠARF, Fanči, 1967

Žetev in mlatev v Prekmurju. V: Etnografija Pomurja. Murska Sobota: Pomurska založba, str. 43-66.

ŠARF, Fanči, 1974

Košnja na visokoležečih predplaninskih območjih. V: Traditiones 3. Ljubljana: SAZU, str. 133-146.

ŠLIBAR, Vladimir, 1984

Celjski muzej VII - Etnološka zbirka, Kulturni in naravni spomeniki Slovenije. Maribor: Založba Obzorja.

ŠMID, Walter, 1908

Bericht des Landesmuseums Rudolfinum in Laibach für das Jahr 1907. V: Carniola I. Zeitschrift für Heimatkunde. Laibach: Musealvereine für Krain.

ŠTREKELJ, Karel, 1908-1923

Slovenske narodne pesmi, IV. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica.

TOPALI, Ljerka, KÖNIG-REIS, Maria, 1942

Hirtenbecher und Wetzsteinkumpfe in Kroatien. V: Volkswerk, Jahrbuch des Staatlichen Museums für Deutsche Volkskunde, str. 239-244. Leipzig: Eugen Diederichs Verlag Jena.

TRDINA, Janez, 1987

»Vsaka svinja naj si rije svoje korenje«, Peripatetikar. V: S. Štabi, I. Kramberger, ur., Podobe prednikov, Zapiski Janeza Trdine iz obdobja 1870-1879, 2. knjiga. Ljubljana: Krt.

TRSTENJAK, Anton, 1991

Misli o slovenskem človeku. Ljubljana: Založništvo slovenske knjige.

TURNŠEK, Metod, 1946

Pod vernim krovom, Ob ljudskih običajih skoz cerkveno leto od kresa do adventa. Gorica: Goriška Mohorjeva družba.

TURNŠEK, Metod, 1952

Od morja do Triglava, Narodopisni zapiski iz slovenskega obrobja, I. knjiga, Od Istre preko Tržaškega in Goriškega do Benečije. Trst.

TUŠEK, Ivan, ml., 1860

Potovanje krog Triglava. V: Slovenski glasnik. Celovec.

URBAS, Wilhelm, 1884

Die Tschitscherei und die Tschitschen. Ein Culturbild aus Istrien. V: Zeitschrift des Deutschen un Oesterreichischen Alpenvereins, Jahrgang 1884, Band XV. Salzburg: Verlag des Deutschen und Oesterreichischen Alpenvereins in Salzburg, str. 1-28.

VAKARELSKI, Christo, 1969

Bulgarische Volkskunde. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

VALVASOR, Johann Weichard, 1689

Die Ehre des Herzogthums Krain, Buch VII. Laibach - Nürnberg.

VAZQUEZ, Luís Cortés, 1992

Arte Popular Salmantino. Salamanca: Centro de Estudios Salmantinos, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas.

VELTER, André, LAMOTHE, Marie José, 1979

Das Buck vom Werkzeug. Genf: Weber Verlag.

VIOLANT I SIMORRA, Ramón, 1981

Obra Oberta. Barcelona: Editorial Altafulla.

WIET, Gaston, ELISSEEFF, Vadime, WOLFF, Philippe, NANDOU, Jean, 1975

Velike civilizacije srednjega veka, Zgodovina človeštva III/1. Ljubljana: Državna založba.

ZELENIN, Dmitrij, 1927

Russische (Ostslavische) Volkskunde. Berlin / Leipzig.


ROKOPISNI VIRI: / MANUSCRIPTS AND FIELD NOTES:

Brkini, 1955

Marija Jagodic, Zapiski s Terena 12, Brkini. EM12, 27/52, Arhiv S(lovenskega) E(tnografskega) M(uzeja), Ljubljana.

Cerkljansko, 1954/1

Boris Orel, Zapiski s Terena 11, Cerkljansko. Zv. 4, str. 54-56, Arhiv SEM, Ljubljana.

Cerkljansko, 1954/2

Marija Jagodic, Zapiski s Terena 11, Cerkljansko. EM11, 22/3, 23/45, 23/69, Arhiv SEM, Ljubljana.

CIZELJ, Darja, 1992

Sejmarstvo v Ljubljani od nastanka mesta do druge svetovne vojne. Diplomska naloga. Ljubljana, Oddelek za etnologijo Filozofske fakultete, 124 str., il.

Črni Vrh - Vojsko, 1959

Boris Orel, Zapiski s Terena 16, Črni Vrh - Vojsko. Zv. 1, Arhiv SEM, Ljubljana.

Gradež, 1964

Varšek Milica, Zapiski s Terena 21. Zv. 11, Arhiv SEM, Ljubljana.

Hrašče, 1981

Terenski zapis Marije Makarovič (panoga: Ljudska medicina). Zv. 33/6, str. 5, Arhiv SEM, Ljubljana.

JUSTIN, Janez, 1993

Gledišče, vidik in pomen - Uvod v semiotično analizo eksponata. Tipkopis predavanja za Muzeoforum (11 str.).

Lož, 1962

Fanči Šarf, Zapiski s Terena 19, Lož (panoga: Poljedelstvo). Arhiv SEM, Ljubljana.

MAKAROVIČ, Gorazd, 1993

Slovenci in čas. Tipkopis še neobjavljene razprave.

Male Lipljene, 1948

Terenski zapis Borisa Orla (panoga: Orodja, Lov). Arhiv SEM, Ljubljana.

Marezige, 1950

Zdravko Vatovec, Zapiski s Terena 4, Marezige. EM4, 21/26, Arhiv SEM, Ljubljana.

Novo mesto, 1955

Boris Orel, Terenski zapiski. Zv. 1, str. 18, 33-34, Arhiv SEM, Ljubljana.

Oselniki, 1992

Inja Smerdel, Terenski zapiski o oselnikih. Zv. X/13, Arhiv SEM, Ljubljana.

Oselniki, 1993

Inja Smerdel, Terenski zapiski o oselnikih. Zv. X/14, Arhiv SEM, Ljubljana.

Popis, 1835

Popis na Krainskim navadniga kmetouškiga orodia, kateriga u maihnim naprauleniga, zdoleipodpisa, u Lublanski Muzeum pošlem. Haasberg ta 20ti dan Svečana 1835, Jožefa Sore s Planine pri Rakeku, Arhiv Narodnega muzeja, Ljubljana.

Robanov fond, 4, 8

Fond Robanovega Jože. Z - JVR, 4 in 8, Arhiv Inštituta za slovensko narodopisje, ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana.

Rogatec, 1993

Terensko gradivo Muzejske poletne delavnice Rogatec 93. Arhiv Muzeja za novejšo zgodovino, Celje.

ŠKAFAR, Bojana, 1988

Grafike Valvasorjevega kroga kot vir za etnologijo. Diplomska naloga. Ljubljana, Oddelek za etnologijo Filozofske fakultete.

Trenta, 1952

Boris Orel, Zapiski s Terena 8, Trenta. Zv. 2, Arhiv SEM, Ljubljana.

Vel. Lipijene, 1964

Majda Rupar, Zapiski s Terena 21. Zv. 13, str. 71-72, Arhiv SEM, Ljubljana.

Vipava, 1957

Marija Makarovič, zapiski s Terena 15, Vipava. Zv. 8, str. 11, 14, Arhiv SEM, Ljubljana.


PISNA KONZULTACIJA Z NASLEDNJIMI MUZEJI IN STROKOVNJAKI: * / CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE FOLLOWING MUSEUMS AND EXPERTS: *


* Iz jeseni 1993; hrani jo Arhiv SEM, Ljubljana. / *From autumn 1993; stored in the SEM archives, Ljubljana.


BAYERISCHES NATIONALMUSEUM, München

(Dr. Nina Gockerell)

BURGENLÄNDISCHE LANDESMUSEEN, Eisenstadt / Železna kapla

(Dr. Gürtler)

EUROPEAN ETHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTRE, NATIONAL MUSEUMS OF SCOTLAND, Edinburgh

(Prof. Alexander Fenton)

GÖCSEJI MÚZEUM, Zalaegerszeg

HEVES MEGYEI MÚZEUMI SZERVEZET, DOBÓ ISTVÁN VÁRMÚZEUM, Eger

(Dr. Petercsák Tivadar)

JANUS PANNONIUS MÚZEUM, (Pečuh) Pécs

LANDESMUSEUM FÜR KÄRNTEN, Klagenfurt / Celovec

(Dr. Ilse Koschier)

MAGISTRAT DER STADT WELS, STADTMUSEUM, Wels

(Dr. Jutta Nordone)

MORAVSKÉ MUSEUM, ETNOGRAFICKÝ ÚSTAV, Brno

(Dr. Jarmila Pechová)

MOSER Dr. Oskar, Universitätsprofessor, Graz

MUSÉE DAUPHINOIS, Grenoble

(Jean - Claude Duclos)

MUSÉE D’ETHNOGRAPHIE, Neuchâtel

(Jacques Hainard)

MUSEO DEGLI USI E COSTUMI DELLA GENTE TRENTINA, S. Michele all’Adige

(Dott. Giovanni Kezich)

MUSEO LOMBARDO DI STORIA DELL’AGRICOLTURA E CENTRO STUDI E RICERCHE PER LA MUSEOLOGIA AGRARIA, Milano

(Prof. Gaetano Forni)

MUSEU D’ARTS, INDÚSTRIES I TRADICIONS POPULARS, Barcelona

(Dolors Llopart, M.A.I.T.P.)

MUSEUM DER STADT VILLACH, Villach / Beljak

(Dr. Kurt Karpf)

MUSEUM FÜR VOLKSKULTUR, BEZIRKSHEIMATMUSEUM, Spittal/Drau

(Mag. Monika Ramoser)

MUSEUM OF ENGLISH RURAL LIFE, UNIVERSITY OF READING, Reading

(Roy Brigden)

MUZEUM ETNOGRAFICZNE, Krakowie

(Mgr. Krystyna Reinfuss - Janusz)

NÉPRAJZI MÚZEUM, Budapest

(Szuhay Péter)

NORSK FOLKEMUSEUM, Oslo

(Inger Lise Christie)

ÖSTERREICHISCHES MUSEUM FÜR VOLKSKUNDE, Wien

(Dr. Franz Grieshofer)

SCHWEIZERISCHES MUSEUM FÜR VOLKSKUNDE, Basel

(Dr. Theo Gantner)

SLOVENSKÉ POL’NOHOSPODÁRSKE MÚZEUM, Nitra

(Ing. Jožef Vontorčík)

TIROLER VOLKSKUNST - MUSEUM, Innsbruck

(Dr. Herlinde Menardi)

VALAŠSKÉ MUZEUM V PŘÍRODĚ ROŽNOV POD RADHOŠTĚM, Rožnov pod Radhoštěm

(PhDr. Jiří Langer)

WÜRTTEMBERGISCHES LANDESMUSEUM, Stuttgart

(Dr. H.-U. Roller)


Vsem se zahvaljujem za prijazno sodelovanje. K začetku širjenja mojega znanja o oslah, oselnikih in drugih orodjih za brušenje kos pa je prispeval obisk Danske (okt. 1991): muzeja Dansk Landbrugsmuseet v Gamel Estrupu in knjižnice sekretariata International Secretariat for Research on the History of Agricultural Implements v Bredeju (Lyngby).

Za posredovanje iskanih podatkov in slovstva se zahvaljujem tudi dvema knjižnicama: Biblioteca Civica Angelo Mai iz Bergama v Italiji in Bibliothèque d’étude et de conservation (Bibliothèques municipales de Besançon) iz Besançona v Franciji.


Thanks to all for their kind cooperation. A visit to Denmark in Oktober 1991 to the museum Dansk Landbrugsmuseet in Gamel Estrup and the library of the International Secretariat for Research on the History of Agricultural Implements in Brede (Lyngby) marked the beginning of the expansion of my knowledge of whetstones, whetstone holders and other implements for sharpening scythes.

I would also like to thank two libraries for providing certain important sources and information: the Biblioteca Civica Angelo Mai in Bergamo, Italy, and the Bibliothèque d’étude et de conservation (Bibliothèques municipales de Besançon) in Besançon, France.





KATALOG


Uvodna pripomba

Predmeti v seznamu so razvrščeni od nižjih k višjim inventarnim številkam Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja, najprej oselniki, za temi osle in na koncu ognjila. Vrstni red podatkov v kataloških enotah je naslednji: zaporedna številka, predmet, njegovo morebitno posebno ime, oblikovni tip, kraj uporabe (pri nerabljenih primerkih kraj nastanka), material, mere (v=višina, š=širina, g=globina), številka negativa (=št. neg.) v fototeki Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja, inventarna številka (=inv. št.) Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja in morebitna starejša tuja inventarna številka. Sledi komentar k predmetu.

Oznaka oselnikovega oblikovnega tipa je določena: po snovi, po konici (eni, dveh ali nobeni) za zatikanje v zemljo, po obliki. Tako za konice (=noge) kot za večino ostalih delov oselnika je uporabljeno antropomorfno poimenovanje: noga, trup, hrbet, uhelj. Le-to se zdi najbolj plastično povedno in deloma ustreza ponekod uveljavljenemu. (Na primer v dolenjskem Gradežu zapisanemu imenu za konici - »nogi« in za odprtini za pretikanje pasu - »ušesa«.: Ljubič, 1951: 72.)

Seznamu predmetov sledi seznam risanih oselnikov iz fonda ilustrativnega gradiva iz Arhiva Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja. Risbe so razvrščene kronološko. Vrstni red podatkov je naslednji: zaporedna številka, predmet, oblikovni tip, avtor risbe, letnica nastanka, (teren), tehnika, mere lista, inventarna številka (=inv. št.) Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja in zapis na risbi.

Barvne, zadnje slikovne priloge so razporejene po materialih, po oblikovnih tipih oselnikov in ne po zaporednih številkah. Številka, navedena pri posamezni barvni prilogi pomeni zaporedno številko ustreznega predmeta.


KATALOG PREDMETOV

1.

OSELNIK, vodér / LONČEN, enonog, tenko-valjast / Moščanci / žgana glina, rjava in bela barva, glazura / v - 18,8 cm, š - 7,1 cm, g - 7,1 cm / št. neg. 16963 / inv. št. 748.

Za Kraljevi etnografski muzej je bil pridobljen leta 1930 (S. Vurnikov vpis v inventarno knjigo) med številnimi drugimi izdelki lončarja Štefana Zrinjskega iz Moščancev (6). Kaže, da je bil okoli tega leta tudi izdelan, saj gre za (tedaj) nov oselnik, brez sledi rabe. Kot edini lončen je v zbirki izjema (in v pregledanih virih in slovstvu brez primerjave). Drugače pa oblikovno ustreza v Prekmurju razširjenemu tipu enonogih, tenko-valjastih oselnikov. Verjetno je bil namenjen lončarjevi osebni rabi (ali morda - tako krhek - le za okras). Njegov trup krasi v vodoravnih pasovih komponiran, z belo barvo (na rjavo osnovo) slikan geometrijski ornament: trije pasovi med dvema črtama ujete valovnice. Malo pod vrhom hrbtne strani sta dve luknjici za pretikanje vrvice za privezovanje okrog pasu. (Skozi njiju pretaknjena tanka žica, zvita v zanko, je lahko služila le obešanju na steno in ne na pas).

2.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Koprivnik, Gorjuše / jesenov les, usnjen pas, medeninast gumb / v - 27,5 cm, š - 9,7 cm, g - 8,3 cm / št. neg. 16918 / inv. št. 2221.

Za Kranjski deželni muzej Rudolfinum je bil pridobljen leta 1907, skupaj s še osmimi podobnimi oselniki s Koprivnika in z Gorjuš. O tem pričata: poročilo W. Šmida, Bericht des Landesmuseums Rudolfinum in Laibach für das Jahr 1907, Carniola I, Ljubljana 1908, na str. 8 in risba P. Žmitka, objavljena v navedenem poročilu na str. 5 (hrani jo arhiv SEM-a. Gl. katalog zbirke risanih oselnikov, pod zaporedno številko 1). Po osamosvojitvi je predmet prevzel Kraljevi etnografski muzej. Glede na leto pridobitve (1907) in na sledi rabe, ga je mogoče datirati v drugo polovico 19. stoletja. Oselnik je oblikovan na stružnici. V vodoravnem, notranjem prerezu je okrogel. Gornjo polovico trupa krasi v vodoravnih pasovih komponiran rezljan ornament. Vrstijo se: cikcakasto vrezan pas; pas plitvih, ležečih luskastih vrezov; dva pasova globljih, daljših, enkrat navzgor, drugikrat navzdol obrnjenih pokončnih luskastih vrezov, ki oblikujejo valovnici; pas krogcev in pod njimi pokončnih luskastih vrezov, na koncu pa se še enkrat ponovi pas cikcaka. Dolnjo polovico trupa krasi niz - zdaj tanjših (in plitvejših), zdaj širših (in globljih) - struženih prstanov. Hrbtna stran je na zgornji polovici oselnikovega trupa oblikovana plosko (višina tega dela natanko ustreza višini od gornjega roba prvega do dolnjega roba zadnjega rezljanega pasu) in razširjena z dvema štrlinama, uhljema, v katera sta zarezani ozki odprtini za pretikanje pasu. Desni uhelj v navpični smeri predira v prerezu okrogla odprtina, namenjena vtikanju in obešanju ognjila. Na desni strani luknje za oslo je oselnikova stena tanjša, izlizana od izvlačenja, kar priča o tem, da je kosec oselnik nosil zadaj, na desni. K oselniku sodi še temnorjav usnjen pas z okrasnim, štancanim medeninastim gumbom. (Le št. 2 ima pas, ostali tedaj pridobljeni oselniki jih nimajo).

3.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Koprivnik, Gorjuše / trd les / v - 24,5 cm, š - 8,7 cm, g - 7 cm / št. neg. 16929 / inv. št. 2222.

Komentar k št. 2 velja tudi za ta oselnik. Njegova posebnost je navpično komponiran rezljan okras gornje polovice trupa: vrsta pokončnih ravnih vrezanih žlebičev.

4.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjast / Koprivnik, Gorjuše / orehov les / v - 24 cm, š - 8,3 cm, g - 7,8 cm / št. neg. 16938 / inv. št. 2223.

Komentar k št. 2 velja tudi za ta oselnik. Vodoravni pasovi globlje rezljanega, zelo plastično izdelanega ornamenta si sledijo v malce drugačnem zaporedju: pokončne luske, cikcak, dvoje valovnic, cikcak, pokončne luske. Enako rezljano gornjo polovico trupa imajo še trije oselniki s Koprivnika ali z Gorjuš, ali iz Bohinja (št. 9,16 in 50), kar vabi k sklepanju o istem mojstru. Del uhlja z odprtino za ognjilo in njen nadomestek, s tremi kovanimi žeblji pribit košček pločevine, sta odlomljena. Oselnik je na desni strani luknje za oslo precej izlizan od izvlačenja.

5.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Koprivnik, Gorjuše / trd les / v - 24 cm, š - 7,3 cm, g - 6,5 cm / št. neg. 16931 / inv. št. 2224.

Komentar k št. 2 velja tudi za ta oselnik. Na gornji polovici trupa se vrstijo pasovi plitvih, pokončnih, le luskastih vrezov in med njimi, na sredini, pas krogcev. Tanjši uhlji so brez odprtine za ognjilo.

6.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Koprivnik, Gorjuše / brestov les / v - 28,8 cm, š - 8,5 cm, g - 7,5 cm / št. neg. 16922 / inv. št. 2225.

Komentar k št. 2 velja tudi za ta oselnik in podobno kot št. 3 ima tudi ta navpično komponiran rezljan okras gornje polovice trupa - vrsto pokončnih, ravnih vrezanih žlebičev - le da jih zgoraj in spodaj obroblja pas cikcaka. Tanjši uhlji so brez odprtine za ognjilo. Oselnik je na desni strani luknje za oslo precej izlizan od izvlačenja. Razpoke ima zalite s smolo in gornji rob zvezan z žico.

7.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Koprivnik, Gorjuše / lipov les / v - 23 cm, š - 10 cm, g - 6,8 cm / št. neg. 16914 / inv. št. 2226.

Komentar k št. 2 le pogojno velja tudi za ta oselnik. Čeprav gre nedvomno za izdelek s Koprivnika ali z Gorjuš in je bil inventariziran med tistimi, pridobljenimi za muzej leta 1907, namreč upodobitvi na Šmitkovi risbi bolj ustreza oselnik št. 55, brez inventarne številke. Sicer gre za podobno (s plitvimi luskastimi vrezi) krašen oselnik, kot je št. 5. Odprtino za vtikanje in obešanje ognjila ima. Na desni strani luknje za oslo je precej izlizan od izvlačenja.

8.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjast / Koprivnik / orehov les, usnjena zanka / v - 26,5 cm, š - 7,2 cm, g - 7 cm / št. neg. 17597 / inv. št. 2227.

Komentar k št. 2 velja tudi za ta oselnik. Gornji, z rezljanim ornamentom krašeni del sega do dveh tretjin trupa. Tri pasove stisnjenih pokončnih valovnic spodaj obrobljata dva prstana cikcaka. Polkrožna uhlja z zarezanima odprtinama za pretikanje pasu sta krašena s kratkimi oblimi žlebičastimi vrezi. Ob desnem uhlju je zanka za ognjilo, usnjen pašček, pribit z dvema kovanima žebljema. Luknja za oslo je na desni strani precej izlizana od izvlačenja.

9.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjast / Koprivnik, Gorjuše / orehov les, usnjena zanka / v - 27 cm, š - 8,6 cm, g - 7 cm / št. neg. 16943 / inv. št. 2228.

Komentar k št. 2 in opis rezljanega ornamenta pri št. 4 velja tudi za ta oselnik. Za vtikanje in obešanje ognjila je na desni strani trupa, tik ob uhlju, z dvema kovanima žebljema pritrjen usnjen pašček, tako, da oblikuje zanko. Rob oselnikove luknje za oslo je utrjen s pribitim lesenim kolobarjem. Na desni strani je tanjši, izlizan od izvlačenja osle, kar priča o tem, da je kosec oselnik nosil zadaj, na desni. Luknjica (razpokica) na dolnjem delu trupa je prekrita s pribitim koščkom pločevine.

10.

OSELNIK / LESEN, breznog, škatlast / Ivanjkovci v Slovenskih goricah (najdišče) / orehov les, poslikava z oranžno, temno in svetlozeleno (češka zemlja) oljno barvo / v - 33 cm, š - 9,6 cm, g - 5 cm / št. neg. 16868 / inv. št. 2394.

Za Kr. etnografski muzej je bil kupljen v ljubljanski starinarnici Antikvitete Dorotheum med leti 1937-43, v času, ko je bil kustos muzeja F. Kos (njegov je vpis v inventarno knjigo). Na sprednji stranici ima vrezano letnico 1842. Po Kosu je neznanega izvora, najden v gosposki hiši. Glede na znane podobne oselnike sodi v oblikovni tip, razširjen v (zgornji) Savinjski dolini. Kar se krašenja tiče, je samosvoj izdelek. Rezljan in potem poslikan stiliziran simetrično komponiran cvetlični okras sprednje in obeh stranskih ploskev priča o roki kmečkega rezbarja. Zadnja, hrbtna stranica je v gornji polovici malce širša od oselnikovega trupa in je nad njegovim vrhom, nad robom luknje za vtikanje osle (ki je v vodoravnem notranjem prerezu elipsasta) oblikovana v okrasni nastavek. Pod vrhom trupa sta vanjo zarezani ozki odprtini za pretikanje pasu, spodaj pa se konča v dva rezljana polžasta svitka. Rob luknje za oslo (in njena sprednja notranja stena) je tanjši in izlizan od izvlačenja na levi strani (v stiku leve stranske in sprednje stranice), kar priča o tem, da ga je kosec nosil spredaj, na trebuhu (ali pa, da je bil levičar in ga je nosil zadaj, na levi). Na hrbtno stranico je s kovanimi žeblji pribita večja pločevinasta zaplata, ki prekriva preperelo mesto.

11.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Bohinj / orehov les, poslikava z rjavkasto rdečo oljno barvo / v - 28 cm, š - 8,2 cm, g - 9 cm / št. neg. 16934 / inv. št. 6174.

Za Etnografski muzej je bil pridobljen leta 1948 v Ljubljani, kupljen od P. Goloba, skupaj s še petimi podobnimi oselniki iz zasebne zbirke dr. Peršina. Po pripovedovanju slednjega so vsi iz Bohinja. Pri vseh šestih gre za enak oblikovni tip in za podoben, skoraj enak način krašenja trupa (rezljan ornament; vodoravno komponirani pasovi vrezanega cikcaka, valovnice in pokončnih luskastih vrezov) kot pri oselnikih št. 2, 4, 8 in 9, ki so vsi s Koprivnika ali z Gorjuš. Kot kaže, je bil tak način krašenja v teh krajih uveljavljen v drugi polovici 19. stoletja. Oselnik je bil kasneje cel prebarvan z rjavkasto rdečo barvo. (Po ustnih pričevanjih naj bi se barvanje celih oselnikov z rdečo ali z zeleno barvo uveljavilo v letih med svetovnima vojnama). Desni uhelj v navpični smeri predira v prerezu okrogla odprtina za ognjilo. Razpoka na hrbtni strani je zalita s smolo.

12.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Bohinj / jesenov les / v - 28,5 cm, š - 9,3 cm, g - 8 cm / št. neg. 16921 / inv. št. 6175.

Za oselnik velja enak komentar kot za št. 11. Zelo podobne mere, enako zaporedje vodoravnih pasov rezljanega ornamenta in način rezljanja pa omogočajo sodbo, da gre za istega izdelovalca.

13.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Bohinj / lipov les / v - 28 cm, š - 8,1 cm, g - 7,5 cm / št. neg. 16933 / inv. št. 6176.

Za oselnik velja enak komentar kot za št. 11. Na sprednji strani ima razpoko, zalito s smolo.

14.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Bohinj / orehov les / v - 25 cm, š - 7,3 cm, g - 7,4 cm / št. neg. 16939 / inv. št. 6177.

Zanj velja enak komentar kot za št. 11. Desni oselnikov uhelj je sicer brez odprtine za vtikanje in obešanje ognjila, vendar so pred njim vidne luknjice in odlomljeni ostanki žebljičkov, s katerimi je bil pritrjen ali pločevinast ali usnjen pašček, oblikovan v zanko za ognjilo. Na levi strani trupa ima razpoko, zalito s smolo.

15.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjast / Bohinj / orehov les, pločevinasta zanka / v - 27 cm, š - 8,2 cm, g - 7,5 cm / št. neg. 16941 / inv. št. 6178.

Komentar k št. 11 velja tudi za ta oselnik. Za vtikanje in obešanje ognjila ima na desni strani trupa (pred uhljem) zanko, oblikovano iz pločevinastega paščka in pritrjeno z žičko, potegnjeno skozi dve luknjici. Na desni strani luknje za oslo je oselnik tanjši, precej izlizan od izvlačenja. Pod tem mestom je na dolnji polovici trupa manjša razpoka, zalita s smolo.

16.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Bohinj / lipov les, pločevinasta zanka / v - 22,3 cm, š - 7,5 cm, g - 7 cm / št. neg. 16944 / inv. št. 6179.

Tudi zanj velja komentar k št. 11. Čeprav ima oselnik v uhlja na hrbtni stranici zarezani odprtini za pretikanje pasu, sta poleg tega uhlja zgoraj še preluknjana. Tam skozi je zataknjena žičnata zanka, ukrivljena v kavelj za obešanje na pas. Ostanek pločevinastega paščka, oblikovanega v zanko za ognjilo, je komajda pritrjen z enim kovanim žebljem. Luknja za vtikanje osle je na desni strani precej izlizana od izvlačenja. Na levi strani oselnikovega trupa od uhlja do konice teče razpoka, zalita s smolo.

17.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Gorjuše / jesenov les, usnjena zanka / v - 22,8 cm, š - 6,5 cm, g - 5,5 cm / št. neg. 16932 / inv. št. 6296.

Etnografskemu muzeju ga je leta 1950 podaril A. Zupan (vulgo pri Načest) z Gorjuš (2). Glede na podobno izdelane primerke v zbirki (med št. 2-9 in 11-16) in sledi rabe najverjetneje sodi v drugo polovico 19. stoletja. Uhlja z izrezanima odprtinama za pretikanje pasu sta bolj tanka, zato ima za vtikanje in obešanje ognjila ob desnem uhlju oblikovano zanko, z žebljički pribit usnjen pašček (pod njim so vidni ostanki starejšega, pločevinastega). Na desni strani luknje za oslo so sledi njenega izvlačenja. Oselnik je precej razpokan, na gornji polovici trupa na dveh mestih (nad in pod uhljema) zvezan z žico.

18.

OSELNIK, osounik / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / Podgorica / lipov les, konopljena vrv / v - 28 cm, š - 6,7 cm, g - 6,7 cm / št. neg. 16884 / inv. št. 6430.

Etnografskemu muzeju (ekipi na Terenu 1, Šentjurij - Škocjan) ga je leta 1948 podaril J. Zakrajšek (vulgo pri Prusnik) iz Podgorice (6). Najverjetneje je bil izdelan na začetku 20. stoletja. Sodi v oblikovni tip dvonogih, mnogokotnih ali oblih oselnikov, v prvi ali drugi različici razširjenih na delu Dolenjskega, v Suhi krajini, na Notranjskem, na Pivki, na Vipavskem, na Krasu, v Brdih, na Tolminskem, na Bovškem, v Trenti, na Cerkljanskem in Idrijskem, v Baški grapi, v Selški dolini. Pri tem tipu naprava za oblikovanje oselnikovega trupa ni stružnica, temveč rezilni stol (ali pa mizarska delovna miza). Njegove bistvene značilnosti so: ploska hrbtna stranica z mehko posnetima stranskima robovoma - razen na delu na gornji tretjini trupa, kjer sta v vogala, v uhlja zarezani odprtini za pretikanje pasu; mnogokoten ali obel zunanji in okrogel notranji vodoravni prerez in dve nogi (konici, v kateri se izteče hrbtna stranica), iz spredaj ostro (skoraj pod pravim kotom) posnetega dolnjega dela trupa. Oselnik je v sredini malce nabrekel. Skozi odprtini za pas ima pretaknjeno vrvico. Luknja za vtikanje osle je na desni strani precej izlizana od izvlačenja, kar priča o tem, da je bil oselnik nošen zadaj, na desni. Na trupu, spredaj na srednjem polju, ima majhno razpoko, zalito s smolo.

19.

OSELNIK, osounik / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / Zabukovje / orehov les / v - 24,5 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 7,2 cm / št. neg. 17596 / inv. št. 6431.

Etnografskemu muzeju (ekipi na Terenu 1, Šentjurij - Škocjan), so ga leta 1948 podarili Mihelčičevi iz Zabukovja. Izdelal ga je Jože Šmuc, vulgo Bajde (o njem gl. članek T. Ljubiča, Izumrle panoge domače obrti v okolici Turjaka, SE III-IV, Ljubljana 1951, str. 71-73), znan izdelovalec oselnikov iz vasi Gradež. Oselnik ustreza mnogokotnim različicam oblikovnega tipa, opisanega pri št. 18. Pokončna polja so krašena s plitvo, črtno vrezanim geometrijskim ornamentom, z luskastimi vrezi in vtolčenimi krogci (središčno sprednje ter obe stranski polji) in s stiliziranim rastlinjem (levo in desno sprednje polje). Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni strani. Na oselnikovo preperelo dno je pribit kos pločevine. Obe konici za vtikanje v zemljo sta delno odlomljeni.

20.

OSELNIK, osounik / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten / Spodnja Slivnica / lipov les / v - 25,3 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 6 cm / št. neg. 16928 / inv. št. 6432.

Etnografskemu muzeju (ekipi na Terenu 1, Šentjurij - Škocjan) so ga leta 1948 podarili Podlomarjevi iz Spodnje Slivnice (11). Na gornjem delu hrbtne strani ima nad odprtinama za pas vrezano letnico 1898 in pod njima datum, 8 rožnik (maj). Oselnik je oblikovan na stružnici, vendar dokončno le njegova dolnja polovica s konico; gornja polovica trupa je mnogokotna, s plosko hrbtno stranjo, ki ima v vogala, v uhlja zarezani odprtini za pretikanje pasu. Krašen je s plitvim črtno vrezanim geometrijskim ornamentom; na sredini trupa v treh prstanastih pasovih in na njegovem gornjem mnogokotnem delu v treh sprednjih pokončnih poljih. V prvo in v tretje polje sta na sredi vrezani začetnici FH (za Franca Habjana). Stranski polji sta krašeni s črtno vrezanimi stiliziranimi rastlinskimi vejicami. Desna stran luknje za vtikanje osle je precej izlizana od izvlačenja in odkrhnjena. Oselnik je razpokan, na dveh mestih zvezan z žico.

21.

OSELNIK, osovank / ROŽEN, breznog, klinast / Polica / govej rog / v - 24,7 cm, š - 6,6 cm, g - 3,7 cm / št. neg. 16847 / inv. št. 6643.

Etnografskemu muzeju (ekipi na Terenu 1, Šentjurij - Škocjan), je bil podarjen leta 1948. Oselnik je izdelal J. Zavrl s Police (34), doma iz Litije, leta 1945. Rog je kuhan, oblikovan z lesenim klinom (pravokotnim v vodoravnem prerezu). Hrbtna stranica je potegnjena v kratek nastavek, predrt z dvema luknjicama za pretikanje vrvi. Sledi izvlačenja osle niso zanesljivo pričevalne o mestu nošnje oselnika.

22.

OSELNIK, osounik / LESEN, dvonog, obel / Ponova vas / trd les / v - 26,5 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 6,5 cm / št. neg. 16890 / inv. št. 6656.

Etnografskemu muzeju (ekipi na Terenu 2, Šmarje-Sap) ga je leta 1949 podaril J. Zajc iz Ponove vasi (7). Oselnik najverjetneje sodi v prva desetletja 20. stoletja. Je zelo samosvoj izdelek, vendar v bistvenem ne odstopa od osnovnih oznak oblikovnega tipa (gl. zadevno besedilo pri št. 18). Hrbtna stranica je oblikovana v kratek okrasni nastavek, trup pa se v spodnjem delu tanjša in oži do izteka v obe - malce naprej štrleči konici. (Oselnik tako v navpičnem stranskem prerezu spominja na rog). Luknja za vtikanje osle je od njenega izvlačenja izlizana na desni strani. Pod njo so na trupu vidne sledi vezave z žico, saj oselnik skorajda razpolavlja dolga razpoka.

23.

OSELNIK, špu / LESEN, breznog, škatlast / Luče / trd les / v - 27,4 cm, š - 8 cm, g - 5,5 cm / št. neg. 16859 / inv. št. 7233.

Etnografskemu muzeju ga je leta 1954 podaril J. Kosmač iz Luč (9). Kot pripomba v inventarni knjigi je zapisana pripoved darovalca, da je oselnik star okrog osemdeset let, kar pomeni, da naj bi bil izdelan v sedemdesetih ali osemdesetih letih 19. stoletja. Glede na oblikovni tip in sledi rabe takšna datacija ustreza. Trup je v zunanjem in notranjem vodoravnem prerezu trapezast, skoraj pravokoten. Oselnikova sprednja stranica je spodaj zaobljeno posneta do stičišča z zadnjo, hrbtno stranico. Taje nad luknjo za vtikanje osle oblikovana v okrasni nastavek z motivom srca. Pod njo sta v vogala na stiku hrbtne in obeh stranskih stranic zarezani odprtini za pretikanje pasu. Oselnik je bil nošen zadaj, na desni, o čemer pričajo sledi izvlačenja osle.

24.

OSELNIK, ósovnik / ROŽEN / Škofije / govej rog, lesena deščica, konopljena vrvica / v - 25 cm, š - 8 cm, g - 5,7 cm / št. neg. 17594 / inv. št. 7892.

Etnografskemu muzeju so oselnik podarili vulgo pri Živca v Škofijah pri Kopru (v prvi polovici petdesetih let). Hrbtno stranico ima zgoraj predrto z dvema luknjicama. Skozi njiju je napeljana vrvica; z le-to je ob oselnikov trup privezana ozka deščica (lesena različica kavlja, v - 16 cm, š - 2 cm) za zatikanje za pas.

25.

OSELNIK, ósunjak / LESEN, dvonog, obel / Kal (Calla) v Nadiški dolini / orehov les, konopljena vrvica / v - 28,5 cm, š - 6,7 cm, g - 6,9 cm / št. neg. 16965 / inv. št. 9112.

Oselnik je leta 1961 Etnografskemu muzeju podaril Vidži Specogna iz Kala (99) v Nadiški dolini. Je doma narejen, skoraj nov izdelek iz petdesetih let 20. stoletja. Nogi, konici sta precej kratki. Ploska, hrbtna stran ima v vogala sredi gornje polovice izvrtani luknjici. Skozi njiju je napeljana vrvica; z le-to je ob oselnikov trup privezana ozka deščica (v - 16 cm, š - 2,4 cm), »količ« za zatikanje za pas.

26.

OSELNIK, vodér / LESEN, enonog, tenko-valjast / Črenšovci / jesenov les, pločevinast kavelj / v - 21,5 cm, š - 6 cm, g - 6 cm / št. neg. 16964 / inv. št. 9358.

Etnografskemu muzeju ga je v začetku šestdesetih let podaril Š. Novak iz Črenšovcev. Ustreza oblikovnemu tipu v Prekmurju razširjenih, struženih lesenih oselnikov, ki jih krasi niz struženih prstanov. Pod vrhom tankega trupa ima en globlje vrezan prstan in nad njim zategnjeno žico. Z le-to je na hrbtni strani pričvrščen pločevinast kaveljček za obešanje oselnika na pas (originalno je bil verjetno pritrjen skozi dve luknjici). Krajša razpoka je zamašena s prejo.

27.

OSELNIK / ROŽEN / Skomarje / govej rog, žičnat kavelj / v - 23,5 cm, š - 6,5 cm, g - 5,7 cm / št. neg. 16855 / inv. št. 9720.

Oselnik je leta 1963 podaril Etnografskemu muzeju (ekipi na Terenu Vitanje) J. Kovše iz Skomarij (29). Rogova površina je zglajena. Na hrbtni strani je predrt z dvema luknjicama. Vanju je zataknjena žica, oblikovana v kavelj za obešanje oselnika na pas. Sledi izvlačenja osle niso zanesljivo pričevalne o mestu nošnje oselnika.

28.

OSELNIK, vosunek / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / Zabukovje / orehov les / v - 24 cm, š - 6,7 cm, g - 6,6 cm / št. neg. 16900 / inv. št. 10089.

Za Slovenski etnografski muzej (od tu dalje le muzej) je bil kupljen od A. Lundra iz Škocjana na Dolenjskem leta 1965. V rabi je bil do leta 1941 (izdelan najverjetneje desetletje ali dve pred tem). Sodi v oblikovni tip dvonogih, mnogokotnih (ali oblih) oselnikov, podrobneje opisan pri št. 18. Krašen je z geometrijskim ornamentom, plitvo, črtno vrezanim na pokončna polja. Na spodnjem koncu srednjega polja je morda vrezan hišni, oziroma izdelovalčev znak (podoben tistim, vrezovanim na tramove). Luknja za vtikanje osle je na desni strani precej izlizana od izvlačenja, kar priča o tem, da je bil oselnik nošen zadaj, na desni.

29.

OSELNIK, vosunik / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / Gradež / orehov les / v - 25,4 cm, š - 6,8 cm, g - 6,9 cm / št. neg. 16881 / inv. št. 10663.

Za muzej je bil kupljen leta 1965 v Gradežu (10), pri v vaseh na pobočju Ahacove gore znanem izdelovalcu oselnikov, »osovnikarju« Jožetu Šmucu, vulgo Bajdetu (o njem gl. članek T. Ljubiča, Izumrle panoge domače obrti v okolici Turjaka, SE III-IV, Ljubljana 1951, str. 71-73). Je (tedaj) nov, nerabljen izdelek. Sodi med mnogokotne različice oblikovnega tipa, za katerega velja zadevni del komentarja k št. 18. Ker ni krašen, »opraskan«, je imenovan »škilast« oselnik.

30.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / Gradež / orehov les / v - 25,5 cm, š - 6,5 cm, g - 7 cm / št. neg. 16882 / inv. št. 10664.

Muzeju ga je leta 1965 podaril J. Šmuc iz Gradeža (gl. komentar k št. 29). Gre za oselnik, ki ga je izdelal zase, v letu 1945., kot pričata vrezana letnica in začetnici JŠ. Ustreza mnogokotnim različicam oblikovnega tipa, opisanega pri št. 18. Pokončna polja so krašena s plitvo, črtno vrezanim geometrijskim ornamentom in s stiliziranim rastlinjem: vejicami, cvetlicami in luskastimi grozdi. Gornjo tretjino trupa od uhlja do uhlja spodaj in ob vrhu zamejujeta vodoravna pasova, ki obrobljata vrezano letnico in obe začetnici. Kompozicija vedno sledi enakemu vzorcu: središčno sprednje polje z začetnicama v gornji tretjini in s svojskim motivom; levo in desno sprednje polje, vsako s polovico letnice v gornji tretjini in z drugačnim, vendar oba z enakim motivom in še obe stranski polji s svojim, na obeh enakim motivom. Rob luknje za oslo je na desni strani precej izlizan, kar priča o nošnji oselnika zadaj, na desni. Na oselnikovo preperelo dno je pribit kos pločevine.

31.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / Mali Ločnik / orehov les, poslikava z rdečo in zeleno barvo / v - 25,7 cm, š - 6,7 cm, g - 6,5 cm / št. neg. 16896 / inv. št. 10665.

Oselnik je muzeju leta 1965 podaril F. Cimber iz Malega Ločnika (6). Izdelan je bil leta 1945 (vrezana letnica) v Gradežu, najverjetneje pri Bajdetu. Poleg letnice ima vrezani še začetnici JJ. Sicer zanj velja komentar k št. 30. Med s plitvim črtnim vrezovanjem krašenimi oselniki pa je edini, ki je delno tudi poslikan. Barva je nanešena v vrezano okrasje: geometrijski ornament, stebelca cvetlic in obe začetnici so zeleni; grozd in štirje cvetovi na stranskih poljih so rdeče-zeleni, dve vrtinčasti rozeti - cvetova in letnica so rdeči. Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni strani.

32.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / Mali Ločnik / orehov les / v - 24,5 cm, š - 6,8 cm, g - 6,9 cm / št. neg. 16899 / inv. št. 10666.

Tudi ta oselnik je muzeju leta 1965 podaril F. Cimber iz Malega Ločnika (6). Glede na vrezano letnico je bil izdelan leta 1951, v Gradežu, najverjetneje pri Bajdetu. Nedvomno pa Bajde nanj ni vrezal začetnic BL, ki sta neuko izvedeni kar preko na srednjem polju do vrha segajočega črtnega okrasa. Sicer tudi za ta oselnik velja komentar k št. 30. Rob luknje ima izlizan na desni strani. Po desnem sprednjem polju od vrha do dna teče razpoka, zato je oselnik spodaj enkrat zvezan z žico (zgoraj, v višini uhljev, pa so ostale sledi še druge vezave).

33.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / Mali Ločnik / orehov les, usnjeni jermeni, bombažna krpa / v - 26 cm, š - 6,5 cm, g - 6,8 cm / št. neg. 16902 / inv. št. 12763.

Oselnik je muzeju leta 1965 podaril F. Cimber iz Malega Ločnika (6). Po vpisu v inventarno knjigo (A. Baš) je bil izdelan okoli leta 1930 in v rabi do leta 1940. Sodi med nekrašene, »škilaste« primerke tega oblikovnega tipa. Priča o vztrajni rabi - kljub mnogim poškodbam. V dno ima zabit lesen čep, razpoko na hrbtni strani ima zamašeno s prejo in utrjeno z žeblji, trup pa obvit s krpo in zvezan z žico. Luknja za oslo je izlizana na desni strani.

34.

OSELNIK / ROŽEN / Breg / govej rog, konopljena vrv / v - 23 cm, š - 7,2 cm, g - 5,7 cm / št. neg. 16849 / inv. št. 14713.

Za muzej je bil kupljen leta 1978, od J. Novaka iz Brega (15) pri Šentvidu pri Stični. Na sprednji strani, sredi gornje polovice roga, ima vžgan znak X (najverjetneje hišni, oziroma živinski znak). Na hrbtni strani je predrt z dvema luknjicama; skoznju je pretaknjena vrv za privezovanje oselnika okrog pasu. Sledi izvlačenja osle niso zanesljivo pričevalne o mestu nošnje.

35.

OSELNIK / ROŽEN, breznog, klinast / Zgornja Savinjska dolina / govej rog, pločevinast kavelj / v - 27,8 cm, š - 7,4 cm, g - 3,5 cm / št. neg. 16998 / inv. št. 17164.

Tega in štiri druge oselnike je muzej leta 1990 kupil od zbiralca S. Strgarja iz Ljubljane. Zapis o novi pridobitvi je bil objavljen v Etnologu 1(LII), Ljubljana 1991, na str. 201-205 (I. Smerdel, Pet oselnikov iz zgornje Savinjske doline). Zbiralec jih je pred okrog tridesetimi leti prinesel iz krajev nad Lučami, z visokogorskih kmetij, vendar so že tedaj veljali za oselnike »od prejšnje generacije«, izdelani najverjetneje konec 19. in na začetku 20. stoletja. Predmet ima vrezano letnico 1912 in začetnici FF. Poleg materiala je tipološko členjen še kot breznog in klinast, ker gre za rog, ki je bil kuhan oblikovan z lesenim klinom (pravokotnim v vodoravnem prerezu). Hrbtno stranico ima potegnjeno v nastavek. Spredaj sta vanj vrezana dva križa in okoli njiju po tri okrasne luknjice, zadaj pa je z dvema kovicama pritrjen pločevinast kavelj za obešanje oselnika na pas. Sledi izvlačenja osle niso zanesljivo pričevalne o mestu nošnje.

36.

OSELNIK / ROŽEN, breznog, klinast / zgornja Savinjska dolina / govej rog, srebrni vložki, žičnati zanki / v - 31,8 cm, š - 8,5 cm, g - 4,5 cm / št. neg. 16999 / inv. št. 7165.

Komentar k št. 35 velja tudi za ta oselnik. Predmet ima vrezano letnico 1898 in začetnici FV. Pravokoten v vodoravnem prerezu in z ostro posnetimi vogali bi skorajda bolj ustrezal škatlastemu tipu lesenih oselnikov, razširjenemu v (zgornji) Savinjski dolini, če bi ne imel na koncu oblike roga, naravnega klina. Rogova konica je izrezljana v živalsko glavo (spominja na kačjo, jazbečevo ali na medvedovo), z očrni, nosnicama in gobcem iz vloženih srebrnih delcev. Hrbtna stranica je oblikovana v pravokoten nastavek. Malce pod robom luknje za vtikanje osle (ki je izlizana od izvlačenja na desni strani) ima dve žičnati zanki za pretikanje vrvice.

37.

OSELNIK / LESEN, breznog, škatlast / zgornja Savinjska dolina / hruškov les / v - 33,5 cm, š - 12,2 cm, g - 5 cm / št. neg. 16863 / inv. št. 17166.

Komentar k št. 34 velja (kar se tiče načina pridobitve in verjetne datacije) tudi za ta oselnik. Sodi v oblikovni tip, razširjen v (zgornji) Savinjski dolini. Njegova hrbtna stranica je v gornji polovici malce širša od oselnikovega trupa in je nad njegovim vrhom, nad robom luknje za oslo (ki je v vodoravnem prerezu oblo-trapezasta) oblikovana v okrasni nastavek z motivom treh src. Pod vrhom trupa sta vanjo zarezani ozki odprtini za pretikanje pasu, spodaj pa se konča v zaobljeno naprej štrlečo »brado«. Luknja za oslo je izlizana od izvlačenja na desni strani.

38.

OSELNIK / LESEN, breznog, škatlast / zgornja Savinjska dolina / trd les / v - 33 cm, š - 12 cm, g - 5,5 cm / št. neg. 16865 / inv. št. 17167.

O načinu pridobitve in o verjetni dataciji tudi za ta oselnik velja komentar k št. 34. Kar se tiče oblike, okrasnega nastavka in izvedbe odprtin za pretikanje pasu, v bistvenem ne odstopa od opisa k št. 37. Hrbtna stranica se spodaj konča v dva rezljana polžasta svitka. Sprednja stranica je krašena z rezljano, pokončno komponirano, stilizirano cvetlico. Njen cvet je šestlistna rozeta. Izvedba priča o spretni - verjetno rezbarjevi roki. Stena luknje za oslo je na desni strani tanjša, precej izlizana od izvlačenja.

39.

OSELNIK / LESEN, breznog, škatlast / zgornja Savinjska dolina / lipov les, poslikava z zeleno, zlato in srebrno barvo / v - 27,5 cm, š - 10 cm, g - 5 cm / št. neg. 16861 / inv. št. 17168.

Glede načina pridobitve in verjetne datacije tudi za ta oselnik velja komentar k št. 35. Sprednjo ploskev ima krašeno z realistično izvedenim cvetličnim motivom lončka s cvetočo šmarnico, plitvo rezljanim in potem pobarvanim. Sprednja in obe stranski ploskvi so obrobljene še s plitvo vrezanim geometrijskim ornamentom (ob gornjem robu trupa pobarvanim). Oselnikov trup se spodaj konča v dve zgolj okrasni nazaj štrleči konici. Na hrbtni stranici so sicer vidne štiri luknjice (od žebljev), vendar niso zanesljivo pričevalne o načinu pritrjevanja na pas. Rob luknje za oslo je na desni strani precej izlizan od izvlačenja.

40.

OSELNIK, osúnk / LESEN, dvonog, obel / Sorica / nagnojev les, obroča iz kovanega železa, usnjen jermen / v - 26,3 cm, š - 6,7 cm, g - 6,7 cm / št. neg. 16871 / inv. št. 17686 / stara inv. št. Narodnega muzeja 11010 (Grebenčeva zbirka, prevzemni inventar št. 11).

Etnografski muzej je po drugi svetovni vojni prevzel tega in še dvanajst oselnikov iz zbirk Narodnega muzeja, med predmeti Grebenčeve zbirke. O tem priča poročilo M. Makarovič, O Grebenčevi zbirki v etnografskem muzeju v Ljubljani, SE XV, Ljubljana 1962. V njem je omenjenih enajst oselnikov, datiranih približno v leta med 1845 in 1890. V Grebenčevem inventarnem rokopisu jih je bilo nekaj več. V muzejevi zbirki jih je štirinajst; deset jih ima staro inventarno številko Narodnega muzeja, pri štirih pa so na hrbtni strani vidna imena najdišč, ki naj bi jih vpraskal O. Grebenc. Oselnik, ki je v prevzemnem inventarju datiran z »nedognano« (po Grebencu) letnico 1890, je značilen primerek oble različice dvonogega oblikovnega tipa (opisanega pri št. 18), utrjen in obenem krašen s kovanimi obroči, kot je v navadi v Sorici in okoliških krajih. V vogala sredi gornje polovice hrbtne stranice ima izvrtani luknjici. Skoznju je napeljan usnjen jermen, ki ob oselnikov trup pričvršča leseno deščico (v -15 cm, š - 5 cm) za zatikanje za pas. Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni.

41.

OSELNIK, osúnk / LESEN, dvonog, obel / Zali Log / nagnojev les, lubjast trak, usnjen jermen / v - 25,9 cm, š - 6 cm, g - 6,2 cm / št. neg. 16869 / inv. št. 17687 / stara inv. št. Narodnega muzeja 11050 (Grebenčeva zbirka, prevzemni inventar št. 82).

Glede načina pridobitve za muzej velja za oselnik komentar k št. 40. V prevzemnem inventarju je datiran z »nedognano« letnico 1890. Kot možna kraja izdelave sta zapisana Železniki in Češnjica, drugače pa v Zalem Logu podobne oselnike še v teh letih izdelujejo (na primer št. 137). Tudi ta oselnik je značilen primerek oble različice dvonogega oblikovnega tipa. Dolnjo tretjino trupa ima utrjeno, obvito z lubjastim trakom. Za obešanje na pas ima na hrbtno stranico pričvrščeno deščico (v -13 cm, š - 5,3 cm), na enak način kot št. 40. Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni.

42.

OSELNIK / ROŽEN / Zali Log / govej rog / v - 23 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 5,5 cm / št. neg. 16858 / inv. št. 17688 / stara inv. št. Narodnega muzeja 11051 (Grebenčeva zbirka, prevzemni inventar št. 83).

Glede načina pridobitve za muzej tudi za ta oselnik velja komentar k št. 40. V prevzemnem inventarju je datiran z letnico 1898 in označen kot doma izdelan. Hrbtna stran je zgoraj predrta s petimi luknjicami; skozi dve je pretaknjena žička, ki ob oselnikov trup pričvršča dvakrat preluknjano roženo ploščico (v - 8,5 cm, š - 3 cm) za zatikanje za pas. Rob luknje za oslo je na desni strani odškrnjen.

43.

OSELNIK, kump / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten / Selca / orehov les / v - 25,9 cm, š - 7,3 cm, g - 7 cm / št. neg. 16955 / inv. št. 17689 / stara inv. št. Narodnega muzeja 11089 (Grebenčeva zbirka, prevzemni inventar št. 122).

Glede načina pridobitve za muzej za oselnik velja komentar k št. 40. V prevzemnem inventarju je datiran z »nedognano« letnico 1880 in označen kot »pravi selški tip«. Izdelan je na stružnici, gornjo polovico trupa pa ima mnogokotno oblikovano. Na hrbtni strani ima v vogala izvrtani luknjici - ali za pretikanje vrvice ali za pričvrščanje lesene deščice za zatikanje za pas, kot je razširjen način v teh krajih. Na desni strani luknje za oslo je malce izlizan. Gornji del hrbtne strani trupa je počen; čez razpoko je zabit kovan žebelj.

44.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Kranjska gora / lipov les / v - 22,5 cm, š - 8,2 cm, g - 5,5 cm / št. neg. 16924 / inv. št. 17690 / stara inv. št. Narodnega muzeja 11270 (Grebenčeva zbirka, prevzemni inventar št. 99R).

Glede načina pridobitve za muzej za oselnik velja komentar k št. 40. V prevzemnem inventarju je datiran z »nedognano« letnico 1870, na hrbtni strani ima vpraskano ime Kronau. Sodi v oblikovni tip, sicer razširjen v Bohinju, na Koprivniku in Gorjušah in ima na podoben način (plitvo) rezljan ornament kot št. 5 in 7. Desni uhelj v navpični smeri predira odprtina za ognjilo. Luknja za oslo je izlizana od izvlačenja na desni. Dolnji del trupa ima ob konici na hrbtni strani manjšo razpoko, zamašeno s krpo in zalito s smolo.

45.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Koprivnik / orehov les / v - 26,3 cm, š - 9,4 cm, g - 7,8 cm / št. neg. 16915 / inv. št. 17691 / stara inv. št. Narodnega muzeja 11279 (Grebenčeva zbirka, prevzemni inventar št. 108R).

Glede načina pridobitve za muzej za oselnik velja komentar k št. 40. V prevzemnem inventarju je datiran z »nedognano« letnico 1870, na hrbtni strani ima vpraskano Koprivnik. Sodi v bohinjski oblikovni tip in ima podobno (globlje) rezljan ornament kot št. 4, 9, 14, 16, 46 in 50. Desni uhelj je brez odprtine za ognjilo, luknja za oslo je precej izlizana na desni strani. V preperelem dnu oselnikovega trupa levo od konice zija manjša odprtina.

46.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Koprivnik / orehov les / v - 26,5 cm, š - 9,5 cm, g - 7,4 cm / št. neg. 16916 / inv. št. 17692 / stara inv. št. Narodnega muzeja 11280 (Grebenčeva zbirka, prevzemni inventar št. 109R).

Za oselnik veljata komentarja k št. 40 in 45, le da ima ta v desnjem uhlju odprtino za ognjilo in da je brez razpok.

47.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Koprivnik / lipov les / v - 27,5 cm, š - 10 cm, g - 7,6 cm / št. neg. 16917 / inv. št. 17693 / stara inv. št. Narodnega muzeja 11281 (Grebenčeva zbirka, prevzemni inventar št. 110R).

Za oselnik veljata komentarja k št. 40 in 44, le da je ta v prevzemnem inventarju datiran z »nedognano« letnico 1875 in da ima na hrbtni strani vpraskano Koprivnik.

48.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Koprivnik / mehek les / v - 27,5 cm, š - 9,3, cm, g - 7,9 cm / št. neg. 16935 / inv. št. 17694 / stara inv. št. Narodnega muzeja 11282 (Grebenčeva zbirka, prevzemni inventar št. 111R).

Glede načina pridobitve za muzej za oselnik velja komentar k št. 40. V prevzemnem inventarju je datiran z »nedognano« letnico 1870 in je brez vpraskanega imena kraja. Sicer sodi v oblikovni tip, razširjen v Bohinju, na Koprivniku in Gorjušah. V desnem uhlju ima odprtino za ognjilo, luknja za oslo je izlizana na desni.

49.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Podkoren / mehek les / v - 25,5 cm, š - 8,2 cm, g - 7,2 cm / št. neg. 16936 / inv. št. 17695 / stara inv. št. Narodnega muzeja 11288 (Grebenčeva zbirka, prevzemni inventar št. 117R).

Glede načina pridobitve za muzej tudi za ta oselnik velja komentar k št. 40. V prevzemnem inventarju je datiran z »nedognano« letnico 1865. Sodi v enak oblikovni tip kot bohinjski oselniki. Gornjo polovico trupa ima krašeno kot št. 3. Med nanizane stružene prstane dolnje polovice pa ima s punco vtolčene zvezdice. Oselnik je tako poškodovan, da je brez levega uhlja; v desnem pa ima namesto zarezane odprtine za pretikanje pasu le izvrtano odprtino za pretikanje vrvice in tisto, navpično, za vtikanje in obešanje ognjila. Luknja za oslo je izlizana na desni strani in je bila okovana z obročem (o tem priča opis v prevzemnem inventarju in vidne sledi). Gornja polovica trupa je levo spodaj počena, zalita s smolo.

50.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjast / Koprivnik / mehek les / v - 26 cm, š - 8 cm, g - 7,3 cm / št. neg. 16930 / inv. št. 17696.

Tudi ta in oselniki št. 51, 52 in 53 sodijo v Grebenčevo zbirko, zato glede načina pridobitve za muzej zanje velja komentar k št. 40. Vsi štirje imajo z Grebenčevo roko vpraskano ime najdišča, so brez (vidne) stare inv. št. Narodnega muzeja, a z možnimi številkami v prevzemnem inventarju. Oselnik sodi v bohinjski oblikovni tip in je zelo soroden ali celo izdelek iste roke kot št. 9 in 16. V desnem uhlju ima odprtino za ognjilo, luknjo za oslo ima izlizano na desni, na levi strani trupa pa ima od uhlja do konice razpoko, zalito s smolo.

51.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Koprivnik / lipov les / v - 27 cm, š - 7,5 cm, g - 7,2 cm / št. neg. 16923 / inv. št. 17697.

Glede načina pridobitve za muzej za oselnik veljata komentarja k št. 40 in 50. Sodi v bohinjski oblikovni tip in je soroden, morda celo izdelek iste roke kot št. 13. Odprtine za ognjilo v desnem uhlju nima, luknjo za oslo pa ima na desni strani precej izlizano od izvlačenja.

52.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjast / Koprivnik / orehov les / v - 29,5 cm, š - 8 cm, g - 8 cm / št. neg. 16925 / inv. št. 17697a.

Glede načina pridobitve za muzej za oselnik veljata komentarja k št. 40 in 50. Tudi ta primerek sodi v bohinjski oblikovni tip in je najverjetneje izdelek iste roke kot št. 8. Zanke za ognjilo nima. Uhlja z zarezanima odprtinama za pretikanje pasu sta odlomljena, na njunih štrcljih so vidni ostanki krašenja s kratkimi oblimi žlebičastimi vrezi.

53.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / Velika loka / orehov les, poslikava s črno oljno barvo / v - 27 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 8 cm / št. neg. 16906 / inv. št. 17698.

Glede načina pridobitve za muzej tudi za ta oselnik veljata komentarja k št. 40 in 50. Na hrbtni strani ima vpraskano Grosslack. Je značilen primerek mnogokotne različice dvonogega oblikovnega tipa. Pokončna polja ima vsa enako krašena, s plitvo vrezano valovnico med dvema črtama, drugače kot mlajši primerki iz vasi na pobočju Ahacove gore (gl. št. 30 - 32). V uhlja sta zarezani ozki odprtini za pretikanje pasu. Luknja za oslo je malce izlizana na desni strani. Oselnikov trup ima na levi strani zgoraj razpoko.

54.

OSELNIK / ROŽEN / Bistrica ob Sotli / govej rog, žičnat kavelj / v - 22 cm, š - 6,5 cm, g - 5 cm / št. neg. 16852 / inv. št. 17699 / stara inv. št. EM14521-496.

Oselnik je bil kupljen za muzej (med predmeti iz hišne zapuščine hiše št. 47 v Bistrici ob Sotli) od V. Ulčnik iz Podčetrtka (5), leta 1977. Sodi v desetletja pred tem. Hrbtno stran ima predrto z dvema luknjicama. Vanju je zataknjena žica, oblikovana v kavelj za obešanje oselnika za pas. Sledi izvlačenja osle niso zanesljivo pričevalne o mestu nošnje oselnika.

55.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / / jesenov les / v - 24 cm, š - 10 cm, g - 7,3 cm / št. neg. 16920 / inv. št. 17700.

Način pridobitve ni znan, vendar gre za oselnik, ki bolj ustreza upodobitvi na Žmitkovi risbi iz leta 1908 (gl. katalog zbirke risanih oselnikov, št. 1, tretji primerek od desne proti levi) kot pa št. 7. Predmet sodi v bohinjski oblikovni tip, vendar je - kar se krašenja tiče - malce svojski. Gornjo polovico trupa obrobljata vodoravna pasova enkrat navzgor, drugikrat navzdol obrnjenih pokončnih luskastih vrezov in med njima zelo plitvo, komajda vidno vrezani pasovi kit in stiliziranih cvetov. V desnem uhlju ima odprtino za ognjilo, rob luknje za oslo ima precej izlizan na desni strani.

56.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / / lipov les, konopljena vrvica / v - 23,5 cm, š - 7,5 cm, g - 6,3 cm / št. neg. 16937 / inv. št. 17701.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Oselnik sodi v bohinjski oblikovni tip in je po načinu krašenja zelo soroden izdelek, kot so št. 5, 7 in 44, in po merah št. 5 in 44. Odprtine za ognjilo nima, skozi v uhlja zarezani odprtini za pas pa ima pretaknjeno vrvico. Z njo ima na hrbtno stran trupa privezano dvakrat preluknjano deščico (v - 14,7 cm, š - 5 cm) za zatikanje za pas. Desna stena luknje za oslo je tako izlizana od njenega izvlačenja, da je na enem mestu tenka le milimeter ali dva, razpočena in mašena s smolo.

57.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, škatlast / Polje pri Bistrici / orehov les / v - 25,3 cm, š - 6,5 cm, g - 6,3 cm / št. neg. 16866 / inv. št. 17702.

Oselnik je bil za muzej kupljen od F. Ulčnika iz Polja (17) pri Bistrici ob Sotli, leta 1977. V zunanjem in notranjem vodoravnem prerezu je pravokoten. Iz hrbtne ploske stranice mu štrli lesen kavelj (v - 7,3 cm, š - 2,6 cm) za obešanje na pas, oblikovan iz istega kosa lesa. Luknja za oslo je izlizana na desni strani, kavelj za obešanje na pas je počen in utrjen s štirimi žebljiči, dno oselnikovega trupa je preperelo.

58.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, škatlast / Polje pri Bistrici / orehov les / v - 26,5 cm, š - 9 cm, g - 6,5 cm / št. neg. 16867 / inv. št. 17703.

Za oselnik velja komentar k št. 57, le da ima širši lesen kavelj (v - 5,3 cm, š - od 8,5 do 4,8 cm), da ni poškodovan in da se v obe nogi (konici) konča sprednja in ne zadnja (hrbtna) stranica oselnikovega trupa.

59.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten / / lipov les / v - 24 cm, š - 7,7 cm, g - 6 cm / št. neg. 16957 / inv. št. 17704.

Po vpisu v Knjigo prihodov muzejskih predmetov (oselnik je bil opremljen z zadevno številko) je bil kupljen za muzej v Ljubljani od D. Vuge, leta 1966, skupaj z nekaterimi drugimi predmeti, ki naj bi vsi izvirali iz okolice Grahovega. Na hrbtni strani ima vpraskane začetnice FZC (federalni zbirni center); navedeni kraj izvora (ali uporabe) je tako vprašljiv. V uhlja na hrbtni strani sta izvrtani luknjici - za pretikanje vrvice, za pričvrščanje lesene deščice ali za zatikanje žičnatega kavlja. Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni.

60.

OSELNIK, vodijer / LESEN, trebušast (po tipologiji C. Popovića) / Bosna in ercegovina / lipov les / v - 32 cm, š - 8,5 cm, g - 10 cm / št. neg. 16980 / inv. št. 17705.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Glede na sorodne primerke, na obliko in na način krašenja v vodoravnih pasovih, gre za bosanski oselnik s področja Kupresa (po tipološki razvrstitvi C. Popovića v članku Bosansko-hercegovački vodijeri, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu VII, n.s., Sarajevo 1952, str. 172). Na hrbtni strani ima uhlja z zarezanima odprtinama za pretikanje pasu, rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni, oselnikov trup je na dveh mestih počen in na enem predrt.

61.

OSELNIK / LESEN, breznog, valjast / / lipov les / v - 20 cm, š - 6,5 cm, g - 6,5 cm / št. neg. 16967 / inv. št. 17706.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Oselnik je zelo svojski primerek, doma narejen, z vrezanim imenom Franc - verjetno izdelovalčevim in koščevim hkrati. Na hrbtni strani so štiri luknje od žebljev, s katerimi je bil najverjetneje pribit pločevinast kavelj za obešanje na pas. V dveh izmed štirih, v oselnikov trup vrezanih prstanov so vidne sledi vezanja z žico. Stena (in rob) luknje za oslo je precej izlizana na sprednji strani, kar priča o tem, da je kosec nosil oselnik spredaj, na trebuhu (ali pa morda na desnem boku). Poleg parih krajših razpok je ena (na desni), ki predmet skoraj razpolavlja.

62.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten / / lipov les / v - 25 cm, š - 6,6 cm, g - 7,3 cm / št. neg. 16958 / inv. št. 17707.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Predmet sodi v zelo razprostranjen oblikovni tip na stružnici izdelanih, tu in tam (na dolnjem delu trupa) s struženimi prstani krašenih in v gornjem delu trupa mnogokotno oblikovanih oselnikov, ki so izpričani od Gorenjskega, Dolenjskega, Porabja do Notranjskega, Vipavske doline in Krasa. V vogala gornjega (spredaj mnogokotnega) dela hrbtne strani sta izvrtani luknjici - za pretikanje vrvice, za pričvrščanje lesene deščice ali za zatikanje žičnatega kavlja. Rob luknje za oslo je malce izlizan na desni, hrbtna stran je počena in preperela.

63.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten / / lipov les / v - 25 cm, š - 7,3 cm, g - 6,5 cm / št. neg. 16959 / inv. št. 17708.

Za oselnik velja komentar k št. 62.

64.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten / / lipov les / v - 26,5 cm, š - 6,5 cm, g - 6,5 cm / št. neg. 16961 / inv. št. 17709.

Način pridobitve sicer ni znan, vendar gre po analogiji z risanimi oselniki (kratek mnogokotni del, omejen na gornjo četrtino trupa in stožčasta konica; gl. katalog risb št. 22, 23 in 25) najverjetneje za črnovrški izdelek iz petdesetih let 20. stoletja, ki ga je za Etnografski muzej pridobila ekipa na Terenu 16, Črni vrh - Vojsko, leta 1959. V srednje polje ima vrezan križec, znamenje lastništva. Drugače tudi zanj velja komentar k št. 62 (le da ni niti počen, niti preperel).

65.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten / / lipov les / v - 27,5 cm, š - 6,8 cm, g - 7 cm / št. neg. 16949 / inv. št. 17710.

Za oselnik velja komentar k št. 64.

66.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten / / lipov les, konopljena vrvica / v - 26,5 cm, š - 7,5 cm, g - 7 cm / št. neg. 16956 / inv. št. 17711.

Za oselnik velja komentar k št. 62. Skozi vogalni luknjici hrbtne strani ima napeljano vrvico in z njo ob oselnikov trup privezano deščico (v - 13,5 cm, š - 2,4 cm) za zatikanje za pas. Ta način obešanja oselnik umešča v zahodne slovenske pokrajine. Rob luknje za oslo je precej izlizan (in počen) na desni.

67.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten / / lipov les, konopljena vrvica, črna vezalka / v - 27,5 cm, š - 7,8 cm, g - 7,5 cm / št. neg. 16954 / inv. št. 17712.

Tudi za ta primerek velja komentar k št. 62 in glede načina obešanja na pas komentar k št. 66. Na starejši oselnik je ohlapno, kar okoli trupa privezana dvakrat preluknjana novejša deščica (v - 11,3 cm, š - 3 cm). Spredaj, v srednje polje ima globlje vrezan lastnikov monogram, v levo in desno polje pa po en plitvo zarezan križec. Rob luknje za oslo je zvezan z žico, vloženo v stružen prstan pod njim. Od izvlačenja osle je izlizan na desni.

68.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten / / lipov les, ostanki črnega oljnatega opleska, usnjen jermen / v - 24,5 cm, š - 8,3 cm, g - 6 cm / št. neg. 16927 / inv. št. 17713.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Čeprav ima gornjo polovico trupa mnogokotno, je po njegovi obliki in po uhljih blizu bohinjskemu oblikovnemu tipu. V uhlja ima izvrtani luknjici; skozi njiju napeljan usnjen jermen na hrbtno stran trupa pričvršča dvakrat preluknjano deščico (v - 14,3 cm, š - 5,5 cm) za zatikanje za pas. Ta način obešanja pa oselnik umešča bolj v zahodne slovenske pokrajine. Rob luknje za oslo je na desni strani globoko izlizan. Na gornji polovici trupa so vidne sledi križne vezave z žico, na večih mestih pa sledi poslikave s črno oljno barvo.

69.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / / lipov les, ostanki rdečkasto rjavega oljnatega opleska, usnjen jermen / v - 21 cm, š - 6,7 cm, g - 6,2 cm / št. neg. 16926 / inv. št. 17714.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Dolnji del oselnikovega trupa je stružen; gornji, tudi obel del trupa in nabrekel prstan na njegovi sredini pa imata hrbtno stran posneto, plosko. V njena vogala sta izvrtani luknjici in vanju je z lesenima čepoma pritrjen usnjen jermen, ki ob trup pričvršča deščico (v - 11,5 cm, š - 4,3 cm) za zatikanje oselnika za pas. Luknja za oslo je izlizana na desni strani. Na nekaterih mestih so vidne sledi poslikave z rdečkasto rjavo oljno barvo.

70.

OSELNIK / ROŽEN / / govej rog, konopljena vrvica / v - 30 cm, š - 7,3 cm, g - 3,5 cm / št. neg. 16845 / inv. št. 17715.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Rog je bil najverjetneje kuhan in potem malce sploščen (ne kaže pa, da bi ga oblikovali z lesenim klinom). Hrbtna stran je oblikovana v nastavek, predrt z dvema luknjicama za pretikanje vrvi (za privezovanje oselnika okrog pasu).

71.

OSELNIK / ROŽEN / / govej rog, lesena deščica, bakrena žička / v - 22 cm, š - 7,5 cm, g - 5,7 cm / št. neg. 16856 / inv. št. 17716.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Rogova površina je zglajena. Hrbtna stran je zgoraj predrta z dvema luknjicama; skoznju je pretaknjena žička, ki ob oselnikov trup pričvršča dvakrat preluknjano leseno deščico (v - 14,3 cm, š - 4,6 cm) za zatikanje za pas. Ta način obešanja primerek uvršča med tiste iz zahodnih slovenskih pokrajin.

72.

OSELNIK / ROŽEN / / govej rog, usnjen jermen / v - 22 cm, š - 6 cm, g - 4 cm / št. neg. 16854 / inv. št. 17717.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Skozi luknjici na hrbtni strani je pretaknjen kratek usnjen jermen, ki je morda ostanek daljšega (jermena za privezovanje okrog pasu) ali pa je bila s takšnim ob oselnikov trup pričvrščena deščica.

73.

OSELNIK / PLOČEVINAST, breznog, valjasto-stožčast / / pocinkana pločevina / v - 24 cm, š - 6,5 cm, g - 6,5 cm / št. neg. 16976 / inv. št. 17718.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Pločevina je na stikih varjena. Na hrbtno stran ima privarjen pločevinast kavelj za obešanje na pas. Dolnji del oselnikovega trupa je voda precej razžrla.

74.

OSELNIK / PLOČEVINAST, breznog, valjasto-stožčast / / železna pločevina, lesena stožčasta konica / v - 33 cm, š - 6,7 cm, g - 6,7 cm / št. neg. 16974 / inv. št. 17719.

Način pridobitve ni znan. V pločevinast tulec (podoben tulcu granate) je spodaj zabita lesena stožčasta konica. Na hrbtno stran ima z dvema kovicama pritrjen pločevinast kavelj. Oselnikov trup je na nekaj mestih malce razžrt.

75.

OSELNIK / PLOČEVINAST, enonog, valjast / / pocinkana pločevina / v - 22 cm, š - 6 cm, g - 6 cm / št. neg. 16975 / inv. št. 17720.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Pločevina je na stikih varjena. Na hrbtno stran ima privarjen pločevinast kavelj za obešanje oselnika na pas.

76.

OSELNIK / PLOČEVINAST, breznog, klinast / / pocinkana pločevina / v - 17,8 cm, š - 7,6 cm, g - 4 cm / št. neg. 16977 / inv. št. 17721.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Sodeč po obliki in izdelavi gre za mlajši primerek iz desetletij po drugi svetovni vojni. Pločevina je na stikih varjena. Na hrbtni strani oselnik nima ničesar za obešanje na pas.

77.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / / lipov les, črna oljna poslikava / v - 22,5 cm, š - 7,8 cm, g - 7,3 cm / št. neg. 16966 / inv. št. 17722.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Oselnik je sicer značilen primerek mnogokotne različice dvonogega oblikovnega tipa, vendar z malce večjim premerom luknje za oslo (podobnim kot pri oselnikih s Pivke) in s precej kratkima nogama (v - 2,3 cm). Za pretikanje pasu ima uhlja z zarezanima odprtinama, rob luknje je precej izlizan na desni strani in desno spredaj. Oselnik je bil najverjetneje nošen zadaj na desni, vendar bolj na boku.

78.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / / lipov les, konopljena vrv, raševinasta krpa / v - 21,5 cm, š - 8 cm, g - 8 cm / št. neg. 16903 / inv. št. 17723.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Sicer je tudi ta oselnik značilen primerek mnogokotne različice dvonogega oblikovnega tipa, z malce večjim premerom luknje za oslo. Priča o vztrajni rabi - kljub mnogim poškodbam - podobno kot oselnik št. 33. Trup ima obvit s krpo in zvezan z žico, obe nogi pa odlomljeni. Rob luknje za oslo je ves škrbinast, precej izlizan na desni in še bolj na levi.

79.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, oblo-mnogokoten / / lipov les / v - 28,5 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 7 cm / št. neg. 16883 / inv. št. 17724.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Oselnik je križanec med mnogokotnoin oblo različico dvonogega oblikovnega tipa (podrobneje opisanega pri št. 18), z oblo dolnjo in mnogokotno gornjo polovico trupa. Ustreza pa bolj prvi kot drugi različici, saj ima na hrbtni strani uhlja z zarezanima odprtinama za pretikanje pasu, tako kot večina dvonogih mnogokotnih primerkov. Vidno je tudi, da so bili vogali najprej povsem mnogokotnega trupa na dolnjem delu odpiljeni. Ob izteku gornjega dela so v vogalih zareze; vanje je sedala žica, ki je trup obdajala. Rob luknje za oslo je na desni strani malce počen in izlizan od izvlačenja.

80.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / / lipov les, ostanki zelenega oljnatega opleska, usnjen jermen, konopljena vrv / v - 24,5 cm, š - 6,5 cm, g - 6,8 cm / št. neg. 16886 / inv. št. 17725.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Oselnik je primerek mnogokotne različice dvonogega oblikovnega tipa. Sodeč po vidnih ostankih oljne barve je bil cel zelen. V vogala hrbtne strani ima izvrtani luknjici; skozi eno je napeljan in zavozljan jermen, skozi drugo vrvica. Rob luknje za oslo je precej izlizan na desni. Hrbtna stran trupa je od vrha do polovice počena.

81.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / / lipov les, zelen oljnat oplesk, žica / v - 27 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 6,5 cm / št. neg. 16891 / inv. št. 17726.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Tudi ta oselnik je primerek mnogokotne različice dvonogega oblikovnega tipa. Je cel zeleno pobarvan, na dveh mestih obdan in zvezan z žico (ki jo drže vogalne zareze). Hrbtna stran ima v vogala izvrtani luknjici za pretikanje vrvice. Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni. Trup je na treh mestih počen.

82.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, obel / / nagnojev les, konopljena vrvica / v - 26 cm, š - 6,4 cm, g - 6,5 cm / št. neg. 16879 / inv. št. 17727.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Oselnik je značilen primerek oble različice dvonogega oblikovnega tipa, z deščico (v - 11,2 cm, š - 3 cm) za zatikanje za pas, pričvrščeno (z vrvico; prvotno z jermenom, katerega ostanek je viden) na hrbtno stranico. Sodeč po vidnih sledeh in izvedbi roba luknje za oslo (izlizanega na desni) je bil le-ta utrjen ali s pločevinastim ali s kovanim obročem (kot št. 40, kot je v navadi v Sorici in v okoliških krajih).

83.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, obel / / trd les, rdeč oljnat oplesk, pločevinast trak / v - 26 cm, š - 6,8 cm, g - 6,8 cm / št. neg. 16872 / inv. št. 17728.

Predmet je bil za muzej kupljen leta 1989, od starinarja A. Grašiča s Police (11) pri Naklem. Tudi ta oselnik je značilen primerek oble različice dvonogega oblikovnega tipa. V vogala hrbtne stranice ima izvrtani luknjici, izvedeni tako, da sta najverjetneje služili pričvrščanju deščice (za zatikanje za pas). Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni. Oselnikov trup ima na desni strani razpoko, ki sega od vrha do dna. Je utrjen, obdan s pločevinastim trakom, spetim s kovico.

84.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, oblo-mnogokoten / / trd les, redek rjavkast oplesk, žica, usnjen jermen / v - 26 cm, š - 6,8 cm, g - 6,2 cm / št. neg. 16889 / inv. št. 17729.

Glede načina pridobitve za oselnik velja komentar k št. 83. Izdelan je bil najverjetneje v osemdesetih letih tega (20.) stoletja in je skoraj brez sledi rabe. Tudi ta primerek je križanec med mnogokotno in oblo različico dvonogega oblikovnega tipa, z grobo odpiljenimi vogali spodnjega - najprej povsem mnogokotnega - dela trupa, na katerega je pribit še žičnat ovoj. Na hrbtno stranico je za zatikanje za pas pričvrščena deščica (v - 11 cm, š - 4,4 cm); z jermenom, napeljanim skozi oba uhlja in pribitim na njuni zunanji strani. Rob luknje za oslo je - sodeč po njegovi izvedbi - verjetno obdajal pločevinast obroč.

85.

OSELNIK / LESEN, breznog, mnogokotno-stožčast / / trd les, ostanki zelenega oljnatega opleska, žica / v - 27 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 6,3 cm / št. neg. 16910 / inv. št. 17730.

Glede načina pridobitve tudi za ta oselnik velja komentar k št. 83. Po izvedbi trupa (in hrbtne stranice z v uhlja zarezanima odprtinama za pretikanje pasu) sicer povsem ustreza mnogokotni različici dvonogega oblikovnega tipa, le da se mu dolnji del trupa konča v stožec. (Le-tega pa bi v primerjavi z enojnimi, struženimi, izrazitimi konicami za vtikanje v zemljo - ne mogli imenovati noga.) Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni. Predmet je razpokan in zvezan s sukano žico. Sprednja razpoka je zalita s smolo.

86.

OSELNIK / LESEN, breznog, mnogokotno-stožčast / / trd les, usnjen pas / v - 26,5 cm, š - 7,4 cm, g - 7,2 cm / št. neg. 16909 / inv. št. 17731.

Za oselnik velja komentar k št. 85. Rob luknje za oslo je na desni strani precej izlizan od izvlačenja in razpokan.

87.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten / / lipov les / v - 27 cm, š - 6,4 cm, g - 6,6 cm / št. neg. 16953 / inv. št. 17732.

Za muzej je bil kupljen od S. Strgarja iz Ljubljane, zbiralca, leta 1990. Sicer za oselnik velja komentar k št. 62. Rob luknje za oslo je na desni strani precej izlizan in na treh mestih počen. Malce pod njim so vidne sledi vezanja z žico.

88.

OSELNIK / ROŽEN / Gabrovka / govej rog, žičnat kavelj / v - 24 cm, š - 7,5 cm, g - 5,5 cm / št. neg. 16857 / inv. št. 17733.

Oselnik je bil pridobljen med predmeti, ki so bili za muzej kupljeni od M. Vidic iz Gabrovke, leta 1988. Na hrbtni strani je predrt s tremi luknjicami. Vanje je zataknjena žica, oblikovana v kavelj za obešanje oselnika za pas.

89.

OSELNIK / ROŽEN / Spodnja Šiška / govej rog, konopljena vrv / v - 26 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 4 cm / št. neg. 16848, 16846 / inv. št. 17734.

Oselnik je bil za muzej kupljen med štiridesetimi predmeti s polzemljakarske kmetije v Spodnji Šiški, od A. Marinka (Jerovškova 25), leta 1983. Na hrbtni strani je predrt z dvema luknjicama. Skoznju je napeljana vrvica za privezovanje okrog pasu.

90.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten / Spodnja Šiška / lipov les, konopljena vrv / v - 28 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 6,8 cm / št. neg. 16948 / inv. št. 17735.

Glede načina pridobitve za oselnik velja komentar k št. 89. V rabi je bil v šestdesetih letih tega (20.) stoletja. Podoben je črnovrškim primerkom iz petdesetih let 20. stoletja (gl. št. 64 in 65). Drugače tudi zanj velja opis oblikovnega tipa pri št. 62. Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan malce na desni in še bolj na levi, sprednji strani oselnika. Desna stran trupa ima razpoko, ki teče od njegove sredine do konice.

91.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, obel / Poljanska dolina / nagnojev les, žica / v - 26,5 cm, š - 6 cm, g - 6,5 cm / št. neg. 16886 / inv. št. 17736.

Predmet je bil za muzej kupljen od starinarja F. Podpečana iz Smlednika (36), leta 1992. Le-ta ga je pridobil v Poljanski dolini. Oselnik ustreza oblikovnemu tipu dvonogih, oblih primerkov, uveljavljenih tudi v teh krajih. Na hrbtni stranici ima posebno oblikovano deščico (v - 12,2 cm, š - 3 cm, g - 2 cm) z odebeljenim gornjim delom, v katerega je vodoravno (vzporedno z oselnikovim trupom) izvrtana odprtina. Skozi njo je pretaknjena žica, ki deščico pričvršča ob trup. Le-ta je zelo poškodovan - z odlomljeno skoraj polovico roba luknje za oslo - in zamazan s katranom.

92.

OSELNIK / LESEN, breznog, škatlast / / lipov les / v - 31,5 cm, š - 11,2 cm, g - 4,7 cm / št. neg. 16862 / inv. št. 17737.

Oselnik je bil kupljen za muzej v ljubljanski starinarnici Valvasor, leta 1992. Vrezano ima letnico 1880 in sodi v oblikovni tip, razširjen v (zgornji) Savinjski dolini. Ustrezata mu opisa k št. 37 in 38, le da je njegova sprednja stranica krašena z zelo plitvo rezljanim, tankim vitičastim stebelcem, ki poganja iz lončka. Nad njim je velik cvet - rozeta. Rob luknje za oslo je na desni strani precej izlizan. Oselnikova površina ima spran videz in je na nekaj mestih ožgana.

93.

OSELNIK / LESEN, breznog, škatlast / / hruškov les, ostanki rdeče oljne barve / v - 33,5 cm, š - 10,5 cm, g - 4,3 cm / št. neg. 16864 / inv. št. 17738.

Ta in še dvaindvajset oselnikov, Turkovo zbirko, je muzeju daroval zbiralec R. Turk iz Ljubljane, leta 1993. Zbiral jih je od konca sedemdesetih let. Zapis o novi pridobitvi je bil objavljen v Etnologu 3 (LIV), Ljubljana 1993, na str. 295 (I. Smerdel, Turkova zbirka oselnikov). Primerek, ki sodi v oblikovni tip, razširjen v (zgornji) Savinjski dolini, je bil kupljen na ljubljanskem bolšjem sejmu. Glede na sorodne oselnike ga je mogoče datirati v drugo polovico 19. stoletja. Kar se tiče oblike, okrasnega nastavka in izvedbe odprtin za pretikanje pasu v bistvenem ne odstopa od opisa k št. 37. Hrbtna stranica se spodaj konča v rezljan polžast svitek. Sprednjo stranico krasijo: preprosta šestlistna rozeta, nad njo (kot obroba luknje za oslo) pas cikcaka in spodaj, pri dnu trupa, šop pokončnih ravnih vrezanih žlebičev. Rozetini lističi in pas cikcaka so bili rdeče poslikani. Pas rdečega cikcaka zgoraj obroblja tudi obe stranski ploskvi. Od tod do njunega konca pa ju brazdajo po štirje ravno vrezani pokončni žlebiči; med njimi so vrste drobnih okraskov, vtolčenih s punco. Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni, vendar zelo malo. Sprednjo stranico skoraj razpolavlja razpoka, ki sega od vrha do tik pred dnom.

94.

OSELNIK / LESEN, breznog, klinast / Pohorje / orehov les / v - 33,7 cm, š - 8,8 cm, g - 7 cm / št. neg. 16970 / inv. št. 17739.

Primerek je iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), z obronkov Pohorja iz okolice Vitanja. V vodoravnem notranjem prerezu je elipsast, v zunanjem pa pravokoten s posnetimi vogali. Oselnikova hrbtna stranica je oblikovana v kratek nastavek z izvrtanima luknjicama, namenjenima napeljevanju vrvi ali pa zatikanju žičnatega kavlja za obešanje na pas. Rob luknje za oslo je na desni strani malce izlizan.

95.

OSELNIK / LESEN, breznog, klinast / Mislinjska dolina / lipov les, konopljena vrvica / v - 28,5 cm, š - 6,3 cm, g - 5,3 cm / št. neg. 16973 / inv. št. 17740.

Tudi ta je iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), iz okolice Mislinje. V vodoravnem notranjem prerezu je elipsast, v zunanjem pa pravokoten s posnetimi vogali. Krašen je s plitvo črtno vrezanim geometrijskim ornamentom. Na hrbtni stranici ima skozi uhlja z vrvico pričvrščeno deščico (v - 13,8 cm, š - 2,1 cm) za zatikanje za pas. Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni.

96.

OSELNIK / LESEN, breznog, klinast / / lipov les / v - 26 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 8,1 cm / št. neg. 16972 / inv. št. 17741.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), kupljen na ljubljanskem bolšjem sejmu. Podobni primerki iz Pokrajinskega muzeja v Celju so iz Arje vasi in Šentjurja pri Celju. V zunanjem in notranjem vodoravnem prerezu je okrogel. Na hrbtni strani ima pri vrhu trupa štrlino. Vanjo je vodoravno izvrtana odprtina za pretikanje vrvice za privezovanje okrog pasu. Rob luknje za oslo je malce izlizan na desni strani; spredaj ima krajšo, na levi strani pa dolgo, do polovice trupa segajočo razpoko.

97.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, mnogokoten / Huda luknja / jesenov les, ostanki rjavega oljnatega opleska / v - 21 cm, š - 5,7 cm, g - 5,7 cm / št. neg. 16911 / inv. št. 17742.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), prinešen z obronkov Pohorja iz okolice Hude luknje. Oselnik je svojski, doma narejen primerek, (v zunanjem vodoravnem prerezu kvadrat s posnetimi vogali), ki si ga je - najverjetneje njegov izdelovalec in uporabnik - okrasil s plitvo vrezanimi rastlinskimi stebelci; le-ta spominjajo na travnate bilke. Dve - na levem in desnem sprednjem polju - poganjata navzgor, ena - na srednjem polju - pa navzdol. Krašen je celo rob luknje za oslo, ki ima s punco vtolčene zvezdice. V vogala hrbtne strani sta izvrtani luknjici za pretikanje vrvice ali za zatikanje žičnatega kavlja. Sledi izvlačenja osle so slabo vidne, ker je luknja za oslo zelo robato izvedena.

98.

OSELNIK / LESEN, breznog, oblo-stožčast / Bela krajina / hrastov les / v - 29,5 cm, š - 7,5 cm, g - 7,3 cm / št. neg. 16912 / inv. št. 17743.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), iz Bele krajine med Otokom in Adlešiči. Oselnikov obel, skoraj valjast trup, ki je v dolnjem delu oblikovan v stožec, ima hrbtno stran oblikovano kot nastavek, kot plosko deščico, zraslo s trupom. Primerek ustreza oblikovnemu tipu, razširjenemu v tej slovenski pokrajini. V ploski nastavek je (malce pod robom luknje za oslo) na levi in na desni strani izvrtana luknjica za pretikanje vrvice ali za zatikanje žičnatega kavlja. Rob luknje za oslo je na desni strani izlizan od izvlačenja.

99.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten / Goričice / orehov les, zelen oljni oplesk / v - 28 cm, š - 8 cm, g - 6,3 cm / št. neg. 16951 / inv. št. 17744.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), iz zaselka Goričice, vulgo Uletov. V zaselku, ki je štel štiri kmetije, je imela vsaka izmed njih drugačne, označene oselnike, da bi jih pri košnji, ko so si medsebojno pomagali, ne zamešali. Primerek sodi v oblikovni tip, opisan pri št. 62, le da ima na hrbtni strani uhlja, kakršne imajo sicer le oselniki, uveljavljeni v Bohinju, v okolici Bleda in v Dolini. Desni uhelj ima odprtino za vtikanje in obešanje ognjila. Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na sprednji strani trupa, vendar le bolj proti desni, kar priča, da je bil oselnik najverjetneje nošen na desnem boku.

100.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten / Erzelj / lipov les / v - 26 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 6,8 cm / št. neg. 16950 / inv. št. 17745.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), prinešen iz Erzelja. Za oselnik velja komentar k št. 62. Najverjetneje gre za črnovrški izdelek, podoben št. 64 in 65 in risanim primerkom (iz kataloga risb) št. 22, 23 in 25. Rob luknje za oslo ima precej izlizan na desni strani; noga, konica za vtikanje v zemljo je zrabljena.

101.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten / Erzelj / lipov les / v - 26,5 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 7 cm / št. neg. 16952 / inv. št. 17746.

Za oselnik velja komentar k št. 100. Pod robato vrezano črko K na srednjem polju gornjega, mnogokotnega dela trupa ima še (najverjetneje vžgan) žig s (hišno) številko 24 in začetnicama KJ. V izvrtani luknjici obeh vogalov hrbtne strani je zataknjen žičnat kavelj. Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni, konica za vtikanje v zemljo je zrabljena.

102.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, tenko-valjast / Bratonci / topolov les, žičnat kavelj / v - 23 cm, š - 5,3 cm, g - 5,3 cm / št. neg. 16962 / inv. št. 17747.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), s kmetije tetzbiralčeve žene. Oblikovno ustreza v Prekmurju razširjenemu tipu enonogih, tenko-valjastih oselnikov, izdelanih na stružnici. V hrbtno stran ima izvrtani luknjici. Vanju je zataknjen žičnat kavelj za obešanje na pas. Rob luknje za oslo je na desni strani izlizan in na treh mestih počen.

103.

OSELNIK / LESEN, breznog, mnogokoten / / orehov les / v - 25,3 cm, š - 6 cm, g - 6,5 cm / št. neg. 16969 / inv. št. 17748.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), kupljen na bolšjem sejmu. Po izdelavi sicer ustreza mnogokotni različici dvonogega oblikovnega tipa, le da ima dno trupa ravno odrezano, brez konic za vtikanje v zemljo. Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni strani, kjer je sredi zelo tenke stene trupa tudi precejšnja razpoka.

104.

OSELNIK / LESEN, breznog, obel / Grahovo / lipov les, kavelj iz bakrene žice / v - 24,1 cm, š - 6 cm, g - 5,7 cm / št. neg. 16968 / inv. št. 17749.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), prinešen iz okolice Grahovega. Oselnik je robat - kot da bi ne bil dokončan izdelek. Hrbtna stranica je popolnoma ploska, brez posnetih vogalov. Vanjo je pod vrhom trupa izvrtana le ena luknjica in v to je zataknjen žičnat kavelj. Rob luknje za oslo je na desni strani izlizan.

105.

OSELNIK / ROŽEN / / govej rog, žičnat kavelj / v - 22 cm, š - 6,5 cm, g - 4,4 cm / št. neg. 16850 / inv. št. 17750.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), način pridobitve je pozabljen. V rog sta vrezani črki J in ob njej mali b. Hrbtna stran je oblikovana v polkrožen nastavek. Sredi njega je kovica, ki je opora žičnatemu kavlju za obešanje oselnika na pas. Od kovice do vrha nastavka sega razpoka.

106.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / Goričice / lipov les / v - 25,5 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 7,5 cm / št. neg. 16893 / inv. št. 17751.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), iz zaselka Goričice, od Frančiške Žele. Oselnik je bolj robat, svojski primerek mnogokotne različice dvonogega oblikovnega tipa. Rob luknje za oslo in dno trupa ima obrobljena z luskastimi vrezi. Hrbtna stranica nima izdelanih uhljev; v višini obeh vogalov so vidne le štiri luknjice (od žebljev), ki pa niso zanesljivo pričevalne o načinu obešanja na pas. Rob luknje za oslo je na desni strani precej izlizan od izvlačenja.

107.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, oblo-mnogokoten / Goričice / orehov les, žičnata prstana / v - 25,8 cm, š - 7,3 cm, g - 7 cm / št. neg. 16895 / inv. št. 17752.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), iz zaselka Goričice, vulgo Rotov. Oselnik je svojski, doma narejen primerek, ki po izvedbi uhljev ustreza mnogokotni različici dvonogega oblikovnega tipa. Njegov trup je večinoma obel; mnogokotnih je le prvih pet centimetrov gornjega dela. Krasi ga črtno vrezan geometrijski ornament, po pričevanju današnjega gospodarja niz starih hišnih znakov. Na prvi in na drugi tretjini trupa sta vrezana prstanasta žlebiča; vanju sta opasana žičnata prstana. Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni. Hrbtno stranico skoraj razpolavlja dolga razpoka.

108.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / Goričice / orehov les, zelen oljni oplesk / v - 24,7 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 6,7 cm / št. neg. 16905 / inv. št. 17753.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), iz zaselka Goričice, vulgo Malnerjev. Oselnik ustreza mnogokotni različici dvonogega oblikovnega tipa. Sprednja polja ima krašena, vsa tri enako: s pokončnimi luskastimi vrezi. Krašeni so tudi posneti vogali hrbtne stranice; obrobljeni so s črtnimi vrezi. Desna stran roba luknje za oslo je precej izlizana. Odlomljen košček desnega uhlja je oselnikov uporabnik nadomestil z usnjenim paščkom, pribitim z žeblji.

109.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, obel / Žerovnica / orehov les, žičnat kavelj / v - 26,8 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 7,4 cm / št. neg. 16892 / inv. št. 17754.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), prinešen iz Žerovnice. Oselnik je svojski, robat primerek. Hrbtno stranico ima popolnoma plosko, v spodnjih dveh tretjinah posneto proti sprednji strani trupa (kot pri št. 22). V njena vogala sta zgoraj vrezana uhlja, vanju pa je zataknjen debel žičnat kavelj. Rob luknje za oslo je malce izlizan na desni strani.

110.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, obel / Spodnja Trenta / orehov les, usnjen jermen / v - 28 cm, š - 9 cm, g - 8,4 cm / št. neg. 16888 / inv. št. 17755.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), prinešen iz Spodnje Trente. Oselnik je svojski, robat, zelo trebušast primerek oble različice dvonogega oblikovnega tipa. Hrbtno stranico ima popolnoma plosko (brez posnetih vogalov). V vogala sredi njene gornje polovice sta izvrtani luknjici; skoznju je napeljan jermen, ki ob oselnikov trup pričvršča deščico (v - 13,7 cm, š - 3 cm). Rob luknje za oslo je precej izlizan na desni strani. Na desni, pri dnu, ima trup razpoko.

111.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, obel / Pokljuka / jesenov les, zanka za ognjilo in obroč iz medenine / v - 26,7 cm, š - 5,8 cm, g - 5,8 cm / št. neg. 16908 / inv. št. 17756.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), prijateljev dar s pokljuških senožeti, vendar tja najverjetneje prinešen s soriškega konca. Zgoraj, na sprednji strani trupa, ima plitvo vrezano letnico 1872 (ali 1878). Oselnik je značilen primerek oble različice dvonogega oblikovnega tipa. Rob luknje za oslo in dno trupa sta objemala obroča iz medenine (kot je v navadi v Sorici in okoliških krajih); ostanki zgornjega so še pribiti; o spodnjem pričajo sledi (izdelave in pribijanja z žebljički). Na hrbtni strani je v izvrtani luknjici zataknjen kavelj, oblikovan iz sukane žice. Za vtikanje in obešanje ognjila ima na desni strani trupa pribito zanko, oblikovano iz medeninastega paščka. Rob luknje za oslo je precej izlizan na desni strani. Preperelo oselnikovo dno in razpoka na sprednji strani trupa sta zalita s smolo.

112.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, obel / / nagnojev les, pločevinasta obroča in zanka za ognjilo, usnjen jermen / v - 26 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 7 cm / št. neg. 16875 / inv. št. 17757.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93). Kot se spominja zbiralec, naj bi bil primerek prinešen iz Prezida, vendar gre za oselnik, ki povsem ustreza obli različici dvonogega oblikovnega tipa, kakršna je uveljavljena povečini v Selški dolini, Sorici in Baški grapi. Deščico za zatikanje za pas (v - 14,4 cm, š - 4,2 cm) ima oblikovano zgoraj srčasto in spodaj suličasto in pobarvano z rdečkasto rjavo oljno barvo. Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni strani. Razpoka v oselnikovem dnu je zamašena z lesenim čepom.

113.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten / Bled / mehek les, lužen in lakiran / v - 25 cm, š - 9 cm, g - 7,2 cm / št. neg. 16947 / inv. št. 17758.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), iz okolice Bleda. Oselnik je po izdelavi soroden starejšim primerkom bohinjskega oblikovnega tipa iz muzejske zbirke, s konca 19. stoletja. V bistvenem ustreza opisu k št. 2, le da ima gornjo, neizrazito mnogokotno polovico oselnikovega trupa krašeno s pasovoma rezljanih, z globljimi vrezi izvedenih cvetov in (med njima) s pasom zvezdic, vtolčenih z rombasto punco. Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni.

114.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Bled / kostanjev les, ostanki roza oljnatega opleska / v - 26,8 cm, š - 9 cm, g - 7,4 cm / št. neg. 16945 / inv. št. 17759.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93), soroden primerku št. 113. Okraske gornje polovice trupa ima vtolčene s punco. Oselnik je bil cel prebarvan z roza oljno barvo, kar je odraz likovnega okusa zadnjih desetletij. (Zbiralec je oplesk dosledno odstranil.) Rob luknje za oslo je na treh mestih počen in na desni strani precej izlizan. Ožjo razpoko ima tudi leva stran dolnjega dela trupa.

115.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Kamna Gorica / orehov les / v - 28,5 cm, š - 8,8 cm, g - 7,2 cm / št. neg. 16940 / inv. št. 17760.

Iz Turkove zbirke (gl. komentar k št. 93). Po obliki in izdelavi oselnik sodi v oblikovni tip, uveljavljen v Bohinju, Blejskem kotu in Dolini. Desni uhelj je brez odprtine za ognjilo. Rob luknje za oslo je razpokan in na desni strani na dveh mestih precej izlizan od izvlačenja. Hrbtno stran spodaj skoraj razpolavlja razpoka, segajoča od uhljev do konice.

116.

OSELNIK, osúnk / LESEN, enonog, obel / Koprivnik / hruškov les, pločevina, zelen (spodaj rumen) oljnat oplesk / v - 27 cm, š - 7,2 cm, g - 6,5 cm / št. neg. 16913 / inv. št. 17761.

Za muzej je bil kupljen leta 1991, od Franca Beznika (r. 1933, u. 1993), vulgo Mečnika, kmeta s Koprivnika (35). Oselnik je prvi izmed nekaj, ki si jih je sam napravil. Izdelal ga je pred dvajsetimi leti, se pri tem zgledoval po starih primerkih, vendar ne dosledno, ker ni imel stružnice in nekaterih drugih potrebnih orodij. Luknjo za oslo na primer, ki jo je izvrtal s premajhnim svedrom, je moral do željenega premera izžgati. Oselnikov trup je »mal opisan«, okrašen z globljimi luskastimi vrezi, s plitvejše vrezanimi krogci in cvetki. Cel je prebarvan z zeleno oljno barvo. Konica je obita s pločevino. Ob desnem uhlju za pretikanje pasu sta pribiti dve pločevinasti zanki za ognjilo. Luknja za oslo je utrjena s pločevinastim obročem. Njen rob je izlizan na desni strani. Ozka razpoka na sprednji strani trupa je znotraj, v luknji, zalita s katranom.

117.

OSELNIK, osúnk / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Gorjuše / les orehove korenine, pločevinast kavelj, svetlozelen (češka zemlja) oljnat oplesk / v - 23 cm, š - 8,1 cm, g - 8,5 cm / št. neg. 16946 / inv. št. 17762.

Oselnik je bil za muzej kupljen leta 1992, od Vinka Beznika, Cena, vulgo Koritarja, piparja z Gorjuš (2). Leta 1938, ko je bil Cena star deset let, mu ga je naredil oče Janez, ki je bil tudi pipar. Oselnik je oblikovan tako kot starejši znani primerki bohinjskega oblikovnega tipa, le gornja, z ročnimi vrezi krašena polovica trupa je širša od dolnje in malce izstopa. Obrobljata jo pasova globljih pokončnih luskastih vrezov. Med njima so plitveje vrezani monogram VB in dve planiki. Predmet je cel poslikan zeleno, na nekaterih mestih pa od spodaj proseva rdeča barva. Odebeljen gornji del trupa ima v vogala na stiku s plosko hrbtno stranjo vrezani odprtini za pretikanje pasu. Vanju ima zataknjen kratek pločevinast trak; na tega je s tremi kovicami pritrjen pločevinast kavelj za obešanje na pas. Pod njim je vrezana stara hišna številka 47. Desni vogal, uhelj predira odprtina za ognjilo. Rob luknje za oslo je precej izlizan na desni. Njeno preperelo dno je zalito s katranom.

118.

OSELNIK, osúnk / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Gorjuše / jablanov les, pločevinast kavelj / v - 25,5 cm, š - 9,3 cm, g - 8 cm / št. neg. 16919 / inv. št. 17763.

Glede načina pridobitve in oblike tudi za ta oselnik velja komentar k št. 117, le da je prodajalčev, Cenin izdelek iz leta 1992, namenjen njegovi osebni rabi. Poleg gornjega dela, krašenega z iz srca rastočima nageljnoma, ima ta primerek krašen tudi dolnji del trupa. Obkrožajo ga med stružene prstane ujeti pasovi igrivih geometrijskih ornamentov, plitvo vrezanih in vtolčenih s punco. Uhlja sta brez odprtin za pretikanje pasu, le desnega predira odprtina za ognjilo. Pločevinast kavelj je pritrjen na hrbtno stran z dvema kovicama.

119.

OSELNIK, osúnk / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel / Bohinjska Češnjica / hruškov les / v - 30,5 cm, š - 7,7 cm, g - 7 cm / št. neg. 16942 / inv. št. 17764.

Oselnik je bil za muzej kupljen leta 1993, od Alojza Sodje (r. 1931), vulgo Vángusa, izučenega kolarja iz Bohinjske Češnjice (60). Mojster jih v zimskem času nekaj izdela in potem proda posameznikom, ki pridejo po svojega k njemu. Primerek je oblikovan strojno (na električni stružnici) in ročno (uhlja z vrezanima odprtinama za pretikanje pasu). Na pokončnem sprednjem polju, plosko posnetem delu gornje polovice trupa, je krašen s parimi luskastimi vrezi. Je nov, nerabljen.

120.

OSELNIK / LESEN, breznog, škatlast / Stiška vas / orehov les, pločevinast kavelj, žica / v - 31 cm, š - 8,2 cm, g - 7 cm / št. neg. 16860 / inv. št. 17765.

Oselnik je leta 1993 muzeju podaril Alojz Jagodic, kmet - delavec iz Stiške vasi (10). Izdelal ga je njegov oče Alojz (r. 1913, u. 1983), kmet in samouški mojster za vse, pred okrog tridesetimi leti. Je robat primerek, vendar po obliki soroden oselnikom iz (zgornje) Savinjske doline. V zunanjem in notranjem vodoravnem prerezu je pravokoten. Hrbtna stranica je zgoraj oblikovana v srčast okrasni nastavek, oselnik pa krasijo še z vrezi nazobčani robovi. V vogala pod nastavkom sta izvrtani luknjici; skoznju je napeljana in zvezana žica, ki nosi pločevinast kavelj. Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan od izvlačenja ob stiku sprednje in desne ploskve.

121.

OSELNIK, špú(l) / LESEN, breznog, klinast / Podvolovljek / javorjev les, pločevinast obroč in kavelj / v - 24,5 cm, š - 6,5 cm, g - 5,2 cm / št. neg. 16971 / inv. št. 17766.

Muzeju ga je leta 1993 podaril Peter Tisovnik (r. 1915), gozdni delavec in samouški mojster za vse iz Podvolovljeka (36). Oselnik sije izdelal pred okrog dvajsetimi leti in ga je uporabljal do pred nekaj leti. Po obliki je soroden primerkom št. 95 in 96. V zunanjem vodoravnem prerezu je mnogokoten in v notranjem elipsast. Trup objema pločevinast trak. Na plosko hrbtno stran je z dvema kovicama pritrjen pločevinast kavelj. Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni. Skozi razpoko na desni strani trupa sta počez zabita žebljička.

122.

OSELNIK / ROŽEN / Krajna Brda / govej rog, žičnat kavelj / v - 19 cm, š - 5,9 cm, g - 4 cm / št. neg. 16853 / inv. št. 17767.

Za muzej je bil pridobljen med predmeti z male kmetije nad Blanco pri Sevnici, kupljenimi od Milke Bobnič, upokojene delavke iz Krajnih Brd (5). Na hrbtni strani je oselnik predrt z dvema luknjicama. Skozi vsako je pretaknjen in ovit po en konec sukane žice, oblikovane v kavelj za obešanje na pas.

123.

OSELNIK, vósunik / ROŽEN / Jurišče / govej rog, kokosova vrv / v - 32 cm, š - 9,8 cm, g - 7 cm / št. neg. 16851 / inv. št. 17768.

Muzeju ga je leta 1993 podaril Tone Sedmak (r. 1927), vulgo Šajn, posestnik ovčar iz Jurišč (66). Oselnik si je izdelal pred nekaj leti iz velikega volovskega roga, prinešenega iz postojnske klavnice. Na hrbtni strani je predrt z dvema luknjicama. Skoznju je napeljana vrv za privezovanje okrog pasu.

124.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten / Selce / jelšev les, konopljena vrv / v - 28 cm, š - 8,1 cm, g - 8 cm / št. neg. 16960 / inv. št. 17769.

Oselnik je muzeju leta 1992 podaril Franc Smrdelj (r. 1920), vulgo Cendran, srednji kmet iz Selc (29). Kupil ga je leta 1947na semnju v Pivki, pri strugarju Škofu, Pivčanu. Ni ga dolgo uporabljal, ker se je hitro izsušil in počil; bil je slabo izbran. Primerek sodi v oblikovni tip, opisan pri št. 62. Rob luknje za oslo je spredaj, na levi strani, precej izlizan, kar priča o tem, da je kosec nosil oselnik spredaj, na trebuhu. Leva stran trupa ima dolgo razpoko, segajočo od vrha do konice.

125.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / Slavina / lipov les, pločevinast kavelj, temnozelen oljnat oplesk / v - 26 cm, š - 7,9 cm, g - 8 cm / št. neg. 16887 / inv. št. 17770.

Muzeju ga je leta 1993 podarila Ivanka Bajc iz Slavine (17), hči Franca Boštjančiča (r. 1907, u. 1978), malega kmeta in samouškega mojstra za vse. Oselnikov ni delal le za domačo rabo; ponje (in po druga orodja) so prihajali k njemu sovaščani in okoličani. Predmet je iz domače hiše in je značilen primerek mnogokotne različice dvonogega oblikovnega tipa z malce večjim premerom luknje za oslo. Cel je temnozelene barve. Na hrbtno stran (brez vrezanih odprtin za pretikanje pasu) ima z dvema vijakoma pritrjen pločevinast kavelj za obešanje na pas. Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni in na dveh mestih počen.

126.

OSELNIK, vósounik / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / Goričice / topolov les / v - 27,5 cm, š - 7,3 cm, g - 8,5 cm / št. neg. 16894 / inv. št. 17771.

Predmet je muzeju leta 1993 podaril Miro Mahne (r. 192?), vulgo Rot, kmet iz Goričic (5). Oselnik je naredil zase. Čeprav kosi s kosilnico, kakšnega še rabi, kadar gre s koso po svežo krmo. Primerek je robat, nerabljen in nedokončan; za nošnjo za pasom nima ničesar (ne kavlja ne odprtin za pretikanje pasu).

127.

OSELNIK, vósounik / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / Žerovnica / topolov les, impregniran s firnežem in voskom / v - 24,5 cm, š - 6,9 cm, g - 6,9 cm / št. neg. 16904 / inv. št. 17772.

Za muzej je bil kupljen leta 1993, od Janka Lunka, vulgo »ta dolenjga« Njučoha, samoukega kolarja in mizarja iz Žerovnice (6). Mojster jih v zimskem času dosti izdela za prodajo; tako v prvotni namen - za košnjo - kot v drugotni namen - za okras, za spomin. Oselnik je krasil domačo kuhinjo. Oblikovan je strojno (s krožno žago in svedri), krašen s tehniko vžiganja. Cikcakasto obrobo je vžgala mojstrova žena, »figurce« mož. Predmet je zunaj ves premazan s firnežem (v luknjo za oslo je bil vlit vroč vosek). Na hrbtni strani ima vrezani odprtini za pretikanje pasu. Luknja za oslo je brez sledi rabe.

128.

OSELNIK, vósunik / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / Gradež / orehov les / v - 23 cm, š - 6,9 cm, g - 6,6 cm / št. neg. 16898 / inv. št. 17773.

Predmet je muzeju leta 1993 podaril Franc Pečnik iz Gradeža (11). Izdelal ga je njegov sosed, »osovnikar« Jože Šmuc, vulgo Bajde (gl. komentar k št. 29), leta 1950. Poleg letnice sta (med njo) vrezani še začetnici PC. Glede oblike in načina krašenja za oselnik velja komentar k št. 30. Rob luknje za oslo je na desni strani precej izlizan. Hrbtna stranica ima razpoko, segajočo od vrha do dna. Preperelo dno luknje za oslo je zamašeno s krpo.

129.

OSELNIK, vósunik / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / Gradež / orehov les / v - 28,5 cm, š - 7,2 cm, g - 7,2 cm / št. neg. 16897 / inv. št. 17774.

Oselnik so muzeju leta 1993 podarili Andolškovi iz Gradeža (2). Za domačo rabo ga je napravil pokojni gospodar Avguštin (r. 1909, u. 1975). Vrezano ima letnico 1957 in začetnici JA. Oblikovan in krašen je po vzoru Bajdetovih oselnikov (kot je opisano pri št. 30). Rob luknje za oslo je na desni strani precej izlizan in na hrbtni strani malce počen.

130.

OSELNIK, vósunik / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / Gradež / orehov les, usnjen pas / v - 25 cm, š - 6,5 cm, g - 6,5 cm / št. neg. 16885 / inv. št. 17775.

Primerek je leta 1993 podarila muzeju Frančiška Krampelj, gospodinja velike kmetije, vulgo pri Škindrovih, iz Gradeža (8). Za domačo rabo ga je izdelal pokojni mož, gospodar Anton (r. 1923, u. 1986). Oselnik je nekrašen, »škilast«. Rob luknje za oslo je precej izlizan na levi strani spredaj, kar priča o tem, da je kosec nosil oselnik na trebuhu (ali pa, da je bil levičar).

131.

OSELNIK, vósunik / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten / Gradež / orehov les, usnjen pas / v - 25,5 cm, š - 6,9 cm, g - 6,8 cm / št. neg. 16901 / inv. št. 17776.

Oselnik je muzeju leta 1993 podaril Franc Zabukovec, kmet iz Gradeža (9). Izdelal ga je njegov brat Lojz (r. 1923), ki pozimi še napravi kakšno orodje. Njegov vzornik in učitelj je bil mojster Bajde. Tako tudi za ta oselnik, ki ima vrezano letnico 1972 in začetnici ZF (Zabukovec Franc), velja komentar k št. 30. Rob luknje za oslo je precej izlizan na desni strani.

132.

OSELNIK, vósovənk / LESEN, dvonog, obel / Petrovo Brdo / nagnojev les, obroč iz medenine, bakrena žica / v - 29 cm, š - 6,2 cm, g - 6,5 cm / št. neg. 16874 / inv. št. 17777.

Predmet je muzeju leta 1993 podaril Rudi Zgaga (r. 1933), velik kmet, vulgo pri Pohmanu, s Petrovega Brda (1). Oselnik je bil v rabi do pred nekaj let in je izdelek enega izmed obrtnikov iz okoliških krajev. Na hrbtni stranici ima deščico (v - 13,1 cm, š - 5 cm), pričvrščeno z bakreno žico. Rob luknje za oslo, precej izlizan na desni strani, objema medeninast obroč. Trup para široka razpoka, zamazana z lepilom in s kitom. Znotraj in zunaj je zakitano tudi dno luknje za oslo, kar priča o vztrajni rabi.

133.

OSELNIK, vósovənk / LESEN, dvonog, obel / Petrovo Brdo / nagnojev les, obroč iz aluminija, medeninast trak, pločevinasta zanka za ognjilo / v - 24,5 cm, š - 6,1 cm, g - 6,2 cm / št. neg. 16876 / inv. št. 17778.

Tudi za ta oselnik velja komentar k št. 132, le da je brez deščice (ki jo je prvotno imel) in manj poškodovan. Konico leve noge ima odlomljeno.

134.

OSELNIK, vósovənk / LESEN, dvonog, obel / Kuk / nagnojev les, aluminijasti: obroč, trak, zanka za ognjilo in žica / v - 32,5 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 7 cm / št. neg. 16907 / inv. št. 17779.

Oselnik je muzeju leta 1993 podaril Marjan Kaltnekar (r. 1929), izučen mizar iz Kuka (10) v Baški grapi. Predmet je njegov izdelek. V rabi je bil do pred nakaj leti. Na hrbtni strani ima deščico (v - 15,1 cm, š - 3,7 cm), pričvrščeno z aluminijasto žico. Rob luknje za oslo, malce izlizan na desni, objema aluminijast obroč; pod njim je pribita zanka za ognjilo. Dno trupa obdaja pribit aluminijast trak, nad njim pa ga - poškodovanega - skoraj do polovice obvija črn izolirni trak.

135.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, obel / Grant / nagnojev les, pločevinasta zanka za ognjilo, žičnat kavelj / v - 26,5 cm, š - 6,3 cm, g - 6,4 cm / št. neg. 16873 / inv. št. 17780.

Muzeju ga je leta 1993 podaril Franc Loncner z Jesenic, doma iz Granta (16), vulgo pri Čumarju. Njegov oče, ki je po potrebi delal oselnike (tudi ta primerek), živi in gospodari v novi hiši v sosednjem Rutu (56). Pridobljeni primerek je malce robat. Na hrbtni strani ima v luknjici, izvrtani v vogala, zataknjen žičnat kavelj za obešanje na pas. Pod vrhom trupa je na desni strani pribita pločevinasta zanka za ognjilo. Desna stena luknje za oslo je tanka, izlizana od izvlačenja. Dolga razpoka na sprednji strani trupa, segajoča od vrha do dna, je zamazana z voskom, z lepilom in v gornjem delu prekrita še z gumijasto zaplato.

136.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, obel / Podporezen / brezov les, svetlozelen oljnat oplesk, kavelj iz bakrene žice / v - 27 cm, š - 6,3 cm, g - 5,7 cm / št. neg. 16878 / inv. št. 17781.

Oselnik je leta 1993 podaril muzeju Aleksander Prezelj (r. 1929), vulgo Majdelc, gospodar velike kmetije z žago s Podporezna (6). Izdelal si ga je njegov oče Franc (r. 1898, u. 1970), iz brezovega lesa. Tak je bil slab, zato ga je malokdaj nosil. Je ves zelen; na hrbtni strani ima celo zeleno pobarvan žičnat kavelj (zataknjen v vogalni luknjici). Na robu luknje so na desni strani komaj vidne sledi izvlačenja osle.

137.

OSELNIK, vósovənk / LESEN, dvonog, obel / Zali Log / nagnojev les, impregniran z motnim lakom mahagonijeve barve, medeninast obroč in zanka za ognjilo, usnjen jermen / v - 30,8 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 7,5 cm / št. neg. 16877 / inv. št. 17782.

Oselnik je leta 1993 podaril muzeju Valentin Benedičič (r. 1935), mojster Tine, izučen tesar v pokoju, iz Zalega Loga (10). Kadar ne dela drugih stvari (grablje, kosišča, pručke, klopi,...) in ima pozimi čas, izdela tudi nekaj oselnikov. Podarjeni primerek, narejen pred dvema letoma, je sam uporabljal. Na deščici ima luknjičasto začetnico T (Tine) in mojstrov znak. Oselnikova hrbtna stranica je popolnoma ploska; vogala nista posneta. Zgoraj, pod robom luknje za oslo, opasane z medeninastim obročem, sta v vogala izvrtani luknjici; vanju je napeljan jermen, ki ob trup veže deščico (v - 16 cm, š - 5 cm). Pričvrščen je z lesenima čepkoma. Medeninasta zanka za ognjilo je pritrjena z dvema vijakoma. Rob luknje za oslo je komaj opazno izlizan na desni strani.

138.

OSELNIK, vósovənk / LESEN, dvonog, obel / Davča / nagnojev les, pločevinasti: obroč, trak in zanka za ognjilo, sintetična vrvica / v - 30,3 cm, š - 6,7 cm, g - 7 cm / št. neg. 16870 / inv. št. 17783.

Predmet je bil za muzej kupljen leta 1993 od Janka Primožiča (r. 1927), kmeta in samouškega mojstra - izdelovalca košev, grabelj, kosišč, oselnikov - iz Davče (50). Na oselnike rad piše rime, »vse v zvezi s košnjo«. Pri tem uporablja tehniko vžiganja. Na pridobljenem primerku, narejenem za prodajo pozimi leta 1993, piše: »Če ni za zajtrk žgancov, cvička, neboš zvečer imela ›Tička‹.« Ves je premazan s sijajnim lakom: trup, nogi, deščica, pa tudi obroč, pribit okrog roba luknje za oslo, trak, ki obdaja dno trupa, z vijakoma pritrjena zanka za ognjilo in celo vrvica, ki pričvršča deščico.

139.

OSELNIK, vósovənk / PLASTIČEN, breznog, klinast / Podbrdo / brizgana rdeča plastična masa / v - 18,5 cm, š - 7 cm, g - 4 cm / št. neg. 16979 / inv. št. 17784.

Predmet je muzeju leta 1993 podaril Milan Valentinčič (r. 1929), vulgo Hobarjov, kmet iz Podbrda (14) v Baški grapi. Kupil si ga je pred tremi ali štirimi leti v Marketu v Podbrdu. Oselnik je industrijski, serijski izdelek. V zunanjem in notranjem vodoravnem prerezu je elipsast. Za obešanje na pas ima na hrbtni strani oblikovan plastičen kavelj. Rob luknje za oslo je izlizan na desni strani.

140.

OSELNIK, osúnk / PLASTIČEN, breznog, škatlast / Koprivnik / brizgana roza in bela plastična masa, konopljena vrvica, aluminijast žičnat kavelj / v - 19 cm, š - 9 cm, g - 4 cm / št. neg. 16978 / inv. št. 17785.

Oselnik je muzeju leta 1991 podaril Valentin Dijak (r. 1938), Tinček, kmet s Koprivnika (74). Naredil si ga je (pred letom ali dvema) kar iz odrezanega gornjega dela ostanka plastične embalaže mehčalca za perilo Damil. Primerek ima okrog trupa (skozi odprtino ročaja) ovito vrvico, ki obenj pričvršča žičnat kavelj za obešanje na pas.

141.

OSLA / / kremenov peščenjak / v - 19,5 cm, š - 2,3 cm, g - 2 cm / št. neg. 16990 / inv. št. 17786.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Osla ima čolničasto obliko z zoženima konicama. V vodoravnem prerezu je na sredi pravokotna in na obeh koncih čolničasta. Konca sta precej stanjšana od rabe, kar priča o tem, da je bila osla dobra in da je koscu dolgo služila.

142.

OSLA / / kremenov peščenjak / v - 17 cm, š - 4 cm, g - 2,5 cm / št. neg. 16989 / inv. št. 17787.

Način pridobitve ni znan. Tudi ta osla ima čolničasto obliko z zoženima konicama, le da je bila manj rabljena kot št. 141 in morda - odlomljena in krajša - celo zavržena.

143.

OSLA / Poljanska dolina / kremenov peščenjak / v - 17 cm, š - 3,8 cm, g - 1,6 cm / št. neg. 17100 / inv. št. 17788.

Za muzej je bila pridobljena skupaj z oselnikom št. 91, zato tudi zanjo tozadevno velja isti komentar; glede oblike in rabe pa komentar k št. 142.

144.

OSLA / Krajna Brda / kremenov peščenjak / v - 18,8 cm, š - 3,4 cm, g - 1,2 cm / št. neg. 16988 / inv. št. 17789.

Za muzej je bila pridobljena skupaj z oselnikom št. 122, zato tudi zanjo tozadevno velja isti komentar; glede oblike in rabe pa komentar k št. 142.

145.

OSLA, ósla / Gradež / kremenov peščenjak / v - 23 cm, š - 3,3 cm, g - 1,4 cm / št. neg. 16994 / inv. št. 17790.

Glede pridobitve za muzej za oslo velja komentar k oselniku št. 130. Frančiška Krampelj (r. 1911) jo je podarila, ker je bila slaba. Osla ima čolničasto obliko. V vodoravnem prerezu je pravokotna. Le malo je rabljena.

146.

OSLA, ósla / Gradež / kremenov peščenjak, pločevina, orehov les / v - 24,5 cm, š - 2,8 cm, g - 1,9 cm / št. neg. 16993 / inv. št. 17791.

Glede pridobitve za muzej za oslo velja komentar k oselniku št. 131. Franc Zabukovec, ki jo je do podaritve uporabljal, jo je cenil kot dobro oslo. Zato jo je - ko se mu je zlomila - podaljšal z lesenim ročajem. Ostanek osle (preostalo polovico čolničaste oblike) z ročajem povezujeta pribita koščka pločevine - eden z zgornje, drugi s spodnje strani.

147.

OSLA, vósla / Srednja vas / kremenov peščenjak / v - 18 cm, š - 3,7 cm, g - 1,7 cm / št. neg. 16991 / inv. št. 17792.

Oslo je muzeju leta 1993 podaril Martin Zupan (r. 1919), vulgo Žvan, kmet iz Srednje vasi (11) v Bohinju. Osle je delal iz kamna iz grape v Senožetah (med hriboma Rudnica in Šavnica) za domačo rabo in za prodajo. Predmet je eden izmed njegovih izdelkov. Oblikovanje čolničasto. V vodoravnem prerezu je pravokoten. Na enem koncu je odlomljen.

148.

OSLA, vósla / Podporezen / kremenov peščenjak / v - 28 cm, š - 3,5 cm, g - 2,2 cm / št. neg. 16992 / inv. št. 17793.

Glede pridobitve za muzej za oslo velja komentar k oselniku št. 136. Predmet je izdelek Franca Prezlja iz let med 1950 in 1954. Kamen je iz kamnoloma pri Gornjih Novakih. Tudi ta osla ima čolničasto obliko in je v vodoravnem prerezu pravokotna.

149.

OGNJILO, uogníla / Grant / jeklo / v - 20,2 cm, š - 3,7 cm, g - 0,8 cm / št. neg. 16987 / inv. št. 17794.

Glede pridobitve za muzej za ognjilo velja komentar k oselniku št. 135. Predmet je bil last darovalčevega deda (in že pri njem dolgo v rabi), kar omogoča datacijo v začetek 20. stoletja. Je kovaški izdelek. Iglast funkcionalni del ima v vodoravnem prerezu čolničasto obliko. Njegov ročaj je sukan (tordiran), oblikovan v okroglo zanko.

150.

OGNJILO, štrájher / Robanov kot / jeklo / v - 20,5 cm, š - 2,3 cm, g - 0,9 cm / št. neg. 16985 / inv. št. 17795.

Predmet je muzeju leta 1993 podarila Marija Prodnik (r. 194?), gospodinja visokogorske kmetije, vulgo pri Vršnik v Robanovem kotu (37). Ognjilo je iz prve polovice 20. stoletja (od dolgoletne rabe ima zaobljene robove) in je bilo narejeno v kovačiji v sklopu domačije. Njegov iglast funkcionalni del je v vodoravnem prerezu kvadraten. Od sredine proti ročaju je sukan (tordiran). Ročaj je oblikovan v manjšo okroglo zanko z visečo rinko.

151.

OGNJILO, ogníi / Koprivnik / jeklo / v - 19,9 cm, š - 5,8 cm, g - 1,6 cm / št. neg. 16984 / inv. št. 17796.

Glede pridobitve za muzej za ognjilo velja komentar k oselniku št. 116. Gospodar Franc Beznik ga je tedaj še uporabljal. Po njegovem pripovedovanju naj bi ga pred leti izdelal koprivniški kovač Goljet. Predmetov iglast funkcionalni del je v vodoravnem prerezu kvadraten. Ročaj je oblikovan v kladivce s ključem za zategovanje.

152.

OGNJILO, ogníl / Martinj Vrh / jeklo / v - 21 cm, š - 2,7 cm, g - 1,1 cm / št. neg. 16986 / inv. št. 17797.

Primerek je muzeju leta 1993 podaril njegov izdelovalec Štefan Benedičič (r. 1941), izučen kovač iz Martinj Vrha (43). Robato ognjilo (ki ga je sam tudi uporabljal) je izdelal tako, da je prekoval staro pilo in ji dodal odlomljen del odsluženega ključa. Le-ta je postal ročaj. Predmetov funkcionalni del je v vodoravnem prerezu kvadraten. Njegov kotno oblikovan konec služi kot ključ za zategovanje.





KATALOG RISB

1.

OSELNIKI / LESENI, enonogi, valjasto-nabrekli in valjasti. Peter Žmitek, 1908. Kolorirana risba, 35 x 25 cm. Inv. št. i.g. (ilustrativno gradivo) 60, stara inv. št. 2821, na hrbtni strani žig: Kranjski deželni muzej »Rudolfinum« v Ljubljani.

2.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten. Albin Rogelj, 1948 (Teren 1, Šentjurij-Škocjan). Tuširana risba, 18 x 25 cm. Inv. št. I/42. Zapis na risbi: Osovnik, 21 cm (višina), 5,5 cm (premer luknje za oslo), 3 cm (višina nog), 2 cm (razdalja med nogama), Janez Rebolj, pri Golobarju, Pece 3.

3.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, škatlast. L. Šuštar, 1949 (Teren 2, Šmarje-Sap). Tuširana risba, 19 x 40 cm. Inv. št. II/28. Zapis na risbi: Osevnik, Franc Predalič, Zg. Slivnica 5.

4.

OSELNIK Z OSLO / ROŽEN. L. Šuštar, 1949 (Teren 2, Šmarje-Sap). Tuširana risba, 17 x 40 cm. Inv. št. II/29. Zapis na risbi: Osovnik z oslo, Jože Tomažin, pri Kržolu, Veliki vrh 2.

5.

OSELNIKA Z OSLAMA / LESENA; dvonog, škatlast in enonog, mnogokoten. Ivan Romih, 1950 (Teren 5, Šentvid pri Stični). Tuširana risba, 16 x 18. Inv. št. V/95, 96. Zapis na risbi: Osovnika, doma izdelana iz javorovega lesa, Ignac Kastelic, Hrastov dol 12.

6.

ORODJA ZA KOŠNJO. Ivan Romih, 1950 (Teren 5, Šentvid pri Stični). Tuširana risba, 36 x 31 cm. Inv. št. V/87-93. Zapis na risbi: Razna gospodarska orodja; A - vosovnik z oslo, d=24cm; B - kosa za reso in mah, d=39cm; C - klepivni kladu, d=19cm, š=14cm; D - klepnica z babco, d=60cm, v=66cm; E - kosa, d=170cm, d. rezila=71cm; F - grablje, d=158cm, š=54cm; G - senene vile, d=210cm; Leopold Primc, pri Starcu, Zaboršt 1.

7.

OSELNIK Z OSLO / ROŽEN. Ivan Romih, 1950 (Teren 5, Šentvid pri Stični). Del tuširane risbe, 18 x 22 cm. Inv. št. V/97. Zapis na risbi: Osovnik, d=27cm - 27cm (višina), 8cm (širina), 32cm (pas), M. Terlep, Št. Pavel 21.

8.

ORODJA ZA KOŠNJO. Ivan Romih, 1951 (Teren 7, Kobarid). Tuširana risba, 26 x 36 cm. Inv. št. VII/129-133. Zapis na risbi: Klepanje kose, Mihael Antih, pri Blenkin, Potoki 4; Dereza, Zg. Borjana 37; Oselnik, 27 (cm, višina), 17 (cm, višina deščice), pri Bricu, Kred 53; Natezilo, 16 (cm, višina iglastega dela), 7,5 (cm, višina ročaja); Železa za klepanje kose, Zg. Borjana 40.

9.

OSELNIK Z OSLO IN OGNJILOM / LESEN, dvonog, obel. Franc Maček, 1951 (Teren 7, Kobarid). Del tuširane risbe, 25 x 18 cm. Inv. št. VII/402. Zapis na risbi: Osovnik, Franc Ruša, Staro sedlo 34.

10.

OSELNIK Z OSLO / LESEN, enonog, mnogokoten. Janez Lunar, 1952 (Teren 8, Trenta). Tuširana risba, 10 x 25 cm. Inv. št. VIII/116. Zapis na risbi: Osovnik, viš. 27 cm, šir. 8 cm, Stanko Cuder, pri Rečči, Soča 150 - Lepena.

11.

OSELNIK Z OSLO / LESEN, enonog, valjast. Janez Lunar, 1952 (Teren 8, Trenta). Tuširana risba, 12 x 21 cm. Inv. št. VIII/127. Zapis na risbi: Osovnik, 25 cm (višina), 6 cm (širina), Alojz Flais, pri Gašperju, Soča 41, Lemovje.

12.

ORODJA ZA KOŠNJO. Ivan Romih, 1952 (Teren 9, Šentjernej). Tuširana risba, 27 x 36 cm. Inv. št. IX/5-7. Zapis na risbi: Grablje, oselnik in kosa; grable, grablišče, locaj, zobje, čelust; vosla, uslank; kosa, rinčk, zugojzda, kosišče, ruka, držal; Franc Jurgalič, Groblje 2.

13.

OSELNIK Z OSLO / ROŽEN. Janez Lunar, 1953 (Teren 10, Brda). Del tuširane risbe, 18 x 25 cm. Inv. št. X/109. Zapis na risbi: Ṷosenik z oslo, pri Hlipovih, Biljana 26.

14.

OSELNIK Z OSLO / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten. Ivan Romih, 1953 (Teren 10, Brda). Tuširana risba, 17 x 25 cm. Inv. št. X/182. Zapis na risbi: Vosenik, Anton Gabrijelčič, Vedrijan 56.

15.

OSELNIK Z OSLO IN OGNJILOM / LESEN, dvonog, obel. Ivan Romih, 1954 (Teren 11, Cerkljansko). Del tuširane risbe, 25 x 35 cm. Inv. št. XI/151. Zapis na risbi: Vosovnk z agnilo, pri Boštjanu, Zakraj 10.

16.

OSELNIKA / LESENA, dvonoga, mnogokotna. Ivan Romih, 1954 (Teren 11, Cerkljansko). Tuširana risba, 17 x 25 cm. Inv. št. XI/207, 208. Zapis na risbi: Ṷasunk, pri Andrjolču, Polje 3; Ṷasunk s klinom za obesit in kambo za »agnilo«, u Bajt, Polje 4.

17.

OSELNIK Z OSLO (pogled na sprednjo in na hrbtno stran) / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten. Ivan Romih, 1955 (Teren 12, Brkini). Del tuširane risbe, 17 x 25 cm. Inv. št. XII/72. Zapis na risbi: Ósnik, 28 (cm, višina), 9 (cm, širina), pri Cenčevih, Markovščina 32.

18.

OSELNIK Z OSLO / LESEN, enonog, mnogokoten. Ivan Romih, 1955 (Teren 12, Brkini). Tuširana risba, 9 x 12 cm. Inv. št. XII/134. Zapis na risbi: Uosounik, pri Kavlinovih, Barka 2.

19.

OSELNIK Z OSLO / LESEN, dvonog, obel. Rudolf Auersperg, 1955 (Teren 12, Brkini). Tuširana risba, 18 x 12 cm. Inv. št. XII/506. Zapis na risbi: Ósnik, Rudolf Cetinj, pri Dežotovih, Kovčice 2.

20.

OSELNIK / ROŽEN. Ivan Romih, 1957 (Teren 14, Žužemberk). Tuširana risba, 18 x 25 cm. Inv. št. XIV/9. Zapis na risbi: Ṷosoŭnək (iz roga), 26 (cm, višina), 8 (cm, širina), pri Vedeževih, Gradenc 24.

21.

OSELNIK Z OSLO / LESEN, dvonog, škatlast. Ivan Romih, 1957 (Teren 14, Žužemberk). Tuširana risba, 17 x 25 cm. Inv. št. XIV/10. Zapis na risbi: Ósoṷnək z oslo, 22 (cm, višina), 6 (cm, širina), pri Mežnarju, Vrhovo 2.

22.

OSELNIKA / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten in ROŽEN. Ivan Romih, 1958 (Teren 15, Vipava). Tuširana risba, 18 x 25 cm. Inv. št. XV/24, 25. Zapis na risbi: Ósoṷnik; a-lesen (nagnoj), 30 (cm, višina), 8 (cm, širina); b-iz roga, 21 (cm, višina); pri Videjevih, Duplje 40.

23.

OSELNIK / LESEN, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten. Slavka Čufer, 1959 (Teren 16, Črni vrh - Vojsko). Tuširana risba, 18 x 25 cm. Inv. št. XVI/94. Zapis na risbi: Ṷosənk, pri Figarju, Zdole 31.

24.

OSELNIK Z OSLO IN OGNJILOM (pogled na stransko in na hrbtno stran) / LESEN, dvonog, obel. Slavka Čufer, 1959 (Teren 16, Črni vrh - Vojsko). Tuširana risba, 18 x 25 cm. Inv. št. XVI/97. Zapis na risbi: Ósoṷənk, 27 (cm, višina), dolžina ploščička 14 cm, Andrej Ogrič, Vojsko 57.

25.

OSELNIKA (pogled na gornja dela hrbtnih strani) / LESENA, enonoga, valjastomnogokotna. Slavka Čufer, 1959 (Teren 16, Črni vrh - Vojsko). Tuširana risba, 17 x 25 cm. Inv. št. XVI/130. Zapis na risbi: Ósoṷənk (ṷosənk) s plohkom od zadaj, ṷosənk z žico (dratom) od zadaj, pri Snežənkarju, Kanji dol 9.

26.

OSELNIK Z OSLO IN OGNJILOM / LESEN, dvonog, obel. Slavka Čufer, 1959 (Teren 16, Črni vrh - Vojsko). Tuširana risba, 17 x 25 cm. Inv. št. XVI/160. Zapis na risbi: Ósoṷənk, 27 (cm, višina), 14 (cm, višina deščice), pri Smodinu, Vojsko 32.

27.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten. Gorazd Makarovič, 1960 (Teren 17, Velike Lašče). Tuširana risba, 25 x 35 cm. Inv. št. XVII/28. Zapis na risbi: Vosóvnək, 23 (cm, višina), Janez Žužek, Jakičevo št. 1.

28.

OSELNIK Z OSLO / LESEN, dvonog, obel. Ivan Romih, 1962 (Teren 19, Lož). Del tuširane risbe, 17 x 25 cm. Inv. št. XIX/2. Zapis na risbi: Usounek, 28 (cm, višina), 7 (cm, širina), grad Snežnik, Kozarišče pri Ložu.

29.

OSELNIK / LESEN, dvonog, mnogokoten. Ivan Romih, 1962 (Teren 19, Lož). Tuširana risba, 17 x 25 cm. Inv. št. XIX/5. Zapis na risbi: Usounek, 29 (cm, višina), 7 (cm, širina), grad Snežnik, Kozarišče pri Ložu.





CATALOGUE


Introductory note

The objects in the list are arranged starting with the lowest inventory numbers of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum (SEM): first whetstone holders, then whetstones and lastly straighteners. The following data are mentioned for every catalogue item in this order: its reference number, object, special name (if any), type of shape, place of use (for new specimen where it was made), material it is made of, dimensions (h=height, w=width, d=depth), number of the negative (neg. no.) in the SEM’s photo library, SEM inventory number (inv. no.) and possible older inventory numbers the objects had in other institutions. These data are then followed by a commentary.

The type of shape of whetstone holders is determined by the material it is made of, the points (none, one or two) which serve to stick it in the ground. For the points as well as for the majority of the other parts of a whetstone holder anthropomorphic names are used: legs, trunk, back, ears. We thought these to be most descriptive and also in accordance with names used in various parts of Slovenia (e.g. in Gradež: legs for the points and ears for the openings for threading a belt through; Ljubič, 1951: 72).

The list of objects is followed by a list of drawn whetstone holders from the Archive of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum. The drawings are in chronological order. Data are mentioned in the following order: reference number, object, type of shape, author of the drawing, year of origin, (field), technique, dimensions of the sheet, SEM inventory number (inv. no.) and inscription on the drawing.

The colour illustrations are arranged according to material, type of shape and not according to successive numbers. The number mentioned at each individual colour illustration is the reference number of the object.


CATALOGUE OF OBJECTS

1.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, vodér / EARTHEN, one-legged, thin-cylindrical / Moščanci / baked clay, brown and white paint, glaze / height - 18.8 cm, width - 7.1 cm, depth - 7.1 cm / negative no. 16963 / inventory no. 748.

Acquired for the Royal Ethnographic Museum in 1930 (S. Vurnik’s entry in the inventory) together with numerous other products made by potter Štefan Zrinjski from Moščanci (6). The holder was probably manufactured in the same year, as it is (was then) new and shows no signs of wear. It is the only earthen holder in our collection (and, according to the sources and literature we checked, it has no match). Its form, though, is in line with the type prevalent in Prekmurje, i.e. one-legged, thin-cylindrical holders. The potter presumably made it for his own use (or, considering its fragility, perhaps for decoration only). The trunk is decorated with a painted white-on-brown geometric ornament, composed of horizontal bands: three bands of waves, each of them captured between two lines. Right underneath the top of the holder’s back side there are two little holes, through which a string can be pulled to tie the holder round the mower’s waist. (The thin wire in the holder is rolled into a coil and can only have served for hanging the holder on a wall, not for tying it to the user’s belt).

2.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Koprivnik, Gorjuše / ash, leather belt, brass button / h. - 27.5 cm, w.- 9.7 cm, d. - 8.3 cm / negative no. 16918 / inv. no. 2221.

Acquired for the Carniolian Provincial Museum Rudolfinum in 1907 together with eight similar holders from Koprivnik and Gorjuše. Evidence on the acquisition can be found in W. Šmid’s report, Bericht des Landesmuseums Rudolfinum in Laibach für das Jahr 1908, p. 8 and in P. Žmitek’s drawing, published in the same report on p. 5 (kept by the SEM’s archive. See the catalogue of the collection of drawings of whetstone holders, no. 1). After independence from Austria-Hungary the object was taken over by the Royal Ethnographic Museum. Judging by the year of acquisition (1907) and its signs of wear, it dates from the second half of the 19th century. The holder was made on a turning-lathe and its horizontal, inside section is round. The upper half of its trunk is decorated with a carved ornament, composed of horizontal bands. In succession there are: a zigzag band; a band of shallow, horizontal and scale-like cuts; two bands of deeper, longer, vertical scale-like cuts, alternatively turned up and down and thus forming a wave pattern; then a band of circles with upright scale-like cuts beneath them; and to conclude, another band of zigzag incisions. The bottom half of the trunk is decorated with a series of alternating thin (and shallow) and wide (and deep) turned rings. The top side of the holder’s back is flat (the height of this part corresponds exactly with the distance between the upper edge of the first carved band and the lower edge of the last one). The top widens into two bulges, the ears, with two narrow openings for a belt. The right ear is vertically pierced by a round opening, intended for inserting and suspending ognjilo, a straightener (a small steel rod used for straightening the blade of the scythe before whetting). To the right of the whetstone-hole the holder’s wall is thinner, worn out due to frequent extraction of the whetstone. The position of the signs of wear indicates that the user wore the holder on the right back side. To the holder belongs a dark brown leather belt with a decorative, punched brass button. (Among the whetstone holders acquired simultaneously this is the only one to have a belt).

3.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Koprivnik, Gorjuše / hardwood / h. - 24.5 cm, w. - 9.7 cm, d. - 7 cm / negative no. 16929 / inv. no. 2222.

Same commentary as for no. 2. Its main characteristic is the vertically composed, carved ornament of the trunk’s upper half: a series of upright and straight, carved grooves.

4.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical / Koprivnik, Gorjuše / walnut / h. - 24 cm, w. - 8.3 cm, d. - 7.8 cm / negative no. 16938 / inv. no. 2223.

Same commentary as for no. 2. The horizontal bands of the quite deeply carved, ornament follow each other in a slightly different order: vertical scales, zigzag, two wave patterns, zigzag, vertcal scales. Three other holders from Gorjuše or Bohinj (nos. 9, 16 and 50) have their upper half carved in the same way, indicating that they were possibly made by the same craftsman. Apart of the ear with the opening for the straightener as well as its substitute - a little piece of sheet metal fixed to the holder with three wrought-iron nails - are broken off. The holder is worn out to the right of the whetstone-hole.

5.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Koprivnik, Gorjuše / hardwood / h. - 24 cm, w. - 7.3 cm, d. - 6.5 cm / negative no. 16931 / inv. no. 2224.

Same commentary as for no. 2. The upper half of the trunk is decorated with bands of shallow, upright, scale-like cuts, with a band of little circles in the centre. The thin ears have no opening for a straightener.

6.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Koprivnik, Gorjuše / elm / h. - 28.8 cm, w. - 8.5 cm, d. - 7.5 cm / negative no. 16922 / inv. no. 2225.

Same commentary as for no. 2. But is also similar to no. 3 because of the vertically composed, carved ornament of the trunk’s upper half - a series of upright and straight, carved grooves. However, additional are the zigzag bands above and under them. The thin ears have no opening for a straightener. The holder is much worn out to the right of the whetstone-hole. Cracks are filled up with pitch and the top edge is tied with a wire.

7.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Koprivnik, Gorjuše / linden / h. - 23 cm, w. - 10 cm, d. - 6.8 cm / negative no. 16914 / inv. no. 2226.

The commentary for no. 2 applies only partly to this holder. Though it certainly originates from Koprivnik or Gorjuše and was entered into the inventory together with those acquired by the museum in 1907, the illustration on Šmitek’s drawing much more resembles holder no. 55 which had no inventory number. Its decoration - shallow, scale-like cuts - is similar to that of no. 5. The holder has an opening for inserting and suspending a straightener. It is much worn out to the right of the whetstone-hole.

8.

WHETSTONE HOLDER/WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical / Koprivnik / walnut, leather loop / h. - 29.5 cm, w. - 8 cm, d. - 8 cm / negative no. 16925 / inv. no. 2227.

Same commentary as for no. 2. The upper part, decorated with a carved ornament, extends over two thirds of the trunk. Three bands of compressed, vertical waves are trimmed by two zigzag bands at the bottom. In the ears two belt-holes are cut. The ears are decorated with short, round, groove-like cuts. To insert and suspend a straightener there is a loop, a leather strap, fixed to the holder with two wroughtiron nails on the right side, next to the ear. The whetstone-hole is heavily worn from extraction on its right side.

9.

WHETSTONE HOLDER/WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical / Koprivnik, Gorjuše / walnut, leather loop / h. - 27 cm, w. - 8.6 cm, d. - 7 cm / negative no. 16943 / inv. no. 2228.

Same commentary as for no. 2, same description of carved ornament as no. 4. To insert and suspend a straightener there is a tiny leather strap, fixed to the holder with two wrought-iron nails on the right side, next to the ear. The edge of the whetstone-hole is braced with a nailed little board. The holder is thinner to the right, indicating that the mower carried it on his right back side. In the bottom part there is a little hole - more a crack - covered with a little piece of sheet metal nailed to it.

10.

WHETSTONE HOLDER/WOODEN, legless, box-like / Ivanjkovci, Slovenske gorice / walnut, painted with orange, dark and light green (“Czech earth”) oil paint / h. - 33 cm, w. - 9.6 cm, d. - 5 cm / negative no. 16868 / inv. no. 2394.

Purchased for the museum in the antique shop Dorotheum (Ljubljana) between 1937 and 1943, at a time when F. Kos was the museum’s curator (his is the entry in the inventory). On the front the year 1842 is carved. According to Kos, its origin is unknown and it was found in a noble house. Other known and similar holders allow us to classify it among those widespread in the (Upper) Savinja Valley. Its decoration, however, is quite original. It consists of a carved and then painted, stylized, symmetrically composed flower ornament on the front and both sides and betrays the hand of a peasant carver. The top half of the back side is a little wider than the holder’s trunk. Above the whetstone-hole (its horizontal inside section is ellipsoid) the top is shaped into a decorative extension. Under the trunk’s top two narrow belt-holes were cut. At the bottom the trunk ends in two carved, spiral coils. The edge of the whetstone-hole (and its front inside wall) is thinner and worn out by extraction on the left side (where the left side and front meet), indicating that the mower wore it on his abdomen (or, that he was left-handed and wore it on his left back side). A quite large patch of sheet metal is nailed to the back side of the holder with wrought-iron nails to cover a rotted spot.

11.

WHETSTONE HOLDER/WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Bohinj / walnut / decorated with brownish red oil paint / h. - 28 cm, w. - 8.2 cm, d. - 9 cm / negative no. 16934 / inv. no. 6174.

Purchased for the Ethnographic Museum in 1948, from P. Golob (Ljubljana) together with five similar holders, all part of Dr. Peršin’s private collection. The latter stated they were all from Bohinj. All six holders are of the same type and have a similar, almost equal decoration of the trunk (a carved ornament; horizontally composed bands of carved zigzag, waves and vertical scale-like cuts as holders nos. 2, 4, 8 and 9 from Koprivnik or Gorjuše. It thus seems that this type of decoration prevailed in these places in the second half of the 19th century. This particular holder was later on painted all over with a brownish red paint. According to oral sources, painting the holders in whole with red or green paint became prevalent in the period between the World Wars. The right ear is vertically pierced by a round opening for the straightener. A crack on the back side is filled with pitch.

12.

WHETSTONE HOLDER/WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Bohinj / ash / h. - 28.5 cm, w. - 9.3 cm, d. - 8 cm / negative no. 16921 / inv. no. 6175.

Same commentary as for no. 11. The very similar dimensions, the equal sequence of horizontal bands of the carved ornament, and the type of carving suggests the same maker.

13.

WHETSTONE HOLDER/WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Bohinj / linden / h. - 28 cm, w. - 8.1 cm, d. - 7.5 cm / negative no. 16933 / inv. no. 6176.

Same commentary as for no. 12. A crack on the front side is filled with pitch.

14.

WHETSTONE HOLDER/WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Bohinj / walnut / h. - 25 cm, w. - 7.3 cm, d. - 7.4 cm / negative no. 16939 / inv. no. 6177.

Same comment as for no. 11. The right ear has no opening for insertion and suspension of the straightener, but there are tiny holes and fragments of little nails which were used to fasten either a sheet-metal or leather strap, shaped into a loop for the straightener. On the left side of the trunk there is a crack, filled with pitch.

15.

WHETSTONE HOLDER/WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical / Bohinj / walnut, sheet-metal loop / h. - 27 cm, w. - 8.2 cm, d. - 7.5 cm / negative no. 16941 / inv. no. 6178.

Same commentary as for no. 11. On the trunk’s right side and under the ear there is loop for the straightener. It is made of a strip of sheet metal and fixed with a wire pulled through two little holes. The holder is thinner to the right of the whetstone-hole and much worn out by extraction. Under the area of wear there is a tiny crack in the bottom half of the trunk, filled with pitch.

16.

WHETSTONE HOLDER/WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Bohinj / linden, sheet-metal loop / h. - 22.3 cm, w. - 7.5 cm, d. - 7 cm / negative no. 16944 / inv. no. 6179.

Same commentary as for no. 11. Though the holder has two belt-holes, cut in its back, the ears are pierced too. Here there is a wire loop, bent into a hook to hitch the holder to a belt. The remnant of a strip of sheet metal, shaped into a noose for the straightener, hangs on to one single wrought-iron nail. The whetstone-hole is much worn out by extraction to its right side. A crack, filled with pitch, runs from the ear to the bottom point on the trunk’s left side.

17.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Gorjuše / ash, leather loop / h. - 22.8 cm, w. - 6.5 cm, d. - 5.5 cm / negative no. 16932 / inv. no. 6296.

Donated to the Ethnographic Museum by A. Zupan (house name “pri Načest”) from Gorjuše in 1950. Because it is similar to other specimens of the collection (2-9 and 1-16) and because of the signs of wear on it, it probably dates from the second half of the 19th century. The ears have cut belt-openings and are rather thin. For the straightener there is a loop made of a little strip of leather, which is nailed to the holder next to the right ear. (Under the leather there are visible fragments of an older strip, made of sheet metal). The extraction signs are to the right of the whetstone-hole. There are many cracks in the holder, two of them - in the trunk’s top half (above and under the ears) - are tied with a wire.

18.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, osounik / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / Podgorica / linden, hempen rope / h. - 28 cm, w. - 6.7 cm, d. - 6.7 cm / negative no. 16884 / inv. no. 6430.

Donated to the Ethnographic Museum (to the team in Field 1, Šentjurij-Škocjan) by J. Zakrajšek (house name “pri Prusnik”) from Podgorica (6) in 1948. It probably dates from the early 20th century. The holder ranks among the two-legged, polygonal or round whetstone holders, widespread (whether polygonal or round) in parts of Dolenjsko, Suha Krajina, Notranjsko, Pivka, the Vipava Valley, the Karst, Brda, Tolmin, Bovec, Trenta, Cerkljansko and Idrija, Baška grapa and the Selška Valley. These holders were not made with a turning-lathe but on a chopping bench (or on a woodworker’s bench). Their main characteristics are: a flat back side with smoothly removed side edges - except in that part of the trunk’s upper third where (in the corners of the ears) the belt-holes are cut; polygonal or round outside and inside horizontal sections and two legs (points the back side ends in). The points are made of the trunk’s bottom part which is cut sharply, almost at an angle of 90°. The holder is slightly swollen in the centre. A string runs through the belt-holes. Signs of heavy wear to the right of the whetstone-hole suggest that it was worn on the right back side. In the middle of trunk’s front there is a little crack, filled with pitch.

19.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, osovnik / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / Zabukovje / walnut / h - 24.5 cm, w - 7 cm, d - 7.2 cm / neg. no. 17596 / inv. no. 6431.

Donated to the Ethnographic Museum (Field team 1, Šentjurij - Škocjan) by the Mihelčič family from Zabukovje in 1948. Made by Jože Šmuc, house name “Bajde” (see T. Ljubič’s article on Šmuc, Extinct branches of domestic handicrafts in the surroundings of Turjak, Slovenski etnograf III-IV, Ljubljana 1951, p. 71 - 73), a well-known maker of whetstone holders from the village of Gradež. The holder corresponds to the polygonal varieties of type of shape, described under no. 18. The vertical fields are decorated with shallow, linearly cut geometric ornaments, scale-like cuts and stamped circles (the central front field and both side fields) and stylized plants (left and right front fields). The whetstone-hole is worn on the right side. A piece of sheet-metal is fastened to the holder’s rotted bottom. Both points which served to stick the holder in the ground are partly broken off.

20.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, osounik / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical- polygonal / Spodnja Slivnica / linden / h. - 25.3 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. - 6 cm / negative no. 16928 / inv. no. 6432.

Donated to the Ethnographic Museum (to the team in Field 1, Šentjurij-Škocjan) by the Podlomar family from Spodnja Slivnica (11) in 1948. The year 1898 and date May 8 are carved into the upper part of the back, above the belt-holes. The holder was shaped on a turning-lathe, but only its one-legged bottom part was finished on it; the upper part is polygonal and has a flat back with cut belt-holes in the corners. It is decorated with a geometric ornament made of shallowly carved lines; in the trunk’s centre there are three ring-shaped bands; the upper, polygonal, part has three upright fields on the front. In the centre of the first and third field the initials FH are carved (standing for Franc Habjan). The side fields are decorated with linear carvings of stylized plant twigs. The right side of the whetstone-hole is heavily worn and broken. The whetstone holder has many cracks and is tied with a wire in two places.

21.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, osovank / HORN, legless, wedge-shaped / Polica / cowhorn / h. - 24.7 cm, w. - 6.6 cm, d. - 3.8 cm / negative no. 16847 / inv. no. 6643.

The holder was donated to the Ethnographic Museum (to the team in Field 1, Šentjurij-Škocjan) in 1948. It was made by J. Zavrl from Polica (34), a native of Litija. The horn was boiled, shaped with a wooden wedge (rectangular it its horizontal section). The back side has a short extension, pierced by two little holes to receive the string.

22.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, osounik / WOODEN, two-legged, round / Ponova vas / hardwood / h. - 26.5 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. - 6.5 cm / negative no. 16890 / inv. no. 6656.

The holder was donated to the Ethnographic Museum (to the team in Field 2, Šmarje-Sap) by H. Zajc from Ponova vas in 1949. It probably dates from the first decade of the 20th century. It is a very original make, but does not essentially differ from the basic characteristics of its type (see no. 18 for an extensive description). The back side is shaped into a short decorative extension, the trunk is thinner in the bottom part and narrows down to the two points which are slightly bent forward. (Its vertical side view quite resembles a horn). The whetstone-hole is worn out to the right. Under it, there are visible traces of a wire which once held it together (a long crack almost splits the holder).

23.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, špu / WOODEN, legless, box-like / Luče / hardwood / h. - 27.4 cm, w. - 8 cm, d. - 5.5 cm / negative no. 16859 / inv. no. 7233.

The whetstone holder was donated to the Ethnographic Museum by J. Kosmač from Luče (9) in 1954. A note in the inventory mentions the donor’s statement that the holder is about 80 years old, indicating that it was probably made in the 70s or 80s of the past century. Its type and signs of wear correspond with these data. The trunk’s inside and outside horizontal sections are trapezoid, almost rectangular. The front side is cut smoothly at the juncture with the back side. The back side is shaped into a decorative extension with the motif of a heart under the whetstone-hole. The belt-holes are under the heart, in the corners on both sides. The holder was worn on the user’s right back side as can be seen from the extraction signs.

24.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, ósovnik / HORN / Škofije / cowhorn, little board, hempen string / h. - 25 cm, w. - 8 cm, d. - 5.7 cm / negative no. 17594 / inv. no. 7892.

The whetstone holder was donated to the Ethnographic Museum by a peasant (house name “pri Živca”) from Škofije near Koper (in the first half of the Fifties). The back side is pierced by two little holes at the top. A string runs through them and fastens a little board (a wooden execution of a hook, h. - 16 cm, w. - 2 cm) to the holder’s trunk. It serves to stick the holder under the mower’s belt.

25.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, ósunjak / WOODEN, two-legged, round / Kal (It.: Calla) in the Nadiška (It.: Natisone) Valley in Italy / walnut, hempen string / h. - 28.5 cm, w. - 6.7 cm, d. - 6.9 cm / negative no. 16965 / inv. no. 9112.

Donated to the Ethnographic Museum by Vidži Specogna from Kal (Calla) (99) in the Nadiška (Natisone) Valley. Home-made, more or less new, dating from the Fifties. The legs or points are rather short. In the flat back side there are two little holes in the corners of the centre’s upper half. A string runs through them. The string ties a little board (h. - 16 cm, w. - 2.4 cm) to the holder’s trunk. This is the so-called “peg”, used to stick the holder under the mower’s belt.

26.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, vodér / WOODEN, one-legged, thin-cylindrical / Črenšovci / ash, sheet-metal hook / h. - 21.5 cm, w. - 6 cm, d. - 6 cm / negative no. 16964 / inv. no. 9358.

Donated to the Ethnographic Museum by Š. Novak from Črenšovci in the early Sixties. Its shape corresponds with the type prevalent in Prekmurje, i.e. turned wooden holders, decorated with a series of turned rings. Under the top of the thin trunk there is a deeper cut ring and a wire tied in it. This wire fastens a little sheet-metal hook to the back. The hook is used to hitch the holder to a belt (originally, the hook was probably fastened through two little holes). A short crack is filled with yarn.

27.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / HORN / Skomarje / cowhorn, wire hook / h. - 23.5 cm, w. - 6.5 cm, d. - 5.7 cm / negative no. 16855 / inv. no. 9720.

Donated to the Ethnographic Museum (to the Vitanje Field team) by J. Kovše from Skomarje in 1963. The horn’s surface is polished. The back side is pierced by two little holes through which a wire runs, shaped into a hook (which serves to hitch the horn to a belt. The signs of wear do not provide reliable evidence on where the horn was worn.

28.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, vosunek / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / Zabukovje / walnut / h. - 24 cm, w. - 6.7 cm, d. - 6.6 cm / negative no. 16900 / inv. no. 10089.

Purchased for the Slovene Ethnographic Museum (hereinafter museum) from A. Lunder from Škocjan na Dolenjskem in 1965. Used until 1941, made probably one or two decades earlier. Belongs to the type of two-legged, polygonal (or round) whetstone holders, see detailed description under no. 18. Decorated with a shallow linear geometric ornament, carved into the upright fields. The sign carved into the bottom of the central field is possibly the homestead’s or manufacturer’s mark (it resembles the marks which are carved into beams). The whetstone-hole is heavily worn from extraction on its right side, suggesting that the user wore the holder on his right back side.

29.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, vosunik / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / Gradež / walnut / h. - 25.4 cm, w. - 6.8 cm, d. - 6.9 cm / negative no. 16881 / inv. no. 10663.

Purchased (1965) for the museum in Gradež (10) from Jože Šmuc, house name “Bajde”, a manufacturer of whetstones well-known throughout the villages on the slopes of Ahacova gora (see T. Ljubič’s article on Šmuc, Extinct branches of domestic handicrafts in the surroundings of Turjak, Slovenski etnograf III-IV, Ljubljana 1951, p. 71- 73). It is or rather was new and unused at the time of purchase. The holder belongs to the polygonal type, described in detail under no. 18. Because it is not decorated or “scratched” (as the locals say) people say it’s a “squinting” whetstone holder.

30.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / Gradež / walnut / h. - 25.5 cm, w. - 6.5 cm, d. - 7 cm / negative no. 16882 / inv. no. 10664.

Donated to the museum by J. Šmuc from Gradež (see commentary under no. 29) in 1965. Šmuc made it for his own use in 1945, as is confirmed by the carved year and initials JŠ. The holder corresponds with the polygonal type, described under no. 18. The upright fields are decorated with a shallow, linearly carved geometric ornament and stylized plants: twigs, flowers and scale-like bunches of grapes. The trunk’s upper third, from ear to ear is captured between horizontal bands trimming the carved year and both initials. The composition follows the same pattern: a central front field with the initials in the top third and a characteristic motif; the left and right central fields each contain half of the date in their upper third, both with the same motif which differs from the first one; both side fields show the same, third motif. The whetstone-hole is heavily worn on its right sight, indicating that it was worn on the user’s right back side. A piece of sheet metal is nailed to the holder’s rotted bottom.

31.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / Mali Ločnik / walnut / painted red and green / h. - 25.7 cm, w. - 6.7 cm, d. - 6.5 cm / negative no. 16896 / inv. no. 10665.

Donated to the museum by F. Cimber from Mali Ločnik (6) in 1965. Manufactured in Gradež, probably by J. Šmuc, in 1945 (year carved). Besides the year the initials JJ are carved. For general commentary see no. 30. Among the shallowly carved decorated whetstone holders this is the only one which is painted in some parts. The paint covers the carved ornaments: the geometric ornament, the little flower stalks and both initials are painted green; the bunch of grapes and the four flowers on the side fields are red-green; the two swirly rosettes - a flower and the date - are painted red. The edge of the whetstone-hole is worn out on its right side.

32.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / Mali Ločnik / walnut / h. - 24.5 cm, w. - 6.8 cm, d. - 6.9 cm / negative no. 16899 / inv.no. 10666.

This whetstone holder too was donated to the museum by F. Cimber from Mali Ločnik (6) in 1965. According to the carved year it was made in 1951, probably by J. Šmuc from Gradež. However, it certainly was not Šmuc who carved the initials BL. This was done by an unskilled hand right across the central field of the linear decoration which reaches up to the top. For the rest, see the commentary under no. 30. The whetstone-hole is worn out on its right side. A crack runs through the right middle field from top to bottom and this explains why the holder is tied with a wire at its bottom (at the top, near the ears, there are traces of another tie).

33.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / Mali Ločnik / walnut, leather straps, cotton rag / h. - 26 cm, w. - 6.5 cm, d. - 6.8 cm / negative no. 16902 / inv. no. 12763.

Donated to the museum by F. Cimber from Mali Ločnik (6) in 1965. According to Angelos Baš’ entry in the inventory, it was manufactured around 1930 and used up to 1940. It ranks among the nondecorated, so-called “squinting” holders of the above-mentioned type. It was obviously used on and on despite the damage it incurred. The bottom is packed with a wooden wedge, a crack on its back is filled with yarn and strengthened with nails, the trunk is bound with a rag and tied with a wire. The whetstone-hole is worn out on its right side.

34.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / HORN / Breg / cowhorn, hempen rope / h. - 23 cm, w. - 7.2 cm, d. - 5.7 cm / negative no. 16849 / inv. no. 14713.

Purchased for the museum from J. Novak from Breg (5) near Šentvid pri Stični in 1978. On the front side, in the middle upper half of the horn, an X is branded (most probably the homestead’s or cattle brand). Two little holes pierce the back, a rope to tie the holder round the waist runs through them. The signs of wear provide no reliable evidence on where the holder was worn.

35.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / HORN, legless, wedge-shaped / Upper Savinja Valley / cowhorn, sheet-metal hook / h. - 27.8 cm, w. - 7.4 cm, d - 3.5 cm / negative no. 16998 / inv. no. 17164.

Purchased by the museum together with four other whetstone holders from collector S. Strgar from Ljubljana in 1990. A note on the new acquisition was published in Etnolog 1 (LII), Ljubljana 1991, p. 201-205 (I. Smerdel, Five whetstone holders from the Upper Savinja Valley). The collector himself acquired them some thirty years ago in villages above Luče, from high-mountain farms. Even at that time they were said to belong to the “past generation”. They were probably made at the turn of the century. No. 35 carries the carved year 1912 and the initials FF. Besides belonging to the type of holders made of horn, it ranks among the legless and wedge-shaped ones. Indeed, it was boiled and (re)shaped with a wooden wedge (rectangular in its horizontal section). The back side ends in an extension. On the front two little crosses are carved and around these three little decorative holes. On the back side a little strip of sheet metal for hitching the holder to a belt is fixed with two rivets. The signs of wear provide no reliable evidence on where the holder was worn.

36.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / HORN, legless, wedge-shaped / Upper Savinja Valley / cowhorn, silver inlays, 2 wire loops / h. - 31.8 cm, w. - 8.5 cm, d. - 4.5 cm / negative no. 16999 / inv. no. 17165.

Same commentary as for no. 35. The whetstone holder carries the carved year 1898 and the initials FV. Because it is rectangular in its horizontal section and has sharply cut corners it would belong to the type of box-like wooden holders, but for its shape of a horn or natural wedge. The horn’s point is carved into an animal head (and resembles a snake, a badger or bear) with eyes, nostrils and snout made of silver inlays. The back side is shaped into a rectangular extension. Just underneath the edge of the whetstone-hole (worn out through extraction on the right) there are two wire loops for pulling through a string.

37.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, legless, box-shaped / Upper Savinja Valley / pearwood / h. - 33.5 cm, w. - 12.2 cm, d. - 5 cm / negative no. 16863 / inv. no. 17166.

Same commentary as for no. 35 (as far as acquisition and dating are concerned). It ranks among the type widespread in the (Upper) Savinja Valley. Its back side is a little wider in its upper half than the holder’s trunk. Its top part above the whetstone-hole (its horizontal section is round and trapezoid) is shaped into a decorative extension in the form of a three-hearts motif. Below the top of the holder’s trunk there are two narrow openings for the belt and the bottom ends in a rounded protruding “beard”. The whetstone-hole is worn from extraction on the right side.

38.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, legless, box-shaped / Upper Savinja Valley / hardwood / h. - 33 cm, w. - 12 cm, d. - 5.5 cm / negative no. 16865 / inv. no. 17167.

Concerning acquisition and dating, see commentary under no. 35. Its shape, decorative extension and the execution of the belt holes are such that the holder does not differ essentially from the description of no. 37. The back side’s bottom ends in two carved spiral coils. The front side is decorated with a carved, vertically composed, stylized flower. The flower is a six-leaf rosette. This execution betrays the skilled hand of a carver. The whetstone-hole’s edge is thinner and heavily worn through extraction on its right side.

39.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, legless box-shaped / Upper Savinja Valley / linden, painted with green, golden and silver paint / h. - 27.5 cm, w. - 10 cm, d. - 5 cm / negative no. 16861 / inv. no. 17168.

Acquisition and dating: see commentary under no. 35. The front surface is decorated with a realistic flower motif of a little flower-pot with a lily of the valley in blossom. The motif is shallowly carved and was painted afterwards. The front and both side surfaces are trimmed with a shallow, carved, geometric ornament (painted along the upper edge of the trunk). The holder’s trunk ends at the bottom in two decorative points, turned backwards.

40.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, osúnk / WOODEN, two-legged, round / Sorica / broomwood (Cytisus) / wrought-iron ring, leather strap / h. - 26.3 cm, w. - 6.7 cm, d. - 6.7 cm / negative no. 16871 / inv. no. 17686 / old National Museum inv. no. 11010 (The Grebenc Collection, receiving inventory no. 11).

After the Second World War the Ethnographic Museum took over this and 12 other whetstone holders from the collections of the National Museum. They were part of the Grebenc Collection. This is supported by M. Makarovič’s report, On the Grebenc Collection in the Ethnographic Museum in Ljubljana, Slovenski Etnograf XV, Ljubljana 1962. The report mentions eleven whetstone holders dating from the period between approximately 1845 and 1890. In Grebenc’s handwritten inventory there were a few more. The museum’s collection contains 14 holders; 10 of these carry old National Museum inventory numbers, on four of them the names of the places where they were found are visible on the back, where Grebenc is supposed to have carved them. The holder, dated in the receiving inventory with the “uncertain” (Grebenc’s expression) year 1890, is a characteristic specimen of the round variety of the two-legged type (described under no. 18). It is braced as well as decorated with wrought-iron rings as was done in Sorica and its surroundings. There are two little holes in the corners of the upper half’s back. Through them runs a leather strap which fastens a little board (h. - 15 cm, w. - 5 cm) to the holder’s trunk. The holder is stuck behind a belt with this little board. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn out on the right side.

41.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, osúnk / WOODEN, two-legged, round / Zali Log / broomwood, strip of bark, leather strap / h. - 25.9 cm, w. - 6 cm, d. - 6.2 cm / negative no. 16869 / inv. no. 17687 / old National Museum inv. no. 11050 (The Grebenc Collection, receiving inventory no. 82).

For acquisition see commentary under no. 40. Dated in the receiving inventory with the “uncertain” year 1890. As possible places of origin, Železniki and Češnjica are mentioned but similar whetstone holders are still made in Zali Log (see e.g. no. 137). This holder too is a characteristic specimen of the two-legged type’s round variety. The bottom third of the trunk is braced, tied with a strip of bark. To hitch it to a belt a little board (h. - 13 cm, w. - 5.3 cm) is fastened to its back side in the same way as with no. 40. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn out on the right side.

42.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / HORN / Zali Log / cowhorn / h. - 23 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. - 5.5 cm / negative no. 16858 / inv. no. 17688 / old National Museum inv. no. 11051 (The Grebenc Collection, receiving inventory no. 83).

For acquisition see commentary under no. 40. There are five little holes in the back; through two of them a little wire runs which fastens a pierced little board, made of horn (h. - 8.5 cm, w. - 3 cm), to the holder’s trunk in two places. The whetstone-hole’s edge is broken off on the right side.

43.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, kump / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal / Selca / walnut / h. - 25.9 cm, w. - 7.3 cm, d. - 7 cm / negative no. 16955 / inv. no. 17689 / old National Museum inv. no. 11089 (The Grebenc Collection, receiving inventory no. 122).

For acquisition see commentary under no. 40. The receiving inventory’s “uncertain” date is 1880 and the inventory designates it as “a genuine Selce type of holder”. Manufactured on a turning-lathe, the trunk’s upper half is of polygonal shape. Two holes are drilled in the back side, either for pulling through a string or for fastening a little board, the latter method being common in this region. The whetstone-hole’s edge is a little worn out on its right side. The upper part of the back is cracked and a wrought-iron nail covers the crack.

44.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Kranjska gora / linden / h. - 22.5 cm, w. - 8.2 cm, d. - 5.5 cm / negative no. 16924 / inv. no. 17690 / old National Museum inv. no. 11270 (The Grebenc Collection, receiving inventory no. 99R).

For acquirement see commentary under no. 40. The receiving inventory’s “uncertain” date is 1870, on the back the name Kronau is carved. Its form ranks it among the type widespread in Bohinj, Koprivnik and Gorjuše. The holder has a similar (shallowly) fretted ornament as nos. 5 and 7. The right ear is vertically pierced by an opening for the straightener. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn by extraction on the right side. At the back of the bottom part there is a little crack in the point, stuffed with a rag and filled with pitch.

45.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Koprivnik / walnut / h. - 26.3 cm, w. - 9.4 cm, d. - 7.8 cm / negative no. 16915 / inv. no. 17691 / old National Museum inv. no. 11279 (The Grebenc Collection, receiving inventory no. 108R).

For acquisition see commentary under no. 40. The receiving inventory’s “uncertain” year is 1870, on the back the word Koprivnik is carved. The holder belongs to the Bohinj type and has a similar (deeper) carved ornament as nos. 4, 9, 14, 16, 46 and 50. The right ear has no straightener opening, the whetstone-hole’s edge is heavily worn on the right side. In the rotted bottom of the holder’s trunk there is a minor hole to the left of the point.

46.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Koprivnik / walnut / h. - 26.5 cm, w. - 9.5 cm, d. - 7.4 cm / negative no. 16916 / inv. no. 17692 / old National Museum inv. no. 11280 (The Grebenc Collection, receiving inventory no. 109R).

Same commentary as for nos. 40 and 45. However, this holder has a straightener opening in the right ear and there are no cracks.

47.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Koprivnik / linden / h. - 27.5 cm, w. - 10 cm, d. - 7.6 cm / negative no. 16917 / inv. no. 17693 / old National Museum inv. no. 11281 (The Grebenc Collection, receiving inventory no. 110R).

Same commentary as for nos. 40 and 44. The receiving inventory’s “uncertain” year is 1875, on the back the word Koprivnik is carved.

48.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Koprivnik / softwood / h. - 27.5 cm, w. - 9.3 cm, d. - 7.9 cm / negative no. 16935 / inv. no. 17694 / old National Museum inv. no. 11282 (The Grebenc Collection, receiving inventory no. 111R).

For acquisition see commentary under no. 40. The receiving inventory’s “uncertain” year is 1870; there is no place-name carved on the back. The holder belongs to the type widespread in Bohinj, Koprivnik and Gorjuše. It has a straightener opening in the right ear and the whetstone-hole’s edge is worn out on the right side.

49.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Podkoren / softwood / h. - 25.5 cm, w. - 8.2 cm, d. - 7.2 cm / negative no. 16936 / inv. no. 17695 / old National Museum inv. no. 11288 (The Grebenc Collection, receiving inventory no. 117R).

For acquisition see commentary under no. 40. The receiving inventory’s “uncertain” year is 1865. Belongs to the Bohinj type of whetstone holders. The trunk’s upper part is decorated similarly to no. 3. Between the successive turned rings on the bottom half there are little stars, driven in with a punch. The holder is damaged so much it has no left ear; in the right ear two openings were drilled: one instead of cut belt-holes and one for the straightener. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn out on the right side and was braced with a ring (as stated in the receiving inventory’s description, also visible traces). The trunk’s upper half is cracked in its left bottom part, the crack is filled with pitch.

50.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical / Koprivnik / softwood / h. - 26 cm, w. - 8 cm, d. - 7.3 cm / negative no. 16930 / inv. no. 17696.

Together with nos. 51, 52 and 53 this holder belongs to the Grebenc Collection. Therefore, see no. 40 for acquisition. All four carry the name of the place where they were found, carved by Grebenc’s hand. They are without (visible) old inventory numbers of the National Museum, but have “possible” numbers in the receiving inventory. The holder belongs to the Bohinj type, is very similar to nos. 9 and 16 and was probably made by the same craftsman. The straightener opening is in the right ear; the whetstone-hole’s edge is worn out on the right side; on the trunk’s left side a crack runs from the ear to the point. It is filled with pitch.

51.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Koprivnik / linden / h. - 27 cm, w. - 7.5 cm, d. - 7.2 cm / negative no. 16923 / inv. no. 17697.

For acquisition see commentary under nos. 40 and 50. The holder belongs to the Bohinj type and is similar to no. 13; it was possibly made by the same craftsman. There is no straightener opening in the right ear; the whetstone-hole’s edge is heavily worn on the right side.

52.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical / Koprivnik / walnut / h - 29.5 cm, w - 8 - cm, d - 8 cm / neg. no. 16925 / inv. no. 17697a.

For acquisition by the museum see commentary under nos. 40 and 50. This specimen belongs to the Bohinj type of shape and was probably made by the same person as no. 8. It has no loop for the straightener. The ears with cut openings for threading the belt through are broken off, their remnants show visible traces of decoration with short, round grooved cuts.

53.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / Velika loka / walnut, painted with black oil paint / h. - 27 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. - 8 cm / negative no. 16906 / inv. no. 17698.

For acquisition see commentary for nos. 40 and 50. The name Grosslack is carved on the back. The holder is a characteristic specimen of the two-legged type’s polygonal variety. The upright fields are all decorated in the same way, with a shallow, carved wave between two lines. In this it differs from later specimens from the villages on the slopes of Ahacova gora (see nos. 30-32). In the ears narrow belt-holes are cut. The whetstone-hole’s edge is slightly worn on the right side. The holder’s trunk is cracked on the left upper side.

54.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / HORN / Bistrica ob Sotli / cowhorn, wire hook / h. - 22 cm, w. - 6.5 cm, d. - 5 cm / negative no. 16852 / inv. no. 17699 / old Ethnographic Museum inv. no. 14521-496.

Purchased for the museum (as part of the legacy of house no. 47 in Bistrica ob Sotli) from V. Ulčnik from Podčetrtek (5) in 1977. Manufactured one decade prior to the purchase. Two holes pierce the back side and carry a wire which is shaped into a hook for attaching the holder to a belt. The signs of wear provide no reliable evidence on where the holder was worn.

55.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / ash / h. - 24 cm, w. - 10 cm, d. - 7.3 cm / negative no. 16920 / inv. no. 17700.

Acquisition unknown. However, the holder resembles the illustration in Žmitek’s drawing from 1908 (see the catalogue of the collection of drawn whetstone holders, no. 1; in the drawing it is the third one from the right) much more than no. 7. It belongs to the Bohinj type, but its decoration is somewhat specific. The trunk’s upper half is trimmed by two horizontal bands of vertical, scale-like cuts, turned alternatively up and down. Between these two bands there are very shallow, hardly visible, carved bands of plaids and stylized flowers. The straightener opening is in the right ear, the whetstone-hole’s edge is heavily worn on the right side.

56.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / / linden, hempen string / h. - 23.5 cm, w. - 7.5 cm, d. - 6.3 cm / negative no. 16973 / inv. no. 17701.

Acquisition unknown. The holder belongs to the Bohinj type; its decoration is similar to that of nos. 5, 7 and 44, its dimensions to those of nos. 5 and 44. It has no straightener opening, a string runs through the belt-holes cut into the ears. The string fastens a twice pierced little board (h. -14.7 cm, w. - 5 cm) to the trunk’s back. The board serves to tuck the holder behind a belt. The whetstone-hole’s edge is so worn, that it is only 1-2 mm wide in one spot; the edge is cracked and filled with pitch.

57.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, box-shaped / Polje pri Bistrici / walnut / h. - 25.3 cm, w. - 6.5 cm, d. - 6.3 cm / negative no. 16866 / inv. no. 17702.

Purchased for the museum from F. Ulčnik from Polje (17) near Bistrica ob Sotli in 1977. The inside and outside horizontal sections of the holder are rectangular. A wooden hook (h. - 7.3 cm, w. - 2.6 cm) protrudes from the flat back side. The hook is shaped out of the same piece of wood. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the right side, the hook is cracked and fastened with four little nails, the holder’s bottom is rotted.

58.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, box-shaped / Polje pri Bistrici / walnut / h. - 26.5 cm, w. - 9 cm, d. - 6.5 cm / negative no. 16867 / inv. no. 17703.

Same commentary as for no. 57, except for the wooden hook which is wider (h.- 5.3 cm, w. - 4.8 to 8.5 cm). The holder is not damaged and here it is the front, not the back which ends in two legs (points).

59.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal / / linden / h. - 24 cm, w. - 7.7 cm, d. - 6 cm / negative no. 16957 / inv. no. 17704.

According to the entry in the Register of Acquisitions of Museum Objects (the holder carries a corresponding number) it was bought for the museum from D. Vuga in Ljubljana in 1966, together with several other objects supposed to originate from the area arround Grahovo. But this is questionable since on the back side it has the initials FZC (Federalni zbirni center). On the back side of the ears there are two holes for a string, which either fastened a little board or held a wire hook. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the right side.

60.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, vodijer / WOODEN, paunchy (acc. to C. Popović’s typology) / Bosnia and Herzegovina / linden / h. - 32 cm, w. - 8.5 cm, d. - 10 cm / negative no. 16980 / inv. no. 17705.

Acquisition unknown. Judging by similar specimens, its shape and manner of decoration in horizontal bands this is a Bosnian whetstone holder from the Kupres region (acc. to C. Popović’s typology in the article Bosnian & Herzegovinian whetstone holders, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu VII, n.s., Sarajevo 1952, p. 172). There are two belt-holes cut in the back side of the ears; the whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the right side, the holder’s trunk is cracked in two places and pierced in one.

61.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, legless, cylindrical / / linden / h. - 20 cm, w. - 6.5 cm, d. - 6.5 cm / negative no. 16967 / inv. no. 17706.

Acquisition unknown. The holder is a very original specimen, home-made, with the carved name Franc - probably the manufacturer as well as mower. On the back side there are four holes, made by nails. Most probably, they once fixed a sheet-metal hook to the holder. Two of the rings carved into the trunk show traces of binding with a wire. The wall and edge of the whetstone-hole are heavily worn on the front side, suggesting that the mower wore the holder on his abdomen (or, perhaps, on his right hip). Besides two short cracks there is one (on the right) which almost splits the holder in two pieces.

62.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal / / linden / h. - 25 cm, w. - 6.6 cm, d. - 7.3 cm / negative no. 16958 / inv. no. 17707.

Acquisition unknown. The holder ranks among the very widespread type of holders manufactured on a turning-lathe. They are decorated here and there (on the trunk’s bottom part) with turned rings and their upper parts are of polygonal shape. Such holders were well-known in Gorenjsko, Dolenjsko, from Porabje to Notranjsko, the Vipava Valley and the Karst. There are two little holes in the corners of the upper back side (polygonal in front) - intended for a string to fasten a little board or hold a wire hook. The whetstone-hole’s edge is slightly worn on the right side, the back side is cracked and rotted.

63.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal / / linden / h. - 25 cm, w. - 7.3 cm, d. - 6.5 cm / negative no. 16959 / inv. no. 17708.

See commentary for no. 62.

64.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal / / linden / h. - 26.5 cm, w. - 6.5 cm, d. - 6.5 cm / negative no. 16961 / inv. no. 17709.

Acquisition unknown. Because of its similarity to the drawn whetstone holders (their short polygonal part, limited to the upper fourth of the trunk, and the conical point; see catalogue of drawings no. 22, 23, and 25) it was most probably made in the region of Črni vrh in the Fifties and acquired for the Ethnographic Museum by the team in Field 16, Črni vrh - Vojsko in 1959. The central field carries a carved cross, designating the owner. For all other aspects, see the commentary for no. 62 (except that it is not cracked or rotted).

65.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal / / linden / h. - 27.5 cm, w. - 6.8 cm, d. - 7 cm / negative no. 16949 / inv. no. 17710.

Same commentary as for no. 64.

66.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal / / linden, hempen string / h. - 26.5 cm, w. - 7.5 cm, d. - 7 cm / negative no. 16956 / inv. no. 17711.

Same commentary as for no. 62. A string runs through the corner holes of the back side and fasten a little board (h. -13.5 cm, w. - 2.4 cm) to the trunk. The board serves to attach the holder to a belt. This manner of attachment ranks the holder among those from the Western Slovene provinces. The whetstone-hole’s edge is heavily worn (and cracked) on the right side.

67.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal / / linden, hempen string, black shoelace / h. - 27.5 cm, w. - 7.8 cm, d. - 7.5 cm / negative no. 16954 / inv. no. 17712.

Same commentary as for no. 62, same attachment manner as mentioned for no. 66. A relatively new little board (h. - 11,3 cm, w. - 3 cm) is loosely bound to the otherwise quite old holder (round its trunk). On the front side and in the centre field the owner’s monogram is carved quite deeply, while there is a shallowly carved little cross in both the left and right field. The whetstone-hole’s edge is tied with a wire held in a turned ring beneath it. The edge is worn on the right side.

68.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal / / linden, fragments of black oil paint, leather strap / h. - 24.5 cm, w. - 8.3 cm, d. - 6 cm / negative no. 16927 / inv. no. 17713.

Acquisition unknown. Though the upper half of the trunk is polygonal, the general shape and the ears rank it among the Bohinj type. Two holes drilled in the ears; the leather strap that runs through them fastens a little board (h. - 14.3 cm, w.- 5.5 cm) to the trunk’s back side. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn deeply on the right side. The upper part of the trunk carries visible traces of a cross-tied wire, and there are large spots with traces of black oil paint.

69.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / / linden, fragments of reddish brown oil paint, leather strap / h. - 21cm, w. - 6.7 cm, d. - 6.2 cm / negative no. 16926 / inv. no. 17714.

Acquisition unknown. The bottom part of the holder’s trunk is turned with a lathe; the upper part of the trunk and the swollen ring in its centre were cut off and flattened at the back. In the corners two holes were drilled and a strap fastened in them with wooden plugs. This strap fixes a little board (h. - 11.5, w. - 4.3 cm) to the trunk. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the right side. There are some spots with visible fragments of brown oil paint.

70.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / HORN / / cowhorn, hempen string / h. - 30 cm, w. - 7.3 cm, d. - 3.5 cm / negative no. 16845 / inv. no. 17715.

Acquisition unknown. The horn was probably boiled and then slightly flattened (there is no evidence of it having been shaped with a wooden wedge). The back is shaped into an extension, pierced by two little holes for a rope (for tying the holder round the waist).

71.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / HORN / / cowhorn, little board, short copper wire / h. - 22 cm, w. - 7.5 cm, d. - 5.7 cm / negative no. 16856 / inv. no. 17716.

Acquisition unknown. The horn’s surface is polished. Two little holes pierce the back at the top; a wire runs through them and fastens a twice-pierced little board (h. - 14.3 cm, w. - 4.6 cm) to the trunk. This way of attaching the holder to a belt with a board ranks it among those widespread in the Western Slovene provinces.

72.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / HORN / / cowhorn, leather strap / h. - 22 cm, w. - 6 cm, d. - 4 cm / negative no. 16854 / inv. no. 17717.

Acquisition unknown. A short leather strap runs through the two holes on the back side. It can be the remnant of a longer one (a strap for tying the holder round one’s waist) or a little board was fastened to the holder’s trunk with it.

73.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / SHEET-METAL, legless, cylindrical-conical / / galvanized sheet metal / h. - 24 cm, w. - 6.5 cm, d. - 6.5 cm / negative no. 16976 / inv. no. 17718.

Acquisition unknown. The sheet metal is welded at the junctures. A sheet-metal hook - used for attaching the holder to a belt - is welded to the back. The bottom part of the holder’s trunk is considerably corroded by water.

74.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / SHEET-METAL, legless, cylindrical-conical / / sheet-iron, wooden conical point / h. - 33 cm, w. - 6.7 cm, d.- 6.7 cm / negative no. 16974 / inv. no. 17719.

Acquisition unknown. A wooden, conical point was driven into the sheet-metal case (which resembles a grenade case). A sheet-metal hook is fixed to the back with two rivets. The holder’s trunk is slightly corroded in some spots.

75.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / SHEET-METAL, one-legged, cylindrical / / galvanized sheet metal / h. - 22 cm, w. - 6 cm, d. - 6 cm / negative no. 16975 / inv. no. 17720.

Acquisition unknown. The sheet metal is welded at the junctures. A sheet-metal hook used for suspending the holder from a belt is welded to the back.

76.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / SHEET-METAL, legless, wedge-shaped / / galvanized sheet metal / h. - 17.8 cm, w. - 7.6 cm, d. - 4 cm / negative no. 16977 / inv. no. 17721.

Acquisition unknown. The shape and make suggest that it is a fairly recent specimen, dating from the first decades after the Second World War. The sheet metal is welded at the junctures. There is nothing on the backside that could serve to suspend the holder from the user’s belt.

77.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / / linden, black oil paint / h. - 22.5 cm, w. - 7.8 cm, d. - 7.3 cm / negative no. 16966 / inv. no. 17722.

Acquisition unknown. The holder is a characteristic specimen of the two-legged type’s polygonal variety, though the whetstone-hole is a little larger than usual (and similar to those of holders from Pivka) and its legs are much shorter (h. - 2.3 cm). The ears have two cut openings for receiving a belt; the whetstone-hole’s edge is heavily worn on the right side and right front. It was probably worn on the mower’s right back side, though more on the hip than on the back.

78.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / / linden, hempen rope, sackcloth rag / h. - 21.5 cm, w. - 8 cm, d, - 8 cm / negative no. 16903 / inv. no. 17723.

Acquisition unknown. This holder too is a characteristic specimen of the two-legged type’s polygonal variety with a slightly larger whetstone-hole. The holder shows traces of sustained use - in spite of damages - similar to holder no. 33. The trunk is wound with a rag and tied with a wire, both legs are broken off. The whetstone-hole’s edge is notched all over, heavily worn on the right side and even more on the left.

79.

WEIETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, round-polygonal / / linden / h. - 28.5 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. - 7 cm / negative no. 16883 / inv. no. 17724.

Acquisition unknown. The holder is a blend of the polygonal and round varieties of the two-legged type (described in detail under no. 18). It has a round bottom and polygonal upper part. However, it corresponds more with the first than with the latter variety because the belt-holes are cut into the ears at the back side, as is usual with most two-legged polygonal specimens. Also, it is obvious that at some time the trunk was polygonal and that the corners were filed off the bottom part. There are openings at the end of the upper part; these once received a wire that tied the trunk. The whetstone-hole’s edge has a little crack and is worn on the right side.

80.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / / linden, fragments of green oil paint, leather strap, hempen rope / h. - 24.5 cm, w.- 6.5 cm, d. - 6.8 cm / negative no. 16886 / inv. no. 17725.

Acquisition unknown. The holder is a specimen of the polygonal variety of the two-legged type. Judging by the visible remnants it was painted green all over. Drilled holes in the corners of the back side; through one of them a knotted strap runs, through the other a string. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the right side. The trunk’s back side is cracked from top to centre.

81.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / / linden, green oil paint, wire / h. - 27 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. - 6.5 cm / negative no. 16891 / inv. no. 17726.

Acquisition unknown. This holder too is a specimen of the polygonal variety of the two-legged type. It is painted green all over, in two spots tied with a wire (held by notches in the corners). Two holes drilled into the corners of the back side. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the right side. The trunk is cracked in three spots.

82.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, round / / broomwood, hempen string / h. - 26 cm, w. - 6.4 cm, d. - 6.5 cm / negative no. 16879 / inv. no. 17727.

Acquisition unknown. The holder is a specimen of the round variety of the two-legged type, with a little board (h. - 11.2 cm, w. - 3 cm), used for sticking it under a belt, fastened to the back side (with a string; originally there was a leather strap, visible remnants). Judging by the visible traces and execution of the whetstone-hole’s edge (worn on the right side) the hole was once braced either with a sheet-metal or wrought ring (like no. 40, and as was usual in Sorica and its surroundings).

83.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, round / / hardwood, red oil paint, sheet-metal strip / h. - 26 cm, w. - 6.8 cm, d. - 6.8 cm / negative no. 16872 / inv. no. 17728.

Bought for the museum from antique dealer A. Grašič from Polica (11) near Naklo in 1989. This holder, too, is a specimen of the round variety of the two-legged type. Two holes drilled into the corners of the back side, executed in a way that suggests they served to fasten a little board to the trunk. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the right side. The holder’s trunk has a crack to the right side, running from top to bottom. The trunk is braced with a sheet-metal strip, fixed with a rivet.

84.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, round-polygonal / / hardwood, thin brownish paint, wire, leather strap / / h. - 26 cm, w. - 6.8 cm, d. - 6.2 cm / negative no. 16889 / inv. no. 17729.

For acquisition see commentary under no. 83. The holder was probably manufactured in the previous decade and shows practically no signs of wear. This specimen too is a blend of the polygonal and round varieties of the two-legged type. The corners of the - originally polygonal - bottom part - were roughly filed off and a wire strip nailed to it. A little board (h. - 11 cm, w. - 4.4 cm), used for sticking the holder under a belt is fastened to the back side with a strap that runs through both ears and is nailed to the holder. The whetstone-hole’s execution suggests that it was once braced with a sheet-metal ring.

85.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, legless, polygonal-conical / / hard-wood, fragments of green oil paint, wire / h. - 27 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. - 6.3 cm / negative no. 16910 / inv. no. 17730.

For acquisition see commentary under no. 83. The execution of the trunk (and back side with belt-holes cut into the ears) is in line with the polygonal variety of the two-legged type, but the trunk’s bottom part ends in a cone. (Compared to the one-legged, turned and distinctive points which serve to stick the holder into the ground, this cone can hardly be called a leg). The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the right side. The holder is cracked and tied with a twisted wire. The front crack is filled with pitch.

86.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, legless, polygonal-conical / / hard-wood, leather belt / h. - 26.5 cm, w. - 7.4 cm, d. - 7.2 cm / negative no. 16909 / inv. no. 17731.

Same commentary as for no. 85. The whetstone-hole’s edge is heavily worn and cracked on the right side.

87.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal / / linden / h. - 27 cm, w. - 6.4 cm, d. - 6.6 cm / negative no. 16953 / inv. no. 17732.

Purchased for the museum from collector S. Strgar from Ljubljana in 1990. It corresponds with the description of no. 62. The whetstone-hole’s edge is heavily worn on the right side and cracked in three spots. Under the hole there are visible traces of a wire once tied round the hole.

88.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / HORN / Gabrovka / cowhorn, wire hook / h. - 24 cm, w. - 7.5 cm, d. - 5.5 cm / negative no. 16857 / inv. no. 17733.

Acquired together with the objects the museum bought from M. Vidic from Gabrovka in 1988. Three holes pierce the back side. A wire, shaped into a hook for suspension from a belt, runs through these holes.

89.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / HORN / Spodnja Šiška / cowhorn, hempen rope / h. - 26 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. - 4 cm / negative no. 16846, 16848 / inv. no. 17734.

Bought for the museum - together with forty other objects originating from a farm in Spodnja Šiška - from A. Marinko (Jerovškova 25) in 1983. Two holes pierce the back side and a string for tying the holder round the waist is threaded through it.

90.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal / Spodnja Šiška / linden, hempen rope / h. - 28 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. - 6.8 cm / negative no. 16948 / inv. no. 17735.

For acquisition see commentary under no. 89. The holder was still used in the Sixties. It resembles the Črni vrh type of the Fifties (see nos. 64 and 65). In other aspects it corresponds with the description of no. 62. The whetstone-hole’s edge is slightly worn on the holder’s right and more so on the left front side. A crack runs from the centre of the trunk’s right side to the top.

91.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, round / Poljanska dolina / broomwood, wire / h. - 26.5 cm, w. - 6 cm, d. - 6.5 cm / negative no. 16886 / inv. no. 17736.

Bought for the museum from antique dealer F. Podpečan (Smlednik 36) in 1992. He acquired it in the Poljanska Valley. The holder corresponds with the two-legged, round type of specimens, widespread in this region. On its back side there is a specifically shaped little board (h. - 12.2 cm, w. - 3 cm, d. - 2 cm); its top part is thicker and a hole pierces it horizontally (parallel to the holder’s trunk). The wire which runs through this hole fixes the board to the trunk. The trunk itself is severely damaged - almost half of the whetstone-holes’s edge is broken off - and covered with tar.

92.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, legless, box-shaped / / linden / h. - 31.5 cm, w. - 11.2 cm, d. - 4.7 cm / negative no. 16862 / inv. no. 17737.

Bought for the museum in the antique shop Valvasor (Ljubljana) in 1992. The year 1880 is carved on it and it belongs to the type widespread in the (Upper) Savinja Valley. The description of nos. 37 and 38 applies to this holder except for the following difference: its front is decorated with a very shallowly carved tendril-shaped stalk, growing out of a little flower-pot. Above this there is a big flower-rosette. The whetstone-hole’s edge is heavily worn on the right. The holder’s surface looks weathered and is scorched in several spots.

93.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, legless, box-shaped / / pearwood, fragments of red oil paint / h. - 33.5 cm, w. - 10.5 cm, d. - 4.3 cm / negative no. 16864 / inv. no. 17738.

Donated together with twenty-two other whetstone holders, forming the Turk Collection, to the museum by R. Turk (Ljubljana) in 1993. He started collecting them in the late Seventies. A note on this acquisition was published in Etnolog 3 (LIV), Ljubljana 1993, p.295 (I. Smerdel, The Turk Collection of Whetstone Holders). This specimen, which belongs to the type widespread in the (Upper) Savinja Valley, was bought in the Ljubljana flea-market. Judging by similar holders, it dates from the second half of the 19th century. Its shape, decorative extension and the execution of the belt-holes do not essentially differ from the description of no. 37. The back side ends in a carved spiral coil at the bottom. Decoration of the front: a simple six-leafed rosette, above it (trimming the whetstone-hole) a zigzag band and below, at the trunk’s bottom, a bunch of vertical, straight, carved grooves. The rosette’s leaflets and the zigzag band were painted red. Another red zigzag band trims both side surfaces at the top. From the top and down to the end these side surfaces are each grooved with four straightly carved upright grooves; between them there is a series of miniscule decorations, driven in with a punch. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn to the right, but only slightly. The front is almost split by a crack which runs from the top to right above the bottom.

94.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, legless, wedge-shaped / Pohorje / walnut / h. - 33.7 cm, w. - 8.8 cm, d. - 7 cm / negative no. 16970 / inv. no. 17739.

Specimen from the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93) from Vitanje on the spurs of Pohorje. Its horizontal inside section is ellipsoid, the outside one rectangular with bevelled corners. The holder’s back side is shaped into a short extension with 2 drilled holes for receiving a rope or a wire hook (which serves to suspend the holder from a belt). The whetstone-hole’s edge is slightly worn to the right.

95.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, legless, wedge-shaped / Mislinjska dolina / linden, hempen string / h. - 28.5 cm, w. - 6.3 cm, d. - 5.3 cm / negative no. 16973 / inv. no. 17740.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93), from around Mislinja. The horizontal inside section is ellipsoid, the outside one rectangular with cut-off corners. Decorated with a shallow, linearly carved geometric ornament. On its back side a string runs through the ears and fastens a little board (h. - 13.8 cm, w. - 2.1 cm), which serves to hitch the holder to a belt, to the trunk. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the right.

96.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, legless, wedge-shaped / / linden / h. - 26 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. - 8.1 cm / negative no. 16972 / inv. no. 17741.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93), bought in the Ljubljana flea-market. Similar specimens in the Provincial Museum in Celje come from Arja vas and Šentjur (both near Celje). The outside and inside horizontal sections are round. On the back side and near the top of the trunk there is a bulge, pierced by a horizontal opening. This opening holds a string which ties the holder round the waist. The whetstone-hole’s edge is slightly worn on the right; there is a short crack on the front side, and a long one, reaching to the trunk’s centre, on the left side.

97.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, polygonal / Huda luknja / ash, fragments of brown oil paint / h. - 21 cm, w. - 5.7 cm, d. - 5.7 cm / negative no. 16911 / inv. no. 17742.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93), brought in from the slopes of Pohorje, from the region of Huda luknja. The whetstone holder is a peculiar, home-made specimen (square in its outside, horizontal section, with bevelled corners). The maker, probably its user too, decorated it with shallowly carved plant stalks; these resemble grass blades. Two of them - in the left and right front fields - grow upwards; one - in the central field, downwards. Even the whetstone-hole is decorated - with little stars driven in with a punch. The corners of the back side are pierced with two holes for holding a string or wire hook. Extraction signs are hardly visible because the whetstone-hole is very crudely made.

98.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, legless, round-conical / Bela Krajina / oak / h. - 29.5 cm, w. - 7.5 cm, d. - 7.3 cm / negative no. 16912 / inv. no. 17743.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93), originates from Bela Krajina, somewhere between Otok and Adlešiči. The holder’s round, almost cylindrical trunk is shaped into a cone in its bottom part, while the back side is shaped as an extension, a flat little board, grown together with the trunk. The specimen corresponds to the type widespread in this Slovene region. The flat extension is pierced to the right and left (and under the whetstone-hole’s edge) by two holes for a string or wire hook. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the right.

99.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal / Goričice / walnut, green oil paint / h. - 28 cm, w. - 8 cm, d. - 6.3 cm / negative no. 16951 / inv. no. 17744.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93), originating from the hamlet of Goričice, house name “Uletov”. The hamlet consists of only four farms and each of them had diffrent, marked whetstone holders so as not to mix them up during the hay-harvest when they helped each other out. The specimen belongs to the type, described under no. 62, but its ears on the back side are similar to those on holders common in Bohinj, around Bled and in Dolina. The right ear has an opening for the straightener. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the front side of the trunk, howerever more to the right, indicating that it was probably worn on the mower’s right hip.

100.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal / Erzelj / linden / h. - 26 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. 6.8 cm / negative no. 16950 / inv. no. 17745.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93), originating from Erzelj. See commentary for no. 62. Probably made in the region of Črni vrh, since it is similar to nos. 64 and 65 and the drawn specimens (see the catalogue of drawings) nos. 22, 23 and 25. The whetstone-hole’s edge is heavily worn on the right side; the leg or point which serves to stick it in the ground is worn too.

101.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal / Erzelj / linden / h. - 26.5 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. - 7 cm / negative no. 16952 / inv. no. 17746.

See commentary for no. 100. Under a roughly carved K in the central field of the upper, polygonal part of the trunk there is a (probably branded) stamp and (house) number 24 with the initials KJ. A wire hook is stuck in the holes drilled into both corners of the back side. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the right side, and the point is also worn.

102.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, thin-cylindrical / Bratonci / poplar, wire hook / h. - 23 cm, w. - 5.3 cm, d. - 5.3 cm / negative no. 16962 / inv. no. 17747.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93), originating from the farm of the collector’s wife’s aunts. Its shape corresponds with the type of one-legged, thin-cylindrical whetstone holders, made on a turning-lathe and widespread in Prekmurje. Two holes in the back side. These hold a wire hook used to suspend the holder from a belt. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the right side and cracked in three spots.

103.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, legless, polygonal / / walnut / h. - 25.3 cm, w. - 6 cm, d. - 6.5 cm / negative no. 16969 / inv. no. 17748.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93), bought in a flea-market. Its make in general corresponds with the polygonal variety of the two-legged type, but the trunk’s bottom is cut off straight so that there are no points to stick it in the ground with. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the right side, where there is also a large crack in the very thin wall of the trunk.

104.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, legless, round / Grahovo / linden, copper wire hook / h. - 24.1 cm, w. - 6 cm, d. - 5.7 cm / negative no. 16968 / inv. no. 17749.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93), brought from somewhere near Grahovo. The holder is rather rough, as if it is not a finished product. The back side is completely flat and the corners are not bevelled. There is only one hole under the top of the trunk, with a wire hook in it. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the right.

105.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / HORN / / cowhorn, wire hook / h. - 22 cm, w. - 6.5 cm, d. - 4.4 cm / negative no. 16850 / inv. no. 17750.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93), no recollection of how it came to be acquired. The letter J and a little b are carved into the horn. The back side is shaped into a semicircular extension. In the middle there is a rivet which supports a wire hook, used to hang the holder to a belt. A crack runs from the rivet to the top of the extension.

106.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / Goričice / linden / h. - 25.5 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. - 7.5 cm / negative no. 16893 / inv.no. 17751.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93), from the hamlet Goričice, belonged to Frančiška Žele. The whetstone holder is roughly made, a specific example of the polygonal variety of the two-legged type. The whetstone-hole’s edge and the bottom of the trunk are trimmed with scale-like cuts. The back side has no ears; at the height of both corners there are four visible little holes (made by nails), but these do not provide reliable evidence on how the holder was attached to the belt. The whetstone-hole’s edge is heavily worn on the right.

107.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, round-polygonal / Goričice / walnut, wire rings / h. - 25.8 cm, w. - 7.3 cm, d. - 7 cm / negative no. 16895 / inv. no. 17752.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93), from the hamlet Goričice, house name “Rotov”. The whetstone holder is an original, home-made specimen; the execution of the ears places it with the polygonal variety of the two-legged type. Its trunk is largely round; only the first five centimetres of the upper part are polygonal. It is decorated with a linearly carved geometric ornament which according to the present farmer represents a series of homestead marks. Ring-shaped grooves are carved into the first and second third of the trunk; they both carry a wire ring. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the right. The back side is almost split by a long crack.

108.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / Goričice / walnut, green oil paint / h. - 24.7 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. - 6.7 cm / negative no. 16905 / inv. no. 17753.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93), from the hamlet Goričice, house name “Malnarjev”. The holder corresponds with the polygonal variety of the two-legged type. The front fields are decorated, all three of them in the same way: with vertical scale-like cuts. Also decorated are the bevelled corners of the back side: they are trimmed with linear carvings. The whetstone-hole’s edge is heavily worn on the right. The owner replaced a broken-off piece of the right ear with a little strip of leather, nailed to the trunk.

109.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, round / Žerovnica / walnut, wire hook / h. - 26.8 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. - 7.4 cm / negative no. 16892 / inv. no. 17754.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93), brought from Žerovnica. The holder is a specifically rough specimen. The back side is completely flat, cut off in the bottom two thirds towards the front of the trunk (see also no. 22). Ears are cut in the corners, holding a thick wire hook. The whetstone-hole’s edge is slightly worn on the right.

110.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, round / Spodnja Trenta / walnut, leather strap / h. - 28 cm, w. - 9 cm, d. - 8.4 cm / negative no. 16888 / inv. no. 17755.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93), brought from Spodnja Trenta. The holder is a unique, crudely made, very rounded specimen of the round variety of the two-legged type. The back side is completely flat (the corners are not bevelled). Two holes are drilled in the corners of its upper half; they hold a strap which fastens a little board (h. - 13.7 cm, w. - 3 cm) to the trunk. The whetstone-hole’s edge is heavily worn on the right. There is a crack on the right side of the trunk, near the bottom.

111.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, round / Pokljuka / ash, brass loop for straightener and brass ring / h. - 26.7 cm, w. - 5.8 cm, d. - 5.8 cm / negative no. 16908 / inv. no. 17756.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93), gift from a friend living near the hay-fields of Pokljuka, but probably brought there from the Sorica region. At the top of the trunk’s front side we see the shallowly carved year 1872 (or 1878). The holder is a characteristic example of the round variety of the two-legged type. The whetstone-hole’s edge and the trunk’s bottom were once tied with two brass rings (as is usual in Sorica and surroundings); the remnants of the upper ring are still attached to the holder; the bottom one is confirmed by traces of its execution and fastening with nails). On the back side a hook, shaped out of a twisted wire, is held by two drilled holes. A loop for the straightener is nailed to the right side of the trunk. The whetstone-hole’s edge is heavily worn on the right. The rotted bottom and a crack on the trunk’s front side are filled with pitch.

112.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, round / / broomwood, 2 sheet-metal rings and loop for straightener, leather strap / h. - 26 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. - 7 cm / negative no. 16875 / inv. no. 17757.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93). The collector thinks he acquired it in Prezid. However, the holder corresponds entirely to the round variety of the two-legged type, prevalent in the Selška Valley, Sorica and Baška grapa. The little board (h. - 14.4 cm, w. - 4.2 cm), serving to hitch the holder to the mower’s belt, is shaped into a heart at the top and spear-shaped at the bottom. It is painted with red oil paint. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the right. A crack in the holder’s bottom is filled with a wooden plug.

113.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal / Bled / softwood, stained and varnished / h. - 25 cm, w. - 9 cm, d. - 7.2 cm / negative no. 16947 / inv. no. 17758.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93), originates from the surroundings of Bled. The holder’s execution ranks it among the older specimens of the Bohinj type in the museum’s collection, dating from the late 19th century. In essence it corresponds to the description of no. 2, but the upper, indistinctively polygonal half of the holder’s trunk is decorated with bands of carved flowers, executed with deeper cuts and (between them) a band of little stars, stamped with a punch. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the right.

114.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Bled / chestnut, fragments of pink oil paint / h. - 26.8 cm, w. - 9 cm, d.- 7.4 cm / negative no. 16945 / inv. no. 17759.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93), similar to specimen 113. The decorations of the upper half were stamped with a punch. The holder was painted all over with pink oil paint, a reflection of the prevalent taste of the last decades. (The collector thoroughly removed the paint). The whetstone-hole’s edge is cracked in three spots and heavily worn on the right. There is another crack on the left side of the trunk’s bottom part.

115.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Kamna Gorica / walnut / h. - 28.5 cm, w. - 8.8 cm, d. - 7.2 cm / negative no. 16940 / inv. no. 17760.

From the Turk Collection (see commentary for no. 93). Its shape and make rank it among the type known in Bohinj, Blejski kot and Dolina. The right ear has no opening for the straightener. The whetstone-hole’s edge is cracked in two places and heavily worn in two spots on the right. The back side is almost split by a crack which runs from the ears to the point.

116.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, osúnk / WOODEN, one-legged, round / Koprivnik / pearwood, sheet metal, green (bottom part: yellow) oil coat / h. - 27 cm, w. - 7.2 cm, d. - 6.5 cm / negative no. 16913 / inv. no. 17761.

Bought for the museum from Franc Beznik (1933-1993), house name “Mečnik”, a farmer from Koprivnik, in 1991. This holder was the first of several ones he made himself. He made it some twenty years ago and modelled it after older specimens, but only to some extent since he had neither a turning-lathe nor various other necessary tools. For example, he had to enlarge the whetstone-hole he had first drilled with a (too) small drill by burning it. The trunk is “dressed up”, decorated with deep scale-like cuts, shallowly carved circles and little flowers. It is painted all over with green oil paint. The point is set with sheet metal. Next to the right ear’s belt-hole two sheet-metal loops for the straightener are fixed. The whetstone-hole is braced with a sheet-metal ring. Its edge is worn on the right side. A narrow crack on the front side is filled with tar on the inside.

117.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, osúnk / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Gorjuše / walnut-tree roots, sheet-metal hook, bright green (“Czech earth”) oil paint / h. - 23 cm, w. - 8.1 cm, d. - 8.5 cm / negative no. 16946 / inv. no. 17762.

Bought for the museum from Vinko Beznik, Cena, house name “Koritar”, a pipe-maker from Gorjuše (2) in 1992. In 1938, when Cena was 10 years old, his father Janez, a pipe-maker himself, made this holder for his son. The holder is shaped like older known specimens of the Bohinj type. The main difference is that the upper half of the trunk, decorated with hand-made carvings, is wider than the bottom half and protrudes slightly. The upper half is trimmed by bands of deep, vertical, scale-like cuts. Between them are the shallowly carved initials VB and two edelweisses. The holder is painted green all over, in some spots the underlying red paint shines through. The thicker upper half of the trunk has two belt-holes, cut into the corners of the juncture with the flat back side. The holes contain a short sheet-metal strip; to this a sheet-metal hook, used for hanging the holder to a belt, is fixed with three rivets. Under the hook the old house number 47 is carved. The right corner ear is pierced by an opening for the straightener. The whetstone-hole’s edge is heavily worn on the right. Its rotted bottom is filled with tar.

118.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, osúnk / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Gorjuše / applewood, sheet-metal hook / h. - 25.5 cm, w. - 9.3 cm, d. - 8 cm / negative no. 16919 / inv. no. 17763.

For acquisition and shape see the commentary for no. 117. This whetstone, however, was made by the seller, Vinko Beznik, himself in 1992 and was meant for his own use. Besides the upper part, decorated with carnations growing out of a heart, the bottom part of the trunk is decorated too. It is surrounded by bands of playful geometric ornaments, carved shallowly and driven in with a punch. These bands are captured between turned rings. The ears have no belt-holes, only the right one has an opening for the straightener. A sheet-metal hook is fixed to the back side with two rivets.

119.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, osúnk / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen / Bohinjska Češnjica / pearwood / h. - 30.5 cm, w. - 7.7 cm, d. - 7 cm / negative no. 16942 / inv. no. 17764.

Bought for the museum from Alojz Sodja (born 1931), house name “Vángus”, a qualified wheelwright from Bohinjska Češnjica (60) in 1993. He makes a couple of whetstone holders in winter and sells them to individual buyers. This specimen is machine-made (on an electric lathe) as well as hand-made (the ears with their carved belt-holes). On the upright front field - the flatly bevelled upper half of the trunk - the holder is decorated with several scale-like cuts. The object is new and has not been used.

120.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, legless, box-shaped / Stiška vas / walnut, sheet-metal hook, wire / h. - 31 cm, w. - 8.2 cm, d. - 7 cm / negative no. 16860 / inv. no. 17765.

Donated to the museum by Alojz Jagodic, a farmer and worker from Stiška vas (10) in 1993. The holder was made by his father Alojz (1913-1983), a farmer and self-taught all-round craftsman, some thirty years ago. It is a crude specimen but by its shape related to the whetstone holders from the (Upper) Savinja Valley. Its outside and inside horizontal sections are rectangular. The back side is shaped into a heart-like decorative extension at the top and the holder is further decorated with carved, indented edges. Two holes pierce the corners under the extension; a wire, holding a sheet-metal hook, runs through these holes and is tied with a knot. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn at the juncture of the front and right surfaces.

121.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, špú(l) / WOODEN, legless, wedge-shaped / Podvolovljek / maple, sheet-metal ring and hook / h. - 24.5 cm, w. - 6.5 cm, d. - 5.2 cm / negative no. 16971 / inv. no. 17766.

Donated to the museum by Peter Tisovnik (born 1915), forester and self-taught, all-round craftsman from Podvolovljek (36) in 1993. He made the holder for his own use some twenty years ago and used it until recent years. Its shape relates it to specimens nos. 95 and 96. The outside horizontal section is polygonal and the inside one ellipsoid. The trunk is surrounded by a sheet-metal tape. A sheet-metal hook is fixed to the flat back side with two rivets. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn on the right side. Two little nails are driven across a crack on the right side of the trunk.

122.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / HORN / Krajna Brda / cowhorn, wire hook / h. - 19 cm, w. - 5.9 cm, d. - 4 cm / negative no. 16853 / inv. no. 17767.

Acquired for the museum together with other objects from a small farm above Blanca near Sevnica. They were bought from Milka Bobnič, a retired worker from Krajna Brda (5). Two holes pierce the back side. Each of them holds a piece of twisted wire and together they form a hook, used to attach the holder to belt.

123.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, vósunik / HORN / Jurišče / cowhorn, coconut rope / h. - 32 cm, w. - 9.8 cm, d. - 7 cm / negative no. 16851 / inv. no. 17768.

Donated to the museum by Tone Sedmak (born 1927), house name “Šajn”, a landowner and shepherd from Jurišče (66) in 1993. He made the holder a few years ago from an big ox-horn he had brought home from the Postojna slaughter-house. The back side is pierced by two holes. A string, serving to tie the holder around the waist, runs through them.

124.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal / Selce / alder, hempen rope / h. - 28 cm, w. - 8.1 cm, d. - 8 cm / negative no. 16960 / inv. no. 17769.

Donated to the museum by Franc Smrdelj (born 1920), house name “Cendran”, a farmer from Selce (29). He bought it from the Pivka turner Škof on a fair in 1947. He did not use it for a long time because it dried out and cracked; it had been “a bad choice”. The specimen belongs to the type, described under no. 62. The whetstone-hole’s edge is heavily worn at the front left side, indicating that the mower wore it up front, on his abdomen. There is a long crack on the left side of the trunk, running from top to bottom.

125.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / Slavina / linden, sheet-metal hook, dark green oil paint / h. - 26 cm, w. - 7.9 cm, d. - 8 cm / negative no. 16887 / inv. no. 17770.

Donated to the museum by Ivanka Bajc from Slavina (17), daughter of Franc Boštjančič (1907-1978), a small farmer and self-taught, all-round craftsman, in 1993. He did not make whetstone holders just for his own use, many villagers and people from the surroundings used to buy holders (and other implements) from him. This one belonged to the homestead and is a characteristic example of the polygonal variety of the two-legged type with a slightly larger diameter of the whetstone-hole. It was painted green all over. To the back side (which has no belt-holes) a sheet-metal hook - for suspending the holder from a belt - is fixed with two screws. The whetstone-hole’s edge is worn at the right side and cracked in two places.

126.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, vósounik / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / Goričice / poplar / h. - 27.5 cm, w. - 7.3 cm, d. - 8.5 cm / negative no. 16894 / inv. no. 17771.

Donated to the museum by Miro Mahne (born 192?), house name “Rot”, a farmer from Goričice, in 1992. He made the whetstone holder for his own use. Although he has a mowing-machine, the scythe comes in handy when he goes out to gather fresh fodder. The holder is roughly made, little used and unfinished; there is nothing that might serve to attach it to a belt (neither hook nor belt-holes).

127.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, vósounik / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / Žerovnica / poplar, impregnated with varnish and wax / h. - 24.5 cm, w - 6.9 cm, d. - 6.9 cm / negative no. 16904 / inv. no. 17772.

Bought for the museum from Janko Lunka, house name “ta dolenj Njučoh”, a self-taught wheelwright and joiner from Žerovnica (6), in 1993. In winter he makes a lot of whetstone holders for sale; some of them are bought for their original use - to mow, others for decoration, as a souvenir. This one adorned the maker’s own kitchen. It is machine-made (with a circular saw and drills), decorated with a branding technique. The zigzag trimming was branded by his wife, the “pretty figures” by the husband. The outside surface is coated with varnish (and hot wax was poured into the whetstone-hole). Belt-holes are cut into the back side. The whetstone-hole shows no signs of wear.

128.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, vósunik / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / Gradež / walnut / h. - 23 cm, w. - 6.9 cm, d. - 6.6 cm / negative no. 16898 / inv. no. 17773.

Donated to the museum by Franc Pečnik from Gradež (11) in 1993. Made by his neighbour, the “osovnikar” Jože Šmuc, house name “Bajde” (see commentary at no. 29) in 1950. Besides this year the initials PC are carved (in between the figures of the year). For the shape and decoration see the commentary for no. 30. The whetstone-hole is heavily worn on the right side. The back side has a crack, running from top to bottom. The rotted bottom is stuffed with a rag.

129.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, vósunik / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / Gradež / walnut / h. - 28.5 cm, w. - 7.2 cm, d. - 7.2 cm / negative no. 16897 / inv. no. 17774.

Donated to the museum by the Andolšek family from Gradež (2), in 1993. Made by the late farmer Avguštin (1909-1975) for his own use. The year 1957 and the initials JA are carved into it. Shape and decoration are modelled after J. Šmuc (see commentary for no. 30). The whetstone-hole is heavily worn on the right side and the back side shows a little crack.

130.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, vósunik / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / Gradež / walnut, leather belt / h. - 25 cm, w. - 6.5 cm, d. - 6.5 cm / negative no. 16885 / inv. no. 17775.

Donated to the museum by Frančiška Krampelj, the owner of a large farm, house name “pri Škindrovih”, from Gradež (8) in 1993. It was made for home use by her late husband Anton (1923-1986). The holder is not decorated, it “squints”, as the locals say. The whetstone-hole is heavily worn on the left front side, indicating that the mower wore it on his abdomen (or that he was left-handed).

131.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, vósunik / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal / Gradež / walnut, leather belt / h. - 25.5 cm, w. - 6.9 cm, d. - 6.8 cm / negative no. 16901 / inv. no. 17776.

Donated to the museum by Franc Zabukovec, a farmer form Gradež (9) in 1993. It was made by his brother Lojz (born 1923), who made many a tool in winter. His paragon and teacher was master Bajde (J. Šmuc) himself. See commentary under no. 30. Carved are 1972 and the initials ZF (Zabukovec Franc). The whetstone-hole is heavily worn on the right.

132.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, vósovənk / WOODEN, two-legged, round / Petrovo Brdo / broomwood, brass ring, copper wire / h. - 29 cm, w. - 6.2 cm, d. - 6.5 cm / negative no. 16874 / inv. no. 17777.

Donated to the museum by Rudi Zgaga (born 1933), a big farmer, house name “pri Pohmanu”, from Petrovo Brdo (1), in 1993. The holder was used until recently and was made by a local craftsman. A little board (h. -13.1 cm, w. - 5 cm) is fixed to the back side with a copper wire. The whetstone-hole, heavily worn on the right, is braced with a brass ring. The trunk is split by a wide crack, filled with glue and putty. The bottom of the whetstone-hole is stuffed with putty inside and outside, indicating that it was used on and on.

133.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, vósovənk / WOODEN, two-legged, round / Petrovo Brdo / broomwood, aluminium ring, brass strip, sheet-metal loop for straightener / h. - 24.5 cm, w. - 6.1 cm, d. - 6.2 cm / negative no. 16876 / inv. no. 17778.

Same commentary as for no. 132, but the little board (it originally had) is missing and the holder is less damaged. The left leg’s point is broken off.

134.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, vósovənk / WOODEN, two-legged, round / Kuk / broomwood, aluminium: ring, strip, loop for straightener and wire / h. - 32.5 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. - 7 cm / negative no. 16907 / inv. no. 17779.

Donated to the museum by Marjan Kaltnekar (born 1929), a qualified joiner from Kuk (10) in Baška grapa, in 1993. He made it himself and used it until recently. Little board (h. - 15.1 cm, w. - 3.7 cm) is fixed to the holder with an aluminium wire. The whetstone-hole, slightly worn on the right, is braced with an aluminium ring; under it the loop for the straightener is nailed to the holder. A strip of aluminium is nailed to the trunk’s bottom, above it black insulating tape is wound around the trunk.

135.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, round / Grant / broomwood, sheet-metal loop for straightener, wire hook / h. - 26.5 cm, w. - 6.3 cm, d. - 6.4 cm / negative no. 16873 / inv. no. 17780.

Donated to the museum by Franc Loncner from Jesenice, a native of Grant (16), house name “priČumarju”, in 1993. His father who made a whetstone holder whenever one was needed (as he made this one), lives and runs a farm in neighbouring Rut (56). The holder is a bit crude. A wire hook, used for suspending the holder from a belt, runs through two holes drilled into the corners of the back side. Under the top of the trunk a sheet-metal loop for the straightener is nailed to the right side. The right wall of the whetstone-hole is thin, worn by extraction. A long crack on the front side of the trunk reaches from top to bottom and is filled with wax, glue and, at its top, with a rubber patch.

136.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, round / Podporezen / birch, light green oil paint, copper-wire hook / h. - 27 cm, w. - 6.3 cm, d.- 5.7 cm / negative no. 16878 / inv. no. 17781.

Donated to the museum by Aleksander Prezelj (born 1929), house name “Majdelc”, the owner of a large farm and saw-mill in Podporezen (6), in 1993. Made of birchwood by his father Franc (1898-1970) for his own use. The wood was not suitable (strong) enough, so he seldom wore it. It is painted green all over, even the wire hook (stuck into the corner holes) on its back side. There are hardly visible signs of wear on the right side of the whetstone-hole.

137.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, vósovənk / WOODEN, two-legged, round / Zali Log / broomwood, impregnated with dull lacquer of mahagony colour, brass ring and loop for straightener, leather strap / h. - 30.8 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. - 7.5 cm / negative no. 16877 / inv. no. 17782.

Donated to the museum by Valentin Benedičič (born 1935), “master Tine”, a retired qualified joiner from Zali Log (10), in 1993. When he is not making other things (rakes, scythe-handles, benches, footstools ...) and has a little time left in winter, he makes a couple of whetstone holders. The donated specimen was made two years ago and used by the maker himself. The little board carries a perforated initial T (Tine) and the craftsman’s mark. The back side is completely flat; the corners were not bevelled. Under the whetstone-hole, braced with a brass ring, two holes are drilled in the corners; they hold a strap which fastens a little board (h. - 16 cm, w. - 5 cm) to the trunk. The strap is fixed with two wooden plugs. A brass loop for the straightener is fixed with two screws. The whetstone-hole’s edge shows no visible signs of wear.

138.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, vósovənk / WOODEN, two-legged, round / Davča / broomwood, sheet-metal ring, strip and loop for straightener, plastic string / h. - 30.3 cm, w. - 6.7 cm, d. - 7 cm / negative no. 16870 / inv.no. 17783.

Bought (1993) for the museum from Janko Primožič (born 1927) from Davča (50), a farmer and self-taught craftsman who makes baskets, rakes, scythe-handles and whetstone holders. He likes to write rhymes “about everything that has to do with the harvest” on the holders. He uses a branding technique. On this specific holder, made for sale in the winter of 1993, the rhyme reads (in a free translation): “Eat and drink well in the morning, or your ’cock’ won’t dance in the evening”. The holder is coated with glossy lacquer all over: the turn, legs and board, but also the ring that is nailed to the whetstone-hole, the tape wound around the trunk’s bottom, the loop for the straightener, fixed with two screws and even the string that fastens the board to the trunk.

139.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, vósovənk / PLASTIC, legless, wedge-shaped / Podbrdo / red injection-moulded plastic / h. - 18.5 cm, w. - 7 cm, d. - 4 cm / negative no. 16979 / inv. no. 17784.

Donated (1993) to the museum by Milan Valentinčič (born 1929), house name “Hobarjov”, a farmer from Podbrdo (14) in Baška grapa. He bought it in a shop in Podbrdo three or four years ago. The holder is an industrial, mass-produced product. Its outside and inside horizontal sections are ellipsoid. On the back side there is a plastic hook for hitching the holder to a belt. The whetstone-hole is worn on the right side.

140.

WHETSTONE HOLDER, osúnk / PLASTIC, legless, box-shaped / Koprivnik / pink and white injection-moulded plastic, hempen string, aluminium-wire hook / h. - 19 cm, w. - 9 cm, d. - 4 cm / negative no. 16978 / inv. no. 17785.

Donated to the museum by Valentin Dijak (born 1938), Tinček, a farmer from Koprivnik (74), in 1991. He made it (a year or two earlier) from the upper part of a plastic container (of Damil fabric softener). A string is wound around the trunk (through the opening in the handle), fastening a wire hook (for suspending the holder from a belt) to it.

141.

WHETSTONE / / quartz sandstone / h. - 19.5 cm, w. - 2.3 cm, d. - 2 cm / negative no. 16990 / inv. no. 17786.

Acquisition unknown. The whetstone has the shape of a boat with pointed ends. Its centre is rectangular in its horizontal section and boat-shaped at both ends. The ends are worn thin, indicating that it was a good whetstone and served the mower long and well.

142.

WHETSTONE / / quartz sandstone / h. - 17 cm, w. - 4 cm, d - 2.5 cm / negative no. 16989 / inv. no. 17787.

Acquisition unknown. This whetstone too has the shape of a boat with pointed ends, but was used less than no. 141 and - it is broken and shorter - may have been thrown away.

143.

WHETSTONE / Poljanska dolina / quartz sandstone / h. - 17 cm, w.- 3.8 cm, d. - 1.6 cm / negative no. 17100 / inv. no. 17788.

Acquired for the museum together with whetstone holder no. 91, see commentary there. As to its shape and wear see commentary under no. 142.

144.

WHETSTONE / Krajna Brda / quartz sandstone / h. - 18.8 cm, w. - 3.4 cm, d. - 1.2 cm / negative no. 16988 / inv. no. 17789.

Acquired for the museum together with whetstone holder no. 122, see commentary there. As to its shape and wear see commentary for no. 142.

145.

WHETSTONE, ósla / Gradež / quartz sandstone / h. - 23 cm, w. - 3.3 cm, d. - 1.4 cm / negative no. 16994 / inv. no. 17790.

For acquisition see commentary for whetstone holder no. 130. Frančiška Krampelj (born 1911) donated it because it was no good. The whetstone is boat-like in shape. It is rectangular in its horizontal section. Few signs of wear.

146.

WHETSTONE, ósla / Gradež / quartz sandstone, sheet metal, walnut / h. - 24.5 cm, w. - 2.8 cm, d. - 1.9 cm / negative no. 16993 / inv. no. 17791.

For acquisition see commentary for whetstone holder no. 131. Franc Zabukovec, who used it until he donated it, said it was a good whetstone. That is why he extended it with a wooden handle when it broke. The remaining part of the whetstone (shaped like a boat) is connected with the handle by two pieces of sheet metal nailed to it - one from above and one from below.

147.

WHETSTONE, vósla / Srednja vas / quartz sandstone / h. - 18 cm, w. - 3.7 cm, d. - 1.7 cm / negative no. 16991 / inv. no. 17792.

Donated to the museum by Martin Zupan (born 1919), house name “Žvan”, a farmer from Srednja vas (11) in Bohinj, in 1993. He made whetstones from stones he brought from the ravine in Senožeta (between the hills Rudnica and Šavnica) for his own use and for sale. This whetstone is one of his products. Its shape is boat-like. It is rectangular in its horizontal section. One end is broken off.

148.

WHETSTONE, vósla / Podporezen / quartz sandstone / h. - 28 cm, w. - 3.5 cm, d. - 2.2 cm / negative no. 16992 / inv. no. 17793.

For acquisition see commentary for whetstone holder no. 136. It was made by Franc Prezelj in the years between 1950 and 1954. The stone originates from the quarry near Gornji Novaki. This whetstone too has the shape of a boat and is rectangular in its horizontal section.

149.

STRAIGHTENER, uogníla / Grant / steel / h. - 20.2 cm, w. - 3.7 cm, d. - 0.8 cm / negative no. 16987 / inv. no. 17794.

For acquisition see commentary for whetstone holder no. 135. It was owned by the donator’s grandfather (who used it for a long time), indicating that it probably dates from the early 20th century. Made by a smith. The needle-like functional part has the shape of a boat in its horizontal section. Its handle is twisted and shaped into a round loop.

150.

STRAIGHTENER, štrájher / Robanov kot / steel / h. - 20.5 cm, w. - 2.3 cm, d. - 0.9 cm / negative no. 16985 / inv. no. 17795.

Donated (1993) to the museum by Marija Prodnik (born 194?), the owner of a high-mountain farm, house name “pri Vršnik”, in Robanov kot (37). It dates from the first half of the 20th century (the edges have become round through extensive use) and was made in the homestead’s forge. Its needle-like functional part is square in its horizontal section. It is twisted from the centre towards the handle. The handle is shaped into a little round loop, with a pending ring.

151.

STRAIGHTENER, ogníl / Koprivnik / steel / h. - 19.9 cm, w. - 5.8cm, d. - 1.6 cm / negative no. 16984 / inv. no. 17796.

For acquisition see commentary for whetstone holder no. 116. It was still in use when Franc Beznik donated it. He stated that it was made by smith Goljet from Koprivnik. The straightener’s needle-like functional part is square in its horizontal section. The handle is shaped into a little hammer with an allen wrench for tightening the scythe blade to the handle.

152.

STRAIGHTENER, ogníl / Martinj Vrh / steel / h. - 21 cm, w. - 2.7cm, d. - 1.1 cm / negative no. 16986 / inv. no. 17797.

Donated to the museum by its maker Štefan Benedičič (born 1941), a qualified smith from Martinj Vrh (43), in 1993. He made the rough straightener (which he used himself) by reforging an old file and adding the broken part of an old key to it. This became the handle. The specimen’s functional part is square in its horizontal section. It’s angularly shaped end serves tightening the scythe blade to the handle.





CATALOGUE OF DRAWINGS

1.

WHETSTONE HOLDERS / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen and cylindrical ones. Peter Žmitek, 1908. Coloured drawing, 35 x 25 cm. Inv. no. i.m. (illustrative material) 60, old inv. no. 2821, stamp on back side: Carniolian Provincial Museum “Rudolfinum” in Ljubljana.

2.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal. Albin Rogelj, 1948 (Field 1, Šentjurij-Škocjan). Drawing in Indian ink, 18 x 25 cm. Inv. no. 1/42. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder 21 cm (height), 5.5 cm (diameter of whetstone-hole), 3 cm (height of legs), 2 cm (distance between legs), Janez Rebolj, pri Golobarju, Pece 3.

3.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, box-shaped. L. Šuštar, 1949 (Field 2, Šmarje-Sap). Drawing in Indian ink, 19 x 40 cm. Inv. no. II/28. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder, Franc Predalič, Zg.Slivnica 5.

4.

WHETSTONE HOLDER WITH WHETSTONE / HORN. L. Šuštar, 1949 (Field 2, Šmarje-Sap). Drawing in Indian ink, 19 x 40 cm. Inv. no. II/29. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder with whetstone, Jože Tomažin, pri Kržolu, Veliki vrh 2.

5.

TWO WHETSTONE HOLDERS WITH WHETSTONES / WOODEN, one is two-legged and box-shaped, the other one-legged and polygonal. Ivan Romih, 1950 (Field 5, Šentvid pri Stični). Drawing in Indian ink, 16 x 18. Inv. no. V/95, 96. Inscription on drawing: Two home-made whetstone holders (maple), Ignac Kastelic, Hrastov dol 12.

6.

HAY-HARVEST IMPLEMENTS. Ivan Romih, 1950 (Field 5, Šentvid pri Stični). Drawing in Indian ink, 36 x 31 cm. Inv. no. V/87-93. Inscription on drawing: Miscellaneous implements: A - whetstone holder with whetstone, h.=24 cm; B - scythe for awn and moss, h.=39 cm; C - whetting hammer, h.=19 cm, w.=14 cm; D - whetting stool with whetting anvil, w.=60 cm, h.=66 cm; E - scythe, h.= 170 cm, h. of blade = 71 cm; F - rake, h.=158cm, w.=54 cm; G - hay fork, h.=210 cm; Leopold Primc, pri Starcu, Zaboršt 1.

7.

WHETSTONE HOLDER WITH WHETSTONE / HORN. Ivan Romih, 1950 (Field 5, Šentvid pri Stični). Section of drawing in Indian ink, 18 x 22 cm. Inv. no. V/97. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder, h.=27 cm, w.=8 cm, 32 cm (belt), M. Terlep, Št. Pavel 21.

8.

HAY-HARVEST IMPLEMENTS. Ivan Romih, 1951 (Field 7, Kobarid). Drawing in Indian ink, 26 x 36 cm. Inv. no. VII/129-133. Inscription on drawing: Whetting scythes, Mihael Antih, pri Blenkin, Potoki 4; Crampon, Zg.Borjana 37; Whetstone holder, 27 (cm, height), 17 (cm height of board), pri Bricu, Kred 53; Straightener, 16 (cm, height of needle-like part), 7.5 (cm, height of handle); Irons for whetting scythes, Zg. Borjana 40.

9.

WHETSTONE HOLDER WITH WHETSTONE AND STRAIGHTENER / WOODEN, two-legged, round. Franc Maček, 1951 (Field 7, Kobarid). Part of drawing in Indian ink, 25 x 18 cm. Inv. no. VII/402. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder, Franc Ruša, Staro sedlo 34.

10.

WHETSTONE HOLDER WITH WHETSTONE / WOODEN, one-legged, polygonal. Janez Lunar, 1952 (Field 8, Trenta). Drawing in Indian ink, 10 x 25 cm. Inv.no. VIII/116. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder, h. 27 cm, w. 8 cm, Stanko Cuder, pri Rečči, Soča 150 - Lepena.

11.

WHETSTONE HOLDER WITH WHETSTONE / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical. Janez Lunar, 1952 (Field 8, Trenta). Drawing in Indian ink, 12 x 21 cm. Inv.no. VIII/127. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder, 25 cm (height), 6 cm (width), Alojz Flais, pri Gašperju, Soča 41, Lemovje.

12.

HAY-HARVEST IMPLEMENTS. Ivan Romih, 1952 (Field 9, Šentjernej). Drawing in Indian ink, 27 x 36 cm. Inv. no. IX/5-7. Inscription on drawing: Rake, whetstone holder and scythe; rake, rake handle, teeth, jaw; whetstone, whetstone holder; scythe, ring, wedge, snath, handle; Franc Jurgalič, Groblje 2.

13.

WHETSTONE HOLDER WITH WHETSTONE / HORN. Janez Lunar, 1953 (Field 10, Brda). Section of drawing in Indian ink, 18 x 25 cm. Inv. no. X/109. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder with whetstone, pri Hlipovih, Biljana 26.

14.

WHETSTONE HOLDER WITH WHETSTONE / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal. Ivan Romih, 1953 (Field 10, Brda). Drawing in Indian ink, 17 x 25 cm. Inv. no. X/182. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder, Anton Gabrijelčič, Vedrijan 56.

15.

WHETSTONE HOLDER AND STRAIGHTENER / WOODEN, two-legged, round. Ivan Romih, 1954 (Field 11, Cerkljansko). Section of drawing in Indian ink, 25 x 35 cm. Inv. no. XI/151. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder with fire-steel, pri Boštjanu, Zakraj 10.

16.

TWO WHETSTONE HOLDERS / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal. Ivan Romih, 1954 (Field 11, Cerkljansko). Drawing in Indian ink, 17 x 25 cm. Inv. no. XI/207, 208. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder, pri Andrjolču, Polje 3; Whetstone with hook to hang it (to the belt) and loop for fire-steel, u Bajt, Polje 4.

17.

WHETSTONE HOLDER WITH WHETSTONE (front and side view) / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal. Ivan Romih, 1955 (Field 12, Brkini). Section of drawing in Indian ink, 17 x 25 cm. Inv. no. XII/72. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder, 28 (cm, height), 9 (cm, width), pri Cenčevih, Markovščina 32.

18.

WHETSTONE HOLDER WITH WHETSTONE / WOODEN, one-legged, polygonal. Ivan Romih, 1955 (Field 12, Brkini). Drawing in Indian ink, 9 x 12 cm. Inv. no. XII/134. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder, pri Kavlinovih, Barka 2.

19.

WHETSTONE HOLDER WITH WHETSTONE / WOODEN, two-legged, round. Rudolf Auersperg, 1955 (Field 12, Brkini). Drawing in Indian ink, 18 x 12 cm. Inv. no. XII/506. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder, Rudolf Cetinj, pri Dežotovih, Kovčice 2.

20.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / HORN. Ivan Romih, 1957 (Field 14, Žužemberk). Drawing in Indian ink, 18 x 25 cm. Inv. no. XIV/9. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone horn, 26 (cm, height), 8 (cm, width), pri Vedeževih, Gradenc 24.

21.

WHETSTONE HOLDER WITH WHETSTONE / WOODEN, two-legged, box-shaped. Ivan Romih, 1957 (Field 14, Žužemberk). Drawing in Indian ink, 17 x 25 cm. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder with whetstone, 22 (cm, height), 6 (cm, width), pri Mežnarju, Vrhovo 2.

22.

TWO WHETSTONE HOLDERS / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal, and HORN, Ivan Romih, 1958 (Field 15, Vipava). Drawing in Indian ink, 18 x 25 cm. Inv. no. XV/24, 25. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder: a) wooden (broomwood), 30 (cm, height), 8 (cm, width); b) horn, 21 (cm, height); pri Videjevih, Duplje 40.

23.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal. Slavka Čufer, 1959 (Field 16, Črni vrh - Vojsko). Drawing in Indian ink, 18 x 25 cm. Inv. no. XVI/94. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder, pri Figarju, Zdole 31.

24.

WHETSTONE HOLDER WITH WHETSTONE AND STRAIGHTENER (side and back view) / WOODEN, two-legged, round. Slavka Čufer, 1959 (Field 16, Črni vrh - Vojsko). Drawing in Indian ink, 18 x 25 cm. Inv. no. XVI/97. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder, 27 (cm, height), length of board 14 cm, Andrej Ogrič, Vojsko 57.

25.

TWO WHETSTONE HOLDERS (view of the upper part of their back) / WOODEN, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal. Slavka Čufer, 1959 (Field 16, Črni vrh - Vojsko). Drawing in Indian ink, 17 x 25 cm. Inv. no. XVI/130. Inscription on drawing: Back of whetstone holder with little board, back of whetstone holder with wire, pri Sneženkarju, Kanji dol 9.

26.

WHETSTONE HOLDER WITH WHETSTONE AND STRAIGHTENER / WOODEN, two-legged, round. Slavka Čufer, 1959 (Field 16, Črni vrh - Vojsko). Drawing in Indian ink, 17 x 25 cm. Inv. no. XVI/160. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder, 27 (cm, height), 14 (cm, height of board), pri Smodinu, Vojsko 32.

27.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal. Gorazd Makarovič, 1960 (Field 17, Velike Lašče). Drawing in Indian ink, 25 x 35 cm. Inv. no. XVII/28. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder, 23 (cm, height), Janez Žužek, Jakičevo no. 1.

28.

WHETSTONE HOLDER WITH WHETSTONE / WOODEN, two-legged, round. Ivan Romih, 1962 (Field 19, Lož). Section of drawing in Indian ink, 17 x 25 cm. Inv. no. XIX/2. Inscription of drawing: Whetstone holder, 28 (cm, height), 7 (cm, width), Snežnik castle, Kozarišče pri Ložu.

29.

WHETSTONE HOLDER / WOODEN, two-legged, polygonal. Ivan Romih, 1962 (Field 19, Lož). Drawing in Indian ink, 17 x 25 cm. Inv. no. XIX/5. Inscription on drawing: Whetstone holder, 29 (cm, height), 7 (cm, width), Snežnik castle, Kozarišče pri Ložu.





KAZALO KRAJA UPORABE, OBLIKOVNIH TIPOV IN MATERIALOV /

INDEXES OF PLACES OF USE, TYPES OF OBJECTS AND MATERIALS





KAZALO KRAJA UPORABE / INDEX OF PLACES OF USE:

PREDMETI / OBJECTS:

1 - Bela krajina: 98

2 - Bistrica ob Sotli: 54

3 - Bled: 113, 114

4 - Bohinj: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

5 - Bohinjska Češnjica: 119

- Bosna in Hercegovina: 60

6 - Bratonci: 102

7 - Breg: 34

8 - Črenšovci: 26

9 - Davča: 138

10 - Erzelj: 100, 101

11 - Gabrovka: 88

12 - Goričice: 99, 106, 107, 108, 126

13 - Gorjuše: 17, 117, 118

14 - Gradež: 29, 30, 128, 129, 130, 131, 145, 146

15 - Grahovo: 104

16 - Grant: 135, 149

17 - Huda luknja: 97

- Ivanjkovci v Slovenskih goricah: 10

18 - Jurišče: 123

19 - Kal: 25

20 - Kamna Gorica: 115

21 - Koprivnik: 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 116, 140, 151

21, 13 - Koprivnik, Gorjuše: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

22 - Krajna Brda: 122, 144

23 - Kranjska gora: 44

24 - Kuk: 134

25 - Luče: 23

26 - Mali Ločnik: 31, 32, 33

- Martinj Vrh: 152

27 - Mislinjska dolina: 95

28 - Moščanci: 1

29 - Petrovo Brdo: 132, 133

30 - Podbrdo: 139

31 - Podgorica: 18

32 - Podkoren: 49

33 - Podporezen: 136, 148

34 - Podvolovljek: 121

35 - Pohorje: 94

- Pokljuka: 111

36 - Polica: 21

37 - Poljanska dolina: 91, 143

38 - Polje pri Bistrici: 57, 58

- Robanov kot: 150

39 - Selca: 43

40 - Selce: 124

41 - Skomarje: 27

42 - Slavina: 125

43 - Sorica: 40

44 - Spodnja Slivnica: 20

45 - Spodnja Trenta: 110

46 - Spodnja Šiška: 89, 90

- Srednja vas: 147

47 - Stiška vas: 120

48 - Velika loka: 53

49 - Zabukovje: 19, 28

50 - Zali Log: 41, 42, 137

51 - Zgornja Savinjska dolina: 35, 36, 37, 38, 39

52 - Škofije: 24

53 - (Španja) Ponova vas: 22

54 - Žerovnica: 109, 127

- Neznana provenienca: 55, 56, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 92, 93



RISBE / DRAWINGS:

55 - Barka: 18

56 - Biljana: 13

57 - Dole: 23

58 - Duplje: 22

13, 21 - Gorjuše, Koprivnik: 1

59 - Gradenc: 20

60 - Hrastov Dol: 5

61 - Jakičevo: 27

62 - Kovčice: 19

63 - Kozarišče pri Ložu: 28, 29

64 - Markovščina: 17

65 - Pece: 2

66 - Polje: 16

67 - Soča: 10, 11

68 - Staro selo: 9

69 - Šentpavel na Dolenjskem: 7

70 - Vedrijan: 14

71 - Veliki vrh pri Šmarju: 4

72 - Vojsko: 24, 26

73 - Vrhovo pri Žužemberku: 21

74 - Zakraj: 15

75 - Zgornja Slivnica: 3


KAZALO TIPOV:

Lesen, breznog, klinast: 94, 95, 96, 121

Lesen, breznog, mnogokoten: 103

Lesen, breznog, mnogokotno-stožčast: 85, 86

Lesen, breznog, obel: 104

Lesen, breznog, oblo-stožčast: 98

Lesen, breznog, valjast: 61

Lesen, breznog, škatlast: 10, 23, 37, 38, 39, 92, 93, 120

Lesen, dvonog, mnogokoten: 18, 19, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 53, 77, 78, 80, 81, 106, 108, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131. Risbe: 2, 14, 16, 17, 27, 29

Lesen, dvonog, obel: 22, 25, 40, 41, 82, 83, 91, 109, 110, 111, 112, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138. Risbe: 9, 15, 19, 24, 26, 28

Lesen, dvonog, oblo-mnogokoten: 79, 84, 107

Lesen, dvonog, škatlast: 57, 58. Risbi: 5, 21

Lesen, enonog, mnogokoten: 97. Risbe: 5, 10, 18

Lesen, enonog, obel: 116

Lesen, enonog, škatlast: Risba: 3

Lesen, enonog, tenko-valjast: 26, 102

Lesen, enonog, valjast: 4, 8, 9, 15, 50, 52. Risba: 11

Lesen, enonog, valjasto-mnogokoten: 20, 43, 59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 87, 90, 99, 100, 101, 113, 124. Risbe: 22, 23, 25

Lesen, enonog, valjasto-nabrekel: 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 55, 56, 69, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119. Risba: 1

Lesen, trebušast: 60

Lončen, enonog, tenko-valjast: 1

Plastičen, breznog, klinast: 139

Plastičen, breznog, škatlast: 140

Pločevinast, breznog, klinast: 76

Pločevinast, breznog, valjasto-stožčast: 73, 74

Pločevinast, enonog, valjast: 75

Rožen: 24, 27, 34, 42, 54, 70, 71, 72, 88, 89, 105, 122, 123. Risbe: 4, 7, 13, 20, 22

Rožen, breznog, klinast: 21, 35, 36


INDEX OF TYPES OF OBJECTS:

Earthen, one-legged, thin-cylindrical: 1

Horn: 24, 27, 34, 42, 54, 70, 71, 72, 88, 89, 105, 122, 123. Drawings: 4, 7, 13, 20, 22

Horn, legless, wedge-shaped: 21, 35, 36

Plastic, legless, box-like: 140

Plastic, legless, wedge-shaped: 139

Sheet-metal, legless, cylindrical-conical: 73, 74

Sheet-metal, legless, wedge-shaped: 76

Sheet-metal, one-legged, cylindrical: 75

Wooden, legless, box-like: 10, 23, 37, 38, 39, 92, 93, 120

Wooden, legless, cylindrical: 61

Wooden, legless, polygonal: 103

Wooden, legless, polygonal-conical: 85, 86

Wooden, legless, round: 104

Wooden, legless, round-conical: 98

Wooden, legless, wedge-shaped: 94, 95, 96, 121

Wooden, one-legged, box-like: Drawing: 3

Wooden, one-legged, cylindrical: 4, 8, 9, 15, 50, 52. Drawing: 11

Wooden, one-legged, cylindrical-polygonal: 20, 43, 59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 87, 90, 99, 100, 101, 113, 124. Drawings: 22, 23, 25

Wooden, one-legged, cylindrical-swollen: 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 55, 56, 69, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119. Drawing: 1

Wooden, one-legged, polygonal: 97. Drawings: 5, 10, 18

Wooden, one-legged, round: 116

Wooden, one-legged, thin-cylindrical: 26, 102

Wooden, paunchy: 60

Wooden, two-legged, box-like: 57, 58. Drawings: 5, 21

Wooden, two-legged, polygonal: 18, 19, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 53, 77, 78, 80, 81, 106, 108, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131. Drawings: 2, 14, 16, 17, 27, 29

Wooden, two-legged, round: 22, 25, 40, 41, 82, 83, 91, 109, 110, 111, 112, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138. Drawings: 9, 15, 19, 24, 26, 28

Wooden, two-legged, round-polygonal: 79, 84, 107


KAZALO MATERIALOV:

Brestov les: 6

Brezov les, svetlozelen oljnat oplesk, kavelj iz bakrene žice: 136

Brizgana rdeča plastična masa: 139

Brizgana roza in bela plastična masa, konopljena vrvica, aluminijast žičnat kavelj: 140

Govej rog: 21, 42

Govej rog, kokosova vrv: 123

Govej rog, konopljena vrv: 34, 89

Govej rog, konopljena vrvica: 70

Govej rog, lesena deščica, bakrena žička: 71

Govej rog, lesena deščica, konopljena vrvica: 24

Govej rog, pločevinast kavelj: 35

Govej rog, srebrni vložki, žičnati zanki: 36

Govej rog, usnjen jermen: 72

Govej rog, žičnat kavelj: 27, 54, 88, 105, 122

Hrastov les: 98

Hruškov les: 37, 119

Hruškov les, ostanki rdeče oljne barve: 93

Hruškov les, pločevina, zelen (spodaj rumen) oljnat oplesk: 116

Jablanov les, pločevinast kavelj: 118

Javorjev les, pločevinast obroč in kavelj: 121

Jeklo: 149, 150, 151, 152

Jelšev les, konopljena vrv: 124

Jesenov les: 12, 55

Jesenov les, ostanki rjavega oljnatega opleska: 97

Jesenov les, pločevinast kavelj: 26

Jesenov les, usnjen pas, medeninast gumb: 2

Jesenov les, usnjena zanka: 17

Jesenov les, zanka za ognjilo in obroč iz medenine: 111

Kostanjev les, ostanki roza oljnatega opleska: 114

Kremenov peščenjak: 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148

Kremenov peščenjak, pločevina, orehov les: 146

Les orehove korenine, pločevinast kavelj, svetlozelen: 117

Lipov les: 7, 13, 19, 44, 47, 51, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 79, 87, 92, 96, 100, 101, 106

Lipov les, kavelj iz bakrene žice: 104

Lipov les, konopljena vrv: 18, 90

Lipov les, konopljena vrv, raševinasta krpa: 78

Lipov les, konopljena vrvica: 56, 66, 95

Lipov les, konopljena vrvica, črna vezalka: 67

Lipov les, ostanki rdečkasto-rjavega oljnatega opleska, usnjen jermen: 69

Lipov les, ostanki zelenega oljnatega opleska, usnjen jermen, konopljena vrv: 80

Lipov les, ostanki črnega oljnatega opleska, usnjen jermen: 68

Lipov les, pločevinast kavelj, temnozelen oljnat oplesk: 125

Lipov les, pločevinasta zanka: 16

Lipov les, poslikava z zeleno, zlato in srebrno barvo: 39

Lipov les, zelen oljnat oplesk, žica: 81

Lipov les, črna oljna poslikava: 77

Mehek les: 48, 49, 50

Mehek les, lužen in lakiran: 113

Nagnojev les, aluminijasti obroč, trak, zanka za ognjilo in žica: 134

Nagnojev les, impregniran z motnim lakom mahagonijeve barve, medeninast obroč in zanka za ognjilo, usnjen jermen: 137

Nagnojev les, konopljena vrvica: 82

Nagnojev les, lubjast trak, usnjen jermen: 41

Nagnojev les, obroč iz aluminija, medeninast trak, pločevinasta zanka za ognjilo: 133

Nagnojev les, obroč iz medenine, bakrena žica: 132

Nagnojev les, obroča iz kovanega železa, usnjen jermen: 40

Nagnojev les, pločevinasta obroča in zanka za ognjilo, usnjen jermen: 112

Nagnojev les, pločevinasta zanka za ognjilo, žičnat kavelj: 135

Nagnojev les, pločevinasti obroč, trak in zanka za ognjilo, sintetična vrvica: 138

Nagnojev les, žica: 91

Orehov les: 4, 14, 19, 28, 29, 30, 32, 43, 45, 46, 52, 57, 58, 94, 103, 115, 128, 129

Orehov les, konopljena vrvica: 25

Orehov les, pločevinast kavelj: 120

Orehov les, pločevinasta zanka: 15

Orehov les, poslikava s črno oljno barvo: 53

Orehov les, poslikava z oranžno, temno in svetlozeleno: 10

Orehov les, poslikava z rdečo in zeleno barvo: 31

Orehov les, poslikava z rjavkasto rdečo oljno barvo: 11

Orehov les, usnjen jermen: 110

Orehov les, usnjen pas: 130, 131

Orehov les, usnjena zanka: 8, 9

Orehov les, usnjeni jermeni, bombažna krpa: 33

Orehov les, zelen oljni oplesk: 99, 108

Orehov les, žičnat kavelj: 109

Orehov les, žičnata prstana: 107

Pocinkana pločevina: 73, 75, 76

Topolov les: 126

Topolov les, impregniran s firnežem in voskom: 127

Topolov les, žičnat kavelj: 102

Trd les: 3, 5, 22, 23, 38

Trd les, ostanki zelenega oljnatega opleska, žica: 85

Trd les, rdeč oljnat oplesk, pločevinast trak: 83

Trd les, redek rjavkast oplesk, žica, usnjen jermen: 84

Trd les, usnjen pas: 86

Železna pločevina, lesena stožčasta konica: 74

Žgana glina, rjava in bela barva, glazura: 1


INDEX OF MATERIALS:

Alder, hempen rope: 124

Applewood, sheet-metal hook: 118

Ash: 12, 55

Ash, brass loop for straightener and brass ring: 111

Ash, fragments of brown oil paint: 97

Ash, leather belt, brass button: 2

Ash, leather loop: 17

Ash, sheet-metal hook: 26

Baked clay, brown and white paint, glaze: 1

Birch, light green oil paint, copper-wire hook: 136

Broomwood, aluminium: ring, strip, loop for straightener and wire: 134

Broomwood, aluminium ring, brass strip, sheet-metal loop for straightener: 133

Broomwood, brass ring, copper wire: 132

Broomwood, hempen string: 82

Broomwood, impregnated with dull lacquer of mahagony colour, brass ring and loop for straightener, leather strap: 137

Broomwood, strip of bark, leather strap: 41

Broomwood, sheet-metal loop for straightener, wire hook: 135

Broomwood, sheet-metal ring, strip and loop for straightener, plastic string: 138

Broomwood, two sheet-metal rings and loop for straightener, leather strap: 112

Broomwood, two wrought-iron rings, leather strap: 40

Broomwood, wire: 91

Chestnut, fragments of pink oil paint: 114

Cowhorn: 21, 42

Cowhorn, coconut rope: 123

Cowhorn, hempen rope: 34, 89

Cowhorn, hempen string: 70

Cowhorn, leather strap: 72

Cowhorn, little board, hempen string: 24

Cowhorn, little board, short copper wire: 71

Cowhorn, sheet-metal hook: 35

Cowhorn, silver inlays, two wire loops: 36

Cowhorn, wire hook: 27, 54, 88, 105, 122

Elm: 6

Galvanized sheet-metal: 73, 75, 76

Hardwood: 3, 5, 22, 23, 38

Hardwood, fragments of green oil paint, wire: 85

Hardwood, leather belt: 86

Hardwood, red oil paint, sheet-metal strip: 83

Hardwood, thin brownish paint, wire, leather strap: 84

Linden: 7, 13, 19, 44, 47, 51, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 79, 87, 92, 96, 100, 101, 106

Linden, black oil paint: 77

Linden, copper wire hook: 104

Linden, fragments of black oil paint, leather strap: 68

Linden, fragments of green oil paint, leather strap, hempen rope: 80

Linden, fragments of reddish brown oil paint, leather strap, hempen rope: 69

Linden, green oil paint, wire: 81

Linden, hempen rope: 18, 90

Linden, hempen rope, sackcloth rag: 78

Linden, hempen string: 56, 66, 95

Linden, hempen string, black shoelace: 67

Linden, painted with green, golden and silver paint: 39

Linden, sheet-metal hook, dark green oil paint: 125

Linden, sheet-metal loop: 16

Maple, sheet-metal ring and hook: 121

Oak: 98

Pearwood: 37, 119

Pearwood, fragments of red oil paint: 93

Pearwood, sheet-metal, green (bottom part: yellow) oil coat: 116

Pink and white injection-moulded plastic, hempen string, aluminium-wire hook: 140

Poplar: 126

Poplar, impregnated with warnish and wax: 127

Poplar, wire hook: 102

Quartz sandstone: 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148

Quartz sandstone, sheet-metal, walnut: 146

Red injection-moulded plastic: 139

Sheet-iron, wooden conical point: 74

Softwood: 48, 49, 50

Softwood, stained and varnished: 113

Steel: 149, 150, 151, 152

Walnut: 4, 14, 19, 28, 29, 30, 32, 43, 45, 46, 52, 57, 58, 94, 103, 115, 128, 129

Walnut, decorated with brownish red oil paint: 11

Walnut, green oil paint: 99, 108

Walnut, hempen string: 25

Walnut, leather belt: 130, 131

Walnut, leather loop: 8, 9

Walnut, leather strap: 110

Walnut, leather straps, cotton rag: 33

Walnut, painted with black oil paint: 53

Walnut, painted with orange, dark and light green: 10

Walnut, painted red and green: 31

Walnut, sheet-metal hook: 120

Walnut, sheet-metal loop: 15

Walnut, wire hook: 109

Walnut, wire rings: 107

Walnut-tree roots, sheet-metal hook, bright green (“Czech earth”) oil paint: 117





SLIKOVNA PRILOGA / ILLUSTRATIONS





Francka Benedik



SLOVENSKA NAREČNA IMENA ZA OSLO IN OSELNIK

Kot za mnoge predmete in pojme obstaja v slovenskih narečjih tudi za oslo in oselnik veliko različnih izrazov. Osla se tudi v narečjih najpogosteje imenuje osla. To besedo uporabljajo južno od Save, zahodno od Kranja pa do avstrijske meje. Na Koroškem, Štajerskem in v Prekmurju ji pravijo kamen, v Beli krajini pa enostavno brus. Brus se pojavlja pogosteje tudi v Prekmurju, vendar navadno poleg kamna. Kjer je izraz brus naveden izven teh dveh področij, ga je treba jemati z določeno rezervo1. V Mislinjski dolini in jugovzhodno od nje pa osli pravijo ostrivnik.

Med izrazi za knjižno besedo oselnik je tudi v narečjih najbolj razširjen oselnik, seveda v različnih fonetičnih različicah. Uporabljajo ga povsod tam kot oslo, poleg tega pa še v Ziljski dolini in na celotnem Gorenjskem, na južnem Štajerskem pa oselnjak. Na vzhodnem Dolenjskem se, največkrat kot dublete, pojavljajo izrazi, ki jih ni mogoče izpeljati iz besede oselnik. Kot da je zaradi fonetičnega razvoja preoblikovan izraz kazal že premalo zveze z oslo in so se vanj ponovno vnesli elementi, ki so to zvezo bolj poudarili. Taki izrazi so aslȁnk(262), uslavənk (267), oslôṷnk (274), ústank (277), ûosnk (301), wôslunk (304), ȕoslek (306). V gradivu so ti izrazi označeni z zvezdico, na karti pa s križcem za številko. Vzhodno od Drave in v Rožu na Koroškem je v rabi vodir oz. voder, v Beli krajini pa tobolec. Izrazno najbolj pisani sta vzhodna Koroška in osrednja Štajerska. Tu so doma izrazi šepun, čepun, šepur, čepur in podobni. V Savinjski dolini pa oselniku rečejo kumf.

Karta prikazuje istočasno izraze za oba predmeta. Z znakom za oselnik oz. oslo in oselnik so prikazani vsi izrazi s tem izhodiščem, ne glede na to, kako se v posameznih narečjih danes izgovarjajo; zato imajo isti znak npr. oblike sȯṷnk(3), snek (59), ûəsəlnik(88), wôsọṷnik(109), usîṷnk(115), usŷṷnek (123), wọsṷnk (124), sûṷnẹk(125), wôsunek(137), ûsaṷənk(169), sunk(184), aslȁnk(262) in še vrsta drugih. Točen krajevni izgovor je zapisan v gradivu. Na karti tudi niso označeni izrazi, ki se pojavljajo samo po enkrat. Pri osli je treba opozoriti na izraz kamen. Ta je v gradivu nava jan zelo različno, ali samo kamen ali pa z dopolnili brusni, brusilni, kosni, za brusiti, za koso, za koso brusiti. V enem in istem kraju je velikokrat navedeno več izrazov, dostikrat tako, da je en izraz samo kamen, drugi ali tretji pa kamen z nekim dopolnilom. Ta dopolnila na karti niso prikazana, ker bi zameglila sliko. Najbolj dosledna je raba dopolnila brusni v Ziljski dolini na Koroškem.

Gradivo in mreža krajev sta iz zbirke za Slovenski lingvistični atlas št. 309 in 310. Ključ za mrežo je v Dialektološki sekciji Inštituta za slovenski jezik F. Ramovša pri Znanstvenoraziskovalnem centru SAZU. Transkripcija je klasična slovenska (Ramovševa).





Francka Benedik



SLOVENE DIALECTAL WORDS FOR WHETSTONES AND WHETSTONE HOLDERS

Slovene dialects have an abundance of different words and expressions for many objects and concepts. Thus it is not surprising that there are a variety of expressions for osla (whetstone) and oselnik (whetstone holder). In most dialects osla remains osla. The word is used south of the Sava and west of Kranj up to the Austrian border. In Koroška (Carinthia), Štajersko (Styria) and Prekmurje it is called kamen (stone), in Bela Krajina simply brus (hone): Brus is also frequently used in Prekmurje, but mostly together with kamen. Wherever the word brus is used outside these two regions, it must be considered with some reserve. In the Mislinja Valley and south-east of it a whetstone is called ostrivnik (“sharpener”).

Among the expressions used in dialects for the standard expression oselnik, the same word prevails but, naturally, in different phonetic varieties. It is used in the same regions as osla and, in addition, in the Zilja Valley (Gailtal, Austria), all over Gorenjsko (Upper Carniola), whereas in South Styria it becomes oselnjak. East Dolenjsko knows various expressions, mostly used as doublets which cannot be derived from the word oselnik. The phonetic development possibly changed the word to such an extent that it was hard to link it to “osla” and elements were introduced to emphasize this connection once more. Such expressions are aslȁnk (262), uslavənk (267), oslôṷnk (274), ústank (277), ûosnk (301), wôslunk (304), ȕoslek (306). In the material, these expressions are marked with an asterisk, and on the map with a little cross behind the number. East of the Drava and in the Rož Valley (Rosental) in Carinthia the words vodir or voder are used, in Bela Krajina tobolec (“holder”). The widest variety of expressions is to be found in East Koroška (Carinthia) and Central Štajerska (Styria): šepun, čepun, šepur, čepur and the like. In the Savinja Valley a whetstone holder is called kumf.

The map shows the expressions for both objects together. The sign for whetstone holder or whetstone and whetstone holder indicates all expressions derived from the same standard word oselnik, irrespective of the way these expressions are pronounced in the various dialects. Therefore, the same sign stands for forms (pronunciations) like sȯṷnk (3), snek (59), ûəsəlnik (88), wôsọṷnik (109), usîṷnk (115), usŷṷnek (123), wọsộṷnk (124), sûṷnẹk (125), wôsunek (137), ûsaṷənk (169), ôlsunk (184), aslȁnk (262) and many others. The exact local pronunciation is given in the material. Expressions that appear only once are not indicated on the map. In reference to whetstones, special attention is required by the expression kamen (“stone”). In the material, it is cited in very different ways, either alone or supplemented with brusni, brusilni, za brusiti (whetting, grinding) or kosni, za koso, za koso brusiti (scythestone). Quite often, various expressions are used in one place: either simply kamen (“stone”) or kamen together with some other word (defining what kind of stone is meant). These supplements (to the word kamen) are not indicated on the map as they would blur the general picture. The use of the supplement brusni is most consistent in the Zilja Valley in Carinthia.

The material and network of places are taken from the collection nos. 309 and 310 for the Slovene Linguistic Atlas. The key to the network is with the Dialects Section of the Institute for the Slovene Language F. Ramovš at the Scientific and Research Centre of the Slovene Academy of Sciences and Arts. The transcription used is the classic Slovene one (elaborated by Ramovš).





OPOMBE

1 Vprašanja v vprašalnici niso oblikovana, zapisan je samo knjižni ustreznik. Vprašanja mora postavljati zapisovalec sam. V našem primeru se lahko glasi: »Kako rečete napravi za brusit?« ali »Kako rečete napravi za koso brusit?« Informator lahko misli na oslo ali pa na večji, okrogel brus. Lahko odgovori eno ali drugo in če zapisovalec, ki je dostikrat utrujen, ni pozoren in ne povpraša dodatno, kahko pride do zamenjave.





KARTA / MAP





Komentar h Krajevni preglednici:

Za izdelavo Krajevne preglednice oblikovnih tipov oselnikov so bile poleg zbirke (predmetov in risb) Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja upoštevane še zbirke naslednjih muzejev:

- Etnološke zbirke Pokrajinskega muzeja Koper,

- Goriškega muzeja,

- Tolminske zbirke (Goriškega muzeja),

- Etnografske zbirke na Bukovju v Števerjanu (S. Floriano del Collio),

- Muzeja v Bardu v Beneški Sloveniji,

- Gorenjskega muzeja v Kranju,

- Loškega muzeja Škofja Loka,

- Zbirke Slovenske prosvetne zveze v Št. Janžu v Rožu (St. Johann i. Rosental),

- Pokrajinskega muzeja Celje,

- Pokrajinskega muzeja Maribor,

- Muzeja Avgusta Pavla v Monoštru (Szentgotthárd),

- Posavskega muzeja Brežice,

- Dolenjskega muzeja v Novem mestu in

- Belokranjskega muzeja v Metliki.


Notes to the Geographical survey of various whetstone holder types:

The Geographical survey of various whetstone holder types is based upon the collection (of objects and drawings) of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum and the collections of the following museums:

- The Ethnological collection of the Provincial Museum in Koper,

- The Goriška Museum,

- The Tolmin collection (of the Goriška Museum),

- The Ethnographic collection in Bukovje (Števerjan) (S. Floriano del Collio in Italy),

- The Bardo Museum (Bardo in Italy),

- The Gorenjska Museum in Kranj,

- The Škofja Loka Museum,

- The collection of the Slovene Cultural Union in Št. Janž in Rož (St. Johann i. Rosenthal in Austria),

- The Provincial Museum in Celje,

- The Provincial Museum in Maribor,

- The August Pavel Museum in Monošter (Szentgotthárd in Hungary),

- The Posavje Museum in Brežice,

- The Dolenjska Museum in Novo mesto, and

- The Bela Krajina Museum in Metlika.





KRAJEVNA PREGLEDNICA OBLIKOVNIH TIPOV OSELNIKOV: / GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY OF VARIOUS WHETSTONE HOLDER TYPES:





Inja Smerdel

OSELNIKI / WHETSTONE HOLDERS

Zbirka Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja

Collection of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum


Knjižnica Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja 4




Uredniški odbor/Editorial Board:

mag. Andrej Dular, mag. Jasna Horvat, dr. Gorazd Makarovič,

Bojana Rogelj-Škafar, dr. Ivan Sedej, Barbara Sosič, mag. Janja Žagar


Urednik Knjižnice SEM/Editor in Chief: mag. Andrej Dular


Oblikovanje / Design: Jurij Kocbek

Tehnična ureditev, stavek / Layout: NOMINA d.o.o. in Jurij Kocbek

Fotografije/Photographs: Carmen Narobé

Risbe/Drawings: Ida Murgelj

Zemljevidi/Maps: Maruša Rupert


Lektorica/Proofreading: Maja Cerar

Prevod/Translation: Franc Smrke

Lektorica prevoda/English language editing: Jean McCollister


Recenzenta/Reviewers: dr. Tone Cevc, mag. Jasna Horvat


Izdal in založil/Published by: Slovenski etnografski muzej,

zanj mag. Tanja Roženbergar



Ljubljana 2015


Izdano v okviru projekta





CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji

Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana



39:631.351(497.4)(0.034.2)



SMERDEL, Inja

Oselniki [Elektronski vir] : zbirka Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja / Inja Smerdel ; [fotografije Carmen Narobé ; risbe Ida Murgelj ; zemljevidi Maruša Rupert ; prevod Franc Smrke]. - El. knjiga. - Ljubljana : Slovenski etnografski muzej, 2015. - (Knjižnica Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja ; 4) br/>

ISBN 978-961-6388-55-9 (ePub)

1. Slovenski etnografski muzej

282454272