Acta geographica Slovenica, 62-1, 2022, 65–76
THE KOLPA AS A BORDER RIVER
IN THE NEWSPAPER SLOVENSKI
NAROD, 1868–1914
Marko Zajc
The Kolpa as a border river between the Austrian and Hungarian
parts of the Habsburg Monarchy.
LE
C
h
N
E
R
’S
 G
E
N
E
R
A
L 
M
A
p
 O
F 
C
A
R
N
IO
LA
, 1
91
0
62-1_acta49-1.qxd  20.6.2022  10:43  Page 65
Marko Zajc, The Kolpa as a border river in the newspaper Slovenski narod, 1868–1914
66
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.7555
UDC: 94:341.222(282.24Kolpa)»1868/1914«
COBISS: 1.01
Marko Zajc1
The Kolpa as a border river in the newspaper Slovenski narod, 1868–1914
ABSTRACT: The article analyzes the portrayal of the Kolpa as a border river in the leading Slovenian lib-
eral newspaper Slovenski narod from 1868 to 1918. A border river is understood both in terms of the political
concept of a border river and in terms of a natural border in a landscape. The differences between these
two concepts can occur over long historical periods and can change significantly (e.g. due to floods, changes
in the riverbed and the loss or acquisition of the status of a border river). In the period examined, the Kolpa
formed an internal border between the Hungarian and Austrian parts of the Habsburg Monarchy. In addi-
tion, since the Late Middle Ages it has been a political border between Carniola and Croatia. The article
analyzes the following aspects: a) the Kolpa as a border and a political concept, b) the management of the
Kolpa (construction and maintenance of bridges, traffic bans, and restrictions), c) the Kolpa as a danger-
ous river, and d) border disputes.
KEY WORDS: environmental history, border, border river, newspaper Slovenski narod, nineteenth cen-
tury, Kolpa, Slovenia, Croatia
Kolpa kot mejna reka v časopisu Slovenski narod 1868–1914
POVZETEK: Članek analizira podobo mejne reke Kolpe v osrednjem liberalnem slovenskem časopisu
Slovenski narod v obdobju 1868–1918. S pojmom mejne reke razumemo politični koncept mejne reke in
reko kot naravno mejo v pokrajini. Med obema v dolgem trajanju prihaja do neskladij in se lahko se močno
spreminjata (poplave, spreminjanje struge, izguba/pridobitev statusa mejne reke). Kolpa je v obravnavanem
obdobju pomenila notranjo mejo v habsburški državi med ogrskim in avstrijskim delom monarhije, oben-
em pa je bila uveljavljena politična ločnica med Kranjsko in Hrvaško od poznega srednjega veka dalje.
V članku analiziramo naslednje vidike: a) mejna reka Kolpa kot politični koncept b) upravljanje s Kolpo;
c) Kolpa kot nevarna reka; d) mejni spori.
KLJUČNE BESEDE: okoljska zgodovina, meja, mejna reka, časopis Slovenski narod, 19. stoletje, Kolpa,
Slovenija, Hrvaška
The article was submitted for publication on August 13th, 2019.
Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 13. avgusta 2019.
1 Institute of Contemporary History, Ljubljana, Slovenia
marko.zajc@inz.si
62-1_acta49-1.qxd  20.6.2022  10:43  Page 66
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This article presents a historical analysis of references to the Kolpa as a border river in the leading Slovenian
liberal newspaper »Slovenski narod« (Slovenian Nation) from 1868 to 1918. The basic hypothesis is that
in the newspaper the ideological and political dimensions of the border river were mixed with the dimen-
sions of its geography and environmental history. The discourse on a border river as a landscape element
is not ideologically and politically neutral and, conversely, the political discourse on the border river can-
not avoid being attached to the landscape. This article analyzes the following aspects: a) the Kolpa as a border
river and political concept, b) the management of the Kolpa (construction and maintenance of bridges,
traffic bans, and restrictions), c) the Kolpa as a dangerous river, and d) border disputes.
1.2 The characteristics of border rivers
Border rivers have different dimensions. They can be large and significant (e.g., the Danube) or serve only
as small spatial divides, that can serve the function of a boundary over long historical periods (e.g., the
Čabranka; Perko et al. 2019). From a global perspective, borders on rivers vary significantly. They usual-
ly run along the line of the lowest elevation within river valleys or the deepest river channel (i.e., the thalweg),
but not always. Some borders follow river banks, a middle line between two banks, or the meanders of
the river. Countries may also agree to use different principles to regulate river borders. Changes to bor-
ders can also occur due to erosion, which can change the banks, the middle line, or thalweg to the benefit
of one country and to the disadvantage of another (Gleditsch et al. 2006).
In common concepts of a border river, the riverbed and the border line coincide, but between the two
significant changes can be visible in the landscape and on maps. The two elements have a special relationship:
the border line is usually defined based on the riverbed. In addition, the border line can also have a rec-
iprocal effect on the riverbed (i.e., human activities on the river). Due to meandering and erosion, the river
does not »stick« to the riverbed that cartographers or land surveyors recorded at a particular time in his-
tory. The border line may also change due to political or administrative changes (Zajc 2017).
Rivers are natural features with their own dynamics that humans can never fully control. Border rivers,
in turn, are social and political concepts that people assign to natural rivers. According to the standard
sociological definition of a border developed by the classical sociologist Georg Simmel, a border is not
a spatial fact with social effects, but a social fact manifested in space (Eigmüller 2006). Borders have a dual
character: they are the result of historical and political processes, and at the same time they are creators
of social orders (Eigmüller 2006). A border river is also a social fact, but it is essentially defined as a nat-
ural feature. Due to natural river processes (e.g., changes in the riverbed, flooding, and intermittence), border
rivers function »in their own right« and also »speak for themselves,« and their activity has social conse-
quences. Conversely, human activity also affects the river. The spatial sciences use different approaches
to analyze the relationship between changing river courses and border lines, mainly based on cartographic
sources (Zorn, Breg Valjavec and Ciglič 2018; Perko et al. 2019).
1.3 Borders as contact areas
In contrast to the traditional concept of political geography, recent research in political geography has focused
on the fact that borders are not merely barriers in spatial communication. A border’s impeding effect is
not absolute, but relative and selective. It depends primarily on the degree of internal social integration
of the border area (Bufon 2001). However, the integration of border areas can often change: Due to the
precarious nature of the economic disparity between the two areas on either side of the border – for exam-
ple, differences in exchange rates, inflation or purchasing power may have a decisive impact on the direction
and intensity of relations – cross-border transactions are often unstable (Bufon 2001).
In his article on political geography and contact zones (written before Slovenia’s accession to the EU),
Milan Bufon highlighted the fact that European integration should invent new operationalization in con-
tact areas. These include not only national identity, but also different ethnic, regional, and linguistic identities,
Acta geographica Slovenica, 62-1, 2022
67
62-1_acta49-1.qxd  20.6.2022  10:43  Page 67
Marko Zajc, The Kolpa as a border river in the newspaper Slovenski narod, 1868–1914
and the borders between them are not always linear or clearly identifiable, and form a complex and »frac-
tal« socio-cultural space (Bufon 2002). Although he relates his finding to present and future European
integration, it can also be applied to the past – that is, to the period covered by this analysis (1868–1918).
The wider area of White Carniola, the Gorjanci/Žumberak Mountains, and Northern Croatia was undoubt-
edly a complex and »fractal« area, but also an exceptionally integrated geographical space during this period
(Zajc 2003). From today’s perspective (i.e. 2019), Bufon’s claim seems a little too optimistic, as the border
area is integrated and the likelihood of disputes occurring is therefore low. After the crisis of the EU exter-
nal border system (and the Schengen Agreement) due to the refugee crisis of 2015, it has become clear that
integrated contact areas do not prevent border-related conflicts. The same is true for the Slovenian–Croatian
border dispute (Pipan 2008), which continues despite the strong mutual integration of border areas (Pipan
2007) and the fact that the matter was settled through international arbitration (Zajc 2018).
The Kolpa region can be defined (both in the period studied and in the present) as a rural peripheral
region. Bufon and Sanguin (2015) argue that analyses of marginal rural areas require a different method-
ological approach. In addition to remote sensing and land-use methods, he also recommends the use of
surveys and cognitive maps to compare the current size of perceived areas with the size of historical regions.
Historical scholarship can make an important contribution to this type of research: by analyzing archival
and journalistic sources, the spatial phenomenon of borders and borderlands can be chronologically con-
textualized and the dynamic relationship between man, landscape, and sociopolitical systems can be
highlighted. Dutch social historians Michiel Baud and Willem van Schendel (1997) developed an interest-
ing chronological classification of border regions: embryonic borderland (pre-modern societies), infant
borderland (a border has been established), adolescent borderland (older forms of cross-border networks
may continue), adult borderland (social networks accept the border unconditionally), declining border-
land (the border loses its meaning), and defunct borderland (the border no longer exists).
Mexican geographer Marcela Aurora Tapia Ladino has highlighted the concept of mobility in the con-
text of borders, which can also be applied to the border area studied here. Borders are largely associated
with mobility rather than a static reality, based on territoriality. In terms of border studies, the term mobil-
ity is perhaps more appropriate than the broader concept of migrations. Abelardo Morales has developed
the concept of cross-border social practices, which refers to activities in which the border plays a key role
(Tapia Ladino 2017). The interplay between surveillance and mobility has a long history: it evolved from
fears of invasion, disease, and mass migration (Amoore, Marmura and Salter 2008).
1.4 Description of the study area
The Kolpa is a left tributary of the Sava and part of the Black Sea catchment area. It is characterized by
a dinaric rain-snow regime and is classified as a karst river (Frantar and Hrvatin 2005). The river canyon
cuts through the high karst plateau of Mount Gotenica (Goteniška gora) and the low karst plain of White
Caniola. As the groundwater level in the low karst area of White Carniola is close to the surface, lower
land areas along the Kolpa are flooded every year. The Kolpa is 292 km long, of which 118 km form the
Slovenian–Croatian border. From its confluence with the Čabranka at Osilnica, the Kolpa flows through
a narrow valley towards Griblje in White Carniola, with only occasional wider floodplains along the river
(e.g., at Osilnica and Kuželj, between Brod na Kolpi and Slavski Laz, and at Dol, Radenci and Vinica). In
White Carniola, it flows along the edges of a low karst plain and, apart from its tributaries Lahinja and
Dobličica, is fed only by springs directly adjacent to its channel (Komac, Natek and Zorn 2008).
1.5 Historical outline of the Kolpa as a border river in the nineteenth century
In the nineteenth century, the Kolpa separated Carniola (and the Habsburg hereditary lands) from Civil
Croatia (and Hungary), though not all the time. The French annexation in the early nineteenth century
and the creation of the Illyrian Provinces, caused the Kolpa to lose its status as a border river in 1809. This
continued in the first years after the territory was reclaimed by Austria. In 1816, the Kingdom of Illyria
was established as part of Austrian Empire, but in reality it never became a separate administrative unit.
Under pressure from Hungary, Emperor Francis I finally returned Illyrian Croatia to Hungary in 1822.
An administrative-political border with tollbooths and customs offices was restored between Carniola and
68
62-1_acta49-1.qxd  20.6.2022  10:43  Page 68
Acta geographica Slovenica, 62-1, 2022
69
Civil Croatia (Zajc 2006). Even though the Kolpa had the status of a border almost on the entire 118 km
long section of the present border, it separated more than just Croatia and Carniola. Because of the enclave
of Marindol in the Military Frontier on the meander of the Kolpa south of Metlika, until 1881 several kilo-
meters of the river also served as a border between the territory under the military authority of the Military
Frontier and Civil Croatia. After 1881, it no longer had the status of a border river in this section.
The nature of borders on the Kolpa River changed several times during the nineteenth century. In addi-
tion to the early nineteenth-century changes mentioned above, which resulted from the Napoleonic Wars,
there were two other major changes. In the pre-March period, life on the border between Carniola and Croatia
was primarily influenced by the customs border between the Hungarian and the rest of the Habsburg
Monarchy. From 1822 to 1826, all customs borders between the (western) Austrian provinces were abol-
ished. In 1830, the State Finance Administration was established, to which in Carniola the border customs
and salt duty offices in Jesenice (in Lower Carniola) and Metlika were also subordinated (Figure 1). Auxiliary
offices for border customs, salt duties, and the Hungarian import tax of 30% (the so-called »thirtieth«) were
distributed along the border between Carniola and the Hungarian provinces in Kostanjevica, Vinica, Osilnica,
Radovica, Gaberje, Jugorje, Pobrežje, Griblje, Poljane, Trava, Babno Polje, and Krmačina (Keber 2003).
After 1836, the general cross-border trade conditions were defined in special monopoly regulations, which
show how the border on the Kolpa was used in practice (Hepe et al. 2011).
No special permits were required to transport goods across the border, except for government monop-
oly goods such as table salt, tobacco, and gunpowder. Travelers carrying foreign tobacco for their personal
use were allowed to take up to five Vienna pounds (about 2.8 kg) without special permission. It is also inter-
esting to note the exceptional cases in which transport across the border was permitted on secondary roads.
Livestock was allowed to cross the border for grazing or agricultural work, but had to be returned the same
day. Transport of goods across the border was not allowed before sunrise or after sunset (Zoll- und Staats-
Monopols-Ordnung 1835). Since 1690 tobacco was a monopoly in the Austrian part of the empire, but
not in the Hungarian part, and so it was much cheaper in Hungary. Because of the ban on Hungarian tobac-
co, consumers in the Slovenian lands could obtain it only through smugglers. Smuggling flourished up
until the mid-1850s, when the customs border was finally abolished (Zajc 2006).
A second major change to the border at the Kolpa River came with the introduction of state dualism
in 1867, from which time, the Kolpa separated two independent halves of the monarchy, sharing foreign
policy, finance and the military. In Vienna, the Dual Monarchy was conceived as a federal state based on
personal and real union. Common institutions were to demonstrate the unity of the monarchy, which is
why Vienna assigned them a key role. For the Hungarian part of the monarchy, however, common insti-
tutions were seen merely as the result of the free will of two independent states to regulate certain matters
Figure 1: Metlika (Ilustrirani Slovenec, August 25th, 1929).
62-1_acta49-1.qxd  20.6.2022  10:43  Page 69
Marko Zajc, The Kolpa as a border river in the newspaper Slovenski narod, 1868–1914
jointly (Cvirn 2015). This dual system also had practical implications. As the co-editor of Slovenski narod,
Josip Jurčič, wrote in his 1870 article »Slovenci in Hrvati« (Slovenians and Croats), dualism made Croatia
a foreign country on the other side of the Kolpa River. Dualism put an end to the border crossing to school
because after 1867 Hungarian educational institutions were no longer allowed in the Austrian part of the
monarchy and vice versa (Jurčič 1982).
2 Methods
Research has employed methods of conceptual history (Koselleck 2002) and historical discourse analy-
sis, which assumes a constructedness of sociocultural reality and examines the ways in which forms of
knowledge are generated in the historical process. Discourses are patterns of order that are inseparable
from the forms of power in which the social construction of reality is organized (Landwehr 2008).
Why is the application of the method of historical discourse analysis appropriate for the study of bor-
der rivers? Border rivers exist not only in a landscape or in political structures, but also in the media, where
they »live« as natural features. The discursive life of border rivers in the context of time and space is key
to understanding the phenomenon of border rivers: It allows us to understand the relationships at the level
of landscape, politics, and ideology, and it connects the environmental-historical approach with the con-
cept of phantom borders (von Hirschhausen et al. 2015). This research was designed from a long-term
(longue durée) perspective (1868–1918). It is not a total historical study of all references to the Kolpa River,
but a case study based on the principles of drawing from a pool of sources.
Due to its regular publication and its nationalist and liberal orientation, the newspaper Slovenski narod
(1868–1945) lends itself to a historical analysis of references to the Kolpa River as a border river over a longer
period. This newspaper was largely founded by Slovenian liberal nationalists. After the introduction of the
dualist monarchy in 1867 and the adoption of the December Constitution, they sought to develop active
Slovenian policy under Habsburg parliamentarism. Slovenski narod became the first regularly published
Slovenian political newspaper, and only four years after its appearance it also became the first Slovenian
daily newspaper (Vatovec 1968). The newspaper is available at research libraries (e.g. in the Institute of
Contemporary History, the National and University Library, and the Slavic Library), and it is also accessible
online in .pdf format on the portal dlib.si (managed by the National and University Library). This portal
also features a search engine that can be used to search for individual words or phrases in a text, but this is
not entirely reliable due to character-recognition errors in scanning historical printed texts. Therefore, the
search for material in physical form has been combined with search for material in electronic form.
3 Results
3.1 The Kolpa as a border river and political concept
In the pages of Slovenski narod, the Kolpa River was not only a proper name for a river, but also and above
all a symbol of a natural border between the Slovenians and the Croats. It also appeared in articles that
had no direct reference to the river itself. The phrase »onstran Kolpe« (across the Kolpa) simply meant
Croatian territory. However, this way of defining the location of people based on a border river was not
neutral. Slavic or Yugoslav identity was an integral part of Slovenian national ideology at this time. In the
Slovenian value system of the time, the Kolpa was a border that existed and did not exist, that connected
and separated, or that connected more than it separated. Croats (and South Slavs in general) were con-
sidered allies and a »brother« nation (Zajc 2012). In the period studied, the liberal newspaper mostly treated
the Kolpa border as an unnecessary nuisance and obstacle in establishing relations between the Yugoslav
nations. As the Slovenski narod reported in July 1878, this sad fate created a great barrier on the Kolpa
and Sotla rivers that »separated the closest brothers into two, supposedly different nations.« The writer
went on to say that history teaches us »that no force can separate nations more than a state border« (Zgodovina
nas uči, Slovenski narod 10-160, July 16th, 1878, 1). For the editors and writers of Slovenski narod, how-
ever, this dividing force was weaker than the unifying elements. The deputy editor of the newspaper, Ivan
Tavčar, stated in Zagreb in 1880 that his heart began to beat faster every time he crossed the Kolpa because
70
62-1_acta49-1.qxd  20.6.2022  10:43  Page 70
Acta geographica Slovenica, 62-1, 2022
71
he had just crossed the border of his narrow homeland and entered the house of his hospitable brother
who (due to Croatian autonomy) lived under freer conditions (Slovenske deputacije v Zagrebu, Slovenski
narod 14-289, December 20th, 1881). When in October 1878 the Slovenian representatives in the Carniolan
provincial diet again appealed to the Emperor to unite the Slovenians into a political entity (the movement
United Slovenia), they also used the Kolpa River to define the borders of Slovenian territory: Slovenia was
to encompass the area between the rivers Drava and Mura in the north and northeast, the Adriatic Sea in
the southwest, Mount Triglav in the northwest, and the rivers Sotla and Kolpa in the east and south (Adresa
poslancev slovenskega naroda na Kranjskem do Nj. Vel. cesarja, Slovenski narod 11-230, October 6th, 1878).
Just like the Sotla, the Kolpa was not only a symbolic border with Croatia, but also a place where Slovenian
identity came into contact with Yugoslavism, sometimes literally. When Slovenian nationalists celebrat-
ed the official opening of a reading room in Vinica in October 1891, a large Croatian delegation was also
present. On the day of the event, the organizers even awaited their Croatian guests on the bridge over the
Kolpa, accompanied by the brass band of Črnomelj: »In the middle of the bridge, where the Kolpa sepa-
rates Croatia from Carniola, Slovenian societies greeted their Croatian brothers« (Iz Vinice, Slovenski narod
24-234, October 14th, 1891, 2). In 1898, Yugoslav enthusiasts writing for Slovenski narod described what
was an ordinary trip by Croatian tourists to the Carniolan side of the Kolpa as a manifestation of Yugoslav
solidarity. They also reported that the Croatian visitors, who came by boat to the Carniolan side, sang only
Slovenian songs to honor the Slovenians (Iz Božakova, Slovenski narod 31-105, May 10th, 1898, 2).
3.2 Management of the Kolpa as a border river: Bridge construction and maintenance
On December 4th, 1872, the deputy of the province of Carniola Josef Savinschegg (alias Jožef Zavinšek),
also a landowner from Metlika and member of the »German« party loyal to the constitution, addressed an
interpellation to the government in the Carniolan provincial diet regarding the construction of a bridge over
the Kolpa River. Savinschegg presented to the government the poor transport connections between White
Carniola and Croatia. The only bridge connecting the Croatian and the Carniolan banks of the Kolpa was
located at Metlika. From there, there was not a single bridge to be found for the next eleven miles along
the river’s course. There was a »makeshift raft« at Griblje and Vinica that Croatian landowners had built
for anyone who wanted to cross the river, but it was not secured with cables and so was washed away by
the river at high water. This isolation from Croatia was all the more painful for Vinica because it was very
close to the road between Karlovac and Rijeka on the Croatian side, to which it took the locals only twen-
ty minutes (if they could cross the Kolpa). Savinschegg pointed out that this road was key to selling products
Figure 2: Bridge over the Kolpa near Vinica (Ilustrirani Slovenec, March 15th, 1931).
62-1_acta49-1.qxd  20.6.2022  10:43  Page 71
Marko Zajc, The Kolpa as a border river in the newspaper Slovenski narod, 1868–1914
from Vinica. The inhabitants of Vinica could reach Karlovac, where a livestock fair was held every week,
in four hours, provided they could cross the river at Vinica. This was not possible during high water, when
it took them more than nine hours to reach Karlovac. In addition, Savinschegg highlighted the fact that
the raft at Vinica and Griblje was owned by Croats and that White Carniolans could cross the Kolpa only
with their permission. Therefore, he requested the government in Vienna to start negotiations with the
Croatian government in order to build a bridge across the Kolpa at Griblje and Vinica (Obravnave dežel-
nega zbora kranjskega v Ljubljani, November 5th–December 7th, 1872; Zasedanje, December 4th, 1872, 90).
The provincial governor (i.e. a representative of the central government) replied to Savinschegg that this
was a local matter, but that the government was ready to support it (Deželni zbori, Slovenski narod 5-143,
December 12th, 1872).
Negotiations with the Croatian side followed. In October 1881, the deputies of the Carniolan provinces
agreed to financial participation in the project. It is interesting to note that the Croatian side paid the largest
part of the construction costs. Of the nearly 40,000 guldens (the estimated cost of construction), Croatia
contributed a full 25,000, while the Parliament of the Carniolan provinces allocated only 7,000 for the con-
struction of the bridge. The remaining 8,000 guldens were to be raised by the local community (Iz kranjskega
deželnega zbora, Slovenski narod 14-226, December 10th, 1881). The deputies of the Carniola thought about
leasing the bridge to someone who would collect a bridge toll for a few years. This option was rejected
because it was more expensive. Since it was a poor region, the inhabitants could hardly have afforded the
toll (Obravnave Kranjskega deželnega zbora 1881).
The 125-meter-long bridge over the Kolpa River near Vinica (Figure 2) was officially opened and blessed
on October 15th, 1885. Its foundations were laid as early as 1883, but construction was hindered by bad weath-
er. The construction was entrusted to a Croatian company and the work was supervised by a Croatian specialist,
but a Carniolan engineer was also involved. The Slovenski narod reports that the greatest credit for the bridge’s
construction goes to prominent local Janez (or Ivan) Stariha, who persistently lobbied for the bridge in
Ljubljana, Karlovac, and Zagreb. Regardless of the wishes of the Carniolan deputies, the bridge could not
be completed without the participation of its future users. The bridge was leased and a bridge toll was charged
for three years. At the opening ceremony, the above mentioned benefactor Stariha announced that until
the beginning of 1886 he had paid the bridge toll »for the folk« out of his own pocket. The report pub-
lished in Slovenski narod about the ceremony in Vinica nicely shows how the symbolic dimension can be
combined with practical reasons. For the ceremony, the bridge was decorated with Imperial Austrian and
Slovenian flags on the Carniolan side, and with Royal Hungarian and Croatian flags on the Croatian side
(Iz Vinice, Slovenski narod 18-244, October 26th, 1885, 2). The bridge also had to be maintained. In July
1902, the Slovenski narod reported that Carniola had to pay 16,340 crowns for the repair of the bridge at
Vinica, of which the local community was to pay 24% (Deželni zbor kranjski, Slovenski narod 34-157, July
12th, 1901).
A railway bridge also had to be built over the Kolpa as a border river between the two halves of the
monarchy. White Carniola was relatively isolated in terms of transport, and so efforts to build the White
Carniola railway in Carniola began as early as 1864. Croatia was also interested in connecting Novo Mesto
with Karlovac, and the railway was also supported by the War Ministry as it offered a direct link with strate-
gically important Dalmatia. However, the Hungarian authorities and the Trieste business circles were against
the railway line. Its construction therefore depended mainly on negotiations between the Austrian and
Hungarian parts of the monarchy. After the 1906–1907 negotiations between Vienna and Budapest, the
green light was finally given for the construction of the railway White Carniola. The Austrian side agreed
to build the Carpathian line between Košice and Bohumín, and Hungary agreed to build a line across Croatian
territory from Karlovac and Ogulin to Knin (Rustja 1994).
After extensive complications between Vienna and Budapest, and local disputes over the exact route,
construction finally began in April 1912. The railway bridge at Metlika was an important part of the pro-
ject; it was 80 m long and its 432-ton steel structure rested on two 18 m high supporting pillars (Rustja
1994, 105). The Slovenski narod did not report in detail about the construction. In February 1908, it report-
ed that a railway bridge was to be built over the Kolpa near Metlika and that Metlika was to serve as a border
station. No final arrangement had been made at that time about the connection with the Croatian line (Z
graditvijo belokranjske železnice. Slovenski narod 33-41, February 8th, 1908). The line was completed in
1914, shortly before the First World War. A significant credit for the construction goes to the politician
Fran Šuklje, who switched from the liberal to the Catholic faction. Since the Catholic party was predom-
72
62-1_acta49-1.qxd  20.6.2022  10:43  Page 72
inant in Carniola before the First World War, the liberal newspaper Slovenski narod did not announce its
great success: the construction of the railway line White Carniola and its connection with Croatia. Slovenski
narod mainly drew attention to the fact that Catholic politicians took all the credit for the construction
of the railway, although they had nothing to do with this state project (V hudih stiskah, Slovenski narod
48-120, May 28th, 1914).
The initiative to build the two bridges came from the local environment – that is, local politicians and
tradesmen who were aware of the peripheral position of White Carniola in transport and the importance
of cross-border transport for the local economy. Both were joint projects by actors from the Austrian (i.e.
Carniolan) and Hungarian (i.e., Croatian) sides. What they had in common was that their construction
took several years, with longer interruptions due to complexity and high costs.
3.3 Management of the Kolpa as a border river: Traffic bans and restrictions on the Kolpa
River
The Kolpa border could be crossed, but the authorities occasionally closed it to prevent the spread of con-
tagious diseases. In June 1874, a correspondent from Črnomelj complained that in their district traffic on
the Kolpa River had already been closed for two years, although the cattle disease had long since disappeared
(Iz Črnomlja, Slovenski narod 7-130, June 11th, 1874). When this disease appeared in Croatia in 1879, the
Carniolan authorities decreed that the local farmers themselves had to stand guard along the Kolpa to pre-
vent the illegal trade in livestock. The guards were appointed by the mayors and supervised by the gendarmerie
(Od Kolpe, Slovenski narod 12-104, May 7th, 1879). Already the following year, the cattle epidemic broke
out again in Croatia. The Črnomelj district governorship decreed that the provincial border could only
be crossed by the bridge at Metlika and the raft at Vinica, provided one possessed all the required per-
mits. When cholera broke out in Croatia in 1886, the Carniolan authorities prohibited Croats from
participating in the church festival at the pilgrimage center of the Three Parishes at Metlika (Kuga, Slovenski
narod 19-181, August 11th, 1886). The authorities also tried to control the traffic on the Kolpa River itself.
They ordered all boats and rafts to remain moored, and oars were confiscated by the municipal authori-
ties (Spet goveja kuga, Slovenski narod 13-113, May 5th, 1880).
Although the Compromise of 1867 confirmed the abolition of internal customs duties to promote free
trade between the Austrian and Hungarian halves of the monarchy, trade in goods between them was not
entirely free. Hungary, in particular, often resorted to non-tariff barriers to trade in order to protect its
own economy. Various mechanisms were used to restrict free trade between Cisleithania and Transleithania:
various transit duties, railway tariffs, import bans, innovative use of regulations, state aid, and subsidies.
These measures had a similar effect on goods prices as protective tariffs, even if they were not exactly one
and the same thing (Schall 2001). Hence, the border at Kolpa could also mean a border between differ-
ent prices of goods or a border on the conduct of certain business activities.
The Hungarian obstacles to free trade on the Croatian border were also addressed in Slovenski narod.
The Carniolan village of Osilnica had problems with the Kolpa border in 1900. The village could be reached
with carts only through Croatian territory. When the Hungarian government announced a ban on sugar
imports into the lands of the Hungarian crown in 1900, Osilnica realized it was in for big problems. »What
are our merchants to do now? Where are they to get the sugar? The nearest railway stations can only be
reached through Croatian territory. Are they to carry the sugar from Kočevje on their backs?« The cor-
respondent also suggested that the two governments should reach an agreement on reciprocity: the Carniolans
should be allowed to use the Croatian road, and the Croats the Carniolan one (Težave na kranjsko-hrvats-
ki meji, Slovenski narod 33-33, February 2nd, 1900). Two years later the problems had still not been solved.
In January 1902, the Slovenski narod published a commentary on Austrian financial policy, claiming that
it was cruel to domestic tradesmen. It should take as its model the Hungarian government, which open-
ly protected and promoted the domestic economy, the commentary said. The writer brought the example
of Osilnica on the Kolpa River, which was severely affected at times: »The Hungarian administration demands
that we meet all the requirements with such severity that you cannot even bring a liter of beer or a kilo of
sugar into this municipality – unless you pay taxes for it in Hungary first.« The writer further reported
that if a Croat bought a kilo of meat in Carniola, the Croatian financial guards confiscated it and threw it
into the water (Birokratizem, Slovenski narod 35-25, January 31st, 1902).
Acta geographica Slovenica, 62-1, 2022
73
62-1_acta49-1.qxd  20.6.2022  10:43  Page 73
Marko Zajc, The Kolpa as a border river in the newspaper Slovenski narod, 1868–1914
3.4 The Kolpa as a dangerous river
Notwithstanding its frontier status, the river was first and foremost a natural element with its own dynam-
ics. It could also be dangerous. Even though the Kolpa is not considered a frequently flooding river, it regularly
overflows its banks in some places. Major floodplains along the river include the area between Griblje and
Primostek (about 400 ha in total), between Pravutina and Zaluka Lipnička on the Croatian side, and espe-
cially the area along the river meander below the village of Otok on the Slovenian side. The Kolpa often
floods the camping and swimming site in Podzemelj. Another large floodplain is located between Križevska
vas, Metlika, Rosalnice, and Bubnjarci (Komac, Natek and Zorn 2008).
Thus, in early September 1884, the Kolpa flooded the fields near Metlika just when the farmers were
cutting the grass for fodder, and caused great damage (Iz Metlike, Slovenski narod 17-202, September 2nd,
1884). The Kolpa could also claim human lives. In the summer of 1873, the Slovenski narod reported that
the hot summer led to many people swimming in the refreshing Kolpa. The writer warned, however, that
although the water was clean, it was also very dangerous, having just claimed a child’s life »again« (Iz Metlike,
Slovenski narod 6-162, July 7th, 1873). Newspapers frequently reported on people drowning in the Kolpa.
In June 1880, a couple drowned in it while returning by boat from their relatives on the Croatian side of
the river. In this case, the accident was caused mainly by alcohol (Nesreča na Kolpi, Slovenski narod 13-
134, June 6th, 1880). During the construction of the railway bridge over the Kolpa, two workers drowned
in the river at the end of December 1912. Their boat was overloaded with gravel and it capsized. Although
the two workers could swim, they drowned in the cold water (Utonila sta, Slovenski narod 45-300, December
12th, 1912). Sometimes an accident did not end in tragedy. In March 1875, a group of Croats set out for
Vinica from the Croatian side. In the middle of the Kolpa, their overloaded boat began to sink. Except for
peasant women, everyone else was able to swim, and so the others managed to save the women (Na Kolpi,
Slovenski narod 8-67, March 24th, 1875).
3.5 Border disputes
The Kolpa River was dangerous not only because of its natural dynamics, but also because of human activ-
ities, often related to the border status of the river. In 1875, the Slovenski narod reported on a long and
tragic dispute between Carniolan millers and a Croatian landowner on the other side of the Kolpa. In 1860,
the Croatian landowner, Marko Dimitrovič, won a lawsuit in which he got the authorities to ban Carniolan
millers from breeding fish behind the mill’s dam. The Croatian is also said to have demanded permission
to build a mill on the Croatian side, using the water power of the Carniolan millers. Even though the Croatian
authorities did not allow this, Dimitrovič began building the mill. Hatred grew, and it came to blows and death
threats. This led to tragic events in March 1875, when the Carniolan millers were fishing in the Kolpa with
the permission of a Croatian count. Suddenly Dimitrovič appeared and started shooting at them with a revolver.
The millers managed to subdue him and knock him to the ground. The revenge was fierce. The furious millers
beat him until he lay dead in a pool of blood (Od Kolpe, Slovenski narod 8-144, June 27th, 1875).
4 Discussion
4.1 The border river as a political concept
In the period examined, the Kolpa River was an important administrative and political border between
the Austrian and Hungarian halves of the monarchy and also a symbolic border between the two nations,
but the Slovenski narod represented it predominantly as a symbolic river connecting two related Slavic
nations.
4.2 Management of the Kolpa
Living near a river requires certain activities. This study is about the construction of a road and a railway
bridge. The fact that a river also forms a border further complicates the implementation of these activi-
ties, requiring communication and coordination between the two entities separated by the river. Due to
74
62-1_acta49-1.qxd  20.6.2022  10:43  Page 74
problems with coordinating and financing the work, authorities on both sides of the Kolpa River often
delayed the work to the detriment of the people living along the border.
Even during outbreaks of various diseases, the state invested a lot of energy in controlling the border
and trying to seal it off as much as possible. If a river is a good natural barrier on one hand, it also provides
good opportunities for illegal movement across the border on the other. The border status of the Kolpa River
also came to the fore in economic terms: differences in Austrian and Hungarian laws, and Hungary’s non-
tariff barriers to trade, created either obstacles or opportunities for cross-border trade.
4.3 The Kolpa as a dangerous river
The Kolpa flooded regardless of its border status, but both entities separated by the river had to deal with
the consequences of the flood. Although summer swimming in the river (and the resulting drownings)
have no direct connection to the border, historical analysis of accounts of the river revealed situations where
the border status of the river led to accidents (e.g., when White Carniolans crossed the river in boats, or
when accidents occurred during bridge construction).
4.4 Border disputes
In one of the articles examined, the river as a natural landscape element with certain economic potentials
(milling and fish farming) was at the core of a border dispute. Different interpretations of the rights to
use the river were also related to its border status. This status significantly complicated the local disputes.
The parties involved in these disputes could resolve them in two ways: a) officially, through intervention
of the two entities separated by the river, or b) directly, without regard to political authorities. In the first
case, the parties have to face lengthy procedures and an unresolved status; in the second case, the resolu-
tion of the dispute may lead to acts of violence.
5 Conclusion
From the articles published in Slovenski narod, the main feature of border rivers becomes clear: the insep-
arable connection between the border river as a social/political concept and the river as a natural feature.
A border river is a phenomenon defined by two spheres of completely different character: the social real-
ity and the reality of the natural environment (i.e. changes in the riverbed, floods, or drying up). The
interaction between the two spheres is neither simple nor constant, but it can be defined within a histor-
ical context. Border rivers are not the only phenomena to which this applies, but they are among the most
obvious. Moreover, it is obvious that social reality can also manifest itself in nature. The fact that a river
forms a border between two entities also determines the political and social character of the river, and con-
versely, the fact that a river serves as a border also affects its spatial reality.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The author acknowledges the financial support from the Slovenian Research
Agency, which supported the research project »Creating, maintaining, reusing: border commissions as the
key for understanding contemporary borders« (J6-2574).
6 References
Amoore, L., Marmura, S., Salter, M. B. B. 2008: Smart borders and mobilities: Spaces, zones, enclosures.
Surveillance and Society 5-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v5i2.3429
Baud, M, Van Schendel, W. 1997: Toward a comparative history of borderlands. Journal of World History
8-2.
Bufon, M. 2001: Geografija obmejnosti, čezmejne regije in oblike čezmejne povezanosti. Geografski
vestnik 73-1.
Bufon, M. 2002: Aplikativni vidiki politične geografije v planiranju integracije in razvoja kontaktnih
prostorov. Dela 18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/dela.18.281-298
Acta geographica Slovenica, 62-1, 2022
75
62-1_acta49-1.qxd  20.6.2022  10:43  Page 75
Marko Zajc, The Kolpa as a border river in the newspaper Slovenski narod, 1868–1914
Bufon, M., Sanguin A. L. 2015: Geografija obmejnosti in raznolikost sodobnih političnih meja. Geografski
vestnik 87-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV87101
Cvirn, J. 2015: Dunajski državni zbor in Slovenci (1848–1918). Celje.
Eigmüller, M. 2006: Der duale Character der Grenze. Grenzsoziologie, die politische Strukturierung des
Raumes. Wiesbaden.
Frantar, P., Hrvatin, M. 2005: Pretočni režimi v Sloveniji med letoma 1971 in 2000. Geografski vestnik 77-2.
Gleditsch, N. P., Furlong, K., Hegre, H., Lacina, B. Owen, T. 2006: Conflicts over shared rivers: Resource
scarcity or fuzzy boundaries? Political Geography 25-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.02.004
Hepe, B., Janjič, K., Mikuž, S., Živko, I. 2011: Zgodovina carine na Slovenskem od antike do slovenske
osamosvojitve. Ljubljana.
Jurčič, J. 1982: Zbrano delo. Ljubljana.
Keber, K. 2003: Epidemije na Slovenskem: Primer kolere v 19. stoletju. M.Sc. thesis, University of Ljubljana.
Ljubljana.
Komac, B., Natek, K., Zorn, M. 2008: Geografski vidiki poplav v Sloveniji. Geografija Slovenije 20. Ljubljana.
Koselleck, R. 2002: The practice of conceptual history: Timing history, spacing concepts. Stanford.
Landwehr, A. 2008: Historische Diskursanalyse. Frankfurt am Main.
Perko, D., Zorn, M., Ciglič, R., Breg Valjavec, M. 2019: Changing river courses and border determination
challenges: The case of the Slovenian–Croatian border. Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
04750-4_11
Pipan, P. 2007: Cross-border cooperation between Slovenia and Croatia in Istria after 1991. Acta geographica
Slovenica 47-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS47204
Pipan, P. 2008: Border dispute between Croatia and Slovenia along the lower reaches of the Dragonja River.
Acta geographica Slovenica 48-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS48205
Rustja, K. 1994: Dolenjske proge. Tiri in čas. Ljubljana.
Schall, G. 2001: Der österreichisch-ungarische Dualismus als Integrationskonzept. Hamburg.
Tapia Ladino, M. A. 2017: Borders, mobility and the transborder space: Reflections for a discussion. Estudios
Fronterizos 18-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21670/ref.2017.37.a04
Vatovec, F. 1968: Ob zibeli »Slovenskega naroda« pred sto leti. Ob stoletnici ustanovitve »Slovenskega nar-
oda« 1868–1968. Maribor.
Von Hirschhausen, B., Grandits, H., Kraft, C., Mueller, D., Serrier, T. 2015: Phantomgrenzen im östlichen
Europa: Eine wissenschaftliche Positionierung. Phantomgrenzen: Räumen und Akteure in der Zeit neu
denken. Göttingen.
Zajc, M. 2003: Problem slovensko-hrvaške meje v 19. Stoletju: Žumberško vprašanje. M.Sc. thesis, University
of Ljubljana. Ljubljana.
Zajc, M. 2006: Kje se slovensko neha in hrvaško začne: Slovensko-hrvaška meja v 19. stoletju. Ljubljana.
Zajc, M. 2012: Sotla, majhna voda. Reka Sotla kot naravna, politična in ideološka meja v 19. in začetku
20. stoletja. Zgodovina za vse 19-1,2.
Zajc, M. 2017: The border river phenomenon: The example of the River Mura. Contributions to the con-
temporary history 57-3.
Zajc, M. 2018: The border monster refuses to die. Südosteuropa 66-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/
soeu-2018-0007
Zoll- und Staats- Monopols-Ordnung. 1835. Wien.
Zorn, M., Breg Valjavec, M., Ciglič, R. 2018: Kartografski viri in viri daljinskega zaznavanja ter njihova
uporabnost za spremljanje dinamike rečnega toka na primeru mejnih odsekov Drave in Dragonje.
Ustvaranje slovensko-hrvaške meje. Ljubljana.
76
62-1_acta49-1.qxd  20.6.2022  10:43  Page 76