Inja Smerdel

O R A L A

PLOUGHING IMPLEMENTS



Zbirka Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja

The Collection of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum





Ljubljana 2015





VSEBINA

CONTENTS




O oralih, oranju in Orlu


On ploughing implements, ploughing, and Boris Ore1




Nekaj začetnih besed


A few introductory words




Orlovi vzgibi in začetki preučevanja oral


Orel’s motives and the beginnings of his research into ploughing implements




Orlov teoretski krédo, metode dela in dognanja; doneski k nesnovni dediščini poljedelskih tehnik


Orel’s theoretical credo, his working methods and findings; Contributions to the intangible heritage of tillage techniques




Z orali skozi čas in prostor, na Slovenskem in drugod


Ploughs through history, in Slovenia and elsewhere




Pripoved muzejske zbirke


The story of the museum collection




Uporabljeni viri in slovstvo


Sources and literature




Katalog


Catalogue




Uvodna beseda h katalogu zbirke in risb oral


Introduction to the collection catalogue and the drawings of ploughing implements




Katalog predmetov


Catalogue of objects




Katalog risanih zapisov


Catalogue of drawings




Kazala kraja uporabe, oblikovnih tipov in materialov


Indexes of places of use, types and materials





O ORALIH, ORANJU IN ORLU

Pogled na etnološka raziskovanja ornih orodij ter zadevnih delovnih procesov na Slovenskem, njihova umestitev v evropski okvir in predstavitev zbirke ornih orodij Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja





NEKAJ ZAČETNIH BESED

Zemlja. Lahka, prhka, peščena in voljna ... Težka, tolsta, ilovnata in »huda« ... Vanjo prodre oralo, utre pot semenu in iz njega vzklije življenje; vzklije hrana, ki je človeku preživetje. Rojstvo, ki omogoča rojstva. Oralo kot falus in brazda kot vulva oziroma uterus?1 V simbolno ujeta moč spočetja novega življenja in klic po rodovitnosti, temelj številnih obredij. Na primer pustnega oranja za dobro letino, znanega v vseh slovenskih pokrajinah (Ložar-Podlogar 2004: 389); šege oranja ob začetku vladanja novega kitajskega cesarja (Cirlot 1971: 260); ali pa antičnega oranja brazde, s katero so začrtali potek obzidij nastajajočega mesta (Forni 1997: 7) – tudi Rima ...

Zorana njiva je kot maternica, v kateri se začenja življenje. V zemlji in v oralu so zgoščena tisočletja; pripovedujeta o univerzalnem, o svetem, o potnih sragah in o poeziji ... Homerjev tekmec med antičnimi bardi, Heziod, je na primer v svoji Teogoniji »zapel« o ljubezenski združitvi grške boginje rodovitnosti Demetre z Iasiónom »na trikrat zorani ledini«, na tleh rodovitne Krete (Heziod 1974: 30 (945–984));2 po njej je rodila sina Plutosa, boga bogastva (v pomenu pod zemljo shranjene žitne zaloge; Javornik 1998: 3259). Glede na antične mediteranske mite naj bi bila prav Demetra podarila svojemu človeškemu učencu in spremljevalcu Triptolemosu enega izmed dveh temeljnih tipov rala, po katerem se to v strokovnem slovstvu še danes imenuje Triptolemovo ralo (Lerche 1994: 11; Dosedla 1984: 51), on sam pa obenem velja za pralik poljedelca (Javornik 1998: 4467). In tega je Heziod – najverjetneje kmeta iz domače Bojotije (s prehoda 8. v 7. stoletje pred našim štetjem), z njegovimi orali, vprego, zemljo in delom – vražje stvarno upesnil3 v svoji drugi, poučni pesnitvi Dela in dnevi (Heziod 1974: 44–45 (414–453, 454–471)):

»/.../ Ne manjka lesa, ki lepó se ukrivlja; ti pa preišči goré in doline, in ako kje najdeš gradna4 krivino, odnesi domov ga, zakaj za oranje jačjega ni lesa, če kovač pričvrsti ga na lemež, spahne z žebljí in spredaj usloči k ojesom za vole. / Dvoje si plugov naredi, da imaš doma jih, pri hiši: ralo preprosto in plug sestavljen.5 Tako je najbolje: ako se eden ti zlomi, boš v drugega vole zapregel. Bresta in lovorja nečrviv les za ojé je najboljši, graden za plaz, les hrastov za lemež. Par vôlov si kupi, starih devet let: v teh letih je njuna moč neutrudljiva, /.../ ta se ti v brazdi ne bosta ustavila, trmasto sprta, plug zlomila ter delo pustila ti nedokončano. / Hlapec krepak, star štirideset let, naj hodi za voli, /.../ takšen za delo skrbi in naravnost brazdo ravna, /...// Kakor pa hitro pojavi se dan, za oranje primeren, brž se s posli tedaj še sam odpravi na delo, suho in vlažno zemljó preórjite v času oranja, /.../ Praho posej, doklèr je zemlja še voljna, zrahljana. Praha prekletstvo spodi, blagoslov otrokom prinaša. / Môli podzemnemu Zeusu in Demetri /.../ môli, še preden začneš z oranjem, takoj ko poprimeš pluga ročaj v rokó in z ostnom se hrbta dotakneš vola, ki vleče ti plug. Od zadaj pa mladi naj hlapčič pticam veselje greni, z motiko zemljó prekopava, seme zagrebe /.../«

Pravzaprav sploh ni čudno, da so orala – rala in plugi, te snovne priče tolikšne življenjske celovitosti; te iz davnine razpete naprave, ki so vsako leto znova spočenjale življenje; orodja, ki so bila nedvomno temeljna za razvoj civilizacije in so srčika biti besede kultura – postala predmet preučevanja tolikih raziskovalcev in torišče tolikerih razprav. Bila so »Herzstück« evropske poljedelske kulture, kot jih je označil Hanns Koren, avtor ene izmed zadevnih študij (Bratanić 1952: 208). In vendar – ter kljub temu, da so se razprave sukale okrog tako temeljne in pomensko bogate kulturne sestavine – večino njih označuje dokajšnja »ozkost pogleda, značaj točnosti in ponavljanja« (Sigaut 2005: 8): osredotočenost na oblike, na mere in imena sestavnih delov, na geografsko prisotnost posameznih oral in na iskanje njihovega izvora. Študije o oralih so se zgostile še posebej v desetletjih okrog sredine preteklega stoletja in so pozneje zvečine presahnile; teoretske spremembe v etnologiji so prinesle na površje druge, drugačne raziskovalne teme in pristope. A če se malce zamislimo ob eni izmed sodobnejših definicij etnologije (Slavec Gradišnik 1995: 130), ob razkrivanju razmerij med »človekom kot nosilcem kulture« in »njegovim kulturnim in naravnim okoljem, kakor se kaže v vsakdanjih rutinah«, bi tudi danes ne kazalo zanemarjati raziskovanj pojavnosti predindustrijskih oral, vpetih v vso celovitost vsakdana kmečkega prebivalstva in v njegovo povezanost z naravo.

Morda pa je vendarle mogoče posamezna pretekla dela o oralih brati tudi drugače; tudi na tak način. Jih poskušati razčleniti s sodobnejšega raziskovalnega vidika in njihovim pozabljenim, prostorsko omejenim spoznanjem dati ustrezno težo z umestitvijo v širši okvir. Zdi se, da bi Orlov prispevek k védenju o oralih lahko sodil med takšna besedila.




1. Boris Orel, karikatura s prvega raziskovalnega terena Etnografskega muzeja Šentjurij - Škocjan (1948), na katero je avtor Bine Rogelj poleg letnice pripisal – bič; ime, s kakršnim so sodelavci med sabo označevali neumornega, zagnanega, delovnega in redoljubnega Orla. (Arhiv SEM, TR)

Boris Orel, caricature from the first field research of the Ethnographic Museum in Šentjurij - Škocjan (1948), on which its creator, Bine Rogelj, has added the date and the word bič (=whip) – the nickname his collaborators used among themselves for the tireless, eager, assiduous, and orderly Boris Orel. (SEM archives, FD)

Orel6 je na Slovenskem – upoštevajoč redke predhodne zgodovinske ali agrarnozgodovinske študije (prim. Grafenauer 1970: 208) – oral ledino v raziskovanju ornih orodij. V slovenski etnologiji je oral celino. Ko sem se lotevala razčlenjevanja njegovega tozadevnega dela, preučevanja njegovih vzgibov in vzporedno primerjalnega branja ustreznega slovstva iz drugih evropskih dežel – moje delo je bilo tako povečini le raziskovanje raziskanega –, sem se začela počutiti kot tista muha, ki je med oranjem na njivi sedela na volovem rogu in je mimo leteči tovarišici na vprašanje, kaj vendar dela, odgovorila: »Orjemo!«7

Svoj pogled na etnološka preučevanja in spoznanja o ornih orodjih na Slovenskem tako začenjam pri Borisu Orlu; pri začetkih njegovih raziskovanj in pri vzgibih zanje; pri njihovi umestitvi v sočasno in v predhodno strokovno dogajanje na tem področju drugod v Evropi; pri Orlovih in pri posameznih drugih metodoloških pristopih k raziskovanju oral in pri pomenu njegovih dognanj. Temu sledi zgoščen sprehod skozi zgodovino ornih orodij na Slovenskem, dopolnjen z Orlovimi spoznanji in s pričevanji posameznih drugih virov ter soočen z nekaterimi tovrstnimi sodobnejšimi evropskimi študijami. Razpravo sklene pogled na pričevalnost zbirke ornih orodij Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja; slednja nedvomno pomeni upoštevanja vreden vzporedni snovni plod Orlovih raziskav.





ORLOVI VZGIBI IN ZAČETKI PREUČEVANJA ORAL

Vedno več je spoznanj, da je nedvoumna ločitev rala in pluga na temelju njune oblike oziroma oblike njunih lemežev kljub poskusom natančnega razlikovanja nemogoča. »Orodja so različna, ker so njihove naloge oziroma ker je njihovo delo različno,« je eden izmed sodobnejših pogledov na orala (Sigaut 2005: 2). V delu etnološkega slovstva se je razlikovanje med ralom in plugom omejevalo povečini na lemež, ki je pri ralu someren, dvorezen, pri plugu pa nesomeren, enorezen (Pleterski 1987: 264; po Korenu 1950: 14). Po ustrezni kritiki tako popreproščenega razlikovanja se je ločevanje razširilo na celotno obliko obeh orodij: »Plug je kot celota nesimetrična naprava – ima enostransko desko, ki zemljo obrača samo na eno stran – za razliko od rala, ki je grajeno popolnoma simetrično (brez deske ali z dvema deskama oziroma s podobnima pomagaloma, nameščenima simetrično na obeh straneh naprave).« (Bratanić 1952: 209) Poskusom ločevanja na temelju oblike je bilo v slovenski etnologiji nazadnje, dovolj sodobno, dodano še razlikovanje na temelju delovanja obeh orodij: rala, ki s somernim lemežem zemljo razriva, drobi in rahlja, ne pa tudi spodriva in obrača; in pluga, ki z nesomernim lemežem in črtalom reže zemljo ter jo z desko obrača in drobi (Smerdel 2004: 488, Sketelj 2004: 428; po Grafenauer 1970: 204). A tudi takšno razločevanje je presplošno in ni vedno ustrezno, saj na primer tudi nekatera rala z lemežnicami zemljo delno obračajo (prim. Orel 1955: 53) oziroma so jih ponekod uporabljali za nesomerno oranje (prim. Lerche 1994: 11–12). Za splošno rabo in v primerih, ko ne gre nedvomno za ralo oziroma za plug, kaže zatorej v izogib pojmovni zmedi za orna orodja uporabljati ime orala (oziroma oralo); takšna raba je že opazna v gornjem besedilu, tudi v njegovem naslovu.8

Bogastvo različic ornih orodij – »zemljo-rezajočega rala in zemljo-obračajočega pluga«, ki sta od davnih časov zasedala središčno mesto med orodji za obdelovanje zemlje; ki sta se v bronasti dobi pojavljala vrezana v skalnate stene; ki so ju v različnih oblikah upodabljali na rimskih mozaikih, na srednjeveških freskah in v iluminiranih rokopisih – vsa ta raznovrstnost oral je do nedavnega pomenila skoraj neizčrpno raziskovalno polje. Še posebej etnologom in jezikoslovcem »zgodovinske šole«, ki so v študijah o oralih iskali možnost odkrivanja medsebojnega vpliva različnih etnij in kulturnih območij (Lerche, Steensberg 1980: 5). Prvi orač na tem polju naj bi bil Andreas Berg, profesor iz Upsale, avtor »verjetno najstarejšega dela, ki se ukvarja z zgodovino ornih naprav« (iz leta 1773) in ki nosi vsebinsko značilen naslov: Methodus investigandi origines gentium ope instrumentorum ruralium (Bratanić 1955: 269). Prelomna razprava, z omembo katere se začenjajo vsi tehtni pregledi preučevanja oral in na kateri temeljijo skoraj vse nadaljnje študije, pa je znamenito delo Paula Leserja iz leta 1931, Entstehung und Verbreitung des Pfluges. V njem je pisec »na enem mestu zbral vse podatke, do katerih je lahko prišel, iz vse stare literature in iz mnogih zahodnoevropskih muzejev« (Bratanič 1955: 269); »s kritičnim pretresom virov je iz slednjih odstranil kasnejše dodatke in odstopanja od originalnih opisov ter razjasnil nesporazume, tako da je lahko začrtal razumne povezave med vsemi ornimi orodji antičnega sveta ter sledil njihovemu izvoru do neke vrste vlečne lopate« (Lerche, Steensberg 1980: 5). Med klasiki slovstva o oralih, ki se je začelo kopičiti v naslednjih desetletjih, kaže omeniti vsaj še Andréja G. Haudricourta in Mariel Jean-Brunhes Delamarre z njunim obsežnim delom L’homme et la charrue à travers le monde (iz leta 1955) in bližnjega zagrebškega etnologa Branimira Bratanića z znano regionalno zamejeno študijo Oraće sprave u Hrvata (iz leta 1939). Prav slednji ni imel majhnega vpliva na slovenskega kolega Borisa Orla in na njegovo odločitev za raziskovanje oral na Slovenskem. Bratanić se je v mednarodni znanstveni areni vidneje pojavil leta 1951, ko je na mednarodnem kongresu evropske etnologije v Stockholmu nastopil s prispevkom On the Antiquity of the One-Sided Plough in Europe, Especially among the Slavic Peoples (Bratanić 1952; Belaj 1998: 354) in ob tem predstavil začasno karto glavnih tipov oral v Evropi in na Bližnjem vzhodu. Naslednje leto, na IV. mednarodnem kongresu antropoloških in etnoloških znanosti na Dunaju, je bilo na sestanku evropske sekcije že predlagano, da naj bi prav orala uporabili kot osnovo za prvi poskus izdelave Evropskega atlasa ljudske kulture (Atlas of European Folk-Culture), »ker so že toliko let predmet prodornih raziskav«. Leta 1953, na konferenci v belgijskem Namurju (v okviru Unescovega CIAP-a, Commission Internationale des Arts et Traditions Populaires), je Sigurd Erixon za naslednje leto predlagal organizacijo posebne konference na temo raziskav zgodovine ornih orodij v Kopenhagnu in danski kolega Axel Steensberg je obljubil njeno izvedbo s pomočjo komisije, v kateri je bilo zbranih nekaj tedanjih vidnejših evropskih raziskovalcev oral. Prav ta konferenca, iz leta 1954, je v svoji resoluciji pozdravila danski (Steensbergov) predlog glede ustanovitve stalnega sekretariata pri danskem Narodnem muzeju (potem imenovanega International Secretariat for Research on the History of Agricultural Implements), ki naj bi vzpostavil strokovno knjižnico in arhiv, namenjena uporabi mednarodnih raziskovalcev. Leta 1968 je v okrilju sekretariata začela izhajati tudi vodilna znanstvena revija na tem področju, Tools & Tillage. In izvoljen je bil Stalen mednarodni odbor (The Permanent International Committee), v katerem so bili zbrani Branimir Bratanić (Zagreb), Jorge Dias (Coimbra), Sigurd Erixon (Stockholm), Heinz Kothe (Berlin), Paul Leser (Hartford), Fransis G. Payne (Cardiff) in Axel Steensberg (Kopenhagen). Ena izmed prvih delovnih nalog Stalnega odbora je postala izdelava skupne strokovne terminologije; preučevanje ornih orodij je tedaj nedvomno pomenilo prvi poskus tako na široko organiziranega mednarodnega skupnega znanstvenega dela na tem področju (Lerche, Steensberg 1980: 6–9; Bratanić 1955: 270–271).




2. Člani Stalnega mednarodnega odbora v Kopenhagnu leta 1970. Z desne: Axel Steensberg, Branimir Bratanić, Paul Leser, Jorge Dias in Svend Nielsen. (Foto G. Lerche, iz: Lerche, Steensberg 1980: 6)

The members of the Permanent International Committee in Copenhagen in 1970. From right to left: Axel Steensberg, Branimir Bratanić, Paul Leser, Jorge Dias and Svend Nielsen. (Photo G. Lerche, from: Lerche. Steensberg 1980: 6)

V ta vznemirljivi čas za raziskovanje oral sodijo tudi tovrstna Orlova prizadevanja; vendar prav nič ne kaže, da bi bil sam v neposrednem stiku s tedanjim plodnim mednarodnim dogajanjem. O njem pa nedvomno ni bil neobveščen, saj njegova korespondenca priča o tesnih vezeh s hrvaškim kolegom Bratanićem ter tudi z Avstrijci – Oskarjem Moserjem, Leopoldom Kretzenbacherjem9 in Hannsom Korenom.

Borisa Orla – predvojnega bančnega uradnika in vnetega lutkarja, zagledanega v mitologijo, v legende, stara verstva, kulte in šege; samouka slovstvenega in umetnostnega zgodovinarja, publicista in esejista, ki so ga pota po slovenskih pokrajinah z Rajkom Ložarjem, arheologom, umetnostnim zgodovinarjem in etnologom, in s Francetom Maroltom, folkloristom, vedno bolj vodila v narodopisje; povojnega ravnatelja ljubljanskega Etnografskega muzeja (od 1945 do 1962), ki je leta 1958 diplomiral iz etnologije in umetnostne zgodovine ter le leto za tem doktoriral z disertacijo Bloške smuči in vprašanje njih nastanka in razvoja (Novak 1986: 341; Ramšak, Slavec Gradišnik 2004: 390) – je »po vojski še zmerom srbelo in privlačilo« tisto, v čemer je »tičal tik pred vojsko; noter v tehle svojih študijah o izročilu«, zlasti v legendi o sv. Štefanu, »o Štefanu in njegovih konjih«. Orlovega srčnega nagnjenja do raziskovanj na področju duhovne kulture se še živo spominja njegov tedaj edini kustos, slovstveni folklorist Milko Matičetov.10 A »to ni bilo v duhu – v razpoloženju časa, da bi o kakšnih svetih junakih se pisalo ... Ko je prišel v muzej za direktorja, je bilo treba predvsem prednost dat materialni kulturi. In to, kar je bilo pri srcu tudi še potem, je moral odložit ... « Orlove ljubezni do slovstvenega izročila in šeg se prav dobro spominja tudi njegova druga tesna sodelavka, Fanči Šarf, najprej muzejska dokumentalistka11 in pozneje kustosinja: »Orel je enkrat meni rekel, da bi neprimerno rajši se držal običajev, ‘ampak potreba je tukaj’, je rekel, ‘jaz se bom tega lotil’.« Leta 1946 je tako že zapisal v uvodnik k prvemu letniku muzejske revije Slovenski etnograf: » ... zlasti pa je treba posvetiti posebno pozornost tistim kulturam, ki so bile doslej najbolj zanemarjene, ki pa so izredno pomembne za razvoj ljudskega življenja. Tu mislimo predvsem na ljudsko materialno kulturo in njene različne oblike, kakor so lov, poljedelstvo, živinoreja / ... /, skratka na pogoje materialnega življenja, ki ‘določajo fiziognomijo družbe, njene ideje, nazore ...’ «. Etnografski muzej je v povojnih letih – tudi malce v skladu z ideologijo tistega časa – načrtno sestopil z višin ljudskega duha na materijo, na zemljo, ki jo je to ljudstvo obdelovalo, da bi se preživelo. In tako je v ospredje stopilo preučevanje poljedelstva, živinoreje, ornih orodij ... (Smerdel 1983: 1–3). Ko je odšla leta 1948 na Dolenjsko, na teren Šentjurij – Škocjan, prva od osemnajstih terenskih ekip Etnografskega muzeja (pozneje preprosto imenovanih Orlove ekipe), je vodstvo njene skupine za materialno kulturo prevzel kar Boris Orel;12 drugi dve skupini, za duhovno in za socialno kulturo, sta vodila Milko Matičetov in Sergij Vilfan (Simikič 2003: 114). Prav z Vilfanom, osrednjim slovenskim pravnim zgodovinarjem, »je Orel zelo velík predebatiral – te – recimo bol ali manj prezrte panoge. Z Vilfanom sta predebatirala še in še in še – kaj se lotit, kako se lotit. On ga je opozarjal, kje so potrebe ...,« je svoja tedanja opažanja ubesedila Fanči Šarf. »Da se je pa plugov lotil – oranja in oral – to pa ne vem, zakaj; najbrž je videl v tem eno izmed osnovnih orodij za obdelovanje zemlje ... Mislim, da je dobil impulz al spodbudo na Jezerskem. On je šel na Jezersko kupovat skrinje, pa še neki, in je gor slišal za ‘špičmoh’ (za jezersko ralo)13; in na Jezerskem je to videl. Potem je pa še v ekipi na Banjšicah slišal (leta 1951, ekipa Kobarid), da so ljudje vlekli plug, ker volov niso imeli ... Te stvari so ga frapirale, navdušile – in je videl, da je to eno področje – kakšna druga vzpodbuda ne vem, da bi bila.«




3. Terenska ekipa Etnografskega muzeja v Škocjanu, leta 1948. V sredi med sodelavci sedi Orel, prepoznaven po kapi s ščitnikom na glavi. (Arhiv SEM, F)

The field team of the Ethnographic Museum in Škocjan, 1948. Orel wears a peaked cap and sits in the centre, flanked by his collaborators. (SEM archives, PL)




4. Risba jezerskega rala špičmoha, ki je navdihnilo Orlovo raziskovanje oral. (Arhiv SEM, AR)

Drawing of the Jezersko špičmoh ard that inspired Orel’s research into ploughing implements (SEM archives, AR)

Spomini Šarfove glede usodnega vpliva obiska Jezerskega na začetke Orlovega raziskovanja oral se dodobra ujemajo z drobci zadevnega gradiva, ohranjenega v muzejskem arhivu. Iz aprila leta 1949 sta tam vloga Ministrstvu za prosveto (oddelku za kulturo, z datumom 18. april) za odobritev službene poti na Jezersko in s to skladen potni nalog, na katerem piše: »radi popisa ter fotografiranja starinskega oranja s posebnim plugom, imenovanim ‘špičmoh’, ki ga hkrati nameravamo nabaviti za naš muzej«.14 Dne 25. aprila pa Orel zapiše v svoj dnevnik:15 »Potovanje na Jezersko s tov. Šmucem (oranje, miza).« O tem, kako je prišla vest o špičmohu do Orla, muzejski arhiv molči. Morda je zanj resda slišal ob nakupu skrinj, morda je prišlo povabilo oziroma obvestilo, ki ju je s fotografom zvabilo na Jezersko, spod peresa kakšnega tamkajšnjega domačina ali krajevnega učitelja; podobnih dopisov namreč v Orlovi korespondenci ne manjka.16 Nadaljevanje je vsekakor sledilo. Naslednje leto, 25. marca, je Orel v dnevnik zabeležil, da so z Jezerskega pripeljali špičmoh in rezalnico. Niti mesec dni zatem, 15. aprila 1950, pa nastane zapis: »Gavazzi in Bratanić z dijaki v EM – sodelovanje (špičmoh etc.)«. Je bila to tista kombinacija sosledij potreb, osuplosti in stikov, ki je Orla pritegnila med raziskovalce ornih orodij? Matičetov ni bil prepričan, »al je tukaj vplival Bratanić, al kakor koli; ker Bratanić je to delal (preučeval orala) po intencijah Gavazzija, s katerim je Orel tudi imel stik – in so ga vabili na vse razne zadeve, so ga privlekli v svoj krog ...«.




5. Namesto volov ljudje vlečejo osipalnik. Tako so obdelovali za čompe in sirk – za krompir in koruzo, »pri Vrhi«, Banjšice 5. (Foto B. Orel, 1951; Arhiv SEM, F)

People instead of oxen drawing a ridging plough. Fields were tilled this way for potato and maize, “pri Vrhi”, Banjšice 5. (Photo B. Orel, 1951; SEM archives, PL)

Sam Boris Orel je napisal v uvodniku tematskega osmega letnika Slovenskega etnografa, ki je izšel leta 1955, posvečen poljedelskemu orodju, da je nedavno »prof. dr. B. Bratanić v svojem kritičnem poročilu o Korenovi knjigi Pflug und Arl (SE V) dal s svoje strani pobudo za raziskovanje plugov in ral na slovenskem ozemlju z željo, da ne bi Korenovo delo ostalo brez vpliva na slovensko etnografijo ...« (Orel 1955: 7). In Bratanićeva zasluga za začetke Orlovega poglobljenega dela na oralih gotovo ni sporna. O tem mikavno priča njuno zgoščeno dopisovanje pred izidom zgoraj omenjene Bratanićeve kritike Korenove knjige, od januarja do junija leta 1953.17 Sprožilo gaje, kot kaže, pismo Hannsa Korena (z dne 31. decembra 1952), tedaj ravnatelja graškega etnografskega muzeja (oddelka Joanneuma), ki je Orla poprosil, da bi ga seznanil z vsebino Bratanićeve ocene njegove študije »še pred objavo, to pa zaradi tega, ker ravno dokončuje neko svoje delo, ki se nanaša na kmečka orodja«. Zagrebški kolega je Korenu seveda rad ustregel in je Orlu potrdil, da mu kritiko lahko posreduje. Sel, ki jo je maja meseca odnesel v Gradec, je bil Milko Matičetov. V pismih, ki so tedaj potovala iz Ljubljane v Zagreb ali v obratni smeri, in v katerih je drugače kup uredniškega oziroma avtorskega pojasnjevanja, pa je mogoče prebrati tudi naslednja dva odlomka: 28. aprila 1953 napiše Orel Brataniću: »Na obdelavo jezerskega orala pa živo mislim. Upam, da bom še letos šel na Koroško v Železno Kapljo. Zdaj se zanimam za eventuelne sledove tega orala na Kranjskem polju. Bil sem že v Senčurju, kjer nisem našel orala, pač pa plug, star cca. 100 let. Stari očanci so mi zatrjevali, da orala niso poznali. Prihodnji mesec bom raziskal še vse nadaljnje področje do Preddvora, potem pa bom potoval po Kokrski dolini.«18 In 29. maja 1953 ga Bratanić spodbuja: »Želim Vam dobar uspjeh kod obradjivanja koruškoga orala, kao i to, da doista pronadjete ralo s dugom ‘štangom’...«

Fanči Šarf se prav živo spominja, kako je Orel »velikokrat šel k Brataniću, ko je delal to študijo o ralih ... Se je na Bratanića zelo naslanjal in ga je tudi zelo cenil; veliko je dal na njegovo mnenje in imel stikov z njim še pa še ...«. A zdi se, da je bil tisti pravi vzgib za Orlovo »zaoranje« po oralih vendarle vznemirjenje ob odkritju špičmoha, tega koničastega rala z živalskim imenom (na Jezerskem za poljsko miš). Orel je Šarfovo kmalu zatem začel pošiljati na teren z nalogo, naj sprašuje po ralih in starih plugih ter jih fotografira. »Potem je on mene velik – velik, velik, velik pošiljal po terenu; sem bila v Skomarjah, pa nad Vitanjem gor ...« In v novembru leta 1953, ko ga je Bratanić zaprosil za dovoljenje, da bi v nekem svojem članku objavil njegovo fotografijo oranja s špičmohom in z rezalnico, je v Orlovem odgovoru mogoče nesporno prebrati, da že tedaj ni načrtoval samo svoje zadevne študije, temveč tudi celostno izdajo tematskega šestega letnika Slovenskega etnografa, posvečenega »našemu poljedelskemu orodju, med drugim plugom. /.../ V tem letniku nameravam objaviti svojo razpravo o jezerskem oralu z raznim ilustrativnim gradivom, pa bi mi bilo zato ljubše, da ne bi objavili fotografije oranja z jezerskim oralom, dokler ne objavim svojega članka,« napiše Brataniću in ga obenem povabi k sodelovanju v načrtovani številki svoje revije.19

A ta je morala vendarle malce dozoreti in je leta 1955 izšla šele kot osmi letnik Slovenskega etnografa. S slednjim je Orel krepko zapolnil strokovno praznino, na račun katere je zapisal naslednja uvodna stavka (Orel 1955: 7): »Menimo, da nam ni potrebno izgubljati preveč besed o tem, kako zelo malo pozornosti je bilo doslej deležno v slovenski predmetni etnografiji razno poljedelsko orodje. To dejstvo je splošno znano in tako očitno, da že resnično bode v oči.« In kaže, da je tedanje strokovne kroge bodlo v tolikšni meri, da je Orlu uspelo pritegniti k temu tematskemu letniku – in potem leta 1961 še k njegovemu nadaljevanju – kar dosti piscev, ki so na njegovo pobudo napisali razprave, članke ali poročila, katerih spoznanja ostajajo temeljna za vsako nadaljnje delo na tem vsebinskem področju. V obeh letnikih nabrana besedila so naslednja: Prazgodovinsko-arheološko gradivo za proučevanja rala na Slovenskem spod peresa arheologa Staneta Gabrovca; Nekaj ugotovitev o pohorskem ralu »kavlju« mariborske kustosinje etnologinje Tončice Urbas; Brana na Slovenskem hišne muzejske sodelavke Fanči Šarf; Karta motik na Slovenskem zgodovinarja, etnologa in geografa Franja Baša; Orodja na kmečkih gospodarstvih pod Mariborom etnologa Angelosa Baša in Orlovo tako imenovano poročilo Ralo na Slovenskem, ki je v nadaljevanju seglo v drugi tematski – štirinajsti letnik Slovenskega etnografa. V njem sta izšli še študiji Črtalo v severovzhodni Sloveniji Tončice Urbas in Hrastovski plug Angelosa Baša. Branimir Bratanić pa je tematsko osmo številko sklenil s podrobnim poročilom Istraživanje oraćih sprava na međunarodnoj osnovi, v katerem je slovenskim kolegom predstavil aktualno mednarodno dogajanje na področju raziskovanja oral.





ORLOV TEORETSKI KRÉDO, METODE DELA IN DOGNANJA; DONESKI K NESNOVNI DEDIŠČINI POLJEDELSKIH TEHNIK

Na podlagi svojih del, ter tu in tam ubesedenja svojega metodološkega pristopa, ima Orel v slovenski etnologiji mesto med tistimi posamezniki, ki so zaupali v moč »kulturnohistorične interpretacije v obsegu kulturnih krogov« (prim. Slavec Gradišnik 2000: 199). Svoj teoretski krédo o etnološki znanosti je na primer razkril z znanimi besedami, da gre za vedo, ki zbira in preučuje raznovrstno gradivo iz slovenskega življenja, za »znanost o kulturnih tvorbah slovenskega ljudstva in o zakonih njihovega razvoja« (Smerdel 1983: 5). In tako je tudi v uvodniku k zgoraj omenjenemu tematskemu letniku Slovenskega etnografa jasno zapisal, da so »posebne naloge etnografije in etnologije« pri raziskavah poljedelskih orodij z ustrezno znanstveno metodo dognati njih »starejše oblike in dele, njih nastanek, razvoj, razna pota in širša kulturna območja, v zvezi s tem pa razrešiti razna kulturnozgodovinska vprašanja«. Ob tem je v zaskrbljenem vprašanju – »Ali je morda dandanes vendarle še čas, da sestavimo čim popolnejšo kulturno-geografsko karto raznovrstnih tipov poljedelskega orodja, udomačenih pred desetletji na Slovenskem?« – nedvoumno izrazil tudi potrebo po kartografski metodi20 v etnologiji (Orel 1955: 7–8). V sklepni besedi obeh svojih študij o ralu pa je pripomnil, da bo moral »pred obravnavo vprašanja o nastanku in razvoju rala na Slovenskem kritično pregledati vse dosedanje ugotovitve, zatem pa nadrobno obdelati celotno gradivo z vso raznoliko problematiko štajersko-koroškega rala, med drugim zlasti tudi vprašanje razširjenosti rala na določenih območjih našega ozemlja« (Orel 1955: 66–67; 1961: 39).

Nastanek, razvoj, razna pota, kulturna območja ... Zdi se, da so orala res prav posebej privlačila predstavnike kulturnozgodovinske usmeritve v evropski etnologiji – na primer bližnje Gavazzija, Bratanića in Korena. Bratanić svoj metodološki pristop k raziskovanju oral povsem jasno razkrije ob oceni Korenove knjige. Le-ta mu »s svojimi mnogimi vrstami, tehničnimi oblikami, številnimi sestavnimi deli in bogato nomenklaturo« pomenijo »enega najustreznejših objektov zgodovinske etnologije. Vsa ta množica posameznosti, ki niso povezane z naravnimi razmerami ali z namembnostjo naprave« (kot pravi), mu »znatno olajšuje ugotavljanje zgodovinskih in genetskih povezav« (Bratanić 1952: 208). Tisto, okrog česar se središčno sučejo Bratanićeve raziskave, pa sporoča že podnaslov njegovega prvega dela o oralih iz leta 1939, Oraóe sprave u Hrvata, Oblici, nazivlje, raširenje. In od opisovanja oblik, zapisovanja imen in ugotavljanja razširjenosti Bratanić ne odstopa. Šele ob koncu knjige, pod naslovom »Različite druge bilješke«, se pojavi nekaj zapisov o delu z orali. Najprej o volovski vpregi in o pripregi pri oranju, a ta ustanova medsebojne pomoči »že sodi v družbeno življenje in pravne šege, zato pričujoče besedilo ni pravo mesto, da bi o tem govorili«, kot samega sebe utiša Bratanić. Potem na kratko predstavi uporabo različnih ornih naprav za različna dela in načine oranja, vendar ponovno pripomni, da ti podatki »ne sodijo strogo v to delo« (čeprav se zaveda njihovega pomena ter zapiše, da oranje zasluži posebno raziskovanje in preučevanje). Na koncu doda še nekaj stavkov o transportu ornih naprav na njivo in z njive, o okraševanju in o označevanju oral.




6. Izsek Orlove dispozicije za razstavo, v kateri je trikrat poudarjeno zapisal besedo človek. (Arhiv ISN, Orlov fond)

Passage from Orel’s exhibition instructions in which the word “man” is emphasised three times. (ISN archives, the Orel holdings)

In vendar je v teh »drugih bilješkah« celo Brataniću uspelo zapisati nekaj tistega, na čemer naj bi temeljilo sodobnejše preučevanje oral. Grith Lerche se na primer v svojem obsežnem in poglobljenem delu Orala in obdelovalne prakse na Danskem od časa Vikingov do okrog leta 1800 (Lerche 1994) osredotoči na preučevanje funkcionalnih lastnosti plugov in delovnih procesov. Pri tem je ne vznemirjata razvoj oral in inovacije, temveč dinamika v kontinuiteti rabe pri izvajanju določenega opravila.21 »Opraviti imamo s praktičnim in fizičnim predmetom iz vsakdanjega življenja,« pravi, »s sestavljenim orodjem, narejenim za poseben namen, in sicer za oranje. Če se namesto na sam predmet osredotočimo na delovni proces – torej na oranje, pri katerem je to orodje primaren in potreben instrument –, je njegovo bistvo v njegovem delovanju in v kontekstu: kako je to orodje sestavljeno in kakšno delo opravlja?« (Lerche 1994: 20) Njenemu soroden metodološki pristop je mogoče prebrati tudi v Sigautovem članku Orati, za kaj? (Sigaut 2005), v katerem slednji doreče razlikovanje treh ravni analize v študijah o posameznih orodjih: preučitev oblike ali sestave (forme ou structure), delovanja (fonctionnement) in opravila oziroma rabe (fonction). Prvi dve ravni umešča bolj na področje »fizičnih« znanosti; pri tem ugotavlja, da še tako natančna tovrstna raziskava ne more omogočiti jasnih spoznanj o rabi nekega predmeta oziroma orodja. Zavoljo tega poudarja pomen študij o uporabi orodij oziroma o posameznih delovnih opravilih; »samo one povezujejo splošno pomanjkljive podatke, ki omogočajo prehod s sestave v uporabo, kar pomeni, da pripravijo predmete, da ‘spregovorijo’« (Sigaut 2005: 7–8).




7. Primerek fotografije, pri kateri je predmet vidno v ospredju zanimanja. Ralo, »pri Globočniku« (Martinc Kumpre), Podter 38 pri Ljubnem. (Foto B. Orel, 1955; Arhiv SEM, F)

Example of a photograph in which the focus of interest is clearly on the object. Ard, “pri Globočniku” (Martinc Kumpre), Podter 38 near Ljubno. (Photo B. Orel, 1955; SEM archives, PL)

A etnologu ostaja odprto vprašanje, kje je tu človek – njegovo naravno okolje, družbene in duhovne sestavine oranja ter zadevna medsebojna razmerja. Se vse to skriva v raziskovanju delovnih procesov? Je bil morda Boris Orel že v tolikšni meri sodoben, da ni preučeval zgolj oral, temveč je ubesedil tudi svoja spoznanja o delovnem postopku, o oranju – enem najtrših kmečkih del22 – in o oračih? Leta 1968 je bila v tem pogledu zapisana pritrdilna sodba Angelosa Baša: »/.../ ne moremo se vzdržati mnenja, da pomeni v primerjavi s poglavitnimi preučevanji ornega orodja drugod v Jugoslaviji, ki upoštevajo pri tem zgolj vrste, tehnične konstrukcije, krajevne oblike in imenje rala in pluga, delo B. Orla korak naprej, saj načenja širši skupek zadevnih vprašanj ...« (Baš 1968: 4).




8., 9. Dva skopa terenska zapisa Fanči Šarf, v skladu z Orlovimi napotki; nekateri drugi so bili vsebinsko bogatejši (na primer iz Pernic nad Trbonjami, z natančnim opisom tehnike oranja na strmi in »napeti« njivi; ali pa iz Podgorja pri Slovenj Gradcu, z razlago reguliranja globine oranja, odvisnega tudi od višine vprežne živine ipd.) (Arhiv ISN, Orlov fond)

Two field notes by Fanči Šarf, succinct in line with Orel’s instructions; other notes were richer in content (for instance one from Pernice above Trbonje, which has a detailed description of the ploughing method on a steep and “tight” field; another one from Podgorje near Slovenj Gradec explains how the ploughing depth was regulated, which also depended on the height of the draught animals, etc.) (ISN archives, the Orel holdings).

Morda je k Orlovemu širšemu pogledu na raziskovanje oral pripomogla tudi njegova strokovna širina in njegova veščost v analitičnem premišljanju o posameznih temah, pri kakršnem je poleg predmetov, njih nastanka, razvoja, oblik, imen sestavnih delov ter njihovih mer, prej ko slej vzniknilo tudi vprašanje njih rabe in s tem človek.23 A na začetku terenske raziskave človeku – vsaj izrecno – še ni posvečal pozornosti. »Orel – recimo, da bi posebej naročil upoštevat ljudi – to ne; on je samo mene poslal in je rekel: ‘Fotografirajte, sprašujte za stara orala’ ... Niti mere mi ni naročil, da bi jemala. Samo lastnika, starost, pa koliko je še starih takih v vasi, pa koliko še z njimi delajo. Koliko je kmetov, ki jih še imajo,« se njegovih terenskih napotkov spominja sodelavka Fanči Šarf.

Temeljne za njegova širša dognanja pa so bile, kot se zdi, prav njegove metode dela. Orlovi »napotki tako za zbiranje kakor za objave so bili metodično nedvomno bolj izdelani in strožji kakor v predvojnih letih«. Izrabil je »vsako priložnost, da je opomnil, /.../ kako važen mora biti etnografu, ki ureja gradivo, pravilno sestavljen načrt« in v zvezi z gradivom »je zahteval kritičen pregled: pri terenskem gradivu, ki ga je avtor povzel od drugih zbiralcev, bi ga moral preveriti ‘na mestu samem’«, je bilo zapisano o Orlovi znanstveni metodiki (Slavec Gradišnik 2000: 228). Njena višja raven je imela nedvomno za posledico informativno bogatejše terensko gradivo, in to je omogočalo vsebinsko tehtnejše in širše interpretacije.

Kako je torej Orel raziskoval? Kakšna je bila njegova metodika pri preučevanju rala na Slovenskem? Najverjetneje si je po odkritju jezerskega rala špičmoha in po sosledju dogodkov, ki so ga pritegnili med raziskovalce oral, najprej sestavil okvirni načrt poti po delu Gorenjskega, po Koroškem in po Štajerskem, na slovenski in na avstrijski strani (tam, kjer žive Slovenci); po krajih, v katerih je predpostavljal preteklo ali celo sodobno rabo ral. Kot se spominja Milko Matičetov, je »hotel zelo sistematično – tudi na avstrijsko stran.24 On je hotel imeti tisti trikot med Cankovo in Prekmurjem; tisti žep, kjer so Štajerski Slovenci v Avstriji.«. In k širini njegovega pristopa je morebiti pripomogla tudi bogata tematska knjižnica. »Joj, on je imel literature ... On je imel cele kupe – mogoče je bilo pol to mišljeno, da bi postavil v najširši kontekst. Je imel teh knjig, da sem bila presenečena, da toliko obstaja; iz Afrike, s severa, Indijance – literature še pa še ...,« je svoje čudenje nad Orlovo razgledanostjo v strokovnem slovstvu o obdelovanju zemlje izrazila Šarfova,25 vsa leta Orlovih preučevanj rala njegova terenska izvidnica (vsaj na slovenski strani raziskovanih območij). Spominja se, da so bile to njene »najtežje poti. Avta ni bilo; to je bilo vse treba peš. V snegu sem morala prit gor v kakšno vas – sem gazila sneg do trebuha.« In potem, ko mu je prinesla svoje sondažne terenske zapise (gl. pril. 8, 9) in številne fotografije oral, »pol je šel pa sam. On je šel za mano; na primer pri ‘dreuclu’ (ralu brez plaza) – ta prvo je k Brataniću letel (in še prej k arheologu Jožetu Kastelicu), pol je šel pa še petkrat v Podkoren.«.26 Tako so ti zapisi (poleg Šarfove jih je leta 1953 nekaj prispevala tudi Marija Makarovič, tedaj Jagodic) Orlu pogosto pomenili le osnovo védenj, ki jih je zatem preverjal in poglabljal na svojih terenskih poteh; na slednjih se je včasih mudil po več dni – celo po tri tedne (gl. pril. 13)27. Na izročene zapise – pa tudi na drugo pridobljeno gradivo, na primer na risbe ral, ki jih je pošiljal posameznim informatorjem, da bi mu nanje vpisovali imena sestavnih delov – je pogosto dopisoval svoja opažanja, pomisleke in druge beležke (gl. pril. 14, 15, 16). Podatke je pridobival tudi po pošti, o čemer pričajo posamezne dopisnice (gl. pril. 17, 18) in pisma, med njimi na primer Moserjevo in Zablatnikovo – obe s terminološkimi informacijami.28 Sam Orel med terenskim delom ni vedno delal zapiskov, temveč, »kakor je bil pri volji«, se spominja Šarfova. »On je zelo velikokrat prišel s terena pa je v muzeju naredil zapiske.« In imel je tudi to koristno navado, da je po terenskem raziskovanju zapisoval opomnike za nadaljnje poti in svoje misli; porojena nova raziskovalna vprašanja, kakršno je na primer: »Kako so po starem orali na njivah, ki niso bile ledine ali celine?« (gl. pril. 19), in delovna premišljanja, ki so ga tu in tam vračala v že obiskane kraje, na primer v Kostanje: »Raziskovanje rala v Kostanjah vsekakor priča, da so tu že zelo zgodaj, morda že sredi 19. stoletja, pozabili na nekdanje slovenske nazive raznih delov rala. /.../ dejal bi, da sem tu ulovil ralo prav pri zadnjem koncu repa. Vendar – potrebno bi bilo, da se o priliki še povrnem v Kostanje in njegove sosednje vasi ...«29 (Gl. tudi pril. 20). O Orlovi znanstveni metodiki pa pričajo tudi številne rokopisne strani z analizami gradiva (gl. pril. 21) – terenskih zapisov, fotografij in risb, zbranih v skoraj osemdesetih vaseh ter na nekaj samotnih hribovskih kmetijah – na podlagi katerih je potem oblikoval svoja dognanja in jih ubesedil v obeh objavljenih poročilih o ralu na Slovenskem.




10. Orlov vprašalnik za raziskovanje rala. (Arhiv SEM, AR)

Orel’s questionnaire for the research into the ard. (SEM archives, AR)





11. Ralo (kat. št. 25), »pri Riharju«, Podvolovljek 24. (Foto B. Orel, 1955; Arhiv SEM, F)

Ard (cat. no. 25), “pri Riharju”, Podvolovljek 24. (Photo B. Orel, 1955; SEM archives, PL)




12. Rezalnica (kat. št. 25), »pri Riharju«, Podvolovljek 24. (Foto B. Orel, 1955; Arhiv SEM, F)

Ristle (cat. no. 25), “pri Riharju”, Podvolovljek 24. (Photo B. Orel, 1955; SEM archives, PL)




13. Orlov popis terenske poti od 6. do 25. oktobra 1960. (Arhiv ISN, Orlov fond)

Orel’s list of field trips from October 8-25, 1960. (ISN archives, the Orel holdings)





14., 15., 16. Terenski zapis Marije Jagodic (Arhiv ISN, Orlov fond) in risbi ral, na terenu dopolnjeni z imeni sestavnih delov. (Arhiv SEM, AR in Arhiv ISN, Orlov fond)

Field note by Marija Jagodic (ISN archives, the Orel holdings) and drawings of ards, complemented with the names of the individual parts in the field. (SEM archives, AR and ISN archives, the Orel holdings)




17., 18. Dopisnici. Prva, ki jo je poslal Blaž Matvoz iz Podgorja 111 pri Slovenj Gradcu, ima vpisane le podatke o merah temeljnih sestavnih delov rala. Druga, s katero je Orlu odgovoril Maks Kerbler iz Spodnje Kaple 45 pri Ožbaltu ob Dravi, pa je mikavno povedna z navedbo razlogov za tedaj še živo rabo rala. (Arhiv ISN, Orlov fond)

Postcards. On the first one. sent by Matvoz Blaž from Podgorje 111 near Slovenj Gradec, only the dimensions of the individual parts of an ard are entered. The second one, sent to Orel by Kerbler Maks from Spodnja Kapla 45 near Ožbalt by Drava, provides interesting information on the reasons for the continued use of the ard. (ISN archives, the Orel holdings)




19. Orlov opomnik, prepognjen list papirja, na katerem spredaj piše: Važno / vzeti s seboj ! / na teren. (Arhiv SEM, AR)

Orel’s reminder to himself on the front of the folded sheet of paper reads: Important / take this! / to the field. (SEM archives, AR)




20. Stran iz gradiva v Orlovem fondu z naslovom »Problemi!«. (Arhiv ISN).

Page entitled “Problems” from the material in the Orel holdings (ISN archives).




21. Stran iz gradiva v Orlovem fondu, na kateri je razvidno njegovo razčlenjevanje oblik in tehničnih detajlov temeljnih sestavnih delov ral v posameznih obiskanih krajih. (Arhiv ISN)

Page from the material in the Orel holdings that shows how he classified the forms and technical details of the basic parts of ards in the individual places visited. (ISN archives)

Orel je tako v poročilo iz leta 1955 kakor v tisto iz leta 1961 zapisal, da je njegov cilj »obravnava vprašanja o nastanku in razvoju rala na Slovenskem«. A v obeh je uspel o »ralu, simetričnem ornem orodju z določenih območij slovenskega ozemlja« priobčiti in pojasniti le »vse, kar moreta o njem dandanes (kot je tedaj zapisal) še povedati avtopsija in ustno izročilo« (Orel 1955: 31; 1961: 15). Svojega načrtovanega cilja ni dosegel, najverjetneje zavoljo prezgodnje smrti leta 1962. Njegovo poslej nepreseženo delo o ralu30 pa kljub deklarativno kulturnozgodovinskem pristopu stvarno presega takšen raziskovalni okvir.

Orel je uspel zapisati in povečini tudi preučiti podatke za vse tri ravni analize, ki jih je za študije o posameznih orodjih pred nekaj leti domislil François Sigaut (2005: 7–8):

1. Natančno je opisal najdena rala z njihovimi sestavnimi deli31 in zapisal njihove mere in narečna imena32 (Sigautova prva raven, forme ou structure). Na primer svoje prvo, jezersko ralo s samostojno rezalnico:

»... sestoji iz samega rala in kolc, njegov tretji povsem samostojni sestavni del pa je rezalnica. Ralo ima v ožjem obsegu najprej štiri glavne lesene dele, ki tvorijo njegovo četverostransko oziroma četverokotno ogrodje: podsád, grédel, ročíco in kôzuc. Spodnji vodoravni del, podsád, ki se pri oranju plazi po zemlji, ter se pri plugu zaradi tega običajno imenuje plaz, je v celoti dolg 1,5 m, do ornega železa pa 1,32 m. /.../ Lémože (tudi hábe) se od oralnika nazaj proti kozucu polagoma večajo v širino in v višino, pri samem kozucu, ki se 4,5 cm globoko zajeda vanje, pa se razdvoje /.../ v dvoje rogovil ali ušes. /.../ Samostojen sestavni del jezerskega rala je rezalnica, ali kakor ji Jezerjani pravijo, rézounca. S tem orodjem so pri oranju narezovali zemljo. Jezersko rezalnico sestavljajo óje, ročica in rézounca /.../, ki je dolga 70 cm.« (Orel 1955: 32–34) Itn., itn. ...

Na temelju oblike je Orel dognal tri glavne vrste rala na Slovenskem:

1 – Koroško-štajersko četverokotno ralo s kolci in rezalnico. To ralo z vodoravnim podsadom sodi v primeru v evropskem okviru uveljavljene delitve na dva temeljna tipa ral med tista tipa Triptolemos (Lerche 1994: 11). Po podrobneje razčlenjeni tipologiji Františka Šacha (poleg drugega tudi temelječi na oblikah)33 pa se zdi, da gre za zlitje med njegovima tipoma VIII in IX, med »podsadnim tipom« (the sole type) in »podsadnim tipom s šilasto, veslasto oblikovanim lemežem – tipom Dabergotz« (the sole type with a sheer-pointed oar shaped share – Dabergotz type); prav v tega zadnjega je H. C. Dosedla umestil nekaj ral z avstrijskega Koroškega, prepoznavno sorodnih z znanimi slovenskimi primerki (Dosedla 1984: 56).

2 – Četverokotno ralo na oje iz Srednjega vrha blizu Martuljka. Tudi to ralo ima vodoravni podsad; sorodna rala na oje je mogoče najti pri Gaetanu Forniju za Tirolsko (Forni 1997: 108–109) in enako tudi pri Dosedli (1984: 52), ki takšna rala umešča v Šachov tip V, v »tip oje-podsad« (type with the beam sole).

3 – Ralo brez plaza iz Podkorna (kjer sta bila najdena le dva osamljena primerka). To ralo sodi v primeru delitve na dva temeljna tipa ral med ona s poševnim ralnikom, tipa Døstrup (Lerche 1994: 11), in po Šachovi tipologiji se zdi, da ga je mogoče umestiti v tip I, v tako imenovani »hoduljasti tip« (stilt type) (Dosedla 1984: 46–47).




22. Primerek Orlovega razčlenjevanja narečnih imen posameznih sestavnih delov ral. (Arhiv ISN, Orlov fond)

Sample of Orel’s classification of the dialect names of the individual parts of ards. (ISN archives, the Orel holdings)




23. Ralo temeljnega tipa Triptolemos. Ralo z vodoravnim plazom s somernim lemežem, s pokončno ročico in upognjenim gredljem. Prizor oranja z antične grške pivske posode, imenovane »Nikostenov vrč«. (Iz: Lerche 1994: 12)

Ard of the basic Triptolemos type. The ard has a horizontal sole with a symmetric share, vertical stilt and curved beam. Ploughing scene from an ancient Greek drinking vessel called the Nikosthenes cup (From: Lerche 1994: 12)




24. Ralo temeljnega tipa Dstrup. Ralo brez plaza, pri katerem konec dolgega gredlja v naklonu predira ročica, ki jo sklene somerni lemež. Risba najdbe v Dstrupskem močvirju na polotoku Jutland iz leta 1884. (Iz: Steensberg 1986: 141)

Ard of the basic Dstrup type. The ard is without a sole, the stilt pierces the end of the long beam at an angle and ends in a symmetric share. Drawing of a find from the Dstrup moor on the peninsula of Jutland, 1884. (From: Steensberg 1986: 141)

2. Orel je poskušal razumeti predmet svojega preučevanja in je tako zbral tudi podatke o delovanju ral in njihovih posameznih sestavnih delov (Sigautova druga raven, fonctionnement). Na primer o vlogi gredlja pri reguliranju oranja:

»Gredelj je gibljivo vtaknjen v večjo ali manjšo režo na ročici, ki je više ali niže nad plazom. Funkcija premičnega gredlja v primerno veliki reži na ročici je dvojna: ponekod (na Jezerskem) ga premikajo oziroma so ga premikali za male prestave pri reguliranju oranja, drugod pa z uporabo klinov rabi oraču sploh za edine prestave, ki so možne na ralu (Kobansko in okolica Prevalj).« (Orel 1955: 48)

Ali pa na primer o rezalnici:

»Rezalnica /.../ je ali vsajena v gredelj ali pa je nameščena ob strani gredlja /.../ ter vtaknjena v uqenco (luknjico) na ralniku.34 V zadnjem primeru imamo opraviti s prestavljivo rezalnico, /.../ ki ni rezala zemlje, temveč jo je potiskala v stran.« (Orel 1961: 28)

In o lemežnicah:

»Brž ko je ralnik spodrezal brazdo, so lemeške, /.../ spodrezano brazdo dvignile ter jo zasukale oziroma obrnile. /.../ Starejši kmetje, ki so proti koncu 19. st. še orali z ralom, si prizadevajo pojasniti bistvene strani tega oranja /.../ so lemeške ali habe le deloma obrnile zemljo, oziroma da so obrnile le polovico brazde, med tem ko se je ostala polovica kar zdrobila ...« (Orel 1955: 53)

3. In – kar je najpomembneje – Orel se je poglobil tudi v uporabo rala, v delovni proces (Sigautova tretja raven, fonction), ter pri tem ni prezrl niti pomena izdelovanja ral (kdo in kakšen les so izbirali zavoljo njihove trdnosti), njihovega socialnega konteksta (kdo je oral, kdo vodil vole, kdo kopal nezorane dele njive) niti duhovnih sestavin (npr. prvo oranje). Poglejmo vsaj nekaj njegovih zadevnih zapisov, najprej o izdelovanju:

»Rala so običajno iz trdega lesa. /.../ Torej bukov, brezov in jesenov les so na pregledanih ozemljih najbolj cenili za rala. Od teh vrst lesa je bil menda najbolj upoštevan brezov les. /.../ Težja gorjanska rala so bila večinoma narejena iz jesenovega lesa, vendar je bil gredelj zmerom iz brezovega lesa. /.../ rala so po starem običajno izdelovali kmetje sami. V mnogih primerih je bil ta kmet-izdelovalec gospodar sam, velikokrat pa tudi hlapec. Po ustnem izročilu so jih ponekod izdelovali revnejši kmetje in preužitkarji proti plačilu. /.../ Ralnike in rezalnice pa je vedno izgotavljal najbližji kovač, ki je imel vodno nakovalo. /.../ stare izrabljene ralnike pa je ‘podstavljal’.« (Orel 1955: 50–51)

In še o oranju:

»Tako so vpregli v ralo en par volov, v rezalnico pa prav tako en par volov. Močnejši voli so bili vpreženi v ralo, slabši (ponavadi junci) pa v rezalnico. /.../ Z ralom je oral orač, z rezalnico pa je ravnal ‘narezar’ ali ‘narezač’. Orač je bil običajno gospodar sam ali pa ‘ta več hlapc’, narezač pa ‘ta več’ ali ‘ta drug hlapc’, včasih tudi ženska. Vole pri ralu in rezalnici sta poganjala pastirja. /.../ Poleg orača, narezača in dveh pastirjev pa je bil pri oranju še peti z motiko. /.../ Oplaze (nezorane kose zemlje, ki jih je ralo samo oplazilo) je prekopal kopač z motiko in tako izpopolnil oračevo delo. /.../ Najprej je šel na njivo narezač ter z rezalnico rezal zemljo (brazdo). (Pred ralom so zlasti narezovali trdo zemljo, celine ali pa ledine.) Takoj za njim pa je oral orač z ralom (v oddaljenosti 4 do 7 metrov). Orati sta začela spodaj, /.../ kar velja predvsem za njive v bregu. Narezala sta in zorala brazdo poleg brazde. Brazde pa so se obračale vse na eno stran (oranje ‘na ploh’, na ravno), obračale so se navzdol pri oranju v bregu, padale so druga na drugo v jamo ali jarek. /.../ Sicer pa so orali na dva načina: ali je špica ralnika šla natanko po riži, ki jo je napravila rezalnica, ali pa je bilo ralo malo odmaknjeno od riže proti zorani brazdi. /.../ Pri ozkih brazdah je bilo dovolj, če so orali natanko po riži, ki jo je zapustila za seboj rezalnica. /.../ Na ravnem svetu so orali širše brazde, v bregu ali na strminah pa ožje. Na splošno so ozke brazde veljale za najboljše, ker so njive s takimi brazdami mnogo laže prevlekli z brano. /.../ Globoko ali plitvo oranje pa je bilo odvisno predvsem od kakovosti zemlje. Njivo s težko, tolsto zemljo so po navadi preorali globlje, peščeno zemljo pa plitveje. /.../ Stari zdelani voli so na priliko radi držali glave sklonjene, kar je imelo za posledico, da je ralo globlje oralo. Zato je bilo treba še pred oranjem to okolnost upoštevati ter ralo uravnati na plitvo. /.../ Pri obračanju in drobljenju brazde pa je lemeškam znatno pomagal orač z ročico. /.../ Z nagibanjem ročice na eno ali na drugo stran, dejansko vedno na tisto stran, na katero so se obračale in padale brazde, se je nagnilo ralo, hkrati z njim pa se je nagnil zadnji del lemešk s svojim ušesom, ki je tako mogel laže prijeti brazdo in jo obrniti.« (Orel 1955: 51–55, 61)

Pri oranju v bregu je moral skratka orač stopati vštric ročice za dve brazdi nižje od rala, paziti, da le-tega ni vrglo iz brazde in poleg tega paziti, da je spodnja lemežka z ušesom »lepo prijela brazdo« ter jo obrnila.35 Orač je moral pač znati voditi ralo in biti obenem vešč njegovega uravnavanja na plitvo ali globoko oranje.

O prenehanju oranja z ralom je Orel dognal (Orel 1955: 55–58), da so ga začeli splošno opuščati proti koncu 19. stoletja in namesto njega uporabljati dvojni plug. Kot prelomen »činitelj, ki je pospešil konec tega starodavnega orodja«, je izpostavil vprašanje ljudi in živine. »Veliko pomanjkanje ljudi in volovske vprežne živine na kmetih po prvi svetovni vojni je bilo namreč v tolikšni meri odločilno, da so po tej vojni oranje z ralom na splošno dokončno opustili.« Kjer se je vendarle dlje ohranilo – ponekod se je namreč še Orel srečal z njim –, je k temu prispeval spremenjeni namen njegove rabe: povečini le za jesensko oranje oziroma »ven metanje« krompirja in v manjši meri za osipanje. Drugače so kmetje v krajih na Orlovi poti dajali ralu prednost pred dvojnim plugom, še posebej pri oranju za žito. (Pri oranju s prvim so bile brazde bolj rahle, lažje so jih prevlekli z brano in z ralom zorana njiva je bila ugodnejša za rast žita; dvojni plug pa »trdo zemljo dol položi, da obleži kot ena dila«, in z njim se spravi mnogo več zemlje navzdol po bregu ...) S tem v zvezi je na primer na Kobanskem zapisal pregovor (Orel 1961: 36): »Če z ralom orješ, je hleb (hlebec vsakdanjega kruha), če s plugom, je pa štruc (sicer boljši, a redkejši praznični kruh).« In ta kleni pregovor jasno sporoča njihovo izkušenjsko prepričanje, da jim je ralo prinašalo več kruha kakor pa plug.

Orlovo delo nedvomno pomeni tehten prispevek k védenju o raznovrstnosti ral v evropskem prostoru in o dinamiki njihove kontinuirane rabe pri izvajanju oranja oziroma rabe »dolgega trajanja« v kontekstu vsakdanjega življenja kmečkega prebivalstva v hribovitih krajih. V primerjavi s sočasnimi študijami pa gre z današnjega vidika tudi za dokaj sodoben prispevek, še posebej, če ga zmoremo brati »med vrsticami«. Med slednjimi lahko najdemo stavke, kakršni so na primer naslednji (Orel 1955: 55-56): »Zanimivo je, da so tudi tam, kjer so že imeli dvojni plug, še vedno radi posegli po ralu, to pa zlasti tedaj, kadar so bili voli za dvojni plug prešibki. /.../ Poučno pa je tudi poslušati mnenja starejših ljudi, ko ugotavljajo dobre strani rala in slabe strani dvojnega pluga. Po njihovem mnenju je bilo ralo dobro zategadelj, ker so po njem zorane brazde bile bolj rahle, /.../ ta dvojni plug trdo zemljo meče oziroma jo obrača, jo tlači in dalje trdo zemljo dol položi, da obleži kot ena dila, kar pa se ne more dobro z brano povlačit.« In še (Orel 1955: 52–53, 57): »Če so v okolici Solčave orali po njivi okoli hriba, to je na okroglo izboklem svetu, je širina brazde znašala 25 cm; če pa so orali na okroglo vbočenem svetu, je bila brazda široka 15 cm. /.../ n.pr. na Jezerskem v bregu na suhi peščeni zemlji so orali bolj na plitvo, v težki ilovnati zemlji v dolini pa globlje. /.../ Še pred 65 leti je imel vsak večji kmet pri Sv. Danijelu več raznih ral, med katerimi je bilo tudi ralo s prestavljivo rezalnico, ki je bilo dobro za oranje mehkih njiv (repišče ali strnišče).« Ali pa (Orel 1955: 51; 1961: 34): »Kopač je bila po navadi ženska, in sicer ta prva ali ta véč dekla, imenovana fištrna (okolica Solčave), pa tudi ta mala dekla. /.../ Z njim (z ralom) je imel običajno opraviti domači kolar (bognar), vendar ve ljudsko ustno izročilo marsikje poročati o tem, kako so bili vešči izdelovalci ral tudi kmetje sami.« Ti in podobni stavki prinašajo posamezna širša Orlova dognanja: prvi o odnosu nekaterih njegovih kmečkih sogovornikov do razvoja ornih orodij (napredka in inovacij),36 drugi o njihovem obvladovanju soodvisnosti med oranjem z rali in naravnim okoljem (med načini oranja, sestavnimi deli ral in lego njiv, tipi prsti, posameznimi značilnostmi vprežne živine) in tretji o družbenih sestavinah tega trdega kmečkega dela (o delitvi dela pri oranju, o družbeni pripadnosti oračev, kopačev in izdelovalcev ral). Sicer le v enem stavku, a vendarle – ko omeni, da so kovači »podstavljali« stare izrabljene ralnike oziroma lemeže (gl. kat. št. 38) –, pa Orel pozornemu bralcu sporoči tudi poseben pomen in vrednost tega najpomembnejšega in drugih železnih delov rala;37 tistih, ki so bili temeljni za dobro oranje, za dober pridelek, za preživetje, in pri katerih kmet ni bil samozadosten – ni mogel iti »mož v gozd s sekiro in se vrniti z ralom«38 –, temveč jih je moral kupiti oziroma plačati na tak ali drugačen način. Navedeni Orlovi zapisi nedvomno razkrivajo vsaj prgišče razmerij med »človekom kot nosilcem kulture« in »njegovim kulturnim in naravnim okoljem, kakor se kaže v vsakdanjih rutinah«.




25. Zemljevid razširjenosti posameznih oblikovnih tipov rala. Oranje s četverokotnim ralom s kolči in rezalnico je Orel zabeležil v naslednjih krajih: z ralom z rezalnico oziroma s črtalom v gredlju (rdeči trikotnik) v Zgornji in Spodnji Kokri, Logarski dolini, na Konjskem vrhu, v Podteru, Šmihelu, Belih vodah, Sv. Vidu pri Zavodnjah, Razberu, Javorjah, Jazbini, Mlakah, Sv. Jerneju, Sv. Primožu, Sv. Treh Kraljih, Št. Janžu, Radelci, Vasi pri Remšniku, na Breznem vrhu, v Zg. Kapli, Ožbaltu, Sp. Kapli, Vurmàtu, Velikem Boču, Slemenu, Šobru, v Sv. Križu, na Ojstrici, Kozjem vrhu, Sv. Duhu, v Gortini, Pernicah, Pesnici, Gradišču, Hoheneggu, Vidri vesi, Dobu, Libučah, Rutah pod Peco, Lobniku, Lepeni, Beli, na Obirskem, v Kortah, Selah pod Košuto, Arvežu, Oseku, Sv. Lovrencu, Radvanjah, Aiblu, na Magdalenski gori, v Velikovcu, Rožanskih Gurah, Kostanjah, v okolici Pliberka in Dobrle vasi, med Šmarjeto in Št. Jakobom, Ledincami in Vrati, od Straje vasi do Šmohorja, v Koprivni, Topli pri Črni, v okolici Mežice, v Sv. Danijelu in Jamnici nad Prevaljami; z ralom z rezalnico kot samostojnim ornim orodjem (rdeči trikotnik z belo obrobo) pa na Jezerskem, v Matkovem in Robanovem kotu, Podvolovljeku in Radegundi. Obstoj četverokotnega rala na oje (črni trikotnik) je zabeležil samo v Srednjem vrhu blizu Martuljka in prav tako rala brez plaza (beli krog) samo v Podkorenu. (Zemljevid M. Rupert, 2006)

Map of the spread of individual types of ard. Orel listed the places where ploughing was carried out with a rectangular wheel ard and ristle. Ploughing with an ard and ristle or with a coulter in the plough beam (red triangle) was common in Zgornja Kokra and Spodnja Kokra, the Logar Valley, Konjski vrh. Podter, Šmihel, Bele vode, Sv. Vid near Zavodnje, Razber, Javorje, Jazbina, Mlake, Sv. Jernej, Sv. Primož, Sv. Trije Kralji, Št. Janž, Radelca, Vas near Remšnik, Brezni vrh, Zgornja Kapla, Ožbalt, Spodnja Kapla, Vurmàt. Veliki Boč, Sleme, Šober, Sv. Križ, Ojstrica, Kozji vrh, Sv. Duh. Gortina, Pernice, Pesnica, Gradišče, Hohenegg, Vidra ves, Dob, Libuče, Rute below Peca, Lobnik, Lepena, Bela, Obirsko, Korte, Sele below Košuta. Arvež, Osek, Sv. Lovrenc, Radvanje, Aibl, Magdalenska gora, Velikovec, Rožanske Gure, Kostanje, in the environs of Pliberk and Dobrla vas, between Šmarjeta and Št. Jakob, Ledince and Vrata, from Straja vas to Šmohor, in Koprivna, Topla near Črna, the environs of Mežica, Sv. Danijel and Jamnica above Prevalje; ploughing with a ristle as a separate ploughing implement (red triangle with white border) was common in Jezersko, Matkov kot and Robanov kot, Podvolovljek and Radegunda. The use of a rectangular ard with a yoke beam (black triangle) was established only in Srednji vrh near Martuljek, and ploughing with an ard without a sole (white circle) only in Podkoren. (Map by M. Rupert, 2006)




26. Primerek tipa četverokotnega rala s kolci in rezalnico. Ráu, »pri Berbuč« (Rok Grubelnik), Obirsko 72 pri Železni Kapli. (Foto B. Orel, 1954; Arhiv SEM, F)

Specimen of a rectangular wheel ard with a ristle. Ráu. “pri Berbuč” (Rok Grubelnik), Obirsko 72 near Železna Kapla. (Photo B. Orel, 1954: SEM archives, PL)




27. Primerek tipa rala brez plaza. Podkorenski dreucl (kat. št. 15), »pri Colnarju« (Lovrenc Benet), Podkoren 69. (Foto F. Šarf, 1954; Arhiv SEM, F)

Specimen of the ard type without a sole. The Podkoren dreucl (cat. no. 15), “pri Colnarju” (Lovrenc Benet), podkoren 69. (Photo F. Šarf, 1954: SEM archives, PL)




28., 29. Primerka tipa četverokotnega rala na oje. »Vavčarjevo« (kat. št. 19), Srednji vrh 19 (Franc Arih), in »Smolejevo« rekonstruirano ralo (kat. št. 18), Srednji vrh 8. (Foto F. Šarf, 1955 in B. Orel, 1954; Arhiv SEM, F)

Specimens of the rectangular wheel ard type with a yoke beam. “Vavčar’s” (cat. no. 19), Srednji vrh 19 (Franc Arih), and “Smole’s” reconstructed ard (cat. no. 18), Srednji vrh 8. (Photo F. Šarf, 1955 and B. Orel. 1954; SEM archives. PL)




30. Ralo s prestavljivo rezalnico. Oráuo, »pri Ledinek«, Vobrska gora. (Foto B. Orel, 1957; Arhiv SEM, F)

Ard with a movable ristle. Oráuo, “pri Ledinek”, Vobrska gora. (Photo B. Orel, 1957; SEM archives, PL)




31. Demonstracija pretikanja rezalnice. Ráuo, »Pri Kramolc« (Ciril Kumpri), Sv. Danijel 27. (Foto F. Šarf, 1955; Arhiv SEM, F)

Demonstration of ristle shifting. Ráuo, “Pri Kramolc” (Ciril Kumpri), Sv. Danijel 27. (Photo F. Šarf, 1955; SEM archives, PL)




32. Nazorna risba rala s prestavljivo rezalnico, z lemežem z odprtinama za njeno pretikanje. (Arhiv SEM, AR)

Illustrative drawing of an ard with a movable ristle and a share with holes for shifting the ristle. (SEM archives, AR)




33. Risana in besedna razlaga delovanja prestavljive rezalnice, ki jo je v pismu Orlu 15. januarja 1961 prispeval Simon Gross iz Št. Jakoba v občini Vobre na Koroškem. (Arhiv ISN, Orlov fond)

Explanation in text and drawings of the operation of a movable ristle, from a letter, dated January 15th 1961, sent to Orel by Simon Gross from Št. Jakob in the municipality of Vobre, Carinthia. (ISN archives, the Orel holdings)




34. Neobdelan les za ročice, pok, in za lemežke, lemežənce. »Pri Pavliču« (Maks Körbler), Spodnja Kapla 45. (Foto B. Orel, 1957; Arhiv SEM, F)

Raw timber for handles and mould strokers. “Pri Pavliču” (Maks Körbler), Spodnja Kapla 45. (Photo B. Orel. 1957: SEM archives, PL)




35. Oráu, »pri Bognarju«, Mlinče. (Foto B. Orel, 1957; Arhiv SEM, F)

Ard, “pri Bognarju”, Mlinče. (Photo B. Orel, 1957; SEM archives, PL)




36. Risana in besedna razlaga iz že omenjenega pisma Simona Grossa, tokrat o kovačevem načinu pritrjevanja lemeža, oráunika. Pri njem je moral poskrbeti, da je bil plaz tam, kjer je vanj vsajen kozolec, približno dva prsta dvignjen od tal, »tolk, da gre ena breja miš skoz«. (Arhiv ISN, Orlov fond)

Explanation in text and drawings from the above-mentioned letter from Simon Gross; this passage is about a smith’s method of attaching the share. He had to make sure that at the spot where the sheath was set into the sole, the sole remained about two fingers from the ground or “just enough for a pregnant mouse to pass under it”. (ISN archives, the Orel holdings)




37., 38. Demonstracija oranja z jezerskim ralom špičmohom in z rezalnico kot samostojnim ornim orodjem. (Foto B. Orel, 1949; Arhiv SEM, F)

Demonstration of ploughing with a Jezersko aid (špičmoh) and a ristle as a separate ploughing implement. (Photo B. Orel, 1949; SEM archives, PL)




39. Kopač oplazov, nezoranih kosov zemlje, katere je ralo zgolj oplazilo. »Pri Pavliču« (Maks Körbler), Spodnja Kapla 45. (Foto F. Šarf, 1957; Arhiv SEM, F)

Digging the unploughed strips which the ard had merely scratched. “Pri Pavliču” (Maks Körbler), Spodnja Kapla 45. (Photo F. Šarf, 1957; SEM archives, PL)




40. Oranje s starim oralom. »Pri Pavliču« (Maks Körbler), Spodnja Kapla 45. (Foto F. Šarf, 1957; Arhiv SEM, F)

Ploughing with an old plough. “Pri Pavliču” (Maks Körbler), Spodnja Kapla 45. (Photo F. Šarf, 1957; SEM archives, PL)

Tehten donesek k védenjem o oralih pa pomeni tudi snovni plod Orlovih raziskav, triindvajset ral in plugov (od kat. št. 8 do 31), temeljnih za zbirko ornih orodij v Slovenskem etnografskem muzeju. A pred besedami o pričevalnosti celotne kolekcije se zdi vendarle potrebno znova povzeti že večkrat povzeto: oralom začrtati zgodovinski okvir oziroma strnjeno orisati zgodovinsko pot njih razvoja in rabe.





Z ORALI SKOZI ČAS IN PROSTOR, NA SLOVENSKEM IN DRUGOD

Kakor mnoga druga poljedelska ljudstva smo tudi Slovenci za pripravo zemlje za setev ali za saditev stoletja uporabljali obe temeljni poljedelski tehniki oziroma oba temeljna obdelovalna načina – orno in motično poljedelstvo. To slednje, povezano s požigalništvom kot načinom pridobivanja obdelovalnih površin, je pogosto porajalo interpretacije o primarni, »nekoč univerzalni stopnji poljedelstva«. A obstoj nedavnih praks požigalništva z motičnim obdelovalnim načinom v Evropi je pripeljal do spoznanja, da gre za »vrsto taktičnih rešitev posebnih, individualnih stanj« in ne za zadevne prežitke (Steensberg 1986: 134; po Rowley-Conwy 1981); za rabo take poljedelske tehnike in takšnih orodij, kakršna poleg drugega pogojujejo zlasti lega tal, kakovost zemlje in družbene razmere.39 Zgodovine ornih orodij tako ne kaže brati kot premočrtne poti razvoja od preprostega (palica, lopata) k sestavljenemu, popolnejšemu (ralo, plug). Vsako uvajanje novega ali izboljšanega orodja ni napredovalo po razvojnih stopnjah, temveč v sozvočju z lokalnimi razmerami in potrebami, z naravnim in družbenim okoljem (Steensberg 1986: 145; prim. tudi Pleterski 1987: 269). V tem pogledu mikavno zgovoren je primer razvoja vseh oral iz neke vrste »vlečne lopate«, kar je na temelju oblikovnih podobnosti in jezikoslovnih vodil domneval Paul Leser (Steensberg 1986: 129) in kar je s pomočjo posameznih arheoloških najdb, slikovnih virov in eksperimentalne metode prepričljivo dokazoval Axel Steensberg. O obdelovanju zemlje z vleko lopat z vrvmi je zapisal, da je bilo razširjeno v Aziji od Koreje do Kitajske, v Iranu in v arabskih deželah, tako da ni nenavadno, da so bile »vlečne lopate« znane tudi v Evropi, in sicer na prehodu med mezolitikom in neolitikom, v času, ko se je poljedelstvo začenjalo kot neke vrste vrtnarstvo (z majhnimi gnojenimi žitnimi ogradami in z listno krmo za živino) (Steensberg 1986: 112–114). V Satrupskem močvirju v Schleswigu so na primer našli takšno »vlečno lopato« oziroma ralo, vlečeno z vrvmi, staro okrog 5000 let (datirano okoli 3000 pr. n. št.), v Siriji na primer kamnita (bazaltna) lopatasta rezila iz bronaste dobe, interpretirana kot tovrstna orodja. A ko so bila rala z živinsko vprego že stoletja v rabi, je bilo tu in tam še vedno mogoče najti primere žive rabe rala (razvitega iz lopate), vlečenega z vrvmi; na primer v 17. ali na začetku 18. stoletja na Kitajskem (na riževih poljih v provinci Guizhou) in do sodobnega časa v Tadžikistanu. »Ko se kmet odloča, katera orodja mu bodo najbolje služila, je njegov premislek pač mešanica ustaljenih navad, družbene prilagoditve, gospodarskega načrtovanja in osebnega nagnjenja.« (Steensberg 1986: 112–113, 120–121, 125). In pri tem naprednejša orodja ne pomenijo vedno najustreznejše izbire, kar je med svojim raziskovanjem spoznaval tudi Orel.




41. Steensbergova risba rekonstrukcije predvidene rabe lopatastega bazaltnega rezila iz Sirije, iz bronaste dobe, kot »vlečne lopate« oziroma rala, vlečenega z vrvjo. (Iz: Steensberg 1986: 121)

Steensberg’s drawn reconstruction of the assumed use of a spade-shaped basalt share as a “traction spade” - an ard drawn with a rope. Syria, Bronze Age. (From: Steensberg 1986: 121)




42. Najdbe lesenih orodij iz Satrupskega močvirja v Schleswigu. Levo in desno sta lopati, srednje, z odprtinama pred držajem, naj bi bilo ralo, vlečeno z vrvjo. (Iz: Steensberg 1986: 112)

Finds of wooden tools from the Satrup moor in Schleswig. Left and right are spades, the object in the centre is assumed to be an ard that was drawn with a rope. (From: Steensberg 1986: 112)




43. Natančna kopija satrupskega rala, vlečenega z vrvjo, uporabljena v demonstraciji na severu otoka Zealand leta 1973. (Foto G. Lerche; iz: Steensberg 1986: 114)

An exact copy of the Satrup ard, drawn with a rope, used in a demonstration in the north of the island Zealand in 1973. (Photo G. Lerche; from: Steensberg 1986: 114)




44. Obdelovanje riževega polja z ralom, vlečenim z vrvmi, v provinci Guizhou, v 17. stoletju ali na začetku 18. stoletja. Upodobitev v kitajskem rokopisu iz knjižnice nemškega vojvode Gotha (the Duke of Gotha). (Iz: Steensberg 1986: 125)

Ploughing a rice field with an ard drawn with ropes in the province of Guizhou, 17th or early 18th century. Illustration in a Chinese manuscript from the German Duke of Gotha. (From: Steensberg 1986: 125)

Zgoščen sprehod skozi zgodovino ornih orodij na Slovenskem, ustrezno umeščen v evropski okvir, začenjajo arheološke najdbe. Z njimi je dobro dokumentirana teza, da je bil eden izmed okolišev razvoja ilirsko-keltskega poljedelstva v stoletjih okrog začetka našega štetja v vzhodnih Alpah in v Panoniji, ki naj bi bil pripeljal do znamenitega Plinijevega sporočila o ornem orodju, »nedavno zvezanem s kolesi«, prav na poznejšem slovenskem ozemlju. Priče tega prehoda od navadnega rala do rala s kolesi in črtalom so poznolatenske in pozneje tudi poznorimske zakladne najdbe simetričnih širokih lemežev, črtal in gredeljnic (ki sporočajo rabo kolc) (Grafenauer 1970: 211). Iz 1. stoletja n. št. so na primer znani številni lemeži in črtala z Idrije pri Bači, Reke blizu Cerknega, Vrhovelj pri Kojskem, iz Črnič in Šmihela pod Nanosom (Guštin, Smerdel, 1996: 77). O zgodovinskem pojavljanju rala in pluga v evropskem okviru pa je mogoče na kratko povzeti naslednje: V Valcamonici v italijanskih Alpah je bila odkrita upodobitev oranja, vrezana v skalnato steno, ki so jo datirali v pozni neolitik, od 4000 do 3500 pr. n. št. (Forni 1980: 62). (Na Bližnjem vzhodu, v Mezopotamiji, je bilo ralo najverjetneje v rabi že več stoletij, ko se prvikrat pojavi na piktogramu iz obdobja Uruk-Warka, iz okrog 3000 pr. n. št. (Steensberg 1986: 131).) V Sarnowem na Poljskem so odkrili najzgodnejše sledi oranja z ralom (Steensberg 1986: 131–132; po Gabalowna 1971, Dabrowski 1971), ki jih je bilo mogoče datirati v okrog 3620 pr. n. št.40 (Ohranjene brazde v Suzi A, v Kuzistanu, so iz zgodnjega 5. tisočletja pr. n. št. (Guštin, Smerdel 1996: 77).) A najstarejša predmetna najdba prihaja, kot kaže, ponovno z bližnjega italijanskega ozemlja: v Lavagnoneju, nekdanjem močvirju nedaleč od Desenzana pri Brescii, so izkopali celotno ralo z vodoravnim podsadom, tipa Tryptolemos, v plasti, datirani v začetek 2. tisočletja pr. n. št. (Forni 1980: 60). Skoraj v isti čas, med 2. in zgodnje 1. tisočletje pr. n. št., sodijo tudi dokazi o rabi ral s kamnitimi konicami v Orkneyju in Shetlandu (Steensberg 1986: 131). Središčno vlogo v zvezi s poznejšim izpopolnjevanjem ral so kot kaže odigrala še posebej keltska ljudstva, mojstri razvijajoče se metalurgije. Prav njim se pripisuje inovacija širokih, lopatasto oblikovanih železnih lemežev, izkopanih v številnih poznoželeznodobnih najdiščih – od južne Anglije, prek Nemčije, vse do rimske province Panonije – ter pogosto najdenih skupaj s črtali in z gredeljnicami, posebnimi verigami za pričvrstitev ralovega gredlja na kolca (Lerche 1994: 223–224, po Henning 1987, Balassa 1971; Steensberg 1986). V Vergilovi poučni pesnitvi Georgika je potem mogoče tudi prebrati, da je bilo v Padski nižini (med 40 in 30 pr. n. št.) ralo povezano s kolci, kar v Historii Naturalis iz 1. stoletja n. št. potrjuje Plinij starejši, ki izum takšnega orala41 umešča v rimsko provinco Recijo. Razvoj večjih, težjih somernih ral z lemežkami,42 s črtali in kolci v nesomerna orala, v pluge z desko, naj bi se bil na podlagi vseh dosedanjih dognanj odvijal prav v času okrog začetkov krščanske dobe – zavoljo rastočih potreb po žitu v Rimskem imperiju, kar je zahtevalo nove in vse večje obdelovalne površine (ter posledično boljša orala). V 1. stoletje n. št. so na primer datirane brazde, sledovi oranja s plugom z desko, iz Brabersa pri Haamstede na Nizozemskem; še starejše naj bi bile podobne sledi na Nizozemskem iz keltske železne dobe in v Feddersen Wierde na spodnjem Saškem (Steensberg 1986: 140, 144–145); pri nekaterih lemežih iz dobe Rimskega cesarstva v muzejskih depojih v Portogruaru in v bližnjem Ogleju pa je bila jasno prepoznana začetna nesomernost (Forni 1980: 62).




45. Ralo iz Lavagnoneja, izkopano v plasti, datirani v začetek 2. tisočletja pr. n. št. (Iz: Forni 1997: 4)

The Lavagnone ard, excavated from a layer dated to the early 2nd millennium BC. (From: Forni 1997: 4)




46. Arheološke najdbe črtala, dveh lemežev in gredeljnice iz Unca pri Rakeku in dveh lemežev in črtal iz Idrije ob Bači. (Iz: Gabrovec 1955: pril. I, II)

Archaeological finds; coulter, two shares and plough-beam chain from Unec near Rakek, and two shares and coulters from Idrija by Bača. (From: Gabrovec 1955: suppl. I, II)

A nam še vedno ostaja odprto vprašanje, v kolikšni meri in kako hitro je razvita staroselska agrarna tehnika vplivala na priseljene prednike. Da naj bi bili ti že »iz dobe skupnosti« poznali celo plug kot »skupno slovansko kulturno dobrino«, ni bilo dovolj trdno utemeljeno, da bi obveljalo.43 Iz prvih let 9. stoletja je na primer listina s pritožbami romanskih Istranov (vojvodi Joanesu, upravitelju Karla Velikega) na račun naseljenih Slovanov, da »oni orjejo našo zemljo in naše ledine ...«. S čim, iz besedila listine ni mogoče razbrati (Vilfan 1957: 61). V prvi četrtini 9. stoletja pa je bil zakopan tako imenovani Sebenjski zaklad, ki na podlagi najdb dveh vrst lemežev priča, da so v njegovem času slovanski naseljenci v Blejskem kotu poznali in uporabljali različna orala in različne načine oranja.44 In kot hipotetična so vznemirljiva izvajanja (ki na slovenskem ozemlju temeljijo le na osamljeni najdbi), da naj bi bili poleg rala z lopatastim lemežem in z lemežnicama (kateri naj bi dokazovala najdena otka45), uporabljali tudi oralo z dvema tulastima koničastima lemežema,46 tako imenovano soho (njena raba je bila še v preteklem stoletju sporočena iz severne Karelije47), s katero naj bi bili čistili oziroma začetno obdelovali, rahljali zemljo48 na s požiganjem gozda pridobljenih položnejših površinah (Pleterski 1987: 258, 272–278).

Najbolj zanesljiva se zdi trditev, da po naselitvi – ko naj bi bilo prevladovalo požigalništvo, a tudi z ralom povezani začetki ornega poljedelstva z neustaljenimi njivami – slovenski gospodarski razvoj označuje napredek rala in postopno ustaljevanje njiv. Plug naj bi se bil začel postopoma uveljavljati od 10. do 11. stoletja, skoraj sočasno z ustalitvijo njiv in z natriletnim kolobarjenjem s praho (Baš 1968: 1–2; Grafenauer 1970: 214). Urbarji dokazujejo, da so bila od 13. stoletja dalje povsod na Slovenskem razna orala poglavitna orodja pri obdelavi zemlje; a težki leseni plug, ki je po podatku salzburškega nadškofijskega urbarja za brežiško gospostvo iz 1448 zahteval tri pare volov,49 je le postopno izpodrival ralo, ki je zahtevalo manj vprežne živine. V salzburškem nadškofijskem urbarju za Brežice in Sevnico je iz leta 1309 dolgo napak interpretirana omemba »celega pluga« – integrum aratrum – za katero je bilo pozneje dognano, da pomeni »orno tlako, ki jo je kmet opravljal s svojim plugom in živino« (Grafenauer 1970: 214–215). (Za 17. stoletje je na primer sporočeno, da so tedaj šteli govejo živino v vasi na pluge, aratro, in je pri tem »en plug« pomenil štiri glave oziroma dva para vprežnih volov (Vilfan 1957: 66).) Plugi se sicer navajajo v inventarjih zapuščinskih popisov iz 18. stoletja, na primer na podložniških posestvih pod Mariborom v 16 inventarjih od 34 – prvikrat leta 1690 (Baš 1955: 118); ali pa v inventarju iz leta 1723 o zapuščini »celozemljana« iz vasi Selce nad Škofjo Loko, v katerem je za obdelovanje zemlje naveden 1 plug (poleg 1 brane, 6 motik, 2 rovnic ...) (Andrejka 1934: 38, 49).




47., 48. Lopatasti lemež in para tulastih koničastih lemežev iz Sebenjskega zaklada. (Iz: Pleterski 1987: 257, 260)

Spade-shaped shares and a pair of socketed, bifurcated shares from the Sebenje hoard. (From: Pleterski 1987: 257, 260)




49. V srednjem veku naj bi zaradi težkih lesenih plugov morali orati s po tremi pari volov. Iz slovenske Istre pa je še iz srede preteklega stoletja sporočeno oranje s štirimi pari volov, vendar zavoljo težke ilovnate zemlje. (Foto M. Magajna, 1948; Arhiv NŠK)

The heavy wooden ploughs of the Middle Ages seem to have required three ox teams. A record from Slovene Istria from the mid 20th century refers to ploughing with four ox teams, but this was because of the heavy clay soil. (Photo M. Magajna, 1948; NŠK archives)




50. Srednjeveška upodobitev oranja iz cikla mesečnih opravil, freskanta Janeza iz Kastva, iz leta 1490, v podružni cerkvi v Hrastovljah. (Foto M. Habič, 2006; Arhiv SEM, F)

Medieval illustration of ploughing from the Labours of the Months cycle, painted by Janez from Kastav, 1490. filial church of Hrastovlje. (Photo M. Habič, 2006; SEM archives, PL)

Za eno najstarejših znanih in edino ohranjeno srednjeveško slikarsko upodobitev naših ornih orodij velja upodobitev pluga iz cikla mesečnih opravil, ki ga je leta 1490, v podružni cerkvi v Hrastovljah nedaleč od Kopra, naslikal freskant Janez iz Kastva; in plugi, ki so bili v poglavitnem takšne oblike in konstrukcije (s kolenasto upognjenim gredljem, s kolci, a brez črtala!50), kakršni sta sporočeni z omenjene upodobitve, so bili, kot kaže, v 15. stoletju v tem delu Istre precej razširjeni.51 V Gostečah na Gorenjskem, v cerkvici sv. Andreja s freskami iz 14. in 15. stoletja, pa je morda nastala celo zgodnejša upodobitev kakega izmed naših oral. Na stenski sliki, po ikonografskem izvoru Imago pietatis52 in s pomenom Svete Nedelje, je bilo mogoče še v začetku preteklega stoletja videti plug, brano, klečeče počivajočega vola ... (Stele 1944: 411). Iz sredine in s konca 15. stoletja izvira še nekaj reliefnih upodobitev plugov,53 in sicer na sklepnikih cerkva v Mengšu, Crngrobu, Šentrupertu, Okrogu nad Šentrupertom in v Mirni na Dolenjskem (Cevc 1996, 410–411).




51. a, b, c, d, e. Reliefne upodobitve plugov na sklepnikih cerkva v Crngrobu, Mengšu, Okrogu pri Šentrupertu, Šentrupertu na Dolenjskem in Mirni na Dolenjskem. (Iz: Cevc 1996: 417–419)

Relief illustrations of ploughs on the keystones of the churches of Crngrob, Mengeš, Okrog near Šentrupert, Šentrupert and Mirna in Dolenjska. (From: Cevc 1996: 417–419)




52. Dvojni plug, merjasec, »pri Draučbaherju«, Šentjanž 46 nad Dravčami pri Vuzenici. (Foto B. Orel, 1952; Arhiv SEM, F)

Double plough, called merjasec (boar), “pri Draučbaherju”, Šentjanž 46 above Dravče near Vuzenica. (Photo B. Orel, 1952; SEM archives, PL)




53. Risan zapis o dvojnem plugu iz Orehovške grape oziroma iz Zalamovja pri Cerknem, najverjetneje iz leta 1954. Risba mikavno sporoča svojstveno izvedbo ročic: prva in tretja sta zgolj ustrezno oblikovana podaljška obeh desk. (Arhiv SEM, AR; Arhiv SEM, F)

Drawing of a double plough from Orehovška grapa, Zalamovje near Cerkno, probably 1954. The drawing illustrates the particular execution of the handles: the first and third handles are simply the suitably shaped extensions of the two mouldboards. (SEM archives, AR; SEM archives, PL)




54. a, b, c. Tri lončene figurice oračev z dvojnim plugom. Prva je iz Dolenje vasi pri Ribnici, izdelana leta 1925, drugi dve pa sta dolenjska lončarska izdelka iz 30. let preteklega stoletja. (Iz zbirk SEM)

Three earthenware figurines of ploughmen with a double plough. The first is from Dolenja vas near Ribnica, made in 1925, the other two are Dolenjska pottery products from the 1930s. (From the SEM’s collections)

Bistvene spremembe glede ornih orodij je potem prinesla šele agrarno-tehnična revolucija v drugi polovici 18. in v prvi polovici 19. stoletja. A tako uporaba rala kot pluga sta bili tudi tedaj (poleg drugega) gotovo v nemajhni odvisnosti od socialnih razmer in od zemlje, saj so še za 18. stoletje izpričana območja (v Slovenskih goricah), pobočja s težko zemljo, na katerih do polovica kmetij ni imela niti prvega niti drugega, temveč so namesto njiju uporabljali kopače ali motike. Spremembe pa so bile naslednje: – 1. V hribovitem svetu začne ralo (kakor je dognal Orel) od začetka 19. stoletja zamenjevati dvojni plug, čeprav je bil drugače slednji na severu slovenske Štajerske izpričan že v 18. stoletju (Bratanić 1952: 210; po Koren 1950). To oralo z dvema lemežema, dvema črtaloma in s (ponavadi) tremi ročicami, s katerim so – enako kakor z ralom – orali vzporedno in na ploh, na glih oziroma na ravno, je moralo veljati za zelo pomembno pridobitev. O tem na svojstven način mikavno pričajo figurice oračev z dvojnim plugom, dolenjski lončarski izdelki iz prve polovice 20. stoletja (gl. slik. pril. 54). – 2. Nekako v istem času je po ravninah povsem prevladal plug z leseno desko. Z njim so orali na kraje, na sloge, ogone (gl. slik. pril. 57), in sicer povečini tja do 2. svetovne vojne, ko se je tudi po ravninah začelo širiti oranje na ravno z uvajanjem obračalnih plugov. – 3. Sredi 19. stoletja se je v avstrijski monarhiji začela industrijska proizvodnja železnega pluga, spričo česar je to orodje, ki je oralo globlje in hkrati potrebovalo za vprego manjše število živali, postalo cenejše in tako dostopno tudi kmetom (Smerdel 1991: 35; po Grafenauer 1970). Na Dolenjskem naj bi bili železni plug na primer uvedli stiški samostanski bratje.54 A še iz leta 1940 je zapis, da imajo »žalibog mnogi naši kmetje še danes zelo slabe pluge, ne mnogo boljše, kakor so jih imeli njihovi davni predniki« (Simonič 1940: 10). Pričevanja iz nekaterih slovenskih predelov postavljajo uvajanje železnih, tako imenovanih cugmajerjevih plugov šele v 20. in 30. leta 20. stoletja in še takrat večinoma le pri najbolj premožnih kmečkih posestnikih. Na primer v ravninskih vaseh v okolici Gornje Radgone so nekateri kmetje začeli »te pluge (lesene z železno ‘glavo’ – z železnim lemežem, črtalom in desko) zamenjavati za železne« okoli leta 1922. Na Kočevskem, »v Osilnici se je železni plug pojavil po letu 1930 pri nekaterih gruntarjih«. In na Pivki si je na primer polzemljakar, posestnik ovčar z okrog tristo ovcami, kupil železni plug v obdobju med svetovnima vojnama, »1/3 zemljakar pa prva leta po drugi svetovni vojni« (Smerdel 1991: 35, 37; po Šarf 1982, Šmitek 1981, Smerdel 1984). – 4. Uveljavljanje okopavin je od 19. st. dalje postopoma prineslo nekatera nova orna orodja, okopalnike in osipalnike; kot njihovemu pridelovanju namenjena orala so se pogosto uporabljala kar stara rala (Smerdel 1991: 33, 35; Orel 1961: 37). Pojavili pa so se tudi posamezni drugi plugi: na primer rigolni plug za hmeljišča, vinograde, drevesnice in somerni podzemni plug (podrivač, podorač) za globoko rahljanje zemlje (Sketelj 2004: 433; Simonič 1940: 25). – 5. In potem se je v 60. letih preteklega stoletja zgodila (in je postopno napredovala) nova »revolucija«; mehanizacija, ki je namesto vprežne živine in starih ornih orodij na polja pripeljala stroje – traktorje z ustreznimi priključki za oranje.




55. Orjejo na kraje in kleščarijo. Dolenjsko, prva četrtina preteklega stoletja. (Foto J. Repič, okoli 1916; Arhiv SEM, F)

Conventional ploughing, keeping the furrow straight. Dolenjska, first quarter 20th century. (Photo J. Repič, around 1916; SEM archives, PL)




56. Orjejo na kraje in kleščarijo. Blečji vrh, leta 1949. (Foto M. Matičetov, 1949; Arhiv SEM, F)

Conventional ploughing, keeping the furrow straight. Blečji vrh, 1949. (Photo M. Matičetov, 1949; SEM archives, PL)

A tudi v industrijski in v informacijski dobi »brez orača in pridnega kopača ni ne kruha, ne kolača«. Tako vsaj pravi slovenski pregovor, natisnjen na papirnati vrečki za kruh nakupovalnega središča Mercator, in na tak način metaforično sporoča, da brez človeka – tistega posameznika, kmeta, ki zna poiskati najprimernejšo lego za svoje njive; najustreznejši čas za oranje, setev in žetev; in ki dobro ve, s kakšnimi orodji (orali ali motikami) mora obdelovati svojo zemljo, da mu bo najobilneje rodila – kljub strojem tudi danes ne gre. Tako je pač od nekdaj; danes, ko mladi gospodar obdeluje le najbolj dostopne njive, saj, »ko se íma traktor, se pobere sam tabúlše«, in v polpreteklem času, ko so »obdelali vsako dolínco, vsaki kvátr zémle«. Tedaj so v dialogu z naravo, z zemljo – na primer nekateri koroški gospodarji, njih hlapci ali kolarji, izboljševali stare in izumljali nove načine reguliranja oranja, da bi lahko lemeži vanjo globlje prodrli (prim. Orel 1955, 1961); in v goratih krajih so se pojavljali posamezniki, ki so neutrudno iskali načine, kako bi svoje strmine lažje in bolje obdelovali. Na primer Kondi Kos s samotne kmetije iz Marije Reke nad Preboldom, izumitelj in izdelovalec posebnega dvobrazdnega železnega pluga (le-tega skupaj z na njem sedečim oračem, »pilotom«, z jekleno vrvjo in s pomočjo škripca navkreber vleče na vrhu njive stoječ traktor z vitlom), ki je kmetom v tistih krajih dodobra olajšal delo in za petdeset odstotkov povečal pridelek.55 Pač kaže znova ponoviti misel, ki jo je pred leti tako prenikavo ubesedil klasični arheolog James Mellaart56: »Družbe ne izumljajo, porajajo ali oblikujejo ideje, temveč jih posamezniki.«




57. Risbe dveh poglavitnih različic oranja: na kraje ali na sloge, ogone, in na ploh ali na ravno. Prvo (risbi a in b), uveljavljeno zlasti v nižinah, so izvajali oziroma izvajajo z enojnim plugom, drugo (risba c), razširjeno na strmih njivah, pa z ralom in z dvojnim plugom. Pri prvem načinu »se je eno leto razmétal (a – orač zaorje prvo brazdo ob enem zunanjem robu njive, tako, da plug obrača zemljo proti sredini, drugo zaorje ob drugem robu v nasprotno smer, tretjo ob notranji strani prve, četrto ob notranji strani druge in tako do konca) in drugo skládal (b – orač napravi s plugom najprej brazdo po sredini njive, drugo ob prvi in tako naprej) – tako, da se premeša«. (Risbe F. Golob; Iz: Makarovič 1978: 29, 30)

Drawings of the two basic ploughing methods: conventional and reversible ploughing. The first method (drawings a- casting pattern and b – gathering pattern) was particularly common on flat land and carried out with a single plough ; the second method (drawing c) was common on steep fields and done with an ard and a double plough. Using the first method alternatively, one year the field was “cast” (the first furrow is ploughed at one of the edges of the field and the plough turns the soil towards the centre, the second furrow is ploughed at the other edge and in the opposite direction, the third furrow on the inside of the first furrow, the fourth furrow on the inside of the second furrow, and so on); in the second year the field was “gathered” (the first furrow is ploughed through the centre of the field, the second furrow to one side of it, the third to the other side, and so on towards the edges of the field) – “so that the soil is well mixed”. (Drawings F. Golob; From: Makarovič 1978: 29, 30)




58. a, b. Na Pivki še danes, tudi s traktorskimi plugi, orjejo kot nekdaj, na kraje. Ista njiva mora biti eno leto zorana »razvrženo« in drugo leto »zlóženo«. Pogled na »razvrženo« njivo pri vasi Selce in na »zlóženo« pred vasjo Slavina. (Foto I. Smerdel, 2008; Arhiv SEM, F)

In Pivka, ploughing is still done the conventional way, that is with the casting and gathering methods, even when tractor ploughs are used. One year the field is ploughed so that the soil is “cast” and the next year it is “gathered”. View of a “cast” field in the village of Selce and of a “gathered” field at the village of Slavina. (Photos I. Smerdel, 2008; SEM archives. PL)




59. Enovrstni industrijski vprežni okopalnik z zadaj pritrjenim osipalnikom. (Iz: Simonič 1940: 48)

Single-row industrial cultivator, animal-drawn, with a ridging tool mounted at the back. (From: Simonič 1940: 48)




60. Mercatorjeva papirnata vrečka za kruh z natisnjenim pregovorom: »Brez orača in pridnega kopača ni ne kruha, ne kolača.«

Mercator’s paper bread bag with the proverb: “There’s no bread or cake without a ploughman and a hard-working digger”.




61. a, b. Na mali kmetiji »pri Kasarnovih«, v Skadanščini 4, je gospodar Karlo Hrvatin (roj. 1926) pripovedoval, da so imeli vedno po tri pluge pri hiši. So bili: »uni za orat, uni za vén métat in uni za rázore delat (za krompir)«. S somernim »plugom za vén métat krompir« so šli konec avgusta leta 2007 na njivo pobrat svoj pridelek. (Foto D. Smerdel, 2007; Arhiv SEM, F)

On the small farm called “pri Kasarnovih” at Skadanščina 4, the farmer Karlo Hrvatin (born in 1926) told us that they always had three ploughs at hand: “one for ploughing, one for digging up, and one for tilling strips (for potatoes)”. They took out their symmetrical “plough for digging up potatoes” when they went to harvest the crop in late August 2007. (Photos D. Smerdel, 2007; SEM archives, PL)




62. Uokvirjena fotografija Konrada Kosa ob svojem plugu, iz lokalnega glasila iz leta 1996. Tedaj mu je župan Občine Žalec podelil priznanje »Inovator leta« za inovacijo »gorski plug za oranje strmih njiv«. (Foto I. Smerdel, 2007; Arhiv SEM, F)

Framed photograph of Konrad Kos beside his plough, from the local gazette, 1996. In the same year, the mayor of the municipality of Žalec awarded him the recommendation “Innovator of the Year” for his innovative “mountain plough for steep fields”. (Photo I. Smerdel, 2007; SEM archives, PL)




63. Kondijev zadnji »gorski plug« pod veliko kmetijo »pri Završnik« v Mariji Reki, kjer ga še vedno uporabljajo. (Foto I. Smerdel, 2007; Arhiv SEM, F)

Kondi’s last “mountain plough” below the large farm “pri Završnik” in Marija Reka, where it is still in use. (Photo I. Smerdel, 2007; SEM archives, PL)





PRIPOVED MUZEJSKE ZBIRKE

Ljudje puščamo v času za sabo raznovrstne sledi, nesnovne in snovne; orači, in z njimi Orel, še posebej orala. Tista, ki so bila odkupljena ali podarjena v mesecih njegovih raziskovalnih poti, tvorijo jedro današnje zbirke ornih orodij Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja. Njene zametke pomenijo modeli, ki so prišli v etnografski oddelek Kranjskega deželnega muzeja kot odmev razsvetljenstva (in zanimanja za gospodarska prizadevanja prebivalstva, temelječa na fiziokratskih načelih), in sicer model pluga s Planine pri Rakeku iz leta 1833, model dvojnega pluga iz leta 1836 in nekaj drugih (Smerdel 1996: 27; Deschmann 1888: 157). Za njimi in pred prvim Orlovim oralom, jezerskim špičmohom, je v muzejsko inventarno knjigo vpisan le »star lesen plug« iz Bele krajine, kupljen leta 1911 v Kočevju pri Črnomlju. Zadnje pridobitve v tej zbirki, iz leta 2006, pa so tri orala s primestne kmetije: lesen enojni plug s kolci, osipalnik za krompir in industrijski železen okopalnik za koruzo (Smerdel 2007: 305). Zbirko je pred tem sestavljalo 5 modelov oral (4 nesomerna orala – od teh 2 enojna in 2 dvojna pluga; 1 somerno oralo – osipalnik), 21 somernih oral (13 ral treh temeljnih tipov – med njimi 2 z rezalnico, in 8 osipalnikov, ornih orodij z različnimi delovnimi nalogami pri obdelovanju okopavin: za oranje osredkov oziroma razorov, osipanje, okopavanje, izoravanje) in 21 nesomernih oral (16 enojnih in 5 dvojnih plugov). Razstavljena je bila le enkrat, leta 1968 (Baš 1968), nekaj primerkov pa je od leta 2004 dalje na ogled na stalni razstavi Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja »Med naravo in kulturo«, v sklopu Orno obdelovanje zemlje (Sketelj 2008).

V primerjavi z nekaterimi bližnjimi sorodnimi zbirkami – na primer z izjemno kolekcijo plugov Etnografskega inštituta Moravskega muzeja v Brnu, »ki prikazuje celotni zgodovinski in oblikovni razvoj teh naprav«,57 ali pa s seštevkom zbirk plugov, ral in plužic Etnografskega muzeja v Zagrebu (25 plugov, 8 ral, 6 plužic)58 in tamkajšnjega Tehniškega muzeja (9 plugov, 16 ral, 1 plužica), v katerem hranijo in razstavljajo celo dve slovenski orali,59 ralo iz Robanovega kota in plug iz Dolnjega Logatca – ljubljanska kolekcija ni tako številna. In vendar jo je pred desetletji avstrijski etnolog Hanns Koren, preučevalec ral in plugov, označil kot »najpomembnejšo zadevno zbirko v jugovzhodni Evropi« (Smerdel 1983: 13). Morda zavoljo tega, ker se zdi, da so posamezna rala v njej takšna – z rezalnicami oziroma s črtali, s kolci in z lemežkami oziroma s habami (krili), ušesi (binae aures, tabellae, kot so jih imenovali Rimljani) –, kakor da bi bila stopila iz Plinijeve oziroma iz zgodnejše Vergilove omembe rala s kolesi ...60

Kljub mikavnosti takšnega sklepanja pa je največji pomen zbirke ornih orodij Slovenskega etnografskega muzeju v Ljubljani nedvomno v tem, da ima gostobesedne, povedne inventarne zapise oziroma da orala v njej »govorijo«; da so bila povečini zbrana kot vzporedni plod objavljene raziskave, ki jih je uspela umestiti v ustrezen življenjski okvir; in da o njih nenazadnje dodatno priča in zadevno védenje mikavno dopolnjuje določeno število terenskih risb in bogat fond fotografij.





UPORABLJENI VIRI IN SLOVSTVO

ANDREJKA (R.), 1934. Star kmečki inventar iz 18. stoletja, Etnolog, 7, 38–50.

BAŠ (A.), 1961. Hrastovski plug, Slovenski etnograf, 14, 51–57.

BAŠ (A.), 1955. Orodja na kmečkih gospodarstvih pod Mariborom v 18. stoletju, Slovenski etnograf, 8, 109–126.

BAŠ (A.), 1968. Ralo in plug, Vodnik po razstavi. Ljubljana, Slovenski etnografski muzej.

BRATANIĆ (B.), 1939. Oraće sprave u Hrvata, Oblici, nazivlje, raširenje. Zagreb, Sveučilište. (Publikacije etnološkoga seminara Sveučilišta u Zagrebu; 1)

BRATANIĆ (B.), 1952. Plug i ralo, Slovenski etnograf, 5, 208–236.

BRATANIĆ (B.), 1955. Istraživanje oraćih sprava na međunarodnoj osnovi, Slovenski etnograf, 8, 269–271.

BRATANIĆ (B.), 1953. On the Antiquity of the One-Sided Plough in Europe, Especially among the Slavic Peoples, Laos, 2 (1952), 51–61.

CIRLOT (J. E.), 1971. A Dictionary of Symbols. London, Rutledge.

ČAUSIDIS (N.), 2000. Rombični ornamenti kao sredstva transpozicije plodnosti između čoveka i prirode. V: Ajdačić, D. (ur.), Erotsko u folkloru Slovena, Zbornik radova. Beograd, Stubovi kulture, 33–52.

DESCHMANN (K.), 1888. Führer durch das Krainische Landes-Museum Rudolfinum in Laibach. Ljubljana, Deželni muzej.

DOSEDLA (H.C.), 1984. František Šach’s Contribution towards Research on Pre-Industrial Tilling Implements in Austria, Tools and Tillage, 5, št. 1, 43–57.

FORNI (G.), 1980. Recent Archaeological Finds of Tilling Tools and Fossil Ard Traces in Italy, Tools and Tillage, 4, št. 1, 60–63.

FORNI (G.), 1997. Gli aratri dell’Anaunia e del Trentino, SM Annali di San Michele, n. 9–10/1996-97, 105–128.

FORNI (G.), 1997. L’evoluzione plurimillenaria dell’aratro, Nota esplicativa del manifesto omonimo. Sant’ Angelo Lodigiano, Museo Lombardo di Storia dell’Agricoltura.

GABROVEC (S.), 1955. Prazgodovinsko-arheološko gradivo za proučevanje rala na Slovenskem, Slovenski etnograf, 8, 9–30.

GANTAR (K.), 1974. Heziod in njegov pesniški svet. V: Heziod, Teogonija, Dela in dnevi. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga, 57–105. (Knjižica Kondor; 149)

GRAFENAUER (B.), 1970. Poljedelsko orodje. V: Blaznik, P. (ur.), Grafenauer, B. (ur.) in Vilfan, S. (ur.), Gospodarska in družbena zgodovina Slovencev, 1. Ljubljana, DZS, 201–218.

GUŠTIN (M.), SMERDEL (I.), 1996. Ralo. V: Enciklopedija Slovenije, 10 (Pt-Savn), Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga, 77.

HEZIOD, 1974. Teogonija, Dela in dnevi. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga. (Knjižica Kondor; 149)

JAVORNIK, M. (ur.), 1998. Veliki splošni leksikon, Šesta knjiga (P–RŽ). Ljubljana, DZS.

JAVORNIK, M. (ur.), 1998. Veliki splošni leksikon, Osma knjiga (Te–Ž). Ljubljana, DZS.

KOREN (H.), 1950. Pflug und Arl, Ein Beitrag zur Volkskunde der Ackergeräte. Salzburg, Otto Müller Verlag. (Veröffentlichungen des Institutes für Volkskunde; Band 3)

LERCHE (G.), STEENSBERG (A.), 1980. Agricultural Tools and Field Shapes. Copenhagen, National Museum of Denmark.

LERCHE (G.), 1994. Ploughing Implements and Tillage Practices in Denmark from the Viking Period to About 1800. Herning, Poul Kristensen.

LOŽAR-PODLOGAR (H.), 2004. Orači. V: Baš, A. (ur.), Slovenski etnološki leksikon. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga, 389.

MAKAROVIČ (M.), 1978. Kmečko gospodarstvo na Slovenskem. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga.

MARBACH (A.), 2007. La représentation des outils et les instruments aratoires, Les araires tourne-oreille à l’époque gallo-romaine et le travail du sol. V: Bourrigaud, R. (ur.), Sigaut, F. (ur.), Nous labourons, Actes du colloque Techniques de travail de la terre, hier et aujourd‘hiu, ici et là-bas. Nantes, Centre d‘histoire du travail, 51–60.

NOVAK (V.), 1986. Raziskovalci slovenskega življenja. Ljubljana, Cankarjeva založba.

OREL (B.), 1955. Ralo na Slovenskem, Slovenski etnograf, 8, 31–68.

OREL (B.), 1961. Ralo na Slovenskem, Slovenski etnograf, 14, Ljubljana, 15–40.

PLETERSKI (A.), 1987. Sebenjski zaklad, Arheološki vestnik, 38, 237–330.

RAMŠAK (M.), SLAVEC GRADIŠNIK (I.), 2004. Orel, Boris. V: Baš, A. (ur.), Slovenski etnološki leksikon. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga, 390–391.

SIGAUT (F.), 2005. Labourer, pour quoi faire ? Les functions des instruments aratoires dans les agricultures d’autrefois (le dossier préparatoire au colloque ‘Labours’ / izhodiščno besedilo za kolokvij ‘Oranja’).

SIMONIČ (P.), 1940. O obdelovanju njivske zemlje. Ljubljana. (Knjižnica kmečke mladine; 3)

SKETELJ (P.), 2004. Plug, Podzemni plug. V: Baš, A. (ur.), Slovenski etnološki leksikon. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga, 428, 433.

SKETELJ (P.), 2004. Požigalništvo. V: Baš, A. (ur.), Slovenski etnološki leksikon. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga, 458.

SKETELJ (P.), 2008. Agrarne gospodarske dejavnosti. V: Židov, N. (ur.), Med naravo in kulturo, Vodnik po stalni razstavi Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja. Ljubljana, Slovenski etnografski muzej.

SLAVEC GRADIŠNIK (I.), 2000. Etnologija na Slovenskem, Med čermi narodopisja in antropologije. Ljubljana, ZRC SAZU.

SMERDEL (I.), 1983. Ljudsko gospodarstvo, Slovenski etnograf, 32 (1980–1982), 1–26.

SMERDEL (I.), 1984. Soseska vasi Selce, Traditiones, 10–12 (1981–1983), 5–34.

SMERDEL (I.), 1991. Prelomna in druga bistvena gospodarska dogajanja v zgodovini agrarnih panog v 19. stoletju na Slovenskem, Slovenski etnograf, 33–34 (1988–1990), 25–60.

SMERDEL (I.), 1996. Projekt, imenovan Slovenski etnografski muzej, Etnolog, 6 (57), 17–39.

SMERDEL (I.), 2004. Ralo. V: Baš, A. (ur.), Slovenski etnološki leksikon. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga, 488.

SMERDEL (I.), 2007. Zbirka »Sirnikove punce«, Opredmetena zgodba o gospodarjenju na primestni kmetiji, Etnolog, 17 (68), 303–307.

STEENSBERG (A.), 1986. Man the Manipulator, An Ethno-Archaeological Basis for Reconstructing the Past. Copenhagen, The National Museum of Denmark.

STELE (F.), 1944. Ikonografski kompleks slike ‘Svete Nedelje’ v Crngrobu. Ljubljana, SAZU, 399–438. (Razprave; Knjiga 2, št. 16)

ŠARF (F.), 1982. Občina Gornja Radgona. Etnološka topografija slovenskega etničnega ozemlja - 20. stoletje. Ljubljana, Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete.

ŠMITEK (Z.), 1981. Občina Kočevje. Etnološka topografija slovenskega etničnega ozemlja - 20. stoletje. Ljubljana, Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete.

VILFAN (S.), 1957. K obdelavi polja v Slovenski Istri, Slovenski etnograf, 10, 61–70.



Uporabljene kratice:

Arhiv ISN – Arhiv Inštituta za slovensko narodopisje (ZRC SAZU – Znanstveno raziskovalnega centra Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti)

Arhiv NŠK – Arhiv Narodne in študijske knjižnice v Trstu

Arhiv SEM – Arhiv Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja

AR – arhiv razno

F – fototeka

TR – terenske risbe





1 Oralo (kot falos, ki je simbol večnega obnavljanja življenja) velja za simbol oploditve. V neki arijski legendi na primer Rama oženi Sito (brazdo); in ker je zemlja ženski princip v naravi, je oranje simbol združitve moškega in ženskega principa (Cirlot 1971: 253, 260). Prim. na primer tudi nekatere interpretacije v zborniku Erotsko u folkloru Slovena (Čausidis 2000: 38–40).

2 Heziodovi pesnitvi Teogonija in Dela in dnevi sta leta 1974, v Knjižici Kondor (149), izšli z razpravo Kajetana Gantarja Heziod in njegov pesniški svet; v nji je Heziod datiran okrog leta 700 pr. n. št.

3 Heziod naj bi bil pri ti svoji pesnitvi črpal iz rapsodske dediščine, iz bogate zakladnice ljudskih pregovorov, ob tem pa ostaja odprto vprašanje, »koliko dolguje pesnik splošni ljudski modrosti, koliko pa zajema iz lastnih življenjskih izkušenj«. Heziod kot začetnik poučnega pesništva je bil doma v Bojotiji, kamor se je bil priselil njegov oče, potem ko je zamenjal »poklic pomorščaka za trdo kmečko delo« (Gantar 1974: 57–60).

4 Quercus petraea, hrast z dolgopecljatimi listi.

5 Glede na védenje, od katerega časa dalje je šele mogoče govoriti o plugu poleg rala, bi bila v prevodu namesto imena plug ustreznejša raba imena oralo, v nevtralnejšem pomenu ornega orodja. Na primer: »Dvoje oral si naredi, /... / ralo preprosto in táko sestavljeno ...«

6 Boris Orel (1903–1912), slovenski Korošec, se je rodil v Brnici (Fürnitz) na avstrijskem Koroškem. Njegov priimek ni neobhodno ptičjega izvora; mikavno je premišljati o možnosti, da je tega pionirja etnološkega raziskovanja ornih orodij na Slovenskem, še posebej rala, označeval tudi temu ustrezen priimek ... Čeprav sam sklepa, da ime orl za ralo v okolici Možberga (Gure nad Vrbskim jezerom) izvira iz nemškega arl. V spodnjem delu Ziljske doline pa so orl ali óru imenovali orodje z enim kolesom za zasipanje, ráuo (ralo) pa za druga dela (Orel 1961: 29, 32).

7 To mikavno ljudsko prispodobo za kitenje s tujim perjem mi je – kot zrno k pogači mojega raziskovanja razmerij med človekom in delovnimi voli – pritresel med nekim najinim kramljanjem nestor slovenskih slovstvenih folkloristov Milko Matičetov.

8 V tem pogledu se pridružujem arheologu Andreju Pleterskemu (Pleterski 1987: 264). V Slovarju slovenskega knjižnega jezika (Tretja knjiga, Ljubljana 1979, 427) je sicer zapisano: oralo – star. plug.

9 Oba prva navedena sta bila na primer med tistimi kolegi iz sosednjih dežel, ki so se leta 1956 zbrali v Ljubljani na prvem srečanju »svobodne delovne skupnosti« etnologov in folkloristov Alpes Orientales (Smerdel 2003: 150).

10 Matičetov se je Orlu pridružil pri nujni obnovi delovanja Etnografskega muzeja. Jeseni leta 1945 sta skupaj »zaorala«, leta 1952 pa je Matičetov že prešel na Inštitut za slovensko narodopisje pri Slovenski akademiji znanosti in umetnosti (Smerdel 2003: 143–144). Posnetek najinega pogovora o Orlu in njegovih vzgibih oziroma začetkih raziskovanja oral (9. junija 2006, kaseta M. M. št. 1, inv. št. A 06/20) ter njegovo transkripcijo hrani Oddelek za dokumentacijo Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja v Ljubljani.

11 Šarfova je bila v muzeju zaposlena od leta 1949 dalje (do 1980). Posnetek najinega pogovora o Orlu in o njegovem delu na področju oral (20. in 28. junija 2006, kaseta F. Š. št. 1, inv. št. A 06/19) ter njegovo transkripcijo hrani Oddelek za dokumentacijo Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja v Ljubljani.

12 V svoje poročilo »Etnografsko delo na terenu« v drugem letniku Slovenskega etnografa je Orel zapisal: »V skupini za materialno kulturo je stalno delalo 7 članov. To je bila po številu naša največja skupina v ekipi, kar pa je glede na njen delokrog povsem razumljivo.« (Orel 1949; nav. po Smerdel 1983: 3).

13 Morebitna avtorska pojasnila, dopolnila ali pripombe v okviru navedenih citatov so v pričujočem besedilu zapisana v oklepajih, v drugačni velikosti črk, kot so v citatu.

14 Arhiv SEM, Akti Etnografskega muzeja 1949.

15 Arhiv SEM, inv. št. 6/33, Orlov dnevnik 1949/52.

16 Na primer iz Pleterij, 10. februarja 1953, mu Marija Novak, poleg pojasnil v zvezi z organizacijo njegovega predavanja, napiše: »O oranju Vam zaenkrat ne morem še nič sporočiti, ker počiva zemlja še pod snegom in nas mraz priganja, da se stiskamo k toplim pečem.« Arhiv SEM, Akti Etnografskega muzeja 1953.

17 Arhiv SEM, Akti Etnografskega muzeja 1953.

18 V muzejskem delovnem načrtu za leto 1951 o raziskovanju oral še ni nikakršnega sledu (Arhiv SEM, Akti Etnografskega muzeja 1951). Prvo omembo je mogoče prebrati v Poročilu o delu 1952: »Tako je tov. Orel nadaljeval z zbiranjem gradiva o starem jezerskem oralu, ki naj bi bil po ustnem izročilu razširjen celo na Kranjskem polju.« In potem v delovnem načrtu 1953: »II. Znanstveno delo, 3. Razna potovanja v zvezi z nakupi predmetov in etnografskim študijem, a) Koroška – Jezersko – Kokra – okolica Kranja (oralo)« (Arhiv SEM, Akti Etnografskega muzeja 1953).

19 Arhiv SEM, Akti Etnografskega muzeja 1953.

20 Tudi v tem pogledu je moralo imeti strokovno druženje z Gavazzijem in Bratanićem močan vpliv; prvi namreč velja za utemeljitelja etnološke kartografije v hrvaški etnologiji, drugi pa za strokovnjaka, ki jo je nadalje razvil ter organiziral zadevno delo v tedanjem jugoslovanskem in tudi v evropskem okviru (Belaj 1998: 354). V Orlovem dnevniku za leto 1960 je iz 25. novembra zapis: »Potovanje v Zagreb (Etnološki atlas Jugoslavije«; in iz začetka dnevnika za leto 1961: »Delo za etnološki atlas (centrala za Slovenijo v Etnografskem muzeju)«. (Arhiv SEM, Orlov delovni dnevnik od avgusta 1953 do oktobra 1961.)

21 Snovne ostanke pojmuje kot pisanim enakovredne primarne vire, čeprav ne »govorijo« naravnost. Koda za njihovo razumevanje je preučevanje sledi rabe, interpretirano s poizkusi (z metodo eksperimenta). »Na ta način nas snovni ostanki seznanijo z nesnovnimi procesi v preteklem kmečkem življenju, z dejanskim potekom oranja.« (Lerche 1994: 269)

22 Oranju Angleži pravijo ploughing in orač je ploughman (oralo plug je v ang. plough); francoski orač je laboureur in oranje labour (čeprav je franc, beseda za plug charrue). V angleščini pa na primer beseda labour pomeni delo, še posebej težko fizično delo ...

23 Pričevalen primer takšnega Orlovega razčlenjevanja je nedvomno njegova »Dispozicija« za razstavo – najverjetneje za stalno postavitev leta 1947? –, v kateri je na treh mestih zelo jasno zapisana in celo uokvirjena beseda »človek«: v zvezi z »razstavni etn. vidiki«, pod c, »poglobljeno: funkcije predmetov« (Arhiv ISN, Orlov fond; gl. pril. 6).

24 Matičetov je ob tem razkril dogodek, zavoljo katerega je Orel opustil nadaljnje raziskave med Slovenci v Avstriji. »On je mislil, da je kot pred vojsko – in so ga nekje žandarji avstrijski (na ovadbo verjetno) – in so ga priprli; nekam na ena zaslišanja – in potem naj dela, če ima kakšno dovoljenje ali priporočilo. On je bil nepreviden, da si ni tam v štajerskem muzeju (direktor je bil Hans Koren in Kretzenbacher je bil asistent) – on bi gladko dobil, mimogrede bi mu dali listek. So telefonirali (on je povedal, s kom je povezan) in pol je rešil situacijo Kretzenbacher, da so ga izpustili. In po ti izkušnji ni več šel na ono stran ...«

25 Ob tem je razkrila še Orlovo strategijo ob odhajanju v Skandinavijo na vsake štiri leta, na mednarodne kongrese o muzejih na prostem, o katerem ji je rekel, »da bo tam imel strokovnjake na kupu in se bo lahko posvetoval«.

26 Ob odkritju dreucla, rala brez plaza, je bilo Orlovo obnašanje nepozabno: »In ko sem jaz enkrat šla za ralo v Kranjsko goro pa v Podkoren, sem prinesla nazaj tiste fotografije. Ko je bilo razvito in sem pokazala – tole sem našla, tole sem fotografirala – je on ponorel. To je on gledal – tisto fotografijo, kavelj – in se čudil in vzdihoval: ‘To moram pa pokazat, to moram pa pokazat.’ In je letel v Narodni muzej in je Kastelicu v trenutku nesel pokazat. Pa niso orali s tistim – so samo osipali; ampak forma, to. Skoraj, da je prazgodovina; čist je bil iz sebe. Da bo pa Orel skakal ob tem od veselja, mi pa še na misel ni prišlo ... Čez dva al pa tri dni je Orel šel s temi fotografijami naravnost v Zagreb k Brataniću.«

27 Navedeni prilogi, Orlovemu popisu poti po nekaterih koroških vaseh v Avstriji, ki ga hranijo v Arhivu ISN, ustreza njegovo Poročilo o službenem potovanju v Avstrijo od 6.–25. oktobra 1960 iz Arhiva SEM, AR 134 – Poročila. To poročilo mikavno sporoča tudi Orlov način potovanja po tamkajšnjem terenu: »/.../ v Avstrijo, kamor je odpotoval do Podkorena z vlakom, nato pa s kolesom preko Korenskega sedla v Avstrijo ...«

28 Pismo avstrijskega kolega dr. Oskarja Moserja iz Celovca z dne 23. novembra 1954 in koroškega kolega dr. Pavla Zablatnika z dne 10. marca 1957 (Arhiv ISN, Orlov fond). K Zablatnikovemu pismu je bila priložena še risba (gl. pril. 16), o kateri piše Orlu: »Župnik Kuchler je nazive, ki jih je navedel Kopajnik, vpisal s svinčnikom v Vašo risbo. .../ Skico kolc je napravil župnik Kuchler in pripisal pravtako podatke Kopajnika-Šustarja /.../ Z zgoraj navedenimi nazivi opremljeno risbo Vam vračam ...«

29 Arhiv ISN, Orlov fond.

30 Poleg Orla in avtoric oziroma avtorjev v obeh tematskih letnikih Slovenskega etnografa, v 8. in 14., je v 10. letniku te znanstvene publikacije objavil nekaj dognanj o ornih orodjih in oranju v slovenski Istri tudi Sergij Vilfan. V poznejših besedilih, ki so se tematsko posvečala oralom (ali so morda slednja le vključevala), so pisci povečini le še povzemali Orla in tu in tam druge avtorje iz obeh navedenih letnikov (na primer: Baš 1968; Makarovič 1978, kjer je bilo v izvajanjih v določeni meri upoštevano tudi gradivo Terenskih ekip Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja; med zgodovinarji Grafenauer 1970; med arheologi Pleterski 1987).

31 Ta del poročila od strani 48 do 50 sklene zadevno pregledno poglavje Kratek pregled konstrukcijskih in drugih značilnosti opisanih ral.

32 Le-ta je dal vsa v pregled dialektologu dr. Tinetu Logarju (Orel 1955: 31).

33 F. Šach jo je objavil leta 1968, pod naslovom Proposal for the Classification of Pre-Industrial Tilling Implements, v Tools and Tillage, 1/1, 3–27. Svojo klasifikacijo je temeljil tako na konstrukcijski tipologiji kot na funkcionalnih vidikih.

34 Številni sorodni železni ralniki oziroma lemeži z ožjima pravokotnima odprtinama za levo ali desno vtikanje prestavljive rezalnice so bili najdeni na vzhodu ozemlja nekdanje rimske province Galije, »belgijske Galije«, in glede na datacijo pričajo o tamkajšnji rabi ral s prestavljivo rezalnico (in tudi prestavljivo, vrtljivo lemežnico oziroma manjšo desko, tourne-oreille) vsaj od 2. st. n. št. dalje. Njihov raziskovalec André Marbach je mlajšo potrditev takšne rabe našel v sorodnem primerku rala iz Anosta (Saône-et-Loire), s katerim so orali še v začetku 20. st. (Marbach 2007: 56–57).

35 Pri takšnem oranju gre nedvomno za nesomerno rabo drugače somernega orala (prim. Steensberg 1986: 138–139).

36 Glede tega je na primer Šarfova na podlagi poznejših pogledov menila, da je tedaj Orel morda malce premalo upošteval vzročni vidik pri razvoju ornih orodij: »Zakaj se je plug razvijal? Zato, da je kmet čimveč zemlje obdelal na čim lažji način. S tem pa je kmet nekaj pridobil – zase, ali pa za prodajo. To, koliko si je s tem opomogel – materialno, življenjsko – spremenil način življenja; tega pa nismo še upoštevali. Ampak to je bil končni cilj – kaj je pridobil z novim orodjem.«

37 Grith Lerche je o železnih delih oral sklepala, da je vzrok za njihovo prisotnost med zakladnimi najdbami v številnih zgodnje- in poznosrednjeveških arheoloških najdiščih logičen. Njihova teža v železu je pomenila vreden zaklad, tako kot ingoti ali novci. V zakladnih najdbah so tako predmeti, ki so bili za tedanjega kmeta najpomembnejši, najvrednejši – železni predmeti, vrednoteni kot kapital v železu, a obenem orodja, ki so mu omogočala obdelovanje zemlje in s tem preživetje; tudi plačilo dajatev, o čemer mikavno priča upodobitev v nemškem Sachsenspiegelu iz 13. stoletja (Lerche 1994: 220–221).

38 Sergij Vilfan je sicer zapisal (Vilfan 1957: 64), da: »Pravijo, da je včasih šel mož v gozd s sekiro in se vrnil z vozom.« A nadaljuje: »Voz je bil torej v celoti preprosto domače delo brez železnih delov. Skoraj v celoti velja to tudi o plugu ...«

39 Primer, ki v Sloveniji potrjuje takšno spoznanje, je nedavno odkritje požigalništva v Mariji Reki nad Preboldom, kjer so ga izvajali tja do zadnje četrtine preteklega stoletja. (Terenski zapiski in posnetki Inje Smerdel, kaseta Kondi Kos, inv. št. A 07/13.)

40 Omenjene sledi so našli v plasti takoj pod površjem, v najdišču zgodnje »Kulture lijakastih posod« (Funnel Beaker Culture).

41 Imenuje ga plaumaratrum in ne aratrum, kar po Forniju izhaja iz besede plaustrum – carro, voz oziroma vozni podstavek (Steensberg 1986: 144; po Forni 1977).

42 Le-te rimska pisca slovstva o poljedelstvu, Plinij in Varro, omenjata kot »ušesa« – kot tabellae ali binae aures – , ki so praktičen dodatek ralu pri pokrivanju semen ali pri oranju širših brazd (Lerche 1994: 229).

43 Branimir Bratanić (1952: 58) je svoja zadevna izvajanja temeljil na imenih posameznih sestavnih delov pluga, skupnih vsem slovanskim narodom, a tej njegovi sodbi je nasprotovalo preveč dejstev, da bi jo bilo mogoče sprejeti (Baš 1968: 1; Grafenauer 1970: 212).

44 V današnji vzhodni Nemčiji (Micsanau v okrožju Eisenhüttenstadt) in na Poljskem (Kamien Pomorski) izkopani slovanski rali, prvo iz 8. ali 9. in drugo iz 11. stoletja (podatek iz gradiva Gorazda Makaroviča za uvodni film Podobe preteklega vsakdana; po: Bielfeldt, H. H., Herrmann, J., Die Slawen in Deutschland. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1985 in Dowiat, J., Kultura Polski średniowiecznej. Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, Warszawa 1985), sta prepoznavna primerka preprostega rala s horizontalnim plazom tipa Tryptolemos – enega od obeh temeljnih tipov ral (kakršno je tudi tisto iz Lavagnoneja, iz začetka 2. tisočletja pr. n. št.).

45 V Orlovem gradivu o ralu (v Arhivu ISN) je tudi naslednji zapis iz Rut pri Podgorju v Rožu: »Uorkəlca – lopatka za puh pucat, za rauo ne uporabljajo oz. niso uporabljali te lopatke, ker ni bilo potrebno,« vsaj v peščeni zemlji ne. Iz Tuc oziroma Tuč v občini Radiše pa je sporočeno, da »oralo očistijo kar z rezalom, ki ga snamejo oz. so ga sneli z gredlja v ta namen. Posebne lopatke ni bilo.«.

46 V tem pogledu sta poučni poglavji o keltskih, zgodnje- in poznolatenskih tulastih koničastih lemežih in o sohah v delu Magdalene Beranove Zemědělství starých Slovanů (Beranová 1980: 73-75, 262-268, pril. XIV in XXII).

47 O polpretekli rabi sohe v krajih na meji med Finsko in tedanjo Sovjetsko zvezo priča fotografija iz dela članka Kustaa Vilkuna, Die Pflüggeräte Finlands, Studia Fennica, vol. 16 (1971). Iz: Steensberg 1986: 137.

48 S polpreteklih lazov (novin, požárov, vélen) so kot orodja za pripravo zemlje za setev ali saditev sporočene le kopače ali motike (Sketelj 2004: 458), saj se je poznejše požigalništvo prakticiralo le na strmih gozdnih pobočjih v hribovskih območjih (na Ratitovcu, ob gornji Meži, Mislinji, Paki ...). Pleterski pa svoje izvajanje o rabi sohe sklene: »/.../, da je bila uporabna predvsem na novoizkrčenih zemljiščih v gozdu. Ko so se ta spremenila v stare obdelovalne površine, so jih začeli orati z drugačnimi orali /.../ Ko so prenehali krčiti gozdove, so polagoma opuščali uporabo sohe.«

49 Tu naj bo zgolj v premislek pripomba, da trije pari volov morda niso bili nujno potrebni zavoljo teže lesenega pluga, temveč je tolikšnemu številu vprežne živine lahko botrovala kakovost zemlje. Iz krajev s težko ilovnato zemljo v slovenski Istri je namreč še s konca 40. let preteklega stoletja sporočeno jesensko oranje, pri katerem so morali vpreči celo po štiri pare volov (gl. fotografijo št. 49).

50 Vilfan o teh plugih pravi naslednje: »Glavna posebnost plugov na nekdanjem socerbskem ozemlju je v tem, da pogosto nimajo črtala. Brez črtala so bili stari plugi v Podgorju, Nasircu, Mihelah in v hrvatskih Jelovicah. /.../ V Prešnici so imeli črtalo le za težko zemljo. V splošnem utemeljujejo razlike glede črtala s tem, da ga v lahki zemlji ni treba ...« (Vilfan 1957: 64). Na bližnjem hrvaškem ozemlju na primer poleg rala (brez črtala in kolc!) in pluga razločujeo še plužico (ali vrganj); oralo z nesomernim lemežem in desko, a brez črtala, vendar tudi brez kolc. In na podlagi tega je Baš pri hrastovskem plugu nadaljeval z izvajanjem, da je bil »v Kastavščini za plužico v navadi naziv drivo« in da je »na otoku Krku, torej Istri bližnjem območju, sporočena iz obdobja med obema vojskama plužica, ki lahko mimo lemeža in kozla velja po svoji konstrukciji in obliki za sorodno hrastovskemu plugu« (Baš 1961: 56).

51 V poznosrednjeveškem stenskem slikarstvu na Slovenskem se po sredi 15. stoletja pojavi znatnejši val realizma, ki ga opredeljuje težnja po čim večji poljudnosti; po pripovednih prvinah, ki naj »določena temata kar najbolj umljivo predstavijo«. Poučno-poljudni namen takih upodobitev je neogibno terjal, da so bile le-te gledalcem umljive, kar je bilo mogoče doseči le z rabo takšnih predlog iz vsakdanjega življenja in narave, »ki so bile območjem, za katera so se uporabljale, kar najbolj sorodne« (Baš 1961: 51–53).

52 Nekako od konca 14. stoletja dalje se je v poljudni umetnosti – ob »versko službeni« obliki Imaginis pietatis kot pobožnemu češčenju namenjeni podobi – bolj uveljavljala druga oblika, izhajajoča predvsem iz misli, da Jezusu vedno znova lahko obnavljamo njegovo muko. V ta namen so zgodovinskim podobam mučiteljev in orodij (arma Christi) dodajali orodja vsakdanjih opravil ... »Gre za podobe orodij vsakdanjih opravil, s katerimi človek lahko dnevno obnavlja Gospodovo trpljenje in ž njim množi zgodovinska orodja njegovega trpljenja, tembolj pa ga žali, če ta orodja porablja ob nedeljah in zapovedanih praznikih.« (Stele 1944: 406, 410)

53 Ti plugi naj ne bi bili zgolj svojstveni »kmečki emblemi« v posameznih podeželskih cerkvah, prepoznavni oziroma domači v svojem lokalnem okolju, temveč zlasti likovne metafore, nosilci skrivne govorice s teološko vsebino (biblijski prerokbi Izaije in Miheja o prekovanju orožja v lemeže oziroma pluge, metaforično poglobljeni v alegorični razlagi sv. Ireneja o plugu kot simbolu Kristusovega bistva in poslanstva, ki naj preorje in očisti zemljo). (Več o tem v Cevc 1996: 410, 412–413.)

54 Tako je v predgovora v delo Jožeta Mlinariča, Stiška opatija 1136–1784 (Dolenjska založba, Novo mesto 1995), na strani IX zapisal pater Anton Nadrah.

55 Konrad Kos (rojen leta 1934) iz Marije Reke 25, se je sredi 60. let preteklega stoletja zaposlil v rudniku v Trbovljah kot ključavničar. O svojem plugu je začel premišljati, da bi si ob zaposlitvi olajšal domače kmečko delo. Izdelal ga je sam, brez načrta, s preizkušanjem in izboljševanjem prototipa. Z dvema lemežema in dvema deskama je potem lahko naenkrat zoral dve brazdi, vsako široko po 40 centimetrov. Njegov plug je omogočal globino oranja do 35 centimetrov, kar je bilo tako potrebno za krompir in koruzo, a s starimi orali nedosegljivo. Z ženo sta potem od konca 60. let (ko ga je izdelal) plug v času oranja posojala vsem sosedom in celo na kmetije tja do Trojan (TZ I. Smerdel, Arhiv SEM, transkripcija kasete inv. št. A07/13).

56 V njegovi knjigi The Neolithic of the Near East (1975); po Steensberg 1986: 129.

57 Pri ustanovitvi Moravskega muzeja leta 1817 so sodelovali možje kot na primer Christian Karl Andre, moravski ekonomist, razsvetljenec, strokovnjak za področje poljedelstva in tajnik Moravsko-šlezijske družbe za razvoj kmetijstva. »Temelj zbirke, ki predstavlja gospodarske dejavnosti (5800 predmetov), je edinstvena zbirka plugov ...« (Iz: Hána Dvořaková, Etnografski inštitut Moravskega muzeja Brno, v katalogu razstave Evropski etnografski muzeji v SEM, Slovenski etnografski muzej, Ljubljana 2004: 16–19.)

58 Za informacijo se zahvaljujem kolegu mag. Ivici Šestanu iz Etnografskega muzeja v Zagrebu.

59 Za informacijo se zahvaljujem ravnateljici muzeja dipl. ing. Božici Škulj. Njihov muzejski oddelek »Odjel osnove poljodelstva« je nastal v sodelovanju s profesorjem dr. Branimirjem Bratanićem leta 1981. Zbirko »poljoprivredne tehnike«, s katero so pridobili tudi obe slovenski orali, pa jim je leta 1963 podarila tedanja Narodna tehnika Jugoslavije. Po Bratanićevih besedah naj bi bila ta zbirka nastala na podlagi njegovega raziskovanja in zbiranja.

60 Prim. Bratanić 1952: 53.





ON PLOUGHING IMPLEMENTS, PLOUGHING, AND BORIS OREL

A view of the ethnological research on ploughing implements and related work processes in Slovenia, their place in the European framework, and a presentation of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum’s collection of ploughing implements





A FEW INTRODUCTORY WORDS

Soil: light, crumbly, sandy, willing; or hard, fat, clayey, and unyielding. The plough penetrates it, prepares it for the seed and life springs from the seed; food springs from it – survival for man. A birth that leads to another birth. The plough as the phallus and the furrow as the vulva or uterus?1 Symbolising the power of reproduction and the call for fertility, the basis of many rituals. These include Shrovetide ploughing for a good harvest, well-known in all Slovene provinces (Ložar-Podlogar 2004: 389); or the ploughing customs at the beginning of a new Chinese emperor’s rule (Cirlot 1971: 260); or, in Antiquity, the furrow ploughed to mark the course of the walls of an emerging town (Forni 1997: 7) – including those of Rome.

A ploughed field is like a womb in which life begins. Millennia of history are compacted in the soil and plough; the two tell us about the universal and the sacred, beads of sweat, and poetry. Hesiod, Homer’s rival among the bards of Antiquity, in his Theogony celebrates the love union of the Greek goddess of fertility Demeter and Iasión on thrice-ploughed fallow land in fertile Crete (Hesiod 1974: 30 (945–984));2 their union gives birth to a son, Pluto, the god of wealth (in the sense of grain stocks kept underground; Javornik 1998: 3259). According to Antique Mediterranean myths Demeter gave her human pupil and companion Triptolemos one of the two basic types of ards, and professional literature still refers to it as the Triptolemos ard (Lerche 1994: 11; Dosedla 1984: 51); Triptolemos himself is considered to be the archetypal farmer (Javornik 1998: 4467). And an archaic farmer – most probably a peasant from his domestic province of Boeotia (from around the turn of the 7th century BC), inspired Hesiod to write in a superbly down-to-earth3 way on ploughs, harnessing cattle, soil, and labour in his second, instructive poem, Works and Days (Hesiod 1974: 44-45 (414–453, 454–471)):

“/... Hew also many bent timbers, and bring home a plough-tree when you have found it, and look out on the mountain or in the field for one of holm-oak4; for this is the strongest for oxen to plough with when one of Athena’s handmen has fixed in the share-beam and fastened it to the pole with dowels. /Get two ploughs ready and work on them at home, one all of a piece, and the other jointed. It is far better to do this, for if you should break one of them, you can put the oxen to the other. Poles of laurel or elm are most free from worms, and a share-beam of oak and a plough-tree of holm-oak. Get two oxen, bulls of nine years; for their strength is unspent, / They will not fight in the furrow and break the plough and then leave the work undone. / Let a brisk fellow of forty years follow them, / one who will attend to his work and drive a straight furrow [...]/ So soon as the time for ploughing is proclaimed to men, then make haste, you and your slaves alike, in wet and in dry, to plough in the season for ploughing, [...]/ Sow fallow land when the soil is still getting light: fallow land is a defender from harm and a so-other of children. / Pray to Zeus of the Earth and to pure Demeter [...] when first you begin ploughing, when you hold in your hand the end of the plough-tail and bring down your stick on the backs of the oxen as they draw on the pole-bar by the yoke-straps. Let a slave follow a little behind with a mattock and make trouble for the birds by hiding the seed.”5

Ards and ploughs are material witnesses to life’s integrity, implements from ancient times reproducing life year after year; implements which were unquestionably instrumental to the development of civilisation, and which are at the core of the word “culture”. It is hardly surprising, then, that they have become the subject of so many researchers and of so many studies. They were called the Herzstück (heart) of Europe’s farming culture by Hanns Koren, the author of one of these relevant studies (Bratanić 1952: 208). Nevertheless, and in spite of the fact that the studies concentrate on such a basic, and in terms of meaning such a rich cultural element, most of them are frequently characterised by “narrow views, characteristic (over-)precision, and repetition” (Sigaut 2005: 8): they focus on forms, dimensions, the names of parts, the geographical spread of individual ploughing implements, and the search for their origin. Studies on ploughing implements proliferated in particular in the decades around the mid-20th century to later largely dry up; the theoretical changes in ethnology brought to the forefront other and different research themes and approaches. But if we consider one of the more recent definitions of ethnology (Slavec Gradišnik 1995: 130) – that it exposes the relations between “man as the bearer of culture” and “his cultural and natural environment as shown by in everyday routines”, it would not be wise to today neglect research of pre-industrial ploughing implements, embedded in the totality of the daily life of the farming population and its connectedness with nature.

Individual works on ploughing implements should perhaps be read in a different way: that is, to try and analyse them from a modern research perspective and to give proper weight to their forgotten, geographically limited findings by placing them in a wider framework. Boris Orel’s contribution to our knowledge of ploughing implements certainly seems to be one such text.

Considering the scarcity of previous historical or agricultural history studies (cf. Grafenauer 1970: 208) Orel6 “tilled fallow land” in his research of ploughing implements in Slovenia. In Slovene ethnology he indeed “ploughed ley”. When I started analysing his related work, studying his motives and reading relevant comparative literature from other European countries – most of the time researching already researched themes – I started to feel like the fly7 which, sitting on the horns of a ploughing ox, when asked by a passing fellow fly what it was doing, answered: “We are ploughing!”

This view of the ethnological studies and findings on ploughing implements thus starts with Boris Orel: the origins of his research and motives, positioning them in contemporary and past professional activities in this field elsewhere in Europe, Orel’s and other individual methodological approaches to the research of ploughing implements, and the significance of his findings. This is then followed by a brief journey through the history of ploughing implements, complemented by Orel’s findings and evidence from other individual sources, and confronted with similar European studies of a more recent date. The treatise ends with a view on the expressiveness of the collection of ploughing implements held by the Slovene Ethnographic Museum; the latter is certainly a fruit of Orel’s research that is highly worthy of consideration.





OREL’S MOTIVES AND THE BEGINNINGS OF HIS RESEARCH INTO PLOUGHING IMPLEMENTS

In spite of attempts at accurate differentiation, it has become increasingly accepted that a clear-cut division between ards and ploughs, based on their form or the form of their shares, is impossible. “The implements are different because they perform different tasks” is a more recent view on ploughing implements (Sigaut 2005: 2). In one branch of ethnological literature the distinction between ard and plough is mostly limited to the share, which is symmetrical and double-edged in the ard, and asymmetrical and single-edged in the plough (Pleterski 1987: 264; after Koren 1950: 14). Following appropriate criticism of such simplified distinctions, differentiation was extended to the entire form of the two ploughing implements: “As a whole, the plough is an asymmetrical implement it has a one-sided board which turns the soil to one side only – unlike the ard which is constructed with full symmetry (either without a mouldboard or with two mould-strokers or similar accessories, attached symmetrically to both sides of the implement).” (Bratanić 1952: 209) Attempts at differentiation based on the implement’s form were joined in Slovene ethnology by a modern enough division based on the operation of the two implements: the ard and its symmetrical share cuts, crushes and airs the soil, but it does not displace nor turn over the soil; the plough and its asymmetrical share and coulter cuts the soils, turning and crushing it with the mouldboard (Smerdel 2004: 488, Sketelj 2004: 428; after Grafenauer 1970: 204). But even such differentiation is too general and not always appropriate, as some ards indeed turn over the soil with their shares (cf. Orel 1955: 53); and in some places they were used for asymmetrical ploughing (cf. Lerche 1994: 11-12). For general use and for all cases where there is any doubt whether an ard or a plough is being referred to, it seems better to avoid a confusion of terms by using the term “ploughing implement(s)”8; it is applied in this sense in this text, beginning with its title.

A rich variety of ploughing implements, ”the soil-cutting ard and the soil-turning plough”, has occupied a central place among tillage tools since ancient times; in the Bronze Age their images were cut into rock walls, and they are depicted in different forms in Roman mosaics, medieval frescoes, and illuminated manuscripts. Until recently, this variety of ploughing implements was an almost inexhaustible research field, in particular to ethnologists and linguists of the “historical school” who in their studies of ploughing implements sought a way to detect mutual influences of different ethnicities and cultural areas (Lerche, Steensberg 1980: 5). The first to “plough” this field is considered to have been Andreas Berg, a professor from Uppsala and author of “probably the oldest work dealing with the history of ploughing implements” (from 1773) with the title: Methodus investigandi origines gentium ope instrumentorum ruralium” (Bratanić 1955: 269). A landmark treatise, mentioned at the beginning of all important surveys of research into ploughing implements and on which nearly all further studies are based, is the famous work by Paul Leser – Entstehung und Verbreitung des Pfluges (1931). Leser “gathered in one place all the data he had access to, from the entire existing literature and many West-European museums” (Bratanič 1955: 269); “with a critical evaluation of the sources he eliminated from the latter all later additions and discrepancies from the original descriptions and explained misunderstandings, outlining logical connections between all the ploughing implements from Antiquity and tracing their origin to some kind of a traction spade” (Lerche, Steensberg 1980: 5). Among the classical literature on ploughing implements, which started to amass in the following decades, mention must be made of André G. Haudricourt and Mariel Jean-Brunhes Delamarre and their comprehensive work L’homme et la charrue à travers le monde (1955), and our neighbouring ethnologist from Zagreb, Branimir Bratanić, and his regionally limited study Oraće sprave u Hrvata (1939). It was Bratanić who considerably influenced his Slovene colleague Boris Orel and the latter’s decision to research ploughing implements in Slovenia. Bratanić made a first major impression in the international scientific arena in 1951, when he presented his paper On the Antiquity of the One-Sided Plough in Europe, Especially among the Slavic Peoples (Bratanić 1952; Belaj 1998: 354) at the International Congress of European Ethnology in Stockholm. It was accompanied by a preliminary map of the main types of ploughing implements in Europe and the Near East. At the Fourth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences in Vienna the following year the meeting of the European section proposed to use ploughing implements as the basis for a first attempt to elaborate an Atlas of European Folk Culture “because they have been the subject of perceptive researches for so many years”. At a conference in Namur, Belgium (as part of Unesco’s CIAP – Commission Internationale des Arts et Traditions Populates) in 1953, Sigurd Erixon proposed for the next year to organise a special conference on the theme of research into the history of ploughing implements in Copenhagen, and his Danish colleague Axel Steensberg promised to organise it with the assistance of a committee including some of the then leading European researchers of ploughing implements. It was this conference, held in 1954, which welcomed in its resolution the Danish (Steenberg’s) proposal about the establishment of a permanent secretariat at the Danish National Museum (later called the International Secretariat for Research on the History of Agricultural Implements), which was to establish a library and archive for the use of international researchers. In 1968 the secretariat started publishing the leading scientific review in this field Tools & Tillage. A Permanent International Committee was elected, including Branimir Bratanić (Zagreb), Jorge Dias (Coimbra), Sigurd Erixon (Stockholm), Heinz Kothe (Berlin), Paul Leser (Hartford), Francis G. Payne (Cardiff), and Axel Steensberg (Copenhagen). One of the first assignments of the Permanent Committee was the elaboration of a common terminology; at the time, the research of ploughing implements was undoubtedly the first attempt at such widely organised, international, joint scientific activity in this field (Lerche, Steensberg 1980: 6-9; Bratanić 1955: 270-271).

Orel’s related efforts belong to this exciting period in the research of ploughing implements, though there is no evidence that he was in direct contact with international developments. But he was certainly informed of them because his correspondence bears witness to close links with his Croatian colleague Bratanić and the Austrian experts Oskar Moser, Leopold Kretzenbacher9 and Hanns Koren.

Boris Orel was a pre-war bank employee and avid puppeteer, fascinated by mythology, legends, ancient beliefs, cultures and customs; he was a self-taught literary and art historian, publicist and essayist, whose travels around Slovenia’s provinces with Rajko Ložar, an archaeologist, literary historian and ethnologist, or with France Marolt, a folklorist, brought him increasingly closer to ethnology; after the war he was the director of the Ethnographic Museum (from 1945 to 1962); he graduated in ethnology and art history in 1958, and a year later completed his doctoral thesis Bloke skis: their origin and development (Novak 1986: 341; Ramšak, Slavec Gradišnik 2004: 390). After the war he “was Still Stimulated and attracted by” what “had occupied him right before the war: his studies on traditions”, especially the legend of St. Stephen, “about Stephen and his horses”. Orel’s preference to research the field of spiritual culture is recalled in a lively way by the museum’s then single curator, the folklorist Milko Matičetov.10 However, “these inclinations were not in line with the spirit of the time, that is to write about sacred heroes ... When he became the museum’s director, he had to give priority to material culture. And whatever was closer to his heart even later had to be postponed ...” Orel’s love of literary heritage customs is well remembered by his other close collaborator, Fanči Šarf, at first the museum’s documentalist11 and later curator: “Orel once told me he would have preferred much more to stay with customs, but ‘these are the requirements’ he said, ‘and that’s what I’ll do.’ ” In the introduction to the first volume of the museum’s journal Slovenski etnograf, he wrote in 1946: “... particular attention must be paid to the cultures most neglected in the past but which are of exceptional importance for the development of folk life. What we have in mind are in particular folk material culture and its different forms – hunting, agriculture, stockbreeding, [...] in short, the conditions of material life which ‘determine the physiognomy of society, its ideas, views, etc.’ ” In the post-war period, the Ethnographic Museum systematically departed – to some extent in line with the contemporary ideology – from the heights of the folk spirit to the material level, to the soil the people tilled in order to survive. This brought research into agriculture, stockbreeding, and ploughing implements to the forefront ... (Smerdel 1983: 2-3). When, in 1948, the first of the Ethnographic Museum’s field teams (later simply called Orel’s teams) travelled to Dolenjska, to research the Šentjurij-Škocjan area, Orel himself headed the team’s group for material culture;12 the other two groups for spiritual and social culture, were headed by Milko Matičetov and Sergij Vilfan (Simikič 2003: 114). Vilfan, the leading Slovene legal historian and Orel “were debating all the time – about this relatively neglected branch. The two never stopped discussing the theme, how to tackle it, what to address. Vilfan pointed out what the requirements were ...,” stated Fanči Šarf. “Why Orel tackled the ard – ploughing and ploughing implements – is something I don’t know; he must have seen it as one of the basic tools for tilling the soil ... I think he may have been inspired in Jezersko. He went to Jezersko to buy chests and some other items and then heard about the ‘špičmoh’ (the Jezersko ard)13; and then he saw it right there. Later the team working in Banjšice (in 1951, the Kobarid team) told him of people drawing their ploughs because they had no oxen ... These things astounded and enthused him – and made him see this as a special field – I wouldn’t know about any other motive.”

Šarf’s memories of the “fatal” impact of Orel’s visit to Jezersko at the start of this research into ploughing implements are in line with bits of information from the relevant material preserved in the museum’s archive. An application to the Ministry of Education (Department of Culture, dated 18 April) from 1949 requests permission to travel to Jezersko; it is accompanied by a travel warrant stating the purpose of the visit as “to describe and photograph ancient ploughing with a special plough called a ‘špičmoh’, which we also intend to acquire for our museum”.14 On April 25 Orel writes in his diary15: “Visited Jezersko with comrade Šmuc (ploughing, table).” The museum’s archives however provide no information on how Orel learned about the špičmoh. He may have heard about it when buying chests, or the invitation or information which took him and his photographer to Jezersko may have come from a local inhabitant, or from the village teacher; there are indeed many such letters in Orel’s correspondence.16 On March 25 of the next year Orel wrote in his diary that they had brought the špičmoh and ristle from Jezersko. Less than a month later, on April 15, 1950, he wrote: “Gavazzi and Bratanić with their pupils in the EM – co-operation (špičmoh etc.).” Was that the combination, sequence of requirements, amazement, and contacts which made Orel join the ranks of the researchers of ploughing implements? Matičetov was not really convinced “whether this was Bratanić’s influence or something else; but Bratanić was indeed involved in this (research of ploughing implements) following Gavazzi’s intentions, and Orel was in contact with Gavazzi – and the two invited him to all kinds of events, they actually drew him into their circle.”

In his introduction to the thematic eighth volume of Slovenski etnograf, published in 1955 and dedicated to agricultural tools, Orel mentions that “Professor Dr. B. Bratanić recently proposed, in his critical review of Koren’s book Pflug und Arl (SE V), research be done into ploughs and ards in Slovene lands to ensure that Koren’s work would not remain without its proper influence on Slovene ethnography...” (Orel 1955: 7). Thus Bratanić’s contribution to the beginnings of Orel’s in-depth study of ploughing implements is undisputed. It is substantiated by their frequent correspondence before the publication of Bratanić’s review of Koren’s book, from January to June 1953.17 The correspondence was apparently prompted by a letter from Hanns Koren (dated December 31, 1952), the then director of the Ethnographic Museum in Graz (a department of the Joanneum), who asked Orel to inform him about the content of Bratanić’s review of his study “before it is published, because I’m presently finishing a book related to agricultural tools”. Bratanić had no objections to Koren’s request and confirmed to Orel that he could send his review to Koren. The messenger who took it to Graz in May was Milko Matičetov. In the letters that passed between Ljubljana and Zagreb, which contain many explanations by the author and editor, the following two passages are particularly telling: on April 28, 1953, Orel wrote to Bratanić: “Working on the Jezersko ard is still very much on my mind. I hope to go to Železna Kapla (Eisenkappel) in Carinthia this year. I’m now investigating possible traces of the ard on the Kranj Plain. I’ve been to Šenčur, where I didn’t find an ard, but a plough that is about one hundred years old. Elderly men told me they had no knowledge of an ard. Next month I’m going to research the area further up to Preddvor and will then explore the Kokra Valley.”18 On May 29, 1953, Bratanić encouraged him: “I wish you plenty of success in your research of the Carinthian ard and hope you indeed find an ard with a long beam ...”

Fanči Šarf vividly remembers how Orel “often went to see Bratanić when he was working on his research into ards ... He relied very much on Bratanić and held him in high esteem; he thought highly of his opinion and was constantly in contact with him ...” Nevertheless, the real, decisive motive for Orel’s “ploughing” into ploughing implements was the excitement caused by the discovery of the špičmoh (a shrew in the Jezersko dialect), a conical ard with an animal name. Orel soon started to send Šarf on field missions with the task of asking around about ards and old ploughs and photographing them. “He was sending me out all the time; I was in Skomarje, then in Vitanje, then in ...” In November 1953, when Bratanić asked permission to publish Orel’s photograph with the špičmoh ard and ristle in one of his articles, Orel’s answer leaves no doubt that he was not only planning this particular research, but also intended to publish a thematic sixth volume of Slovenski etnograf, dedicated “to agricultural tools, including ploughs. [... ] In this volume I intend to publish my treatise on the Jezersko ard with various illustrative material, and I would therefore prefer that you do not publish the photograph of ploughing with the Jezersko ard before I publish my article”, he wrote to Bratanić, simultaneously inviting him to contribute to the planned volume of Slovenski etnograf.19

However, the publication had to mature a little longer and finally appeared as the eighth volume of Slovenski etnograf in 1955. In his introduction Orel substantially addressed the neglect of this topic to which he refers in the following two sentences (Orel 1955: 7): “We believe that not many words have to be wasted on the fact how little attention has been dedicated to date to various tillage tools in Slovene material ethnography. It is a well known fact and so obvious that it hits us in the eye.” Apparently, quite a number of people from professional circles of the time were hit in the eye, and Orel managed to persuade them to contribute to the thematic volume – and again to its sequel of 1961. The authors wrote treatises, articles or reports whose findings remain basic to any further research of the subject. The following texts were published in the two volumes: Prehistoric-archaeological material for the research of the ard in Slovenia by the archaeologist Stane Gabrovec; Some findings on the Pohorje ard, “hook” by Tončica Urbas, curator of ethnology, from Maribor; The harrow in Slovenia by the museum’s employee Fanči Šarf; Map of hoes in Slovenia by the historian, ethnologist and geographer Franjo Baš; Implements on the farms below Maribor by the ethnologist Angelos Baš, and Orel’s report The ard in Slovenia, continued in the thematic, fourteenth volume of Slovenski etnograf. That volume also contains the studies The coulter in northeastern Slovenia by Tončica Urbas and The Hrastovje plough by Angelos Baš. Branimir Bratanić rounded off the eight volume with a detailed report on Research into ploughing implements at the international level, in which he presented the current international research to his Slovene colleagues.





OREL’S THEORETICAL CREDO, HIS WORKING METHODS AND FINDINGS;

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE INTANGIBLE HERITAGE OF TILLAGE TECHNIQUES

Based on his work and occasional references to his methodological approach, Orel’s place is among those in Slovene ethnology who believed in the strength of “cultural historical interpretation within cultural circles” (cf. Slavec Gradišnik 2000: 199). He revealed his theoretical credo regarding ethnological science with the well-known words that it is a science which collects and studies various materials from Slovene life, a “science about the cultural products of the Slovene people and the laws of their development” (Smerdel 1983: 5). In the introduction to the above-mentioned thematic volume of Slovenski etnograf he categorically wrote that the “special tasks of ethnography and ethnology” in the research of agricultural tools with a proper scientific method is to establish their “oldest forms and parts, origin, development, diverse paths, and the wider cultural areas, and consequently solve various questions of cultural history”. His worried question – “Is there still time left today to compose a complete as possible cultural-geographical map of the different types of agricultural tools that were widespread in Slovenia decades ago?” – clearly emphasises the need to use the cartographic method20 in ethnology (Orel 1955: 7-8). In the conclusions of both studies on the ard, Orel notes that “before tackling the issue of the origin and development of the ard in Slovenia, a critical survey will have to be made of all past findings, followed by a detailed treatment of the entire material, including the various issues of the Štajerska-Koroška ard (Styrian-Carinthian ard), and especially the issue of the spread of the ard in certain parts of our territory” (Orel 1955: 66-67; 1961: 39).

Origin, development, diverse paths, cultural areas, etc. – it seems that ploughing implements particularly attracted representatives of the cultural-historical trend in European ethnology – for instance Gavazzi, Bratanić, and Koren among our neighbours. Bratanić explains his methodological approach to the research of ploughing implements quite clearly in his review of Koren’s book. The book’s “many types, technical forms, numerous parts and rich nomenclature” is “one of the most appropriate subjects of historical ethnology. This wealth of details, which are not connected with the natural conditions or with the purpose of the implement [makes it] much easier to establish historical and genetic links” (Bratanić 1952: 208). The focus of Bratanić’s research is evident from the subtitle of his first work on ploughing implements from 1939: Ploughing implements in Croatia – Forms, names, distribution. Bratanić never relents from describing forms, taking down names, and establishing the spread of an implement. It is only at the end of the book, under the title “Various other notes” that we find some notes on actually working with ploughing implements. First on the ox-team and on adding teams for ploughing, but this institute of mutual assistance “belongs to social life and legal customs, and the present text is not the proper place to address them”, are the words Bratanić used to round off the theme. He then briefly presents the use of different ploughing implements for different jobs and ways of ploughing, but again adds that these data “do not belong here in the strict sense” (although he is aware of their importance and writes that ploughing deserves special research and study). Finally, he adds a few sentences about the transport of ploughing implements to the fields and back, their decoration, and on the ways ploughing implements were marked.

Nevertheless, Bratanić managed to list in these “other notes” some elements of what should constitute the basis for modem research into ploughing implements. In her extensive, in-depth study (from 1994), Ploughing Implements and Tillage Practices in Denmark from the Viking Period to About 1800, Grith Lerche focuses, among on studying the functional qualities of ploughs and work processes. She is less excited by the development of ploughing implements and innovations than by the dynamics of the continuity of use in performing a certain task.21 “We are dealing with a practical and physical object from daily life,” she writes, “a composite implement made to fulfil a specific purpose, namely ploughing. When, instead of focusing on the object itself, we focus on the working process, i.e. the act of ploughing in which the tool is a primary and necessary instrument, the crucial point is its function and context: how is the implement constructed and what kind of work does it execute?” (Lerche 1994: 20) An approach similar to Lerche’s is found in Sigaut’s article Labourer, pour quoi faire? (Sigaut 2005), in which he defines the differentiation between three levels of analysis in studies on individual implements: the study of form or composition (forme ou structure), operation (fonctionnement) and tasks or use (fonction). The first two levels are set in the field of the “physical” sciences; Sigaut established that no matter how accurate it is, research cannot yield unambiguous findings about the use of an object or tool. He therefore emphasises the importance of studying the use of implements and individual work processes; “only they connect general, incomplete data and provide for a transition from composition to use, and this means that they make objects ‘speak out’” (Sigaut 2005: 7-8).

To an ethnologist one question remains: where in all this is man, his natural environment, the social and spiritual elements of ploughing and the relevant mutual relations? Is all this hidden in the research of work processes? Was Orel’s approach perhaps already so modem that he studied not only ploughs but also formulated his findings on the work process, ploughing – one of the hardest farming jobs22 – and ploughmen? Angelos Baš supported this opinion in 1968 when he wrote: “I cannot but judge that Orel’s work is a step ahead because it addresses a wider range of related questions, unlike the major studies on ploughing implements elsewhere in Yugoslavia, which consider only type, technical construction, local forms, and the terminology of the ard and plough ...” (Baš 1968: 4).

That Orel had a broader view on research into ploughs may be attributed to the breadth of his professional interests and his ability to analytically reflect on individual themes where, in addition to the objects, their development, forms, names of individual parts and dimensions, sooner or later the question of their use arises and thus of man – their user.23 However, at the beginning of his field research he did not – at least not explicitly – devote attention to man. “It wasn’t as if Orel would, for instance, particularly instruct us to consider people; he just sent me there and said: ‘Take pictures and ask about old ploughs ‘... He didn’t even ask me to take down the dimensions. Only the data on the owner, how old the plough was, whether there were more similar old ploughs in the village, and how often they were still used. How many farmers still had them,” is how his collaborator Fanči Šarf remembers his instructions.

Fundamental to his broader findings were, or so it appears, his work methods. Orel’s “instructions both for collection and publication were indisputably more sophisticated and rigorous in terms of methodology than in the pre-war years”. He used “every opportunity to emphasise, [ ... ] how important it was to the ethnographer, who arranges material, to have a precisely structured plan”; and, concerning material “he insisted on a critical review: in the case of field material acquired from other collectors, the ethnographer should verify the data ‘on the spot’” is another view of Orel’s principles (Slavec Gradišnik 2000: 228). Their higher level undoubtedly meant that the field material yielded more information, which in turn enabled broader and better founded interpretations.

So how did Orel carry out his research? What were the methods of his research into the ard in Slovenia? The most likely course of events is that after the discovery of the Jezersko ard (špičmoh) and the ensuing events, which made him join the researchers of ploughs, he first made a draft plan for field research in parts of Gorenjska, Carinthia and Styria, on both sides of the Slovene-Austrian border; the plan listed the places where he presumed past or even present use of the ard. Milko Matičetov remembers that Orel “wanted to proceed systematically – including in Austria.24 He wanted to cover the triangle between Cankova and Prekmurje; that is the pocket in Austria where Styrian Slovenes live”. The breadth of his approach was perhaps also inspired by his extensive thematic library. “You should have seen the literature he had ... Heaps of books – perhaps his intension was to place his research in the widest possible context. The books he had! I can tell you, I had no idea there were so many books on the theme; from Africa, the North, the Indians – there was no end to them ...,” are the words of Fanči Šarf,25 who throughout Orel’s studies of the ard remained his field scout (at least of the areas researched in Slovenia), used to express her amazement about Orel’s erudition concerning the professional literature on cultivation. And she remembers that those were “the hardest trips. There was no car, of course, and I had to do it all walking. Climb a hill in the snow to get to a village – wading through the snow up to my waist.” And later, when she brought him the fields notes (s. suppl. 8, 9) of her scouting trips and the many photographs of ploughs, “then he would go there himself. He went there after me: for instance for the ‘dreucl’ (ard without a sole) – he first ran to see Bratanić (that is after seeing the archaeologist Jože Kastelic), and then he went to Podkoren five times.”26 These notes (in 1953, notes were taken, besides by Šarf, by Marija Makarovič) provided Orel only with basic information, which he then verified and expanded during his own field trips; these often took several days or up to three weeks (s. app. 13)27. He often added his own observations, apprehensions and other notes to the submitted notes, as well as to other acquired material, for instance the drawings of ards, which he sent to individual informants to have them add the names of individual parts (s. app. 14, 15, 16). He also received much information by mail, on postcards (s. app. 17, 18) and letters, among them two letters from Moser and Zablatnik – both containing terminological information.28 During his own fieldwork Orel did not always take notes: it depended “on his mood” remembers Šarf. “He often wrote his notes at the museum, after he returned from field trips.” And he also had the very useful habit of writing a reminder after every field research, indicating further trips or taking down his thoughts; these included new research alleys, like for instance: “How did they plough fields that were neither fallow nor ley land?” (s. app. 19), and work-related reflections, which occasionally took him back to already visited places, e.g. Kostanje: “The research of the ard in Kostanje certainly shows that very early, perhaps already in the mid-19th century, people had forgotten about the old Slovene names for the parts of an ard. [ ... ] I’d say I just managed to catch the tail of the ard, before it completely disappeared. But to make sure I should go back to Kostanje and its neighbouring villages some time ...”29 (s. also app. 20). Orel’s scientific methods are further illustrated by the many handwritten pages with analyses of material (s. app. 21) – field notes, photographs and drawings, collected from nearly eighty villages and some isolated mountain farms – which he used to arrive at his findings, which he then described in the reports on the ard in Slovenia he published.

In two reports from 1955 and 1961 he wrote that his goal was to “treat the issues of the origin and development of the ard in Slovenia”. However all he managed to publish and explain in these two reports about “the ard, a symmetrical ploughing implement from certain areas of the Slovene territory” was “all autopsies and oral information can tell us today”. (Orel 1955: 31; 1961: 15). That he did not achieve his goal may be attributed to his premature death in 1962. But his to date unrivalled study of the ard30 goes far beyond the research framework of his proclaimed cultural-historical approach.

Orel managed to record and research to a great extent data for the three levels of analysis, which François Sigaut (2005: 7-8) laid down for the study of individual implements some years ago:

1. He described the found ards and their parts in detail31, noting their dimensions and dialect names32 (Sigaut’s first level, forme ou structure). His first ard, the Jezersko ard with a separate ristle (ristle or sickle plough) is described like this:

“... consists of the ard itself and the forecarriage, and its third, completely separate part, is the ristle. The ard in the narrow sense has four principal wooden parts, which together form a four-sided or rectangular frame: sole, beam, stilt and sheath (frame). The bottom, horizontal part of the ard is called the sole; its total length is 1.5 m, and 1.32 m from the sheath to the iron share. [... ] The mould-strokers increase in width and height towards the sheath, which is set 4.5 cm deep in them, and splits them [ ... ] into two horns or ears. [... ] A separate part of the Jezersko ard is the ristle, or rézounca as the locals call it. It cuts up the soil ahead of the plough. The Jezersko ristle consists of a yoke-beam, stilt and knife coulter [...], which is 70 cm long.” (Orel 1955: 32-34) Etc., etc. ...


Orel identified three main types of ard in Slovenia:

1 – The Carinthian-Styrian rectangular wheel ard with a coulter. In the division into two basic types of ard, commonly accepted in the European context, this ard with a horizontal sole belongs to the Triptolemos type (Lerche 1994: 11). In the more detailed formal typology of František Šach33 it appears to be a blend of Šach’s types VIII and IX, the “sole type” and the “sole type with a sheer-pointed oar-shaped share – the Dabergotz type”; H.C. Dosedla classified some ards from Carinthia, recognisably related to known Slovene specimens, into the latter group (Dosedla 1984: 56).

2 – The rectangular ard with a yoke beam from Srednji vrh near Martuljek. This ard, too, has a horizontal sole; Gaetano Forni refers to similar ards with a yoke beam in Tyrol (Forni 1997: 108-109), and Dosedla (1984: 52) classifies them into Šach’s type V – “type with a beam sole.”

3 – The ard without a sole from Podkoren of which only two specimens have been found. According to the division into two basic types of ard, this one belongs to those with an oblique share, the Døstrup type (Lerche 1994: 11), or, according to Šach’s typology to type I, the “stilt type” (Dosedla 1984: 46-47).


2. Orel strove to understand the objects of his research and he also collected data on the function of ards and their individual parts (Sigaut’s second level, fonctionnement). For instance, on the role of the beam in regulating ploughing:

“The beam is movable and set into a large or small hole in the stilt, which is low or high above the sole. The function of the movable beam, set into a suitably large hole, is twofold: in some places (Jezersko for instance) it was and is still used to make slight shifts to regulate ploughing; elsewhere wedges were used to allow the ploughman the only regulation that is possible with an ard (Kobansko and the environs of Prevalje).” (Orel 1955: 48)

Or on the coulter:

“The coulter [...] is set into the beam or fixed to the side of it [...] or inserted into a hole on the share.34 In the latter case it is a movable coulter, [...] which does not cut up the soil but pushes it aside.” (Orel 1961: 28)

And on the mould-strokers:

“As soon as the share cuts up a furrow, the mould-strokers [...] lifted and turned over the sliced soil. [...] Older farmers, who still ploughed with an ard in the late 19th century, try to explain the essence of ploughing this way [...] the mould-strokers turned over only part of the furrow-slice, only half of it and simply crushed the other half...” (Orel 1955, 53)


3. And – most importantly – Orel also studied in-depth the use of the ard, the work process (Sigaut’s third level, fonction), and did not overlook the importance of its manufacture (who selected what type of wood for its hardness), the social context (who ploughed, who drove the oxen, who dug up the unploughed parts of a field) or its spiritual elements (e.g. the first ploughing). Let us have a look at some of his related writings, first on making an ard:

“Ards were usually made of hardwood. [...] Beech, birch and ash were most appreciated for making ards in the researched areas. Of these types of wood, birch seems to have been in highest regard. [...] The heavy mountain ards were usually made of ash, but the plough beam was always birch. [...] traditionally, the farmers made their own ards. In many cases the maker was the farmer himself, and quite often a farmhand. Oral tradition tells us that in some places they were made against payment by poor or retired farmers. [...] Shares and coulters were always made by the nearest blacksmith who had a water anvil. [...] who also refaced old, worn shares.” (Orel 1955: 50-51)

And about ploughing :

“An ox team was yoked to the ard, and another team to the ristle. Stronger oxen were used for the ard, weaker ones (usually bull calves) for the ristle. [...] The ploughman ploughed with the ard, and the “cutter” drove the ristle. The ploughman usually was the farmer himself or the main farmhand, the “cutter” the “second farmhand” or sometimes a woman. The oxen at the ard and ristle were led by herdsmen. [...] beside the ploughman, the cutter and two herdsmen, there was a fifth man with a hoe. [...] unploughed strips of soil, which the ard had merely scratched were turned over with a hoe to complete the ploughman’s work. [...] The first to go on the field was the cutter, who cut up the soil (furrow) with the ristle. (Hard soil, ley and fallow land was first cut before using the ard.) He was followed immediately (at a distance of 4 to 7 m) by the ploughman with the ard. They started to plough at the lower end, [...] especially on uphill fields. They cut up and ploughed one furrow next to the other. All the furrows were turned to one side (one way ploughing), the furrow slices turned down when ploughing uphill and fell one upon the other into the trough [...] Ploughing was done in two ways: either the point of the share followed the strip cut by the ristle, or somewhat removed from the strip towards the ploughed furrow. [...] With narrow furrows it was enough to plough exactly along the strip left by the ristle. [...] Wider furrows were ploughed on flat land, narrow ones uphill. In general, narrow furrows were held to be better, because it was much easier to pass over such furrows with a harrow. [...] Deep or shallow ploughing mostly depended on the quality of the soil. A field with heavy soil was usually ploughed deeper, sandy soil shallower. [...] Old, worn-out oxen liked to keep their heads down and this made the ard plough deeper. The farmer had to take this into account and adjust the ard for shallow ploughing. [...] In turning over and crushing the furrow slices the ploughman added pressure on the mould-strokers with the stilt. [...] By tilting the stilt to one or the other side, in fact always to the side to which the furrows turned over and fell, the ard tilted and together with it the rear ends of the mould-strokers and their ears to have a better grip on the slices and turn them over.” (Orel 1955, 51-55, 61)

When ploughing uphill, the ploughman had to move alongside the stilt two furrows below the ard, watch out and keep it in the furrow, and also make sure that the bottom mould-stroker caught the furrow slices accurately with its ear and turned them over.35 The ploughman thus had to know how to steer the ard and be skilful at adjusting it to shallow and deep ploughing.

Orel’s findings about the demise of the ard showed that it was generally abandoned in the late 19th century and replaced by a double plough (Orel 1955: 55-58). He emphasised as the turning-point, “the fact which accelerated the end of this ancient implement”, the issue of people and cattle. “The great lack of people and draught oxen after the First World War had such a decisive impact that ploughing with an ard was generally abandoned after the war.” Where it was preserved longer – Orel indeed still encountered the implement himself – this was due to its changed use: mostly only for autumn ploughing or “digging up” the potatoes, and to a lesser extent for ridging. Otherwise the farmers in the places Orel visited preferred the ard to the double plough, especially for ploughing grain fields. (Ploughing with an ard made softer furrows, it was easier to work the field down with a harrow and fields ploughed with an ard favoured the growth of the grain; the double plough “puts hard soil down in a way that it lies there as stiff as a board”, and much more soil is moved down when ploughing uphill...) Orel took down a proverb from Kobansko in this connection (Orel 1961: 36): “Ploughing with an ard puts plain bread on the table every day, ploughing with a plough only festive bread.” The candid proverb clearly tells us about their experience: the ard provided them with more bread than the plough.

Orel’s work is undoubtedly a significant contribution to our knowledge about the diversity of ards in the European area and the dynamics of their continued use for ploughing, their use of “long duration” in the context of the everyday life of the farming population in mountain areas. Compared to contemporary studies and considered from the present perspective, Orel’s contribution is quite modern, in particular if we manage to read between the lines. We will then notice sentences like the following one (Orel 1955: 55-56): “It is interesting to note that, even in places where they already had a double plough, people still liked to use the ard, especially when the oxen were not really strong enough for the plough. [...] And it is also instructive to listen to the opinions of older people reflecting on the advantages of the ard and the disadvantages of the plough. In their opinion, the advantage of the ard was that the ploughed furrows were softer, [...] while the double plough throws up and turns the soil, and puts hard soil down in a way that it lies there as stiff as a board, and then it is hard to crush with the harrow.” Or (Orel 1955: 52-53, 57): “When they ploughed a field around a hill in Solčava, the width of the furrow was 25 cm in the convex sections, but 15 cm in the concave sections. [...] in Jezersko, for instance, they ploughed shallow furrows uphill on dry sandy soil, and deeper furrows in the heavy clay soil in the valley. [...] Until 65 years ago every big farm in Sv. Danijel had several ards, and one of them had an adjustable coulter that was very good for ploughing soft fields (sugar beet and stubble fields).” Elsewhere (Orel 1955: 51; 1961: 34): “The digger with a hoe was usually a woman, the first or older maid, called fištrna (environs of Solčava), or the young maid. [...] Ards were usually made by the local wheelwright (bognar), but according to oral tradition many farmers made their ards themselves.” These and other sentences are indicative of some of Orel’s broader findings: some concern the attitude of his interviewees to the development of ploughing implements (progress and innovations);36 others how they managed the interdependence of ploughing with an ard and the natural environment (ploughing methods, the parts of an ard and the location of fields, soil types, individual characteristics of draught animals); and still others the social elements of this hard farm labour (about the division of labour in ploughing, the social position of ploughmen, diggers, and makers of ards). Though only in a single sentence – when referring to smiths refacing old, worn shares (s. cat. no. 38) – Orel tells the attentive reader about the special importance of this most important part and other iron parts of the ard,37 which were essential to proper ploughing, a good harvest, survival, and the farmer was not self-sufficient in this aspect. He could not just “go into the forest with an axe and return with an ard”38 ; he had to buy the metal parts or compensate for them in some or other way. The mentioned notes by Orel undoubtedly reveal at least a handful of relationships between “man as the bearer of culture” and “his cultural and natural environment as shown by everyday routines”.

The material yield of Orel’s research is another essential contribution to our knowledge about ploughing implements: twenty-three ards and ploughs (cat. no. 8 to 32) fundamental to the collection of ploughing implements at the Slovene Ethnographic Museum. Before dedicating ourselves to the expressiveness of the entire collection, a summary is in order – an outline of the historical frame of ards and ploughs, or a brief historical outline of their development and use.





PLOUGHS THROUGH HISTORY, IN SLOVENIA AND ELSEWHERE

Like many other agricultural peoples the Slovene for centuries used the two basic agricultural or cultivation techniques – plough agriculture and hoe agriculture. The latter is connected with the slash and bum technique of obtaining farmland, and has often gave birth to interpretations on a primeval and “once universal stage of agriculture”. But the existence of recent practices of the slash and burn technique together with hoe agriculture has led to the conclusion that it is all about “a series of tactical solutions to a particular problem”, not about related relicts (Steensberg 1986: 134; after Rowley-Conwy 1981); it is about the use of such agricultural techniques and implements that are determined, among other things, by the configuration of the land, the quality of the soil and social conditions.39 The history of ploughing implements should thus not be read as a linear development from simple tools (sticks, spades) to composite, advanced one (ards, ploughs). Not every introduction of a new or improved tool progressed by development stages, but in harmony with local conditions and needs, the natural and social environment (Steensberg 1986: 145; see also Pleterski 1987: 269). An interesting example is the presumed development of all ploughing implements from a kind of “traction spade”, ventured by Paul Leser (Steensberg 1986: 129), based on the similarities in form and linguistic evidence; it has been credibly supported by Axel Steensberg with the help of individual archaeological finds, pictorial sources, and experiments. He wrote that working the land by drawing a spade attached to a rope was common in Asia, from Korea to China, Iran and the Arab countries, and that it is not surprising that the “traction spade” was also known in Europe during the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic Age, that is at a time when agriculture started as a kind of horticulture (with small manured grain plots and leaf-foddered cattle) (Steensberg 1986: 112-114). A 5000 year-old “traction spade” or rope-pulled ard (dated around 3000 BC) found in the Satrup bog in Schleswig, and a stone (basalt) spade-shaped share from the Bronze Age in Syria are interpreted as such tools. But even when ards pulled by draught animals had been in use for centuries, it was still possible to come to across actual examples of rope-pulled ards (developed from a spade); for instance in China in the 17th or early 18th centuries (on rice fields in the province of Guizhou) and in Tajikistan until the present. “When a peasant decides what implements will serve his purpose best in the actual situation, his considerations are a mixture of traditional habits, social adaptation, economic planning and personal preference.” (Steensberg 1986: 112-113, 120-121, 125). In this process, more advanced tools are not always the most adequate choice, and that is something Orel, too, established during his research.

A walk through the history of ploughing implements in Slovenia, adequately set in the European context, starts with archaeological finds. These convincingly document the thesis that, in the centuries around the beginning of the Christian calendar, one of the areas where Illyrian-Celtic agriculture developed was located in the Eastern Alps and Pannonia, which later became Slovene territory. It is supposed to have led to Pliny’s famous report on a ploughing implement “recently attached to wheels”. Other testimonies to the transition from the ordinary to the wheel ard with a coulter are from the late La Tène Age and later Roman hoards, which included broad symmetrical shares, coulters, and draught chains (confirming the use of wheels) (Grafenauer 1970: 211). Many shares and coulters from the 1st century AD were found in Idrija by Bača, Reka near Cerkno, Vrhovlje near Kojsko, Črniče and Šmihel below Nanos (Guštin, Smerdel, 1996: 77). When and where the ard and plough appeared in the European context can be summarised as follows: a ploughing scene engraved on a rock wall was found in Valcamonica in the Italian Alps and dated to the late Mesolithic, i.e. 4000 to 3500 BC (Forni 1980: 62). (In Mesopotamia in the Middle East the ard had probably been in use for several centuries before it appeared in a pictogram from the Uruk-Warka period from around 3000 BC (Steensberg 1986: 131).) In Sarnowo, Poland, the oldest traces of ploughing with an ard (Steensberg 1986: 131-132; after Gabalowna 1971, Dabrowski 1971) were dated to around 3620 BC.40 (The furrows preserved in Susa A in Khuzistan date from the early 5th millennium BC (Guštin, Smerdel 1996: 77).) The oldest find, however, again appears to be from the neighbouring Italian territory: a complete ard with a horizontal sole of the Triptolemos type was excavated from a former moor in Lavagnone, close to Desenzano near Brescia, from a layer dated to the early 2nd millennium BC (Forni 1980: 60). Evidence of the use of ards with bar shares of stone on Orkney and Shetland (Steensberg 1986: 131) dates from about the same period – the 2nd and early 1st millennia BC. Celtic people who were masters in the developing metallurgy seemed to have played a central part in the further improvement of the ard. The innovation of broader, spade-shape iron shares is attributed to the Celts. Such shares were found in many Late Iron Age sites from South England to Germany and the Roman province of Pannonia; they were often found together with coulters and draught chains used to fasten the ard’s beam to the forecarriage (Lerche 1994: 223-224, after Henning 1987, Balassa 1971; Steensberg 1986). In Georgics, Virgil’s instructive epic, we thus read that the ard from the valley of the Po was fixed to a forecarriage (between 40 and 30 BC); Pliny the Elder confirms this in his Historia Naturalis from the 1st century AD and attributes the invention of such an ard41 to the province of Raetia. The development of bigger and heavier symmetrical ards with mould-strokers,42 coulters and wheels into asymmetrical ploughs with a mouldboard is thought to have taken place, based on all past research, precisely at the beginning of the Christian era – and is attributed to the growing demand for grain in the Roman Empire, requiring extensive new farmland (and consequently better ploughing implements). Furrows, traces of ploughing with a plough with a mouldboard from Brabers near Haamstede in the Netherlands, have been dated to the first century AD; even older, similar traces from the Celtic Iron Age were also found in the Netherlands and in Feddersen Wierde in Lower Saxony (Steensberg 1986: 140, 144-145); some of the shares from the times of the Roman Empire that are kept in the museum depots of Portogruaro and nearby Aquileia clearly show initial asymmetry (Forni 1980: 62).

The question remains, however, as to what extent and how fast this developed original tilling technique spread to our Slavic ancestors. The thesis that the plough was a “common Slavic cultural element” from their “common past” had not been substantiated well enough to stand.43 A document dating from the early 9th century and containing complaints (addressed to Duke John, Charlemagne’s administrator) from the Latin Istrians against the settled Slavs mentions that “they plough our land and fallow fields ...”. What they ploughed with is not stated in the document (Vilfan 1957: 61). The “Sebenje hoard” buried in first quarter of the 9th century contains two types of shares and confirms that at that time the Slavic settlers in the Bled area used different ploughs and different ways of ploughing.44 An exciting hypothesis (based on a single isolated find in Slovene lands) ventures that, in addition to the ard with spade-shaped share and mould-strokers (”ears”) (presumably proved by the find of a plough staff45), the Slav settlers also used a ploughing implement with two socketed bifurcated shares,46 called a sokha (its use was still reported in North Karelia in the previous century47), to clear the ground or start working the land by loosening the soil48 on gently rising forest land cleared with the slash and burn technique (Pleterski 1987: 258, 272-278).

The most reliable theory seems to be that after settlement – when slash and bum agriculture prevailed, supplemented by the beginning of plough agriculture with ards on unstable fields – Slovene economic development was marked by the advance of the ard and the gradual stabilisation of fields. Ploughs are assumed to have spread gradually from the 10th and 11th centuries onwards, almost contemporary with the stabilisation of fields and the introduction of three-field rotation with fallowing (Baš 1968: 1-2; Grafenauer 1970: 214). Urbaria prove that from the 13th century onwards ploughing implements were the principal tilling tools all over Slovenia, but the heavy wooden plough, which according to the Salzburg urbarium of its Brežice estate in 1448 required three ox teams,49 only gradually replaced the ard which required fewer draught animals. Another urbarium of the Diocese of Salzburg related to Brežice and Sevnica and from 1309 refers to an “entire plough” – integrum aratrum – a reference interpreted incorrectly for a long time. It was later established that it referred to the “ploughing duty a peasant carried out with his own plough and cattle” (Grafenauer 1970: 214-215). A record from the 17th century mentions that the cattle in a village were counted by ploughs, aratro, and that “one plough” meant four head of cattle or two ox teams (Vilfan 1957: 66). Ploughs are listed in the inventories of legacies from the 18th century, for instance from the properties of subjects under the rule of Maribor, in 16 inventories out of a total 34 – for the first time in 1690 (Baš 1955: 118); and in an inventory from 1723 of the legacy of a farm owner from the village of Selce above Škofja Loka, in which 1 plough is mentioned under the heading tilling tools (as well as 1 harrow, 6 hoes, 2 mattocks, etc.) (Andrejka 1934: 38, 49).

One of the oldest known and the only preserved medieval illustration of a ploughing implement in Slovenia is that of a plough in the Labours of the Months cycle, the work of the fresco painter Janez from Kastav in the filial church of Hrastovlje from 1490; ploughs of similar form (with a knee-shaped plough beam and a forecarriage but, remarkably, without a coulter50) to the one in the fresco, seem to have been quite common in this part of Istria in the 15th century.51 The church of St Andrej in Gosteče, Gorenjska, has frescoes from the 14th and 15th centuries, and once showed an even older illustration of a ploughing implement used in Slovenia. Until the early 20th century a plough, a harrow and a kneeling, resting ox were still visible in a wall painting made after the iconographic example of Imago pietatis52 and referring to Holy Sunday (Stele 1944: 411). Reliefs of ploughs on keystones in the churches of Mengeš, Crngrob, Šentrupert, Okrog above Šentrupert, and Mirna in Dolenjska date from the mid and late 15th century (Cevc 1996: 410–411).53

Essential changes to ploughing implements were brought about only later, by the agrarian-technical revolution of the second half of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries. Nevertheless, the use of the ard and plough then certainly depended, among other things, on the social conditions and the nature of the land. 18th century records indeed show that certain areas (in Slovenske gorice) had slopes with heavy soil, where up to half the farms had neither an ard nor a plough, and mattocks and hoes were used instead. The following changes occurred: – 1. In mountain areas (as established by Orel) the ard was gradually replaced by the double plough from the early 19th century onwards, even though the latter was already recorded in the north of Slovene Styria in the 18th century (Bratanić 1952: 210; after Koren 1950). This plough with two shares, two coulters and (usually) three handles was used – as was practised before with the ard – for reversible ploughing and must have been considered an important advance. An enticing illustration are the figurines of ploughmen driving a double plough, a Dolenjska earthenware product from the first half of the 20th century (see ill. app. 54). – 2. At about the same time the mouldboard plough prevailed in low-lying areas. It was generally used for conventional ploughing (see ill. app. 57) until the Second World War, when reversible ploughing spread to the plains with the introduction of reversible ploughs. – 3. In the mid 19th century industrial production of iron ploughs started in the Austrian monarchy, making the implement, which ploughed deeper and required fewer draught animals, cheaper and more affordable to the rural population (Smerdel 1991: 35; after Grafenauer 1970). In Dolenjska, for instance, the iron plough was introduced by the brothers at Stična monastery.54 However, a record from 1940 states that “unfortunately our farmers have very poor ploughs today, not much better than the ones their distant ancestors had” (Simonič 1940: 10). Reports from some areas in Slovenia set the introduction of iron ploughs, called Zugmayer ploughs, in the 1920s and 30s and even then largely limited to prosperous landowners. In the lowland villages around Gornja Radgona, for instance, some farmers started replacing these ploughs (wooden ploughs with an iron ‘head’ – an iron share, coulter and mouldboard) with iron ones around 1922. In Kočevska, “iron ploughs appeared with prosperous farmers in Osilnica after 1930”. And in Pivka, a one-half owner, a sheep breeder with around 300 sheep, bought an iron plough between the two wars, and “a one-third owner did so in the first years after WWII.” (Smerdel 1991: 35, 37; after Šarf 1982, Šmitek 1981, Smerdel 1984). – 4. The spread of root crops gradually led to the introduction of new ploughing implements, cultivators and ridging machines from the 19th century onwards; the ploughing implements used in their growing stages were often old ards (Smerdel 1991: 33, 35; Orel 1961: 37). And special types of ploughs emerged: for instance the trench plough on hop fields, in vineyards and tree nurseries, and the symmetrical subsoil plough (podrivač, podorač) for deep soil loosening (Sketelj 2004: 433; Simonič 1940: 25). – 5. A new “revolution” occurred and gradually spread in the 1960s: the mechanisation of agriculture which replaced draught animals and old ploughing implements with machines – tractors with a plough attachment.

But even in this industrial and information age “there’s no bread or cake without a ploughman and a hard-working digger”. At least according to the Slovene proverb printed on a paper bread bag from a Mercator shopping centre, which metaphorically tells us that without man – the individual, the farmer, who knows how to choose the best location for his fields, the best time for ploughing, sowing and harvesting, and who knows which tools (ploughs or hoes) he has to use to work his land for a rich harvest – machines cannot do their job properly. That’s the way it has always been; nowadays, when a young farmer tills only the fields which are easiest to access, because “once you’ve got a tractor, you choose only the best fields”, as in the not-so distant past when “every little hollow, every inch of land was tilled.” At that time people were in dialogue with nature and the land: such as the Carinthian farmers, their farmhands or wheelwrights, who improved old ways or invented new ones to regulate ploughing in order to make the share go deeper into the soil (cf. Orel 1955, 1961). And in the mountain areas, individuals stand out who relentlessly sought new ways to works steep slopes easier and better. Like Kondi Kos, from an isolated farm in Marija Reka above Prebold, the inventor and maker of a special two-furrow iron plough (a tractor standing at the top of an uphill field, equipped with a winch, pulls the plough together with its pilot /ploughman/ up the field with a rope-pulley), who made ploughing much easier for the local farmers and increased yields by fifty percent.55 We should thus perhaps repeat the perceptive remark of the classical archaeologist James Mellaart56: “Communities do not invent, initiate or formulate ideas: individuals do.”





THE STORY OF THE MUSEUM COLLECTION

People leave behind them a variety of traces, intangible and tangible; ploughmen, and with them Orel, have left behind ploughing implements. Those acquired by or donated to the museum during the months of his research trips constitute the core of the present collection of ploughing implements at the Slovene Ethnographic Museum. Its beginnings are the models transferred to the ethnographic department of the Carniolan Provincial Museum as a reflection of the Enlightenment (and its interest in the economic activities of the population, based on physiocratic principles): including the model of a plough from Planina near Rakek from 1833 and that of a double plough from 1836 (Smerdel 1996: 27; Deschmann 1888: 157). Afterwards, before the arrival of Orel’s first ard, the Jezersko špičmoh, the museum’s acquisition register has only one entry: an “old wooden plough” from Bela krajina, purchased in Kočevje near Črnomelj in 1911. The latest acquisitions to the collection date from 2006: three ploughing implements from a suburban farm – a single wooden wheeled plough, a potato-ridging machine, and an industrial cultivator for maize (Smerdel 2007: 305). Before these latest acquisitions the collection consisted of 5 models of ploughs (4 asymmetrical ploughs – 2 single and 2 double; 1 symmetrical ridging plough), 21 symmetrical ploughs (13 ards of the three basic types – 2 with a ristle, 8 ridging ploughs, ploughing implements for a variety of jobs in tilling root crops: ploughing openings (veerings) and dead furrows, ridging, cultivating and digging up) and 21 asymmetrical ploughs (16 single and 5 double ploughs). The collection was exhibited only once, in 1968 (Baš 1968), some specimens have been on view in the ploughing section of the SEM’s permanent exhibition “Between Nature and Culture” since 2004 (Sketelj 2008).

Compared to some nearby similar collections – for instance the outstanding collection of ploughs at the Ethnographic Institute of the Moravian Museum in Brno “which presents the entire historical development and the development of the forms of ploughs”,57 or the combined collections of ploughs, ards and plužice of the Ethnographic Museum in Zagreb (25 ploughs, 8 ards, 6 plužice)58 and the local Technical Museum (9 ploughs, 16 ards, 1 plužica), which includes and exhibits two ploughing implements from Slovenia,59 an ard from Robanov kot and a plough from Dolnji Logatec – the Ljubljana collection is not that extensive. Nevertheless, several decades ago an Austrian ethnologist, the researcher of ards and ploughs Hanns Koren, described it as “the most important such collection in South-East Europe” (Smerdel 1983: 13). Perhaps because individual ards in the collection – with their coulters, forecarriages, mould-strokers or ears (binae aures, tabellae as the Romans called them) – look as if they come right out of Pliny’s or Virgil’s references to a wheel ard ...60

In spite of this enticing idea, the greatest importance of the collection of ploughing implements at the Slovene Ethnographic Museum undoubtedly lies in the fact that they are documented by extensive and informative accession records through which the ploughs speak to us, and the fact that they were mostly collected as the fruit of published research, which managed to place them in a specific context. Last but not least, they are additionally documented and the knowledge about them complemented by a number of field drawings and an extensive collection of photographs.





SOURCES AND LITERATURE

ANDREJKA (R.), 1934. Star kmečki inventar iz 18. stoletja, Etnolog, 7, 38–50.

BAŠ (A.), 1961. Hrastovski plug, Slovenski etnograf, 14, 51–57.

BAŠ (A.), 1955. Orodja na kmečkih gospodarstvih pod Mariborom v 18. stoletju, Slovenski etnograf, 8, 109–126.

BAŠ (A.), 1968. Ralo in plug, Vodnik po razstavi. Ljubljana, Slovenski etnografski muzej.

BRATANIĆ (B.), 1939. Orače sprave u Hrvata, Oblici, nazivlje, raširenje. Zagreb, Sveučilište. (Publikacije etnološkoga seminara Sveučilišta u Zagrebu; 1)

BRATANIĆ (B.), 1952. Plug i ralo, Slovenski etnograf, 5, 208–236.

BRATANIĆ (B.), 1955. Istraživanje oraćih sprava na međunarodnoj osnovi, Slovenski etnograf, 8, 269–271.

BRATANIĆ (B.), 1953. On the Antiquity of the One-Sided Plough in Europe, Especially among the Slavic Peoples, Laos, 2 (1952), 51–61.

CIRLOT (J. E.), 1971. A Dictionary of Symbols. London, Rutledge.

ČAUSIDIS (N.), 2000. Rombični ornamenti kao sredstva transpozicije plodnosti izmedu čoveka i prirode. In: Ajdačić, D. (ed.), Erotsko u folkloru Slovena, Zbornik radova. Beograd, Stubovi kulture, 33–52.

DESCHMANN (K.), 1888. Führer durch das Krainische Landes-Museum Rudolfinum in Laibach. Ljubljana, Deželni muzej.

DOSEDLA (H.C.), 1984. František Šach’s Contribution towards Research on Pre-Industrial Tilling Implements in Austria, Tools and Tillage, Vol. 5: 1, 43–57.

FORNI (G.), 1980. Recent Archaeological Finds of Tilling Tools and Fossil Ard Traces in Italy, Tools and Tillage, Vol. 4: 1, 60–63.

FORNI (G.), 1997. Gli aratri dell’Anaunia e del Trentino, SM Annali di San Michele, n. 9–10, 105–128.

FORNI (G.), 1997. L’evoluzione plurimillenaria dell’aratro, Nota esplicativa del manifesto omonimo. Sant’ Angelo Lodigiano, Museo Lombardo di Storia dell’Agricoltura.

GABROVEC (S.), 1955. Prazgodovinsko-arheološko gradivo za proučevanje rala na Slovenskem, Slovenski etnograf 8, 9–30.

GANTAR (K.), 1974. Heziod in njegov pesniški svet. In: Heziod, Teogonija, Dela in dnevi. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga, 57–105. (Knjižica Kondor; 149)

GRAFENAUER (B.), 1970. Poljedelsko orodje. In: Blaznik, P, Grafenauer, B. and Vilfan, S. (eds), Gospodarska in družbena zgodovina Slovencev, 1. Ljubljana, DZS, 201–218.

GUŠTIN (M.), SMERDEL (L), 1996. Ralo. In: Enciklopedija Slovenije, 10 (Pt-Savn), Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga, 77.

HEZIOD, 1974. Teogonija, Dela in dnevi. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga. (Knjižica Kondor; 149)

JAVORNIK, M. (ed.), 1998. Veliki splošni leksikon, Šesta knjiga (P–RŽ). Ljubljana, DZS.

JAVORNIK, M. (ed.), 1998. Veliki splošni leksikon, Osma knjiga (Te–Ž). Ljubljana, DZS.

KOREN (H.), 1950. Pflug und Arl, Ein Beitrag zur Volkskunde der Ackergeräte. Salzburg, Otto Müller Verlag. (Veröffentlichungen des Institutes für Volkskunde; Band 3)

LERCHE (G.), STEENSBERG (A.), 1980. Agricultural Tools and Field Shapes. Copenhagen, National Museum of Denmark.

LERCHE (G.), 1994. Ploughing Implements and Tillage Practices in Denmark from the Viking Period to About 1800. Herning, Poul Kristensen.

LOŽAR-PODLOGAR (H.), 2004. Orači. In: Baš, A. (ed.), Slovenski etnološki leksikon. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga, 389.

MAKAROVIČ (M.), 1978. Kmečko gospodarstvo na Slovenskem. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga.

MARBACH (A.), 2007. La représentation des outils et les instruments aratoires, Les araires tourne-oreille à l’époque gallo-romaine et le travail du sol. In: Bourrigaud, R., Sigaut, F. (eds), Nous labourons, Actes du colloque Techniques de travail de la terre, hier et aujourd’hiu, ici et là-bas. Nantes, Centre d’histoire du travail, 51–60.

NOVAK (V), 1986. Raziskovalci slovenskega življenja. Ljubljana, Cankarjeva založba.

OREL (B.), 1955. Ralo na Slovenskem, Slovenski etnograf, 8, 31–68.

OREL (B.), 1961. Ralo na Slovenskem, Slovenski etnograf, 14, Ljubljana, 15–40.

PLETERSKI (A.), 1987. Sebenjski zaklad, Arheološki vestnik, 38, 237–330.

RAMŠAK (M.), SLAVEC GRADIŠNIK (L), 2004. Orel, Boris. In: Baš, A. (ed.), Slovenski etnološki leksikon. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga, 390–391.

SIGAUT (F.), 2005. Labourer, pour quoi faire ? Les functions des instruments aratoires dans les agricultures d’autrefois (le dossier préparatoire au colloque ‘Labours’).

SIMONIČ (P.), 1940. O obdelovanju njivske zemlje. Ljubljana. (Knjižnica kmečke mladine; 3)

SKETELJ (P.), 2004. Plug, Podzemni plug. In: Baš, A. (ed.), Slovenski etnološki leksikon. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga, 428, 433.

SKETELJ (P), 2004. Požigalništvo. In: Baš, A. (ed.), Slovenski etnološki leksikon. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga, 458.

SKETELJ (P), 2008. Agrarne gospodarske dejavnosti. In: Židov, N. (ed.), Med naravo in kulturo, Vodnik po stalni razstavi Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja. Ljubljana, SEM.

SLAVEC GRADIŠNIK (I.), 2000. Etnologija na Slovenskem, Med čermi narodopisja in antropologije. Ljubljana, ZRC SAZU.

SMERDEL (I.), 1983. Ljudsko gospodarstvo, Slovenski etnograf, 32 (1980–1982), 1–26.

SMERDEL (I.), 1984. Soseska vasi Selce, Traditiones, 10–12 (1981–1983), 5–34.

SMERDEL (I.), 1991. Prelomna in druga bistvena gospodarska dogajanja v zgodovini agrarnih panog v 19. stoletju na Slovenskem, Slovenski etnograf, 33–34 (1988–1990), 25–60.

SMERDEL (I.), 1996. Projekt, imenovan Slovenski etnografski muzej, Etnolog, 6 (57), 17–39.

SMERDEL (I.), 2004. Ralo. In: Baš, A. (ed.), Slovenski etnološki leksikon. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga, 488.

SMERDEL (I.), 2007. Zbirka »Sirnikove punce«, Opredmetena zgodba o gospodarjenju na primestni kmetiji, Etnolog, 17 (68), 303–307.

STEENSBERG (A.), 1986. Man the Manipulator, An Ethno-Archaeological Basis for Reconstructing the Past. Copenhagen, The National Museum of Denmark.

STELE (E), 1944. Ikonografski kompleks slike ‘Svete Nedelje’ v Crngrobu. Ljubljana, SAZU, 399–438. (Razprave; Knjiga 2, št. 16)

ŠARF (F.), 1982. Občina Gornja Radgona. Etnološka topografija slovenskega etničnega ozemlja - 20. stoletje. Ljubljana, Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete.

ŠMITEK (Z.), 1981. Občina Kočevje. Etnološka topografija slovenskega etničnega ozemlja - 20. stoletje. Ljubljana, Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete.

VILFAN (S.), 1957. K obdelavi polja v Slovenski Istri, Slovenski etnograf 10, 61–70.



Abbreviations:

ISN archives – Archives of the Institute of Slovene Ethnology (SRC-SASA – Scientific Research Centre of the Slovene Academy of Sciences and Arts)

NŠK archives – Archives of the National and Study Library in Trieste

SEM archives – Archives of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum

AR – various archives

PL – picture library

FD – field drawings

FN – field notes





1 The plough (as the phallos symbolising the eternal rebirth of life) is a symbol of fertilisation. An Arian legend, for instance, marries Rama to Sita (furrow); and because earth is the female principle of nature, ploughing symbolises the union of the male and female principles (Cirlot 1971: 253, 260). Cf. also some interpretations in the collection of articles Erotsko u folkloru Slovena (The Erotic in Slavonic Folklore) (Čausidis 2000: 38-40).

2 Hesiod’s poems Theogony and Works and Days were published in the Kondor Library (vol. 149) in a Slovene translation in 1974, accompanied by a treatise by the translator Kajetan Gantar on Hesiod and his world of poetry; Gantar dates Hesiod to around 700 BC.

3 Hesiod is thought to have drawn for this poem from the rhapsode tradition and the rich treasure of folk proverbs, and this leaves us with an unanswered question: how much the poet owes to general folk wisdom and how much he draws from personal experience. Hesiod, the pioneer of instructive poetry, was from Boeotia, whence his father had moved when he exchanged “his occupation of seaman for the harsh labour of a peasant” (Gantar 1974: 57-60).

4 Quercus ilex, also called holly oak or evergreen oak.

5 Translation by H. G. Evelyn-White (1914).

6 Boris Orel (1903 – 1962) was a Slovene born in Fürnitz, Carinthia, Austria. His surname (orel=eagle) is not necessarily related to the bird; it would be fascinating to consider the possibility that this pioneer of the ethnological research into ploughing implements in Slovenia, especially the ard, had a matching surname (orati= to plough, oralo = ploughing implement, ralo = ard). Orel himself thought that the name orl, used for the ard in the environs of Moosberg (Wörthersee), derived from the German word Arl. In the lower part of the Gailtal Valley, however, the word orl or óru denoted a one-wheel implement used for filling, and the ráuo (ralo, ard) was used for other jobs (Orel 1961: 29, 32).

7 This interesting folk simile for strutting in borrowed plumes was told to me – as a piece in the mosaic of my research on the relationship between man and work oxen – by the doyen of Slovene literary folklorists, Milko Matičetov, during one of our amiable chats.

8 In this respect I concur with the archaeologist Andrej Pleterski (1987: 264). In the 3rd volume of the Dictionary of the Slovenian Language (Ljubljana 1979, 427) the term oralo is explained as the archaic name for plug (plough).

9 The first two Austrian colleagues were among those from neighbouring countries who gathered in Ljubljana at the first meeting of the Alpes Orientales “free work group” of ethnologists and folklorists in 1956 (Smerdel 2003: 150).

10 Matičetov joined Orel in the urgent revival of the Ethnographic Museum’s operation. They started out together in autumn 1945, but in 1952 Matičetov transferred to the Institute of Slovene Ethnology at the Slovene Academy of Sciences and Arts (Smerdel 2003: 143-144). The record of our conversation about Orel, his motives for and the beginnings of his research into ploughing implements (June 9, 2006, cassette M.M. no. 1, acc. no. A 06/20), and its transcription are in the Documentation Department of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum in Ljubljana.

11 Fanči Šarf was employed at the museum from 1949 to 1980. The record of our conversation about Orel and his work on ploughing implements (June 20th and 28th, 2006, cassette F.Š. no. 1, acc. no. A 06/19) and its transcription are in the Documentation Department of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum in Ljubljana.

12 In his report “Ethnographic field work” in the second volume of Slovenski etnograf Orel wrote: “The material culture group has 7 permanent members. It was the largest group within the team and in view of its tasks quite understandably so.” (Orel 1949: quoted from Smerdel 1983: 3)

13 The author’s clarifications, additions or notes within the quotes are always in brackets and in a different type of script.

14 SEM archives, Akti Etnografskega muzeja 1949.

15 SEM archives, acc. no. 6/33, Orel’s diary 1949/52.

16 For instance, the letter from Pleterje, dated February 10, 1953, in which Marija Novak in addition to details related to the organisation of Orel’s lecture writes: “I have nothing to tell about ploughing yet, because the soil is resting under the snow and the cold keeps us inside, huddled around the warm stove.” SEM archives, Akti Etnografskega muzeja 1953.

17 SEM archives, Akti Etnografskega muzeja 1953.

18 The museum’s plan of activities for 1951 contains no reference at all to research into ploughing implements (SEM archives, Akti Etnografskega muzeja 1951). It is first mentioned in the report on activities in 1952: “Comr. Orel continued to collect material on the old Jezersko ard, which according to oral tradition was also used on the Kranj Plain.” And later, in the plan of activities for 1953: “II. Scientific activities, 3. Various trips connected with the purchase of objects and ethnographic study, a) Koroška – Jezersko – Kokra – environs of Kranj (ard)” (SEM archives, Akti Etnografskega muzeja 1953).

19 SEM archives, Akti Etnografskega muzeja 1953.

20 In this respect, too, his professional contacts with Gavazzi and Bratanić had a strong influence; the first is considered to be the founder of ethnological cartography in Croatian ethnology; the latter as the expert who continued the development and organisation of related work in the then Yugoslav and European framework (Belaj 1998: 354). Orel’s diary of 1960 contains the following note on November 25: “Went to Zagreb (Ethnological Atlas of Yugoslavia)”; and at the start of his 1961 diary: “Work on the ethnological atlas (centre for Slovenia in the Ethnographic Museum)”. (SEM archives, Orel’s work diary from August 1953 to October 1961.)

21 She considers material remains to be primary sources equal to written ones, even though they do not “speak” directly. The code to understanding them is research of traces of use, interpreted through an experimental method. “In this way the material relics inform us about the immaterial processes in past rural life, the actual performance of ploughing.” (Lerche 1994: 269)

22 In French a ploughman is a laboureur and ploughing labour (but a plough is charrue). The related English word labour means work, in particular heavy physical work.

23 An illustrative example of Orel’s analytical approach is certainly his “Disposition” for an exhibition – most likely the permanent exhibition in 1947? – which contains the clearly written and even boxed word “man” in three places: in connection with the “exhibition’s ethnographic aspects”, under point c “in-depth: the functions of the objects” (ISN archives, the Orel holdings; see app. 6).

24 Matičetov also revealed the incident that made Orel abandon further research among the Slovenes in Austria. “He thought things were like before the war, but on one occasion the Austrian gendarmes (probably acting on a denouncement) arrested and questioned him – they wanted him to show them some or other permit or recommendation. Orel had been careless, he should have gone to the Styrian Museum (Hans Koren was its director and Kretzenbacher his assistant) – and they would have given him a recommendation in no time. They made a call (he had told them about this connections) and Kretzenbacher intervened to release him. After that experience he never went across the border again ...”

25 She also revealed Orel’s strategy of visiting Scandinavia every four years to participate in congresses about open air museums, about which he told her “that he would have crowds of experts to consult” ...

26 Orel’s behaviour when the dreucl, the ard without a sole was discovered, was something she would never forget: “I went to see an ard in Kranjska gora and then to Podkoren, and I brought back those pictures. When they were developed and I showed them to him – this is what I found, and this is what I shot – he went out of his mind. He kept staring at the photograph, the hook – wondering and sighing: I’ve got to show this, I’ve really got to show this to him. And off he went to the National Museum to show it right away to Kastelic. Now, they didn’t use this thing for ploughing, only for ridging; but its form, that was what it was all about. It almost looked like something prehistoric; he really was out of his mind. That Orel would jump about for joy, now that was something I never imagined ... and two or three days later he went straight to Bratanić in Zagreb with these photos.”

27 The appendix, Orel’s relation of his trips to some villages in Carinthia, is in the ISN archives and corresponds with the travel report on his trip to Austria, October 6-25, 1960, which is in the SEM archives, SEM AR 134 – Reports. The latter includes interesting details on how Orel travelled on his field trips to Austria: “[...]by train to Podkoren, then by bicycle across the Koren Pass ...”

28 Letters from his Austrian colleague Dr. Oskar Moser from Celovec, dated November 23, 1954, and his Carinthian colleague, Dr. Pavel Zablatnik, dated March 10, 1957 (ISN archives, the Orel holdings). Zablatnik’s letter has an added drawing (s. app. 16), on which Orel wrote: “The parish priest Kuchler wrote the names he was told by Kopajnik onto your drawing in pencil [...] The sketch of the forecarriage was made by parish priest Kuchler, who also added the data provided to him by Kopajnik and Šustar [...]I hereby return the drawing with the above mentioned added names ...”

29 ISN archives, the Orel holdings.

30 Besides Orel and the other authors in the two thematic volumes of Slovenski Etnograf, 8 and 14, the tenth volume of this scientific publication included findings on ploughing implements and ploughing in Slovene Istria by Sergij Vilfan. Later texts dedicated to the theme of ploughs (or merely including ploughs) more or less repeated Orel’s findings and, here and there, those of other authors from the two volumes (e.g: Baš 1968; Makarovič 1978, which to some extent includes the material of the field teams of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum; the historian Grafenauer in 1970, and the archaeologist Pleterski in 1987).

31 This part of the report, pages 48 to 50, is concluded by a short survey of the construction and other characteristics of the described ards.

32 He submitted all the dialect names to the dialectologist Dr. Tine Logar for verification (Orel 1955: 31).

33 Šach published his typology in 1968 under the title Proposal for the Classification of Pre-Industrial Tilling Implements, in Tools and Tillage, 1/1, 3-27. His classification is based on both construction typology and functional aspects.

34 Many similar iron shares with narrow rectangular holes for inserting movable coulters on the left or right side were found in the eastern part of the territory of the Roman province Gaul, that is “Belgian Gaul”; their dating suggests local use of ards with an adjustable coulter (and a movable, turning small board, tourneoreille) at least from the second century AD onwards. André Marbach, who carried out the research, found confirmation of later use of a similar specimen of ard from Anoste (Saône-et-Loire), which was still used for ploughing in the early 20th century (Marbach 2007: 56-57).

35 Such ploughing obviously is an asymmetrical use of an otherwise symmetrical implement (s. Steensberg 1986: 138-139).

36 In this connection Šarf came to the conclusion, based on later insight, that Orel possibly slightly underestimated the causal aspect in the development of ploughs: “Why did the plough develop? For the peasant to work as much land as possible in the easiest possible way. Because he gained something from it: either for himself or for sale. How this improved his material situation and living conditions – how it changed his way of living, now that is something we did not address. And that was indeed the final objective – what the peasant gained from the new implement.”

37 Reflecting on the presence of metal parts of ploughing implements in hoards in many early and late medieval archaeological sites, Grith Lerche came to the conclusion that it was quite logical. Their weight in iron was a real treasure, as much as ingots and coins. Hoards thus contained the objects which were most important and valuable to contemporary peasants – iron objects valued as capital in iron, but also tools enabling them to work the land and make a livelihood; and also to pay tithes as is illustrated by an interesting picture from the 13th-century German Sachsenspiegel (Lerche 1994: 220-221).

38 Sergij Vilfan (Vilfan 1957: 64) put it slightly differently: “They say that in the old days a man would go into the forest with an axe and return with a cart”, but he continues: “A cart was thus entirely homemade and without iron parts. And the same is almost entirely true of the plough ...”

39 An example confirming this finding in Slovenia is the recent discovery of slash and burn agriculture in Marija Reka above Prebold, where it was carried out until the last quarter of the past century. (Field notes and photos by Inja Smerdel, Kondi Kos cassette, acc. no. A 07/13.)

40 These traces were found in a layer right below the surface, at a site of the Early Funnel Beaker Culture.

41 Virgil calls it plaumaratrum, not aratrum; Forni derives the term from the word plaustrum – carro, a cart or a cart base (Steensberg 1986: 144; after Forni 1977).

42 Two Roman authors on agriculture, Pliny and Varro, refer to these mould-strokers (small boards) as “ears” – tabellae or binae aures – being useful attachments to the ard to cover seeds or when ploughing wider furrows (Lerche 1994: 229).

43 Branimir Bratanić (1952: 58) based his ideas on the names of the individual parts of the plough that are common to all Slavic peoples, but too many facts contradicted his theory to be accepted (Baš 1968: 1; Grafenauer 1970: 212).

44 The two excavated Slavic ards in present-day East Germany (Micsanau, Eisenhüttenstadt district) and Poland (Kamien Pomorski) – the first is from the 8th or 9th century, the second from the 11th century (data from the material of Gorazd Makarovič’s introductory film Images from everyday life; after: Bielfeldt, H. H., Herrmann, J., Die Slawen in Deutschland. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1985 and Dowiat, J., Kultura Polski średniowiecznej. Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, Warszawa 1985), are recognisable specimens of the simple ard with a horizontal sole of the Triptolemos type – one of the two basic types of the ard (as is the one from Lavagnone from the early second millennium BC).

45 Orel’s material on the ard (Archives of the ISN) contains the following record from Rute near Podgorje in Rosental (Carinthia): “A pattle or plough staff was not used to clean the ard, because there was no need to” at least not on sandy soil. A note from Tuce or Tuče in the municipality of Radiše reads “the plough is cleaned with the coulter, which they take off the plough beam for this purpose. There was no special spade.”

46 In this respect, see the instructive chapters on Celtic, Early and Late La Tène socketed bifurcated shares and sokhas in the work of Magdalena Beranová Zemědělství starých Slovanů (Beranová 1980: 73-75, 262-268, suppl.. XIV and XXII).

47 Relatively recent use of the sokha in places along the border between Finland and the then Soviet Union is confirmed by a photograph in an article by Kustaa Vilkuna, Die Pflüggeräte Finlands, Studia Fennica, vol. 16 (1971). In: Steensberg 1986: 137.

48 In rather recent clearings (novine, požári, vélne) the tools used to prepare the land for sowing or planting were only mattocks and hoes according to the records (Sketelj 2004: 458), because the later slash and burn technique was used only on steep forest slopes in mountain areas (Ratitovec, along the upper Meža, Mislinja, Paka ...). Pleterski concludes his argument on the use of the sokha with these words: “[...] that it was especially useful on new clearings in the forest. When these had turned into old farmland they were ploughed with other ploughing implements [...] When they stopped clearing forests, the use of the sokha was gradually abandoned.”

49 A note worth considering may be that three ox teams were not really required because of the weight of the wooden plough, but may have been required by the nature of the soil. Records from the 1940s from places with heavy clay soil in Slovene Istria show that at times even four ox teams had to be used (see photo on p. 54).

50 Vilfan comments on these ploughs: “The principal feature of ploughs in the former Socerb estate is that they are often without a coulter. Such were the old ploughs in Podgorje, Nasirec, Mihele and Croatian Jelovice. [...] In Prešnica a coulter was used only on heavy soil. The differences in the use of a coulter are generally based on the fact that it is not required on light soil ...” (Vilfan 1957: 64). In nearby Croatian territory, for instance, use varied between the ard (without a coulter or forecarriage), the plough, and the “little plough” called plužica (or vrganj); the latter was a plough with an asymmetrical share and mouldboard, but without a coulter or forecarriage. Based on this information Baš continued his discussion of the Hrastovlje plough as follows “in the Kastav area the plužica was usually called drivo” and “on the island of Krk, close to Istria, a plužica was recorded in the interwar period; with the exception of the share and sheath (frame), its construction and shape relate it to the Hrastovlje plough” (Baš 1961: 56).

51 Late medieval wall paintings in Slovenia saw a notable wave of realism in the mid-15th century, marked by a tendency to be as approachable as possible and narrative elements which were to “present certain themes as understandably as possible”. The instructive, popular purpose of such images necessarily required them to be understandable to the observer, and this could only be achieved by using examples from everyday life and nature, “which were as close as possible to what they were used for” (Baš 1961: 51-53).

52 From about the late 14th c. onwards popular art – beside the “official religious” form of Imago pietatis as an image meant for pious worship – was gradually replaced by another form, which mainly derived from the idea that the torments of Jesus could be repeated again and again. To this purpose the historical images of torturers and instruments of torture (arma Christi) were expanded with implements used in everyday chores ... “these could be used to daily repeat the Lord’s suffering and multiply the historical instruments of his suffering, and particularly offend him, when such tools were used on Sundays and holy days of obligation” (Stele 1944: 406, 410).

53 These ploughs were perhaps not merely “farming emblems” in individual countryside churches, identifiable and familiar in their local environment, but above all artistic metaphors, vehicles of a mysterious message with a theological content (the biblical prophets Isaiah and Micaiah on forging arms into ploughshares and ploughs, metaphorically elaborated in the allegoric explanation of St Irenaeus on the plough as a symbol of Christ’s essence and mission to plough over and cleanse the earth (Cevc 1996: 410, 412–413).

54 Mentioned by father Anton Nadrah in the preface to Jože Mlinarič’s book Stiška opatija 1136-1784 (Dolenjska založba, Novo mesto 1995) on page IX.

55 Konrad Kos (born in 1934) from 25 Marija Reka, joined the Trbovlje Mine as a fitter in the 1960s. He started thinking about making his own plough to make the farm work he carried out beside his regular job easier. He made it all himself without a construction plan, improving the prototype by trial and error. The plough had two shares and two mouldboards and could plough two furrows at a time, each 40 cm wide. His plough made it possible to plough 35 cm deep, which was necessary for potatoes and maize, but could not be achieved with the old ploughs. From the late 1960s (when he made it), he and his wife lent the plough to all their neighbours and even to farms up to Trojane (FN I. Smerdel, Archives of the SEM, transcription of cassette acc. no. A07/13).

56 In his book The Neolithic of the Near East (1975); after Steensberg 1986: 129.

57 Instrumental to the foundation of the Moravian Museum in Brno were men like Christian Karl Andre, a Moravian economist, enlightened scientist, expert on agriculture and secretary of the Moravian-Silesian Association for the Development of Agriculture. “The basis of the collection which presents economic activities (5800 objects) is the unique collection of ploughs ...” (From: Hána Dvořaková, Ethnographic Institute of the Moravian Museum in Brno, in the catalogue of the exhibition European ethnographic museums at the SEM, Slovene Ethnographic Museum, Ljubljana 2004: 16-19.)

58 With thanks to my colleague Ivica Šestan from the Ethnographic Museum in Zagreb, for the information.

59 With thanks to the director of the museum, Božica Škulj for the information. Their “Department of basic agriculture” was set up in co-operation with Dr. Branimir Bratanić in 1981. The “agricultural techniques” collection, for which they acquired the two Slovene ploughing implements, was donated to the museum in 1963 by Narodna tehnika Jugoslavije. According to Bratanić, the collection originated on the basis of his own research and collecting activities.

60 Cf. Bratanić 1952: 53.





KATALOG





CATALOGUE





UVODNA BESEDA H KATALOGU ZBIRKE IN RISB ORAL

Uvodno besedo h katalogu zbirke oral in katalogu risb oziroma risanih zapisov1 o ornih orodjih sestavlja nekaj pritresenih vsebinskih drobcev, najsibo dodatnih pojasnil najsibo posameznih ugotovitev, in uvodna pripomba o načinu katalogizacije.

Najprej nekaj besed o večkratnem preseljevanju zbirke, ki v marsičem pojasnjujejo njeno današnje stanje. Orala, v letih po 2. svetovni vojni deponirana povečini v kletnih prostorih Moderne galerije – skupaj z drugim predmetnim gradivom, ki so ga leto za letom prinašale s terenov Orlove ekipe –, so konec 60. let preselili v grad Lisičje pri Škofljici. Omenjene nove prostore je muzej pridobil leta 1969 ter v njih načrtoval študijske depoje in razstavišče za tematske stalne zbirke,2 a je ostalo le pri načrtih. Leta 1977 se je potem muzeju ponudila priložnost za depojske prostore v izpraznjenem delu Uršulinskega samostana v Škofji Loki. Vanje so v naslednjih dveh letih preselil večino svojih zbirk, med njimi tudi orala,3 in kolekcije začeli sistematično urejati. Ko sem kot kustosinja začetnica v začetku 80. let preteklega stoletja pregledovala zbirke »ljudskega gospodarstva«, so bila vsa orala naložena na nepreglednem kupu. Pozneje smo jih namestili na police, pred selitvijo iz nekdanjega centralnega depoja v Škofji Loki v nove depojske prostore Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja na Metelkovi pa so bila jeseni leta 2005 vsa sanirana, torej zaščitena proti lesnim škodljivcem in očiščena. Po tej tretji selitvi v letu 2006 je bila zbirka v celoti pregledana in urejena. Glede na njen pomen bi na posameznih oralih kazalo izvesti nekaj zahtevnejših restavratorskih posegov.

Opisano dogajanje na zbirki ni pustilo hujših sledi; njeno današnje stanje je sorazmerno zadovoljivo. V skladu z opisi so vsa do leta 2008 inventarizirana orala ohranjena skoraj v celoti popolna. Le eno je ostalo brez lemeža, eno brez deske, pet brez črtal (v enem primeru rezalnice), dve brez gredeljnic in izmed posameznim oralom pripadajočih otk (štirih inventariziranih) je v zbirki ostala samo še ena. Muzejsko ustno izročilo očarljivo razkriva izginotja navedenih predmetov oziroma posameznih sestavnih delov. V letih hranjenja zbirke v slabo varovanem dvorcu Lisičje naj bi bil muzejski konzervator ob enem izmed rednih kontrolnih obiskov presenetil kmeta ali dva iz bližnje okolice, ki sta se prav tedaj smukala med orali. In ta dva oziroma kdaj drugikrat morda tudi kak njun sosed so si v muzejski »shrambi« vzeli pač tisto, kar so rabili – na primer otke –, ali pa so v nji poceni prišli do sicer dragih železnih sestavnih delov, kar na svojstven način ponovno priča o njihovi posebni vrednosti.




64. Zbirka oral tik po preselitvi v nove depojske prostore Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja na Metelkovi leta 2006. (Foto M. Habič, 2006; Arhiv SEM, F)

The collection of ploughing implements after the move to the new depots of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum on Metelkova Street in 2006. (Photo M. Habič, 2006; SEM archives, PL)

Na koncu razprave o oralih, oranju in Orlu je med drugim zapisano, da je največji pomen zbirke ornih orodij Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja nedvomno v tem, da ima gostobesedne, povedne inventarne zapise in tudi, da védenje o oralih in oranju mikavno dopolnjuje določeno število terenskih risb oziroma risanih zapisov. V katalogu zbirke so zavoljo tega do št. 34 v celoti navedeni opisi oral spod peres posameznih muzejskih predhodnikov: kustosinj Pavle Štrukelj in Fanči Šarf, ki sta inventarizirali v strokovnem okrilju Borisa Orla, in kustosa Angelosa Baša. Kakršni koli posegi v prid terminološki nedvoumnosti ali morebitna druga pojasnila so tako pri predmetih kot pri risanih zapisih v navedenih kataložnih citatih zapisani v oklepajih in v drugačni pisavi ali velikosti črk kakor v citatu.

Predmeti v seznamu so razvrščeni od nižjih k višjim inventarnim številkam Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja. Vrstni red podatkov v kataloških enotah je naslednji: zaporedna številka, temeljna tipološka oznaka predmeta (somerno ali nesomerno oralo), oblikovni tip, morebitno posebno oziroma narečno ime, kraj uporabe, material (na tem mestu le s temeljnimi oznakami za material: trd les, železo), mere temeljnih sestavnih delov (d = dolžina gredlja, v = višina in š = širina ročic, višina kozolca, dolžina plaza, dolžina lemežk ali desk, dolžina in širina lemeža, dolžina črtala; p = premer koles kolc, širina kolc, dolžina vprežnega droga ali jezika in klešč), inventarna številka (= inv. št.) Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja in morebitna starejša tuja inventarna številka. Sledi komentar k predmetu.




65. Zbirka po pregledu in ureditvi leta 2007. (Foto I. Smerdel, 2007; Arhiv SEM, F)

The collection after it was surveyed and arranged in 2007. (Photo I. Smerdel, 2007; SEM archives, PL)

Temeljni tip somernih oral je nadalje členjen po na Slovenskem uveljavljeni Orlovi oblikovni tipologiji na četverokotna rala s kolci (in rezalnico), četverokotna rala na oje in na rala brez plaza. Tem sledijo osipalniki – orala raznovrstne namembnosti, s katerimi so ponekod orali za sajenje okopavin, osipanje, okopavanje in izkopavanje – in okopalniki, namenjeni rahljanju zgornje plasti zemlje in zatiranju plevela. Temeljni tip nesomernih oral je nadalje deljen le na enojne in dvojne pluge.

Terminologija posameznih sestavnih delov pri somernih in nesomernih oralih je zavoljo jasnosti rabe v katalogu in v angleškem prevodu poenotena, razen tedaj, kadar gre za posebnosti v sestavi ral (na primer lemežke) ali plugov (na primer kolca z jezikom in kleščami – s sestavljenim vprežnim drogom). Uporabljana in v slovenskem etnološkem slovstvu povečini že uveljavljena imena temeljnih delov pomaga razumeti priložena fotografska skica. Gredelj (gredeli, hlod) tako ostaja GREDELJ, ročice ROČICE ali ROČICA, kozolec (kazuc, kozučk) KOZOLEC in deske (dile, stranice, pernce, ploh) ostajajo DESKE ali DESKA. Ime PLAZ poenoteno označuje oplaz pluga in podsad (podsu, puaza, plat, podplat, ploh) rala, ime LEMEŽ pa lemež pluga in lemež ali oralnik (ráunik) rala. Črtalo (črtáu, rezauənca) ostaja ČRTALO, razen pri rezalnici, kjer ime REZALNICA obenem označuje celotno oralo. Izmed imen za posamezne druge dele v sestavi oral se zdi na primer za lesen cvek, zatəč ali železno iglo, jeglico na koncu gredlja najustreznejše skupno ime GREDELJNIK, podobno kot je kratka železna veriga za pripenjanje gredlja na kolca GREDELJNICA. Za njeno različico iz vrbove ali leskove trte in bikove žile, ki bi glede na obročasto obliko lahko nosila ime gož, kakor pri jarmu, je uporabljano ime kar TRTA, ki je tudi največkrat sporočeno v raznovrstnih zapisih (terenskih, inventarnih, risanih). Pojasnilo glede imena potrebuje še VPREŽNI DROG kolc, ki je v posameznih primerih (samo pri enojnih plugih v loku od Bele krajine do ljubljanske okolice in Notranjske; št. 3, 7, 26, 32, 51) sestavljen iz dveh delov.4 Zanju je bilo mogoče najti slikovito pravšnji imeni JEZIK in KLEŠČE. Na slednje je pritrjen držaj različnih oblik, s katerim je oračev pomočnik pritegoval ali odrival klešče ter s tem uravnaval brazde. V slovenski kmečki povesti Domačija ob Temenici, pripovednika Ivana Zorca,5 je na primer kmet Terlep na lep pomladni dan, ko je »solnce budilo dramečo se zemljo, sopečo v lehkih meglicah«, podoraval krompir in »pastir mu je kleščaril ...«.





Seznamu predmetov sledi seznam risanih zapisov o oralih iz fonda ilustrativnega gradiva v Arhivu Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja. Risbe so razvrščene kronološko. Vrstni red podatkov je naslednji: zaporedna številka, temeljna tipološka oznaka predmeta (somerno ali nesomerno oralo), oblikovni tip, avtor risanega zapisa, letnica nastanka, (teren), tehnika, mere lista, inventarna številka (= inv. št.) Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja in zapis na risbi. Pri posameznih primerkih zapisu sledi vsebinsko dopolnilo ali pojasnilo.

Izbrani risani zapisi – poleg njih bi k oralom tematsko sodilo le še nekaj risb lemežev z omejeno sporočilnostjo – so vsi nastali kot načrtna oblika beleženja raziskovalnih podatkov na terenih Orlovih ekip.6 Vseh osemnajst so namreč spremljali različni risarji, ki so risali povečini po naročilu posameznih raziskovalcev. Poljedelstvo in raznovrstna orodja, tudi orna, je na največ terenih raziskoval sam Boris Orel,7 a risani zapisi o posameznih oralih so nastali le na nekaterih – na Dolenjskem, Primorskem in Notranjskem: na prvem terenu, Šentjurij - Škocjan 1948; na drugem, Šmarje - Sap 1949; na šestem, Mokronog 1951; na sedmem, Kobarid 1951; na desetem, Brda 1953; na enajstem, Cerkno 1954; na dvanajstem, Brkini 1955; na Orlovem zadnjem, osemnajstem terenu, Šentrupert 1961; in potem še na devetnajstem terenu, Lož 1962. Poleg risanih zapisov v gradivu Orlovih ekip so o oralih zgovorni tudi številni terenski zapiski, ki pa večinoma prinašajo le drobce zadevnih podatkov od tu in tam in ne omogočajo celovitejšega pogleda na orala in oranje, kakršnega na primer pomeni Orlovo raziskovanje rala na Štajerskem in na Koroškem.

Na podlagi kataloga so nadalje nastala tri kazala: kraja uporabe, oblikovnih tipov in materialov. Povedno je zlasti slednje, ki deloma potrjuje in deloma dopolnjuje védenja (Orel 1955, 1961; Baš 1968), da so rala in plugi praviloma izdelani iz trdega lesa listnatih dreves in da je prevladovala bukev. Orala v zbirki sporočajo, da je zares največ njihovih desk (19 primerkov), gredljev (16), kozolcev (16), plazov (15) in ročic (24) iz bukovine – težkega in ne posebno elastičnega lesa, ki se rad cepi in šele s parjenjem postane trši in upogljiv.8 Pri sestavnih delih, ki so morali biti zavoljo svojih delovnih nalog še posebej trdni in trpežni, pri gredljih, plazih in ročicah, pa pri gredljih lesu bukve sledijo: gabrovina (8 primerkov) – trden, močen, gost in težek les, uporabljan za izdelovanje raznovrstnih zahtevnejših orodij; jesenovina (6) – zelo trd in močen les, ki ga je v pari mogoče kriviti, najpogosteje uporabljan za izdelovanje vozov; in javorjevina (5) – močen les z gostimi in trdimi vlakni. Plazov je za bukovino največ iz jesenovine (8 primerkov) in gabrovine (4), prav tako ročic (8 primerkov iz jesenovega, 5 iz gabrovega lesa). Uporaba določene vrste lesa je bila nedvomno odvisna tako od izdelovalčevega zadevnega znanja in delovnih veščin kot od dostopnosti tega ali onega lesa.

Kot primarni tvarni vir pa orala iz zbirke Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja sporočajo še naslednje: Po izvedbi tudi med sorodnimi primerki niti eno oralo ni povsem enako drugemu; vsako je edinstveno, najsibo zavoljo roke izdelovalca najsibo zaradi sledi rabe in morebitnih popravil. Zavoljo dolgotrajne delovne rabe prav nobeno, razen osamljeni novi primerek (št. 18), ne priča o svoji začetni podobi, temveč slikovito razkriva dinamiko uporabe. Ob pogledu na orala v zbirki se tudi zdi, da je le redka (morda št. 30, 38, 39, 40, 44) naredila vešča kolarska roka. Celo pri primerkih s tako imenovano železno glavo (z železnim lemežem, desko in plazom; št. 33, 34, 35, 43, 49, 52), kupljeno kot industrijski izdelek, so leseni gredlji in ročice najverjetneje delo domačih, neizučenih kolarjev.

Pri razglabljanju o oralih je mogoče misliti, da je tema v etnološkem slovstvu že dodobra izčrpana. Morda bo odstrta zbirka vzpodbudila nadaljnja raziskovanja, v nove smeri. Kompleksnost oral, veščine oranja ter vloge in pomeni oračev jih nedvomno prepoznavno začrtujejo.





1 Z vsebinskega vidika je raba termina »risan zapis« ustreznejša. Nekaj utemeljitev v prid njegovi rabi sem nanizala v besedilu Risani zapisi – Nekaj misli razstavi ob rob, v katalogu istoimenske razstave Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja iz leta 1988. Na primer: » Etnološke risbe naj ne bi zgolj prikazovale, temveč naj bi tudi pojasnjevale. Napisana pojasnila, črkovni zapisi na risbah, so navdihnili naslov razstave: Risani zapisi. /.../ Namen, metodološka usmeritev raziskovalca na terenu je pogojevala in pogojuje vsebino, povednost njegove ali zanj narejene terenske risbe. /.../ Iz risanega zapisa z boljšo ali malo slabšo osebno interpretacijo nastane nekaj med risanim dokumentom in likovnim delom ...«

2 Podatek iz kronološkega niza »Pomembnejši dogodki v zgodovini etnografskega muzeja«, ki gaje ob šestdesetletnici Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja sestavila Irena Keršič (Slovenski etnograf, 23 (1980–1982), Ljubljana 1983, 208–212).

3 Gl. opombo št. 2.

4 Vprežni drog v obliki in z namembnostjo jezika in klešč je bilo mogoče v pregledanem slovstvu zaslediti le na fotografiji (Sl. 79) pluga iz Starega Grada v Žumberku v Bratanićevem delu Oraće sprave u Hrvata (1939).

5 Povest je leta 1929 izšla pri Mohorjevi družbi v Celju. Uporabljeni navedek je mogoče prebrati na prvi strani.

6 Njihov prvotni cilj je bilo zbiranje in raziskovanje gradiva, ki »bo pokazalo verno sliko ljudskega življenja na našem podeželju v letih po narodnoosvobodilni vojni in pred preobrazbo naše vasi ...«, kot je v svoj uvodnik (z naslovom V novo razdobje) v prvem letniku Slovenskega etnografa (1948: 7) zapisal Boris Orel.

7 Na terenih: 3 – Dekani (1949) skupaj z Vilkom Novakom, 4 – Marezige (1950), 6 – Mokronog (1951), 7 – Kobarid (1951), 8 – Trenta (1952), 9 – Šentjernej (1952), 10 – Goriška Brda (1953), 11 – Cerkljansko (1954), 12 – Brkini (1955), 13 – Kostanjevica (1956), 14 – Žužemberk (1957), 15 – Vipava (1958), 16 – Črni vrh – Vojsko (1959), 17 – Velike Lašče (1960) in 18 – Šentrupert (1961). Le na štirih terenih so poljedelstvo in zadevna orodja raziskovali drugi: 1 – Šentjurij – Škocjan (1948), Tone Ljubič; 2 – Šmarje – Sap (1949), Marjan Maučec in 5 – Šentvid pri Stični (1950), Vilko Novak (Smerdel 1983: 21–23).

8 Značilnosti vseh omenjenih vrst lesa so povzete iz dela: R. Donzelli, B. Munari, P. Polato, Delajmo z lesom. Koper 1983, 56–68.





INTRODUCTION TO THE COLLECTION CATALOGUE AND THE DRAWINGS OF PLOUGHING IMPLEMENTS

This introduction to the collections of ploughs and drawings or drawn records1 of ploughing implements contains some additional explanations or individual findings, and an introductory remark on the cataloguing method.

To begin with, a few words about the collection’s several moves that explain much of its present condition. In the years after the Second World War most ploughs were stored in the cellars of the Modern Gallery, together with the other material brought in year after year by Orel’s field teams. They were moved to Lisičje Mansion near Škofljica in the late 1960s. The museum acquired space in the mansion in 1969 and planned to turn it into study depots and a location for permanent thematic exhibitions,2 but the plans were never realised. In 1977, the museum acquired depot premises in the vacated part of the Ursuline monastery in Škofja Loka. Most of the collections, including that of ploughing implements,3 were transferred in the following years and the staff started to arrange the collections systematically. When I examined the collections of “folk economy” as a novice curator in the early 1980s, all the ploughing implements were stacked in a chaotic heap. We later placed them on shelves and in 2005, before the next move from the former central depot in Škofja Loka to the SEM’s new depots in Metelkova Street, all the ploughs were cleaned and protected against wood pests. In 2006, after this third transfer, the collection was thoroughly examined and arranged. In view of the collection’s importance, some ploughs would benefit from demanding restoration interventions.

These events did not cause any major damage to the collection; its present condition is relatively satisfactory. In accordance with the descriptions, all ploughs inventoried up to 2008 have been preserved nearly intact. One is without a share, one without a mouldboard, five without a coulter (in one case a ristle), two without a draught chain, and of the four patties (in the inventory book) belonging to individual ploughs only one is left in the collection. Oral tradition circulating in the museum has some charming explanations about the disappearance of the relevant objects or individual parts. In the years the collection was stored in the poorly protected Lisičje Mansion, the museum’s keeper was performing one of his regular control visits when he ran into two local farmers prowling among the ploughs. And these two, or perhaps one of their neighbours, are said to have taken into “custody” what they needed – pattles for instance, or they may have discovered a cheap way of acquiring some rather precious metal parts. And this is further though rather specific evidence of their special value.

At the end of the treatise on ploughs, ploughing and Boris Orel, I wrote that the greatest importance of the collection of ploughing implements at the Slovene Ethnographic Museum undoubtedly lies in the fact that they are documented by extensive and informative accession records, and that the knowledge about them is complemented by a number of field drawings and an extensive collection of photographs. Up to no. 34, the catalogue of the collection therefore presents the complete descriptions written by the museum’s former curators: Pavla Štrukelj and Fanči Šarf, who accessioned them under the professional guidance of Boris Orel, and Angelos Baš. The interventions in the text of either list (of objects or drawn records) are aimed at avoiding terminological ambiguity or provide additional explanation; they are enclosed in brackets and printed in a different font or character size than the quotations.

The objects in the list are classified in ascending order of the museum accession numbers. The data in the catalogue units are arranged in the following order: consecutive number, basic typological description (symmetrical or asymmetrical plough), type, special or dialect name if given, place of use, material (here only the basic data are stated: hardwood, iron), the dimensions of the basic parts (l = length of the beam, h = height, and w = width of the handles, h = height of the sheath, l = length of the sole, length of the mould strokers or mouldboards, length and width of the share, length of the coulter; d = diameter of the wheels, w = width of the forecarriage, l = length of the draught beam or “tongue and tongs”), accession number (= acc. no.) of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum and older accession number (if given). These data are then followed by the commentary on the object.

The basic type of symmetrical plough is further divided in accordance with Orel’s typology of forms that has been accepted in Slovenia: rectangular wheel ards (with a ristle), rectangular ards with a yoke beam, and ards without a sole. These are followed by ridging ploughs – ploughs for different purposes, used in some places to plough for planting root crops, earthing up, cultivating and digging up – and cultivator ploughs used to loosen the top soil and for weed control. The basic type of asymmetrical plough is further divided into single and double ploughs.

The terminology of the individual parts of symmetrical and asymmetrical ploughing implements has been standardised for the sake of unambiguous use in the catalogue and its English translation; exceptions are specific features in the composition of ards (for instance mould strokers) or ploughs (for instance a forecarriage with a draught beam consisting of a tongue and tongs, a composite draught beam). The terminology used is widely accepted in Slovene ethnological literature and is clarified by a photograph. These terms are BEAM, STILT, HANDLES, SHEATH (frog, frame), and MOULDBOARD. The term SOLE refers to the landslide of the plough or ard, the term SHARE to the plough share of the plough or ard. The coulter remains COULTER, but RISTLE refers to a separate, complete ploughing implement. The various names of other individual parts in the composition of a plough are unified; the wooden wedges or pegs or iron nails at the end of the beam, for instance, are represented by the most suitable collective term DRAUGHT PEG/PIN; similarly, the short iron chain used to attach the beam to the forecarriage is called the DRAUGHT CHAIN. Its variant, made of osier or hazel shoots and a bull vein – because of its ring form it is similar to a yoke collar – is called a COLLAR. Another name that needs explanation is the DRAUGHT BEAM of the forecarriage, which in individual cases (only with single ploughs from the arch stretching from Bela krajina to the Ljubljana environs and on to Notranjska; nos. 3, 7, 26, 32, 51) consist of two parts.4 The picturesque names used for them are TONGUE and TONGS. A handle of various forms is fixed to the tongs and the ploughman’s helper tightens or loosens the tongs to adjust the furrow, like in the story Domačija ob Temenici (The Homestead by the River Temenica) by the narrative writer Ivan Zorec,5 “when the sun woke the rousing soil, breathing heavily in light veils of mist” Terlep was ploughing in the potatoes “and his herdsman was keeping the furrow straight with tongs ...”.

The list of objects is followed by the list of drawn records of the ploughs from the holdings of pictorial material in the SEM’s archives. The drawings are listed in chronological order. The data on them are in the following order: consecutive number, basic typological description of the object (symmetrical or asymmetrical plough), form type, author of the drawn record, date of origin, (field), technique, dimensions of the sheet, accession number (= acc. no.) of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum, and the text on the drawing. With individual specimens, the content of the text is complemented or explained.

The selected drawn records – in addition to these, there are only a couple of drawings of plough shares with limited informational value – were all made as a systematic form of recording research data in the field by Orel’s teams.6 The eighteen teams were indeed each accompanied by a different drawer, who mostly drew as instructed by the individual researchers. Agriculture and ploughing implements were largely researched by Boris Orel himself,7 but drawn records of individual ploughs were made only in some instances – in Dolenjska, Primorska and Notranjska: in field 1 – Šentjurij – Škocjan 1948; field 2 – Šmarje - Sap 1949; field 6 – Mokronog 1951; field 7 – Kobarid 1951; field 10 – Brda 1953; field 11 Cerkno 1954; field 12 – Brkini 1955; and in Orel’s last field, no. 18 – Šentrupert 1961; and, finally, in field 19 – Lož 1962. In addition to the drawn records in the material of Orel’s teams, information on ploughs is provided by numerous field notes, but these largely contain only fragmentary data from here and there, and do not provide a comprehensive image of ploughs and ploughing in the vein of Orel’s research into the ard in Štajerska and Koroška.

Three further indexes are based on the catalogue: places of use, form types and materials.

The latter is particular telling, as it partly confirms and partly completes the finding (Orel 1955, 1961; Baš 1968) that ards and ploughs were as a rule made of deciduous hardwood and that beech prevailed. The ploughs in the collection indeed reveal that most of their mouldboards (19 specimens), beams (16), sheaths (16), soles (15) and handles (24) are made of beech – a heavy and not particularly flexible wood that tends to split and that is made harder and flexible only by steaming.8 In the parts that have to be particularly hard and durable because of their function in plough beams, soles and handles, beech is followed in the beams by white beech (8 specimens) – a hard, strong, dense and heavy wood that is used for making more demanding implements, ash (6) – a very hard and strong wood that can be bent in steam, and is most often used to make carts, and maple (5) – a strong wood with hard, dense fibres. In the soles, beech is followed by ash (8 specimens) and white beech (4); and the same is true of the handles (8 specimens are made of ash, 5 of white beech). The use of certain types of wood no doubt depended on the specific knowledge and skills of the maker, as well as on the availability of this or other wood.

As a primary material source, the ploughing implements from the Slovene Ethnographic Museum collection yield further information: even among similar specimens no two ards or ploughs are exactly alike: each is unique, whether because of the hand of the maker, or because of traces of use and possible repairs. Due to their long-term use, not a single one – except an isolated new specimen (no. 18) – offers us its initial appearance, and they all strikingly reveal the dynamics of their use. Viewing the ploughing implements in the collection, it also appears that only rare specimens (perhaps nos. 30, 38, 39, 40, and 44) were made by the skilled hands of a cartwright. Even with the specimens that have an “iron head” (an iron share, mouldboard or sole; nos. 33, 34, 35, 43, 49, 52), bought as an industrial product, the wooden plough beams and handles were most probably made by domestic, untrained cartwrights.

Reflecting on ards and ploughs, one might feel that the theme has been exhausted in ethnological literature. This “unveiled” collection may encourage new research in new directions, which are clearly outlined by the complexity of ploughing implements, of ploughing skills and of the roles and significance of ploughmen.





1 Because of their content, the term “drawn records” is more appropriate than “drawings”. Some arguments in favour of drawn records are listed in the text (by I. Smerdel) “Drawn records – Reflections on the exhibition” in the catalogue of the SEM’s exhibition in 1988 with the same title. For instance: “Ethnological drawings should not only present, but also explain. The written explanations, the texts on the drawings inspired the title of the exhibition: Drawn records. [...] The purpose and methodological orientation of the field researcher always determines the content and informative nature of his own field drawings and those made for him. [...] A drawn record with a personal interpretation, which may be of varying quality, turns into a drawn document and a work of art ...”

2 Information from the chronological survey “Important events in the history of the Ethnographic Museum”, compiled by Irena Keršič on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the SEM (Slovenski etnograf, 32 (1980–1982), Ljubljana 1983: 208–212).

3 See note no. 2.

4 In the surveyed literature a draught beam with the form and function of a tongue and tongs was found only on the photograph (Ill. 79) of a plough from Stari Grad in Žumberak in Bratanić, Oraće sprave u Hrvata (1939).

5 The tale was published by Mohorjeva družba in Celje in 1929. The passage is on the first page.

6 Their original objective was to collect and research material that would “present a true picture of folk life in the countryside during the first years after the liberation and before the transformation of the villages”, Boris Orel wrote in his introduction (entitled “Into a New Era”) in the first volume of Slovenski etnograf (1948: 7).

7 In these fields: 3 – Dekani (1949) together with Vilko Novak, 4 – Marezige (1950), 6 – Mokronog (1951), 7 – Kobarid (1951), 8 – Trenta (1952), 9 – Šentjernej (1952), 10 – Goriška Brda (1953), 11 – Cerkljansko (1954), 12 – Brkini (1955), 13 – Kostanjevica (1956), 14 – Žužemberk (1957), 15 – Vipava (1958), 16 – Črni vrh – Vojsko (1959), 17 – Velike Lašče (1960) and 18 – Šentrupert (1961). Agriculture and related tools were researched by others in only four fields: 1 – Šentjurij – Škocjan (1948), by Tone Ljubič; 2 – Šmarje – Sap (1949), by Marjan Maučec and 5 – Šentvid pri Stični (1950), by Vilko Novak (Smerdel 1983: 21–23).

8 The qualities of the mentioned types of wood are taken from R. Donzelli, B. Munari, P. Polato, Delajmo z lesom (Let’s Work with Wood). Koper 1983, 56–68.





KATALOG PREDMETOV





CATALOGUE OF OBJECTS





1.

KOLCA / model kolc / Zadvor pri Sostrem / les, kovina / d – 23 cm, š – 11,5 cm, v – 8,5 cm / inv. št. E 2249 / stara inv. št. Narodnega muzeja 1189.


FORECARRIAGE / forecarriage model / Zadvor near Sostro / wood, metal / 1 – 23 cm, w – 11.5 cm, h – 8.5 cm / acc. no. E 2249 / old National Museum acc. no. 1189.




Model kolc, ki sodi k modelu enojnega pluga z inventarno številko E 2271, v katalogu št. 3, je bil za muzej pridobljen v 30. letih 19. stoletja. V inventarni knjigi Narodnega muzeja je zapisano, da je celoten model, tako kot št. 4, iz Planine pri Rakeku: »Modela pluga iz Planine (Pflugmodelle von Hasberg), Sore in Hasberg, 1833«. Raziskava Franceta Goloba je pozneje pokazala, da gre v tem primeru za donacijo nekega duhovnika iz Sostrega pri Ljubljani, iz leta 1838, in za izdelek Johanna Breyerja iz Zadvora pri Sostrem (France Golob, rokopisno gradivo o modelih v Slovenskem etnografskem muzeju iz leta 1996/97). Le-tega in pet naslednjih modelov je Kraljevi etnografski muzej prevzel od Narodnega muzeja v prvih dveh letih po svoji ustanovitvi (med 1923 in 1925), med izročenima 3502 »predmetoma narodopisnega značaja« nekdanjega Kranjskega deželnega muzeja Rudolfinum. Model sestavljajo: kolesi z blazino in vprežni drog oziroma jezik in klešče s pokončnim držajem z odprtino za roko. Na sprednjem koncu klešč je kovinski kavelj, na katerega je obešena vaga. V naravni velikosti so opisanemu modelu sorodna kolca enojnega pluga iz Spodnje Šiške, št. 51.


The model belongs to the model of a single plough that has accession number E 2271, no. 3 in this catalogue, and was acquired by the museum in the 1830s. As with no. 4, the accession book of the National Museum refers to a complete model from Planina near Rakek: “Model plough from Planina (Pflugmodelle von Hasberg), Sore from Hasberg, 1833”. Research carried out later by France Golob established that it was donated by a priest from Sostro near Ljubljana in 1838, and that it was made by Johann Breyer from Zadvor near Sostro (France Golob, manuscripts material on the models in the Slovene Ethnographic Museum, 1996/97). This model and five others were transferred from the National Museum to the Royal Ethnographic Museum in the first two years (between 1923 and 1925) after the latter’s foundation; they were part of the transferred 3502 “objects of an ethnological nature” that had belonged to the former Carniolan Provincial Museum – Rudolfinum. The model consists of two wheels connected by an axle tree, a draught beam, composed of a tongue and tongs, a vertical stilt with a cut-out handle. The front end of the tongs has a hook for the swingle tree. The model is similar to the full-size forecarriage of the single plough from Spodnja Šiška, cat. no. 51.



2.

NESOMERNO ORALO / model dvojnega pluga / Loka pri Mengšu / les / d – 39 cm, š – 11 cm, v – 9,8 cm / inv. št. E 2254 / stara inv. št. Narodnega muzeja 1186.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / model of a double wheel plough / Loka near Mengeš / wood / 1 – 39 cm, w – 11 cm, h – 9.8 cm / acc. no. E 2254 / old National Museum acc. no. 1186.




Model je donacija Karla Prennerja iz leta 1836 (Deschmann 1888: 157). V inventarni knjigi Narodnega muzeja je za ta model in za model št. 5 zapisano: »Modela dvojnega pluga v loškem okolišu (Modelle des Doppelpfluges im Bezirke Lak), Carl Prenner, 1836«. Pri obeh se pojavi vprašanje pravilno navedenega krajevnega izvora, saj niti okraja »Lak«, niti »Lack«, kot je navedeno v Deschmannovem vodniku iz leta 1888, ni bilo mogoče najti v Gemeindelexikon von Krain iz leta 1905. Da gre skoraj gotovo za »Laak«, za Loko pri Mengšu (gl. navedeni leksikon, na straneh 156, 157), je potrdil starejši vir, Orts-Repertorium des Herzogthums Krain ali Imenik krajev vojvodine Kranjske iz leta 1874, v katerem je Loka zapisana kot Lack (na str. 91). Model je v celoti lesen izdelek, drugače železni deli so označeni s črno poslikavo.


The model was donated by Karl Prenner in 1836 (Deschmann 1888: 157). The accession book of the National Museum has the following entry on this model and model no. 5: “Models of a double plough from the district of Loka (Modelle des Doppelpfluges im Bezirke Lak), Carl Prenner, 1836.” The reference to their provenance is questionable, as there is no district “Lak” or “Lack” as mentioned in Deschmann’s guide from 1888, in the Gemeindelexikon von Krain from 1905. Most likely, the reference is to “Laak”, meaning Loka near Mengeš (see the mentioned lexicon, pages 156, 157), which is mentioned as “Lack” (on page 9) in an older source from 1874, the Orts-Repertorium des Herzogthums Krain. The model is entirely made of wood and the parts that are normally made of iron are painted black.



3.

NESOMERNO ORALO / model enojnega pluga, s kolči / Zadvor pri Sostrem / orehov in lipov les, železo in svinec / d – 37 cm, š – 11,5 cm, v – 10,5 cm / inv. št. E 2271 / stara inv. št. Narodnega muzeja 1189.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / model of a single plough / Zadvor near Sostro / walnut and linden, iron and lead / 1 – 37 cm, w – 11.5 cm, h – 10.5 cm / acc. no. E 2271 / old acc. no. National Museum 1189.





Glede načina pridobitve, krajevnega izvora in izdelovalca tega modela velja komentar k št. 1.


Manner of acquisition, provenance and maker: see commentary on no. 1.



4.

NESOMERNO ORALO / model enojnega pluga, s kolči / Planina pri Rakeku / les, kovina / d – 25 cm, š – 11 cm, v – 6 cm / inv. št. E 2272 / stara inv. št. Narodnega muzeja 1188.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / model of a single wheel plough / Planina near Rakek / wood, metal / 1 – 25 cm, w – 11 cm, h – 6 cm / acc. no. E 2272 / old National Museum acc. no. 1188.




Model »pluga, kakršne uporabljajo v okraju Planina« (des im Bezirke Haasberg gebräuclich Pfluges), je donacija Jožefe Zore, zakupnikove soproge (Josepha Sorre, Pächters-Gattinn) iz Planine pri Rakeku, leta 1833 (Illyrisches Blatt, nr. 30, 27. julij 1833, str. 123). Drugače lesen modelček ima lemež in črtalo izdelana iz kovine. Kolca imajo kolesi dveh premerov, večje 6 centimetrov in manjše 4,5 centimetra. Takšna kolca so bila v rabi za oranje hribovitih njiv oziroma v primerih, ko je večje teklo po zorani brazdi, manjše pa po nezorani zemlji.


Model of a “plough of the type used in the Planina district” (des im Bezirke Haasberg gebräuclich Pfluges), donated by Jožefa Zore, a leaseholder’s wife (Josepha Sorre, Pächters-Gattinn) from Planina near Rakek, in 1833 (Illyrisches Blatt, no. 30, July 27, 1833, p. 123). The wooden model has a metal share and coulter. The diameters of the wheels differ: 6 cm in the bigger wheel, 4.5 cm in the smaller one. Such a forecarriage was used to plough on hill fields, and where the big wheel followed the ploughed furrow, and the small one ran over unploughed land.



5.

NESOMERNO ORALO / model dvojnega pluga, s kolci / Loka pri Mengšu / bukov les, železo / d – 48 cm, š – 18 cm, v – 12,5 cm / inv. št. E 2280 / stara inv. št. Narodnega muzeja 1187.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / model of a double wheel plough / Loka near Mengeš / beech wood, iron / 1 – 48 cm, w – 18 cm, h – 12.5 cm / acc. no. E 2280 / old National Museum acc. no. 1187.




Glede načina pridobitve in krajevnega izvora tega modela velja komentar k št. 2. Drugače je izjemno dognan, v sestavi popoln modelarski izdelek, pri katerem ni bilo pozabljeno niti na otko.


Manner of acquisition and provenance: see commentary on no. 2. It is an elaborate, complete product of modelling that even includes a pattle.



6.

SOMERNO ORALO / model osipalnika / krajevni izvor neznan / les / d – 60 cm, š – 14 cm, v – 15 cm / inv. št. E 2285.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / model of a ridging plough / provenance unknown / wood / 1 – 60 cm. w – 14 cm, h – 15 cm / acc. no. E 2285.




Glede načina pridobitve in krajevnega izvora ni podatkov. Model je v celoti lesen izdelek. Drugače železni deli, na primer somerni lemež, so označeni s črno poslikavo.


Manner of acquisition and provenance unknown. The model is entirely made of wood. The parts that are in reality iron-made, for instance the symmetrical share, are painted black.



7.

NESOMERNO ORALO / enojni plug, s kolci / Kočevje pri Črnomlju / gredelj, d – 183 cm; ročice, v – 66 cm; someren lemež (z dvema krakoma), d (kraka) – 80 cm; črtalo, d – 21 cm; kolca, š – 60 cm; kolesi, p – 33 cm; jezik in klešče, d – 105 cm / inv. št. 2577, a, b, c, d, e, f.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / single wheel plough / Kočevje near Črnomelj / beam, 1 – 183 cm; handles, h – 66 cm; symmetrical share (with two prongs), 1 – 80 cm; coulter, 1 – 21 cm; forecarriage, w – 60 cm; wheels, d – 33 cm; tongue and tongs, 1 – 105 cm / acc. no. 2577, a, b, c, d, e, f.




Listek, pritrjen na posamezne dele orala, je sporočal, da je bilo za muzej pridobljeno na naslednji način: »Nakup Jože Sterk, Kočevje pri Črnomlju, 18. VII. 1911«.

Inventarizacija Frančka Kosa, leta 1943:


»Kmečko orodje, star lesen plug, ki se sestoji iz sledečih delov:

a – Sprednji del: leseno štirioglato bruno (klešče), zadaj razcepljeno počez z navpično luknjo. Spredaj ima z dvema železnima ploščicama pritrjen kavelj, zgoraj ima nasajen močan polkrožen lok (držaj). Ime ni znano. Služi za vpreganje spredaj, zadaj za spajanje s kolci. Lok (locenj) služi za odrivanje in privzdigovanje.

b – Plužne kolca, spredaj lesena os, naprej ima vtaknjeno desko z luknjo spredaj (jezik), na osi so nataknjena lesena kolesa. Kolesa popolnoma iz lesa, dve navzkriž postavljeni palici obdajata srednjo valjasto široko cev (pesto), na zunanjih koncih pa so pritrjeni štirje sektorji kolesa. Zunaj ima lesen klin. Kolca: na nje je z gožem (gož trtna zveza) pritrjen gredelj. Značilna so lesena kolesa. Gož (trta); zveza kolc z gredljem manjka.

c – Gredelj – leseno okovano bruno, spredaj ima dve okrogli luknji (odprtini), na sredi približno eno podolgovato in nato še eno podolgovato, na koncu je sploščen v vodoravno ploščo z luknjo. Gredelj nosi plug. Luknje spredaj služijo za prestavljanje: na kratko ali dolgo za bolj globoko ali plitvo oranje. V srednjo luknjo pride črta (črtalo), v sledečo pa lemež. Zadaj pride vtaknjen v odprtino ročice.

d – Črta (črtalo) – železna ostrina, naprej ostra, zadaj topa, s koničastim nastavkom navzgor, ki pride v podolgovato luknjo (odprtino) gredlja. Črta – reže in deli zemljo.

e – Dvodelni lemež: dve vodoravni železni, na zunanji strani ostri, plošči postavljeni v obliki črke V, v stiku štrli navzgor spredaj priostrena železna plošča, s kovičastim nastavkom. Dvodelni lemež: služi za rahljanje in obračanje zemlje, rezilo spredaj še pomaga rezati. Nastavek pride v 2. podolg. luknjo.

f – Ročice: prečen 4. oglat hlod s podolgasto zarezo in navpično luknjo v sredi; nato sta zataknjeni dve nazaj zapognjeni zgoraj okrogli ročici, spojeni vmes s prečko. Spodnje bruno ima na konceh še po eno luknjo z lesenim čepom (čemu?). Ročice so spredaj spojene z gredljem in služijo prav za oranje. Za ročice drži orač in ravna plug. Ročice popolnoma iz lesa sestavljene.«


V Kosovi inventarizaciji ni omenjena deska, pribita na zunanjo stran desne ročice. Posebej vznemirljiv je opis lemeža, ki ga zdaj na oralu ni več, manjka pa tudi plaz. Po opisu sodeč gre za someren lemež z 80-centimetrskima krakoma, kar najverjetneje ustreza lemežem ralic, oral za obdelovanje poljščin z drobnimi semeni – prosa, lanu in konoplje –, razširjenih na sosednjem Hrvaškem v trikotniku med Karlovcem, Zagrebom in Sunjo (prim. Bratanić 1939: 55 in Sl. 94, 95). Na oralu manjka tudi črtalo.


A note attached to a part of the plough has the following information on its acquisition: “Purchased (from) Jože Sterk, Kočevje near Črnomelj, 18. VII. 1911.” Accession book entry by Franček Kos, 1943:

“Peasant tool, old wooden plough consisting of the following parts:

a – Front part: wooden rectangular beam (the tongs), split across at the back by a horizontal cleft. An iron hook is attached at the front with two iron plates, a sturdy semicircular arch (the handle) is mounted to the top side of the beam. Name unknown. Used to harness at the front and to connect with the forecarriage at the back. The arch is applied to press or release the beam.

b – A plough forecarriage, wooden axle at the front, a board with a hole at the front (the tongue) is set into it, the wooden wheels are mounted to the axle. The wheels are entirely made of wood, two cross bars surround the central round and wide hub, the four felloes of the wheel are mounted to their outer ends. Wooden wedge on the outside. Forecarriage: the plough beam is attached to the forecarriage with a collar. Typical wooden wheels. The collar linking the forecarriage to the plough beam is missing.

c – Plough beam – wooden, metal-reinforced beam, two holes at the front, a longitudinal one approximately in the centre, followed by another longitudinal one; the end of the beam tapers into a horizontal board with a hole. The plough is attached to the plough beam. The front holes are used for adjusting the ploughing depth: short for deep ploughing, long for shallow ploughing. The central hole receives the coulter, the next hole is for the share. The handles are set into the hole at the back of the plough beam.

d – Coulter – iron blade, sharp at the front, blunt at the back, the pointed extension at its top sits into the longitudinal hole of the plough beam. The coulter cuts and divides the soil.

e – Two-part double share: two horizontal irons, sharp on the outside, set in V-form, an iron plate, sharpened at the front and with a riveted extension, juts out at the joint. The double share loosens and turns over the soil, the blade at the front helps to cut. The extension sits in the second longitudinal hole.

f – Handles: rectangular cross log with longitudinal cut and vertical hole in the centre; two backward bent handles, rounded at the top, connected by a cross piece. The lower log has another hole with a wooden wedge (what for?). The ploughman holds and guides the plough with the handles. The handles are entirely made of wood.”


The accession data entered by F. Kos do not mention the mouldboard that is nailed to the outer side of the right handle. The description of the share is particularly interesting, because it is now missing, as is the sole. Judging from the description it was a symmetrical share with 80-cm long prongs that would correspond to the shares of ralice, ploughing implements that were used to cultivate field crops with tiny seeds – millet, flax, and hemp –, and were common in the triangle between Karlovac, Zagreb and Sunja in neighbouring Croatia. (Cf. Bratanić 1939: 55 and Ill. 94, 95.) The coulter, too, is missing.



8.

SOMERNO ORALO / četverokotno ralo s kolči, špíčmoh / Zgornje Jezersko / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 210 cm; ročica, v – 91 cm; kozolec, v – 99 cm; plaz, d – 150 cm; lemežke, d – 66 cm; kolca, š – 59–68 cm / inv. št. 7243.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / rectangular wheel ard, špíčmoh / Zgornje Jezersko / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 210 cm; stilt, h – 97 cm; sheath, h – 99 cm; sole, 1 – 150 cm; mould strokers, 1 – 66 cm; forecarriage, w – 59–68 cm / acc. no. 7243.




Oralo je muzej leta 1950 kupil od Anzelma Anka z Zgornjega Jezerskega 9. Prvotna lastnica je bila Uršula Muri z Zgornjega Jezerskega 12.

Inventarizacija Pavle Štrukelj, leta 1955 (povzeta po razpravi o ralu na Slovenskem, Orel 1955: 32–36):

»Oráu, špičmoh (Spitzmaus, strupena poljska žival), ralo. Štirje glavni leseni deli tvorijo četverokotno oz. četverostransko ogrodje: pčsad (plaz), grédəl (gredelj), ročíco in kózuc (kozolec). Podsad se imenuje spodnji vodoravni del in se pri oranju plazi po zemlji, zato ga često nazivajo plaz. D = 150 cm. Na zadnji del podsada je spodaj pribita šina v dolžin 28 cm, ta del se imenuje pêta. V podsad je nad peto vsajena ročica (viš. = 97 cm), ki ima na vrhu stružen držau (držaj).




Spodaj je ročica pritrjena na podsad z železno podporo ali stično (d = 14,5 cm). Glečounca ali glečənca (d = 18 cm, š – 3 cm) je reža (odprtina) v ročici. V njo je pritrjen grédəl (d = 2,10 m), ki je neenakomernih oblik. Kela je nameščena v glečovənci, to je posebna zagozda, s katero so prestavljali gredelj nižje ali višje. Lesena deska, kózuc (v = 99 cm, š = 14 cm) je vsajena v podsad in pritrjena nanj z dvema lesenima cvekoma. S kozucem, vez med gredljem in podsadom, je orač reguliral plitvo ali globlje oranje. Križa v obliki črke X pa sta vrezana kot čarodejno znamenje za srečno oranje. Drugi sestavni del oráunək, simetrično orno železo (someren lemež), je nasajen obenem na podsad (plaz) na lémože (lemežke), ki je tretji sestavni del rala. Narejene so iz enega kosa lesa ter položene na ves sprednji del podsada v dolžini 66 cm. Lemože so obite s kosi železa ali pleha, da se ne bi pri oranju preveč izrabile. Kolca, oráuski poden, v katere vpregajo živino, imajo kolesníce, os (oziroma blazino) in soro (gre za vprežni drog). Razdalja med kolesnicami je ca. 59 – 68 cm. / ... / Stari Jezerjani so s tem oralom običajno orali po ravnem in položnejšem svetu, od tod tudi njegova težka in velika oblika. Vanj so vpregli en par volov. Ker je rezalnica (7244) samostojni sestavni del rala pri tem načinu oranja, je ralo vedno šlo za rezalnico. Na Jezerskem so orali s takim ralom do zadnjih desetletij 19. stoletja. Deloma so ga uporabljali tudi še pozneje, toda njegova funkcija se je spremenila: orodje za okopavanje in oranje krompirja.«


The museum bought the ploughing implement from Anzelm Anko, Zgornje Jezersko 9, in 1950. Its original owner was Uršula Muri from Zgornje Jezersko 12.

Accession book entry by Pavla Štrukelj, 1955 (after the treatise on the ard in Slovenia, Orel 1955: 32–36):

“Plough, špičmoh (Spitzmaus (a shrew), poisonous field animal), ard. The four principal wooden parts form a rectangular or four-sided frame: sole, beam, stilt and sheath. The sole is the bottom, horizontal part that slides across the soil. L. = 150 cm. A 28 cm long metal runner is nailed to the back end of the sole and called the heel. The stilt (h. = 87 cm) which has a turned handle at its top is set into the heel. At the bottom, the stilt is fixed to the sole with an iron bracket or joint (l. – 14.5 cm). The stilt has a hole (l. – 18 cm, w. = 3 cm) in which the beam (l. = 2.10 m) of irregular form is mounted. A special type of wedge is set into the hole and used to lower or raise the beam. Wooden board, the sheath (h. = 99 cm, w. = 14 cm) is set into the sole and fixed with two nails. The ploughman used the sheath, the link between beam and sole, to adjust the ploughing depth. The two carved, x-shaped crosses are magic symbols for fortunate ploughing. The second part, a symmetrical ploughing iron (symmetrical share) is mounted both into the sole and the mould strokers, the third part of the ard. They are made of a single piece of wood and are mounted on the entire front part of the sole over a length of 66 cm. The mould strokers are reinforced with pieces of iron or sheet metal to prevent excessive wear. The forecarriage to which cattle are harnessed consists of two wheels, an axle (axle tree), and a draught beam. The distance between the wheels is around 59 – 68 cm. [...] The old inhabitants of Jezersko mostly used this plough on flat or gently sloping terrain, and this explains its heaviness and large size. It was drawn by an ox team. Because the ristle (7244) is a separate part of the ard in this way of ploughing, the ard always trailed the ristle. Such an ard was used for ploughing in Jezersko until the final decades of the 19th century. It was partly used later, but its function had changed into a potato ridging and ploughing implement.”



9.

SOMERNO ORALO / rezalnica, rézounca / Zgornje Jezersko / les, železo / gredljasto oje, d – 325 cm; ročica, v – 33 cm; rezalnica, d – 70 cm / inv. št. 7244.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / ristle. rézounca / Zgornje Jezersko / wood, iron / yoke beam, 1 – 325 cm; stilt, h – 33 cm; ristle, 1 – 70 cm / acc. no. 7244.




Glede načina pridobitve in časa uporabe velja komentar k št. 8.

Inventarizacija Pavle Štrukelj, leta 1955 (povzeta po razpravi o ralu na Slovenskem, Orel 1955: 32–36):

»Rézounca, rezalnica, je samostojni sestavni del rala, z njo so pri oranju narezovali zemljo. Sestani deli: óje (gredljasto oje), ročica, rézounca. Oje je dolgo 3,25 m ter ima dve gléčouənci, prva je na sprednjem tanjšem koncu ojesa za vprego, druga pa na zadnjem debelejšem štirioglatem koncu. V to zadnjo odprtino je nasajena železna rézounca (d = 70 cm). Oje je ovito z železnim obročem (obročasto vezjo) in je na zadnjem koncu pravokotno navzgor zakrivljeno v ročico, ki je visoka 33 cm in ima držáu (držaj).«


Manner of acquisition and time of use: see commentary on no. 8.

Accession book entry by Pavla Štrukelj, 1955 (after the treatise on the ard in Slovenia, Orel 1955: 32–36):

“The ristle is a separate component of the ard and was used to cut up the soil in ploughing. Parts: yoke beam, stilt, ristle. The yoke beam is 3.25 m long and has two holes, the first is at its front, thinner end and used to connect it to the team, and the second is at the rear thicker and rectangular end. The ristle (l. = 70 cm) is set into the rear opening. The beam is reinforced with an iron ring (ring joint) and is bent upwards at a right angle at its end to form the stilt (33 cm high) which has a handle.”



10.

NEPOPOLNA KOLCA / kolca, plúžne / Šmarje, Sap / trd les, železo / jezik in klešče, d – 150 cm / inv. št. 7632.


INCOMPLETE FORECARRIAGE / forecarriage, plúžne / Šmarje, Sap / hardwood, iron / tongue and tongs, 1 – 150 cm / acc. no. 7632.




Predmet je bil pridobljen kot dar na Terenu 2, Šmarje-Sap, med 1. in 31. avgustom 1949.

Inventarizacija Pavle Štrukelj, leta 1956:

»Plužne brez koles, sestavni del pluga. Lesena priprava narejena v obliki križa, z velikim lesenim ročajem – locnjem (držajem) na enem koncu, ta del je premičen in služi za uravnavanje. Konec ima pritrjen železen kavelj.«


The object was acquired as a donation in Field 2, Šmarje-Sap. between August 1st and 31st, 1949.

Accession book entry by Pavla Štrukelj, 1956:

“Forecarriage without wheels, part of a plough. Wooden implement in the form of a cross, with a big wooden handle at one end; this part is movable and served to adjust the ploughing. An iron hook is mounted at its end.”



11.

SOMERNO ORALO / osipalnik, tóplar / Nevlje pri Kamniku / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 200 cm; kozolec, v – 50 vm; plaz, d – 64 cm; deski, d – 98 cm; someren lemež, d – 26 cm, š – 31 cm; črtalo, d – 40 cm / inv. št. 7786.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / ridging plough, tóplar / Nevlje near Kamnik / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 200 cm; sheath, h – 50 cm; sole, 1 – 64 cm; mouldboards, 1 – 98 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 26 cm, w – 31 cm; coulter, 1 – 40 cm / acc. no. 7786.




Oralo je bilo leta 1954 kupljeno od Karla Goloba, Nevlje 29.

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1957:

»Plug (po Brataniću kot simetrično orno orodje: ralo), ljudski naziv ‘toplar’ za oranje osredkov (nezoranih delov sredi ogona, dela njive med dvema razoroma) v kombinaciji s plugom samcem. Gredel – ‘gredəl’ (gredelj) je 2 m dolg, v sredi nekoliko navzdol ukrivljen, spredaj okovan, trikrat preluknjan za železno jeglico (gredeljnik), ki je pritrjena verižici. Črtalo (železno) ‘črtáu’ je 40 cm dolgo, pretaknjeno skozi gredel in zagozdeno s tremi zagozdami, ‘kajlami’. Kozolec ‘kozučk’ je 50 cm visok, pretaknjen zgoraj skozi gredi, spodaj pa skozi plaz. Tik nad gredlom je kozolec dvakrat preluknjan, skozi luknji pa sta pretaknjena dva kratka čveka (zatiča). Zadaj je gredel pretaknjen skozi srednji stebriček med ročicama. Ta stebriček je spodaj vsajen v plaz, zgoraj in spodaj pa je skozi stebriček povprek pretaknjen močnejši cvek (zgornji 33 cm, spodnji 29 cm dolg), na ta dva čveka (prečni paličasti vezi) pa sta na konceh nataknjeni ročici. Ob ročicah sta na zunanji strani pritrjeni dve deski, ‘dili’ (d. 98 cm), ki se pred kozolcem stikata in sta okovani. Plaz (podsad), ‘podsú’ je 64 cm dolg, nanj je spredaj nasajen simetričen železen lemež ‘lêmeš’. Vsi sestavni deli so iz bukovega lesa, le gredel je jesenov, podsad pa jelšev. – Stanje razmeroma dobro, le desna deska je na spodnjem zadnjem robu počena in nekoliko odlomljena. Na notranji strani je zato pribit kos lesa. – Toplar je bil zadnjikrat v rabi l. 1920 v Nevljah pri Kamniku. Taki toplarji so bili v splošnem v rabi še nekaj let po prvi vojni, izjemoma pa še do l. 1941. Sedaj (v 50. letih 20. stol.) še tu in tam rabi kdo tak toplar za oranje razorov za repo ali peso. Zadnja funkcija toplarjev je bila izoravanje krompirja.«


The museum purchased the plough from Karl Golob, Nevlje 29, in 1954. Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1957:

“Plough (ard according to Bratanić, as it is a symmetrical ploughing implement), popular name ‘toplar’ (doubler) used to plough the opening (veering) in the centre of a land (land = the plot of a field between two dead furrows) in combination with a single plough. The plough beam is 2 m long and curves down slightly in the centre. It is metal reinforced at the front and has three holes for the iron draught pin that is attached to a short chain. The iron coulter is 40 cm long, passes through the beam and is fixed with three wedges. The sheath is 50 cm high, its top end is set into the beam and its base into the sole. Right above the plough beam, the sheath has two holes into which two short pegs are inserted. The back end of the plough beam is mortised into the central pillar between the handles. This pillar is mounted into the sole at the bottom, two thick, round cross pieces pass through the bottom and top of the pillar and the handles are fixed to their end. Next to the handles two mouldboards (l. 98 cm) are fixed on the outside; they join in front of the sheath and are metal reinforced. The sole is 64 cm long and a symmetrical iron share is set into it at the front. All wooden parts are beech, only the plough beam is ash and the sole alder. – Relatively good condition, only the right mouldboard is cracked and broken at the lower back end. A piece of wood is nailed to it on the inside for this reason. – The plough was last used in Nevlje near Kamnik in 1920. Ploughs of this type were generally used for some years after the First World War and rarely until 1941. Nowadays (the 1950s) they are used here and there to plough dead furrows for turnips and beets. Their last function was digging up potatoes.”



12.

SOMERNO ORALO / osipalnik, tóplar / Vrhpolje pri Kamniku / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 177 cm; deski, d – 68 cm; someren lemež, d – 38 cm, š – 35 cm / inv. št. 7787.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / ridging plough, tóplar / Vrhpolje near Kamnik / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 177 cm; mouldboards, 1 – 68 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 38 cm, w – 35 cm / acc. no. 7787.




Oralo je bilo leta 1954 kupljeno od Karla Repnika, Vrhpolje pri Kamniku 12.

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1957:

»Plug (po Brataniću kot simetrično orno orodje: ralo), ljudski naziv ‘toplar’ za oranje osredkov v kombinaciji s plugom samcem. Po sestavi in sestavnih delih je toplar podoben plugu z inv. štev. 7786 (št. 11), le gredel (gredelj) je tu bolj raven, spredaj nekoliko navzgor ukrivljen, dolg 1,77 m. Črtalo manjka. Kozolec je železen, okrogel, zgoraj se končuje z ročico za uravnavanje vijaka na kozolcu (za reguliranje globine oranja). Deski sta 68 cm dolgi, spredaj okovani, pritrjeni na ročice in na stebriček, vložen v ta namen tik ob kozolcu. – Stanje srednje dobro; leva ročica je bila prelomljena, zato je okovana. Oblika plaza je enaka gornjemu; lemež je večji (š. 35 cm, d. 38 cm). Vsi sestavni deli bukovi. – Toplar je bil rabljen v Vrhpolju pri Kamniku. Ostale podatke glej pri inv. štev. 7786 (št. 11).«





The museum purchased the plough from Karl Repnik, Vrhpolje near Kamnik 12, in 1954.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1957:

“Plough (ard according to Bratanić, as it is a symmetrical ploughing implement), popular name ‘toplar’ (doubler) used to plough the opening (veering) in the centre of a land in combination with a single plough. By composition and parts it is similar to the plough acc. no. 7786 (cat. no. 11), only the plough beam is straighter in this one; it bends slightly upwards at the front and is 1.77 m long. The coulter is missing. The round iron sheath ends in a handle at the top, used to apply the sheath screw (to adjust the ploughing depth). The mouldboards are 68 cm long, metal reinforced at the front, fixed to the stilt and to the pillar that is set into it right beside the sheath. – Condition relatively good; the left handle has been broken and fixed with a metal mount. The shape of the sole is the same as with the previous one; the share is bigger (w. 35 cm, l. 38 cm). All wooden parts are beech. The plough was used in Vrhpolje near Kamnik. For the other data, see acc. no. 7786 (cat. no. 11).”


13.

NESOMERNO ORALO / dvojni plug, bába, kúzva / Dolina / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 150 cm; plaza, d – 66 cm; deski, d – 79 cm; nesomerna lemeža, d – 26 cm, š – 29 cm / inv. št. 7788.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / double plough, bába, kúzva / Dolina / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 150 cm; soles. 1 – 66 cm; mouldboards, 1 – 79 cm; asymmetrical shares, 1 – 26 cm, w – 29 cm / acc. no. 7788.




Oralo je bilo leta 1954 kupljeno od Jakoba Pestotnika, Dolina 30 (Dol pri Ljubljani).

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1957:

»Plug, dvojni, ljudski naziv ‘baba’ ali ‘kuzva’ – za oranje strmih njiv, da se vse brazde obračajo navzdol (ljudsko: ‘za eno puát rezat’). Sestavni deli: gredəl ‘gredəl’ (gredelj) je raven, 1,50 cm dolg; 44 cm od prednjega konca je prebit z močnim železom, ki se zgoraj končuje z obročom. Na obroč je pritrjeno 25 cm dolgo železo s kljuko na koncu. V sredini gredla sta vsajena 2 ‘črtala’, nato pa dva kozolca, vsi štirje deli so zagozdeni z zagozdo (torej 4 zagozde), dodane v muzeju ob priliki prepariranja. Kozolec ljudsko: ‘kozouc’. Vsak kozolec je vsajen v 66 cm dolg plaz – ‘poks’; na vsakem ‘poksu’ pa je nasajen enostranski lemež, dolg 26 cm, širok 29 cm. Desni lemež je prvotni, star, levi lemež narejen po starem vzorcu. Plug ima 3 ‘ročice’; vse tri pretaknjene skozi (vsajene v) gredel. Srednja ročica se konča tik pod gredlom, stranski dve gresta skozi gredel do plaza, oziroma skozi plaz. Konca stranskih ročic sta pred podsadom povezana z desko ‘dilo’ s pretaknjenim stebričkom. Vsaka deska je dolga 79 cm. Vse tri ročice so pred koncem povezane z ukrivljeno pretaknjeno palico (prečno paličasto vezjo) (novo dodano v muzeju, ker je prvotna manjkala). Stanje dobro; desni podsad (plaz) zaradi trdnosti zadaj okovan. Poleg levega lemeža je na novo narejeno in dodano tudi desno črtalo. Vsi sestavni deli bukovi. – S plugom so prenehali orati pred 50 leti. Ko je bil plug na terenu najden, je bil brez lemežev in črtal. Lastnik Jakob Pestotnik, Dolina 30, Dol pri Ljubljani (tu je bil plug rabljen) je nato en lemež in črtalo našel, po tem vzorcu pa smo dali napraviti kovaču Janezu Hacetu ‘na Uasenem’, Potok št. 11, Srednja vas v Tuhinju. Ta kovač je delal lemeže in črtala za kmete iz svoje okolice in Kamniškega okraja. Namesto teh ‘bab’ imajo danes Železne ‘toplarje’.«


The museum bought the plough from Jakob Pestotnik, Dolina 30 (Dol near Ljubljana) in 1954.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1957:

“Plough, double, popular name ‘baba’ (woman) or ‘kuzva’ (bitch) – used to plough steep fields so that all furrows are thrown down. Components: the plough beam is straight and 1.50 cm long; 44 cm from the front end it is perforated by a strong iron that ends in a ring at the top. A 25 cm long iron with a hook at it is fixed to the ring. In the centre of the plough beam two coulters are mounted, then two sheaths, and all four parts are fixed with wedges (total 4 wedges) added in the museum in the preparation process. Each sheath is set into the 66 cm long sole; and each sole has a mounted one-sided share, 26 cm long and 29 cm wide. The right share is the original one, the left one was made after the old sample. The plough has 3 handles, all set into the plough beam. The central handle ends right under the plough beam, the side one pierces the plough beam, down to the sole and through it. The ends of the side handles are connected with the mouldboard by a perforated pillar below the sole. Each mouldboard is 79 cm long. All three handles are connected by a round cross piece near the top (added in the museum as the original was missing). In good condition; the right sole is metal mounted to reinforce it. In addition to the left share, the right coulter was also made new and added. All wooden parts are beech. The plough was last used 50 years ago. When it was found in the course of field research, it was without shares or coulters. Its owner, Jakob Pestotnik from Dolina 30, Dol near Ljubljana (where the plough was used) found one share and one coulter, and we had new ones made, modelled after these, by the blacksmith Janez Hace ‘na Uasenem’, Potok no. 11, Srednja vas in Tuhinj. He used to make shares and coulters for the farmers from the environs and the Kamnik district. Today, iron double ploughs are used instead of these ‘babe’ (women).”


14.

SOMERNO ORALO / osipalnik, s kolci, tóplar / Loka pri Mengšu / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 192 cm; ročice, v – 86 cm; kozolec, v – 48 cm; plaz, d – 60 cm; someren lemež, d – 30 cm, š – 26 cm; črtalo, d – 42 cm; kolca, š (blazine) – 45 cm; kolesi, p – 45 cm; vprežni drog, d – 78 cm / inv. št. 7789a, b, c.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / ridging wheel plough, tóplar / Loka near Mengeš / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 192 cm; handles, h – 86 cm; sheath, h – 48 cm; sole, 1 – 60 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 30 cm, w – 26 cm; coulter, 1 – 42 cm; forecarriage, w (axle tree) – 45 cm; wheels, d – 45 cm; draught beam, 1 – 78 cm / acc. no. 7789a, b, c.




Oralo je bilo leta 1955 kupljeno od Valentina Testena, Loka pri Mengšu.

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1957:

a – »Plug, ljudski naziv ‘toplar’ (po Brataniću kot simetrično orno orodje: ralo). Sestavni deli: gredəl ‘gredəl’ 1,92 m dolg, od sredine naprej nekoliko navzdol ukrivljen, spredaj okovan, zgoraj tri železne kljukice. Črtalo ‘črtou’,

železno, 42 cm dolgo, zagozdeno z leseno zagozdo. Kozolec ‘kozouc’ 48 cm visok, pretaknjen skozi gredel (gredelj) in podsad (plaz), zgornji konec kozolca okovan z obročem. Zadnji konec gredlja pretaknjen skozi srednji stebriček (med ročicama), stebriček pa pretaknjen skozi ‘podsad’. Podsad je 60 cm dolg, na spodnji strani okovan. K njemu sta ob straneh pritrjena dva dela lesa, h katerima sta pritrjeni deski, ‘dile’, ob konceh pa pretaknjeni ‘ročici’. Med seboj sta ročici povezani s tremi klini (prečnimi paličastimi vezmi), od katerih gresta spodnja dva skozi srednji stebriček med ročicama, zgornji pa veže samo ročici in je okovan. Deski se pred kozolcem stikata in sta okovani. Ročici sta v svojem gornjem delu razmeroma ravni – konca sta 86 cm od tal. Stanje dobro. Ljudski nazivi za ostale dele: ‘lêmeš’, ‘potsát’, ‘dile’ ali ‘stranice’. Les: gredi javorjev, kozolec jesenov, stebriček med ročicama hrastov, ročice bukove, podsad jesenov. – Toplar so rabili za oranje osredkov v kombinaciji s plugom samcem. Opisani toplar že 20 let niso več rabili.«

b – »Kolca – ‘pužja kola’, rabljena pri oranju z gor. toplarjem. Sestavni deli: dve kolesi (premer kolesa 45 cm), povezani s 45 cm široko blazino, v katero je pretaknjen (vsajen) 78 cm dolg drog (vprežni drog), v tega pa je spredaj vsajena 60 cm visoka ročica ‘klešənk’ (držaj manjka), s cvekom ob vrhu. Na sprednjem delu droga je pritrjena premična železna kljuka in železen kavelj z luknjami. Tik za tem je pritrjena verižica s klinom na koncu. Na drogu je nataknjena železna veriga ‘gradanca’ (gredeljnica).«

c – »Otka ‘uóhka’ je 86 cm dolga, sestoji iz 74 cm dolge lesene palice, na kateri je nasajena lopatica. (Otka manjka.) Rabila je za čiščenje lemeža in deske (pri oranju).«


The museum purchased the plough from Valentin Testen, Loka near Mengeš, in 1955.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1957:

a – “Plough, popular name ‘doubler’ (ard according to Bratanić, as it is a symmetrical ploughing implement). Components: plough beam, 1.92 m long, from the centre towards the end it curves down slightly, it is metal reinforced at the front and has three small iron hooks at the top. Coulter, iron, 42 cm long, fixed with a wooden wedge. The sheath is 48 cm high, passes through the plough beam and sole, its upper end is reinforced with a metal ring. The far end of the plough beam is mortised into the central pillar (between the handles) and the pillar passes through the sole. The sole is 60 cm long and its lower end is metal reinforced. At its sides, two pieces of wood are attached to it and the mouldboards mounted to them; the handles pass through it at the ends. The handles are connected by three round cross pieces, of which the two bottom ones pass through the central pillar between the handles, and the third, which is metal mounted, connects only the handles. The mouldboards join in front of the sheath and are metal reinforced. The top sections of the handles are quite straight – they are 86 cm from the ground. In good condition. Wood: plough beam – maple, sheath – ash, pillar between the handles – oak, handles – beech, sole – ash. – The plough was used to plough the central unploughed strips of a land in combination with a single plough. The described plough has not been used for 20 years.”

b – “Forecarriage – used in ploughing with the above-described plough. Parts: two wheels (diameter 45 cm), connected by a 45 wide axle tree, through which a 78 cm long pole (the draught beam) passes; at the front of the draught beam, a 60 cm high stilt is mounted into it (the handle is missing) with a nail fixed at the top. A movable iron hook and an iron hake with holes are fixed to the front part of the beam. Right behind them a short chain is fixed to the beam with the pin at its end. The draught chain is hitched to the beam.”

c – “The pattle is 86 cm long, consisting of a 74 cm long wooden stick to which a pattle spade is set. (The pattle is missing.) It was used to clean the share and mouldboard (when ploughing).”



15.

SOMERNO ORALO / ralo brez plaza, dréucəl / Podkoren / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 169 cm; someren lemež, d – 23 cm, š – 21 cm / inv. št. 7790.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / ard without a sole, dréucəl / Podkoren / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 169 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 23 cm, w – 21 cm / acc. no. 7790.





Oralo je bilo leta 1955 kupljeno od Lovra Beneta, Podkoren 69.

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1957:

»Ralo brez plaza ‘dreucəl’. Narejen iz naravne drevesne kljuke, pri kateri je prednji ravni drog ‘štanga’ (gredelj) 1,69 m dolg. Sprednji konec droga je okovan, pretaknjen z debelim železnim klinom ter ima pritrjeno verižico z železnim klinom (gredeljnikom) na koncu. Na drogu pred kolenom je vrezana letnica 1921 in črki LB (Lovro Benet). Na zadnjem koncu je drog zakrivljen navzdol v kavelj v kotu 66°. Na vrhnjem delu kavlja pod kolenom so pribite ‘ročice’, dve krajši, navzgor in navzven ukrivljeni palici. Kavelj je 56 cm dolg, v spodnjem delu precej zakrivljen, na koncu je z dvema vijakoma ‘šraufoma’ skozi podloženo šino (pločevinast trak) pritrjen simetričen ‘lemeš’, vboknjen (vbočen), spredaj zaokrožen, d. 23 cm, š. 21 cm. Nad lemežem so na kavlju pribite ‘dile’ (deske) ter zadaj in spredaj na zgornjem delu povezane z oporo. Les: drog s kavljem jesenov, deski bukovi. Stanje dobro.« (O ralu in njegovi funkciji gl. podroben opis v Orel 1955: 63–66.)


The ploughing implement was bought from Lovro Benet. Podkoren 69, in 1955. Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1957:

“Ard without a sole. Made of a naturally bent tree branch, of which the front straight pole is the 1.69 m long plough beam. The front end of the beam is metal reinforced, a sturdy iron pin passes through it and it has an attached chain with an iron pin fixed to it (the draught peg). The date 1921 and letters LB (Lovro Benet) are cut into the beam in front of the knee. The beam end curves into a hook at an angle of 66°. The handles are short bars, bent upwards and outwards; they are nailed to the upper part of the hook of the beam, below the knee. The hook is 56 cm long, and strongly curved at its lower end, where a symmetrical share is fixed to it with two screws passing through a metal strip; the share is concave and rounded at the front, l. 23 cm, w. 21 cm. The mouldboards are nailed to the hook above the share; they are connected by a brace at the back and at the top front end. Wood: beam and hook – ash, mouldboards – beech. In good condition.” (On the ard and its function, see the detailed description in Orel 1955: 63–66.)


16.

SOMERNO ORALO / ralo brez plaza, s kolci, dréucəl / Podkoren / les, usnje, železo / gredelj, d – 152 cm; someren lemež, d – 19 cm, š – 17 cm; kolca, š – 88 cm; kolesi, p – 54 cm; vprežni drog, d – 56 cm / inv. št. 7791a, b.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / ard without a sole, with forecarriage, dréucl / Podkoren / wood, leather, iron / beam, 1 – 152 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 19 cm, w – 17 cm; forecarriage, w – 88 cm; wheels, d – 54 cm; draught beam, 1 – 56 cm / acc. no. 7791a, b.





Glede načina pridobitve za oralo velja komentar k št. 15.

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1957:

»Ralo brez plaza ‘dreucəl’, narejen na enak način kot inv. št. 7790 (št. 15), le drog (gredelj) je krajši (1,52 m), na njem pa je ob strani pribit 17 cm dolg usnjen trak, ki je rabil za otko. Na zadnjem koncu pri kolenu je vrezana letnica 1900. Kavelj je zakrivljen navzdol v kotu 95°. Ročici sta ravni, 55 cm dolgi, zadaj potisnjeni navzven. K drogu sta pribiti in okovani z obročom (obročasto vezjo). ‘Lemeš’ (lemež) je spredaj koničast (d. 19 cm, š. 17 cm). Deski sta smrekovi. Stanje dobro.«

b – »Kolca (‘kužənkə’ ali ‘kužənćə’) z dvemi kolesi, premer 54 cm. Širina kolc 88 cm. Drog, vsajen v blazino med kolesi (vprežni drog), je 56 cm dolg, spodaj okovan, spredaj ima pritrjeno železno kljuko (kavelj) ter verižico z železnim klinom. Na drogu je privezana veriga gradanca (gredeljnica) s štirimi okroglimi členi ter dvema končnima večjima členoma. – Kolca so rabili skupaj z enim ali drugim ‘dreuclom’.« (O ralu in njegovi funkciji gl. podroben opis v Orel 1955: 63–66.)


Manner of acquisition: see commentary on no. 15.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1957:

“Ard without a sole; made in the same way as acc. no. 7790 (cat. no. 15), only the beam is shorter (1.52 m), a 17 cm long leather strip is nailed to its side to hold the pattle. The date 1900 is cut into the back end at the knee. The hook curves at an angle of 95°. The handles are straight, 55 cm long, and bent outwards at the back. They are nailed to the beam and reinforced with a ring (ring joint). The share is pointed at the front (l. 19 cm, w. 17 cm). Spruce mouldboards. In good condition.”

b – “Forecarriage with two wheels, diameter 54 cm. Width of the forecarriage – 88 cm. The draught beam is mortised into the axle tree between the wheels, it is 56 cm long, has a metal reinforced base and an iron hake fixed to it at the front, as well as a chainlet with an iron pin. The chain of the draught pin is fixed to the beam with four round links and two larger final links. – The forecarriage was used together with either of the ards.” (On the ard and its function, see the detailed description in Orel 1955: 63–66.)



17.

SOMERNO ORALO / osipalnik, dréucəl, zagrébouc / Podkoren / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 150 cm; kozolec, v – 66 cm; plaz, d – 64 cm; deski, d – 50 cm; someren lemež, d – 30 cm, š – 16 cm; črtalo, d – 60 cm; kolesce, p – 30 cm / inv. št. 7792.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / ridging plough, dréucl, zagrébouc / Podkoren / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 150 cm; sheath, h – 66 cm; sole, 1 – 64 cm; mouldboards, 1 – 50 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 30 cm, w – 16 cm; coulter, 1 – 60 cm; wheel, d – 30 cm / acc. no. 7792.




Glede načina pridobitve za oralo velja komentar k št. 15.

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1957:

»Plug (po Brataniću: ralo – kot simetrično orno orodje). Ljudski naziv:

‘dreucəl’ ali ‘zagrebouc’. Gredel ‘gredəl’ (gredelj) je 1,50 m dolg, v sprednjem delu raven, zadaj ukrivljen navzdol, pretaknjen (vsajen v) skozi ročico. Na štirih mestih je okovan z obročem (z obročastimi vezmi), spredaj pretaknjen železni cvek, na katerem je gibljivo pritrjena železna kljuka (kavelj). Tik za tem je skozi gredel pretaknjen stebriček, ki je v spodnjem delu razdeljen v dva dela, spodaj povezana z železno osjo, ki je obenem tudi os kolesa, ki pri oranju nadomešča kolca. Kolo (kolesce) je polno, premer 30 cm, okovano z obročem (obročasto vezjo). Črtalo ‘črtau’ je železno, 60 cm dolgo, zagozdeno z zagozdami. (Črtalo manjka.) Kozolec je 66 cm visok, nanj sta pritrjeni dve deski ‘pèrnce’, dolgi 50 cm, zadaj pred ročico povezani s stebričkom. Lemež ‘lemeš’ je nasajen na plazu (‘puas’), spredaj koničast, 30 cm dolg, 16 cm širok. Deski sta spredaj okovani; okovje je podaljšano do stranskih konic lemeža. Plaz je 64 cm dolg, spodaj okovan, vanj je zadaj vsajena močna ročica, h kateri sta zgoraj pritrjeni dve ročici. Desna ročica v spodnjem delu povezana z žico. Stanje srednje dobro. Les bukov. – Dreucəl so rabili v Podkorenu za okopavanje ali zagrebanje krompirja ter za čiščenje njive plevela.« (Oralo je omenjeno v Orel 1955: 65.)


Manner of acquisition: see commentary on no. 15.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1957:

“Plough (ard according to Bratanić, as it is a symmetrical ploughing implement). The plough beam is 1.50 m long, straight at the front, curved down at the back, and is mortised into the stilt. It is reinforced with ring joints in four places; an iron pin, to which a movable iron hook is attached, passes through it at the front. Right behind this spot, a pillar pierces the plough beam; its lower end is divided into two parts, connected by an iron axle at the bottom; this is also the axle of the wheel which replaces the forecarriage in ploughing. The wheel is solid, has a diameter of 30 cm, and is reinforced with a ring joint. The (now missing) iron coulter, 60 cm long, was fixed with wedges. The sheath is 66 cm high, two mouldboards, 50 cm long, are fixed to it, connected by a pillar at the back and in front of the stilt. The share is set into the sole, has a pointed front, is 30 cm long and 16 cm wide. The mouldboards are metal reinforced at the front; the metal plates extend to the side ends of the coulters. The sole is 64 cm long, its base is metal reinforced, a sturdy stilt is set into it at the back, and two handles are fixed to the top of the stilt. The right handle is fastened with wire at its lower end. In relatively good condition. Wood: beech. – The plough was used in Podkoren for ridging and ploughing under potatoes and to weed fields.” (The plough is mentioned in Orel 1955: 65.)


18.

SOMERNO ORALO / četverokotno ralo na oje, aráuo / Srednji vrh / les, železo / gredljasto oje, d – 315 cm; ročica, v – 86 cm; kozolec, v – 50 cm; plaz, d – 66 cm; deski, d – 61 cm; someren lemež, d – 35 cm, š – 25 cm; črtalo, d – 45 cm / inv. št. 7793.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / rectangular ard with a yoke beam, aráuo / Srednji vrh / wood, iron / yoke beam, 1 – 315 cm; stilt, h – 86 cm; sheath, h – 50 cm; sole, 1 – 66 cm; mouldboards, 1 – 61 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 35 cm, w – 25 cm; coulter, 1 – 45 cm / acc. no. 7793.




Oralo je bilo leta 1955 kupljeno od Janeza Mertelja, po domače »Smolejevega očeta«, Srednji vrh 8 (nad Martuljkom).

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1957:

»Ralo ‘arauo’ na oje. Sestavni deli: spodnji del, ki se plazi po zemlji, je ‘puaza’ ali ‘puas’ – dolg 66 cm. V plaz je vsajena ročica, ‘račica’ – 86 cm visoka, ki ima Zgoraj klin ali ‘múcəl’ (držaj). Na ročici je v višini 27 cm reža, v katero je gibljivo vsajen in s tanjšim ploskim cvekom (moznikom) pritrjen 3,15 m dolg drog ‘uóje’ (gredljasto oje). Oje ima na sprednjem koncu luknjo (odprtino) za železen klin (pregelj), ki je potreben pri vpregi. Kozolec ‘klən’ – 50 cm visok – je spodaj vsajen v plaz, zgoraj pa v oje. 17 cm pred kozolcem je pritrjeno v oje 45 cm dolgo črtalo ‘črtáu’. Na plazu je nasajeno simetrično orno železo ‘lemeš’ – d. 35 cm, š. 25 cm. Deske, ‘dile’ ali ‘uopate’ so pritrjene na kozolec, dolge 61 cm, široke 13 cm, zadaj pa med seboj povezane z ‘vezavo’ pritrjeno na spodnji del kozolca. Les: smrekov, ostali deli bukovi. Stanje dobro. – Ralo je narejeno za muzej po spominu. Naredil ga je Smolejev oče iz Srednjega vrha nad Martuljkom.« (Oralo je podrobno opisano in narisano v Orel 1955: 59–62.)


The ploughing implement was purchased from Janez Mertelj, “Smole’s father”, Srednji vrh 8 (above Martuljek), in 1955.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1957:

“Ard with a yoke beam. Parts: the bottom part that slides across the ground is the sole and is 66 cm long. A 86 cm high stilt with a handle at the top is set into the sole; the movable, 3.15 m long yoke beam is mounted into the stilt with a thin flat dowel at a height of 27 cm. The yoke beam has an iron hake at the front for connecting to the team. The 50 cm high sheath is set into the sole with its lower end and into the yoke beam with its top end. The 45 cm long coulter is mounted to the yoke beam 17 cm in front of the sheath. A symmetrical plough iron, a share is set into the sole – l. 35 cm, w. 25 cm. The mouldboards are fixed to the sheath, 61 cm long and 13 cm wide, connected at the back with a cross piece that is fixed to the lower end of the sheath. Wood: spruce, the rest is beech. In good condition. – The ard was made for the museum from memory by “Smole’s father” from Srednji vrh above Martuljek.” (The plough is described in detail and drawn in Orel 1955: 59–62.)



19.

SOMERNO ORALO / četverokotno ralo na oje, aráuo / Srednji vrh / les, železo / gredljasto oje, d – 382 cm; ročica, v – 92 cm; plaz, d – 70 cm; deski, d – 45 cm; someren lemež, d – 34 cm, š – 26 cm; črtalo, d – 41 cm / inv. št. 7794.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / rectangular ard with a yoke beam, aráuo / Srednji vrh / wood, iron / yoke beam, 1 – 382 cm; stilt, h – 92 cm; sole, 1 – 70 cm; mouldboards, 1 – 45 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 34 cm, w – 26 cm; coulter, 1 – 41 cm / acc. no. 7794.




Oralo je bilo leta 1955 kupljeno od Franca Ariha, Srednji vrh 19 (nad Martuljkom).

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1957:

»Ralo ‘arauo’ na oje. Po sestavnih delih podobno ralu 7793 (št. 18), le pod ojem (gredljastim ojesom) je v ročico vsajen 80 cm dolg tramič, v katerega je spredaj pritrjeno črtalo. Kozolec je pretaknjen skozi tramič in plaz. Skozi oje in tramič je pretaknjena železna vinta ‘šrauf’, ki se zgoraj končuje z ročico (za reguliranje globine oranja). Mere sestavnih delov: plaz 70 cm dolg, ročica 92 cm visoka, oje 3,82 m, črtalo 41 cm, lemež d. 34, š. 26 cm – dile so sestavljene iz spodnje krajše in zgornje daljše (d. 45 cm). Oje smrekovo, ostali deli bukovi. Stanje dobro. – Ralo že 50 let ni bilo v rabi.« (Podrobnejši opis in raba v Orel 1955: 59–62.)


The ploughing implement was bought from Franc Arih, Srednji vrh 19 (above Martuljek) in 1955.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1957:

“Ard with a yoke beam. Similar by composition to ard no. 7793 (cat. no. 18), but below the yoke beam an 80 cm long small pillar is set into the stilt and the coulter is fixed to the front of the pillar. The sheath passes through the pillar and sole. The iron screw that passes through the pole and pillar ends in a handle at the top (to adjust the ploughing depth). Dimensions of the parts: the sole is 70 cm long, the stilt 92 cm high, the yoke beam 3.82 m long, the coulter 41 cm long, the share 34 cm long and 26 cm wide – the mouldboards consist of a bottom shorter one and a longer top one (l. 45 cm). The yoke beam is spruce, the other parts are beech. In good condition. – The ard has not been used for 50 years.” (Detailed description and use in Orel 1955: 59–62.)



20.

SOMERNO ORALO / četverokotno ralo na oje / Podgorje / trd les, železo / gredljasto oje, d – 373 cm; ročica, v – 58 cm; plaz, d – 64 cm; deska, d – 26 cm; someren lemež, d – 19 cm, š – 14 cm; črtalo, d – 56 cm / inv. št. 7795.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / rectangular ard with a yoke beam / Podgorje / hardwood, iron / yoke beam, 1 – 373 cm; stilt, h – 58 cm; sole, 1 – 64 cm; mouldboard, 1 – 26 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 19 cm, w – 14 cm; coulter, 1 – 56 cm / acc. no. 7795.




Oralo je bilo leta 1956 kupljeno od Blaža Motvoza, Podgorje 111 (pri Slovenj Gradcu).

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1957:

»Ralo na oje, preprosto narejeno iz 3,73 m dolgega droga ‘oje’, ki je spredaj preluknjano, zadaj pa pretaknjeno skozi ročico. V oju (gredljastem ojesu) je 75 cm od zadnjega konca pretaknjeno črtalo (56 cm visoko) (le-to manjka), 29 cm za njim pa kozolec, ki je spodaj vsajen v 64 cm dolg plaz. H kozolcu je zadaj pritrjen klin (vrtljiva paličasta vez), na tega pa 26 cm dolga deska, ki se lahko premika (obrača) na desno ali levo. Lemež je simetričen, spredaj okrogel, d. 19 cm, š. 14 cm. Ročica je pretaknjena skozi plaz, 58 cm visoka, zgoraj pa se razdeli v dve naravni rogovili. Domači nazivi: ‘ôje, rezauənca, lemeš, dila, cvek, ročice’. Stanje slabo; les: ročica bukova, plaz jesenov, oje bukovo. – Z ralom je lastnik orala oral manjšo njivo v bregu. Prodajalec, sedaj (leta 1956) star 78 let, je v mladosti videl tako oralo nekje pri Insbrucku v Tirolah, pred 50 leti pa je to oralo naredil sam.«


The ploughing implement was purchased from Blaž Motvoz, Podgorje 111 (near Slovenj Gradec) in 1956.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1957:

“Ard with a yoke beam, of simple execution, made from a 3.73 m long beam that is pierced at the front and through which the stilt passes at the back. The coulter (56 cm high), (now missing) was set into the yoke beam 75 cm from its back end, and the sheath 29 cm behind it; the sheath is set into the 64 cm long sole. A rotating joint is fixed to the back of the sheath and to it a 26 cm long mouldboard that turns right and left. The share is symmetrical, round at the front, l. 19 cm, w. 14 cm. The stilt passes through the sole, is 58 cm high and splits at the top into two natural horns. In poor condition; wood: stilt – beech, sole – ash, yoke beam – beech. – The owner used the ard to plough a small sloped field. The seller, who is now (in 1956) 78 years old, saw such an ard in the vicinity of Innsbruck in Tyrol when he was young. He made this ard himself 50 years ago.”


21.

SOMERNO ORALO / četverokotno ralo s kolci, rálə / Podter / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 174 cm; kozolec, v – 90 cm; lemežke, d – 57 cm; someren lemež, d – 41 cm, š – 24 cm / inv. št. 7796.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / rectangular wheel ard, rálə / Podter / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 174 cm; sheath, h – 90 cm; mould strokers, 1 – 57 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 41 cm, w – 24 cm / acc. no. 7796.




Oralo je bilo leta 1955 kupljeno od Martina Kumpreja, Podter 38 (Ljubno ob Savinji), in sicer brez kolc.

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1957:

»Ralo ‘rálə’, narejeno iz 1,74 m dolgega ravnega gredla ‘grégəl’ (gredelj), ki ima spredaj luknjo (odprtino), v sredi pa je skozenj pretaknjen kozolec ‘kôzuc’ v obliki deske, spodaj vsajen v plaz ‘óplaz’. Gredi je dolg 1,74 m, kozolec visok 90 cm. Plaz in ročica sta iz enega kosa lesa, zraščena v koleno v kotu 132°. Ročica ima Zgoraj pretaknjen cvek (držaj), obrnjen naprej. Na kozolcu je nataknjena ‘smukla’ (nastavek za uravnavanje), posebna lesena 34 cm dolga škatla za reguliranje oranja. Na ‘smukli’ so poševno vdelane luknjice, v katere so vtikali ‘cvék’ (zatič) ali ‘star ključ brez peresa’, pritrjen k smukli z vrvico. Lemež ‘raunik’ je simetričen, 41 cm dolg, 24 cm širok. Na plazu za raunikom je pribit kos lesa, nekakšen nos, obrnjen proti kozolcu. Pod tem so na plaz pribite lemežke, spredaj iz enega dela (28 cm dolg), zadaj razdeljene v dva kraka; vse iz enega kosa lesa. Celostna dolžina 57 cm. Les bukov, samo lemežke so jesenove. Stanje dobro. – Ralo sprva ni imelo smukle, ob nakupu v muzej pa je lastnik smuklo našel, a ne ve točno, če je smukla od tega rala.« (Podrobnejši zapis o tem ralu gl. v Orel 1955: 39–40.)


The ard, without its forecarriage, was bought from Martin Kumprej, Podter 38 (Ljubno by Savinja) in 1955.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1957:

“Ard made of a 1.74 m long straight beam with a hole at the front; the board-shaped sheath passes through it in the centre, its bottom is set into the sole. The beam is 1.74 m long, the sheath 90 cm. The sole and stilt consist of a single piece of wood, joined at the knee at an angle of 132°. The stilt has an inserted handle, turned forward. An extension, a special wooden, 34 cm long box for adjusting ploughing, is fixed to the sheath. The slanted holes in this box serve for inserting a pin or ‘an old key without a spring’ that is attached to the box with a string. The share is symmetrical, 41 cm long and 24 cm wide. Behind the share a piece of wood is nailed to the sole, a kind of nose, turned towards the sheath. Under it the mould strokers are nailed to the sole; they are in one piece (28 cm long) at the front, but split into two prongs at the back; they are made of a single piece of wood. Total length 57 cm. Wood: beech, only the mould strokers are ash. In good condition. – The ard at first had no adjustment extension; the owner found one when the ard was bought by the museum, but he did not know whether it belonged to this ard.” (For a detailed description of this ard, see Orel 1955: 39–40.)


22.

SOMERNO ORALO / četverokotno ralo s kolci, rálə / Podter / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 194 cm; plaz, d – 107 cm; lemežke, d – 65 cm / inv. št. 7797.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / rectangular wheel ard, rálə / Podter / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 194 cm; sole, 1 – 107 cm; mould strokers, 1 – 65 cm / acc. no. 7797.




Glede načina pridobitve za oralo velja komentar k št. 21.

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1957:

»Ralo ‘rálə’, nepopolno (manjka lemež), po sestavnih delih podobno ralu št. 7796 (št. 21), le ročica je tu samostojna, vsajena v plaz ter se zgoraj naravno končuje v kljuko (držaj). Kozolec ima pod vrhom vrezano luknjo za držo (odprtino za roko). Smuklja (nastavek za uravnavanje) je večja (d. 40 cm). Mere: gredel (gredelj) 1,94 m, plaz 1,07 m, lemeške 65 cm dolge, na njih je 40 cm dolg polkrožen kos lesa – nekakšna grba. Les bukov, lemeške jesenove. Stanje dobro.« (Podrobnejši zapis o tem ralu gl. v Orel 1955: 39–40.)


Manner of acquisition: see commentary on no. 21.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1957:

“Ard, incomplete (missing share), its parts are similar to ard no. 7796 (cat. no. 21), but the stilt is separate, it is set into the sole and ends in a natural handle at the top. The sheath has an opening for the hand, cut out below the top. The adjustment extension is bigger (l. 40 cm). Dimensions: beam length 1.94 m, sole length 1.07 m, the mould strokers are 65 cm long, and a 40 cm long semicircular piece of wood is fixed to them – a kind of knob. Wood: beech, mould strokers – ash. In good condition.” (For a detailed description of this ard, see Orel 1955: 39–40.)



23.

SOMERNO ORALO / četverokotno ralo s kolci, orálo / Mlake / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 200 cm; ročica, v – 106 cm; kozolec, v – 50 cm ; plaz, d – 86 cm; lemežke, d – 70 cm; someren lemež, d – 28 cm, š – 16 cm; črtalo, d – 50 cm; kolca, š – 100 cm; kolesi, p – 54 cm / inv. št. 7798a, b.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / rectangular wheel ard, orálo / Mlake / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 200 cm; stilt, h – 106 cm; sheath, h – 50 cm ; sole, 1 – 86 cm; mould strokers, 1 – 70 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 28 cm, w – 16 cm; coulter, 1 – 50 cm; forecarriage, w – 100 cm; wheels, d – 54 cm / acc. no. 7798a, b.





Oralo je bilo leta 1957 kupljeno od Rudija Pečnika, Mlake 8 (pri Pernicah pri Muti pri Vuzenici).

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1957:

a – »Ralo ‘orálo’, narejeno iz 2 m dolgega ravnega gredla ‘grádəl’ (gredelj), spredaj preluknjan, v režo zataknjen lesen zatikač (gredeljnik), zadaj pa je gredel pretaknjen skozi režo v ročici in zagozden. Črtalo ‘rezalo’ je 50 cm dolgo, pretaknjeno skozi gredel 90 cm od prednjega konca. Kozolec ‘dila’ ima obliko deske (š. 15 cm, d. 50 cm), pretaknjen skozi gredel v plaz. Plaz ‘platiže’ (tudi ‘plat’) je 86 cm dolg, na sredi trebušasto odebljen; spredaj je nanj nataknjen simetričen lemež ‘raunik’, dolg 28 cm, širok 16 cm. Plaz je na peti okovan. Lemežke ‘uhe’ so 70 cm dolge, zadaj ukrivljene navzgor, vdelane v trebušasti del plaza. Na zunanjih straneh so okovane. Ročica ‘pok’ ima na sredi režo ‘glečanco’, v kateri je gredel. Celotna višina ročice je 1,06 m, zgoraj se razdeli v dve naravni rogovili, ročici. Stanje dobro, le plaz je na peti strohnjen. Les: gredel, plaz in ročica bukovo, kozolec jesenov, lemeške jesenove. – Prodajalec rabi domače navedene nazive kakor jih je rabil oče, rojen 1823 na Kozjem vrhu. Pred 15 leti so ralo še rabili, sedaj (leta 1957) pa orjejo z dvojnim železnim plugom.« (Podrobnejše o ralih iz teh krajev v Orel 1955.)

b – »Kolca ‘podeuc’, sestoje se iz dveh koles (premer 54 cm) in blazine ‘uoze’. Ta ima okroglo luknjo za pretikanje gredla (odprtino, skozi katero se na kolca z gredeljnikom pritrdi gredelj). V blazino je na vsaki strani pretaknjen 80 cm dolg tanjši drog, spredaj pa se drogova stikata v obliki črke V. Celotna širina 1 m. Stanje dobro, les jesen.«


The ploughing implement was bought from Rudi Pečnik, Mlake 8 (near Pernice, Muta, Vuzenica) in 1957.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1957:

a – “Ard, made of a 2 m long natural beam, pierced at the front, the draught peg is inserted in the centre, the beam passes through a wedged gap in the stilt at the back. The coulter is 50 cm long and passes through the beam at 90 cm from its front end. The sheath is board-shaped (w. 15 cm, d. 50 cm) and passes through the beam into the sole. The sole is 86 cm long, rounded and thicker at the centre; a symmetrical share, 28 cm long and 16 cm wide is set into it. The heel of the sole is metal reinforced. The mould strokers are 70 cm long, bend upwards at the back and are set into the rounded, thicker part of the sole. They are metal reinforced on the outside. The stilt has a gap in the centre into which the beam is set. Total height of the stilt: 1.06 m; at the top it splits into two natural horns – the handles. In good condition, only the sole is rotten at the heel. Wood: the beam, sole and stilt are beech, the sheath and mould strokers ash. – The seller used the dialect names he learned from his father who was born on Kozji vrh in 1823. The ard was still used 15 years ago, now (in 1957) they plough with a double iron plough.” (A detailed description of the ards from this area is in Orel 1955.)

b – “Forecarriage, consisting of two wheels (diameter 54 cm) and axle tree. The axle tree has a round hole for shifting the beam (the beam is attached to the forecarriage by the draught peg in the hole). Two thin, 80 cm long poles pass through the axle tree from either side and join up at the front in a V-shape. Total length – 1 m. In good condition. Wood: ash.”



24.

SOMERNO ORALO / četverokotno ralo s kolci, rálə / Matkov kot / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 214 cm; ročica, v – 95 cm; kozolec, v – 96 cm ; plaz, d – 115 cm; someren lemež, d – 30 cm, š – 17 cm; kolca, š – 108 cm; kolesi, p – 50 cm / inv. št. 7799a, b, c.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / rectangular wheel ard, rálə / Matkov kot / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 214 cm; stilt, h – 95 cm; sheath, h – 96 cm ; sole, 1 – 115 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 30 cm, w – 17 cm; forecarriage, w – 108 cm; wheels, d – 50 cm / acc. no. 7799a, b, c.




Oralo je bilo leta 1957 kupljeno od Jakoba Poličnika, Matkov kot (pri Solčavi). Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1957:

a – »Ralo ‘ralə’, narejeno iz 2,14 m dolgega gredla ‘gredl’ (gredelj), ki je v zadnjem delu raven, na sredi pa polagoma ukrivljen navzgor, nato pa se s prednjim koncem spet zniža. Spredaj ima navpično zatakjeno leseno kljuko ‘klin’ (ljudski naziv v tem kraju ‘greben’) (gredeljnik), zanj pa pritrjeno krajšo železno gradanco (gredeljnico; le-ta manjka). Je brez črtala. 1,30 m od sprednjega konca je reža, skozi katero je pretaknjen 96 cm visok kozolec, ‘kôzuc’, spodaj ploščat v obliki deske, nad gredlom pa je v kozolec vdelan lesen vijak ‘šrauf’, ter notranji del z zavoji (navoji) ‘mutərle’. Vijak služi za reguliranje globine oranja. Kozolec prehaja v zgornjem delu v ovalno obliko, končuje pa se z vijakovo glavo. Plaz ‘potplat’ je 1,15 m dolg, spodaj polkrožen, zgoraj v sprednjem delu ploščat, zadaj se zoža. Peta okovana. Na plaz je pribit debel, v sredi trebušast kos lesa, ki se spredaj zožuje in sklada s plazom, zadaj pa se razdeli v dve ‘lemeški’. Ročica ‘držaj’ je 95 cm visoka, vdelana v plaz. Lemež ‘raunik’ je 30 cm dolg in 17 cm širok. Les: gredel brezov, ročica javorjeva, lemeške jelševe, vijak javorjev, ostali deli bukovi. Stanje dobro.« (Podrobnejše o ralih iz teh krajev v Orel 1955.)

b – »Kolca ‘uózič’ imajo dve kolesi ‘kolesnice’ (premer 50 cm), povezano z blazino, skozi katero je pretaknjen 3,30 m dolg okrogel drog ‘oje’, spredaj preluknjano. (Tu gre ali za napako v zapisu mere ali za nepravi vprežni drog; navedeni meri ustrezajočega ni v zbirki.) Širina kolc 1,08 m. Les: kolesi jesenovi, blazina bukova, oje smrekovo. Stanje dobro.«

c – »Veriga gradanca ‘gredəlnca’ (gredeljnica; le-ta manjka) za povezovanje orala h kolcam. Ima en večji končni polkrožen člen in nekaj navadnih členov verige. Pritrjena je na gredel rala inv. št. 7799a.«


The ploughing implement was bought from Jakob Poličnik, Matkov kot (near Solčava), in 1957.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1957:

a – “Ard, made of a 2.14 m long beam that is straight at the back, curves upward in the centre, and straightens out again at the front end. It has a vertically inserted wooden draught peg at the front with a short iron chain (draught chain, now missing) attached to it. It has no coulter. 1.30 m from the front end is a gap through which the 96 cm high sheath passes; it is flat at the bottom and board-shaped, a wooden screw is set into the sheath above the beam, as well as in the interior, threaded part. The screw is used to adjust the ploughing depth. The upper part of the sheath is oval and ends in the head of the screw. The sole is 1.15 m long, semicircular at the back, flat at the front and narrow at the end. The heel is metal reinforced. A rounded piece of wood is nailed to the centre of the sole, it narrows at the front in line with the sole and splits at the back into two mould strokers. The stilt is 95 cm high and set into the sole. The share is 30 cm long and 17 cm wide. Wood: beam – birch, stilt – maple, mould strokers – alder, screw – maple, other parts – beech. In good condition.” (A detailed description of the ards from this area is in Orel 1955.)

b – “The forecarriage has two wheels (diameter 50 cm), connected by an axle tree, through which a 3.30 m long round beam passes, that is pierced at the front. (An error must have been made in taking down these dimensions or another yoke beam is involved, as none of the yoke beams in the collection has a corresponding length.) Width of the forecarriage: 1.08 m. Wood: wheels – ash, axle tree – beech, draught beam – spruce. In good condition.”

c – “The draught chain (now missing) connects the ploughing implement to the forecarriage. It has a larger semicircular link and several standard chain links. It is fixed to the beam of ard acc. no. 7799a.”



25.

SOMERNO ORALO / četverokotno ralo s kolci, rálo / Podvolovljek / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 170 cm; ročica, v – 78 cm; kozolec, v – 82 cm; plaz, d – 115 cm; someren lemež, d – 44 cm, š – 27 cm; kolca, š – 90 cm; kolesi, p – 35 cm / inv. št. 7800a, b, c, d.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / rectangular wheel ard, rálo / Podvolovljek / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 170 cm; stilt, h – 78 cm; sheath, h – 82 cm ; sole, 1 – 115 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 44 cm, w – 27 cm; forecarriage, w – 90 cm; wheels, d – 35 cm / acc. no. 7800a, b, c, d.





Oralo je bilo leta 1957 kupljeno od Jakoba Plaznika, vulgo »pri Riharju«, Podvolovljek (pri Lučah).

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1957:

a – »Ralo ‘ralo’, narejeno iz 1,70 m dolgega gredla ‘gredəl’ (gredelj), ki je v zadnjem delu raven, na sredi odebeljen, nekoliko zakrivljen navzgor, nato pa spet navzdol. Na zgornjem delu gredla zadaj je vrezana rimska številka IX. Na sprednjem koncu gredla je pretaknjena lesena kljuka ‘furovž’ (gredeljnik). V reži gredla je pretaknjen 82 cm visok kozolec ‘kôzelc’ (tudi ‘kôzuc’), spodaj ploščat, nato ovalen. V njem je vdelan lesen vijak ‘šrauf’, ki se na vrhu kozolca končuje z glavo, skozi katero je pretaknjen cvek (paličasta prečka). Košček lesa pod vijakom se imenuje ‘rebrika’. Plaz ‘oplas’ je 1,15 m dolg, spredaj oziroma na sredi debelejši, na njem so pribite ‘lemeške’, spredaj pa nasajen lemež ‘raunek’, 44 cm dolg, 27 cm širok. Ročica ‘ročica’ je 78 cm visoka, pretaknjena skozi plaz, na vrhu se končuje v naravno kljuko (držaj). – Prodajalec ni vedel domačih nazivov za sestavne dele. Povedal jih je daljni sosed Pogoreučnik. Nekaj let po prvi svetovni vojni so Z ralom še orali.«

b – »Kolca ‘uozič’ imajo dve kolesi ‘kolesnice’, narejeni na križ. Premer kolesa je 35 cm. Blazina ‘osnica’ ima v sredi režo, v katero je pretaknjen (vsajen) kos lesa, ki nakazuje ‘jezik’ (vprežni drog). Ta del kolc namreč manjka. Širina je 90 cm. Eno od koles je novejše, drugo starejše.«

c – »Rezalnica ‘rezauənca’ sestoji iz 3,40 m dolgega smrekovega droga ‘oje’, ki je zadaj kolenasto okrivljeno navzgor, visoko še 60 cm. En kos lesa! Skozi zgornji del navpičnega kolena je pretaknjena bukova ročica (držaj). Spredaj je oje preluknjano. 30 cm od zadnjega konca pretaknjeno (vsajeno) 75 cm dolgo železno črtalo (le-to manjka). Les je pred in za rezalnico okovan z obroči (obročastimi vezmi). Ljudski nazivi za sestavne dele: oje, ročaj in rezaunca.«

d – »Trta iz bikove špice ‘bikova špica’, ‘greglnca’ ali ‘trta’, narejena iz bikove Žile, posušena in zvezana v obroč. Služila je za povezovanje gredla h kolcam.«


The ploughing implement was bought from Jakob Plaznik, vulgo “pri Riharju”, Podvolovljek (near Luče) in 1957.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1957:

a – “Ard, made of a 1.70 m long beam, straight at the back, thicker in the centre, slightly curved upwards and then again downwards. The Roman number IX is cut in the upper section of the beam. Wooden draught peg is set into the front end of the beam. The 82 cm high sheath passes through a gap in the beam, it is flat at the bottom and further oval. A wooden screw is set into the sheath and ends at the top of it in a head, through which a round cross piece passes. The little piece of wood below the screw is called the ‘rebrika’. The sole is 1.15 m long, thicker at the front and centre, the mould strokers are nailed to it and the share, 44 cm long and 27 cm wide, is set into it at the front. The sheath is 78 cm high and passes through the sole, ending in a natural hook (handle) at the top. – The seller had no knowledge of the dialect names of the parts. They were provided by a distant neighbour, Pogoreučnik. The ard was still used to plough for several years after the First World War.”

b – “The forecarriage has two cross-spoke wheels. Their diameter is 35 cm. The axle tree has a hole in the centre, through which a piece of wood passes, indicating its use as a draught beam. This part of the forecarriage is missing. Its width is 90 cm. One of the wheels is older than the other.”

c – “The ristle is made of a 3.40 m long spruce pole, bent upward like a knee at the back; height – 60 cm. One single piece of wood! The beech stilt passes through the upper part of the vertical knee. The yoke beam is pierced at the front. 30 cm from its back end a 75 cm long iron coulter (now missing) was set into it. In front of and behind the ristle the wood is reinforced with ring joints.”

d – “Chain made of a bull vein, dried and woven into a collar. It was used to connect the beam to the forecarriage.”



26.

NESOMERNO ORALO / enojni plug, s kolci, dərvó / Negastrn / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 186 cm; ročice, v – 73 cm; kozolec, v – 59 cm; plaz, d – 62 cm; deska, d – 111 cm; kolca (blazina), š – 85 cm; jezik, d – 100 cm, klešče, d – 118 cm / inv. št. 7801a, b, c.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / single wheel plough / Negastrn / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 186 cm; handles, h – 73 cm; sheath, h – 59 cm; sole, 1 – 62 cm; mouldboard, 1 – 111 cm; forecarriage (axle tree), w – 85 cm; tongue 1 – 100 cm, tongs 1 – 118 cm / acc. no. 7801a, b, c.




Oralo je bilo leta 1957 kupljeno od Jožeta Kocjančiča, Negastrn 7 (pri Moravčah), in sicer nepopolno: plug brez lemeža in črtala, kolca brez koles.

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1957:

a – »Plug ‘dərvo’, nepopoln (brez lemeža in črtala). Sestavni deli: gredəl ‘gredəl’ (gredelj) je od sredine na sprednjem delu navzgor ukrivljen, spredaj na treh mestih preluknjan, (v luknjo pride cvek ‘zatəč’ (gredeljnik), ki manjka), zadaj pretaknjen skozi ročico – dolg 1,86 m. Kozolec ‘kózuc’ je v obliki navpične deske pretaknjen skozi gredi, zagozden z ‘zagojzdo’, visok 59 cm. Plaz ‘pokso’ ‘je 62 cm dolg, sestavljen iz dveh delov. Ročici ‘ročice’ sta močno ukrivljeni nazaj, zadnji konec 73 cm od tal. Deska ‘dila’ je pritrjena na kozolec in desno ročico, dolga 1, 11 m, široka 25 cm, zadaj se oža. Na gredlu med kozolcem in ročico je železna kljuka (držalce za otko) za zatikanje otke. Stanje dobro. Les bukov, le gredel javorjev. – Pluga že oče današnjega gospodarja (roj. 1859) ni več uporabljal. Prav tako oče ni vedel kdaj in kako je to drevo prišlo k hiši.«

b – »Kolca ‘kolca’ nepopolna (brez koles). Blazina ‘podvoz’ je 85 cm široka, na sredi je skozenj pretaknjen drog (v blazino je vsajen vprežni drog), ki se nato razdeli v dva dela: ‘kleše’ ali ‘uocəl’, zgornji 1,18 m dolg in spodnji 26 cm dolg. Vmes je gibljivo pritrjen jezik, dolg 1m, spredaj okovan s pritrjeno železno rinko (obročastim nastavkom). V zgornji del droga je pritrjen lesen ročaj, za reguliranje kolc. Stanje dobro, les javorjev, jezik hrastov. – Kolca niso toliko stara kot plug, vendar Že dolgo niso bila v rabi.«

c – »Otka ‘uóhka’ oziroma ‘uəhka’ (slednja manjka), narejena iz 1m dolge smrekove palice, na katero je nataknjena (nasajena) železna lopatica. Stanje dobro. – Otko je rabil prodajalec pri oranju s sodobnim plugom.«


The plough was bought from Jože Kocjančič, Negastrn 7 (near Moravče) in 1957; it was incomplete, as it had no share or coulter, and the forecarriage no wheels. Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1957:

a – “Plough, incomplete (without share and coulter). Component parts: the plough beam curves upwards from the centre to the front part, it is pierced in three places at the front (one hole is for the draught peg that is missing), and passes through the stilt at the back; it is 1.86 m long. The sheath is board-shaped and vertically passes through the plough beam, secured with a wedge; its height is 59 cm. The sole is 62 cm long and consists of two parts. The handles bend back sharply and their ends are 73 cm from the ground. The mouldboard is fixed to the sheath and right handle, it is 1.11 m long and. 25 cm wide, and narrows at the back. An iron hook is mounted to the plough beam between the sheath and stilt to hold the pattle. In good condition. Wood: beech, only the plough beam is maple. – The plough was no longer used even by the father (born 1859) of the present farmer. And his father did not know when and how they had acquired the plough.”

b – “Forecarriage, incomplete (without wheels). The axle tree is 85 cm wide, a pole (the draught beam) passes through its centre and then splits into two parts or ‘tongs’, the top one is 1.18 m long and the bottom one 26 cm. In between them a movable ‘tongue’ is fixed, its front reinforced with an attached iron ring (ring extension). A wooden handle used to guide the wheels is fixed to the upper part of the pole. In good condition; wood: maple, the tongue is oak. – The forecarriage is not as old as the plough, but has not been used for a long time.”

c – “Pattle (now missing), made of a 1m long spruce stick, in which an iron spade is set. In good condition. – The seller of the plough used the pattle when ploughing with a modern plough.”



27.

NESOMERNO ORALO / enojni plug, samično drêvo / Negastrn / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 204 cm; plaz, d – 58 cm; nesomeren lemež, d – 26 cm, š – 21 cm / inv. št. 8184.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / single plough, samično drêvo / Negastrn / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 204 cm; sole, 1 – 58 cm; asymmetrical share, 1 – 26 cm, w – 21 cm / acc. no. 8184.




Oralo je bilo leta 1958 kupljeno od Miklavža Rihterja, Šmiklavž 39 (pri Novi Štifti pri Gornjem Gradu), in sicer z manjkajočim črtalom.

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1958:

»Plug samec ‘samično drevo’. Gredel ‘grédel’ (gredelj) je 204 cm dolg, raven, spredaj dvakrat prelukljan, zadaj pretaknjen skozi ročico (ročice: ‘držači’). 19 cm pred kozolcem je skozi gredel predolbena luknja (narejena odprtina), gredel pa okovan z železnim obročem (obročasto vezjo). Črtalo ‘črtano’ manjka. Plaz ‘póceu’ je 58 cm dolg, zadaj tanjši, vanj je vsajena leva ročica, k njej pa 15 cm od tal pritrjena še desna ročica. Med seboj sta povezani s polico (utrjeni s prečno paličasto vezjo). Ob strani je na kozolec in ročico pritrjena deska ‘dila’ (le-ta manjka). ‘Lémež’ je enostranski, 26 cm dolg, 21 cm širok. Les bukov; stanje dobro.«


The plough was bought from Miklavž Rihter, Šmiklavž 39 (near Nova Štifta, Gornji Grad), in 1958; the coulter was missing.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1958:

“Plough. The plough beam is 204 cm long, straight, pierced in two places at the front, at the back it passes through the stilt. 19 cm in front of the sheath there is a hole in the beam, and the beam is reinforced with an iron ring (ring joint). The coulter is missing. The sole is 58 cm long, thinner at the back, the right handle is fixed to it 15 cm from the ground. The handles are connected by a round cross piece. To the side of the sheath and stilt the mouldboard (missing) was fixed. The share is one-sided, 26 cm long, 21 cm wide. Wood: beech; in good condition.”



28.

NESOMERNO ORALO / dvojni plug, dvoičetno drêvo / Negastrn / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 158 cm; plaz, d – 58 cm; nesomerna lemeža, d – 28 cm, š – 21 cm / inv. št. 8185.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / double plough, dvoičetno drêvo / Negastrn / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 158 cm; sole, 1 – 58 cm; asymmetrical shares, 1 – 28 cm, w – 21 cm / acc. no. 8185.


Glede načina pridobitve za dvojni plug velja komentar k št. 27.

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1958:

»Plug, dvojni ‘dvoičetno drêvo’. Gredl ‘grédl’ (gredelj) je raven, 158 cm dolg, spredaj v eno smer enkrat, v drugo smer dvakrat preluknjan, ima dve luknji za črtala, okovani z železom (z obročastimi vezmi). Črtala manjkata. Kozolca sta pravokotno drug na drugega pretaknjena skozi gredi, vsak v en plaz. Na plazih sta nasajena lemeža (dolžina lemeža 28 cm, širina 21 cm). Ročici sta pravokotno druga na drugo pretaknjeni skozi gredi v podsada (plaza). Srednja – tretja ročica je zataknjena v rob gredla. Ročice so med seboj povezane s polico (prečno paličasto vezjo), ki je pritrjena na stranski ročici in gre pod srednjo ročico. Deski sta pritrjeni vsaka na en kozolec, s polico (količkom) pa povezani s spodnjim delom ročice. Gredi je med kozolcema okovan (z železnimi obročastimi vezmi). Okoli vsakega kozolca in gredla je pritrjena kamba (obročasta vez) iz srobota. – Domači nazivi za sestavne dele so isti kot pri (gornjem) plugu samcu (inv. št. 8184). Les bukov; stanje dobro.«





Manner of acquisition: see commentary on no. 27.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1958:

“Double plough. The beam is straight, 158 cm long, pierced once at the front in one direction and twice in the other direction; has two holes for the coulter, reinforced with iron ring joints. The coulter is missing. The sheaths pass through the plough beam at a right angle, each into one of the two soles. The shares are set into the soles (length of the shares – 28 cm, width 21 cm). The handles pass through the beam into the soles at a right angle. The central, third handle is set into the edge of the plough beam. The handles are connected by a round cross piece that is fixed to the side handle and passes under the central handle. The mouldboards are each fixed to the sheaths, and connected with the bottom part of the handles by a peg. The plough beam is reinforced between the sheaths (with round iron joints). Around the two sheaths and the beam runs a ring joint made of osier. – The dialect names for the parts are the same as with the above described single plough (acc. no. 8184). Wood: beech; in good condition.”



29.

SOMERNO ORALO / četverokotno ralo s kolci, plúžnica / Zgornja Kungota / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 170 cm; plaz, d – 45 cm; lemežki, d – 28 cm; someren lemež, d – 42 cm, š – 27 cm / inv. št. 8186.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / rectangular wheel ard, plúžnica / Zgornja Kungota / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 170 cm; sole, 1 – 45 cm; mould strokers, 1 – 28 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 42 cm, w – 27 cm / acc. no. 8186.


Oralo je bilo leta 1958 kupljeno od Franca Ravnjaka, Sleme 17, Zgornja Kungota (pri Mariboru).

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1958:

»Oralo, drevo s simetričnim lemežem, ‘plužnica’. Gredi ‘gregl’ (gredelj) je 170 cm dolg, raven, spredaj 23 cm od konca preluknjan, 66 cm od luknje (odprtine) pa je v gredi vsajeno črtalo ‘rézanca’; 24 cm od črtala je skozi gredi pretaknjen kozolec. Zadaj gre gredi skozi ročico. Gredi je zlasti okoli črtala močno okovan (z železnimi obročastimi vezmi). Ročica ‘držač’ je spodaj vsajena v plaz, zgoraj pa se razdeli v dve naravni rogovili, ki rabita za držo. Plaz je 45 cm dolg, zadaj razdeljen v dva naravna (rogovili) navzgor in navzven ukrivljena podaljška (netipični lemežki), dolga 28 cm. Peta plaza in podaljška sta na koncu okovana. Lemež ‘oráunik’ je simetričen, 42 cm dolg, 27 cm širok. Les bukov; stanje dobro. – S plužnico so prenehali orati okoli l. 1926.«





The ploughing implement was bought from Franc Ravnjak, Sleme 17, Zgornja Kungota (near Maribor) in 1958.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1958:

“Ploughing implement with a symmetrical share. The beam is 170 cm long and straight, pierced by a hole 23 cm from the front end; the coulter is set into the beam 66 cm from this hole; the sheath passes through the beam 24 cm from the coulter. The beam is mortised into the stilt at the back. The beam is heavily reinforced (with iron ring joints), especially around the coulter. The lower end of the stilt is set into the sole, its top part forms two natural horns that serve as handles. The sole is 45 cm long: its back end splits into two natural prongs, extensions that are curved upwards and outwards (atypical mould strokers), 28 cm long. The ends of the sole’s heel and the extensions are metal reinforced. The share is symmetrical, 42 cm long and 27 cm wide. Wood: beech; in good condition. – The ploughing implement was used until around 1926.”



30.

NESOMERNO ORALO / enojni plug, s kolci, dərvó / Poljšica pri Gorjah / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 194 cm; plaz, d – 60 cm; nesomeren lemež, d – 30 cm, š – 24 cm; črtalo, d – 46 cm; kolca, š – 56 cm; kolesi, p – 43 cm; vprežni drog, d – 86 cm / inv. št. 8298a, b, c.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / single wheel plough, dərvó / Poljšica near Gorje / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 194 cm; sole, 1 – 60 cm; asymmetrical share, 1 – 30 cm, w – 24 cm; coulter, 1 – 46 cm; forecarriage, w – 56 cm; wheels, d – 43 cm; draught beam, 1 – 86 cm / acc. no. 8298a, b, c.




Oralo je bilo leta 1958 kupljeno od Antona Lipovca, Poljšica pri Gorjah 18 (pri Bledu).

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1958:

a – »Plug ‘dərvo’, lesen, le črtalo, lemež in okovje je železno. Plaz je 60 cm dolg, imenovan ‘pôsak’, na njem je nasajen enostranski lemež ‘lemeš’, dolg 30 cm, širok 24 cm. V plaz je zadaj vsajena leva ročica, spredaj pa kozolec (»polica« ?), ki je zgoraj pretaknjen skozi gredl ‘gredəl’ (gredelj). Gredl je 194 cm dolg, rahlo ukrivljen, vanj je 31 cm od prednjega konca zataknjen prvi, 10 cm za njim pa drugi močan cvek (gredeljnika; eden manjka). Črtalo ‘črtau’ (manjka) je pretaknjen skozi gredl 123 cm od prednjega konca. Dolgo 46 cm. Leva ročica je povezana z desno s tremi močnimi klini (prečnimi paličastimi vezmi), desna ročica pa je pritrjena k deski ‘dili’. Deska je na prednjem koncu pritrjena h kozolcu. Deli pluga, zlasti pa gredi je okovan povsod, kjer je povezan z drugim delom. Na desni strani gredla (ob kozolcu) je pribito železo (držalce za otko), za katerega se zatika votka (otka). Stanje dobro. Les bukov.«

b – »Kolca ‘kouca’, sestavljena iz dveh koles – premer 43 cm – povezanih z blazino ‘podvoz’, v katero je na sredini vsajena 86 cm dolga polica (vprežni drog), na koncu okovana in podaljšana z železno kljuko (kavljem). Širina med kolesi je 56 cm. Les bukov; stanje dobro. H kolcam je pritrjena veriga (gredeljnica, ki manjka) za pritrjevanje drevesa h kolcam.«

c – »Otka ‘uohka’, železna lopatica za čiščenje pluga med oranjem. (Omenjena otka manjka.) Železni del je dolg 25 cm, ročaj – močna leskova palica – pa 66 cm.«


The plough was bought from Anton Lipovec, Poljšica near Gorje 18 (near Bled) in 1958.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1958:

a – “Plough, wooden, only the coulter, share and bands are metal. The sole is 60 cm long and a one-sided share, 30 cm long, 24 cm wide, is set into it. The left handle is set into the sole at the back, the sheath at the front. The top part of the sheath passes through the plough beam. The beam is 194 cm long and slightly curved; a first sturdy peg is set 31 cm from its front end, the second one 10 cm further down (draught pegs – one is missing). The coulter (missing) passes through the plough beam 123 cm from the front end and is 46 cm long. The left handle is connected with the right one by three robust round cross pieces, the right handle is fixed to the mouldboard. The front end of the mouldboard is fixed to the sheath. Parts of the plough and especially the plough beam are metal reinforced in all the places where they are connected to other parts. An iron holder for the pattle is nailed to the right side of the plough beam (beside the sheath). In good condition. Wood: beech.”

b – “Forecarriage, consisting of two wheels – diameter 43 cm – linked by the axle tree through which the 86 cm long draught beam passes in the centre; it is reinforced at the end and extended with an iron hook. The width between the wheels is 56 cm. Wood: beech; in good condition. A chain is attached to the forecarriage (the draught chain – now missing) to connect the plough beam to it.”

c – “Pattle, a small iron spade used to clean the plough in the field. (The pattle is missing.) Its iron part is 25 cm long, the handle – a sturdy hazel stick, 66 cm.”



31.

NESOMERNO ORALO / enojni plug, drvô / Sad / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 190 cm; nesomeren lemež, d – 25 cm, š – 27 cm / inv. št. 8400a, b.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / single plough, drvô / Sad / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 190 cm; asymmetrical share, 1 – 25 cm, w – 27 cm / acc. no. 8400a, b.




Oralo je muzeju leta 1950 podaril Janez Kastelic, vulgo »Kozlevčar«, Sad 9 (pri Šentvidu pri Stični).

Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1958:


»Plug ‘drvô’, narejen iz naslednjih sestavnih delov: gredel ‘hlod’ (gredelj), dveh ročic (ena ‘račîca’), podsad ‘aplás’ (plaz), kozolec ‘kazúc’, ‘dila’ (deska), črtalo ‘črtal’ in lemež ‘lêmeš’. Gredel, dolg 1,90 m, je na sredi precej vijugasto ukrivljen, vanj je nekoliko pred kozolcem vsajeno železno črtalo in zagozdeno z zagozdami. Kozolec v obliki deske je pretaknjen skozi gredi in zagozden z veliko zagozdo ‘zatíuənco’ in manjšimi zagozdami. Spodaj je kozolec vsajen v podsad. Zadnji konec podsada je pribit k ‘peti’ leve ročice – ‘ta velke’ ročice. Ta ročica je namreč na koncu (spodaj) podaljšana v koleno. Desna ročica je s klinom (prečno paličasto vezjo) – ‘klən’ – povezana z levo, spodaj pa pritrjena k deski. Gredel je pred ter za črtalom in kozolcem okovan. Lemež je enostranski, dolg 25 cm, širok pa 27 cm. Stanje dobro.«

b – »Otka ‘ôtka’, 81 cm dolga leskova palica je na enem koncu naravno razdeljena v rogovilo, katere večji konec rabi za držo. Na drugem koncu je nasajena železna lopatica.«


The plough was donated by Janez Kastelic, vulgo name “Kozlevčar”, Sad 9 (near Šentvid by Stična) in 1950.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1958:

“Plough, composed of the following parts: beam, two handles, sole, sheath, mouldboard, coulter, and share. The beam, 1.90 m long, is strongly curved in the centre, the iron coulter is set into it just in front of the sheath and secured with two wedges. The sheath is board-shaped and passes through the plough beam, secured with one large and several small wedges. The lower end of the sheath is set into the sole. The back end of the sole is nailed to the ‘heel’ of the left handle – the bigger one. This handle indeed extends into a knee at its bottom. The right handle is connected to the left one by a round cross piece, and fixed to the mould-board at the bottom. The plough beam is metal reinforced in front of and behind the coulter and sheath. The share is one-sided, 25 cm long, 27 cm wide. In good condition.”

b – “Pattle, an 81 cm long hazelnut stick, at one end it naturally splits into a horn whose bigger end is used as the handle. At the other end an iron spade is fixed onto it.”



32.

NESOMERNO ORALO / enojni plug, s kolci, drevo / Štrukljeva vas / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 170 cm; deska, d – 98 cm; kolca, š – 52 cm; kolesi, p – 44 cm in 37 cm; jezik, d – 97 cm, klešče, d – 80 cm / inv. št. 9359, a.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / single wheel plough, drevo / Štrukljeva vas / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 170 cm; mouldboard, 1 – 98 cm; forecarriage, w – 52 cm; wheels, d – 44 cm and 37 cm; tongue, 1 – 97 cm, tongs, 1 – 80 cm / acc. no. 9359, a.




Oralo je bilo leta 1962 kupljeno od Janeza Laha, Štrukljeva vas 4 (pri Cerknici). Inventarizacija Fanči Šarf, leta 1964:

»‘Drevo’, leseno, narejeno iz kolenasto ukrivljenega gredlja (‘gredel’), v katerega je 40 cm od zadnjega konca vsajeno železno črtalo v obliki noža. 22 cm od zadnjega konca je skozi gredelj pretaknjen pokončni lesen kozolec (domačega imena ne vedo!), ki je spodaj vdelan v plaz (domačega imena ni), na katerega je na prednji konec nasajen ‘lemež’. Na končni vrhnji del plaza je pritrjena leva ročica (‘ročaj’), znatno močnejša od desne, ki ima konec podaljšan v obliki tace, položene na plaz. Skozi ročico je pretaknjen zadnji konec gredlja, od strani zavarovan s pretaknjenim lesenim klinom, da ne more izpasti. V peto leve ročice (tik nad plazom) je od strani vsajen debelejši klin (prečna paličasta vez), na katerega je nataknjena (nasajena) desna ročica. Na zunanjo stran te ročice ter na kozolec je pritrjena deska z vrezanim ročajem. Ročici sta na sredi povezani s pretaknjenim klinom (prečno paličasto vezjo). Prednji konec gredlja je preluknjan. Deska (domače ime ‘ploh’) je bila prvotno obdana s pločevino. Gredelj je na zadnjem koncu in na obeh straneh pretaknjenega (vsajenega) črtala okovan. Okovana je tudi peta plaza in leve ročice. Prednji konec deske se zatika v železno palico, zgoraj pretaknjeno skozi gredelj, spodaj v lemež. Les: gredelj in leva ročica iz gabra, desna ročica jesenova, deska smrekova, plaz gabrov. Mere: dolžina gredlja 170 cm, dolžina ročic 127 cm, dolžina deske 98 cm, širina deske spredaj 34 cm, zadaj 19 cm. Stanje razmeroma dobro; klin (prečna paličasta vez), ki na sredi povezuje ročici, je nov. – Plug je izdelal okoli leta 1895 Janez Lah (1852–193?) v Štrukljevi vasi. V uporabi je bil do l. 1940.«

a – »‘Plužna’ (kolca); dvoje križevatnih koles, od katerih je desno večje od levega, je povezanih s prečnikom (blazino). Vanj je pravokotno vsajen podaljšek Gezik), povezan z naslednjim s klinom (zatičem). Prednji podaljšek (klešče) je gibljiv za cca 240 stopinj. Na njem je pokončno vsajena lesena kamba (s funkcijo držaja), s katero vodič uravnava brazdanje. Na koncu podaljška je železna kljuka (kavelj). Gredelj se povezuje s plužnami z zvito leskovo trto, ki se zatakne za klin (gredeljnik) v gredlju (klin manjka). V podaljšek prvega prečnika je zabit klin (zatič), imenovan ‘rigl’. Kolo ima debelo ‘pejstu’ (pesto) in pravokotne ‘špice’. Mere: širina med kolesi 52 cm, dolžina prvega podaljška 97, dolžina drugega podaljška 80 cm, višina klina med podaljškoma 5,8 cm, višina kambe 42 cm. Premer večjega kolesa 44, manjšega 37 cm. Les: prečnik med kolesi bukov, podaljška bukova, peste gabrove, špice kostanjeve, kamba leskova. Stanje dobro.«


The plough was bought from Janez Lah, Štrukljeva vas 4 (near Cerknica) in 1962.

Accession book entry by Fanči Šarf, 1964:

“Plough, wooden, consisting of an articulated beam, into which an iron knife-shaped coulter is set 40 cm from the back end. A wooden sheath passes vertically through it at 22 cm from the back end. The lower end of the sheath is set into the sole, which has a share mounted at its front end. The left handle is fixed to the final top part of the sole, it is much sturdier than the right handle, which extends into a ‘claw’ that rests on the sole. The back end of the plough beam passes through the stilt and is secured by a wooden peg that passes through it from the side, so that it cannot fall out. A sturdy round cross joint is set into the heel of the left handle (right above the sole), and the right handle is mounted into this joint. The mouldboard is fixed to the outside of this handle and to the sheath; it has a cutout handle. The handles are connected by a round cross piece in the centre. The front end of the plough beam is pierced. The mouldboard was originally metal reinforced. The plough beam is metal reinforced at the back end and on both sides of the inserted coulter. The heel of the sole and the left handle are also metal reinforced. The front end of the mouldboard is set into an iron bar that passes through the plough beam at the top and is set into the share at the bottom. Wood: plough beam and left handle – white beech, right handle – ash, mouldboard – spruce, sole – white beech. Dimensions: length of the plough beam – 170 cm, length of the handles – 127 cm, length of the mouldboard – 98 cm, width of the mouldboard – front 34 cm, back 19 cm. In relatively good condition; the round cross piece that connects the handles is new. – The plough was made around 1895 by Janez Lah (1852–193?) in Štrukljeva vas. It was used until 1940.”

a – “Forecarriage; two cross-spoke wheels, of which the left is bigger than the right, connected by a cross piece (axle tree). An extension (tongue) is set into it at a right angle and connected to it by a pin. The front extension (tongs) is movable to about 240 degrees. A wooden, curved pole is set into it vertically to let the ploughman’s aid adjust the furrow. At the end of the extension is an iron hook. The plough is fixed to the forecarriage with a twisted hazel collar that is hitched to the draught peg in the plough beam (the peg is missing). A pin is inserted into the extension of the first cross piece. The wheel has a bulky hub and rectangular spokes. Dimensions: width between the wheels – 52 cm, length of the first extension – 97 cm, length of the second extension – 80 cm, height of the pin between the two extensions – 5.8 cm, height of the handle – 42 cm. Diameter of the bigger wheel – 44 cm, smaller wheel – 37 cm. Wood: axle – beech, extensions – beech, hub – white beech, spokes – chestnut, handle – hazelnut. In good condition.”



33.

NESOMERNO ORALO / enojni plug / Bistrica ob Sotli / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 194 cm; nesomeren lemež, d – 59 cm, š – 51 cm; črtalo, d – 59 cm / inv. št. 14762.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / single plough / Bistrica by Sotla / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 194 cm; asymmetrical share, 1 – 59 cm, w – 51 cm; coulter, 1 – 59 cm / acc. no. 14762.




Oralo je bilo leta 1977 kupljeno od Franca Gajerja, Bistrica ob Sotli 75.

Inventarizacija Angelosa Baša, leta 1978:

»Plug, lesen, s posameznimi kovinskimi deli. Ročaj (ročice), delno okovan z železom, d = 76 cm, 2r = 4 cm; gredelj, zgoraj in počez okovan z železom, d – 194 cm, 2 r – 6,5 cm. Črtalo (ki manjka) iz železa, d = 59 cm, š = 8,5 cm; lemež iz železa, d – 59 cm, š = 51 cm.«


The plough was bought from Franc Gajer, Bistrica by Sotla 75, in 1977.

Accession book entry by Angelos Baš, 1978:

“Plough, wooden, individual metal parts. The handle (handles) is partly iron reinforced, l. = 76 cm, w. – 4 cm; plough beam, reinforced at the top and across, l. = 194 cm, w. = 6,5 cm. Iron coulter (missing), l. = 59 cm, w. = 8.5 cm; iron share, l. = 59 cm, w. = 51 cm.”



34.

NESOMERNO ORALO / enojni plug, s kolči, drjevó / Razdrto / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 189 cm; ročice, v – 95 cm, š – 57 cm; kozolec, v – 42 cm; plaz, d – 46 cm; deska, d – 87 cm; nesomeren lemež, d – 54 cm, š – 26 cm; črtalo, d – 52 cm; kolca, š – 82 cm; kolo, p – 44 cm; vprežni drog, d (do blazine) – 66 cm / inv. št. 16522.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / single plough, drjevó / Razdrto / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 189 cm; handles, h – 95 cm, w – 57 cm; sheath, h – 42 cm; sole, 1 – 46 cm; mouldboard, 1 – 87 cm; asymmetrical share, 1 – 54 cm, w – 26 cm; coulter, 1 – 52 cm; forecarriage, w – 82 cm; wheel, d – 44 cm; draught beam (up to the axle tree), 1 – 66 cm / acc. no. 16522.




Oralo je muzeju leta 1987 podaril Leopold Simončič, posestnik ovčar (z okoli 100 hektarji zemlje), Razdrto 8. Gre za lesen enojni plug z nesomernim železnim lemežem – ljemežem, črtalom in desko; z rahlo navzdol ukrivljenim gredljem, utrjenim z obročastimi vezmi iz železne pločevine, s prednjim koncem v slabem stanju; z ročicama (leva je odlomljena), utrjenima s krajšo železno prečno vezjo; z železnima kozolcem in plazom; s kolci (plužne) z manjkajočim kolesom in z deskastim vprežnim drogom, ki ga spredaj sklene železen kavelj. Gredelj je iz bukovine, preostala ročica iz jesenovine. Oralo je bilo njihovo »ta prvo drjevó«, ko se je rodbina Simončič leta 1904 preselila iz Knežaka na Razdrto. Izdelano je bilo v Knežaku in je »domač típo«. Z njim so orali do leta 1914, potem so kupili v celoti železen plug.


The plough was donated to the museum by Leopold Simončič, a farmer and sheep breeder (with around 100 hectares of land), Razdrto 8, in 1987. It is a wooden single plough with an asymmetrical iron share, coulter, and mouldboard: the plough beam slightly curves downward, and is reinforced with ring joints of sheet metal; the front end is in poor condition; the handles (the left one is missing, broken off) are braced by a short iron cross piece; the sheath and sole are iron; forecarriage (one wheel is missing); the board-shaped draught beam ends in an iron hake. The plough beam is beech, the remaining handle of ash. The plough was the first used by the Simončič family when they moved from Knežak to Razdrto in 1904. It was made in Knežak and is a “domestic type”. They used it until 1914, when they bought an iron plough.



35.

SOMERNO ORALO / osipalnik, osipáunik / Razdrto / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 170 cm; ročici, v – 82 cm, š – 60 cm; kozolec, v – 37 cm; plaz, d – 55 cm; deski, d – 50 cm; someren lemež, d – 20 cm, š – 27 cm; kolesce, p – 26 cm / inv. št. 16523.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / ridging plough, osipáunik / Razdrto / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 170 cm; handles, h – 82 cm, w – 60 cm; sheath, h – 37 cm; sole, 1 – 55 cm; mouldboards, 1 – 50 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 20 cm, w – 27 cm; wheel, d – 26 cm / acc. no. 16523.


Glede načina pridobitve za osipalnik velja komentar k št. 34. Gre za leseno oralo (gredelj, ročici) s somernim železnim lemežem, z železnim plazom, desko, kozolcem in vrtljivo ročico za uravnavanje globine oranja; z rahlo ukrivljenim gredljem, po vsej dolžini utrjenim s trakom iz železne pločevine in z obročastimi vezmi, z odprtino za črtalo (slednje manjka) in s kavljem na prednjem koncu. Gredelj in obe ročici (desna je odlomljena) so iz jesenovine. Osipalnik je bil narejen v istem času in kraju kakor št. 34, le da je bil v rabi nekaj dlje, in sicer do leta 1925; »za vrste narédit in potlej za osipat«.


Manner of acquisition: see commentary on no. 34. Wooden plough (plough beam, handles) with a symmetrical iron share, iron sole, mouldboard, sheath and swivel handles to adjust the ploughing depth; the plough beam is slightly curved, reinforced over its entire length with a sheet metal band and ring joints; it has a hole for the (missing) coulter and a hake at its front end. The plough beam and both handles (the right one is missing) are ash. The ridging plough was made in the same place and at the same time as no. 34, but was used a little longer – until 1925; they used it to “make rows and later for ridging”.





36.

SOMERNO ORALO / četverokotno ralo s kolci / neznan krajevni izvor / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 184 cm; ročica, v – 73 cm; kozolec, v – 79 cm; plaz, d – 106 cm; lemežke, d – 69 cm; someren lemež, d – 33 cm, š – 20,5 cm / inv. št. 21687.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / rectangular wheel ard / provenance unknown / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 184 cm; stilt, h – 73 cm; sheath, h – 79 cm; sole, 1 – 106 cm; mould strokers, 1 – 69 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 33 cm, w – 20.5 cm / acc. no. 21687.





Način pridobitve ni znan. Oblikovni tip četverokotnega rala s kolci (pridobljeno je bilo brez kolc); s somernim železnim lemežem in lesenima lemežkama, brez črtala; z ravnim gredljem z odprtino za gredeljnik in z vanjo vtaknjenim lesenim gredeljnikom (za pripenjanje s trto na kolca); s sestavljeno enojno ročico; z deskastim kozolcem z odprtino za roko in z več manjšimi okroglimi odprtinami za pretikanje zatičev za uravnavanje globine oranja. Vsi leseni sestavni deli so iz bukovine, le lemežki sta iz gabrovega lesa. Domač kolarski izdelek.


Manner of acquisition unknown. Type of rectangular wheel ard (the forecarriage was missing when it was acquired); symmetrical iron share and wooden mould strokers, without a coulter; straight beam with a hole for the draught peg, a wooden draught peg is set into it (to hitch it to the forecarriage with an osier collar): a composite single stilt; board-shaped sheath with a cut-out handle and several smaller round holes for shifting the pegs to adjust the ploughing depth. All the wooden parts are beech, only the mould strokers are ash. Domestic wheelwright’s product.



37.

SOMERNO ORALO / osipalnik, seučedur / Senik, Gornja Brda / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 189 cm; ročice, v – 77 cm, š – 59 cm; kozolec, v – 53 cm; oplaz, d – 51 cm; someren lemež, d – 37 cm, š – 25 cm / inv. št. 21688.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / ridging plough, seučedur / Senik, Gornja Brda / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 189 cm; handles, h – 77 cm, w – 59 cm; sheath, h – 53 cm; sole, 1 – 51 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 37 cm, w – 25 cm / acc. no. 21688.




Oralo je bilo vpisano v knjigo »Prihodi muzejskih predmetov 1965–1976« pod tekočo številko 26, in sicer kot ralo. Prepoznavanje je omogočil predmetu ustrezajoč risan zapis (katalog št. 14) v slikovnem gradivu Terena 10, Brda. Gre za oralo s somernim železnim lemežem, brez črtala; s kolenasto ukrivljenim gredljem, vsajenim v plaz, s pravokotno odprtino za črtalo, spodaj prekrito s trakom iz železne pločevine, in z okroglimi odprtinami za pretikanje gredeljnika; z ročicama, utrjenima s prečnima paličastima vezema in sredinskim stebričem, rastočim iz plaza; s paličastim železnim kozolcem z navoji in metuljasto matico za uravnavanje globine oranja. Gredelj je iz gabrovine, ročice iz bukovega lesa, plaz (podaljšan v stebrič) iz hrastovine. Domač kolarski izdelek. V rabi sredi 20. stoletja, najverjetneje pri Golbanovih, Senik 14.


The plough was entered in the register “Acquisitions of museum objects 1965-1976” as an ard under consecutive number 26. A drawn record (catalogue no. 14) enabled us to identify the object in the pictorial material of Field 10, Brda. It is a plough with a symmetrical iron share, without a coulter; an articulated plough beam, set into the sole, a rectangular hole for the coulter, the bottom side is reinforced with a sheet iron band; round holes for shifting the plough beam; handles reinforced with round cross pieces and a central pillar that rises from the sole; threaded round iron sheath and butterfly nut to adjust the ploughing depth. The plough beam is white beech, the handles beech, the sole (extending into the pillar) oak. Domestic wheelwright’s product. Used in the mid 20th century, most likely by the Golban family, Senik 14.



38.

SOMERNO ORALO / osipalnik / neznan krajevni izvor / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 167 cm; ročice, v – 73 cm, š – 67 cm; kozolec, v – 45,5 cm; plaz, d – 69 cm; deski, d – 95,5 in 96,5 cm; someren lemež, d – 23,5 cm, š – 18 cm / inv. št. 21689.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / ridging plough / provenance unknown / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 167 cm; handles, h – 73 cm, w – 67 cm; sheath, h – 45.5 cm; sole, 1 – 69 cm; mouldboards, 1 – 95.5 and 96.5 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 23,5 cm, w – 18 cm / acc. no. 21689.




Način pridobitve ni znan. Oralo s somernim, na več mestih »podstavljenim« oziroma kovaško zakrpanim železnim lemežem, z dvema lesenima deskama, z manjkajočim črtalom; z rahlo ukrivljenim gredljem, vsajenim v krajši ukrivljen sredinski stebrič med ročicama, z železnim držalom za otko; z ročicama, utrjenima s krajšo spodnjo paličasto leseno in z daljšo gornjo železno prečno vezjo; s paličastim železnim kozolcem z navoji. Gredelj je iz gabrovine, ročice in deski iz bukovega lesa, plaz iz jesenovine. Domač, morda tudi obrtniški kolarski izdelek (zavoljo zahtevnejše izvedbe ročic).


Manner of acquisition unknown. Plough with a symmetrical iron share that was repaired with metal pieces in several places, two wooden mouldboards, the coulter is missing; slightly curved beam, set into the short, curved central pillar between the handles; iron pattle holder; the handles are reinforced by a round wooden cross piece at the bottom and an iron cross piece at the top; round, threaded iron sheath (frame). The beam is white beech, the handles and mouldboard beech, the sole ash. Domestic product, perhaps made by a craftsman - wheelwright (judging from the demanding execution of the handles).



39.

SOMERNO ORALO / osipalnik / Spodnja Šiška / trd les, usnje, železo / gredelj, d – 203 cm; ročice, v – 76 cm, š – 57,5 cm; kozolec, v – 43,5 cm; plaz, d – 62,5 cm; deski, d – 53,5 cm; someren lemež, d – 25 cm, š – 15 cm / inv. št. 21690.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / ridging plough / Spodnja Šiška / hardwood, leather, iron / beam, 1 – 203 cm; handles, h – 76 cm, w – 57.5 cm; sheath, h – 43.5 cm; sole, 1 – 62.5 cm; mouldboards, 1 – 53.5 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 25 cm, w – 15 cm / acc. no. 21690.





Osipalnik je leta 1983 muzeju podaril Andrej Marinko, kupec četrtinske kmetije rodbine Ceglar v Spodnji Šiški na Majcnovi ulici. (O kmetiji gl. France Golob, Hišni arhiv in podoba četrtinske kmetije iz Spodnje Šiške v 19. stoletju, SE, 33–34, Ljubljana 1991, 83–126.) Gre za oralo s somernim železnim lemežem, z dvema lesenima deskama (na stiku pred kozolcem obdanima z železno pločevino ter deljenima – najverjetneje zavoljo možnosti uravnavanja širine) in brez črtala; z rahlo ukrivljenim gredljem, vsajenim v daljši ukrivljen sredinski stebrič med ročicama, utrjenim z obročastimi vezmi iz železne pločevine, z usnjenim držalom za otko; z ročicama, spodaj utrjenima z železno objemko in zgoraj z železno prečno vezjo; z ožjim lesenim deskastim kozolcem; s plazom, na spodnji drsni površini utrjenim z vstavljenim železnim trakom. Gredelj, kozolec, ročice in oplaz so iz jesenovine, deski iz bukovega lesa. Domač kolarski izdelek, pri Ceglarjevih v rabi najverjetneje do let po 2. svetovni vojni.


The ridging plough was donated to the museum by Andrej Marinko, the buyer of a quarter farm from the Ceglar family in Spodnja Šiška, Majcnova Street, in 1983 (On the farm, see France Golob, Hišni arhiv in podoba četrtinske kmetije iz Spodnje Šiške v 19. stoletju. SE. 33–34, Ljubljana 1991, 83–126.) It is a plough with a symmetrical iron share, two wooden mouldboards (reinforced with sheet metal in front of the sheath; the boards are divided, probably to adjust the ploughing width; missing coulter; slightly curved plough beam, set into a long curved central pillar between the handles, reinforced with ring joints made of sheet metal; leather pattle holder; the handles are reinforced at the bottom with an iron clamp and at the top with an iron cross piece; narrow wooden board-shaped sheath; the sole is reinforced with a mounted iron runner on the bottom sliding surface. The plough beam, sheath, handles, and sole are ash, the mouldboard is beech. Domestic wheelwright’s product, used by the Ceglars probably until just after the Second World War.



40.

SOMERNO ORALO / osipalnik, krájnik / Zgornje Gameljne / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 166 cm; ročici, v – 68 cm, š – 42 cm; kozolec, v – 40 cm; plaz, d – 60 cm; deski, d – 53,5 cm; someren lemež, d – 24,5 cm, š – 26 cm / inv. št. 21691.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / ridging plough, krájnik / Zgornje Gameljne / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 166 cm; handles, h – 68 cm, w – 42 cm; sheath, h – 40 cm; sole, 1 – 60 cm; mouldboards, 1 – 53.5 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 24.5 cm, w – 26 cm / acc. no. 21691.





Osipalnik sta leta 2006 muzeju podarila Joži in Vili Žmavc, lastnika in tedaj prodajalca podedovane kmetije pri Sirenk oziroma »pri puncah« v Zgornjih Gameljnah 55, skupaj z več kot štiridesetimi drugimi orodji. Na njej so do zadnje četrtine 20. stoletja gospodarile »Sirnikove punce«, tri neporočene hčere z največje kmetije v Gameljnah. Gre za oralo s somernim železnim lemežem, dvema lesenima deskama (na stiku pred kozolcem obdanima z železno pločevino ter deljenima – najverjetneje zavoljo možnosti uravnavanja širine) in brez črtala; s skoraj ravnim debelejšim gredljem, vsajenim v krajši ukrivljen sredinski stebrič med ročicama, z odprtino za gredeljnik in z železnim gredeljnikom; z ročicama, spodaj utrjenima z železno obročasto vezjo in malce višje s krajšo paličasto leseno prečno vezjo; z odlomljenim ožjim lesenim deskastim kozolcem. Gredelj je iz javorjevine, ročice in oplaz iz jesenovine, deski iz bukovega lesa. Domač, morda tudi obrtniški kolarski izdelek (zavoljo zahtevnejše izvedbe ročic). V rabi je bil v 2. in 3. četrtini preteklega stoletja, in sicer »za kraje delat«, za oranje razorov pri sajenju krompirja (takrat s kolci), za osipanje in izkopavanje krompirja.


The ridging plough was donated to the museum, together with over forty other implements, by Joži and Vili Žmavc in 2006; they were the owners and at the time sellers of an inherited farm called “pri Sirenk” or “by the girls” in Zgornje Gameljne 55. Until the last quarter of the 20th century, the farm was run by the “Sirnik girls”, the three unmarried daughters of the biggest farmer in Gameljne. The plough has a symmetrical iron share, two wooden mouldboards (iron reinforced at the joint in front of the sheath and divided – most likely to enable width adjustment), without a coulter; the nearly straight, robust plough beam is mortised into the short, curved central pillar between the handles; it has a hole for the draught pin and an iron draught pin; the handles are reinforced at the bottom by an iron ring joint and a little higher up by a short, round wooden cross piece; narrow wooden board-shaped sheath (broken off). The plough beam is maple, the handles and sole ash, the mouldboards beech. Domestic (home made) product, perhaps made by a craftsman wheelwright (judging from the rather demanding execution of the handles). The plough was used in the second and third quarters of the past century, to till and plough dead furrows when planting potatoes (then used with a forecarriage), ridging and digging up potatoes.



41.

NESOMERNO ORALO / dvojni plug / Vitanje / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 142 cm; ročice, v – 82 cm, š – 72 cm; kozolca, v – 49 cm in 52,5 cm; plaza, d – 52 cm in 55 cm; deski, d – 70,5 cm in 72,5 cm; nesomerna lemeža, d – 33,5 cm, š – 27 cm in d – 35,5 cm, š – 26 cm / inv. št. 21692.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / double plough / Vitanje / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 142 cm; handles, h – 82 cm, w – 72 cm; sheaths, h – 49 cm and 52.5 cm; soles, 1 – 52 cm and 55 cm; mouldboards, 1 – 70.5 cm and 72.5 cm; asymmetrical shares, 1 – 33.5 cm, w – 27 cm and 1 – 35.5 cm, w – 26 cm / acc. no. 21692.




Dvojni plug je bilo mogoče prepoznati na podlagi vpisa v knjigo »Prihodi, Etnografski muzej, 1945–1965«, in sicer: »I dvojni plug (slabo ohranjen, manjka črtalo)«. Muzej gaje kupil v 60. letih od Jerneja Fijavža, Vitanje 104. Gre za oralo z nesomernima železnima lemežema, dvema lesenima deskama in manjkajočima črtaloma; z ravnim gredljem, utrjenim z obročastimi vezmi iz železne pločevine, s pritrjenim železnim kavljem za spenjanje s kolci; s tremi ročicami, od katerih sta dve naravna rogovila; z dvema ožjima deskastima kozolcema. Gredelj, ena deska, en kozolec in plaz so iz bukovine, ročice in en kozolec iz gabrovega lesa, ena deska iz brestovine in en plaz iz jesenovine. Domač kolarski izdelek, z vrezanim geometrijskim okrasom na gredlju (pred in za kavljem).


This double plough was identified based on the entry in the register “Acquisitions, Ethnographic Museum, 1945–1965”, that reads: “I double plough (in poor condition, missing coulter)”. The museum bought it from Jernej Fijavž, Vitanje 104, in the 1960s. The plough has two asymmetrical iron shares, two wooden mouldboards, and the coulters were missing; straight plough beam, reinforced with ring joints made of sheet metal; fixed iron hook to hitch it to the forecarriage; three handles, of which two are naturally horn-shaped; two narrow board-shaped sheaths. The plough beam, one mouldboard, one sheath and the sole are beech, the handles and the other sheath are white beech, the second mouldboard is birch and the second sole ash. Domestic cartwright’s product with a geometric decoration carved on the plough beam (in front and behind the hook).



42.

NESOMERNO ORALO / dvojni plug / Vojsko nad Idrijo / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 159 cm; ročice, v – 84 cm, š – 76 cm; kozolca, v – 43 cm in 40 cm; plaza, d – 49,5 cm in 49 cm; deski, d – 78 cm in 73 cm; nesomerna lemeža, d – 33 cm in 29 cm, š – 20 cm; črtali, d – 41,5 cm / inv. št. 21693.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / double plough / Vojsko above Idrija / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 159 cm; handles, h – 84 cm, w – 76 cm; sheaths, h – 43 cm and 40 cm; soles, 1 – 49.5 cm and 49 cm; mouldboards, 1 – 78 cm and 73 cm; asymmetrical shares, 1 – 33 cm and 29 cm, w – 20 cm; coulters, 1 – 41.5 cm / acc. no. 21693.


Ta dvojni plug in glede na izvedbo zelo soroden dvojni plug št. 43 sta bila na podlagi podatkov iz knjige »Prihodi muzejskih predmetov 1965–1976« kupljena na Cerkljanskem, oba za enako ceno; eden pri Aleksandru Šinkovcu, vulgo Smodinu, Vojsko 32, in drugi pri Petru Kogeju, vulgo Ogalce, Vojsko 72. Gre za oralo z nesomemima železnima lemežema, dvema železnima deskama in črtaloma; z ravnim gredljem, utrjenim s kovanimi železnimi obročastimi vezmi, z lesenim gredeljnikom za spenjanje s kolci; s tremi ročicami, vsajenimi v gredelj, zgoraj utrjenimi z železno vezno prečko; z dvema ožjima deskastima kozolcema. Gredelj, dve ročici in oba kozolca so iz bukovine, leva ročica je iz hrastovine in oba plaza iz javorjevine.





According to the data in the register “Acquisitions of museum objects, 1965–1976”, this double plough and the very similar double plough no. 43 were bought in the Cerkno area for the same price; one was bought from Aleksander Šinkovec, vulgo name Smodin, Vojsko 32, and the other one from Peter Kogej, vulgo name Ogalce, Vojsko 72. The plough has two asymmetrical iron shares, two iron mouldboards and coulters; a straight plough beam, reinforced with forged iron ring joints; a wooden draught peg to hitch it to the forecarriage; three handles are set into the plough beam, reinforced at the top with an iron cross piece: two narrow board-shaped sheaths. The plough beam, two handles and both sheaths are beech, the left handle is oak and both soles are maple.



43.

NESOMERNO ORALO / dvojni plug / Vojsko nad Idrijo / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 161 cm; ročice, v – 83 cm, š – 75 cm; kozolca, v – 43 cm in 41 cm; plaza, d – 42,5 cm in 37 cm; deski, d – 72 cm in 64 cm; nesomerna lemeža, d – 45 cm in 47 cm, š – 27 in 28 cm; črtali, d – 49,5 in 48 cm / inv. št. 21694.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / double plough / Vojsko above Idrija / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 161 cm; handles, h – 83 cm, w – 75 cm; sheaths, h – 43 cm and 41 cm; soles, 1 – 42.5 cm and 37 cm; mouldboards, 1 – 72 cm and 64 cm; asymmetrical shares, 1 – 45 cm and 47 cm, w – 27 and 28 cm; coulters, 1 – 49.5 and 48 cm / acc. no. 21694.




Glede načina pridobitve tudi za ta dvojni plug velja komentar k št. 42. Gre za oralo z nesomernima železnima lemežema, dvema železnima deskama in črtaloma; z ravnim gredljem, utrjenim z železnimi obročastimi vezmi, z odprtino za gredeljnik; s tremi ročicami, pritrjenimi na gredelj z železnimi nastavki, zgoraj utrjenimi z železno vezno prečko; z železnima kozolcema in plazoma. Vsi leseni deli – gredelj in ročice – so iz bukovine.


Manner of acquisition: see commentary on no. 42. The plough has two asymmetrical iron shares, two iron mouldboards and coulters; a straight plough beam, reinforced with iron ring joints; a hole for the draught peg; three handles fixed to the plough beam with iron fixtures, reinforced at the top by an iron cross piece; iron sheaths and soles. All wooden parts – the plough beam and handles – are beech.



44.

NESOMERNO ORALO / enojni plug / neznan krajevni izvor / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 193 cm; ročice, v – 85 cm, š – 58 cm; kozolec, v – 59 cm; plaz, d – 65 cm; deska, d – 92 cm / inv. št. 21695.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / single plough / provenance unknown / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 193 cm; handles, h – 85 cm, w – 58 cm; sheath, h – 59 cm; sole, 1 – 65 cm; mouldboard, 1 – 92 cm / acc. no. 21695.




Način pridobitve oziroma krajevni izvor tega in enojnih plugov št. 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 ni nedvoumno znan. Vseh sedem je bilo sicer vpisanih v muzejske vhodne knjige, šest v »Prihodi muzejskih predmetov 1965–1976« in eden v »Knjigo prihodov muzejskih predmetov 1976–«, a na podlagi obstoječih zapisov jih je nemogoče prepoznati. Tako sta bila leta 1966 od Cirila Glivarja v Brezovem dolu 19 pri Zagradcu kupljena »2 pluga«, leta 1968 od Peterlina v Podborštu 1 pri Komendi »1 lesen plug«, istega leta neznano kje »1 plug«, leta 1969 neznano kje »2 pluga« in leta 1978 od Janeza Novaka v Bregu 15 pri Gabru (Šentvid pri Stični) še »1 plug«. Št. 44 je enojni plug z manjkajočim nesomernim železnim lemežem, leseno desko in manjkajočim črtalom; s kolenasto navzdol ukrivljenim gredljem, utrjenim z obročastimi vezmi iz železne pločevine, s tremi kratkimi, nepremakljivimi železnimi gredeljniki za pripenjanje z gredeljnico na kolca; z ročicama, utrjenima z leseno prečno paličasto vezjo in nad desko z železno vezjo med desno ročico in gredljem; z ožjim lesenim deskastim kozolcem; z razcepljenim plazom. Gredelj in deska javorjev les, vsi drugi sestavni deli iz jesenovine.


The manner of acquisition and provenance of this plough and the single ploughs nos. 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 has not been established beyond doubt. All seven ploughs were entered in the museum’s accession books, six in “Acquisitions of museum objects, 1965–1976”, and one in the “Book of acquisitions of museum objects 1976–”, but based on the existing entries they cannot be identified. “2 ploughs” were bought from Ciril Glivar, Brezov dol 19 near Zagradec in 1966; “2 wooden ploughs” from Peterlin, Podboršt 1 near Komenda in 1968, and “1 plough” in the same year without stated provenance; “2 ploughs” in 1969 without stated provenance and, finally, “1 plough” was bought from Janez Novak, Breg 15 near Gaber (Šentvid by Stična) in 1978. No. 44 is a single plough with missing asymmetrical iron share, a wooden mouldboard and missing coulter; the plough beam is downward articulated, reinforced with ring joints made of sheet metal; it has three short, immovable iron draught pins for hitching it to the forecarriage; the handles are reinforced with a wooden, round cross piece and above the mouldboard with an iron cross piece connecting the right handle to the plough beam; narrow wooden board-shaped sheath; split sole. The plough beam and mouldboard are maple, all the other parts are ash.



45.

NESOMERNO ORALO / enojni plug / neznan krajevni izvor / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 195 cm; ročice, v – 80 cm, š – 49 cm; kozolec, v – 50 cm; plaz, d – 50,5 cm; deska, d – 87 cm; nesomeren lemež, d – 31,5 cm, š – 27 cm / inv. št. 21696.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / single plough / provenance unknown / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 195 cm; handles, h – 80 cm, w – 49 cm; sheath, h – 50 cm; sole, 1 – 50.5 cm; mouldboard. 1 – 87 cm; asymmetrical share, 1 – 31.5 cm, w – 27 cm / acc. no. 21696.




Glede načina pridobitve in krajevnega izvora za oralo velja komentar k št. 44. Gre za enojni plug, z nesomernim železnim lemežem, leseno desko in manjkajočim črtalom; s kolenasto navzdol ukrivljenim gredljem, utrjenim z obročastimi vezmi iz železne pločevine, z železnim držalom za otko in s tremi okroglimi odprtinami za pretikanje gredeljnika; z ročicama, utrjenima z dvema lesenima prečnima paličastima vezema in s tretjo, s kratko spodnjo prečko, ki povezuje ročici z desko; z ožjim lesenim deskastim kozolcem. Gredelj in ročici so iz gabrovega lesa, kozolec, plaz in deska iz bukovine.


Manner of acquisition and provenance: see commentary on no. 44. Single plough with an asymmetrical iron share, wooden mouldboard and missing coulter; downward articulated plough beam, reinforced with ring joints made of sheet metal, iron pattle holder and three round holes for shifting the draught peg; the handles are reinforced with two wooden cross pieces and a third short cross piece which connects them to the mouldboard; narrow wooden board-shaped sheath. The plough beam and handles are white beech, the sheath, sole and mouldboard beech.



46.

NESOMERNO ORALO / enojni plug / neznan krajevni izvor / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 170 cm; ročice, v – 76 cm, š – 59 cm; kozolec, v – 49 cm; plaz, d – 51 cm; deska, d – 93,5 cm; nesomeren lemež, d – 32 cm, š – 21 cm; črtalo, d – 49 cm / inv. št. 21697.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / single plough / provenance unknown / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 170 cm; handles, h – 76 cm, w – 59 cm; sheath, h – 49 cm; sole, 1 – 51 cm; mouldboard, 1 – 93.5 cm; asymmetrical share, 1 – 32 cm, w – 21 cm; coulter, 1 – 49 cm / acc. no. 21697.




Glede načina pridobitve in krajevnega izvora za oralo velja komentar k št. 44. Enojni plug, z nesomernim železnim lemežem, leseno desko in s črtalom; z rahlo navzdol ukrivljenim gredljem s tremi premakljivimi lesenimi gredeljniki in vrbovo trto za pripenjanje na kolca; z ročicama, utrjenima z daljšo gornjo in kratko spodnjo prečno paličasto leseno vezjo; z ožjim lesenim deskastim kozolcem; s plazom v obliki pravokotnega trikotnika, na katerega je na desni daljši stranici pritrjena deska. Gredelj, desna ročica in plaz so iz gabrovine, leva ročica in kozolec iz hrastovega lesa, deska iz bukovine.


Manner of acquisition and provenance: see commentary on no. 44. Single plough with an asymmetrical iron share, wooden mouldboard and coulter; slightly downward curved plough beam with three movable wooden draught pegs and an osier collar for hitching it to the forecarriage; the handles are reinforced with two wooden round cross pieces: a longer upper and shorter bottom one; narrow wooden board-shaped sheath; the sole has the form of a right-angled triangle, the mouldboard is fixed to its right, longer side. The plough beam, right handle and sole are ash, the left handle and sheath are oak, and the mouldboard is beech.



47.

NESOMERNO ORALO / enojni plug / neznan krajevni izvor / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 198,5 cm; ročice, v – 69 cm, š – 66 cm; kozolec, v – 46 cm; plaz, d – 51 cm; deska, d – 94 cm; nesomeren lemež, d – 26 cm, š – 26 cm / inv. št. 21698.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / single plough / provenance unknown / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 198.5 cm; handles, h – 69 cm, w – 66 cm; sheath, h – 46 cm; sole, 1 – 51 cm; mouldboard, 1 – 94 cm; asymmetrical share, 1 – 26 cm, w – 26 cm / acc. no. 21698.




Glede načina pridobitve in krajevnega izvora za oralo velja komentar k št. 44. Enojni plug, z nesomernim železnim lemežem, leseno desko in manjkajočim črtalom; s kolenasto navzdol ukrivljenim gredljem, utrjenim z obročastimi vezmi iz železne pločevine, spredaj z železnim nastavkom in s štirimi okroglimi odprtinami za pretikanje gredeljnika; z ročicama, utrjenima z dvema lesenima prečnima paličastima vezema in s tretjo, s kratko spodnjo prečko, ki povezuje ročici z desko; z ožjim lesenim deskastim kozolcem; s plazom, utrjenim s čez peto pribitim trakom iz železne pločevine. Gredelj je iz gabrovine, kozolec in plaz sta iz brestovega lesa, ročici in deska iz bukovine.


Manner of acquisition and provenance: see commentary on no. 44. Single plough with an asymmetrical iron share, wooden mouldboard and missing coulter; downward articulated plough beam, reinforced with ring joints of sheet metal; iron extension and four holes at the front for shifting the draught peg; the handles are strengthened with two wooden round cross pieces and a third shorter bottom cross piece connecting the handles to the mouldboard; narrow wooden board-shaped sheath; the sole is reinforced with a sheet metal band nailed onto the heel. The plough beam is white beech, the sheath and sole are birch, the handles and mouldboard beech.



48.

NESOMERNO ORALO / enojni plug / neznan krajevni izvor / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 172,5 cm; ročice, v – 82 cm, š – 45 cm; kozolec, v – 42 cm; oplaz, d – 42 cm; deska, d – 77 cm; nesomeren lemež, d – 28 cm, š – 22,5 cm; črtalo, d – 52 cm / inv. št. 21699.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / single plough / provenance unknown / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 172.5 cm; handles, h – 82 cm, w – 45 cm; sheath, h – 42 cm; sole, 1 – 42 cm; mouldboard, 1 – 77 cm; asymmetrical share, 1 – 28 cm, w – 22.5 cm; coulter, 1 – 52 cm / acc. no. 21699.


Glede načina pridobitve in krajevnega izvora za oralo velja komentar k št. 44. Enojni plug, z nesomernim železnim lemežem, leseno desko in s črtalom; s kolenasto navzdol ukrivljenim gredljem s premakljivim lesenim gredeljnikom in leskovo trto za pripenjanje na kolca; z ročicama, utrjenima z daljšo gornjo in kratko spodnjo prečno paličasto leseno vezjo; z ožjim lesenim deskastim kozolcem. Gredelj iz jesenovine, kozolec in plaz sta iz brestovega lesa, ročici in deska iz bukovine.





Manner of acquisition and provenance: see commentary on no. 44. Single plough with an asymmetrical iron share, wooden mouldboard and coulter: downward articulated plough beam with a movable draught peg and hazel collar to hitch it to the forecarriage; the handles are strengthened with two round wooden cross pieces, a longer one at the top and a shorter one at the bottom; narrow wooden board-shaped sheath. The plough beam is ash, the sheath and sole birch, the handles and mouldboard beech.



49.

NESOMERNO ORALO / enojni plug / neznan krajevni izvor / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 183,5 cm; ročice, v – 76 cm, š – 56 cm; kozolec, v – 36 cm; plaz, d – 47 cm; deska, d – 86 cm; nesomeren lemež, d – 41 cm, š – 21 cm; črtalo, d – 46 cm / inv. št. 21700.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / single plough / provenance unknown / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 183.5 cm; handles, h – 76 cm, w – 56 cm; sheath, h – 36 cm; sole, 1 – 47 cm; mouldboard, 1 – 86 cm; asymmetrical share, 1 – 41 cm, w – 21 cm; coulter, 1 – 46 cm / acc. no. 21700.




Glede načina pridobitve in krajevnega izvora za oralo velja komentar k št. 44. Enojni plug, z nesomernim železnim lemežem, železno desko in s črtalom; z rahlo navzdol ukrivljenim gredljem, utrjenim z obročastimi vezmi iz železne pločevine, ki na njegovem sprednjem koncu pritrjujejo tudi zgornji in spodnji železen trak s štirimi odprtinami za pretikanje gredeljnika, visečega na verižici in pritrjenega na gredelj; z ročicama, utrjenima s krajšo železno prečno vezjo in z dvema daljšima, ki ročici povezujeta z gredljem; z železnima kozolcem in plazom. Gredelj in obe ročici so iz jesenovine. Spodaj izrabljena železna deska je bila obnovljena z dodanim delom (prinetano).


Manner of acquisition and provenance: see commentary on no. 44. Single plough with an asymmetrical iron share, iron mouldboard and coulter; slightly downward curved plough beam, reinforced with sheet metal ring joints, which at its front end fix an upper and bottom iron band to it, with four holes for shifting the draught pin; the pin is attached to a chain and fixed to the plough; the handles are strengthened with a short iron cross piece and two longer ones that connect them to the plough beam; iron sheath and sole. The plough beam and both handles are ash. The worn bottom of the iron mouldboard has been repaired with an added (riveted) plate.



50.

NESOMERNO ORALO / enojni plug / neznan krajevni izvor / železo / gredelj, d – 155 cm; ročice, v – 92 cm, š – 60 cm; kozolec, v – 42 cm; plaz, d – 49 cm; deska, d – 53 cm; nesomeren lemež, d – 42 cm, š – 12 cm; črtalo, d – 36 cm; kolca, š – 88 cm; kolesi, p – 60 cm in 49 cm / inv. št. 21701.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / single plough / provenance unknown / iron / beam, 1 – 155 cm; handles, h – 92 cm, w – 60 cm; sheath, h – 42 cm; sole, 1 – 49 cm; mouldboard, 1 – 53 cm; asymmetrical share, 1 – 42 cm, w – 12 cm; coulter, 1 – 36 cm; forecarriage, w – 88 cm; wheels, d – 60 cm and 49 cm / acc. no. 21701.





Glede načina pridobitve in krajevnega izvora tudi za to oralo velja komentar k št. 44. Vsi njegovi sestavni deli so železni. Kolca imajo desno kolo (ki teče v brazdi) z večjim in levo kolo z manjšim premerom. Gre za industrijsko izdelan, tako imenovan cugmajerjev plug, v rabi najverjetneje v 2. polovici 19. ali vsaj v 1. polovici 20. stoletja.


Manner of acquisition and provenance: see commentary on no. 44. All parts are made of iron. The forecarriage has a large furrow wheel and a smaller land wheel. Industrially produced Zugmayer plough, probably used in the second half of the 19th century or at least in the first half of the 20th century.



51.

NESOMERNO ORALO / enojni plug, s kolci / Spodnja Šiška / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 202,5 cm; ročice, v – 81 cm, š – 64 cm; kozolec, v – 56 cm; plaz, d – 62 cm; deska, d – 121 cm; nesomeren lemež, d – 33 cm, š – 30 cm; kolca, š – 71 cm; kolesi, p – 43,5 cm; vprežni drog, d – 93 cm / inv. št. 21702.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / single wheel plough / Spodnja Šiška / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 202.5 cm; handles, h – 81 cm, w – 64 cm; sheath, h – 56 cm; sole, 1 – 62 cm; mouldboard, 1 – 121 cm; asymmetrical share, 1 – 33 cm, w – 30 cm; forecarriage, w – 71 cm; wheels, d – 43.5 cm: draught beam, 1 – 93 cm / acc. no. 21702.




Glede načina pridobitve, nekdanjih uporabnikov in časa rabe za oralo velja komentar k št. 39. Gre za enojni plug, z nesomernim železnim lemežem, leseno desko in manjkajočim črtalom; z gredljem, utrjenim z obročastimi vezmi iz železne pločevine, z železnim držalom za otko in z vprežnim glavnikom (tremi kratkimi, nepremakljivimi železnimi gredeljniki) za pripenjanje z gredeljnico na kolca; s kolci s kolesoma enakega premera, z osmimi špicami, in z vprežnim drogom s pokončnim držajem z odprtino za roko, ki ga sklene železni del za uravnavanje in kovan železen kavelj (prim. z modelom kolc št. 1). Gredelj in ročici so iz javorjevega lesa, kozolec in plaz iz jesenovine, deska iz bukovine.


Manner of acquisition, former users and time of use: see commentary on no. 39. Single plough with an asymmetrical iron share, wooden mouldboard and missing coulter; the plough beam is reinforced with ring joints made of sheet metal; iron pattle holder, draught “comb” (three short, immovable iron draught pins, used to connect the plough beam to the forecarriage); a forecarriage with wheels of equal diameter, eight spokes, and a draught beam with an upright handle with a cut-out for the hand, ending in an iron adjustment part and forged iron hake (cf. the forecarriage model, no. 1). The plough beam and handles are maple, the sheath and sole ash, the mouldboard beech.





52.

NESOMERNO ORALO / enojni plug, s kolci / Zgornje Gameljne / trd les, železo / gredelj, d – 168 cm; ročice, v – 90 cm, š – 63 cm; kozolec, v – 41 cm; plaz, d – 46,5 cm; deska, d – 47 cm; someren lemež, d – 42 cm, š – 12 cm; kolca, š – 74 cm; kolesi, p – 47 cm; vprežni drog, d – 90 cm / inv. št. 21703.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / single wheel plough / Zgornje Gameljne / hardwood, iron / beam, 1 – 168 cm; handles, h – 90 cm, w – 63 cm; sheath, h – 41 cm; sole, 1 – 46.5 cm; mouldboard, 1 – 47 cm; symmetrical share, 1 – 42 cm, w – 12 cm; forecarriage, w – 74 cm; wheels, d – 47 cm; draught beam, 1 – 90 cm / acc. no. 21703.




Glede načina pridobitve, nekdanjih uporabnic in časa rabe za oralo velja komentar k št. 40. Enojni plug, z nesomernim železnim lemežem, železno desko in z manjkajočim črtalom; s skorajda ravnim gredljem, utrjenim z obročastimi vezmi iz železne pločevine, ki je na prednjem koncu utrjen s trakom iz železne pločevine in ima odprtine za pretikanje gredeljnika, visečega na verižici ter pritrjenega na gredelj; z ročicama, utrjenima s krajšo železno prečno vezjo; z železnima kozolcem in plazom; s kolci s kolesoma enakega premera z desetimi špicami. Gredelj in obe ročici so iz bukovine.


Manner of acquisition, former users and time of use: see commentary on no. 40. Single plough with asymmetrical iron share, iron mouldboard; missing coulter; almost straight plough beam, reinforced with ring joints made of sheet metal, reinforced at the front end with a band made of sheet metal, with holes for shifting the draught pin, attached to a chain that is mounted to the plough beam; handles, strengthened with a short iron cross piece; iron sheath and sole; forecarriage with wheels of equal diameter and ten spokes. Beech plough beam and handles.



53.

SOMERNO ORALO / okopalnik / Zgornje Gameljne / železo / gredelj, d – 118 cm; ročice, v – 82 cm, š – 55 cm; noge, v – 32 cm; mali trapezoidni lemeži, d – 16 cm, š – 9 cm in someren lemež, d – 12,5 cm, š – 10,5 cm; kolesce, p – 23 cm / inv. št. 21704.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH / cultivator / Zgornje Gameljne / iron / beam, 1 – 118 cm; handles, h – 82 cm, w – 55 cm; legs, h – 32 cm; small trapezoid shares, 1 – 16 cm, w – 9 cm and symmetrical share, 1 – 12.5 cm, w – 10.5 cm; wheel, d – 23 cm / acc. no. 21704.




Glede načina pridobitve, nekdanjih uporabnic in časa rabe za oralo velja komentar k št. 40. Gre za enovrstni okopalnik, z gredljem oziroma ogrodjem z dvema krakoma, ki omogoča uravnavanje širine; s štirimi nogami (desna zadnja je manjkajoča) z nesomernimi malimi lemeži in s sprednjo sredinsko nogo s somernim malim lemežem; s kolescem in z nastavkom za uravnavanje globine okopavanja. V celoti železen, industrijski izdelek. (Poučna je primerjava z okopalnikom in osipalnikom podjetja K. & R. Ježek iz Maribora, v Simonič 1940: 48–49.)


Manner of acquisition, former users and time of use: see commentary on no. 40. Single-row cultivator, plough beam or frame with two arms, which enable to adjust the ploughing width; four legs (the right rear one is missing), asymmetrical small shares and a front central leg with a small symmetrical share; with a small wheel and an extension to adjust the operation depth. Entirely made of iron, industrial product. (For an instructive comparison, see the cultivator and ridging plough of the K. & R. Ježek company from Maribor, in: Simonič 1940: 48–49.)





KATALOG RISANIH ZAPISOV





CATALOGUE OF DRAWN RECORDS





1.

NESOMERNO ORALO, enojni plug. Nedognan avtor (izmed peterice A. Ocvirk, G. Šuklje, L. Svete, M. Gal, A. Rogelj), 1948 (Teren 1, Šentjurij – Škocjan). Tuširana risba, 25,5 x 16,7 cm. Inv. št. I/36. Zapis na risbi: Plug, M. Lipljene 4, Janez Bavdek; 1 – šprûncle (prečne paličaste vezi), 2 – róčice, 3 – kazûc (kozolec), 4 – šrâêf (vijačna vez med gredljem in lemežem), 5 – gredeli, 6 – lemež, 7 – dila (deska), 8 – lukne za predêvat brâzde (odprtine za uravnavanje s pretikanjem gredeljnika).


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH, single plough. Unknown author (one of these five: A. Ocvirk, G. Šuklje, L. Svete, M. Gal, A. Rogelj), 1948 (Field 1, Šentjurij – Škocjan). Ink drawing, 25.5 x 16.7 cm. Acc. no. I/36. Text on the drawing: Plough, M. Lipljene 4, Janez Bavdek; 1 – rounded cross pieces, 2 – handles, 3 – sheath, 4 – screw (joint of plough beam and share), 5 – beam, 6 – share, 7 – mouldboard, 8 – holes for adjusting the furrow (by shifting the draught peg).





2.

SOMERNO ORALO, osipalnik. Miloš Zalaznik, Tanja Terčak, 1949 (Teren 2, Šmarje - Sap). Tuširana risba, 39,5 x 27,8 cm. Inv. št. II/33. Zapis na risbi: Drevešček, Veliki Vrh 2, pri Kržolu, Jože Tomažin; a – ročice, b – dile, c – lemež, č – gredl (ali hlod), d – za otko, e – kavel, f – ketna, g – kolešček (ves prednji del = plužna).


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH, ridging plough. Miloš Zalaznik, Tanja Terčak, 1949 (Field 2, Šmarje - Sap). Ink drawing, 39.5 x 27.8 cm. Acc. no. II/33. Text on the drawing: Plough, Veliki Vrh 2, “pri Kržolu”, Jože Tomažin; a – handles, b – mouldboard, c – share, č - beam, d – for the pattle, e – hook, f – chain, g – wheel (entire front part = forecarriage).





3.

SOMERNO ORALO, osipalnik. Ivan Romih, 1951 (Teren 6, Mokronog). Tuširana risba, 23,5 x 15,3 cm. Inv. št. VI/69. Zapis na risbi: Jarkar za oranje krompirja, pese in repe, Mihec Franc, Sv. Vrh (Vrh nad Mokronogom) 37.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH, ridging plough. Ivan Romih, 1951 (Field 6, Mokronog). Ink drawing, 23.5 x 15.3 cm. Acc. no. VI/69. Text on the drawing: Ridging plough for potatoes, beets and turnips, Mihec Franc, Sv. Vrh 37 (Vrh above Mokronog).





4.

LESENI KOLESI KOLC ORALA. Ivan Romih, 1951 (Teren 7, Kobarid). Tuširana risba, 18,4 x 13,4 cm. Inv. št. VII/3. Zapis na risbi: Leseni kolesi pri plugu, Zg. Borjana 37, pri Menič; celo kolo na sredini 10 cm debeline. (Gl. osipalnik št. 7.)


WOODEN WHEELS OF A PLOUGH FORECARRIAGE. Ivan Romih, 1951 (Field 7, Kobarid). Ink drawing, 18.4 x 13.4 cm. Acc. no. VII/3. Text on the drawing: Wooden plough wheels, Zg. Borjana 37, “pri Menič”; entire wheel 10 cm thick in the middle. (See ridging plough no. 7.)




5.

SOMERNO ORALO, okopalnik. Ivan Romih, 1951 (Teren 7, Kobarid). Tuširana risba, 35,8 x 26 cm. Inv. št. VII/139. Zapis na risbi: Posebno oralo za razna dela na polju, Sužid 26, Anton Breška (narejeno pred 20 leti); krempli za plet koruzo, krompir in peso; za krompir snamejo zadnja lemeža, za majhno koruzo premenjajo zadnja lemeža, desnega na levo in narobe. (Prim. z okopalnikom št. 53 v Katalogu predmetov.)

O okopalniku, v Brdih imenovanem šapin, šapil (gl. 13), je Boris Orel v Medani zapisal besede Franca Zucchiatija: »Šapin (plevnik) ni dolgo v rabi. Imeli smo lesenega pred 60. leti, zdaj železnega modernejšega, da ga damo bolj na ozko ali na širše. Tudi starega lesenega (glej risbo) se je verjetno premikalo.«


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH, cultivator plough. Ivan Romih, 1951 (Field 7, Kobarid). Ink drawing, 35.8 x 26 cm. Acc. no. VII/139. Text on the drawing: Special plough for various jobs in the field, Sužid 26, Anton Breška (made 20 years ago); claws to weed maize, potatoes and beets; for potatoes, the back two shares are taken off, for low maize, the back shares are exchanged: the left goes to the right and vice versa. (Cf. cultivator plough no. 53 in the Catalogue of objects.)

In reference to the cultivator plough, called šapin, šapil (see no. 13) in Brda, Boris Orel recorded the words of Franc Zucchiati: “The šapin (weeder) hasn’t been in use long. We had a wooden one sixty years ago, now a modern iron one, which can be used narrow or wide. The same was probably possible with the old wooden one (see drawing).”





6.

SOMERNO ORALO, osipalnik. Ivan Romih, 1951 (Teren 7, Kobarid). Tuširana risba, 35,9 x 25,9 cm. Inv. št. VII/140 (na istem listu je tudi inv. št. VII/141). Zapis na risbi: Oralo (drevo) za zagrebanje sirka, Staro sedlo (Staro selo), drevo za sirk zagrebt, last zadruge v Kredu, Staro selo.

Sicer somerno oralo ima narisano desko. Kot je mogoče razbrati iz razpoložljivih terenskih zapisov, naj bi le-te dodajali oziroma snemali glede na vrsto opravila pri posameznih okopavinah.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH, ridging plough. Ivan Romih, 1951 (Field 7, Kobarid). Ink drawing, 35.9 x 25.9 cm. Acc. no. VII/140 (the same sheet also has acc. no. VII/141). Text on the drawing: Ridging plough for maize, Staro sedlo (Staro selo), owned by the Kred co-operative, Staro selo.

The symmetrical plough is accompanied by a drawn mouldboard. The available field notes suggest that it was attached or removed depending on the type of operation for individual root crops.





7.

SOMERNO ORALO, osipalnik. Ivan Romih, 1951 (Teren 7, Kobarid). Tuširana risba, 35,9 x 25,9 cm. Inv. št. VII/141 (skupaj z inv. št. VII/140). Zapis na risbi: Oralo za odgrebanje, Staro sedlo (Staro selo).

Za to oralo velja enak komentar kot pri št. 6.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH, ridging plough. Ivan Romih, 1951 (Field 7, Kobarid). Ink drawing. 35.9 x 25.9 cm. Acc. no. VII/141 (together with acc. no. VII/140). Text on the drawing: Ridging plough, Staro sedlo (Staro selo). Same commentary as with no. 6.



8.

SOMERNO ORALO, osipalnik. Ivan Romih, 1951 (Teren 7, Kobarid). Tuširana risba, 25,4 x 36 cm. Inv. št. VII/210. Zapis na risbi: Drevo za zasipanje sirka, Sp. Borjana; drevo za sirk zasipat, Sp. Borjana, obd. zadruga; ročice, žlajf lopate, lemež, pudbera (lesena naprava z dvema rogljema, na kateri so vlačili oralo na njivo). Če b’ljudje ne mrli / in volov ne drli / bi že svet podrli.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH, ridging plough. Ivan Romih, 1951 (Field 7, Kobarid). Ink drawing, 25.4 x 36 cm. Acc. no. VII/210. Text on the drawing: Ridging plough for maize, Sp. Borjana Co-operative; handles, brake, spades, share, pudbera (wooden device with two prongs, used to draw the plough to the field). If people never died / and oxen never cried / the world would be cast aside.





9.

SOMERNO ORALO, osipalnik. Franc Maček, 1951 (Teren 7, Kobarid). Tuširana risba, 25,4 x 18,2 cm. Inv. št. VII/400. Zapis na risbi: Drevo za zagrebanje, Staro sedlo (selo) 34, Rušna Franc; hak (kavelj).


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH, ridging plough. Franc Maček, 1951 (Field 7, Kobarid). Ink drawing, 25.4 x 18.2 cm. Acc. no. VII/400. Text on the drawing: Ridging plough, Staro sedlo (selo) 34, Rušna Franc; hook.





10.

NESOMERNO ORALO, enojni plug. Franc Maček, 1951 (Teren 7, Kobarid). Tuširana risba, 25,3 x 17,9 cm. Inv. št. VII/411. Zapis na risbi: Oralo, Staro sedlo (selo) 15, Karen Andrej; vse jesenovo, nov pred 50 leti; čebilja; ročice, gnjezdo (kozolec), klinc (zagozdi pri kozolcu in črtalu), gredi, kolca od drevesa, žlajdra (veriga), hak (kavelj); smrekova dila, lemež, šarauf (vijačna vez med gredljem in lemežem), črtalo, podvóz, špice pri kolés, pesto, krog, šina na kolo.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH, single plough. Franc Maček, 1951 (Field 7, Kobarid). Ink drawing, 25.3 x 17.9 cm. Acc. no. VII/411. Text on the drawing: Plough, Staro sedlo (selo) 15, Karen Andrej; all ash, new 50 years ago; handles, sheath, wedge (for the sheath and coulter), plough beam, forecarriage, chain, hook; spruce mouldboard, share, screw joint (of plough beam and share), coulter, carriage, wheel spokes, hub, ring, wheel moulding.





11.

SOMERNO ORALO, osipalnik. Ivan Romih, 1953 (Teren 10, Brda). Tuširana risba, 24,8 x 17,5 cm. Inv. št. X/129. Zapis na risbi: Seučedur, Slapnik 8, pri Čežerinovih.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH, ridging plough. Ivan Romih, 1953 (Field 10, Brda). Ink drawing, 24.8 x 17.5 cm. Acc. no. X/129. Text on the drawing: Plough, Slapnik 8, “pri Čežerinovih”.





12.

SOMERNO ORALO, osipalnik. Ivan Romih, 1953 (Teren 10, Brda). Tuširana risba, 24,8 x 17,5 cm. Inv. št. X/130. Zapis na risbi: Seučedur (od zadaj), Slapnik 8, pri Čežerinovih.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH, ridging plough. Ivan Romih, 1953 (Field 10, Brda). Ink drawing, 24.8 x 17.5 cm. Acc. no. X/130. Text on the drawing: Plough (seen from the back), Slapnik 8, “pri Čežerinovih”.





13.

SOMERNO ORALO, okopalnik. Ivan Romih, 1953 (Teren 10, Brda). Tuširana risba, 25,2 x 17,5 cm. Inv. št. X/154. Zapis na risbi: Šapil (okopalnik), Gor. Brezouk (Gorenji Brezovk) 10, pri Lajnarju.


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH, cultivator plough. Ivan Romih, 1953 (Field 10, Brda). Ink drawing, 25.2 x 17.5 cm. Acc. no. X/154. Text on the drawing: Cultivator plough, Gor. Brezouk (Gorenji Brezovk) 10, “pri Lajnarju”.





14.

SOMERNO ORALO, osipalnik. Ivan Romih, 1953 (Teren 10, Brda). Tuširana risba, 25 x 17,4 cm. Inv. št. X/167. Zapis na risbi: Seučedur, Senik 14, pri Golbanovih. (Gl. Katalog predmetov, št. 37.)

Risan zapis zgovorno dopolnjuje in pojasnjuje terenski zapis Borisa Orla z domačije pri Golbanovih v Seniku: »Sučedur (səčedur), tudi sevčedur, za sevčat, osipat sirk. Tedaj dajo veje namesto desk. Tudi orali delali lehe za setev sirka, tedaj deske. Glej foto in risbo!«


SYMMETRICAL PLOUGH, ridging plough. Ivan Romih, 1953 (Field 10, Brda). Ink drawing, 25 x 17,4 cm. Acc. no. X/167. Text on the drawing: Plough, Senik 14, “pri Golbanovih”. (See the Catalogue of objects, no. 37.)

This drawn record is eloquently completed and explained by Boris Orel’s field note from the Golban farmstead in Senik: “Ridging plough for maize. They use branches instead of mouldboards for ridging. To plough furrows before sowing maize mouldboards were used. See photo and drawing!”





15.

OTKA. Ivan Romih, 1954 (Teren 11, Cerkno). Tuširana risba, 3,8 x 23,2 cm. Inv. št. XI/104. Zapis na risbi: Kolca (za plug), Zakojca, Pstinar; uotka.


PATTLE. Ivan Romih, 1954 (Field 11, Cerkno). Ink drawing, 3.8 x 23.2 cm. Acc. no. XI/104. Text on the drawing: Forecarriage (of a plough), Zakojca, Pstinar; pattle.





16.

TRTA. Ivan Romih, 1954 (Teren 11, Cerkno). Tuširana risba, 11,2 x 24,9 cm. Inv. št. XI/193. Zapis na risbi: Trta veže gredl pluga za kolca, Gor. (Gorenji) Novaki 2.


OSIER COLLAR. Ivan Romih, 1954 (Field 11, Cerkno). Ink drawing, 11.2 x 24.9 cm. Acc. no. XI/193. Text on the drawing: The osier collar fixes the plough beam to the forecarriage, Gor. (Gorenji) Novaki 2.





17.

OTKA. Ivan Romih, 1954 (Teren 11, Cerkno). Tuširana risba, 5,9 x 24,8 cm. Inv. št. XI/194. Zapis na risbi: Uotka, Gor. Novaki 31, u Bregu, Tomaž Primožič.


PATTLE. Ivan Romih, 1954 (Field 11, Cerkno). Ink drawing, 5.9 x 24.8 cm. Acc. no. XI/194. Text on the drawing: Pattle, Gor. Novaki 31, “u Bregu”, Tomaž Primožič.





18.

OTKA. Rudolf Auersperg, 1955 (Teren 12, Brkini). Tuširana risba, 17,9 x 25,2 cm. Inv. št. XII/540. Zapis na risbi: Pri Pečelini, Opara Anton, Tublje 21; uotka za čistiti plug, naravna velikost, (starost) več kot 70 let.


PATTLE. Rudolf Auersperg, 1955 (Field 12, Brkini). Ink drawing, 17.9 x 25.2 cm. Acc. no. XII/540, Text on the drawing: “Pri Pečelini”, Opara Anton, Tublje 21; pattle used to clean the plough, life-size, (age) over 70 years.





19.

NESOMERNO ORALO, enojni plug. Slavka Čufer, 1961 (Teren 18, Šentrupert). Tuširana risba, 36,3 x 25,4 cm. Inv. št. XVIII/81. Zapis na risbi: Drvù, Brinje št. 1, Kernelj Viktor; ročice, hlod (gredelj), notri je lesen pregelc (gredeljnik), trta, dila, lemeš, črtáu.


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH, single plough. Slavka Čufer, 1961 (Field 18, Šentrupert). Ink drawing, 36.3 x 25.4 cm. Acc. no. XVIII/81. Text on the drawing: Plough, Brinje 1, Kernelj Viktor; handles, plough beam, wooden draught peg inside, osier collar, mouldboard, share, coulter.





20.

NESOMERNO ORALO, enojni plug. Ivan Romih, 1962 (Teren 19, Lož). Tuširana risba, 25 x 35,2 cm. Inv. št. XIX/50. Zapis na risbi: Lesen plug »drvo« – Slavo Petrič, Markovec 28 pri Ložu (»Bel maln«).


ASYMMETRICAL PLOUGH, single plough. Ivan Romih, 1962 (Field 19, Lož). Ink drawing, 25 x 35.2 cm. Acc. no. XIX/50. Text on the drawing: Wooden plough – Slavo Petrič, Markovec 28 near Lož (“Bel main”).





KAZALA KRAJA UPORABE, OBLIKOVNIH TIPOV IN MATERIALOV





INDEXES OF PLACES OF USE, TYPES AND MATERIALS





Kazalo kraja uporabe / Index of places of use



PREDMETI / OBJECTS

Bistrica ob Sotli / Bistrica by Sotla: 33

Dolina (Dol pri Ljubljani / Dol by Ljubljana): 13

Kočevje (pri Črnomlju / near Črnomelj): 7

Loka pri Mengšu: 2, 5, 14

Matkov kot: 24

Mlake: 23

Moravče: 26

Nevlje (pri Kamniku / near Kamnik): 11

Planina (pri Rakeku / near Rakek): 4

Podgorje (pri Slovenj Gradcu / near Slovenj Gradec): 20

Podkoren: 15, 16, 17

Podter (Ljubno ob Savinji / Ljubno by Savinja): 21, 22

Podvolovljek: 25

Poljšica pri Gorjah: 30

Razdrto: 34, 35

Sad (Šentvid pri Stični / Šentvid by Stična): 31

Senik: 37

Spodnja Šiška: 39, 51

Srednji Vrh (nad Martuljkom / above Martuljek): 18, 19

Šmarje, Sap: 10

Šmiklavž (pri Gornjem Gradu / near Gornji Grad): 27, 28

Štrukljeva vas: 32

Vitanje: 41

Vojsko nad Idrijo / Vojsko above Idrija: 42, 43

Vrhpolje pri Kamniku / Vrhpolje by Kamnik: 12

Zadvor (pri Sostrem / near Sostro): 1, 3

Zgornja Kungota: 29

Zgornje Gameljne: 40, 52, 53

Zgornje Jezersko: 8, 9

Neznan krajevni izvor (oziroma kraj rabe) / Unknown place of origin (or use): 6, 36, 38, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50



RISBE / DRAWINGS

Brinje: 19

Gorenji Brezovk: 13

Gorenji Novaki: 16, 17

Male Lipljene: 1

Markovec: 20

Senik: 14

Slapnik: 11, 12

Spodnja Borjana: 8

Staro selo: 6, 7, 9, 10

Sužid: 5

Tublje: 18

Veliki vrh: 2

Vrh nad Mokronogom / Vrh above Mokronog: 3

Zakojca: 15

Zgornja Borjana: 4



Kazalo tipov / Index of types

SOMERNA ORALA / SYMMETRICAL PLOUGHS

četverokotna rala s kolci / rectangular wheel ards: 8, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 36

četverokotna rala na oje / rectangular ards with a yoke beam: 18, 19, 20

rala brez plaza / ards without a sole: 15, 16

o sipalniki / ridging ploughs: 6, 11, 12, 14, 17, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40; risbe / drawings: 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13

okopalniki / cultivator ploughs: 53; risbe / drawings: 5, 12



NESOMERNA ORALA / ASSYMETRICAL PLOUGHS

enojni plugi / single ploughs: 3, 4, 7, 16, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52; risbe / drawings: 1, 9, 18, 19

dvojni plugi / double ploughs: 2, 5, 13, 28, 41, 42, 43



Kazalo materialov temeljnih sestavnih delov oral / Index of materials of the basic parts of ploughs



DESKE / MOULDBOARDS

brestov les / elm: 41

bukov les / beech: 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51

javorjev les / maple: 44

orehov les / walnut: 7

smrekov les / spruce: 16, 32

železo / iron: 33, 34, 35, 42, 43, 49, 50, 52

nedognano / undefined: 14, 20, 31



GREDLJI / BEAMS

bukov les / beech: 12, 13, 17, 20 (gredljasto oje / yoke beam), 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 34, 36, 41, 42, 43, 52

gabrov les / white beech: 7, 8, 32, 37, 38, 45, 46, 47

javorjev les / maple: 14, 26, 40, 44, 51

jesenov les / ash: 11, 15, 35, 39, 48, 49

smrekov les / spruce: 18 (gredljasto oje / yoke beam), 19 (gredljasto oje / yoke beam)

železo / iron: 50, 53

nedognano / undefined: 16, 25, 31, 33



KOZOLCI / SHEATHS

brestov les / elm: 47, 48

bukov les / beech: 8, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 36, 41, 42, 45

gabrov les / white beech: 41

hrastov les / oak: 46

jesenov les / ash: 7, 14, 23, 39, 44, 51

železo / iron: 12, 33, 34, 35, 37, 43, 49, 50, 52

nedognano / undefined: 20, 25, 31



LEMEŽKE / MOULD STROKERS

brestov les / elm: 8

bukov les / beech: 29

gabrov les / white beech: 36

jesenov les / ash: 21, 22, 23

nedognano / undefined: 25



PLAZI / SOLES

brestov les / elm: 47, 48

bukov les / beech: 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 36, 41, 45

gabrov les / white beech: 7, 8, 32, 46

hrastov les / oak: 37

javorjev les / maple: 42

jesenov les / ash: 14, 20, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 51

jelšev les / alder: 11

železo / iron: 33, 34, 35, 43, 49, 50, 52

nedognano / undefined: 25, 31



ROČICE / STILT, HANDLES

bukov les / beech: 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 47, 48, 52

gabrov les / white beech: 7, 32, 41, 45, 46

hrastov les / oak: 14 (sredinski stebrič / central pillar), 42, 46

javorjev les / maple: 51

jesenov les / ash: 15, 32, 34, 35, 39, 40, 44, 49

železo / iron: 50, 53

nedognano / undefined: 16, 25, 31, 33





mag. Inja Smerdel

ORALA

PLOUGHING IMPLEMENTS

Zbirka Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja

The Collection of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum

Knjižnica Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja 10

Slovene Ethnografic Museum Library 10

Urednica / Editor

mag. Polona Sketelj

Uredniški odbor / Editorial board

mag. Andrej Dular, dr. Gorazd Makarovič, mag. Janja Žagar, dr. Nena Židov

Oblikovanje in postavitev / Design and layout

Jurij Kocbek

Fotografije / Photographs

Marko Habič, Arhiv SEM

Lektura / Proofreading

Maja Cerar

Prevod / Translation

Franc Smrke

Lektura prevoda / Translation Proofreading

David Limon

Recenzent / Reviewer

dr. Angelos Baš

Izdal / Published by

Slovenski etnografski muzej, Metelkova 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija

zanj / for it

mag. Tanja Roženbergar

Ljubljana 2015

Za vsebino odgovarja avtor. / The author is responsible for the content.





Izdano v okviru projekta





CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji

Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana



39:631.312(497.4)(0.034.2)



SMERDEL, Inja

Orala [Elektronski vir] : zbirka Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja = Ploughing implements : the collection of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum / Inja Smerdel ; [fotografije Marko Habič ; prevod Franc Smrke]. - El. knjiga. - Ljubljana : Slovenski etnografski muzej, 2015. - (Knjižnica Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja = Slovene Ethnographic Museum library, ISSN 1408-290X ; 10)



ISBN 978-961-6388-54-2 (ePub)

1. Slovenski etnografski muzej

282453504