COBISS: 1.01
THE STORy Of THE 1833 fERCHER SURVEy, POSTOJNSKA JAMA, CONTINUES: AN ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT AND NEWLy
DISCOVERED INSCRIPTIONS
ZGODBA fERCHERJEVE IZMERE POSTOJNSKE JAME (1833) SE NADALJUJE: DODATNI DOKUMENTI IN NOVO ODKRITI NAPISI
by Stephan KEMPE1, Hans-Peter HUBRICH2 & Klaus SUCKSTORff3
Abstract:                          UDC 551.442(497.4 Postojna)(091)
Stephan Kempe & Hans-Peter Hubrich & Klaus Suckstorf: Te story ofthe 1833 Fercher survey, Postojnska jama, continues: An additional document and newly discovered inscriptions
Publications, archived documents and inscriptions help with the reconstruction of the history of Postojnska jama. Until recently, the circumstances of the frst mayor cave survey ever undertaken were not well known. It is the so called fercher Survey conducted in winter 1833; a cooperation between the Mine Ofce in Idrija and the Cave Administration that surveyed the entire cave known at the time. Documents from the Archive of the Karst Research Institute and an inscription in the Tartarus of Postojnska jama gave a frst insight into this story (Kempe, 2005). Te survey suggested that (in what is now Male jama) a connection could be blasted to shorten the visitor route. Now a further letter dated 5th September, was found shedding light on this mining attempt begun in sum-mer 1833. In the letter the Cave Administration massively attacks the Mine Ofce. Tey claim that either the survey was not accurate or that the breakthrough was attempted at a wrong site. In conse-quence they demanded their expenses back, threatening with an investigation by the precinct administration. We also found three more inscriptions of the fercher Party, in Pisani rov and in the Old Cave, one by fercher and two by the miner Tracha. key words: history of cave survey, fercher, Postojnska jama, Slovenia.
Izvleèek:                           UDK 551.442(497.4 Postojna)(091)
Stephan Kempe & Hans-Peter Hubrich & Klaus Suckstorf - : Zgodba Fercherjeve izmere Postojnske jame (1833) se nad aljuje: dodatni dokumenti in novo odkriti napisi
Objavljena dela, arhivirani dokumenti in napisi pomagajo rekonstruirati zgodovino Postojnske jame. Do nedavna so bile okolišèine prve velike jamske izmere še ne dovolj poznane. Gre za t.im. fercherjevo izmero v zimi 1833: v sodelovanju med Rudniškim uradom v Idriji in Jamsko upravo je bila izmerjena celotna do tedaj znana jama. Na podlagi dokumentov iz arhiva Inštituta za raziskovanje krasa in napisa v Tartarju (Postojnska jama) je bil mogoè prvi vpogled v to zgodbo. Na podlagi izmere je bil svetovan (v današnjih Malih jamah) preboj s pomoèjo miniranja, ki bi obiskovalcem skrajšal pot. Najdeno je bilo pismo datirano s 5. septembrom, ki meèe novo luè na ta rudarski podvig v zaèetku poletja 1833. V tem pismu Jamska uprava hudo napada Rudarski urad. Zatrjujejo, da bodisi izmera ni bila pravilna ali pa je bil preboj napravljen na napaènem mestu. Zato zahtevajo nazaj plaèilo stroškov ter grozijo s preiskavo preko ustrezne instance. Odkriti so bili še trije novi napisi fercherjeve skupine, v Pisanem rovu in v Starih jamah, eden od samega fercherja in dva od rudarja Trahe. kljuène besede: zgodovina merjenja jam, fercher, Postojnska jama, Slovenija.
INTRODUCTION
Te reconstruction of the history of the discovery of      chived documents and inscriptions in the cave (among Postojnska jama rests on the study of publications, ar-       others: Shaw, 1992; Shaw & Èuk, 2002; Kempe, 2003,
1 Institute for Applied Geosciences, University of Technology Darmstadt, Schnittspahnstr. 9, D-64287 Darmstadt, Germany, email: kempe@geo.tu-darmstadt.de;
2 Am Langenmarkstein 31, D-64686 Lautertal;
3 Rosenweg 42, D-21502 Geesthacht.
Received / Prejeto: 08.03.2006
ACTA CARSOLOGICA 35/1, 131–138, LJUBLJANA 2006
STEPHAN KEMPE, HANS-PETER HUBRICH & KLAUS SUCKSTORff
sA/v/s?, %tzw'eig4MZ:&&?i,Ms?sMrt/'dem- j#m, /S^rJUeA/M.(t'/td<;t/
Tartarus Panel
B Boj ttvrtft
^rL/&ruji&
*s/. Etwp<trto- M eftc Groitr B. jte ^fr L?re?ie
Fercher, Urbas
. Sft.-;> ¦¦ t'- -;¦¦ /
Aj- .A \r-/f./ /r j        i
}        //'* ¦¦•¦>•'/   Grofi?It _ K'.-,;.-.,'
//. ->ff *H 'i'"h.i: f*'-:ssiy ztttn /j"/'-(r' ti. J^tfAwr, LrJi, ?'nptfttyZart dkUm Grotie.
Tracha
/Z 'Sr/>f<y& /turne fjffn ^Jf&trdertf
tf Am ffltil&rJati*fcAd&itry
^.JtiArtiveeef ?ur Gi-ofte V. Bor/ Grv/ietlsZ
"&-i?  ^tjj^JirrtZl X
Fig. 1: Reduced map of the Fercher Survey, published by Schafenrath, 1834. Schafenrath reduced the original map to 1/8th and added the surface topography in the lower part of the map. Te letters t-S mark the attempted breakthrough between the two passages which today are called male jama. Te passage O-P is called today Pisani rov. Passage B is the Name Passage in the old part of the cave. Te locations of the four known inscriptions of the Fercher Survey team are indicated by arrows.
HrH^
liA^J^t,
2005; Kempe et al, 2004; Kempe & Henschel, 2004). Specifcally the years immediately afer the discovery of the main passage are not documented clearly in spite of the publications of Volpi (1821), Bronn (1826), Hohen-wart (1830, 1832a,b), Schafenrath (1834), and Schmidl (1854, 1858). Particularly the circumstances of the sur-vey of the cave in 1833, the so-called fercher Survey, re-mained unknown (fig. 1). It was the largest highly pro-fessional survey conducted up to that point, with the Lee Survey of Mammoth Cave following a year later (Shaw, 1972). Te publication of the Tartarus Panel, on which
132     ACTA CARSOLOGICA 35/1 - 2006
the members of the survey team lef their names, gave opportunity to search for associated documents in the archive of the Karst Institute and of the Mines at Idrija. four letters and notes have been found by the librarian of the Karst Institute, Maja Kranjc. Tese German language letters were written in Current handwriting, in use at the time for ofcial documents. Tese letters have been tran-scribed and analyzed (Kempe, 2005). Tey show that the Grottenverwaltung (Grotto Commission) had asked the Bergamt (Mining Ofce) at Idrija for help with the sur-vey Accordingly the Bergamt had sent “Marktscheider”
AN ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT AND NEWLy DISCOVERED INSCRIPTIONS
(surveyor) Michael Glantschnigg, “Huttmann” (mine su-pervisor) Johann fercher, “Gehülfe” (helper) Aloys Ur-bas, “fuhrmann” (coach man) Johann Leskovitz, “Berg-mann” (miner) Johann Wruss and “Bergmann” Valentin Tracha to conduct the survey. fercher, Urbas, Wruss and Tracha inscribed their names during the survey at the south-hand branch of the Tartarus on february 7th, 1833. Glanschigg and Leskovitz seem not to have been active in the cave. One of the results of the survey was that the two passages, today forming the Male jama, ended very closely to each other. Te Grottenverwaltung therefore asked for help once more and the Bergamt sent Tracha on July 11th with a supply of 50 pounds of black powder
in order to open up this blockage between the passages. Tis attempt, however, failed and the Grottenverwaltung apparently complained about the inaccuracy of the sur-vey with the Bergamt. Tis upset fercher and he imme-diately wrote a rather angry letter on September 8th to the Bergamt that transmitted it immediately to the Grotten-verwaltung (document 986). Now the letter of the Grot-tenverwaltung, dated September 5th was relocated in the Archive of the Karst Institute (Appendix 1) by Trevor Shaw and is transcribed here for the frst time. In addi-tion we found three further inscriptions of members of the fercher party in diferent parts of the cave.
THE LETTER Of THE GROTTENVERWALTUNG
Te letter is labeled “GV 52”, “GV” standing for “Grotten-verwaltung”, dated September 5th, 1833, and is addressed to the “ löbliche kk Bergamt” at Idrija, i.e. to the “honor-able Imperial-Royal Mining Ofce” at the mercury mine at Idrija. Troughout the letter, this address is repeated several times shortened to “löbl.”. Never a specifc person, such as fercher or Bergrat Prettmann (who signed two of the previous letters from Idrija; Kempe, 2005), is addressed directly. Tis is a specifc characteristic of what is called (derogatorily) “Amtsdeutsch”, the impersonal style of Ger-man-speaking administrations. It signals the power of the speaker as an ofcial of state towards a “subject”. Similarly the signature of the letter is abstracted; here we think it should be read as “Letz” or “Betz”, but it may also be ab-breviated and stand for “Lenertz”, (compare signature be-low No 57 GV, Oct. 8th, 1833, in Kempe, 2005), reminding of signatures of medical doctors in todays society Tere are other illegible words in the letter, some of which we were able to deduce from the context, others remain illegible; luckily these are not essential for understanding the content. Te entire note consists of ca. 2900 letters (with-out blanks) but has only eight sentences! Long and com-plicated sentences are another feature of “Amtsdeutsch” and even more so of the written German at the beginning of the 19th century Another peculiarity of the letter is the largely missing commas that make reading difcult. In order to make discussion of the text easier, we have inserted numbers in parentheses at the beginning of each of the eight sentences.
Te entire letter is carefully crafed, starting with some compliments but ending with the demand to re-imburse the Grottenverwaltung for the funds spent on the failed Male jama connection. One cannot avoid the impression that the Grottenverwaltung actually tries to blackmail the Mine Ofce!
Sentence (1) is the opening of the game: It states the fact that the Grottenverwaltung, trusting the fercher survey, has “allowed” continued work at the potential connection. We learn that actually three persons are in-volved in this work, one mining ofcial (“Bergbeamter”) and two miners (“Bergarbeiter”). from Idrija ofce Note 747 we originally thought only one miner (Valentin Tracha) was commissioned to do this work (Kempe, 2005). We also learn that this work seems to have been going on continuously since early July Twice the Idrija ofce is pacifed by expressions like “gefällige Mitwirkung” and “Gefälligkeit” implying that the Grottenverwaltung is grateful for the help obtained in the matter.
Sentence (2) prepares for the attack It states that the “Herr Kreishauptmann” (abbreviated) (Graf zu Brandis4) became suspicious (“Mißtrauen… einge-fößt”) because the breakthrough hasn’t yet been made even though the survey (“nach dem Plan”) showed only a thin layer (“dünne Schicht”) which needed re-moval. Tis mistrust was further nourished by remarks of fercher that he made during his last visit when he commented on the state of progress (“Mittheilungen …. über den Stand der dießfälligen Arbeiten”). It is in-teresting to note that fercher here carries the title of a “prov. Oberhutmann” in contrast to document Idrija 429 in which he is listed simply as “Hutmann” (Kempe, 2005; Appendix). Possibly fercher had received a pay
4 Alois Schafenrath dedicated his guide to the cave in which he reproduced the fercher Survey in 1834 to “Seiner Hoch-und Wohlgeboren Herrn Clemens Grafen zu Brandis, frei-herrn zu Leonburg, forst und fahlburg, k.k. wirklichem Käm-merer Seiner Majestät, Gubernialrath und Kreishauptmann zu Adelsberg”; accordingly Brandis was Kreishauptmann and Kommissionspräses in 1834 and most probably also in 1833.”
ACTA CARSOLOGICA 35/1 - 2006       133
STEPHAN KEMPE, HANS-PETER HUBRICH & KLAUS SUCKSTORff
raise and had advanced from mine supervisor to mine superintendent in the summer of 1833. Te “prov.” in front of the title may be interpreted as “provisional”. Tis implies that fercher had not yet fully attained his new status, and that he might, by the criticism in the letter, have felt that this raise in status could be endan-gered, causing him to be specifcally upset.
Sentence (3) shows the ammunition available: Te Kreishauptmann asked the county civil engineer (possibly A. Schafenrath) to do a survey of the ongo-ing connection job. Te engineer made a rough sketch (“Croquis”) of the situation in the cave that originally accompanied the letter but apparently now is either lost or misplaced. Tat map showed that the breakthrough attempt was not started at the place suggested by the fercher Survey As a consequence the “Bergbeamter” leading the work was questioned or better “interrogat-ed” (“einvernommen”).
Passage (4) relates what the Bergbeamte said in his defense: He claims that he had been instructed by a Mr. “Bergschafer” (if this is a title or a family name remains unclear) before he lef, that he was to follow only his “hearing” (“sich nur an das Gehör zu halten”), because the map may not be trusted entirely. Te hearing then led him to the spot where they have started the actual breakthrough attempt.
Now the attack commences packed into one very long and winding sentence (5): Even though the Kreishauptmann in his function as the chair of the cave board (“Grottenverwaltungskommission”) thanks the Bergamt many times (“erkennt in vollem Maße die Gefälligkeit an”) for sending the k k (kaiserlich - königlich) mine of-cials to survey the cave and to attempt the breakthrough, a public institution (“unter öfentlicher Aufsicht stehender fond”), such as the cave foundation, cannot possibly pay for a survey which is not correct (“Plan … der nicht rich-tig ist”) or for a connection which is guided simply by hearing, because sound may be misguided by the joints in the rock In other words: the cave administration is boldly asking their money back for both the survey and the mining attempt! from Note Idrija 429 we know that the expenses for the survey amounted to 173 f. 32 Kr.4 or ca. 1750 € in todays money and from Note Idrija 747 we learn that Tracha had obtained a minimum of 50 pounds of black powder at 16 f. 40 Kr. (Kempe, 2005). How much the miners were paid, in addition to the powder, is not known, but easily their costs could have doubled the amount charged for the survey
Te next sentence (6) is advancing one more argument, thereby making the claim inevitable: It explains that the cave administration is fully liable to the province
4 1 f. = 1 Gulden = 60 Kreuzer, Kr. 134     ACTA CARSOLOGICA 35/1 – 2006
board (“Bezirkspräsidium”) and that they must submit invoices to them according to the bylaws. It would there-fore not be possible to justify expenses with such negative results and the province board would most probably make those persons accountable (“zur Verantwortung ziehen”) who carry the responsibility for the failure. Tis circumstance the mine administration would certainly understand… (“Es dürfe der Einsicht des löblichen Bergamtes nicht entgehen”).
Afer maneuvering the Idrija administration into such a tight corner a helping hand is ofered in sentence (7): In order to prevent the investigation by the higher administration it is suggested to the Bergamt that they make those persons accountable (without the pressure of the superior administration) who carry the responsibility for either the inaccuracy of the map or the failure of the breakthrough. Tey should also calculate the cost of the connection passage, which so far has not reached more than one “Klafer” (ca. 2 m) in depth even though the miners have been working in two daily shifs.
In the fnal sentence (8) the cave administration sets a time line for the response: Te result of the demanded ofcial act (“gefälligst einzuleitenden Amtshandlung”) are to be related as soon as possible (“in möglichst kürzester Zeitfrist”) in order to issue orders that minimize (“mind-est lastspielige Weise”) the costs for the cave fund.
All in all, and in spite of the many polite and fow-ery phrases, this is a rock-hard letter, very hostile and not at all timid towards the Idrija administration. One has to wonder about it because it must surely pollute any further cooperation between the two administra-tions. Afer all, the Idrija mine did not ask for the full expenses of the survey earlier in the year but only for travel expenses (“Reisespesen”) of the participants (Kempe, 2005). Even if there would be small inaccura-cies in the survey, the fercher map is far superior to the previous foyker map (about which little is known; Hoh-enwart, 1830) that covered the main passage only Even thinking about demanding this money back is rather unscrupulous. It must have been clear that this letter also ended any further attempt of the Idrija mine staf to open the connection.
Apparently the mine administration passed the letter of the Grottenverwaltung directly to fercher. His an-gry and upset response of September 8th to the Bergamt that transmitted it in turn to the Grottenverwaltung is preserved (Kempe, 2005, Appendix). In it fercher avoids any answer with regard to the fnancial demands (which probably was the best strategy), rather he points out that the survey was not meant to be of the highest precision and that it was not made to accuratehy predict the distance between the two passages (simph because it was not known before that they would end so near to
AN ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT AND NEWLy DISCOVERED INSCRIPTIONS
each other). He also points out that the breakthrough might be somewhat longer than expected from the map, but that it will be completed sooner or later. In order to settle the dispute he suggested to the mine administra-tion that the passages in question should be resurveyed. Tis would yield the exact distance to be drilled though. furthermore he estimated that the break-through could be done at a cost of 50 Gulden per Klafer by two min-ers without supervision. Tis sounded like a very logical plan that, however, was not pursued since the work on
the connection apparently was abandoned for several years. In expectation of the visit of Emperor franz Jo-sef and Empress Elisabeth, March 11th 1857 the breakthrough was fnally completed in 1856 and is about 12 m long (Hitzinger, 1866).
It is a pity that we do not know how this dispute be-tween the two administrations was fnally settled, but one can guess that the mine administration did not refund any of the expenses.
NEWLy DISCOVERED INSCRIPTIONS Of THE fERCHER SURVEy
Apart from the additional letter, we found further evidence of the work of the survey team in Postojnska jama itself Tese are three inscriptions, which, together with the Tartarus Panel (Kempe, 2005) form an interesting historic monument. All are written in pencil and rela-tively small.
Te frst inscription, written in Latin letters, was found by us on July 19th, 2005, a few meters beyond the formerly gated entrance to Pisani rov (Colourful Pas-sage) on the right-hand side (south-wall), about 1.8 m above the foor. It was written by Johann fercher himself (fig. 2) in three lines and reads: “Aufgenohmen in Monat
Fig. 2: Pencil inscription of Fercher and Urbas on the south wall at the beginning of Pisani rov, ca. 10 m from the former gate. (Photo: Kempe).
Jäner 1833 Johann fercher Aloys Urbas”, followed by a small fourish. In modern German it should be spelled “aufgenommen im Monat Jänner 1833”, with “Jänner” being the Austrian equivalent of the High-German “Januar”. Translated, the inscription reads: “surveyed in the month of January, 1833”. On the Tartarus Panel (Kempe, 2005) fercher used the same term “aufnehmen” for “to
survey”. Tere the inscription is dated to february 7th, 1833, showing that the Pisani rov was surveyed earlier and that the survey party apparently worked their way inward, including all the side passages. It is interesting that only two of the survey team lef their names here, implying that they may have split up in groups to proceed more rapidly.
Te second inscription is found a few meters inside the Pisani rov entrance on the same wall (fig. 3). It is
Fig. 3: Pencil inscription of tracha on the south wall at the beginning of Pisani rov, ca. 5 m from the former gate. Part of the inscription has been obliterated by a hand imprint by a careless visitor. (Photo: Kempe).
written in Current and reads: “Traha Valentin Zimmer-mann und Hauer in Idria (?), Zinnober(sublimierer)” with the last part of the word being almost illegible due to dirt from a hand imprint of a careless visitor. It is interesting that Tracha spells his name “Traha” here but in the inscription of figure 4 he writes “Troha”, while in the documents he is clearly spelled as “Tracha”. “Troha” would be the correct spelling in Slovenian while the same name in German would be spelled “Tracha” (pers. com.
ACTA CARSOLOGICA 35/1 - 2006       135
STEPHAN KEMPE, HANS-PETER HUBRICH & KLAUS SUCKSTORff
A. Kranjc). Te translation of the inscription is: “Valentin Tracha, carpenter and miner from Idrija, cinnabar sub-limer”. It is a pity that the inscription does not carry a date, but Tracha may have visited this part of the cave afer the survey, intending to see it as well, possibly not having been part of the survey party. It is further inter-esting that he lists himself with his professions; appar-ently Tracha was a carpenter by trade and not a miner in the frst place. Cinnabar is the main mercury mineral -mercury sulphide (HgS) - that was mined at Idrija. Ap-parently Tracha carried an additional mining title, being responsible for the sublimation process of the cinnabar or its quality supervision.”
Te third inscription is also by Tracha (fig. 4), but it is situated in the Old Adelsberger Grotte, the Imenski rov. In the attempt (work still in progress) to document all of the epigraphs in the historic section of the cave on July 21st, 2005, we divided the walls of the passage into pan-els, counting them from the entrance (Panel 1) to the end. Among the many inscriptions of Panel 9 such as those of Schafenrath 1829 and Löwengreif 1817, about 150 m from the passage entrance, Trochas inscription written in Current is found, inscribed in a nice one-line frame, similar to the frame drawn around the fercher party inscription on the Tartarus Panel. Te text has three lines and reads: „Valentin Traha Zimmermann und Hauer zu Idria bei der Vermessung der Grotte teilgenommen”. Te last line was deciphered with some difculty but is in itself
Fig. 4: Pencil inscription of tracha on Panel 9 in the Old Cave (Imenski rov). (Photo: Kempe).
logical. Here Tracha repeated once more his profession, but he does not do us the favour repeating the cinnabar-word, instead he states “participated in the survey of the cave”. Interestingly he uses the word “Vermessung” instead of “Aufnahme” as fercher did. We carefully inspected the walls of the entrance to the Nemški rov, hoping to fnd a fercher signature as well, but failed to do so. Possibly this passage was among the frst to be surveyed and fercher did not have the idea as yet to leave a signature.
CONCLUSIONS
Te newly deciphered letter from the Grottenverwal-tung to the Idrija administration flls an important gap regarding the circumstances of the fercher Survey and the failed attempt to break through the blockage of the Mala jama in 1833. In a sense it is very modern, since it is an attempt to claim something like a warranty, asking back money that - as is claimed - was spent on a bad product! Te letter also throws light on the structure of the administration at the time and how ofcial supervision was used as a powerful threat against an opponent. It is a pity that the story remains somewhat open-ended, but hope exists, that one or the other document will still turn up, illuminating the circumstances of the fercher
Survey further. It would be particularly interesting to fnd the two sketches which originally accompanied two of the notes.
Te fnding of three more inscriptions of the fercher Party also gives hope that eventually even more epigraphs may be located, possibly one at every side-passage entrance. Since the pencil signatures are not very con-spicuous, they may have been overlooked so far. Te four inscriptions discovered as yet, are the most verbal of all of the inscriptions, carrying real information with regard to the history of the cave, not just stating that Mr. or Mrs. So-and-so have been there.
136     ACTA CARSOLOGICA 35/1 – 2006
AN ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT AND NEWLy DISCOVERED INSCRIPTIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Te authors thank Maja Kranjc and Dr. Trevor Shaw for providing the documents for this study. Tanks are due also to Dr. Tadej Slabe, Director of the Karst Research Institute for organizing the access to the Old Cave on July 21st, 2005. Stanislav Glažar guided us (S.K. and H.P.H.
plus our students) on July 19th, 2005 through the cave when the pictures of the Pisani rov inscriptions were made. Mr. H. Süß, St. Marien, Österreich, helped in the interpretation of some of the Current abbreviations. Dr. M. S. Werner, Hilo, Hawaii, helped in editing.
REfERENCES
Bronn, H.C., 1826: Briefe aus der Schweiz, Italien und Südfrankreich im Sommer 1824. – Heidelberg, 652 pp, 4 Lithographs.
Hitzinger, P. , ca. 1866: Beschreibung der berühmten Adelsberger Grotte in Krain; nach der vom k.k. Kreis-Ingenier Alois Schafenrath verfassten Be-schreibung neuerlich bearbeitet und mit Zugabe einer Einleitung und einer Beschreibung der neuen Maria Anna-Grotte von P. Hitzinger, dann eines Situationsplanes der ganzen Grotte. – Maximilian Schäfer, Adelsberg, 32 pp.
Hohenwart, f. Graf von, 1830, 1832a, 1832b: Wegweiser für die Wanderer in der berühmten Adelsberger und Kronprinz ferdinands-Grotte bey Adelsberg in Krain; als Erklärung der von Herrn Aloys Schafen-rath, k.k. Kreis-Ingenieur in Adelsberg, gezeichne-ten Ansichten dieser Grotte. – Wien, J. P. Sollinger, 3 Vol., 16 + 9 + 14 pp and 21 copperplates (Reprint 1978: Šajn, S., ed.; Introduction: Habe, f. & Šlenc, J.: Postojnska jama; 1. ed., Postojnska Jama THO; Postojna; 32 pp Introduction, folio).
Kempe, S., 2003: Die alten Inschrifen der Adelsberger Grotte / Postojnska Jama. – Die Höhle, 54(2): 36-44.
Kempe, S., 2005: Te inscriptions of the Tartarus Panel and the 1833 fercher-survey, Postojnska jama. – Acta carsologica, 34/1 (13):221-235.
Kempe, S. & Henschel, H.-V., 2004: Alois Schafenraths „zerbrochene Pyramide” (Postojnska jama), ein Zeuge glazialer Höhlenvereisung? - Mitt. Verb. dt. Höhlen- u. Karstforsch 50(3): 76-81.
Kempe, S., Bauer, I., Dirks, H., & Henschel H.-V. (2004): Schafenraths Inscription Column in Pisani rov, Postojnska jama. - Acta carsologica, 33/2: 299-312.
Schafenrath, A., 1834: Beschreibung der berühmten Grotte bei Adelsberg in Krain. - I. Edlen v. Klein-mayr, Laibach, 32 pp, 2 Lithographs.
Schmidl, A., 1854: Die Grotten und Höhlen von Adelsberg, Lueg, Planina und Laas, Text und Atlas. - Wil-helm Braumüller, Wien, 316 pp, 15 Plates.
Schmidl, A., 1858: Wegweiser in die Adelsberger Grotte und die benachbarten Höhlen des Karstes. - 2. Auf., C. Gerolds Sohn, Wien, 93 pp, 3 Lithographs.
Shaw, T.R., 1992: History of Cave Science, the Explora-tion and Study of Limestone Caves, to 1900. - 2nd ed., Sydney Speleological Soc, Broadway, New South Wales, Australia, 338 pp.
Shaw, T., & Èuk, A., 2002: Royal and other noble visitors to Postojnska jama. - Acta carsologica 31(1) (Suppl. 1): 106 pp.
Volpi, G. de, 1821: Über ein bey Adelsberg neuentdeck-tes Paläotherium. - Maldinische Schrifen, Triest, 31 pp, 2 Plates.
ACTA CARSOLOGICA 35/1 – 2006
137
STEPHAN KEMPE, HANS-PETER HUBRICH & KLAUS SUCKSTORff
APPENDIx
Te following text has been transcribed from German Current handwriting. Numbering of the sentences and completions of words are inserted in parentheses. Te German is very old-fashioned, enriched with expressions from mining language. It is not possible to translate the text in a way reproducing the style of the letter. Moreover it has orthographic (compared to todays German) and grammatical mistakes; commas are largely missing. for an explanation of the contents and meaning please refer to the text of the paper. GV 52, den 5.9.1833 An das löbliche k.k. Bergamt zu Idria (1) Im Vertrauen auf die Richtigkeit des durch gefällige Mitwirkung des löbl.(lichen Bergamtes) auf-genommenen Planes der hiesigen Grotte und auf die Zweckmäßigkeit der Einleitungen des durch die Gefäl-ligkeit des löbl.(ichen Bergamtes) hierher abgesandten Bergbeamten mit 2 Bergarbeitern zur Ausführung des von der Grottenverwaltung beabsichteten Durchschlags hat man die Arbeiten bisher ihren Gang fortgehen las-sen. (2) Die Länge ihrer Dauer im Vergleiche mit der dünnen Schicht die nach dem Plan zu durchschlagen war hat dem Herrn Kreishptm (Kreishauptmann) einiges Mißtrauen in diese Arbeit eingefößt, welche durch die Mittheilungen des Herrn prov.(isorisch) Oberhutmanns Joh. fercher bei seiner letzten Anwesenheit hier über den Stand der dießfälligen Arbeiten sehr vermehrt wurde. (3) Der zust(ändige) Kshptm (Kreishauptmann) fand sich nun veranlasst den hiesigen Kreisingenieur zu beaufra-gen über den Stand der Arbeit einen Plan aufzunehmen, und da dieser, wie aus beil.(iegendem) Croquis ersehen werden wolle, entnehmen läßt, daß die Arbeit ganz auf einer anderen Seite begonnen wurde als wo die bereits zu verbindenden Grotten zusammen trefen, so wurde der leitende Beamte über die Ursache davon einvernommen. (4) Er gab als Grund dafür an, daß er von Herrn Berg-schafer (?) vor seiner Abreise die Weisung erhalten habe, sich nur an das Gehör zu halten, indem der Plan nicht ganz verläßlich sey, ... da das Gehör ihn zu der Stelle, wo er anfng, geleitet habe, so habe er seine Arbeit dort begonnen. (5) Der zust(ändige) Kshptm (Kreishauptmann) als Vorstand der Grottenverwaltungskom (mission) erkennt in vollem Maße die Gefälligkeit des löbl.(ichen Bergamtes) in Absendung zweier k k Bergbeamten bei Aufnahme der Grotte das Vorangehen des Durchschlags, kann aber dabei nicht umhin lebhaf zu bedauern und dem löbl. (ichen Bergamte) sein Befremden auszudrücken, daß ein unter öfentlicher Aufsicht stehender fond, wie es der Grottenfond ist, so bedeutend in Anspruch genommen werde sollte, um einen Plan zu liefern der nicht richtig ist, und zweitens auf das Gerathewohl hin nach dem bei
138      ACTA CARSOLOGICA 35/1 - 2006
Klüfen so leicht zu täuschenden Gehör einen Durch-schlag vorzunehmen. (6) Es dürfe der Einsicht des löbl. (Bergamtes) nicht entgehen, daß die Grottenverwaltung nicht im Stande seyn würde diese für ihren fond nahm-hafe Auslage bei solchem Resultate zu rechtfertigen, um das (?) B(ezirks?)präsidium, wenn ihm die Rechnun-gen, wie die Statuten der Verwaltungskom(mission) es vorschreiben, vorgelegt werden, wahrscheinlich welche Schuld daran tragen, zur Verantwortung ziehen werde. (7) Um dieser Compromittierung vor höheren Behörden vorzubeugen, wolle es dem löbl.(Bergamt) gefällig seyn, die Herren Bergbeamten denen entweder die Unrichtig-keit des Planes oder der Ausführung des Durchschlags zur Last fällt, schon dermahl5, wo es noch ohne Einfuß der oberen Behörden geschehen kann darüber zur Ve-rantwortung zu ziehen, und dabei auch gefälligst die Quantität der bisherigen Leistung bei dem Durchschlage, die kaum eine Vertiefung von einer Klafer beträgt, mit den Kosten dafür, die täglig doppelte Tagschichte für jeden Arbeiter betragen, in Verhältnis zu stellen. (8) Es wird sich erbethen das Resultat der gefälligst einzuleiten-den Amtshandlung in möglichst kürzester Zeitfrist eher mitzutheilen um so schnell als möglich Verfügungen zu erlassen um auf eine für den Grottenfond mindest last-spielige Weise das beabsichtigte Ziel zu erreichen.
Signature: Letz or Betz or Letzner (compare Kempe, 2005)
Adel(sberg) den 5.9. (1)833
5 dermahl = dermal: Austrian for „jetzt”