SIGNIFICANCE OF TOPONYMS, WITH EMPHASIS ON FIELD NAMES, FOR STUDYING CULTURAL LANDSCAPE
POMEN TOPONIMOV S POUDARKOM NA LEDINSKIH IMENIH ZA PROUČEVANJE KULTURNE KRAJINE
Nadja Penko Seidl
Cultural landscape is the result of human's interpretation of space. Kulturna krajina je rezultat človekove interpretacije prostora.
Significance of Toponyms, with Emphasis on Field Names, for Studying Cultural Landscape
DOI: 10.3986.AGS48102 UDC: 81'373.21:911.53 COBISS: 1.01
ABSTRACT: Toponyms are that particular layer in landscape which reflects the link between physical space and human perception, understanding and interpretation of this space. Experts from numerous fields are engaged in researching toponyms. Nevertheless, the relation between toponyms and the spaces they describe still remains relatively unresearched.
Among all the toponyms, field names are those that describe (cultural) landscape in most detail. They have evolved as a kind of side product of physical rearrangement of land for agricultural production purposes. The paper analyses field names in the selected area to establish the relation between field names and physical spaces they describe, and whether and in what way they can be used in planning and management of contemporary landscapes.
KEYWORDS: landscape architecture, geography, field name, landscape management, landscape planning.
The article was submitted for publication on January 24, 2008.
ADDRESS:
Nadja Penko Seidl, B. Sc.
Biotechnical faculty, Department of landscape architecture Jamnikarjeva ulica 101, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: nadja.penko@bf.uni-lj.si
Contents
1	Introduction
2	Overview of research studies
3	Research
3.1	Basic premises
3.2	Method of working and results
3.2.1	Collection and analysis of field names
3.2.2	Demarcation of areas - field name units
4	Discussion
5	Conclusion
6	References
35
36 38 38 38
38
39 42 45 45
1 Introduction
Landscape is a result of a blend of spatial features and human perception, understanding and interpretation of this space. The term landscape could be translated into Slovenian as two different terms: krajina and pokrajina. The term krajina is usually being used within landscape architecture where in the broadest sense means the entire structure of all factors and components on the Earth's surface, or, in the narrower sense of the word, everything that we can embrace by viewing and that we can recognise by this sight (Maru{i~ 1998: 98). The term krajina is used to describe undemarcated open space where natural elements prevail and it differs from the term krajina. The Dictionary of Slovene literally language (Bajec 1994, 445) defines the latter as: »... a borderland of a state, country (e. g. Vojna krajina) ...«. Geographers use the term krajina very rarely, but often the term pokrajina. The latter is understood as the demarcated and relatively homogeneous part of Earth's surface, as the complex of interrelated landscape elements or as the scientific term, meanwhile the term krajina is within geography used to characterize an external image, appearance, impression, picture of a landscape or as the artistic term (Perko 2001, 14).
The Dictionary of Slovene literally language introduces both terms, krajina and pokrajina as synonyms, the Geographical terminological dictionary (2005, 186, 292 and 336) does not contain the term krajina, meanwhile the term krajina is being equated with pokrajina and the lattest with regija (region). It is obvious that even the geographers do not share the same view on the definition of these terms. In such manner Gams (2007) does not agree with the definitions of the terms pokrajina, krajina and regija in the way that Geographical terminological dictionary defines them. Both terms; krajina and pokrajina could be translated into English or German language as landscape or Landschaft. The fact that different terms are being used within individual professions brings some terminological confusion into discussion, which, if nothing else, requires from the users to declare to different terms and use them consistently.
The European Landscape Convention (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia 19/2003) defines it as »... an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors____« Frequently it is described as a palimpsest created by numerous generations.
Physical space is continuously changing. The same is true for people, their perception and comprehension of space. Nevertheless, there is a need to preserve something that can be named landscape identity, its genius loci (Hendriks and Stobbelaar 2004). Space can determine the identity of a community, particularly if it is structured hierarchically, i. e., if different meanings are attributed to individual parts or spatial patterns. Because of the incessant changing of the landscape physis, landscape identity is established at several levels - on the one hand, by attributing new meanings to the selected parts of space, while on the other hand, because of continuity, it maintains a symbolic meaning for the selected parts of space irrespective of the fact that they have changed over time (Ku~an 1996).
In the majority of cases, the rapid changes in contemporary landscapes have caused the loss of landscape diversity and harmony. Also the identity of European landscapes resulting from the interaction of physical environment and human perception is rapidly vanishing (Antrop 2005). This has given rise to increased concern for landscape which is often reflected in the »glorification« of traditional cultural landscapes and trends towards the preservation of past - in the majority of cases, outdated - patterns and structures. However, conserving the physical image of landscape is less important for the conservation of the cultural features of landscape than the conservation of its identity, which is established through the relationship between an individual, society and physical space.
Human attitude to space is also recorded in toponyms. They are frequently the reflection of physical environment, and as such represent a kind of a unifying link between the material, tangible world and our understanding of this space. »... In a fundamental way names create landscape....« writes Tilley (1994,19). A space becomes place, and a territory becomes landscape through the process of naming. Landscape is not only physical space, it is also the way in which people perceive, comprehend and shape their environment. It is the relationship between people and space in a certain period of time. The first step to establishing this relationship is naming. Identification and naming of places and landscape units as individual entities is the first step to perception. It is a record of a certain behaviour although it is not yet materialized. (Ku~an 1996; Ku~an 1999).
Among all toponyms, field names are the ones that describe landscape in most minute detail. In association with land division systems, field names are the result ofhuman striving for equitable land distribution and rational organization of agricultural production. At the same time, toponyms are also important as
cultural sources. By examining previous research studies of field names and through my own research I am trying to find out the spatial characteristics of field names and whether they can be used in the management and planning of contemporary landscapes.
Already the first survey of foreign and domestic literature reveals that a number of professions are engaged in studying toponyms - i. e., geography, archaeology, linguistics and philology. To mention here just a few local researchers who were the first to undertake research in this field, the first one among them is certainly Tuma with his Imenoslovje Julijskih Alp (Onomastics ofthe Julian Alps) (1929) and numerous toponomastic maps that he issued. Ilešič mentions field names in Sistemi poljske razdelitve na Slovenskem (Land distribution systems in Slovenia) (1950), while Badjura (1953), indicates not only general geographical terms but also place names derived from them. Contribution to the study of toponyms was also made by Bezlaj in his work Slovenska vodna imena (Slovenian water names) (1956), Truhlar (1975; 1979; 1980) who devoted himself primarily to archaeological toponyms, and Kunaver (1988; 1993) who, like Tuma, studied toponyms in the mountains. At this point it is also necessary to mention Titl (1998; 2000; 2004; 2006) and his contribution to the study of place names in Istria and in the Karst. Worth mentioning among the researchers who directed their endeavours towards collecting and studying toponyms in the Slovene linguistic region outside Slovenian borders are Merku (1969; 1970/71a; 1970/71b; 1970/71c; 1993; 1995; 1999a; 1999b), Medved (1974; 1977), and Dapit (2003). The above-mentioned researchers have been recently joined by numerous researchers who again and again take up the study of toponyms. The results of their research are presented in detail below.
2 Overview of research studies
In the Dictionary of Literary Slovene (Bajec 1994, 1409), the term toponym is defined as »the proper name of a place or another part ofthe Earth's surface...« The term geographical name is indicated as its synonym. Kladnik (1999, 62) defines geographical name as a »type of proper name that is traditional by definition and unambiguously defines and individualizes a person, feature or concept(personal, objective and geographical proper name or toponym in a wider sense) ...«. Further, he divides geographical names into place name (names of places or toponyms in the strict sense of the word) and non-place names. The latter are further divided into field names, hydronyms, oronyms and other geographical names.
Kladnik defines field name (1999, 62) as a »type of geographical name that is most frequently used to designate individual parts of village land describing its fundamental characteristics and properties.« Field names belong to the group of names of small spatial features, places or parts of areas, i. e., the so-called micro-toponyms. Researchers include among them the names of parts of settlements, hydronyms, oronyms, names of individual characteristic natural phenomena, house names, i. e., names of buildings, houses or homesteads, hodonyms and names of other stand-alone features (Škofic 1998), including artefacts such as small chapels and sacral facilities, walls, memorials, recreational points and vistas, historical and archaeological remains, also points of special interest, e. g., points for observation of fish stocks on the sea coast (Cossutta 2001). Microtoponyms are usually used only within a small and relatively closed community. Frequently they are even not generally familiar to the entire village community (Škofic 1998). Familiarity with such microtoponyms is closely associated with the boundaries of a social community and geographical position of this community (Thornton 1997a; 1997b; Klemše 1993; 2005).
A characteristic feature of microtoponyms is also repetition. Stewart and associates (2004), who researched the relations between toponyms, tradition and archaeological sites of Inuits emphasized that they used characteristic names for certain phenomena in landscape. Names like tahiq - lake and qamaniq -river widening, appear all over the Arctic region without any major differences but they only gain a true meaning with reference to the local landscape.
Repetition of place and field names is also characteristic for Slovenia. In her research, Jež (1997) presents the distribution of the toponym of Breg in the present Slovene linguistic region. She finds that the naming basis of breg (slope) is evenly distributed in the Slovene linguistic area, supporting this statement by cartographic presentation of the occurrence of this toponym. She finds that this toponym appears more frequently in the Goričko region, while it appears more rarely in the Gorenjsko region and in the high-mountain areas in general: »... However, the state established on the basis ofthe Atlas Slovenije (the Atlas of Slovenia) is somewhat misleading because it is made only on the basis of toponymy without microtoponymy,...« she
writes. »... Considering that as well, the white spots in the picture are also filled-in...«. Ilešič (1950), in his research of land distribution systems, and Titl (1998; 1999; 2000; 2004; 2006) who devotes himself to the study of field names and their territorial distribution, point to the fact that the same field names also appear in different regions. When explaining the system of land distribution into particles, Ilešič thus stresses that each field group has its characteristic name. The central, perhaps the oldest and most fertile field is frequently named Velike njive (large fields) or Dolge njive (long fields), while smaller continuous strips of fields directly behind houses are frequently named Za vrtmi (behind the gardens) or Zavrtnice (fields behind gardens). Titl mentions an example from Istria, where the field name Breg and its derivatives appear in as many as seventeen cadastral communities - in completely identical form in eight of these communities. This confirms the assumption made by Jež concerning the presence of the naming basis of breg in microtoponymy. In addition, he lists 292 toponyms appearing in identical or similar form in at least two cadastral communities (Titl 2000, 165-224). The fact that the names are known only to the closer community, usually in connection with the ownership of the named land, prevents misunderstandings resulting from name repetition.
Toponyms are frequently preserved through long periods of time (Jett 1997, 481). Waterman (cit. from Thornton 1997a) emphasized this exceptional longevity of place names, saying: »... (Place names are) likely to persist even through migrations and conquest, when the spoken language shifts and one tongue is replaced by another.«. The same applies to hydronyms. Bezlaj (1956,5) stresses that the names of big water streams are even relatively older than place names. He substantiates this statement by the fact that colonization spread along rivers, and that watercourses were also important for spatial orientation. »... In the names of big rivers and mountain ranges,...« he writes, »... linguists have long since found linguistic remnants of the oldest settlement layers extending - at least in Western, Central and Southern Europe - far back to pre-Indoeuropean age. Similarly, all the subsequent, known and unknown migrations of population have also left their traces in names...«. Dapit (2003), on the contrary, notes in the research of toponyms from Val Resia that, as opposed to microtoponyms and oronyms, hydronyms are - at least in the memory of informants - much more instable. A watercourse is often also said to have several names referring to its different parts.
Numerous authors also attribute longevity to fieldnames. Stanonik (2003) quotes Blaznik, who defines them as »... fossils from the history of settlement...«. They are presumed to create an image of the culture of ground in an area at the time when this area was settled and named. They are also presumed to indicate the time of settlement and the nationality of the first colonists (Stanonik 2003). Through tradition, they are quite permanently in use within a certain area. (Unuk 2003). The research of place and field names in the cadastral council of Števerjan (San Floriano del Collio) showed that almost all names recorded nearly 200 years ago are still in use even though they were recorded in Italian or German form (Klemše 1993). Their local use is probably the reason for their preservation although three official languages changed during this period. Titl (2000,10) finds the same in connection with field names in Istria. »... They could not be influenced and changed by any occupier who could change all other names and surnames, but not field names, and therefore they have largely remained intact...«. he writes. Contrary to the mentioned authors, Merku (1995) attributes no special longevity to field names. Particularly those composed of possessive adjectives are prone to change.
Another interesting aspect in the research of field names that is studied primarily by linguists and etymologists are naming motifs. The most frequent motifs are naming after plants, particularities of relief, shape and position of land, buildings on a piece of land, type of soil and historical events (Koletnik 2004), and also after land cultivation techniques, spatial relations with other plots of land, spatial orientation, animals, characteristic agricultural products, specific climatic features, difficulty of cultivation, past events, etc. (Jurjevec 2001). Dapit adds naming after ownership of a place, and influence of the outside world (Dapit 2003), while Merku (1999) mentions among others also naming after legal practices. The mentioned researchers do not provide spatial or cartographic presentation of field names nor do they state whether the etymological explanations of names reflect the (present or past) spatial development conditions. Despite this, the naming motifs as well as the fact that identical field names appear in different areas, indicate that conclusions about the spatial characteristics can be inferred from some of the field names. Titl (2000) drew attention to the relation between field names and geological structure in Istria. In the areas with flat ridges running in parallel there appear special field names describing such geomorphic forms. In the flysch hills, field names are expected to describe finely and distinctly subdivided surface,
and in the karst areas the karstic morphology, i. e., stoniness and the presence of sinkholes, abysses and caves. Transitional areas with transitional relief phenomena are claimed to have special field names and -last but not least - field names in the coastal zone express peculiar features of coastal plains and land use which was characteristic of the coastal zone in the past. But also Titl does not go further from a generalized spatial consideration. He locates field names only on the basis of their belonging to a cadastral council and not to the concrete piece of land to which a name refers. Conversely, Klemše (1997) in addition to the list of toponyms and their explanations also shows them on the map, but does not spatially delineate them. Similarly, also Rifel (2002) does not only list the field names of Velika Planina but also shows them in a sketch. A cartographic presentation of toponyms is provided by Medved (1974) on the Zemljevid z italijanskimi in slovenskimi krajevnimi imeni vFurlaniji, Julijski krajini in Benečiji (Map with Italian and Slovene place names in Friuli Venezia Gulia and Veneto) and on a map with an accompanying list of names for the territory of Trieste (Medved et al., 1977). The latter shows not only the names of settlements, waters, elevations and hollows but also field names. Added to the map at a scale of1: 30,000 are two detailed presentations of the village of Bani with land uses from 1823 and 1974 and field names of individual land parcels from 1834 and 1974. Field names from the village of Bani were also collected and shown on a map by Merku (1993).
3 Research
3.1	Basic premises
Summarizing the preceding chapter I can say that field names are characterized by the following:
•	they appear within small and relatively closed social communities and therefore they are not generally known outside the boundaries of these communities,
•	the same names are also repeated but because of their local use there are no misunderstandings,
•	they are preserved over long periods of time, even in the areas with changing physical properties of the area they describe, as well as in changed social and political circumstances,
•	characteristic naming motifs exist for field names.
Despite different aspects of dealing with toponyms in general and field names, the survey of the existing research studies has provided no answer about the relationship between the names and the spaces they describe. For this purpose I have carried out a research study attempting to verify the statements made by the above-mentioned authors, and to answer the following questions:
•	Is it possible to spatially delineate areas described by particular field names? Are these boundaries spatially identifiable and do they follow natural boundaries?
•	What is the relationship between the surface cover or land use and areas described by particular field names?
•	Are there any parallels between landscape types and areas described by field names?
The answers to all these questions should serve as the basis for verifying the possibilities of whether field names can be used in landscape management and planning.
The research included cadastral communities Parje, Palcje and Zagorje, which are situated in the plateau area of Zgornja Pivka. This area comprises five villages with pertaining land characterized by traditional parcel structure. Meadows and pastures prevail; the entire area is marked by grassing over and foresta-tion: fields are changing into meadows, former areas of village commons have been forested in part or are partly being naturally overgrown by forest.
3.2	Method of working and results 3.2.1 Collection and analysis of field names
First, field names in the entire area under study were collected for the needs of this research. The following sources of data were used:
•	'Franciscejski kataster' (Land Cadastre of Franz II) from the beginning of the 19th century (1: 2880 scale),
•	Basic Topographic Plan - TTN (1: 5000 scale),
•	Verification of the credibility of names recorded in the Basic Topographic Plan took place with the help of the local population - mainly farmers who know the area and field names well.
Table 1: Number of field names on the maps of the Land Cadastre of Franz II, Basic Topographic Plan, and as known to the local population.
Cadastral communities	Parje		Zagorje		Pal~je		Entire region
Source of information*	12	3	1 2	3	12	3	1 2 3
Land Cadastre of Franz II	31 15	15	51 14	12	41 9	11	123 38 38
TTN	74	63	55	32	87	69	216 164
Local informants		100		70		106	276
* 1 - Land Cadastre of Franz II, 2 - Basic Topographic Plan, 3 - local population
Recorded on the maps of the Land Cadastre of Franz II were 123 field names, 216 field names were recorded on the maps of the Basic Topographic Plan, and local informants provided 276 names. Here, it is necessary to note that these 276 field names do not necessarily mean the final number of names that are in use. The reason is that there is a hierarchy among field names; sometimes even a single parcel has its proper name that is usually composed of the name of the field group in which it is located, and a possessive adjective expressing the (past or present) ownership of the parcel. Ownership is most frequently expressed by a house or personal name. Names describing individual field groups within the land distribution system were recorded for the needs of research.
The local informants who took part in the research usually knew only local names. In the area of neighbouring villages, they knew only some general names, e. g., Jezero (lake), Gmajna (common), Boršt (forest), etc.
Sixteen of the names provided by the local informants appear in the same or similar form in at least two cadastral communities. Some even appear several times within the same cadastral council. In such cases the forms of names are not completely identical.
All the three sources recorded 34 names in identical or similar forms; 38 names appear both in the Land Cadastre of Franz II and in TTN, and the same number of names appears in the Land Cadastre of Franz II, and is also known to the local population; 164 names known to the local population are also recorded in TTN. The fact that many of the names in use by the local population are not recorded in the Basic Topographic Plan leads us assume that also the Land Cadastre of Franz II did not record all names that were in use in that period. This assumption is confirmed by the fact that the names intended for identification of a part of arable land, particularly in connection with its ownership, were particularly important in the period when the majority of population were engaged in farming and were thus directly dependent on land. The thesis concerning the persistence of field names is confirmed by the 34 field names recorded in the Land Cadastre of Franz II, which are still being used.
The same naming motifs reported, in their research, by Koletnik (2004), Jurjevec (2001), Dapit (2003), Titl (1998; 2000; 2004) and Klemše (1997), also appear in the area of the present research. We can thus find naming after the features of relief (Dol /dale/, Žleb /gulley/, Hrib /hill/, Reber /hillside/, Dolina /valley/, Vršič /small peak/, Klančič /small rise in the road), after spatial position (Pod Hribom /under hill/, Za Grižo /behind a barren karst area/, Meje za vasjo /borders behind the village/, Vrh Ždinka, Vrh Hriba /top of the hill/), after animals (Čukovke /čuk = little owl/, V Gadnjah /gad = viper/, Medvedji dol /bear dale/, Kačji dol /snake dale/), after plants (Pod hruško /under a pear tree/, Lipje /linden trees/, Nagnojevec /laburnum/, Pri brezi /near birch tree/, Pulinove hoje /Pulin's fir trees/, Robidne meje /bramble borders/), after aquatic phenomena (Jezero /lake/, Mlake /water holes/, Lokvica /little pond/, Pri lužah /near puddles/, Ribnik /fish pond/), after land use (Male njive /small fields/, Senožeti /meadows/, Zevniki, Boršt /forest/, Staje /stables/), after spatial features (Kamnišče, Jazbine /badgers' burrows/, Na policah /on ledges/, Plešivica, Ozidja, Počivališče /resting place/). Numerous names are also composed of possessive adjectives reflecting former or present ownership of the parcels. I have not analysed naming motifs in detail since this was not the main purpose of this research.
3.2.2 Demarcation of areas - field name units
In parallel with inventorying field names, the areas described by field names were demarcated on the map, with the help of local informants. The term field name unit was introduced to name these areas. A field name unit can be defined as an area described by a single field name. As boundaries between individual
Legend/Legenda:
I garden/vrt field/njiva
field, meadow/njiva, travnik meadow/travnik pasture/pašnik I forest/gozd water/voda settlement/naselje
Figure 1: Relation between field name units and land use at the beginning of the 19th century.
field names are not defined on the maps, only names collected with the help of local informants were demarcated. Wherever possible, boundaries were defined with the accuracy of parcel boundary. In the majority of cases they can be quite simply recognized on an orthophotograph. This applies in particular to the central area of village fields where individual parcel groups are distinguished from each other primarily by the size and orientation of the parcels. Boundaries between field name units frequently follow the natural or anthropogenic boundaries, such as hill/crests, water stream bed, field tracks. A problem concerning demarcation is in the areas of former village commons, which are not parcelled, yet are described by different field names, or on contrasting landform where parcels are of irregular shape and the boundaries between field groups or field name units are more difficult to define.
In order to verify the relation between surface cover or land use and field name units, the maps showing land use in different periods were overlaid by the map of field name units (Figures 1, 2 and 3).
Figure 1 shows that the boundaries between field names almost completely coincide with the boundaries between different categories of surface cover at the beginning of the 19th century. Some disparities appear because of the lack of accuracy or data discrepancies. In the majority of cases the areas with the same land use extend over several field name units.
The comparison with the condition of land use in 2000 and 2006 shows vast changes. The scope of forests has significantly increased, decreasing particularly the surface area of pastures and fields. Despite
Legend/Legenda:
field, garden/njiva, vrt I extensive orchard/ekstenzivni sadovnjak intensive meadow/intenzivni travnik wet meadow/vlažni travnik extensive meadow/ekstenzivni travnik I overgrown area/zemljišče v zaraščanju I trees, shrubs/drevje, grmičevje I forest/gozd
marshy area/mokrotno zemljišče I water/voda
dry area/suho zemljišče settlement, road/naselje, cesta
m
Author/Avtorica: Nadja Penko Seidl Sources/Viri:
(1)	Digital cadastral map of cadastral units Parje, Palčje and Zagorje/ Digitalni katastrski načrti katastrskih občin Parje, Palčje in Zagorje, GURS, 2002
(2)	Land use map/Zemljevid rabe prostora, MKGP, 2003
0,5
Figure 2: Relation between field name units and surface cover in 2000.
these changes the boundaries between field name units still coincide with boundaries between different categories of land use. Similarly to the previous case, the same category usually extends over several field name units. Although the two maps showing land use were overlaid by the contemporary field name structure, the boundaries coincide better with the surface cover from the 19th century.
As the next step, the experts in landscape planning and management who took part in the project of Regional Distribution of Landscape Types in Slovenia were sent an orthophoto plan of the region without any indication of boundaries. They were requested to enter boundaries between landscape types as they recognize them, and to name these landscape types. We received only four answers, but their analysis produced interesting results. The respondents identified several landscape types in the area under consideration. The degree of accuracy differed from one respondent to another: they divided the area into six, eight, nine and eleven landscape types. The results are shown in Table 2 and Figure 4.
Despite different numbers of landscape types identified by individual assessors in the area under consideration, the boundaries between landscape types as marked by the four assessors almost completely coincide. In the areas situated in the vicinity of villages (former fields and meadows), particularly at the bottom of valleys, the boundaries between landscape types follow parcel borders. In these areas the boundaries between field groups are recognizable, while the parcels and field groups are of regular shapes. In the slopes crisscrossed with numerous hedges and partly overgrown, the boundaries between
Legend/Legenda:
field, garden/njiva, travnik I extensive orchard/ekstenzivni sadovnjak meadow/travnik
uncultivated area/neobdelano zemljišče I overgrown 1/kmetijsko zemljišče z drevjem . I overgrown 2/zemljišče v zaraščanju I trees, shrubs/drevje, grmičevje I forest plantation/ gozdna plantaža I forest/gozd I water/voda
settlement, road/naselje, cesta
: d
%
Q
mm
Author/Avtorica: Nadja Penko Seidl Sources/Viri:
(1)	Digital cadastral map of cadastral units Parje, Palčje and Zagorje/ Digitalni katastrski načrti katastrskih občin Parje, Palčje in Zagorje, GURS, 2002
(2)	Land use map/Zemljevid rabe prostora, MKGP, 2007
0 0,5 1
Figure 3: Relation between field name units and land use in 2006.
landscape types are much more generalized and do not follow the boundaries between field name units
(Figure 5).
4 Discussion
The results of research can be summarized in the following findings:
•	Field names are usually used within a local community; outside the local community borders only few of them are known. As they are distinctly associated with the agricultural production process, engaging an increasingly smaller proportion of the population, their use is being abandoned.
•	Because of the local use of names there are no misunderstandings in communication although some names are repeated within the region.
•	Some of the field names that are still in active use were recorded already in the maps of the Land Cadastre of Franz II dating back to the 1820's, although Slovene names were then written in germanised form. These names confirm the statements of the authors mentioned earlier concerning the longevity of field names - they have been preserved through numerous generations outliving the change of three official languages, and many of them even a change in the use of land they describe.
Figure 4: Landscape types as outlined and delineated by four assessors (Source: Ortophotographic plan ©, GURS 2002).
Table 2: Landscape types as defined by four assessors*.
Assessor 1	Assessor 2	Assessor 3	Assessor 4
settlements finely structured rural landscape	suburban landscape agricultural land in plains	settlement fields	settlements agricultural complexes - fields, pastures, meadows
rural landscape (large structures)			
rural landscape (hardly visible structures)	cultural terraces	karst meadows	overgrown agricultural complexes of inferior quality
rural landscape with hedges	cluster-structured agricultural land	overgrown karst commons with remnants of hedges	enclosures, pastures, meadows
inundated grassland landscape		periodic lake	periodic lake
overgrown areas	overgrown grassland	overgrown karst commons	open areas- sinkholes
forest	forested ridges	forest	forest
clearings in forest			
grassland landscape with sinkholes			
military polygon landscape**		military polygon	non-settlement urban areas -shooting ranges
forest with non-forest meadows			
* Landscape types are classified so that the types in the same line cover approximately the same stretches of land according to the definitions of individual assessors, although they have different names.
** The respondents outlined landscape types within a somewhat broader area, otherwise the military polygon is situated outside the area under consideration.
Figure 5: Relation between field name units (left) and landscape types (right) as delineated by one of the assessors (Source: Ortophotographic plan ©, GURS 2002).
•	Field names are characterized by various naming motifs. Some authors also associate the names with the characteristic features of the areas they describe, but this assertion has not been verified in this research.
•	In the majority of cases, the areas described by particular field names can be determined with the help of local informants. In this research, such areas are named field name units.
Certain parallels can be drawn between field name units and areas defined by different land uses or different categories of surface cover. The fact that the boundaries between field name units almost completely coincide with surface cover categories from the beginning of the 19th century leads to the assumption that a similar field name distribution pattern was already in use at that time. This assumption is confirmed by the fact that field names are used to name groups of parcels within a land subdivision system which has not changed in the area under consideration. Nevertheless, we cannot claim that field names - except those which are recorded in the Land Cadastre of Franz II in the same or similar form - are also the same. To confirm this assumption, further analyses of land registers from the beginning of the 19th century should be made.
A certain connection also exists between field name units and landscape types as defined by the experts in landscape planning and management who participated in the questionnaire survey. Boundaries between landscape types follow the boundaries between field name units to a certain extent, but they are much more generalized. Particularly the following two facts are the arguments against the use of field names in landscape typology:
•	The basic purpose of field names is to identify pieces of land in connection with ownership, and not to describe landscape types. While in the areas of central village fields the boundaries between landscape types almost consistently follow the boundaries between field name units, these boundaries are practically unrecognizable in overgrown or forested land, although individual parcels or locations in these areas are also named.
•	Because of incomplete records on maps, the procedure of collecting and demarcating field names is based exclusively on interviews with the local population, and therefore it is time-consuming and consequently less useful for typological classification of large regions. As an individual field name unit is not sufficient to represent landscape type, it is necessary to merge units into larger groups according to the principle of similarity, which again requires a detailed survey of the region, describing characteristic features of individual field name units. Familiarity with field names is distinctly related to agricultural production, and therefore the number of informants who know the field names is decreasing.
Field names are the result of the human capacity for mental spatial division. Usually they reflect the situation in landscape when it was settled and named, hence a certain past situation. Although they are undoubtedly significant cultural and historical sources, the question arises of it makes sense to also use them in guiding the future development of landscape. According to Marušič and associates (1998), the past spatial conditions cannot be transferred as a pattern, as a spatial layout for the future. However, in spatial planning it is also necessary to take into consideration, among other features, the fact that field names in connection with the land division system and parcel structure are somehow »impressed« in land-
scape, and despite changes in land use they have been superimposed on the natural spatial structure for centuries. They introduce into the landscape a hierarchic subdivision, which enables orientation, organization and rational exploitation of (rural) land.
One of the reasons why field names have outlived the change of three official languages is also the fact that they were always known only to a small number of people within relatively closed social communities. The second reason for their preservation is the preserved parcel and ownership structure to which field names refer. Both these facts will cause the disappearance of field names in the near future. We now live in a transitional period when, on the one side, the traditional spatial patterns and structures are still preserved, while on the other the lifestyle of people is changing or has already changed - even of those people who are the »maintainers« or »keepers« of this space. In the majority of cases, field names have been preserved as the means of communication between those who cultivated agricultural land. Today, these communications are increasingly rarer since ever fewer people are engaged in farming, and consequently there is less and less need for communication by means of field names. This tendency will be enhanced by the process of intensification of agriculture and abandoning of cultivation in marginal land plots that are less suitable for agricultural production. Parcel structure, an anachronism from the past or traditional way of farming, will have to be change to meet the needs of modern agriculture. A new spatial geometry will be introduced, which will be consistent with the modern cultivation technology, but not necessarily consistent with the present spatial organization and, as a result, with names. All these processes are - despite being frequently defined as negative - merely a response to contemporary trends, and something completely usual in landscape development.
The main reason for negative evaluation of contemporary landscapes is their monotony, lack of diversity, visual attraction, harmony and identity. Despite the mentioned reservations and limitations, one of the possible ways of preserving the value of traditional cultural landscapes is also the preservation of field names and their component parts. However, names can be preserved only on condition that their spatial integrity is maintained.
5	Conclusion
The main purpose of this research was to determine the relation between field names and the spaces they describe, and whether field names can be used in the management and planning of contemporary landscapes.
Although the research has shown that there are parallels between field name units, surface cover and landscape types, the question of the usefulness of field names and field name units in landscape planning and management remains open. Their usefulness for this purpose is hampered particularly by the time-consuming process of name collection, delineation of units, and consequently lesser usefulness for wider areas.
Nevertheless, field names remain important cultural sources, spatial records of past generations. They can play a significant role in preserving the identity of the local population. They are frequently the centres of stories about individual inhabitants and events that took place there. As such, they are also an important part of the cultural heritage.
Since they are distinctly associated with rural landscape, further research should be directed primarily into the possibility of applying field names and field name units in rearrangement of agricultural land, which is bound to happen in the near future.
Another aspect of studying field names is related to the knowledge of the names among all users of space, not only farmers. This would provide knowledge about the role of field names (and also toponyms in general) in individuals' perception and their spatial orientation.
Not all field names can be preserved, and so the question arises of whether it is sensible to strive for that. However, at the time when many records from the past are still present in the landscape, field names can undoubtedly reveal much relevant information, and consequently help in the planning of new landscapes.
6	References
Antrop, M. 2005: Why landscapes of the past are important for the future? Landscape and Urban
Planning 70,1-2. Amsterdam. Badjura, R. 1953: Ljudska geografija - terensko izrazoslovje. Državna založba Slovenije. Ljubljana.
Bajec, A. (ur.) 1994: Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika. Ljubljana.
Bezlaj, F. 1956: Slovenska vodna imena I., II. Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Ljubljana.
Cossutta, R. 2001: Kriška ledinska imena. Simpozij slovenska lastnoimenskost - zbornik s simpozija '99 v Pišecah. Dolenjska založba. Novo mesto.
Dapit, R. 2003: Krajevna imena vzhodne Rezije v luči materialnega in duhovnega izročila. Doktorska disertacija. Oddelek za slavistiko Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani. Ljubljana.
Digitalni katastrski načrti - DKN katastrskih občin/Digital cadastral plans of cadastral councils Parje (2503), Palčje (2506), Zagorje (2502). Geodetska uprava Republike Slovenije. Ljubljana.
Digitalni ortofoto načrti- DOF/Digital orthophoto plans D212561, D212661, D212761, D212861, D213361A, D213461, D213561, D213661, D213761, D213861, D214361, D214461, D214561, D214661, D214761, D214861, D220361, D220461. Geodetska uprava Republike Slovenije. Ljubljana.
Evropska konvencija o krajini. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 19/2003. Ljubljana.
Franciscejski kataster (merilo 1:2880), zemljevidi/Land Cadastre of Franz II (1:2880 scale) A119A01, A119A02, A119A03, A119A04, A119A05, A118A01, A118A02, A118A03, A118A04, A118A05, A118A06, A118A07, A118A08, A118A09, A118A10, A118A11, A151A01, A151A03, A151A04, A151A05, A151A06, A151A07, A151A08; http://sigov3.sigov.si/cgi-bin/htqlcgi/arhiv/enos_isk_kat.htm (24.1.2008).
Gams, I., 2007: Pokrajina, krajina in regija v luči Geografskega terminološkega slovarja. Dela 28. Ljubljana.
Stobbelaar, D. J., Hendriks, C. J. M. 2004: Reading the identity of place. Multiple landscape: merging past and present in landscape planning. ISOMUL and Land Use Planning Group Wageningen University. Wageningen.
Herman, R. D. K. 1999: The Aloha State: Place Names and the Anti-conquest of Hawai'i. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89-1. Oxford.
Ilešič, S. 1950: Sistemi poljske razdelitve na Slovenskem. Ljubljana.
Jett, S.C. 1997: Place-Naming, Environment, and Perception among the Canyon de Chelly Navajo of Arizona. Professional Geographer 49-4. Hamilton.
Jež, M. 1997: Poimenovalni tipi kot identifikacijski dejavnik slovenskega jezikovnega prostora. Glasnik Slovenskega etnološkega društva 37-4. Ljubljana.
Johnson, L. M. 2000: »A Place That's Good,« Gitksan Landscape Perception and Ethnoecology. Human Ecology 28-2. New York.
Jurjevec, N. 2001: Ledinska in hišna imena Kostrevnice. Simpozij slovenska lastnoimenskost - Zbornik s simpozija '99 v Pišecah. Novo mesto.
Kladnik D., 1999. Leksikon geografije podeželja. Inštitut za geografijo. Ljubljana.
Kladnik D., Lovrenčak, F., Orožen Adamič, M. 2005: Geografski terminološki slovar. Ljubljana.
Klemše, V. 1993: Krajevna, ledinska in vodna imena v Števerjanu. Gorica.
Klemše, V. 1997: S Poklona do Toplice. Krajevna, ledinska, vodna in druga imena v Štmavru, Pevmi in na Oslavju. Kulturno društvo »Sabotin«. Gorica.
Klemše, V. 2005. Lucinis Podgora Štandrež: Krajevna, ledinska, vodna in druga imena v katastrskih listinah. Rajonski sveti Za Podgoro, Ločnik, Štandrež. Gorica.
Koletnik, M. 2004. Ledinska imena v Rogašovcih. Besedoslovne lastnosti slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana.
Kučan, A. 1996: Dejavniki nacionalne prostorske identitete v Sloveniji. Doktorska disertacija. Biotehniška fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani. Ljubljana.
Kučan, A. 1999: Ustvarjanje kulturnosti krajine. Kulturna krajina v dinamiki razvoja in varstva. Društvo krajinskih arhitektov Slovenije. Portorož.
Kunaver, J. 1988. Zemljepisna imena v visokogorskem svetu in njihova uporaba na primeru Rombona in Goričice. Pokrajina in ljudje na Bovškem. Republiški koordinacijski odbor Gibanja Znanost mladini pri Zvezi organizacij za tehnično kulturo Slovenije. Ljubljana.
Kunaver, J. 1993. K problematiki zemljepisnih imen v dolinah Tolminke in Zadlašce. Razprave in raziskave 2. Triglavski narodni park, Republiški koordinacijski odbor Gibanja Znanost mladini pri Zvezi organizacij za tehnično kulturo Slovenije. Tolmin.
Marušič, I., Jančič, M., Bartol, B., Prem, M. 1998: Regionalna razdelitev krajinskih tipov v Sloveniji, Metodološke osnove. Ljubljana.
Medved, J. 1974. Zemljevid z italijanskimi in slovenskimi krajevnimi imeni v Furlaniji, Julijski krajini in Benečiji. Mladinska knjiga. Ljubljana.
Medved, J., Ingolič, B., Pahor, S. 1977. Tržaško ozemlje. Zemljevid in seznam krajevnih in ledinskih imen. Slovenska matica. Ljubljana in Trst.
Merku, P. 1969. Ob imenih slovenskih krajev v Italiji. Jezik in slovstvo 14-4. Ljubljana.
Merku, P. 1970/71a. Pisava in raba slovenskih krajevnih imen v Italiji. Jezik in slovstvo 16-3. Ljubljana.
Merku, P. 1970/71b. Staro in novo gradivo za terska krajevna imena. Jezik in slovstvo 16-5. Ljubljana.
Merku, P. 1970/71c. Staro in novo gradivo za terska krajevna imena. Jezik in slovstvo 16-6. Ljubljana.
Merku, P. 1993. Banovski mikrotoponimi. Ondile čez Stari vrh. SKD Grad. Bani.
Merku, P. 1995: Toponomastika občine Zgonik. Občina Zgonik. Gorica.
Merku, P. 1999a: Krajevna imena vzgoniški občini. Občina Zgonik; narava in ljudje. Občina Zgonik. Zgonik.
Merku, P. 199b. Slovenska krajevna imena v Italiji. Mladika. Trst.
Miller, E. J. W. 1969: The naming of the land in the Arkansas Ozarks: a study in culture processes. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 59-2. New York.
Perko, D. 2001: Geografija, regija in regionalizacija. Slovenija - pokrajine in ljudje. Ljubljana.
Raba prostora 2003/Land use in 2003. Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano. Ljubljana. Internet: http://rkg.gov.si/GERK/Za_OB/ (24.1.2008).
Raba prostora 2007/Land use in 2007. Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano. Ljubljana. Internet: http://rkg.gov.si/GERK/Za_OB/ (24.1.2008).
Raba prostora v franciscejskem katastru/Land use in the Land cadastre of Franz II. Janez Zafran. Ljubljana.
Rifel, V. 2002. Ledinska imena jugovzhodnega dela Velike planine. Kamniški zbornik 16. Kamnik.
Stanonik, M. 2003: Krajevna in ledinska imena v Žireh. Besedoslovne lastnosti slovenskega jezika - Slovenska zemljepisna imena. Pišece.
Stewart, A. M., Keith, D., Scottie, J. 2004: Caribou Crossings and Cultural Meanings: Placing Traditional Knowledge and Archaeology in Context in an Inuit Landscape. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11-2. New York.
Škofic, J. 1998. Mikrotoponimi v Kropi in bližnji okolici. Jezikoslovni zapiski 4. Ljubljana.
Temeljni topografski načrti (merilo 1: 5000)/Basic Topographic Plans (1: 5000 scale) Pivka 25, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37-47, 43, 44, 45, 46; Ilirska Bistrica 3, 4. Geodetska uprava Republike Slovenije. Ljubljana.
Thornton, T. F. 1997a: Anthropological studies of Native American place naming. American Indian Quarterly 21-2. Lincoln.
Thornton, T. F. 1997b: Know Your Place: The Organization of Tlingit Geographic Knowledge. Ethnology 36-4. Pittsburgh.
Tilley, C. 1994: A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford, Providence.
Titl, J. 1998. Geografska imena v severozahodni Istri. Koper.
Titl, J. 1999. Ledinska imena na Komenski planoti. Kras 35. Ljubljana.
Titl, J. 2000: Toponimi koprskega Primorja in njegovega zaledja. Koper.
Titl, J. 2004: Zakaj na Krasu skoraj samo slovenska ledinska imena? Kras 63. Ljubljana
Titl, J. 2006. Kraški toponimi. Koper.
Truhlar, F. 1975. Krajevna imena Gradišče, Gomila, Groblje, Žale. Arheološka najdišča Slovenije. Ljubljana.
Truhlar, F. 1979. Toponomastika v službi arheologije (Osnove arheološke toponomastike). Arheološi vestnik 30. Ljubljana.
Truhlar, F. 1980. Patroncij Sv. Jurija v Sloveniji. Arheološki vestnik 31. Ljubljana.
Tuma, H. 1929. Imenoslovje Julijskih Alp. Slovensko planinsko društvo. Ljubljana.
Unuk, D. 2003: Ledinska imena v Črešnovi grabi in Strmcu. Besedoslovne lastnosti slovenskega jezika -Slovenska zemljepisna imena. Društvo Pleteršnikova domačija. Pišece.
Zafran, J. 1998: Gozdna zaplata kot kriterij proučevanja dinamike kulturne krajine na primeru iz Pivške kotline. Magistrska naloga. Biotehniška fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani. Ljubljana.
Pomen toponimov s poudarkom na ledinskih imenih za proučevanje kulturne krajine
DOI: 10.3986.AGS48102 UDK: 81'373.21:911.53 COBISS: 1.01
IZVLEČEK: Toponimi so tista plast v krajini, v kateri se zrcali vez med fizičnim prostorom in človekovim zaznavanjem, razumevanjem in interpretacijo tega prostora. Z raziskovanjem toponimov se ukvarjajo strokovnjaki s številnih področij. Kljub temu ostaja odnos med toponimi in prostori, ki jih opisujejo, še vedno dokaj neraziskan.
Med vsemi toponimi so prav ledinska imena tista, ki najbolj podrobno opisujejo (kulturno) krajino. Nastala so kot nekakšen stranski produkt fizičnega preurejanja prostora za potrebe kmetijske proizvodnje. V članku sem skozi analizo ledinskih imen na izbranem območju ugotavljala, v kakšnem razmerju so ledinska imena s fizičnimi prostori, ki jih opisujejo, in na kakšen način bi jih lahko uporabili pri načrtovanju in upravljanju sodobnih krajin.
KLJUČNE BESEDE: krajinska arhitektura, geografija, toponimi, ledinska imena, upravljanje krajine, načrtovanje krajine.
Uredništvo je prispevek prejelo 24. januarja 2008. NASLOV:
Nadja Penko Seidl, univ. dipl. ing. krajinske arhitekture
Biotehniška fakulteta, Oddelek za krajinsko arhitekturo Jamnikarjeva ulica 101, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija E-pošta: nadja.penko@bf.uni-lj.si
Vsebina:
1	Uvod
2	Pregled raziskav
3	Raziskava
3.1	Izhodišča
3.2	Metoda dela in rezultati
3.2.1	Zbiranje in analiza ledinskih imen
3.2.2	Zamejitev območij - ledinskih enot
4	Razprava
5	Sklep
6	Literatura
49
50 52 52 52
52
53
55
56 56
1 Uvod
Krajina je rezultat prepletanja značilnosti prostora in človekovega zaznavanja, razumevanja in interpretacije tega prostora. Izraz krajina ima v različnih strokah različen pomen. V krajinski arhitekturi s tem pojmom v najširšem pogledu označujemo zgradbo vseh dejavnikov in sestavin zemeljskega površja, v ožjem pa vse, kar zaobjamemo s pogledom in kar nam ta pogled omogoča prepoznati (Marušič 1998, 98). Pojem krajina je uporabljen za označevanje nezamejenega odprtega prostora v katerem prevladujejo naravni elementi in se razlikuje od pojma krajina. Slednji je vSlovarju slovenskega knjžnega jezika (1994, 445) opredeljen kot: »... mejno ozemlje kake države, dežele (npr. Vojna krajina) ...«. Geografi izraz krajina uporabljajo zelo redko, zelo pogosto pa izraz pokmjina. Slednjo razumejo kot omejen in razmeroma enoten del Zemljinega površja, kot sklop soodvisnih pokrajinskih sestavin oziroma kot pojem iz znanosti, medtem ko je v geografiji izraz krajina uporabljen za označevanje zunanje podobe, videza, vtisa, slike pokrajine oziroma kot pojem iz umetnosti (Perko 2001, 14).
V Slovarju slovenskega knjižnega jezika (1994, 445 in 894) sta izraza krajina in pokrajina navedena kot sinonima, Geografski terminološki slovar (2005, 186, 292 in 336) termina krajina ne prikazuje, medtem ko termin krajina enači s pokrajino, tega pa z regijo. Očitno pa tudi pogled geografov na opredeljevanje posameznih pojmov ni enoten. Tako se npr. Gams (2007) ne strinja popolnoma z opredelitvami pojmov pokrajina, krajina in regija v Geografskem terminološkem slovarju. Oba pojma, krajina in pokrajina v angleški in nemški jezik lahko prevedmo kot landscape oziroma Landschaft. Dejstvo, da se znotaj posameznih strok sicer uporabljajo različni izrazi v razpravo sicer vnaša nekaj terminološke zmede, ki od uporabnikov teh izrazov v prvi vrsti zahteva, da se opredelimo do posameznih pojmov in jih dosledno uporabljamo.
Evropska konvencija o krajini krajino opredeljuje kot »... območje, kot ga zaznavajo ljudje in katerega značilnosti so plod delovanja in medsebojnega vplivanja naravnih in/ali človekovih dejavnikov...« (Uradni list Republike Slovenije 19/2003). Pogosto jo opisujemo kot palimpsest, ki so ga oblikovale številne generacije. Fizični prostor se nenehno spreminja, isto velja za ljudi, njihovo zaznavo in dojemanje prostora. Vendar se kljub temu pojavlja potreba po ohranitvi nečesa, kar lahko imenujemo identiteta krajine, njen genius loci (Hendriks in Stobbelaar 2004). Če je prostor strukturiran hierarhično, oziroma če so posameznim delom prostora ali prostorskim vzorcem pripisani različni pomeni, lahko določa identiteto skupnosti. Zaradi nenehnega spreminjanja fizisa krajine se krajinska identiteta vzpostavlja na več ravneh -na eni strani s pripisovanjem novih pomenov izbranim delom prostora, medtem ko na drugi strani zaradi kontinuitete izbranim delom prostora vzdržuje simbolni pomen, ne glede na to, da so se sčasoma spremenili (Kučan 1996).
Hitre spremembe v sodobnih krajinah so v večini primerov povzročile izgubo krajinske raznovrstnosti in skladnosti. Tudi identiteta evropskih krajin, rezultat medsebojnega delovanja fizičnega okolja in zaznav ljudi, naglo izginja (Antrop 2005). S tem se je vzpodbudila povečana skrb za krajino, ki se pogosto odraža v 'poveličevanju' tradicionalnih kulturnih krajin in težnjah po ohranjanju preteklih, v večini primerov preživelih vzorcev in struktur. Vendar je za ohranjanje kulturnosti krajine pomembnejše kot ohranjanje njene fizične podobe ohranjanje njene identitete, ta pa se vzpostavlja skozi odnos med posameznikom, družbo in prostorom.
Odnos človeka do prostora je zapisan tudi v toponimih. Ti so pogosto odraz fizičnega okolja in kot taki predstavljajo nekakšen vezni člen med stvarnim, otipljivim prostorom in našim razumevanjem tega prostora. »... Imena na nek način ustvarjajo krajine...« piše Tilley (1994, 19). Skozi proces poimenovanja prostor postane kraj in ozemlje krajina. Krajina ni samo fizični prostor, je tudi način kako ljudje zaznavajo, razumejo in oblikujejo svoje okolje. Je odnos med ljudmi in prostorom v določenem časovnem obdobju. Prvi korak k vzpostavljanju tega odnosa je poimenovanje. Imensko zaznavanje določenih krajev in krajinskih enot kot individuumov je prvi korak k percepciji. Je zapis določenega vedenja, čeprav to še ni opredmeteno (Kučan 1996; Kučan 1999).
Med vsemi toponimi so prav ledinska imena tista, ki najbolj podrobno opisujejo krajino. V povezavi s sistemi poljske razdelitve so rezultat človekovega stremljenja za pravično razdelitev zemljišč in racionalno organizacijo kmetijske pridelave. Obenem so tudi pomembni kulturni viri. S pregledom dosedanjih raziskav ledinskih imen in s pomočjo lastne raziskave skušam ugotoviti, kakšne so prostorske značilnosti ledinskih imen in, ali jih je možno uporabiti pri upravljanju in načrtovanju sodobnih krajin.
S proučevanjem toponimov se ukvarjajo številne stroke - geografija, arheologija, antropologija, lingvistika in jezikoslovje. Na tem mestu naj omenim le nekaj domačih raziskovalcev. Prvi med njimi je gotovo
Tuma (1929) z Imenoslovjem Julijskih Alp ter številnimi toponomastičnimi zemljevidi, ki jih je izdal. Ilešič (1950), ledinska imena omenja v delu Sistemi poljske razdelitve na Slovenskem, medtem ko Badjura (1953), poleg občih geografskih izrazov navaja tudi krajevna imena, izpeljana iz teh. K proučevanju toponimov je veliko doprinesel tudi Bezlaj (1956) v delu Slovenska vodna imena, Truhlar (1975; 1979; 1980) se je posvečal predvsem arheološkim toponimom, Kunaver (1988; 1993) pa, podobno kot Tuma, toponimom v gorskem svetu. Na tem mestu gotovo velja omeniti še Titla (1998; 2000; 2004; 2006) in njegov prispevek k proučevanju zemljepisnih imen v Istri in na Krasu. Med raziskovalci, ki so svoja prizadevanja usmerili v zbiranje in preučevanje toponimov na slovenskem jezikovnem prostoru zunaj meja Slovenije velja omeniti Merkuja (1969; 1970/71a; 1970/71b; 1970/71c; 1993; 1995; 1999a; 1999b), Medveda (1974; 1977), ter Dapita (2003). V novejšem času se je omenjenim pridružila še množica raziskovalcev, ki se vedno znova lotevajo proučevanja toponimov. Izsledki njihovih raziskav so podrobneje predstavljeni v nadaljevanju.
2 Pregled raziskav
Pojem toponim je v Slovarju slovenskega knjižnega jezika opredeljen kot »... lastno ime kraja ali kakega drugega dela zemeljskega površja...« (Bajec 1994, 1409). Kot sopomenka je naveden pojem zemljepisno ime. Kladnik (1999, 62) zemljepisno ime opredeli kot »... zvrst lastnega imena, ki je po definiciji ustaljeno in nedvoumno identificira ter individualizira določeno osebo, objekt ali pojem (osebno, stvarno in zemljepisno lastno ime ali toponim v širšem pomenu) ...«. Nadalje zemljepisna imena razdeli v naselbinska (krajevna imena ali toponimi v ožjem pomenu besede) in nenaselbinska. Slednja se nadalje delijo v ledinska, vodna (hidronimi), višinska (oronimi) in druga zemljepisna imena.
Ledinsko ime Kladnik (1999,62) definira kot »... zvrstzemljepisnaga imena, ki se največkrat uporablja za označevanje posameznih delov vaškega zemljišča, kjer označuje njegove temeljne značilnosti in lastnosti...« Ledinska imena spadajo v skupino poimenovanj manjših objektov v prostoru, mest ali delov prostora, tako imenovanih mikrotoponimov. Mednje raziskovalci uvrščajo še poimenovanja delov naselij, vodna imena, imena reliefnih oblik, posameznih značilnih naravnih pojavov, hišna imena, npr. imena zgradb, hiš oziroma domačij, imena poti in imena drugih samostojnih objektov (Škofic 1998), tudi arhitekturnih artefaktov, kot so kapelice in nasploh sakralni objekti, zidovi, spominska obeležja, rekreacijske točke in razgledišča, zgodovinske in arheološke ostaline, tudi točke posebnega pomena, npr. mesta za opazovanje ribjih jat na morski obali (Cossutta 2001). Mikrotoponimi so običajno v rabi le znotraj majhne in sorazmerno zaprte družbene skupnosti. Pogosto celo znotraj celotne vaške skupnosti niso splošno znani (Škofic 1998). Njihovo poznavanje je tesno povezano z mejami družbene skupnosti in geografskim položajem te skupnosti (Thornton 1997a; 1997b; Klemše 1993; 2005).
Za mikrotoponime je značilno tudi ponavljanje. Stewart in sodelavci (2004), ki so raziskovali povezanost toponimov, izročila in arheoloških najdišč pri Inuitih so poudarili, da slednji za določene pojave vkrajini uporabljajo značilna imena. Imena kot so tahiq - jezero in qamaniq - razširitev reke, se brez večjih razlik pojavljajo po vsem arktičnem območju, vendar pravi pomen dobijo šele v navezavi na domačo krajino.
Ponavljanje krajevnih in ledinskih imen je značilno tudi za Slovenijo. Ježeva (1997) v svoji raziskavi predstavlja razširjenost toponima Breg na današnjem slovenskem jezikovnem prostoru. Ugotavlja, da je poimenovalna osnova breg v slovenskem jezikovnem prostoru precej enakomerno razširjena in trditev podkrepi s kartografskim prikazom razširjenosti toponima. Njegovo pogostejše pojavljanje zasledi na Gorič-kem, redkejše pa na Gorenjskem in v visokogorju sploh: »... Vendar je stanje po Atlasu Slovenije nekoliko zavajajoče, ker je narejeno le na osnovi toponimije, brez mikrotoponimije... Če upoštevamo še to, se tudi prazne lise na sliki zapolnijo...«. Ilešič (1950) v svojih raziskavah sistemov zemljiške razdelitve in Titl (1998; 1999; 2000; 2004; 2006), ki se posveča preučevanju ledinskih imen in njihove prostorske razporeditve, opozarjata na dejstvo, da se tudi ista ledinska imena pojavljajo na različnih območjih. Tako Ilešič pri razlagi sistema zemljiške razdelitve na delce poudarja, da ima vsaka poljska skupina svoje značilno ime. Osrednje, morda najstarejše in najrodovitnejše polje se pogosto imenuje Velike njive ali Dolge njive, medtem ko so za manjše sklenjene proge tik za hišami pogosta imena Za vrtmi ali Zavrtnice. Titl navaja primer iz Istre, kjer se ledinsko ime Breg z izpeljankami pojavlja v kar sedemnajstih katastrskih občinah, v osmih celo v popolnoma identični obliki. S tem potrdi tudi predpostavko Ježeve o prisotnosti poimenovalne osnove breg v mikrotoponimiji. Nadalje navaja 292 toponimov, ki se v enaki ali podobni obliki pojavljajo v vsaj
dveh katastrskih občinah (Titl 2000). Dejstvo, da so imena poznana le ožji skupnosti, običajno v povezavi z lastništvom poimenovanih zemljišč, onemogoča, da bi prišlo do nesporazumov zaradi ponavljanja imen.
Toponimi se pogosto ohranjajo skozi dolga časovna obdobja (Jett 1997, 481). Waterman (cit. po Thornton 1997a) je izjemno dolgoživost krajevnih imen poudaril z besedami: »... (Krajevna imena) pogosto preživijo celo selitve in podjarmljenje, ko se govorjeni jezik spremeni oz. nadomesti z drugim...«. Isto velja za vodna imena. Bezlaj (1956,5) poudarja, da so imena večjih vodotokov celo relativno starejša od krajevnih imen. Trditev podpre z dejstvom, da se je kolonizacija širila ob rekah in da so bili vodni tokovi pomembni tudi za orientacijo vprostoru: »... Vimenih velikih rek in gorovij so jezikoslovci že zdavnaj odkrili jezikovne ostanke najstarejših naselitvenih plasti, ki segajo vsaj v zahodni, srednji in južni Evropi daleč nazaj v predindoevropsko dobo. Prav tako so tudi vse kasnejše, znane in neznane migracije prebivalstva pustile svoje sledove v imenih...«. Nasprotno pa Dapit (2003) v raziskavi rezijanskih toponimov opaža, da so vodna imena za razliko od mikro-toponimov in gorskih imen - vsaj v spominu informatorjev - veliko bolj nestabilna. Vodni tok naj bi pogosto imel tudi več imen, ki se nanašajo na njegove različne dele.
Dolgoživost številni avtorji pripisujejo tudi ledinskim imenom. Stanonikova (2003) navaja Blaznika, ki jih je opredelil kot »... fosilije iz zgodovine poselitve...«. Omogočila naj bi ustvariti sliko o kulturi tal v prostoru, ko je bil ta poseljen in poimenovan. Nakazovala naj bi tudi čas naselitve in narodnost prvih kolonistov. Skozi tradicijo so na določenem območju dokaj trajno v rabi (Unuk 2003). Raziskava krajevnih in ledinskih imen v katastrski občini Števerjan je pokazala, da so skoraj vsa imena, zabeležena pred skoraj 200 leti, še vedno v rabi, čeprav so bila zapisana v italijanski ali nemški obliki (Klemše 1993). Njihova lokalna raba je verjetno razlog, da so se ohranila kljub temu, da so se v tem obdobju zamenjali kar trije uradni jeziki. Enako ugotavlja Titl (2000, 10) za ledinska imena v Istri: »... Nanje ni mogel vplivati in jih spreminjati noben okupator, ki je lahko spreminjal vsa druga imena in priimke, ledinskih pa ne, zato so ostala v glavnem nedotaknjena...«. V nasprotju z omenjenimi pisci pa Merku (1995) ledinskim imenom ne pripisuje posebne dolgoživosti. Še posebej naj bi se spreminjala tista, ki so sestavljena iz svojilnih pridevnikov.
Še en zanimiv vidik v raziskovanju ledinskih imen, kateremu se posvečajo predvsem lingvisti in eti-mologi, so poimenovalni motivi. Najpogostejši so poimenovanja po rastlinah, reliefnih posebnostih, obliki in legi zemljišča, po zgradbah na zemljišču, tipu tal in zgodovinskih dogodkih (Koletnik 2004), pa tudi po tehniki obdelave zemljišč, prostorskih odnosih z drugimi zemljišči, orientaciji v prostoru, živalih, značilnih kmetijskih pridelkih, klimatskih posebnostih, težavnosti obdelave, preteklih dogodkih itd. (Jurjevec 2001). Dapit dodaja še poimenovanja po svojini kraja ter po vplivu zunanjega sveta (Dapit 2003), Merku (1999) pa med drugim omenja tudi poimenovanje po pravnih navadah. Navedeni raziskovalci ledinskih imen ne prikažejo v prostoru oziroma na karti, niti ne navajajo ali so etimološke razlage imen odraz (sedanjega ali preteklega) stanja v prostoru. Kljub temu poimenovalni motivi, pa tudi dejstvo, da se enaka ledinska imena pojavljajo na različnih območjih, nakazujejo, da je prek nekaterih ledinskih imen mogoče sklepati na značilnosti prostora. Na povezavo med ledinskimi imeni in geološko strukturo v Istri je opozoril Titl (2000). Tam kjer so ploski, vzporedno potekajoči hrbti, naj bi se pojavljala posebna ledinska imena, ki opisujejo take geomorfne oblike. V flišnem gričevju naj bi ledinska imena opisovala drobno in izrazitejšo členjenost površja, v kraškem svetu kraško morfologijo, to je kamnitost ter prisotnost vrtač, brezen in jam. Prehodna območja s prehodnimi reliefnimi oblikami naj bi imela posebna ledinska imena in, nenazadnje, v obalnem pasu naj bi ledinska imena izražala posebnosti priobalnih ravnic in za priobalno območje značilnih oblik rabe zemljišč v preteklosti. Toda tudi Titl ostaja pri posplošeni prostorski obravnavi. Ledinska imena namreč locira v prostoru zgolj na podlagi njihove pripadnosti neki katastrski občini, ne pa konkretnemu zemljišču, na katerega se nanaša. Nasprotno pa Klemše (1997) poleg seznama toponimov z razlago te prikaže tudi na karti, vendar jih prostorsko ne zameji. Podobno tudi Rifel (2002) poleg seznama ledinskih imen Velike Planine ta prikaže tudi na skici. S kartografskim prikazom toponimov nam postreže Medved (1974) na Zemljevidu z italijanskimi in slovenskimi krajevnimi imeni vFurlaniji, Julijski krajini in Benečiji ter na zemljevidu s spremljajočim seznamom imen za tržaško ozemlje (Medved in ostali 1977). Na slednjem so poleg imen naselij, voda, vzpetin in vdolbin prikazana tudi ledinska imena. Zemljevidu v merilu 1: 30.000 sta dodana podrobnejša prikaza vasi Bani z rabo prostora iz let 1823 in 1974 ter ledinskimi imeni posameznih parcel iz let 1834 in 1974. Ledinska imena vasi Bani je sicer zbral in na karti prikazal tudi Merku (1993).
3 Raziskava
3.1	Izhodišča
Če povzamem prejšnje poglavje, lahko zapišem, da je za ledinska imena značilno:
•	pojavljajo se znotraj majhnih in razmeroma zaprtih družbenih skupnosti, zato zunaj meja teh skupnosti niso splošno znana,
•	enaka imena se v prostoru tudi ponavljajo, vendar zaradi njihove lokalne rabe ne prihaja do nesporazumov,
•	ohranjajo se skozi dolga časovna obdobja, tudi na območjih kjer se spreminjajo fizične lastnosti prostora, ki ga opisujejo, pa tudi v spremenjenih družbenih in političnih razmerah,
•	zanje obstajajo značilni poimenovalni motivi.
Kljub različnim vidikom obravnave toponimov nasploh in ledinskih imen pregled obstoječih raziskav ni dal odgovora o tem, kakšno je razmerje med imeni in prostori, ki jih opisujejo. V ta namen je bila opravljena raziskava, s katero skušam preveriti trditve zgoraj omenjenih avtorjev, in odgovoriti na naslednja vprašanja:
•	Ali je mogoče v prostoru zamejiti območja, ki jih opisuje posamezno ledinsko ime? So te meje prepoznavne v prostoru in, ali sledijo naravnim mejam?
•	Kakšno je razmerje med površinskim pokrovom oziroma rabo prostora in območji, opisanimi s posameznimi ledinskimi imeni?
•	Ali obstajajo vzporednice med krajinskimi tipi in območji, opisanimi z ledinskimi imeni?
Odgovori na vsa zastavljena vprašanja naj bi služili kot izhodišče za preverjanje možnosti, ali so ledin-ska imena uporabna v upravljanju in načrtovanju krajine.
V raziskavo so bile zajete katastrske občine Parje, Palčje in Zagorje, ki se razprostirajo na planotastem površju Zgornje Pivke. Na tem območju je pet vasi s pripadajočimi zemljišči, za katera je značilna tradicionalna parcelna struktura. Prevladujejo travniki in pašniki, na celotnem območju sta značilna zatravljanje in zaraščanje: njive se spreminjajo v travnike, nekdanja območja vaških gmajn pa so bila deloma pogoz-dena, deloma pa se zaraščajo sama.
3.2	Metoda dela in rezultati
3.2.1 Zbiranje in analiza ledinskih imen
Za potrebe raziskave so bila najprej zbrana ledinska imena na celotnem preučevanem območju. Uporabljeni so bili naslednji viri podatkov:
•	franciscejski kataster z začetka 19. stoletja (merilo 1:2880),
•	temeljni topografski načrt - TTN (merilo 1:5000),
•	preverjanje verodostojnosti imen, ki so zapisana na temeljnem topografskem načrtu, je potekalo s pomočjo lokalnih prebivalcev - večinoma kmetov, ki dobro poznajo prostor in ledinska imena.
Preglednica 1: Število ledinskih imen na kartah franciscejskega katastra, temeljnem topografskem načrtu in, kot jih pozna lokalno prebivalstvo.
katastrske občine	Parje		Zagorje		Palčje		celotno območje
vir informacij*	12	3	1 2	3	12	3	1 2 3
franciscejski kataster	31 15	15	51 14	12	41 9	11	123 38 38
TTN	74	63	55	32	87	69	216 164
lokalni informatorji		100		70		106	276
* 1 - franciscejski kataster, 2- temeljni topografski načrt, 3 - lokalni informatorji
Na kartah franciscejskega katastra je bilo zabeleženih 123 ledinskih imen, na kartah temeljnega topografskega načrtra 216 imen, lokalni informatorji pa so navedli 276 imen. Na tem mestu je treba opozoriti, da teh 276 ledinskih imen ne pomeni nujno končnega števila imen, ki so v rabi. Med ledinskimi imeni namreč obstaja hierarhija, včasih ima celo ena sama parcela svoje lastno ime, ki je običajno sestavljeno
iz imena poljske skupine, znotraj katere se nahaja, in svojilnega pridevnika, ki izraža (sedanje ali preteklo) lastništvo parcele. Lastništvo je najpogosteje izraženo s hišnim ali osebnim imenom. Za potrebe raziskave so bila zabeležena imena, ki opisujejo posamezne poljske skupine znotraj sistema zemljiške razdelitve.
Lokalni informatorji, ki so sodelovali v raziskavi, so običajno poznali le lokalna imena. Na območju sosednjih vasi so poznali le nekaj splošnejših imen, npr. Jezero, Gmajna, Boršt, ipd.
Med imeni, ki so jih navedli lokalni informatorji, se jih 16 v enaki ali podobni obliki pojavlja v vsaj dveh katastrskih občinah. Nekatera se pojavijo večkrat celo znotraj ene katastrske občine. V takšnih primerih oblika imen ni popolnoma enaka.
34 imen je bilo v vseh treh virih zabeleženih v enaki ali podobni obliki. 38 imen se pojavlja hkrati v fran-ciscejskem katastru in TTN, enako število imen pa se hkrati pojavlja v franciscejskem katastru oziroma jih poznajo lokalni prebivalci. 164 imen, ki jih poznajo lokalni prebivalci, je zabeleženih tudi na TTN. Dejstvo, da veliko imen, ki so v rabi med lokalnimi prebivalci, ni zabeleženih na temeljnem topografskem načrtu nas navaja k domnevi, da tudi v franciscejskem katastru niso bila zabeležena vsa imena, ki so bila v rabi v tistem obdobju. Domnevo potrjuje tudi dejstvo, da so bila imena, namenjena identifikaciji določenega dela obdelovalnega zemljišča, zlasti v povezavi z njegovim lastništvom, še posebej pomembna v obdobju, ko se je večina prebivalstva ukvarjala s kmetijstvom in bila tako neposredno odvisna od zemlje. Tezo o trdoživosti ledinskih imen potrjuje 34 ledinskih imen, zabeleženih v franciscejskem katastru, ki so še vedno v rabi.
Isti poimenovalni motivi, o katerih v raziskavah poročajo Koletnik (2004), Jurjevec (2001), Dapit (2003), Titl (1998; 2000; 2004) in Klemše (1997), se pojavljajo tudi na območju pričujoče raziskave. Tako zasledimo poimenovanja po reliefnih značilnostih (Dol, Žleb, Hrib, Reber, Dolina, Vršič, Klančič), po legi v prostoru (Pod Hribom, Za Grižo, Meje za vasjo, Vrh Ždinka, Vrh Hriba), po živalih (Čukovke, V Gad-njah, Medvedji dol, Kačji dol), po rastlinah (Pod hruško, Lipje, Nagnojevec, Pri brezi, Pulinove hoje, Robidne meje), po vodnih pojavih (Jezero, Mlake, Lokvica, Pri lužah, Ribnik), po zemljiški rabi (Male njive, Seno-žeti, Zevniki, Boršt, Staje), po značilnostih prostora (Kamnišče, Jazbine, Na policah, Plešivica, Ozidja, Počivališče). Številna imena so sestavljena tudi iz svojilnih pridevnikov, ki izkazujejo nekdanje ali sedanje lastništvo parcel. S podrobnejšo analizo poimenovalnih motivov se nisem ukvarjala, saj ni bila glavni namen raziskave.
3.2.2 Zamejitev območij - ledinskih enot
Vzporedno z inventarizacijo ledinskih imen so bila s pomočjo lokalnih informatorjev na zemljevidu zamejena območja, ki jih opisuje določeno ledinsko ime. Za poimenovanje teh območij je bil vpeljan izraz ledinska enota. Opredelimo jo lahko kot območje, ki ga opiše eno ledinsko ime. Ker meje med posameznimi ledin-skimi imeni na zemljevidih niso določene, so bila zamejena samo imena, zbrana s pomočjo lokalnih informatorjev. Meje so bile povsod, kjer je bilo to mogoče, določene na parcelno mejo natančno. Povečini jih lahko na ortofoto posnetku dokaj enostavno prepoznamo. To velja še zlasti za osrednje območje vaških polj, kjer se posamezne parcelne skupine med seboj ločijo predvsem po velikosti in usmerjenosti parcel. Meje med ledinskimi enotami velikokrat sledijo naravnim ali antropogenim mejam, kot so grebeni, struga vodotoka, poljske poti. Problem pri razmejitvi se pojavlja na območju nekdanjih vaških gmajn, ki niso razparcelirane, a jih opisujejo različna ledinska imena, ter na razgibanem površju, kjer so parcele nepravilnih oblik in je meje med poljskimi skupinami oziroma ledinskimi enotami težje določiti.
Za preverjanje odnosa med površinskim pokrovom oziroma rabo prostora in ledinskimi enotami, so bili zemljevidi, na katerih je prikazana raba tal v različnih časovnih obdobjih, prekriti z zemljevidom ledinskih enot (slike 1, 2 in 3).
Slika 1: Razmerje med ledinskimi enotami in rabo tal na za~etku 19. stoletja. Glej angleški del prispevka.
Iz slike 1 je razvidno, da meje med ledinskimi imeni skoraj popolnoma sovpadajo z mejami med različnimi kategorijami površinskega pokrova z začetka 19. stoletja. Nekaj neskladij je zaradi nenatančnosti oziroma neujemanja podatkov. Povečini se območja z isto rabo tal raztezajo čez več ledinskih enot.
Slika 2: Razmerje med ledinskimi enotami in rabo tal v letu 2000. Glej angleški del prispevka.
Primerjava s stanjem rabe tal v letih 2000 in 2006 kaže velike spremembe. Znatno se je povečal obseg gozdov, zmanjšala pa se je predvsem površina pašnikov in njiv. Kljub tem spremembam meje med ledinskimi enotami še vedno dokaj dobro sovpadajo z mejami med različnimi kategorijami rabe tal. Tako kot v prejšnjem primeru se ista kategorija običajno razteza čez več ledinskih enot. Kljub temu, da sta bila zemljevida, ki prikazujeta rabo tal, prekrita s sodobno strukturo ledinskih imen, se meje bolje ujemajo s pokrovom iz 19. stoletja.
Slika 3: Razmerje med ledinskimi enotami in rabo tal v letu 2006. Glej angleški del prispevka.
V naslednjem koraku je bil strokovnjakom s področja načrtovanja in upravljanja krajine, ki so sodelovali pri nalogi Regionalna razdelitev krajinskih tipov v Sloveniji, poslan orto-fotografski načrt območja brez vrisanih mej. Naprošeni so bili, naj na posnetek vrišejo meje med krajinskimi tipi, kakor jih prepoznajo, in naj krajinske tipe poimenujejo. Prejeli smo le štiri odgovore, vendar je njihova analiza in primerjava pokazala zanimive rezultate. Vprašani so na območju obdelave prepoznali več različnih krajinskih tipov. Raven natančnosti se je od posameznika do posameznika razlikovala, območje so razdelili v šest, osem, devet in enajst krajinskih tipov. Rezultate prikazujeta preglednica 2 in slika 4.
Preglednica 2: Krajinski tipi, kakor so jih opredelili {tirje ocenjevalci*.
1. ocenjevalec	2. ocenjevalec	3. ocenjevalec	4. ocenjevalec
naselja drobno strukturirana kmetijska krajina	primestna krajina kmetijske površine na ravnini	naselje njivski svet	naselja kmetijski kompleksi- njive, pašniki, travniki
kmetijska krajina (velike strukture)			
kmetijska krajina (slabo vidne strukture)	kulturne terase	kraški travniki	slabši kmetijski kompleksi v zaraščanju
kmetijska živična krajina	grudasto strukturirane kmetijske površine	zaraščajoče kraške gmajne z ostanki živih mej	ograde, pašniki, travniki
travniška poplavna krajina		presihajoče jezero	presihajočejezero
zara{čajoče povr{ine	travinje v zaraščanju	zaraščajoče kraške gmajne	odprti prostor - vrtačast svet
gozd	gozdni hrbti	gozd	gozd
jase v gozdu			
vrtačasta travniška krajina			
krajina vojaškega poligona**		vojaški poligon	nenaseljene urbane površine -strelišča
gozd znegozdnimi travniki			
* Krajinski tipi so razvrščeni tako, da tisti, ki so v isti vrstici, pri posameznih ocenjevalcih obsegajo približno ista zemljica, čeprav so drugače poimenovani.
** Anketiranci so zamejevali krajinske tipe na nekoliko {ir{em območju, sicer pa vojaški poligon leži zunaj obravnavanega območja.
Slika 4: Krajinski tipi, kakor so jih zamejili {tirje ocenjevalci (Orto-fotografski načrt © GURS 2002). Glej angleški del prispevka.
Kljub različnemu številu krajinskih tipov, ki so jih na obravnavanem območju prepoznali posamezniki, se meje med krajinskimi tipi pri vseh štirih ocenjevalcih skoraj popolnoma ujemajo. Na območjih v bližini vasi (nekdanje njive in travniki), še posebej v dolinskem dnu, meje med krajinskimi tipi sledijo parcelnim mejam. Na teh območjih so meje med poljskimi skupinami prepoznavne, parcele in poljske skupine pa pravilnih oblik. Na pobočjih, ki so prepredena s številnimi živimi mejami in se mestoma zaraščajo, so meje med krajinskimi tipi veliko bolj posplošene in ne sledijo mejam med ledinskimi enotami (slika 5).
Slika 5: Odnos med ledinskimi enotami (levo) in krajinskimi tipi (desno), kakor jih je zamejil eden od ocenjevalcev (Orto-fotografski načrt © GURS 2002).
Glej angleški del prispevka.
4 Razprava
Rezultate raziskave lahko povzamemo v naslednjih ugotovitvah:
•	Ledinska imena so običajno v rabi znotraj lokalne skupnosti; zunaj njenih meja so poznana le redkim. Njihova raba se opušča, ker so vezana na kmetijsko proizvodni proces, s katerim se ukvarja čedalje manj prebivalcev.
•	Zaradi lokalne rabe imen ne prihaja do nesporazumov pri komunikaciji, kljub temu, da se nekatera imena v prostoru ponavljajo.
•	Nekatera ledinska imena, ki so v živi rabi, so bila zabeležena že na kartah franciscejskega katastra, ki datira v 20. leta 19. stoletja, čeprav so bila slovenska imena takrat zapisana v ponemčeni obliki. Ta imena potrjujejo izjave uvodoma citiranih avtorjev o dolgoživosti ledinskih imen - ohranila so se skozi številne generacije in preživela menjavo treh uradnih jezikov, marsikatera tudi spremembo rabe zemljišč, ki jih opisujejo.
•	Za ledinska imena so značilni različni poimenovalni motivi. Nekateri avtorji imena povezujejo tudi z značilnostmi območij, ki jih opisujejo, vendar ta trditev v raziskavi ni bila preverjena.
•	V večini primerov je mogoče s pomočjo lokalnih informatorjev določiti območja, ki jih opisuje posamezno ledinsko ime. Ta območja smo v raziskavi poimenovali ledinske enote.
Med ledinskimi enotami in območji, ki jih opredeljuje različna raba prostora oziroma različne kategorije površinskega pokrova, lahko potegnemo določene vzporednice. Dejstvo da se meje med ledinskimi enotami skoraj popolnoma ujemajo z mejami med kategorijami površinskega pokrova z začetka 19. stoletja, napeljuje k domnevi, da je bil podoben vzorec razporeditve ledinskih imen v rabi že v tistem času. Domnevo potrjuje tudi dejstvo, da so z ledinskimi imeni poimenovane skupine parcel znotraj sistema zemljiške razdelitve, ki pa se na obravnavanem območju ni spreminjal. Kljub temu ne moremo trditi, da so bila - z izjemo tistih, ki so zabeležena v franciscejskem katastru v enaki ali podobni obliki - tudi ledinska imena ista. Za potrditev te domneve bi bile potrebne nadaljnje analize zemljiških knjig z začetka 19. stoletja.
Določena povezava obstaja tudi med ledinskimi enotami in krajinskimi tipi, kakor so jih opredelili strokovnjaki s področja načrtovanja in upravljanja krajine, ki so sodelovali v anketi. Meje med krajinskimi tipi do neke mere sledijo mejam med ledinskimi enotami, vendar so veliko bolj posplošene. Proti uporabi ledinskih imen v krajinski tipologiji govorita zlasti naslednji dejstvi:
•	Temeljni namen ledinskih imen je identifikacija zemljišč v povezavi z lastništvom in ne opisovanje krajinskih tipov. Medtem ko na območjih osrednjih vaških polj meje med krajinskimi tipi skoraj dosledno sledijo mejam med ledinskimi enotami, so te praktično nerazpoznavne na zaraščajočih in pogozdenih zemljiščih, kljub temu, da so posamezne parcele oziroma lokacije poimenovane tudi na teh območjih.
•	Postopek zbiranja ledinskih imen in njihove zamejitve je zaradi pomanjkljivih zapisov na zemljevidih vezan izključno na intervjuje z lokalnim prebivalstvom, zato je dolgotrajen in posledično manj uporaben za tipološko opredelitev večjih območij. Ker posamezna ledinska enota še ne predstavlja krajinskega tipa, je potrebno združevanje enot v večje skupine po načelu podobnosti, kar spet zahteva podroben pregled območja in opisovanje značilnosti posameznih ledinskih enot. Poznavanje ledinskih imen je izrazito vezano na kmetijsko pridelavo, zato se število informatorjev, ki poznajo ledinska imena, zmanjšuje.
Ledinska imena so rezultat človekove sposobnosti mentalne členitve prostora. Običajno opisujejo/odražajo stanje v krajini, ko je bila ta poseljena in poimenovana, torej neko preteklo stanje. Kljub temu, da so nedvomno pomembni kulturni in zgodovinski viri, se postavlja vprašanje, ali jih je smiselno uporabljati tudi pri usmerjanju prihodnjega razvoja krajine. Kot pišejo Marušič in sodelavci (1998), preteklih stanj prostora ne moremo prenašati kot nek vzorec, kot ureditveni načrt za prihodnost. Vendar je pri načrtovanju prostora treba upoštevati tudi dejstvo, da so ledinska imena v povezavi s sistemom zemljiške razdelitve in parcelne strukture na nek način 'vtisnjena' v krajino oziroma, da kljub spremembam rabe že stoletja nadgrajujejo naravno strukturo prostora. V krajino vnašajo hierarhično členitev, ki omogoča orientacijo, organizacijo in racionalno izrabo (kmetijskega) prostora.
Eden od razlogov, da so ledinska imena preživela menjavo treh uradnih jezikov, je tudi dejstvo, da so bila vedno poznana le manjšemu številu ljudi znotraj razmeroma zaprtih družbenih skupnosti. Drugi razlog za njihovo ohranjanje je v ohranjeni parcelni in lastniški strukturi, na katero se ledinska imena navezujejo. Obe dejstvi bosta v bližnji prihodnosti povzročili izginjanje ledinskih imen. Danes živimo v prehodnem obdobju, ko so na eni strani še vedno ohranjeni tradicionalni prostorski vzorci in strukture, na drugi pa
se spreminja oziroma se je že spremenil način življenja, tudi tistih ljudi, ki so 'vzdrževalci' oziroma 'ohra-njevalci' tega prostora. Ledinska imena so se v večini primerov ohranjala kot sredstvo komunikacije med obdelovalci kmetijskih zemljišč. Danes so te komunikacije vse redkejše, saj se vedno manj ljudi ukvarja s kmetovanjem, posledično pa je manjša tudi potreba po sporazumevanju s pomočjo ledinskih imen. To težnjo bosta še pospešila procesa kmetijske intenzifikacije in opuščanja pridelovanja na marginalnih zemljiščih, manj primernih za kmetijsko pridelavo. Parcelno strukturo, anahronizem preteklega oziroma tradicionalnega načina kmetovanja, bo treba spremeniti, da bo zadostila potrebam sodobnega kmetijstva. Vpeljana bo nova geometrija prostora, ki bo skladna z moderno tehnologijo pridelovanja, ni pa nujno, da bo skladna s sedanjo organizacijo prostora in s tem tudi z imeni. Vsi ti procesi so, kljub temu da jih pogosto opredeljujemo kot negativne, le odgovor na sodobne trende in so v razvoju krajine nekaj povsem običajnega.
Glavni razlog za negativno ovrednotenje sodobnih krajin je njihova monotonost, pomanjkanje raznovrstnosti, videzne privlačnosti, skladnosti in identitete. Kljub omenjenim pomislekom in omejitvam je eden od možnih načinov ohranjanja vrednosti tradicionalnih kulturnih krajin tudi ohranjanje ledinskih imen, njihovih sestavnih delov. Imena pa se lahko ohranijo le pod pogojem, da bo ohranjena njihova prostorska celovitost.
5	Sklep
Glavni namen raziskave je bil ugotoviti, kakšen je odnos med ledinskimi imeni in prostori, ki jih opisujejo, ter, ali ledinska imena lahko uporabimo pri upravljanju in načrtovanju sodobnih krajin.
Čeprav je raziskava pokazala, da obstajajo vzporednice med ledinskimi enotami, površinskim pokrovom in krajinskimi tipi, vprašanje uporabnosti ledinskih imen in ledinskih enot v načrtovanju in upravljanju krajine ostaja odprto. Njihovo uporabnost za ta namen zmanjšuje zlasti dolgotrajen proces zbiranja imen, zamejevanja enot in posledično manjše uporabnosti za širša območja.
Ledinska imena kljub temu ostajajo pomembni kulturni viri, zapisi preteklih generacij v prostoru. Izredno pomembno vlogo lahko imajo pri ohranjanju identitete lokalnih prebivalcev. Okrog njih se pogosto spletajo zgodbe o posameznih prebivalcih in dogodkih, ki so se tam zgodili. Kot taka so tudi pomemben del kulturne dediščine.
Ker so izrazito vezana na kmetijsko krajino, bi bilo nadaljnje raziskovanje smiselno usmeriti predvsem v možnosti aplikacije ledinskih imen in ledinskih enot v preurejanje kmetijskega prostora, do katerega bo, vsaj na nekaterih območjih, v bližnji prihodnosti zagotovo prišlo.
Drug vidik preučevanja ledinskih imen je vezan na ugotavljanje poznavanja imen med vsemi uporabniki prostora, ne le kmetovalci. S tem bi pridobili vedenje, kakšno vlogo imajo ledinska imena (in tudi toponimi nasploh) v zaznavi posameznikov in njihovi orientaciji v prostoru.
Vseh ledinskih imen ne bo mogoče ohraniti, postavlja pa se vprašanje, ali si je za to sploh smiselno prizadevati. Nedvomno pa nam v času, ko je v krajini prisotnih še veliko zapisov iz preteklosti, lahko odkrijejo marsikatero pomembno informacijo in s tem pomagajo tudi pri načrtovanju novih krajin.
6	Literatura
Glej angleški del prispevka.